Sitting of 3 February 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

CONTINGENCIES FUND 2002–03
Ordered,
That there be laid before this House the Accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 2002–03, showing:—

The receipts and payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended 31st March 2003,

the distribution of the capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Gillian Merron.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRANSPORT

    Railways
    Martin Linton(Lab): What plans he has to open new stations on the west London line. [152271]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): The Strategic Rail Authority has approved the construction of two new stations on the west London line—one at Imperial Wharf in Chelsea and one at Shepherds Bush. The earliest date currently envisaged for their opening is February 2005.
    Martin Linton: I thank the Minister for his reply, but press the case for reopening Battersea High Street station and other stations on the south and west London orbital lines, such as Brixton, Battersea, Stamford Bridge and North Pole. Is the Minister aware that since privatisation, only two new stations have been opened in the entire south-east of England, because there is absolutely no incentive in the system for Network Rail or the train operating companies to invest in new stations? Indeed, those two new stations had no railway money put into them.
    Is the Minister further aware that there is so much freight on the west London line that it will be almost impossible for trains to stop there—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should try for an Adjournment debate on this matter.
    Mr. McNulty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I reiterate that I have no plans for any more new stations on the
    604
    west London line. As it is one of the most congested in the country, adding another station would have significant performance implications, and it is highly unlikely that it would be feasible, given the current levels of traffic. As a London MP, I caution my hon. Friend not to equate new stations with the amount of investment that is being made. The London end of the channel tunnel rail link, the Jubilee line extension, the Docklands light railway and all the extensions to it, and the £17 billion of investment in the tube show that investment in transport in London is a key priority for the Government.
    Matthew Green(LD): What steps his Department is taking to ensure that there is a direct train service from Shropshire to London. [152272]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Strategic Rail Authority, not the Government, has responsibility for specifying minimum service levels in each train operating company's franchise agreement. I understand that the authority's current view is that there is not a sufficiently strong business case for maintaining direct services between Shropshire and London.
    Matthew Green: I hesitate to thank the Minister for that answer. He may be aware that Shropshire is the only county that from May will not have a direct rail link to London. Indeed, the largest towns in Shropshire—Shrewsbury and Telford—will be the largest towns in the country without such a link. The last route that passes through Ludlow and goes on to Waterloo will be closed from May 2004, thanks to the Strategic Rail Authority. Does the Minister think that he is doing enough to ensure that Shropshire has a direct link to London—or does he have something against the county?
    Dr. Howells: That was a very Liberal question. The one train a day that used to run from Shrewsbury via Telford to London Euston was withdrawn from the winter 2000–01 timetable because it did not attract sufficient passengers to make it commercially viable. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman is hinting that that will be yet another addition to the Liberals' spending plans, but it would not surprise me if he was.

    Pollution Offences
    Mr. Edward Leigh(Con): What steps have been taken to ensure that pollution offences may be prosecuted on the same terms wherever they occur within the UK pollution control zone, as recommended by the Public Accounts Committee in its second report of the Session 2002–03. [152273]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): We need to bring the statutory defences under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 into line with those in the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996. My Department has investigated the scope for achieving that through a regulatory reform order, but has established that it is not possible. We will therefore seek to amend the 1995 Act when a legislative opportunity is available.
    Mr. Leigh: As the Minister knows, polluters seek to avoid their liabilities by resorting to the "pay to be paid"

    605
    device in their insurance policies. The International Maritime Organisation has asked for those practices to be banned. Are the Government going to ban them; if not, why not?
    Mr. Jamieson: We take pollution from ships around our coast very seriously in this country. The hon. Gentleman will know from the National Audit Office report of June 2002 that between 1997 and 2002 we reduced the amount of oil spilled in the UK pollution control zone by more than 90 per cent. He will also know from a letter sent to him by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in January this year that we are making good progress in implementing not only the National Audit Office recommendations, but those of his own Committee.
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael(LD): When the Minister revisits the legislation with a view to bringing forward amendments, will he seriously consider making such offences strict liability offences?
    Mr. Jamieson: Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman will know that some of those offences can already attract very heavy fines—in fact, the heaviest fines that magistrates can impose for oil pollution. Certain areas around the Scottish coast, including the Shetlands, are particularly sensitive. We are mindful of the need to protect the coast—that is why, I am glad to say, the number of pollution incidents and the number of gallons of oil spilled have reduced very substantially over the past five years.

    Alternative Transport
    Huw Irranca-Davies: If he will make a statement on the impact on health of his Department's policies on encouraging alternative modes of transport. [152274]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): We are trying, in a number of different ways, to encourage people to walk and cycle more often and to raise levels of physical activity generally. We are working with a number of Departments, such as the Department of Health, and we hope to publish in the spring a number of the joint measures that we intend to take to encourage increased levels of cycling and walking, especially to schools and workplaces.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: The purpose of my question is to try to tease out the cross-cutting nature of the Government's agenda on health, and how transport can fit into that. May I also ask my hon. Friend what discussions he will have with colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government to make sure that best practice on both sides of Offa's dyke is disseminated, to the benefit of the health of our youngsters?
    Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that we are in close, regular contact with the Welsh Assembly Government, and we are certainly interested in their development of a walking and cycling strategy for Wales. We will consider it carefully in drawing up our strategy.
    Mr. Archie Norman(Con): Can the Minister comment on the enormous proliferation across
    606
    the country of little blue signs with bicycle and pedestrian symbols on them? Is he aware that they are being put up in many areas where there is absolutely no prospect of increasing the amount of cycling or walking? What steps will the Department take to assess the value to the taxpayer of this exercise, which seems to smack more of political correctness than of delivering results?
    Dr. Howells: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about this proliferation of little blue signs. I had not noticed them, but I will look out for them in future and try to make a subjective judgment on their effectiveness.
    Mr. Greg Knight(Con): Health is an important issue, and if the Minister really shares our view that the use of less polluting forms of transport should be encouraged, will he join me in condemning the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Stealth Tax himself, for announcing the withdrawal of the excise duty concession on liquefied petroleum gas fuel? Is not that a severe setback to persuading more motorists to do something about improving air quality?
    Dr. Howells: I certainly will not join the right hon. Gentleman in doing that, and I do not believe that the Chancellor has announced that. That will be a matter for him when he comes to make his Budget statement.

    Railways
    Mr. Desmond Swayne(Con): What the role is of the Strategic Rail Authority in the rail review. [152275]
    Bob Spink(Con): What recent representations he has received on the role of the Strategic Rail Authority. [152281]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Strategic Rail Authority's role is set out in the Transport Act 2000. On 19 January, I announced a review of the organisation and structure of the railway industry. I expect to receive many representations in relation to every part of the industry.
    Mr. Swayne: The right hon. Gentleman told us on 19 January:
    "Of course, no Government Department can or should attempt to operate the railways'.—[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1077.]
    Can he tell us why No. 10 is sending in a hit team to four of the operating companies, apparently to do just that?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. The particular article to which he refers is simply wrong. What is true is that the Department of Transport is rightly concerned about the low level of performance in some train operating companies, because we are spending substantial sums of public money on that. In conjunction with one or perhaps two members of the Prime Minister's delivery unit, we are working with train operating companies to see why it is that while

    607
    some companies are improving their performance, others are not. I caution the hon. Gentleman not to believe everything that he reads in The Independent.
    Bob Spink: I want to be generous, but this is yet another area in which the Government appear to be both muddled and confused, while public services and passengers in particular continue to suffer. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me to whom or to which body I should put the case for increased capacity for the Fenchurch Street line, which is much needed, and for the terminus station on Canvey island?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman must know the answer to this question because he has already been making representations to the SRA about that. The Fenchurch Street line, on which, by sheer coincidence, I travelled yesterday, has had new rolling stock, which was made possible only because of the investment made available by this Government, every penny of which was opposed by the Conservatives. The reliability of that line has improved to just under 90 per cent. —it is the second best performing train operating company in the south-east. If he wishes to make representations about additional stations, he should do it to the SRA. I am bound to say, however, that he cannot at the same time call on us to reduce substantially the amount of money spent on the railways.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody(Lab): My right hon. Friend knows that most passengers simply want the services to improve and that there is currently a top-heavy bureaucracy in the railway industry. Will he give us an idea of the timetable for his review and some guarantees that, at the end of it, passengers will have a better service and certainly not a more expensive one?
    Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. I made it clear on 19 January that I believe that the organisation and structure of the railways need to be substantially simplified so that there is far greater clarity about who is responsible for operating the trains. I do not believe that all the current organisations are necessary; they can be rationalised. However, it is worth remembering that, despite all the industry's difficulties, last year it carried 1 billion passengers—the highest total for 40 years. Train performance traditionally dipped in the autumn, but it has improved because of the better performance of Network Rail.
    My hon. Friend may have noticed an article in The Guardian, which is accurate, today. It states that performance in areas where Network Rail has taken the maintenance in-house has improved far more than elsewhere. That shows that the changes are making a difference.
    Mr. Paul Truswell(Lab): Will the SRA and the review deal with the chronic overcrowding in west Yorkshire, including in my constituency? It is greater than in most parts of the country, including London and the south-east. Will he especially tackle the need for competitively priced rolling stock to meet current shortfalls and future demand?
    Mr. Darling: The SRA is examining that. It has spent considerable sums of money in west Yorkshire in the past few years to try to improve capacity. However, as my hon. Friend knows, nearly one third of all the rolling stock in the country is being replaced and there will be new trains, including in Yorkshire. That will tackle some of the capacity problems as well as providing more comfortable and reliable trains.
    I should have said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that we expect the review to be completed in the summer, as I stated on 19 January.
    John Thurso(LD): Would the Secretary of State agree that although solutions to the immediate problems are important, it is critical for the review to identify and set out clearly a concept for the long-term structure and management of the railways? To achieve that, what is he doing to end the current confusion about who does what in the review—for example, train operating companies that wish to submit not to the SRA but to the Department? How can the SRA co-ordinate a review when its role is central to that review?
    Mr. Darling: I agree that it is necessary to establish a structure that will take the industry forward for the next 10 or 20 years. There is near unanimity that the current structure is not suited for that.
    Mr. James Gray(Con): You did it.
    Mr. Darling: Who privatised the railways? Have we already forgotten?
    The Government will determine the appropriate structure for the review. We have asked Richard Bowker at the SRA to evaluate the industry's representations, but we have always made it clear that people are free— and should even be encouraged—to make representations directly to the Department, and they are already doing that. The key point is to get a structure and an organisation that can run the railway efficiently and properly and which will last for the next 20 to 30 years. I am determined that that will happen.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz(Lab/Co-op): Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the SRA's roles should be to ensure quality rail links between all the major cities of Great Britain? Does he therefore share my hope that the SRA will make a contribution to upgrading Edinburgh Waverley in his constituency? It is an important station for rail links from many parts of Scotland to many parts of England.
    Mr. Darling: As my hon. Friend knows, the SRA, Network Rail, the Scottish Executive and the city of Edinburgh council are all considering the best way in which to make improvements at Waverley station. Substantial sums have been invested in Waverley station on signalling, which improves several pathways in and out of the station. He and I know that the station needs investment and we are considering the best way to achieve that. My hon. Friend will also know that part of my review will examine ways of devolving more responsibility for railways to the Scottish Executive, among others.
    Mr. Damian Green(Con): The Secretary of State talks about simplification, but he will know that the way in which the review has been conducted so far seems designed to undermine the SRA. Some train operating companies received a letter from the SRA asking them to send it their submissions to the review, then received a letter from the Department saying, "No, you don't need to do that, please make your submissions to the Department." Is that just day-to-day, run of the mill incompetence, or can the Secretary of State confirm that there is now a full-time power struggle between parts of his Department and the SRA?
    Mr. Darling: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing himself. In relation to the review, as I said just a moment ago in reply to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), it is the Government who will decide at the end of the day what proposals to make before they invite the House to consider the appropriate legislation that will no doubt follow. In relation to the SRA, I have made it clear on many occasions that it has done an extremely good job of bringing a great deal of order to the chaos left by the privatisation that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) supported.
    Mr. Green: I am glad that the Secretary of State has now admitted, as he failed to a few minutes ago, that the current structure, to which he objects so much, was created by his Government when they set up the various bodies. At the last count, those who wanted complete, detailed control over the railways included Network Rail, the rail regulator, the Strategic Rail Authority, the Secretary of State and now, we hear, the Prime Minister. Does the Secretary of State understand why one senior rail figure said, at the weekend:
    "We are being audited to death…I want to get on with my day job of running the railways"?
    Does he understand why passengers get angry when, as the services suffer delays and cancellations, the Government's response is more interference, more centralisation and more bureaucracy, none of which helps a single train to run on time?
    Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman himself had a policy, he might speak from a stronger position. The only policy that his party has is to hanker after the days of Railtrack, which were, of course, an absolute disaster for the railways.
    There are two separate strands to what the hon. Gentleman says. First, on the structure and organisation of the railways, the increasingly common ground is that the present structure, which stems from the privatisation of 10 years ago, is simply not sustainable. We need to have a far more streamlined organisation that can run the railways effectively. Secondly, on train performance, I have said on many occasions—including just about every Question Time— that although performance is improving, it still has a long way to go.
    The fundamental problems of our railways, however, are, first, that they did not have enough money invested in them over decades, for which the hon. Gentleman's party, which was in power for 18 years, must take its share of the blame. Secondly, the management of the railways needs to be improved. The review on which we
    610
    have embarked is designed, among other things, to ensure that there is a more sensible management so that it is easier to make decisions. For example—I leave the hon. Gentleman with this thought—it cannot be right that following privatisation, the agreement of four separate organisations is needed to make a change to the timetable. That does not make any sense at all, and it is a direct consequence of the botched privatisation 10 years ago.
    Mr. Clive Betts(Lab): Will my right hon. Friend look at the practice of the SRA in coming to initial agreements with train operators over service improvements as part of their franchise, then removing the requirement for such improvements without any apparent quid pro quo from the operators? In particular, would he look at the case of Midland Mainline? The SRA has now removed a requirement for that operator to improve journey times to London, and it is now about to defer a requirement for the operator to provide an hourly quick train service between Sheffield and Leeds. Both those decisions have been taken with no quid pro quo being required from Midland Mainline, with no thought for passengers' interests and with no reference to elected representatives.
    Mr. Darling: I shall look at that. There are two problems with Midland Mainline at the moment. One is the undoubted disruption being caused by the works at St. Pancras station, although the first phase, to provide new platform facilities for Midland Mainline, will be completed later this year. The second is fleet reliability. It is not clear to me why this particular train company is having so much difficulty operating a fleet that is used by other train companies that have a higher standard of reliability. No train company should be let off the drive to improve standards, and I shall look at that particular case and come back to my hon. Friend on it.

    Roads
    Mr. Anthony Steen(Con): If he will give guidance to local authorities on the percentage of expenditure in their transport budget that is appropriate to be spent on (a) road maintenance and (b) traffic-calming measures. [152276]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): It is a matter for each local authority to decide how to allocate its funding in order to meet the transport needs of its communities and to deliver the targets and objectives set out in its five-year local transport plan. It is not for the Government centrally to dictate to local authorities, although we work with them. We will resist going back to the heavy-handed centralisation that the Conservatives employed when they were in government.
    Mr. Steen: While it is true that all local authorities have an awful lot of roads to maintain, and that Devon has more than the entire road system of Belgium, would the Minister agree that it is sheer madness for Devon and the many other counties like it to spend millions of pounds on road maintenance and, particularly, on widening roads sot hat traffic can go faster, and then to spend millions on putting in traffic-calming measures

    611
    such as road humps and rumble strips to slow it down again? That is an enormous waste of public money and council tax payers' money.
    Mr. McNulty: That is an interesting characterisation. Many of the villages in Devon are crying out for those humps for road safety reasons. This is a matter of balance for Devon county council. I had thought that the hon. Gentleman might congratulate the Government on increasing by 15 per cent. the amount of capital given to Devon in the local transport plan settlement before Christmas—it is now close to £28 million. When he mentioned madness, I thought he might be about to say that the Tories and Liberals who run Devon were mad to propose, as I understand it, the transfer of £1 million away from road maintenance to other priorities in the forthcoming budget. If there is madness, he should take the matter up with his colleagues on the county council.
    Mr. Ken Purchase(Lab/Co-op): While the Minister is keeping these matters under close scrutiny, will he also recognise that, in terms of value for money and good spending practice, data need to be gathered on such matters as proposed red routes, so that we can check the data from before the introduction of the red route against the outcome and see whether the value for money that we are all looking for is actually being obtained? I would remind my hon. Friend that my borough is about to spend £750,000 on a red route and associated works, but we are not yet sure whether we shall be able to check the data against the current evidence.
    Mr. McNulty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter with me by correspondence before today. He knows that I am looking into it. It is important that bus priority measures should be implemented in an efficient and effective way. I know that he will be enormously grateful that altogether the west midlands are getting more than £80 million in the local transport settlement, a 9.3 per cent. increase on previous years. I will, however, investigate this specific matter and get back to him on it.
    Mr. Eric Forth(Con): Does the Minister share my doubts about the efficacy of road humps? Is he at the very least able to pledge that he and his Department will be neutral on the subject? Ideally, I would like the Department to give some guidance to local authorities, because road humps can, in certain circumstances, delay emergency vehicles, damage the vehicles of ordinary citizens and create pollution. They are generally a menace.
    Mr. McNulty: All those issues and more are fully taken into account before any scheme is put into place. There is full consultation on each scheme. Do I share the right hon. Gentleman's doubts? No. Do I share his perverse libertarianism? No.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell(Lab): Will my hon. Friend ensure that, when speed bumps are considered by local authorities, guidance is given as to
    612
    the needs of cyclists? It is comparatively simple to put a small dip in a road bump to accommodate cyclists, and doing so certainly makes it much safer for them.
    Mr. McNulty: As and when it is appropriate, for road safety reasons, to install table platforms that cover the whole road, that will be done and cyclists will need to be aware of them. As and when it is appropriate for there to be gaps between the humps, for the benefit of both emergency vehicles and cyclists, that will also happen. Cyclists are fully taken into account, but the overwhelming priority must be to determine what the traffic calming measure can do for road safety. That consideration must remain paramount. My hon. Friend will be enormously grateful that Cambridgeshire has secured a 22 per cent. increase for its local transport plan.

    Road and Rail Safety
    Dr. Evan Harris(LD): What assessment he has made of the relative cost-effectiveness in expenditure per life saved of investment in rail safety compared with investment in road safety. [152277]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): Rail is a safe mode of transport, and is six times safer than travelling by car. That difference means that additional public investment in road safety measures is usually much more effective, as measured by lives saved per pound spent, than additional investment in rail safety measures such as new signalling systems. Such investment does not seem to be as effective as additional expenditure on roads.
    Dr. Harris: In the light of that answer, does the Minister agree that it is regrettable that there is so much pressure from the media and possibly even the public on politicians to do something about rail safety, when investing that money in road safety could save 10 times as many lives? Does he regard it as a Government responsibility to try to change the balance of the debate to make it clear that rail transport is relatively much safer and that we need to do much more in road safety to save lives?
    Dr. Howells: Yes, I agree, and we are trying to change that balance. We know, for example, that the cost of saving a life—if one can ever put a cost on such a thing—on the railways is about £10 million per life saved, whereas on the roads it is about £100,000. Small incremental improvements in road safety can indeed save many lives. It is worth reminding the House that in 2001–02, the last year for which complete figures are available, 3,431 lives were lost on the roads and 307 on the railways. If we take out from those statistics the 275 deaths that were the result of suicide or trespass and 17 other deaths, that leaves just 15 passengers and rail staff who were killed on the railways. It is therefore a very safe mode of transport, but we want it to be much safer so that it is as safe as possible. However, we recognise the validity of the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin(Con): One way in which we could improve road safety that would not cost any money at all, is, if we do not keep

    613
    British summer time throughout the year, at least to extend its duration. Will the Minister look at that, call for investigations to be made—and not be influenced by the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend will know that the position is not without difficulties in the north and north-west of the country, but we should keep it under review, and shall do so.

    Air Transport (Scotland)
    John Barrett(LD): What representations he has received on the expansion of air transport in Scotland since the publication of the aviation White Paper. [152278]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): Since the publication of the White Paper I have received a number of representations on air transport in Scotland.
    John Barrett: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Since the publication of the White Paper, many people who live close to Edinburgh airport in my constituency believe that their lives have been put on hold. What message does he have for people who are planning for the future, whether that involves the schooling of their children or their homes, and believe that they are suffering from planning blight?
    Mr. Darling: As for a second runway at Edinburgh airport, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government believe that that may be necessary in about 20 years' time. It is not going to happen immediately. In the White Paper, we set out the ground that we thought would be affected, as well as the houses that could be affected. The hon. Gentleman has tabled a number of questions about that. As for blight and planning, there are settled procedures that are primarily the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that a second runway at Edinburgh would reduce the noise that many of his constituents in Cramond suffer, because the aircraft would make their approach from a slightly different direction.
    Mr. Iain Luke(Lab): I am sure that the Secretary of State accepts that the main thrust of the argument about aviation expansion in Scotland has centred on Edinburgh and Glasgow airports. Does he acknowledge the relevance of representations by Dundee city council and me about the importance of small regional airports to their hinterlands and cities such as Dundee? What more can he do to sustain the growth of such airports?
    Mr. Darling: We made it clear in the White Paper that we supported the development of smaller airports such as Dundee. With due respect, I do not think that a second runway is contemplated at Dundee just yet, but my hon. Friend is right that, in the past year or so, ScotAirways, for example, has provided much appreciated services from Dundee. The Government and the Scottish Executive will do everything that they can to encourage the use of regional airports, which can greatly help the local economy.

    Network Rail
    Mr. Richard Bacon(Con): If he will make a statement about the financing of Network Rail. [152279]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): Network Rail is a private sector company, and raises its finance from commercial markets. The company's borrowing is supported by up to £21 billion of standby credit facilities provided by the Strategic Rail Authority, but that support will be reduced as Network Rail launches its long-term debt issuances, which we expect later this year.
    Mr. Bacon: Does the Secretary of State think it right that under the terms of the new Greater Anglia rail franchise £500 million will be siphoned away from East Anglia so that Network Rail can pay for improvements elsewhere, while people in East Anglia must make do with second-hand rolling stock, and while many infrastructural improvements are still needed locally? If he does not think it right, what will he do about it?
    Mr. Darling:The hon. Gentleman has asked about Network Rail, but the franchise is awarded by the SRA. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a tender was entered into, and the SRA has a duty to protect public funds. As well as making improvements, the new operator—which brings together the three franchises operating from Liverpool Street—offered a lower price.
    I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that the SRA, and the Government for that matter, have a duty to make the best possible use of public funds. Moreover, as a result of the new franchises there will be improvements, not just services but in rolling stock.
    Kevin Brennan(Lab): Is not the main point about the financing of Network Rail that, as a public interest company, it will be able to raise money more cheaply than it would by issuing shares, as the old Railtrack had to? Moreover, it does not face the perverse incentives that were faced by Railtrack, as a privatised shareholder-owned company, in terms of safety.
    Mr. Darling: I think the most important thing about Network Rail is that, first and foremost, it is there to operate in the interests of the railways. I have mentioned its decision to bring maintenance back in house. One of Railtrack's many mistakes was to farm out not just maintenance but decision making on maintenance. Network Rail estimates that this move will save some £300 million a year. Its priority is to ensure that any money it makes goes back into the railways, and over the last year or so many improvements have been made that would probably not have been possible under Railtrack because, in my view, its priorities were completely wrong. I am sorry to return to this theme, but that was a direct consequence of the way in which the industry was privatised 10 years ago.

    Speed Cameras
    Mr. David Amess(Con): If he will make a statement on the use of revenue derived from speed cameras. [152280]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): A portion of the fixed-penalty receipts deriving from offences detected on speed cameras is available to partnerships made up of police forces, local highway authorities and magistrates courts committees to cover their approved costs for purchasing, placing and operating cameras to enforce speed limits. I am sure the hon. Gentleman has noticed the reduction in the number of deaths and injuries at camera sites in Southend.
    Mr. Amess: Does the Minister realise that there is a growing crisis of public confidence in the fairness of speed cameras and speed traps? People feel that they can be criminalised for being caught doing 31 mph, but that if they are burgled or mugged it is unlikely that the criminal will be caught. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure the public in Essex, and in Southend in particular, that this is not just a revenue-raising exercise and that the money is genuinely being reinvested in our roads and in road safety generally?
    Mr. Jamieson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in recent years we have spent much more on roads in his area than the Government he supported ever did. I can also tell him that during the three years before a camera was fitted at Puttlewell Chase—which is in his area—there were 17 personal injury accidents, three of which involved people being killed or seriously injured. During the last three years there have been only nine personal injury accidents, and no one has been killed or seriously injured. I also have figures relating to Basildon, in case the hon. Gentleman retains a lasting interest in it.
    We know from evidence that, on average, there are 35 per cent. fewer deaths and serious injuries at camera sites. It would surely be irresponsible to suggest that we should remove cameras or not install them on sites where casualties are being caused.
    Jeremy Corbyn: May I invite the Minister to stand resolutely firm against the speeding motorists lobby? We are all subjected to a barrage of nonsense from people who think that it is somehow all right to speed through residential areas, past primary schools, and to increase the terrible rate of death on our roads. Will the Minister ensure that the speed cameras stay, that 25 mph limits are applied in urban areas, and that we do not give in to this dangerous lobby in favour of an activity that is just as unacceptable as drunken driving?
    Mr. Jamieson: All our policies on road safety must be proportionate and sensible. Cameras are located at sites where there is clearly a relationship between speeding and people being killed or seriously injured. If casualties are sustained for other reasons, it is up to the local authority to consider other solutions by using the generous amounts of money that we have made available through the local transport plans. Such solutions may mean re-engineering, changing the road
    616
    layout or considering road humps, which we discussed earlier. We must examine proportionately and sensibly what is right for the particular circumstances. Speed cameras have a role to play in areas in which speeding is clearly the problem.
    Mr. Christopher Chope(Con): Has the Minister seen the figures published today that show that in 1999 the revenue from speed cameras in London was £500,000, and that in 2004 it is expected to be no less than £10 million? A twenty-fold increase in income in five years is extraordinary. Does that not prove our point that they are not so much speed cameras as greed cameras?
    Mr. Jamieson: I remind the House that the hon. Gentleman introduced speed cameras when he was Minister for Roads and Traffic. Who am I to take the credit away from him for doing that? At the time, he predicted that 2 million people would get fixed-penalty tickets, but it has taken 10 years to reach that point. He should reflect on my challenge to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) to come forward with the 4,000 sites that he says do not meet the criteria. One month has gone by and as yet we have had no response.
    The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) may want to take note of the 18 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at sites where there are cameras in his constituency. Last year, he called for a camera site in Golf Links road in his constituency to be reactivated.
    Mr. David Kidney(Lab): Will my hon. Friend resist calls by lawbreakers to reduce the effectiveness of detecting their lawbreaking? Will he confirm that no one who keeps to legal speed limits must pay a fine?
    Mr. Jamieson: That is, of course, true, and my hon. Friend knows that the speed thresholds are set well above the speed limit. If the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) can show me a notification of proposed prosecution for a person who has been charged with doing 31 mph or 32 mph in a 30 mph zone, I would be interested to see it. I have put that challenge out and as yet nobody has shown me such a notification.

    Potters Bar Rail Crash
    Mr. Henry Bellingham(Con): When he next expects to meet the Health and Safety Executive to discuss the Potters Bar rail disaster. [152282]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): The Secretary of State and other Transport Ministers have regular meetings with the Health and Safety Executive. In relation to Potters Bar, we are now awaiting a decision on potential manslaughter charges from the Crown Prosecution Service, which the hon. Gentleman knows is independent of Ministers.
    Mr. Bellingham: The Minister and the Secretary of State know that the train that crashed at Potters Bar was on its way to King's Lynn in my constituency. The crash

    617
    was a tragedy for many families and a disaster for the railways. The HSE report made it clear that the crash was caused by poor maintenance. Have lessons been learned and what new procedures have been implemented? Can the Minister give me a categorical assurance that further accidents or crashes will not occur as a result of shoddy maintenance?
    Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman knows that the HSE investigation board reported in May 2003 and issued 26 recommendations, which are designed to make a positive difference to rail safety and, as he says, to prevent a similar accident from happening again. The investigation board has invited Her Majesty's railway inspectorate and Network Rail to a meeting on 11 February to discuss progress on implementing those recommendations, and the board will write to the bereaved and survivors after that meeting.

    Speed Cameras
    Tony Wright(Lab): What assessment he has made of the casualty reduction associated with speed cameras. [152283]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): On 11 February 2003, my Department published an independently produced evaluation report of the two-year trial of the safety camera cost recovery system. That showed a 35 per cent. reduction in those killed or seriously injured at camera sites, equating to some 280 people, and a 4 per cent. reduction in those killed and seriously injured across the pilot areas, equating to some 530 people. The report of the scheme's third year of operation will be published shortly.
    Tony Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He mentioned a figure of 35 per cent., but he will know that in Staffordshire the figure is 65 per cent., which is an extraordinary achievement in reducing the numbers of people killed or injured. I remind those people who think that cameras are a great infringement of human liberties that lives are being saved.
    Mr. Jamieson: I congratulate the Staffordshire partnership on its success, which is way above average. For example, my hon. Friend will know the A460. In the three years before a camera was introduced on that road, five people were killed or seriously injured: in the three years since, nobody has been killed or seriously injured. I commend the partnership on the work that it does and we look forward to further success in the future.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay(Con): As someone who shares the view of the majority of motorists that all too often speed cameras are introduced to increase revenue rather than to improve safety, I have a specific example, as requested by the Secretary of State. I would appreciate the Minister's comments on the speed camera on the dual carriageway in and out of Heathrow airport, which is completely safe. The camera is unnecessary and must be there purely for revenue purposes, and that is a bad example to show to people who have just entered the country.
    Mr. Jamieson: As with all fines, the revenue comes back to the Government, except in the case of cameras
    618
    run by a partnership, where a large proportion of the money goes into keeping the cameras running and to the police. That money supplants what the police would have used to support the cameras in any case. The Heathrow area is sensitive and sometimes congested. People may be fatigued after flights—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman would stop chuntering and listen for a moment, it would help. The area is especially sensitive and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not condone people breaking the law and using excess speed in that area.

    West Coast Main Line
    Ms Sally Keeble(Lab): What consultation will be carried out with rail user groups on the new timetables for services using the west coast main line. [152285]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): The Strategic Rail Authority aims this month to provide detailed timetable proposals for comment. Consultees will include rail user groups such as the Northampton rail user group.
    Ms Keeble: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The Northampton rail user group, which I chair, looks forward to receiving the timetable proposals. Will he ensure that all the rail user groups receive copies, because—at a difficult time, with work being done and much concern about timetables—it is important that those with an interest in the success of the industry have a chance to see and comment on the proposed timetables?
    Mr. McNulty: I fully accept the points that my hon. Friend makes and I know that she has worked keenly with the SRA and the Northampton rail user group to ensure reform. The consultation meeting with that rail user group will be held in the Guildhall later this month, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are passed on to the SRA.
    Mr. Peter Pike(Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that when the users of the west coast main line are consulted on the timetable, it will be important to take into account links with local services at stations such as Preston, which feed the west coast main line?
    Mr. McNulty: The timetables that emerge will be rooted in the overall strategy for the west coast main line, and part of that strategy includes how local services interface with the main line. However, I will ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are passed on to the SRA in terms.

    Bus Regulation
    Andy Burnham(Lab): If he will make a statement on the regulation of bus services. [152287]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): While we have no plans for major changes to the regulatory system for buses, we

    619
    continue to consider key aspects of the regime established by the Transport Act 2000 and will report shortly, especially on issues such as quality contracts.
    Andy Burnham: I am grateful for that reply. Bus services are vital to my constituents because, as I may have said once or twice before, Leigh is the largest town in the UK without a railway station. The current regime does not serve my constituents well, especially elderly people who do not have access to private transport. Recently, a bus service between Leigh and Warrington was unilaterally withdrawn, at very short notice. I urge my hon. Friend to give serious consideration to representations made by Greater Manchester passenger transport authority and others for a more effective regulatory regime that better protects the travelling public.
    Mr. McNulty: As I have said, we are keeping these matters under constant review. Many local authorities have not perhaps explored as fully as they might the total breadth and depth of the regulatory regime in the Transport Act 2000. We shall shortly examine the issue of quality contracts and how they prevail under the system. My hon. Friend's observations are not unique to Leigh or to the north-west, but if he considers all that we have recently reported on—such as the urban bus challenge, the rural bus challenge and the local transport plan settlement, which was reached just before Christmas—he will see that for this Government, the bus is absolutely central to an integrated transport system.

  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Alcohol Consumption
    David Taylor(Lab/ Co-op): What work the strategy unit has carried out on the social aspects of alcohol consumption. [152263]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Prime Minister's strategy unit published art interim analytical report on the harms associated with alcohol misuse on 19 September last year. The findings of the report are being used to inform the development of the Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy, which will be published shortly.
    David Taylor: Given that the recent youth lifestyles survey revealed that only one in three under 18-year-olds who try to buy alcohol is refused, and that in 2002 just 162 people were convicted or cautioned in respect of under-age sales, should not our national alcohol harm reduction strategy involve a more rigorous approach to law enforcement and the provision of more alcohol-free places in which younger teenagers can enjoy themselves? I am thinking, for example, of the Hub, in Ashby de la Zouch, of which I am a patron. It was officially opened last Friday and it would benefit from a ministerial visit.
    Mr. Alexander: I shall certainly bear in mind that invitation and pass it on directly to the sponsor Minister
    620
    who is developing this project. My hon. Friend raises a very important point. One reason why we wanted to undertake this study is the correlation between alcohol use and violent crime; indeed, criminal justice is one of the areas that are being explored. The study has not been published so I cannot go into detail, but I can assure my hon. Friend that it will address education and communication—issues of particular interest to younger people—health and treatment, supply and pricing, delivery, and the issues of community safety and criminal justice that he raises.
    Miss Anne McIntosh(Con): Will the Minister undertake to place a copy of the study in the House of Commons Library once it is published, and will he consider authorising a similar study on the social aspects of cannabis use and its potential for causing road accidents?
    Mr. Alexander: Of course the study will be published, and I shall pass on the hon. Lady's views directly to the Minister in charge of sponsoring it. Consideration will be given to what studies should be undertaken by the strategy unit in due course, but I have certainly noted the point that the hon. Lady raises.

    Public Appointments
    Mr. Wayne David(Lab): What action the Government are taking to ensure there are more people from the ethnic minorities appointed to public bodies. [152264]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): This Government are committed to achieving greater diversity in public appointments. As of 31 March 2003, people from ethnic minorities held 5.3 per cent. of appointments—an increase from the 3.6 per cent. Figure of 1997. Individual Departments have developed action plans to ensure that even more progress is made in this important area.
    Mr. David: I thank the Minister for his reply, but can he tell the House to what extent the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which gives authorities a new statutory duty to promote race equality, is assisting the work of his Department and of other public bodies?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend's point about the 2000 Act is an important one. It came about as a result of a very important public inquiry into racism affecting a group across society. In that sense, the legislation is already forming a key part of the thinking not just of one Government Department—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made a recent announcement in this regard—but of a range of Departments, including the Cabinet Office.
    Mr. Richard Allan(LD): The Government deserve some credit for the progress made since the 2000 report, "Quangos: Opening up Public Appointments", but does the Minister recognise that there are still some very weak Departments, particularly the Department for Environment, Food and Rural

    621
    Affairs, and the Ministry of Defence? Can he say whether progress has been made on including tribunals in the diversity programme that he oversees?
    Mr. Alexander: There are certain restriction—sage restrictions, for example—for tribunals, which do not apply to other public bodies. However, I acknowledge the point that Departments are at different stages in moving forward the diversity agendas and I am happy to communicate the points raised today and ensure that the hon. Member receives a direct reply.
    Brian White(Lab): The Minister will be aware that the Public Administration Committee's report suggested innovative ways of appointing people to various bodies. Will he assure the House that Departments will examine those innovative ways forward rather than carry on appointing in the same old way?
    Mr. Alexander: I understand my hon. Friend's point about the Publication Administration Committee's report "Government by Appointment", which was published on 10 July 2003. The Government responded to the proposals on 17 December last year, but I understand that only this morning the Chairman of the Select Committee made further comment, so these matters continue to be a feature of public debate.

    Civil Contingency Planning
    Bob Spink(Con): What recent representations he has received on civil contingency planning. [152265]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government maintain a close dialogue with a wide range of stakeholders in their civil contingency planning work. The Government consulted publicly on the draft Civil Contingencies Bill between June and September 2003 and received 379 responses from civil protection professionals, representative organisations, lobby groups and interested individuals. We published a report of the results of the public consultation on 7 January this year. Engagement with a wide range of stakeholders continues with the development of the regulations and guidance under the Bill.
    Bob Spink: Is the Minister aware that the Thames gateway area is a flood risk area? Will he explain it to his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who wants to build on ground there that is at risk from flooding? That will cause serious difficulties for civil contingency planning in that region.
    Mr. Alexander: I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's concerns directly to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I would, however, point out that he raises an important point in recognising that the Civil Contingencies Bill before the House at this stage does address the issue of flooding and will afford greater security to those affected by flooding in future by putting in place an appropriate framework of civil protection in this country.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner(Lab): Has my hon. Friend identified the need for an isolation unit in
    622
    the region of Heathrow airport and the Greater London area to deal with a potential outbreak of, say, severe acute respiratory syndrome, or a bio-terrorist alert? Will he specifically consider the case for the Lister unit at the Northwick Park site as a suitable place for dealing such contingencies?
    Mr. Alexander: I recognise my hon. Friend as a fearless champion of local interests in his own constituency. I can assure him that, consistent with the lead Government Department principle, the Department of Health continues to review the Government's approach to exactly the sort of issues that he has identified. I will ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are passed directly to the Department of Health.
    Mr. Oliver Heald(Con): Does the Minister realise that the police are so stretched that they have hail to reach a gentleman's agreement with Group 4 to back them up in an emergency? Why does he continue to reject our idea of setting up an emergency volunteer reserve to call on the skills of our people, and when will the Government take civil contingencies seriously?
    Mr. Alexander: I would, of course, point out that there are more police on the streets of Britain now than under the previous Administration. I would also point out that, if we look back to the last Budget of April 2003, we will find that an additional £330 million was awarded over three years for counter-terrorism projects in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Cabinet Office and the Home Office. The Government clearly take civil contingencies planning seriously, which is why we introduced the Bill and why the extra resources were committed.

    Fishing Industry
    Mir. Alistair Carmichael(LD): When the Strategy Unit will publish its report on the UK fishing industry. [152267]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The strategy unit's fisheries project was announced on 27 March 2003. The aim is to develop a long-term strategy for the sustainable future of the UK marine fishing industry. The report will be published shortly.
    Mr. Carmichael: I must tell the Minister that I am disappointed—as are many of my constituents—that we still have no date for the publication of this overdue report. If he or the researchers preparing the report listened to people in fishing communities, they would know that those communities are in crisis. We need a strategy that goes beyond tinkering around the edges of the common fisheries policy—and we need it soon. Can we have the report soon?
    Mr. Alexander: That is exactly why the strategy unit has taken that long-term view. As the hon. Gentleman is interested in the unit's emerging thinking on the matter, I remind him that a conference was held in Newcastle on 1 October last year. The results were

    623
    published on the website. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, however, I suggest that he address his concerns to one of the members of the steering board—the Scottish Executive's Liberal Democrat Minister for Environment and Rural Development, who has responsibility for fisheries.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster(Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work with the strategy unit, which is so important for fishermen on the south coast. The unit has not yet reported, so will my
    624
    hon. Friend look at what is happening on the south coast? Cod numbers are enormous there, but the fish cannot be caught because they are considered to belong to the North sea.
    Mr. Alexander: The fishing industry supports about 11,200 people in England, so it is not a matter of concern only to hon. Members with Scottish constituencies. I shall be happy to pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

WMD Intelligence Review Committee
12.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. First, I apologise to the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), and to the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), as the notice of the text of this statement that I was able to give them was slightly shorter than usual, for reasons that I think that they will understand.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has decided to establish a committee to review intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. This committee will be composed of Privy Councillors. It will have the following terms of reference: to investigate the intelligence coverage available in respect of WMD programmes in countries of concern and on the global trade in WMD, taking into account what is now known about these programmes; as part of this work, to investigate the accuracy of intelligence on Iraqi WMD up to March 2003, and to examine any discrepancies between the intelligence gathered, evaluated and used by the Government before the conflict, and between that intelligence and what has been discovered by the Iraq survey group since the end of the conflict; and to make recommendations to the Prime Minister for the future on the gathering, evaluation and use of intelligence on WMD, in the light of the difficulties of operating in countries of concern.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked the committee to report before the summer recess.
The committee will follow the precedent in terms of procedures of the Franks committee. It will have access to all intelligence reports and assessments and other relevant Government papers, and will be able to call witnesses to give oral evidence in private. The committee will work closely with the US inquiry and the Iraq survey group.
The committee will submit its final conclusions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in a form for publication, along with any classified recommendations and material. The Government will, of course, co-operate fully with the committee.
The members of the committee will be Lord Butler of Brockwell, who will be the chairman, Sir John Chilcot, and Field Marshal Lord Inge. It will also include two senior Members of this House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), and the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), who will be made a Privy Councillor [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."].
In settling the terms of the inquiry and its membership, there have of course been discussions with the leaders of the two main Opposition parties. I regret, however, that the leader of the Liberal Democrat party has declined to support the inquiry. That, and that alone, explains why no senior member of the Liberal Democrats is a member of the committee.
As the House will be well aware, there have already been three inquiries into aspects of the Iraq war. The first, established in early May last year, was conducted
626
by the Intelligence and Security Committee. It considered in some detail the intelligence received in London, and its assessment and use, including in the dossier. It reported to Parliament on 9 September.
The second report, by the Foreign Affairs Committee, was established on 3 June last year, against the background of the controversy surrounding the Andrew Gilligan report on the "Today" programme on 29 May. It made its report to this House on 7 July. The third report was the judicial inquiry by Lord Hutton, which was established following the death of Dr. David Kelly. It, of course, reported last Wednesday. Although the terms of reference of the three inquiries varied, a central theme of each was whether the Government had acted improperly or dishonestly in using the intelligence available to them. Echoing the conclusions of the earlier reports and in categorical terms, Lord Hutton was emphatic last week that such allegations were unfounded. The new inquiry, obviously, will not revisit the issues so comprehensively covered by Lord Hutton.
While those inquiries were under way, three proposals were put before the House in June, July and late October on Opposition motions calling for wider inquiries into aspects of the Government's handling of events in the run-up to the Iraq war. At the time, the Government resisted those calls, including on the ground that the inquiries already under way should be allowed to complete their work. Later, both the Prime Minister and I also referred to the continuing activities of the Iraq survey group.
Over the past week, we have seen the publication of the Hutton report and the evidence of Dr. David Kay, former head of the Iraq survey group, to a US congressional committee. It has also emerged that the Iraq survey group may take longer to produce a final report than we had all originally envisaged. All that has led the Government now to judge that it is appropriate to establish this new inquiry of Privy Councillors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Lord Hutton dealt conclusively with the grave charge against the Government that we had in some way acted improperly or dishonestly in the preparation of intelligence put before the House and the public. The Government recognise—and always have—that there are wider and entirely legitimate concerns about the reliability of the original intelligence, which have been heightened by Dr. Kay's evidence. When he gave evidence before the US Congress last week, on 28 January, he repeatedly emphasised his continued support for the decision to take military action against Iraq and his belief still today that Iraq was in clear and material violation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1441. He stated also:
"Prior to the war, my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction. I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war—certainly the French President Chirac—referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The German intelligence certainly believed that there was WMD."
Dr. Kay added:
"It turns out we were all wrong probably, in my judgement, and that is most disturbing."
In the intervening period since the Iraq war began, events elsewhere have greatly increased anxieties about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of

627
the need for reliable intelligence and effective international action. According to reports over the weekend, an individual has sold nuclear secrets to North Korea. Iran, for a long time, did not report all that it should have reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency under its safeguards agreement. Libya was in breach of its obligations under the nonproliferation treaty—and both countries are now subject to considerable activity by the IAEA.
There are other concerns too, so we have judged it prudent for this inquiry to consider those wider issues—as set out in its terms of reference. But of course a great focus of the committee's work will he on Iraq—rightly so. It is, however, important to remind ourselves of the significance and limits of the use of intelligence in relation to Iraq. The September dossier made a powerful case for the world to take notice of Iraq. It did not make a case for military action. As the record shows, the case for military action was fundamentally based upon Iraq's breach of UNSCR 1441. [Interruption.] Iraq had used WMD against its own people and against its neighbour, Iran. Saddam Hussein had invaded two of Iraq's neighbours, leading to the deaths of 1 million people. For 12 years after the Iraqi army was expelled from Kuwait, Saddam Hussein defied repeated United Nations resolutions calling for him to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors to dismantle WMD programmes. Resolution 1441 unanimously found Iraq in material breach of previous resolutions and offered it a final opportunity to comply fully and immediately with UN inspectors, or to face "serious consequences". The head of the UN inspectors, Dr. Hans Blix, published on 7 March last year a 173-page document listing the unresolved issues in respect of Iraq's WMD programmes—a document that I placed before the House in a Command Paper some days later.
All that painted a compelling picture. As the Prime Minister and I have said repeatedly, it would have been gravely irresponsible not to have acted against this. We took the right decision in agreeing to military action against Iraq and it is still, in my judgment, the right decision today.
For the sake of completeness, it may be helpful to give a more rounded picture of Dr. Kay's evidence to Congress last week. These are some of the things that he said:
"I think when we have the complete record you're going to discover that after 1998 it"—
the Iraqi regime—
"became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would haw made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate."
Dr. Kay went on:
"All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than that Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with a regard to weapons of mass destruction."
He continued:
"I think you will have, when you get the final Iraq Survey Group report, pretty compelling evidence that Saddam had the intention of continuing the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction when the opportunity arose."
628
I will place in the Library of the House a full copy of Dr Kay's evidence.
Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the outstanding work of the British intelligence agencies around the world, often in difficult and hostile conditions. This inquiry is emphatically not a challenge to that vital work, nor to the dedication and professionalism of the people who work in those agencies; but what the inquiry should do is to help the Government better to evaluate and assess the information that they provide.
The decision that the House took 10 months ago to go to war was justified given the defiance of a regime that uniquely had used weapons of mass destruction and had refused for so long to comply with obligations unanimously imposed upon it by the United Nations Security Council. That is a decision for which we, as elected representatives in this House, took responsibility and for which we will continue to take responsibility. We cannot subcontract that responsibility to any inquiry, however distinguished, but I believe that Lord Butler and his colleagues will be able to perform a most valuable service to the House and to the country and I express my appreciation to them.
Mr. Michael Ancram(Con): May I thank the Foreign Secretary for what I can only call his astonishingly defensive statement, and for advance sight of it? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on his appointment to the Privy Council.
We on the Conservative Benches welcome the announcement of the inquiry. We could hardly do otherwise because we have been calling since last June for an inquiry into intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and into the use made of such intelligence by the Government. Indeed, over the last few days, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has deployed a powerful case for an inquiry, much along the lines of the one that the Foreign Secretary has announced, so we would be churlish not to show our appreciation when our advice is heeded.
It is particularly gratifying in this instance to see that the Prime Minister, who has no reverse gear, can still execute impressive U-turns—there can be few more spectacular examples than this one. Our frequent calls for an inquiry were met with the response from last June onwards that it was unnecessary, that the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee were enough and that anyway we should wait for the final report of the Iraq survey group.
Even after Lord Hutton reported last week, senior Ministers, including the Lord Chancellor on Sunday, were still insisting that an inquiry was not needed and that we should await the outcome of the ISG, whenever that might come. Then, suddenly, the damascene conversion, which we welcome, even if I am not totally convinced by the Foreign Secretary's explanation. Perish the thought that it had anything to do with the decision of President Bush to hold a similar inquiry. I like to think that it was because the Government have at last seen the light—the light that kicking for the long grass would not make the very serious questions relating to the intelligence on WMD and the Government's use of it go away; the light that the longer a full inquiry into

629
those issues was refused, the more the credibility of both the Government and the intelligence services would be undermined; and the light that the public have a right to have those serious questions answered, not least in view of Dr. Kay's recent evidence to Congress.
So we welcome the announcement of this important inquiry. I am sorry that it will hold its hearings in private. Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that, when it reports, not only will that report be published in full, subject only to genuine security considerations, but that the evidence that it considered will be published as well? If it is to reassure, the outcome must be as open as possible, even if it is critical of the Government and their agencies.
We accept the terms of reference. However, some fear has been expressed that the inquiry is designed solely to focus the spotlight on our intelligence services, not on the Government. That would be not only unfair, but wrong. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the committee will be able, within those terms of reference, to examine the discrepancies not only between the prewar intelligence and the outcome of the ISG, but between that intelligence and the use made of it by the Government?
Will the committee be able to evaluate the intelligence made available to the Government against the statements and publications from the Government that purported to be based on it—in particular, the two dossiers of 24 September 2002 and 3 February 2003, the Prime Minister's statement at St. Petersburg on 31 May, the Prime Minister's evidence about WMD programmes to the Liaison Committee on 8 July and his spokesman's reference to WMD product on the very next day? Will the inquiry be able to consider whether there was any cherry-picking, or selective or partial use of evaluated intelligence by the Government that might have cast a somewhat different gloss from that which was intended by the intelligence services?
It is an irony of history that, if the Government had set up such an inquiry when we first pressed them in June last year, many difficulties, accusations and counter-accusations might have been avoided and the serious questions might have been already answered. A considerable price has been paid for the Government's obstinacy on this matter, not only with their own reputation, but with that of the dedicated intelligence personnel who serve our country with commitment and distinction. In this age of pre-emption, the inquiry is vital to restore confidence in our intelligence services, which themselves are so central to meeting the challenges of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction that face us all today.
Mr. Straw: May I say first that I am glad to know that the Leader of the Opposition agrees with what I told the House earlier today? I am very happy to take his compliment and that of the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) in the spirit in which it was offered.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about the timing of the establishment of the inquiry. Of course the evidence from Dr. Kay and the interim conclusions for which he gave evidence before a congressional committee have been a critical trigger in the
630
establishment of the committee. It was the case that, if we had sought to set up such an inquiry last summer, a large part of the inquiry could not have taken place until after the ISG's work had been completed because everything would have been on a contingent basis— "Well, what is there?" —and, at the time, the question was that we did not know what was there. Since then, we have had an interim report from the ISG, after very considerable inquiries by the ISG that are still not complete. The fact that the time scale will continue for the ISG means that, in our judgment, we should not wait to establish the inquiry. If we had established a committee last summer, I doubt that it could have done its work properly until the ISG had at least reached this interim conclusion.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks whether the committee will hold its hearings in private. As the terms of reference indicate, the committee of Privy Councillors will model its work on the review of the Falklands Islands conflict, which was published in January in 1983—Command Paper 8787, which I have here—and which itself met in private.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about the terms of reference. They are as they state, and say, among other things:
"as part of this work, to investigate the accuracy of intelligence on Iraqi WMD up to March 2003, and to examine any discrepancies between the intelligence gathered, evaluated and used by the Government before the conflict, and between that intelligence and what has been discovered by the Iraq survey group since the end of the conflict."
How those terms of reference are precisely interpreted is a matter for the committee, not for us.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether the committee's report will be published—I made it clear that it will be published—and asked a question about evidence. That must be a judgment for the committee and the agencies because just as with the Franks inquiry into the Falklands, by definition, a huge amount of evidence is bound to be highly classified. It is my hope, as it always has been with all such inquiries, that the maximum amount that can be made public should be made public.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to make a poor point by suggesting that if the committee has any criticism of the Government, it will be suppressed on the grounds that it is classified. That is utter nonsense. If the committee has criticisms to make of the Government, of course it will make them, and make them public. No member of the inquiry—either Members of the House or distinguished individuals from outside the House—would dream of putting their name to the report unless their criticisms, if they had them, were made public.
Sir Menzies Campbell(LD): Perhaps I, too, may add my congratulations to the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on his forthcoming appointment to the Privy Council. May I also be allowed a moment's scepticism about the enthusiasm of the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) for an investigation into the reasons why we went to war, given that prior to the publication of the dossier on 24 September 2002, the then leader of the Conservative party told the country that military action was the only option when dealing with Saddam Hussein?

631
Let me make it clear that I make no criticism of the members of the proposed committee—not of their integrity, competence or independence. However, it is a matter of profound regret that my right hon. and hon. Friends feel unable to endorse the remit announced by the Foreign Secretary or to support the nomination of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) as a member of the committee. That was not an easy decision and nor is it likely, as events have demonstrated, to be universally popular. However, our objections relate to the remit that the Foreign Secretary announced.
As the Foreign Secretary said in response to the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes, the remit is confined to intelligence and weapons of mass destruction. It deals neither with the workings of government, nor with political decision making based on intelligence. Does the Foreign Secretary understand that following the public response to the Hutton report, an inquiry that excludes politicians from scrutiny is unlikely to command public confidence? Let me put on record once again that we have never doubted the Prime Minister's sincerity in these matters. However, should not the Prime Minister and others, given the special circumstances of this case, be willing to submit to scrutiny of their competence and judgment in the discharge of their responsibilities?
The Foreign Secretary mentioned the Franks report. Does he remember the remit of the Franks committee? It was to
"review the way in which the responsibilities of Government…were discharged…taking account of all such factors…as are relevant".
Why can we not have a remit of that breadth to deal with the matters with which we are concerned? Indeed, why can we not have a remit with sufficient breadth to allow the members of the committee to examine the whole of the Attorney-General's advice?
The Government have performed a welcome volte-face on the principle of an inquiry, for which we must give President Bush some small credit. However, there is still time to give the inquiry a remit that would truly satisfy the public interest, and the Government should take that opportunity.
Mr. Straw: It was the right hon. and learned Gentleman who said that it was not an easy decision—I suspect that it was also a controversial decision among the Liberal Democrats. I believe that it is a decision that the wiser counsels inside the party, especially, will come to regret greatly.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to earlier calls for inquiries. When he spoke in the House on 22 October in support of a motion moved by the shadow Foreign Secretary, he said:
"The central question remains: did we go to war with Iraq on a prospectus that was flawed, either because the intelligence behind it was inadequate, or because that intelligence was mishandled once it had been obtained?" —[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 686.]
As for the latter point, the question of whether intelligence was mishandled in terms of propriety or dishonesty was dealt with comprehensively by Lord Hutton. On the other issue, I fail to see the difference between what he was telling the House in October and what is now apparent in the terms of reference of the inquiry.
632
As for the precise terms of reference of the Franks inquiry, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the history of what led to the Argentinian invasion was, by definition, different from the history of what led to the war in the Iraq. He somehow believes that the decision that the elected House of Commons made on whether to take military action on 18 March should be subcontracted to a committee of distinguished persons so that they can adjudicate on it, but that is frankly a ludicrous and undemocratic proposition. I draw to his attention the fact that the terms of reference of the Franks committee stopped at the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands and did not include the decision, which was broadly endorsed by the House of Commons, albeit not on a substantive motion, to take military action in respect of the invasion. That was properly a decision for Her Majesty's Government and the House of Commons of that day. People on both sides of the House would have thoroughly objected if Lord Franks had sat in judgment on whether the House of Commons and Her Majesty's Government, on the key issue before any democracy. of war or peace, had got it right or wrong.
Mr. George Howarth: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Will he confirm that all of us in this country have every reason to be grateful for the information provided by the intelligence services? It all adds to our greater safety. Will he also give a commitment that those who gather that intelligence material, whether at home or abroad, will be properly protected throughout the process?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. It is essential that those who provide intelligence, those who work directly for our intelligence agencies and those with whom we co-operate are fully and properly protected. I merely say to the House about many of the crucial issues on which we have made progress in recent months, which have been absolutely critical to the peace of the world—literally—that that could not have happened without the courage and professionalism of members of our intelligence agencies and those with whom they co-operate.
Sir John Stanley: Was not the right hon. Gentleman wrong by implying in his statement that Lord Hutton passed any verdict whatsoever in the course of his inquiry on whether Ministers properly and fully evaluated the intelligence placed before them before going to war in Iraq? Should not that matter be clearly and firmly within the remit of Lord Butler's committee?
Mr. Straw: I think that the right hon. Gentleman might have misheard me. Lord Hutton, in his extremely comprehensive and weighty report, dealt with his terms of reference and especially the "very grave allegation", as he described it, that there had been improper conduct by Ministers. He said that such allegations were "unfounded". I repeat to the House and the right hon. Gentleman that the terms of reference are as they are:
"to examine any discrepancies between the intelligence gathered, evaluated and used by the Government before the conflict"—
as well as other matters that are set out.
Mr. Ernie Ross: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I should like to re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), that the protection of those who give evidence is essential, particularly if they come from the middle east. We still have major problems there. There are different ways to gather intelligence, and those who supply it must be assured of absolute protection.
Mr. Straw: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Peter Lilley: Do the Government accept the traditional doctrine that Ministers are responsible, including for the advice they take, and so have a duty to probe, question and evaluate that advice and reach the right conclusion, as his right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), his predecessor, did? Or are they replacing it with a new doctrine that when things go right Ministers take the credit and when they go wrong they set up a narrowly based inquiry to blame officials for a political decision?
Mr. Straw: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend have ever sought to shy away from our responsibilities, and our responsibilities are to this House. Let that not be forgotten.
Mr. Robin Cook: My right hon. Friend is a very intelligent Minister, who has seen a great deal of intelligence in the course of holding his two Cabinet posts. Does he really believe that even such a highly distinguished membership as he has announced today can separate out the intelligence judgment on the threat from the political judgment to go to war on the basis of that threat? Does it not logically follow that if we now have no evidence of an immediate threat from Saddam Hussein we had time to let Hans Blix finish the job and tell us, without any war, that there were no weapons of mass destruction?
Mr. Straw: That distinction is essential. I also point out to my right hon. Friend that, albeit it was in February 2001 and not a few days before we went to war, he wrote in an article in the The Daily Telegraph:
"UN measures remain in place because of Saddam's determination to retain and rebuild his weapons of mass destruction and threaten the region".
So at that date my right hon. Friend believed, and told the public that he believed, that Saddam had retained his weapons of mass destruction.
I have never suggested to my right hon. Friend that it followed, as night follows day, from the view he took then that military action against Iraq was either necessary at that time or subsequently. That is not the case. However, it is the case that my right hon. Friend as at 20 February 2001, along with, as Dr. Kay pointed out, intelligence agencies from around the world as at March 2003, took the view that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction as well as weapons programmes. I believe that even today people would be hard put to it to deny that Saddam was and remained in categorical breach of his obligations under resolution 1441.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Is the Foreign Secretary prepared to accept that while Lord Butler will no doubt do as good a job as Lord Hutton did on the question addressed to him, the terms of reference given to the two inquiries are so narrow as to make them completely irrelevant to the main subject of public interest? Does he accept that many people in the diplomatic and security world, as well as politicians, think that the invasion of Iraq was decided on by the American Administration long before the events we are considering, and that the arguments about weapons of mass destruction and United Nations resolutions were introduced to enable the British Government to try to provide a legal basis for the decision that had already been taken to support the Americans in the invasion?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this House cannot debate that adequately, and fulfil the obligation he keeps laying on us, until we have more factual access to the diplomatic exchanges with the Americans and the political workings of the Government, of a kind that a Franks-type public inquiry with broad terms of reference into the origins of the war would undoubtedly provide, but which we obviously shall not have unless President Bush is forced into a similar inquiry on the other side of the Atlantic?
Mr. Straw: I do not accept the basis of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. The case for military action was well rehearsed before the House. It is not a question of whether the House endorsed the decision, because the House made the decision by a substantial majority of all parties on 18 March last year. It did so based on the argument in the motion before the House and the arguments that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I then advanced, as well as the arguments that I and colleagues like Secretary Colin Powell of the United States advanced in repeated Security Council hearings in the weeks leading up to 18 March. Those arguments were about the fact that the whole world—not just President Bush in his closet—had declared Saddam Hussein to be in clear material breach of his obligations. The whole world in November 2002 said that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to international peace and security by reason of Iraq's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missile systems and its defiance of the United Nations, and that Saddam Hussein had refused to put himself into compliance with the UN.
There was an issue, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) raised, as to whether it was the right time to take military action. Of course that was an issue. However, what I have described was the heart of the argument. My argument then—and it is still my argument—was that had we, in the middle of March, simply walked away, which was essentially what was on offer from the French, the Russians, the Chinese and others, with just a slap on the wrist for Iraq, the world would have become a far more dangerous place. That is also the view of Dr. David Kay.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the inquiry extend to examining the points made by the leader of the Liberal Democrats on 18

635
March last year, when he said of the previous Administration:
"They provided him"—
Hussein—
"with anthrax and other chemical weapons, and they approved the construction of dual-use factories in Iraq." —[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 783.]—
or are we just to accept the Liberal party's opportunism?
Mr. Straw: That would be entirely a matter for the inquiry, but the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) quite properly put on the record of the House the fact that such a claim was without foundation.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Do the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary feel no shame or even regret that as a consequence of their ignoring the advice of many of us on both sides of the House—we expressed grave doubts by voice and vote in the months before the war, suggesting that Iraq no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction, and urged that Hans Blix and the UN inspectors should be given more time before military action—their faulty political judgment caused the deaths of more than 50 British servicemen and thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens?
Mr. Straw: I respect the view that the hon. Gentleman took before military action and subsequently. The advice, as he describes it, was not taken by the overwhelming majority of his own party, still less by us. Many people will want to quote Dr. David Kay. The hon. Gentleman must weigh up the fact that there is overwhelming evidence about the violation of resolution 1441 by Iraq, and I ask him to consider—this is a difficult calculation, but it is one that we must all consider—what would have happened had we allowed Saddam to continue. My judgment is that had we simply sat on our hands, which is all that was on offer from other countries in the Security Council, Saddam would have been re-emboldened and re-empowered. He would have posed an even greater threat to his own people and the whole region, and those mass graves being filled up weekly by Saddam's thugs would have become even fuller.
Sir Stuart Bell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the entire House feels pleased that Saddam Hussein is no longer able to develop his deadly poison, ricin, his rudimentary nuclear programme and all those weapons of mass destruction programmes that were concealed from Dr. Hans Blix? Given that my right hon. Friend will place in the House of Commons Library the full text of Dr. Kay's statements to the Senate armed services committee, would a proper reading of that not show that it would have been the grossest dereliction of duty of this Government or any Government to have taken any decision other than the one we took in the House on 18 March?
Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend. Dr. Kay used almost exactly those words in his evidence to the Senate armed services committee.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Was it not Lord Butler who, when still Cabinet Secretary in
636
1997, approved Alastair Campbell's right to issue instructions to civil servants? Might that issue not be germane to the inquiry that Lord Butler has now been asked to chair? How could the Prime Minister this morning and the Foreign Secretary this afternoon claim that Lord Hutton had cleared the Government of any misuse of intelligence material, when Lord Hutton did not even examine the February 2003 dossier—the dodgy dossier, the fabricated dossier, the load of Horlicks, as the Foreign Secretary once described it? How can that possibly be? Finally, given that the minority parties were not consulted about the remit and did not even get the chance to decline to serve, may I say that we certainly would not have served on an inquiry with such a dodgy, restrictive and cover-up remit.
Mr. Straw: The issue of the 7 February dossier—whose process I described in that way, but not its content—was comprehensively dealt with by both the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee. As to the announcement by the hon. Gentleman that no Scottish nationalist would have served on the Committee, I am sure the House will be deeply shocked and upset by that news.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that whatever controversies, there may have been about some of the conclusions, there was overwhelming approval of the openness with which the Hutton inquiry was conducted, including the publication of written evidence? Can we consider the possibility of allowing this new inquiry to follow that example, subject to national security considerations?
Mr. Straw: The problem is in what my hon. Friend said right at the end—subject to national security considerations. This inquiry is significantly about intelligence. The Intelligence and Security Committee of the House does its work in private, but makes its report in public. That is the appropriate way for the inquiry to proceed, as well.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is it not regrettably clear that the minority who on 18 March last year voted, in effect, to keep Saddam Hussein in power will not be pleased by anything that is said by any committee?
Mr. Straw: That is true. Although none of those who voted for that had that intention, I am in no doubt that that would have been the consequence if their advice had been accepted.
Donald Anderson: Surely the question of the Government's competence and judgment is a matter for the House and ultimately for the electorate. With regard to timing, the inquiry is asked to report before the summer recess. That means in less than six months, whereas the US inquiry, with somewhat narrower terms of reference, may take more than a year. Should not the inquiry be given whatever time the committee deems necessary for its task?
Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend is correct in what he first says. The House must be the judge of whether we

637
made the right or wrong decisions, and must be as well informed as it can be, including by the committee's report. As regards time, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has expressed his hope and intention about the time scale, but ultimately it will be a matter for the inquiry.
Mrs. Patsy Calton: When can we expect the Government's response to the report that the Foreign Secretary has mentioned twice in his answers today—the report from the Intelligence and Security Committee entitled "Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction—Intelligence and Assessments"? It was published in September 2003. We have yet to hear from the Government.
Mr. Straw: I think the response is due to be published today, but I will make sure.
Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend is right when he says that if Saddam had not been checked, he would have continued to kill. He was responsible for genocide. The United Nations has a responsibility to act in the case of genocide. The House and the Government have a responsibility to act. We signed the genocide convention and we are bound by its terms. It is a disgrace that the United Nations did not act to check Saddam's genocide.
My right hon. Friend speaks of WMD, but it was not my argument that WMD was the ground for toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein. I have made that case many times in the House. A year ago when I was in Kurdistan, before the start of the war, the Kurds were convinced that chemical and biological weapons would be used against them. The Kurds are Iraqis. They too must have had their own intelligence. Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind when the committee investigates the intelligence that was available before the start of the war?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend, who has seen the brutality of Saddam and his regime at starker and closer quarters than ever have I, speaks with huge and poignant authority on the matter. The House needs to take note of what would have happened, had Saddam stayed. That would unquestionably have been the consequence of a decision on 18 March not to take military action.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I remind the Foreign Secretary of exactly what the conclusions of the Hutton inquiry were? He stated:
"The term 'sexed-up' is a slang expression …capable of two … meanings"
and he concluded about the September dossier that
"because of the drafting suggestions made by 10 Downing Street for the purpose of making a strong case against Saddam Hussein, it could be said that the Government 'sexed-up' the dossier."
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that that remains a matter of public concern, and of public confidence in the intelligence service? Will he return to the question put by my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, who asked him whether the
638
committee would judge the discrepancies between the intelligence presented to the Government and the way the Government used that intelligence—yes or no?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has done himself no service whatever by a shameful parody of the contents of the Hutton report. He knows very well what the conclusion of the Hutton inquiry was in respect of the so-called sexing-up of the dossier: that the allegations were completely unfounded.
Tony Lloyd: One of the purposes of an inquiry is surely to restore confidence to a sceptical public who are anxious about, among other things, the competence of our intelligence and security services. My right hon. Friend is right to focus on that, but does he accept that the public still wants answers as to whether there was a clear threat to this country and to international security from Saddam at that time, and whether there was a legal basis for going to war? The inquiry does not seem to address those important questions.
Mr. Straw: It would be hard for any inquiry, however distinguished, to inquire into the state of mind not just of the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the United States, but the Governments of the 13 other members of the Security Council, each of whom, quite independently—and not only on the basis of their own intelligence, but on the basis of what they could see in front of their nose, as could their public—had come to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein and his regime posed a threat to international peace and security by reason of its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, its long-range missile systems and its defiance of the United Nations. That was the basis on which the UN made its decision about 1441 and it was also a fundamental part of the case for military action put before the House.
Ultimately, the United Nations Security Council has to accept responsibility for the decisions that it took in November 2002, which plainly cannot be the subject of an inquiry by a single Government. We as Ministers, and we as the House of Commons, have to accept our responsibilities before the high court of Parliament—better informed, wherever possible, by such inquiries.
Mr. William Cash: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that it would not effectively have been possible for the Government to have gone to war without the opinion of the Attorney-General on the matter? The Foreign Secretary may recall that it was I who asked the Prime Minister to make available that opinion, and that that was done in a truncated form. Of course, the opinion must have been based on certain facts and the evaluation of intelligence questions. Will he make certain that it is made available to the committee?
Mr. Straw: It is for the inquiry to decide whether it wishes to see that opinion. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that, for extremely good reasons, it has been the practice of successive Governments that the detailed legal advice of Law Officers is not made public.
Mr. Doug Henderson: I know that my right hon. Friend always has his

639
ear to the ground in terms of the questions that people are asking. At the moment, their question is: "Did the Government act properly when we went to war with Iraq?" In order to answer it, is it not necessary to examine not only what the intelligence was, but how the Government responded to it, and whether sufficient checks and balances and investigations took place before a judgment was reached?
Mr. Straw: One of the central issues before the Hutton inquiry was whether we acted properly in respect of the intelligence that was the subject of the Gilligan report of 29 May. To underline how unreliable was the ability of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) to read Hutton, he says on page 321 of his report:
"I consider that the allegation"—
of sexing up—
"was unfounded as it would have been understood by those who heard the broadcasts to mean that the dossier had been embellished with intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable, which was not the case."
The wider issues that my hon. Friend raises may indeed come with the committee's terms of reference, which include the examination of
"any discrepancies between the intelligence gathered. evaluated and used by the Government before the conflict, and between that intelligence and what has been discovered by the Iraq Survey Group"
and the making of
"recommendations to the Prime Minister for the future on the gathering, evaluation and use of intelligence on WMD, in the light of the difficulties of operating in countries of concern."
My hon. Friend has been familiar with some of these matters. Speaking as someone who, as Home Secretary, was responsible for the Security Service for four years, and has been responsible for GCHQ and the Secret Intelligence Service for the past two and a half years, it is in everybody's interest that we have the most accurate and reliable intelligence and the best systems for assessing it. That is in the interests of the agencies, of Ministers and of Parliament. I anticipate that if flaws are found in the systems for assessment, the Butler committee will wish to address that [Interruption.]
Mrs. Angela Browning: It hardly instils confidence in one when the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), who is to be part of the Butler committee, is making her own audible responses to questions.
The Foreign Secretary says that the UK inquiry will work closely with the American inquiry, but will the net be cast further afield, not least to Australia, where Andrew Wilkie of the Australian intelligence service resigned a week before the war commenced because of what he called the blatant exaggeration in the UK and United States Governments' use of their intelligence?
Mr. Straw: It is a matter for the committee to decide from whom it seeks evidence. The hon. Lady's suggestion is totally without foundation. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), to the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), and to all the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, of all parties, for their
640
professionalism in the work that they do. Had it been possible, I would have hoped that the ISC would be able to conduct the inquiry, but following discussions with the usual channels, this inquiry, with its distinguished outsiders, has been established to do the job.
Jeremy Corbyn: As the public greeted Lord Hutton's inquiry with deep scepticism, despite its being conducted in a very open atmosphere, does my right hon. Friend honestly think that this inquiry will be anything more than an establishment stitch-up designed to protect the political judgments that told this House, the world and everybody else that the basis of the war was the existence of weapons of mass destruction? Does he not recognise that the public will accept only an open, public judicial inquiry, not one conducted largely in secret by the Privy Council?
Mr. Straw: I say with great affection to my hon. Friend that if we had the Archangel Gabriel running the inquiry and sitting in public, he would pour cold water on it and say that it was an establishment stitch-up if he disagreed with its findings.
Sir Robert Smith: The Foreign Secretary noted that other countries had access to similar intelligence and concluded that there were concerns to be addressed. However, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) suggested, the public want an inquiry that investigates why this country alone, with America, chose to take the action that it did, instead of listening to Hans Blix and taking the time to ensure that the case for war had been made?
Mr. Straw: We were far from alone in the decision that we took. A very large number of countries, in addition to the UK and the US—half the member states of the European Union and many other countries around the world—supported the military action on which we were embarked, and many participated in it.
As for Dr. Blix, he never had the role of telling the Security Council what to do—he laid evidence before it. The evidence that Dr. Blix laid before the Security Council confirmed me in my opinion that we had to take action against Saddam.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement, and I am glad to see the end of Saddam's brutal and genocidal regime. However, can he tell us how the inquiry can link up with intelligence information that is available to other countries, as it was not this country alone, or even with the USA, which decided that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but the general view throughout the United Nations and Europe?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is a matter on which the Butler committee will seek co-operation from the United States Government and other intelligence partners. To underline my hon. Friend's final point, Dr. Kay pointed out that President Chirac believed, even as late as March last year, that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction—a belief that was reflected by German intelligence.
Mr. Edward Leigh: May I press the Foreign Secretary further on the point made by

641
my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) and many others? Before we reach the end of these exchanges, it is right that the inquiry's terms of reference should be made absolutely explicit. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that members of the committee will be in charge of their own work, and that they will therefore not be required narrowly to consider what intelligence was delivered up by MI6 to the Government, but will be able to examine the relationship between civil servants and Ministers and how Ministers evaluated that intelligence?
Mr. Straw: The terms of reference are clear, and it is for the inquiry, within those terms of reference, to interpret how they should be followed.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the inquiry be able to consider the doctrine of pre-emption, which depends upon there being reliable information and intelligence and rational and unprejudiced selection from it?
Mr. Straw: I had not anticipated that the inquiry would wish to spend its time looking at the doctrine of pre-emption, and nor was pre-emption the issue before the Security Council or the House last March. As far as I can recall, it was never suggested that we should enter into some kind of gratuitously pre-emptive strike. I point out to my hon. Friend that it is not a matter of intelligence that is open to doubt but a matter of historical fact that no other country but Saddam's Iraq has been in such horrendous and continuing breach of chapter VII obligations under the United Nations Security Council for a period of 12 years. He had invaded Iran, he had invaded Kuwait, he had unleashed missiles on three other neighbouring countries, he had gassed 5,000 people in Halabja in a couple of days alone, he had used chemical and biological weapons, he had covertly hidden a nuclear programme and other programmes—and even as late as 7 March last year, Dr. Blix published a 173-page document of unanswered disarmament questions, which I put before the House in Command Paper 5785. If Saddam at any stage, knowing the deadline given to him and the obligations imposed on him by resolution 1441, had wished to answer those 173 pages of questions, he could have done so, and war could have been avoided. He chose not to do so.
Gregory Barker: The Foreign Secretary has drawn certain fair comparisons with the Franks committee in 1982. There is one stark difference, however: before that committee even sat, following the failure of the intelligence services to warn adequately of the threat to British interests, the Foreign Secretary and his entire Foreign Office ministerial team resigned. At what point can we expect ministerial responsibility to apply, and on what basis would the present Foreign Secretary accept responsibility?
Mr. Straw: I have always made clear my responsibility to the House and to my Privy Council oath. Whatever people may disagree with me about, I have never sought to shirk those responsibilities. I regretted greatly, at the time and subsequently, that Lord Carrington chose to
642
resign. I also say, however, that the circumstances of the Falklands were different from those under consideration today.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Friday 22 October 1982, I was summoned by Lord Franks to appear in front of his committee for one and three quarter hours. Since then I have expressed a great deal of unease, which was endorsed on 16 July, as is recorded in column 302 of Hansard, by the Foreign Secretary, and again endorsed by him on 22 October, in column 682. Does he share a view that the Franks committee may not be a good precedent? Would it not be better for a few straight questions to be answered, such as when did the Prime Minister commit himself to President Bush, on what terms did he commit himself, and when did he tell his Cabinet colleagues that he had done so?
Mr. Straw: I—[Interruption.] I am advised by an Opposition Member from a sedentary position that my answer should be. "I shall write to my hon. Friend shortly." The decision and the lead-up to the decision to take military action was public—it was argued out in this House. There was no way in which the House could have been misinformed or, by implication, misled. If my hon. Friend and other Members who took a different view about going to war read the record, they will see that by the time of the lead-up to the decision to take military action in mid-March, the arguments were not about the dossier, and still less about the 45 minutes. The issue was the breach of resolution 1441 and what we should do about it. As for his point about the Franks committee, in the debate on 22 October I recalled that when Franks published his report in January 1983, some of my hon. Friends were sceptical about it, and used the customary adjective. It was the request and the proposal of the Opposition that we should have a Franks-style committee now, however, and it is important that, as far as is conceivably possible, it should be on a bipartisan basis. I believe that those who have accepted the invitation to serve on the committee will do so with great distinction and independence.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: Whereas the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and many Conservative Members would have supported the Government in going to war with Iraq even if there had not been evidence of weapons of mass destruction, it is clear that a large number of Labour Back Benchers voted with the Government only because they were told that weapons of mass destruction were there. Can I tempt the Foreign Secretary to speculate as to whether he would have won that vote with this evidence?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman has greater insights into the state of mind of my hon. Friends on 18 March than I would ever claim. What I look at is the motion before the House, which was all about the breach of resolution 1441, and the arguments put before the House, which again were about the breach of resolution 1441. That was the basis on which people made their decision.
Mr. George Foulkes: May I ask the Foreign Secretary to draw the attention of members of the committee to the

643
whole of the debate on 18 March 2003, in which no one, including the leader of the Liberal party, questioned the existence of weapons of mass destruction? Indeed, arguments were put forward forcibly by the shadow Foreign Secretary:
"does Saddam Hussein really pose a risk to international peace and security? Well, the UN certainly thinks so, and it has thought so for the past 12 years".
He continued:
"Hans Blix's 7 March report demonstrates the terrifying weapons of mass destruction that are missing, and that must still be assumed to be there."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 892.]
That was the kind of argument that, along with the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), made me vote for the Government, and I would do so again today.[Interruption.]
Mr. Straw: I will indeed draw the Hansard of 18 March to the attention of the leader of the Liberal party. A fat lot of good that will do. however, because Members on both sides of the House are used to the Liberals jumping on to any passing bandwagon and seeking to rewrite their history. This is simply a further episode in the continuing story of why the Liberal Democrats are not taken seriously.

Organ Donation (Presumed Consent and Safeguards)
1.37 pm
Siobhain McDonagh: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the removal of organs for transplantation purposes, after death has been confirmed in a person aged 16 or over, except where a potential donor previously registered an objection or where a close relative objects.
On average, one person dies every day in this country while waiting for an organ transplant. I come to the House this afternoon because of that stark sad fact. What is more, in the past 10 years, the number of people waiting for a transplant has increased by more than one third. During the same period, the number of organ transplant operations has decreased by 12 per cent.
Medical advances in our modern NHS have enabled very sick people to live longer while they are waiting for transplants. They have also ensured that more people who might in the past have died in accidents or from strokes now survive. Their organs are therefore no longer available for transplant. Therefore, there is a widening gap between the number of people waiting for transplants and the number of organs that become available.
I want us to reflect seriously today on how we can begin to narrow that gap and save hundreds of lives every year. First, I thank the BMA, the National Kidney Federation and doctors and patients at my local hospital, St. Helier, which has one of the south-east's leading renal units. They have persuaded me to take up this issue now. I also praise the efforts of other Members on both sides of the House who have led previous campaigns to extend organ donation, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson), the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). I also thank those listeners to the Radio 4 "Today" programme who voted for presumed consent as the measure that they most wanted us to pass.
Surveys repeatedly show that between 70 and 90 per cent. of the population want to help someone else to live by donating their organs for transplant after their death. However, fewer than 20 per cent. formally join the NHS organ donor register or carry an organ donor card, and most families do not discuss their wishes about donation.
Unfortunately, the upshot is that at a time of bereavement, half of all relatives opt for the default position, which is not to donate, although studies show that many families later regret that decision. I do not criticise the families of deceased, who are undergoing a terrible ordeal. I hope that changing to a system of presumed consent will make the decision a little easier for them.
The decisions made have terrible consequences for the very ill patients in hospitals such as St. Helier who are desperate for a transplant. Without a transplant, they may have to spend years getting treatment such as dialysis at great cost to the NHS, and are often unable to carry out normal everyday activities or have a good

645
quality of life. It is estimated that for the average patient, compared with dialysis, a kidney transplant saves £191,000 over nine years, which is the median graft survival time. A patient who has had a transplant is far more likely to be able to contribute fully to society: to have a full life, to work, and, indeed, to pay taxes.
My constituency is in the London borough of Merton. Recently, Merton's head of special needs education, Trevor Cook, had to leave work because he was too ill to continue. The people of Merton have lost a highly experienced and respected man who has contributed enormously to local public services, simply because he cannot get a transplant. Obviously, there are many other Trevor Cooks throughout the country.
As long ago as 1994, the King's Fund carried out a major survey of potential solutions to the transplant shortfall. It concluded that
"an initiative which increases the supply of organs will, ipso facto, have one very important ethical argument in its favour: the potential to avoid death and relieve suffering."
The Bill aims to defend the wishes of the deceased and deal with the gap between people's wishes and donation rates. It will reflect the fact that a majority support transplants, and allow doctors to presume that the deceased have consented for their organs to be used for transplants. Since consenting is more likely than not consenting, that should become the default position.
As things stand, we presume that the deceased have not given consent, even though the chances are that that is against their wishes. However, the Bill includes several safeguards. It will be easy for people to opt out. It would be fair to say that anyone who had not opted out had made an informed decision not to do so. The Bill applies only to transplants, not to organ retention, and the families of the deceased can opt out. The proposals will not apply to children.
Presumed consent is neither a new idea nor simply a theory. It already operates elsewhere in the world. In Belgium, some interesting research has compared Antwerp with Leuven, two areas that are otherwise similar. Antwerp did not introduce the new presumed consent system, and its donation rates remained the same. However, Leuven adopted the new law and in three years its rates rose from 15 to 40 donors a year.
Let us consider the slightly more complicated story of Spain, which currently has the highest rate of organ donation in the world. Although it has a presumed consent law, the Spanish transplant organisation always seeks the consent of those closest to the donor. I propose that practice. Spain has the mindset that consent is presumed but that the relatives can overrule. That is more likely to get a positive and accurate outcome than is currently obtained in the UK.
Some, like Dr. Rafael Matesanz, believe that Spain's law on presumed consent is not the cause of increasing donation rates. However, since the change in the law, the number of families who withdraw consent has fallen to about one in five, compared with approximately half in the United Kingdom. I believe that a soft form of presumed consent has helped to change the mindset in Spain and improved attitudes to organ donation. The best comparative evidence from abroad clearly shows that presumed consent works.
646
Gimble et al have conducted the most thorough analysis of organ, donation. They considered all the factors that contribute to increased donation rates, including religion, culture, education and other social pressures. Their conclusions were that presumed consent laws
"had a significant effect on the number of cadaveric donors per million population. As the gap between supply and demand for transplant organs continues to widen, professionals and policymakers should consider revisiting the implications of this legislation, or some hybrid of alternatives, as an effort to expand the 'gift of life' to those in need."
That is the crux of the matter: to expand the gift of life to those in need.
I hope that I will be allowed to take this brief opportunity to urge all hon. Members, and anyone following the debate—in the Galleries, in Hansard or in the media—to sign up to the NHS organ donor register. It is possible to do that by visiting website www.uktransplant.org.uk or by calling 0845 60 60 400. Until presumed consent is in place, that remains the best way in which to help someone else to live after one's death.
In the long term. I believe that the best means of increasing the number of lives saved by organ donation, respecting the wishes of the deceased and being kinder to grieving relatives is to presume consent unless someone has opted out. I hope that the Bill will persuade more people to consider organ transplants seriously and to discuss it with their families. For the sake of thousands of people who are awaiting transplants in my constituency of Mitcham and Morden and throughout the country, I commend the Bill to the House.
1.47 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: I oppose the Bill, not because I am against its objectives but because I disagree with its methods. Before I explain the reasons, I stress that I am not speaking as an official spokesman. We are considering an intensely personal, free-vote issue for all of us.
My views were formed following the death of my 12-year-old daughter 22 years ago. I explained the painful details in the debate on Second Reading of the Human Tissue Bill on 15 January, so I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not repeat them today. However, I cannot avoid referring to them because the Bill would draw a distinction between a child and an adult. I do not believe that that distinction is valid. Surely a 17-year-old or a 25-year-old child is as precious to its parents as a 12-year-old. Many people of 30-something are just as precious to their spouses or children. I do not understand the distinction.
I have no objection in principle to the removal of parts of a dead body. I have carried an organ donor card all my adult life. However, I have serious anxieties about presumed consent. I readily accept that there are some powerful arguments for presumed consent, principally the shortage of donor organs and the many opportunities to help even more people who need a transplant. They are worthy objectives, which I hope that we all support.
However, I doubt whether presumed consent would solve the problems that its supporters claim it would. There are other, better ways in which to achieve the

647
Bill's objectives. In addition, there are understandable fears about abuse and the potentially distressing impact of presumed consent on bereaved relatives. In the circumstances I found myself in 22 years ago, had presumed consent been in operation, a doctor would have got on and done what he judged was needed, or would have had to check that I had no objections. Had I discovered later that although I was in the hospital, no one had taken the trouble to consult me, I would have been outraged. Had I been invited to object, rather than asked to agree, I would probably haw, been made to feel guilty for the rest of my life had I decided to refuse. When struggling to cope with the death of a loved one, of whatever age, the last thing a person needs is avoidable additional grief. In my mind, something that has the capacity to cause outrage and guilt, and add those to the hell that that person is going through, simply has to be wrong.
That said, I well understand that doctors are busy people, and one might ask why I want to put obstacles in their way. Asking permission from a bereaved family will never be easy, so why make clinicians do something difficult and unpleasant? My answer is this: if ever there is a situation in which the needs and wishes of patients and their families must come first, this is it. On such occasions, clinical convenience is a very secondary issue. Even so, presumed consent would not spare doctors the dreadfully difficult task of raising the issue of organ donation with bereaved families. Asking, "Do you wish to object?" is no easier than asking "Please may I do this?" but the latter is far kinder and gentler.
As I said at the outset, I believe that there are better ways of achieving the highly desirable outcome for which the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) has spoken. My preferred way would be required request, and I shall give the House a few examples of what I have in mind. We could train, then require, general practitioners to raise the issue with
648
their patients, especially when registering new patients, and record all agreement on a central database. We could help, then require, hospital managers to add some sort of question to hospital admission forms. We could train, then require, hospital doctors, especially those who specialise in accident and emergency, to raise the subject gently with the bereaved.
I am as keen on the objectives underpinning the Bill as its sponsors are. In opposing them, I mean no criticism of either the objectives or the sponsors. The last thing I want is to be divisive. Happily, all these issues, and more, are currently being fully considered by the Standing Committee handling the Human Tissue Bill. I understand that there will also be a very full debate during that Bill's Report stage. That is the time for all those who want to speak on and wrestle with these intensely personal issues to do so. That is the time to have a full and free vote on the best way of achieving the objectives. That is why I have no wish to divide the House this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Siobhain McDonagh, David Cairns, Mr. Tom Watson, Laura Moffatt, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Dr. Evan Harris, John Austin, Mark Tami and Dr. Nick Palmer.

Organ Donation (Presumed Consent and Safeguards)
  ORGAN DONATION (PRESUMED CONSENT AND SAFEGUARDS) BILL
  Siobhain McDonagh accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the removal of organs for transplantation purposes, after death has been confirmed in a person aged 16 or over, except where a potential donor previously registered an objection or where a close relative objects: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 April, and to be printed [Bill 47].
Orders of the Day
  Child Trust Funds Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Child Trust Funds Bill
    New Clause 1

      EARLY WITHDRAWAL, ETC, FOR DISABLED CHILDREN
      If this section applies to a child, the responsible person may withdraw funds from the child's account in accordance with the provisions of this section.

      This section applies to a child if—

      a child trust fund is held by the child, and

      a person is, or persons are, entitled to Disability Living Allowance in respect of the child.

      A responsible person shall inform the relevant account provider if this section applies to a child trust fund.

      The account provider must inform the Inland Revenue of information provided in accordance with subsection (3).

      A responsible person may, after having informed the relevant account provider in accordance with subsection (3), apply to withdraw amounts from the fund, including the whole amount of the fund, for expenditure for one or more of the purposes specified in subsection (7).

      On receipt of an application, the account provider must—

      release the amount requested to be withdrawn, and

      inform the Inland Revenue in accordance with regulations.

      Those purposes are—

      the purchase or hire of equipment for use by the child in respect of their disability;

      payment for nursing, night or child care;

      payment for respite care or temporary residential care; and

      payment for any specialist medical or palliative service in respect of the child's disability.

      The responsible person shall, wherever practicable, consult the disabled child about the expenditure of amounts withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of this section.

      Regulations may prescribe—

      the means by which account providers and the Inland Revenue are informed about the application of this section to a child, and

      requirements for the provision of information to the Inland Revenue relating to expenditure of amounts withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of this section.'—[Mr. Cameron.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      1.55 pm
      Mr. David Cameron: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Early withdrawal in case of terminal illness—

      If this section applies to a child, the responsible person may withdraw funds from the child's account in accordance with the provisions of subsections (4) and (5).

      This section applies to a child if—

      a child trust fund is held by the child, and

      the child was first an eligible child by virtue of section 2(1)(a), and

      650

      it is certified by a consulting physician in accordance with regulations under subsection (3)that the child has a terminal illness.

      Regulations may prescribe the requirements for the issue of a certificate for the purposes of subsection (2)(c).

      A responsible person may, having given a certificate to the relevant account provider, apply to withdraw amounts from the fund, including the whole amount of the fund.

      On receipt of the certificate and application, the account provider must—

      release the amount requested to be withdrawn, and

      inform the Inland Revenue in accordance with regulations.

      The responsible person shall, wherever practicable, consult the child about the expenditure of amounts withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of this section.

      In this section—
      "attending physician" means the physician who has primary responsibility for the care of the child and the treatment of the child's illness;
      "consulting physician" means a consultant physician practising in the National Health Service who is qualified by speciality to make a professional diagnosis and prognosis regarding the child's illness and who is independent of the attending physician;
      "physician" means a registered medical practitioner; and
      "terminal illness" means an illness which, in the opinion of the consulting physician, is inevitably progressive, the effects of which cannot be reversed by treatment (although treatment may be successful in relieving symptoms temporarily) and which will be likely to result in the child's death before his eighteenth birthday.'.

      Amendment No. 3, in page 2, 1ine 44 [Clause 3], leave out 'as' and insert
      'in accordance with the provisions of section [early withdrawal, etc., for disabled children] or as otherwise'.
      Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 44 [Clause 3], leave out 'as' and insert
      'in accordance with the provisions of section [early withdrawal in case of terminal illness] or as otherwise'.
      Amendment No. 58, in page 3, line 17 [Clause 4], at end insert
      'except under provisions made by regulations to allow for the assignment of the child trust fund investments of terminally ill children.'.
      Amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 36 [Clause 12], leave out 'amount' and insert 'amounts'.
      Amendment No. 16, in page 6, line 39 [Clause 12]. at end insert—
      '(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) shall prescribe—

      a standard maximum amount, and

      a higher maximum amount in respect of child trust fund accounts held by children to whom section [early withdrawal, etc., for disabled children] applies, which shall be expressed as a multiple of the standard maximum amount.'.

      Amendment No. 19, in page 10, line 39 [Clause 20], after '3(4)(d)', insert
      'or by section [early withdrawal, etc., for disabled children]'.
      Amendment No. 20, in page 10, line 39 [Clause 20], after '3(4)(d)',insert
      'or by section [early withdrawal in case of terminal illness]'.

      651
      Amendment No. 25. in page 13, line 13 [Clause 22], at end insert—
      '(4A) A person who is required by the Inland Revenue to provide information under regulations under section [early withdrawal, etc., for disabled children] may appeal against the decision to impose the requirement.'.
      Mr. Cameron: I wish to speak to new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 15 and 16. As hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall, they involve two proposals. I believe that they are fundamentally linked, and I know that the Minister agrees with me. She was generous about the proposals in Committee and promised to consider them carefully and introduce them through regulations if she could. I hope that she will continue to back them today and in the future, because they provide a real chance to help families with disabled children.
      The two proposals are as follows. The first, in amendment No. 16, would increase the amount that families and others could put into baby bonds in the case of a disabled child. The second, in new clause 1, would allow families to dip into the baby bond in specific and limited circumstances before the child reached the age of 18.
      Before I start the argument in favour of the proposals, I should declare an interest beyond that which is in the register. My wife and I are fortunate to have a new baby, Nancy, who is just two weeks and one day old. I cannot say that she has already told me how much she is looking forward to her baby bond, but I am sure that she would if she could. I hope that the House will be patient with me today because we are still at that sleepless nights stage. Although one occasionally feels that one is going to nod off during someone else's speech, it is uncommon to nod off during one's own. Today, that is just possible. Nancy is clearly a very canny baby. She was meant to arrive after the Hutton inquiry, on which I was involved in helping the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly she knew something that I did not: that the report was not worth waiting for. I should have started my paternity leave straight away.
      More relevantly to the debate, my wife and I also have a 22-month-old son, Ivan, who is severely disabled with epilepsy, cerebral palsy and a range of complications. He is unlikely ever to walk or talk acid needs constant care. That has stimulated my interest in disability, an interest that has been backed up by people who have come to my surgeries in west Oxfordshire to bring their stories and experiences of bringing up disabled children, with all the difficulties, challenges and costs that that involves.
      The first proposal would lift the cap on the amount that parents could put into a baby bond in the case of a disabled child. Amendment No. 16 refers to a "multiple" of the £1,200 limit proposed for all baby bonds. I hope that that multiple, which will be considered in regulations, will be generous. I cannot believe that there is much room for anyone to use child trust funds as a route of tax avoidance, so we should be as generous as possible with the multiple that people can put in.
      Why do I think that it is a good idea to de-limit the amount that people can put into child trust funds? First, the scheme would be very simple. We know who the
      652
      disabled are: we have disability living allowance and a list of disabled children. Barnardo's refers in its report, "Still Missing Out?", to a figure of 360,000 disabled children. The scheme would be a simple way of allowing parents and communities to help those children. It would not be very expensive for the Treasury and Inland Revenue because the funds do not provide a tax break for the donor who puts money in. They provide a small tax break for the recipient, because under the child trust fund scheme, no income tax is paid on the interest accrued by the fund.
      The accounts would be incredibly easy to use. Child trust funds will be set up in any event for every child—Nancy, fortunately, is included—over the next few years, so friends, family and others who want to help but do not know how, could easily do so in future by putting money into the fund. Above all, the argument for delimiting the amount that one could put in for disabled children is that it would be effective. Disability brings huge costs, and at the age of 18, the transition from childhood to adulthood is particularly expensive. In "Still missing out?" Barnado's says that the transition from childhood to adulthood is a difficult time for all teenagers, but can be particularly fraught for disabled young adults, both in terms of accessing appropriate adult services and in dealing with their fears and anxieties at a key life stage. The Minister made some good arguments in Committee and on Second Reading about the case for 18-year-olds having an asset or capital, and the argument for disabled children is, in my view, stronger still.
      2 pm
      Mr. Steve Webb: I am sure that the House agrees with the hon. Gentleman that we want to do all that we can to help disabled children, and we respect his first-hand knowledge of the subject. Does he accept that it is odd to make a specific concession for disabled children whose parents have a lot of spare cash to put into accounts? Do we not want to support all disabled children, and is the social security system not a better way of doing so than the tax and baby bond system?
      Mr. Cameron: The break would not just be for the middle classes and the better-off. Every child in the country will have a child trust fund, and it will be open to anybody to contribute to those funds. As I have said, in the case of disabled children, friends, family and the larger community want to help, and my proposal would create a clear way in which to do so. As for the least well-off, there is a genuine opportunity for the Government to contribute. The Government have already said that, in the case of children of parents who are on income support, they will put as twice as much into their child trust funds. In the case of disabled children, there is a similar opportunity for the Government, social services or anybody else to help in a specific way. I shall deal later with the role of social services, which clearly have the lead responsibility in helping families to look after disabled children.
      My proposals recognise the fact that there is an awful lot that families want to do, and indeed do, themselves. Nine out of 10 disabled children are looked after at home, and their families already do an immense amount. My modest proposals would simply make that

      653
      easier for them. There has been a warm welcome for my de-limiting amendment from the disability charities. I received a useful note from Mencap, Barnado's and the Disability Rights Commission among others, which said:
      "We strongly endorse the proposed amendment, which will enable family and friends to contribute more into the Trust Fund when a child is disabled."
      That reinforces the point that I made to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb).
      The note also says:
      "disabled young people will face greater costs at transition: the Child Trust Fund could play an important role in giving them the best opportunities as they move to adult life."
      That is a positive response.
      As I told the hon. Gentleman, the amendment would not benefit only the better-off. It offers a good opportunity for other people who want to contribute and it is open to the Government to top funds up if appropriate. There was a slight misunderstanding about contributions from the wider community on the part of the disability charities, who said in their note:
      "If this was to be the case, then there would be issues around accountability and, indeed, as to the desirability of charitable status being sought for the Trust Fund."
      That slightly misses what I am trying to get at. All I am saying is that if someone wants to help a disabled child, they can put money into the trust fund. It will all be tax-free when the child receives it at 18. That will make a genuine difference to children at 18, particularly regarding housing, training, mobility and other issues. Amendment No. 16 is straightforward. It discriminates in favour of the disabled and provides a vehicle that all families can use. It is simple and effective, and I commend it to the House.
      I accept that new clause 1 is more controversial, but it is even more important. I shall explain what it does and why it is right, before looking at potential objections. Very simply, it allows a family with a disabled child to dip into the fund before the child reaches the age of 18. However, it sets out clearly—my thanks to the Clerks, who helped me to draft it—that that can be done only for certain purposes. It explains that the Inland Revenue must be informed by the account provider when it is dipped into, and specifies that the child must be consulted whenever possible. The purposes for which people can dip into the fund are set out in the new clause, and include
      "the purchase or hire of equipment … payment for nursing, night or child care … payment for respite care or temporary residential care; and …payment for specialist medical or palliative service".
      Before I try to justify those payments individually, I shall explain the general principle of why it is right and a good idea to allow families with disabled children to dip into their—enlarged, I hope—child trust funds. Disabled children bring massive extra costs to their families. The Barnado's report "Still missing out?" found that on average it cost more than three times as much to bring up a disabled child as an able-bodied child. Families with disabled children are frequently in crisis. Mencap, in its excellent report "Breaking Point", found that eight out of 10 families with disabled children had reached the point where they were finding it
      654
      extremely difficult to go on. When that happens, the alternative to the child being looked after at home is for it to go into care. We should try to do everything that we can to help families to look after those children at home. Families know best how to spend money on their children. As I said, nine out of 10 disabled children are looked after at home.
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's purposes. One benefit of child trust funds is that they will reinforce young adults' sense of autonomy and responsibility at 18. Does he think that there is a danger, if the new clause applies to a broad range of children with disabilities, that their right to autonomy and responsibility will be infringed? Should that money not be theirs, rather than their families'?
      Mr. Cameron: The hon. Gentleman intervened on me once or twice in Committee, and has some good points to make. In response to his specific objection, families should not access the money initially provided by the Government and the interest that it accrues. However, I am trying to come up with something that will help families with disabled children. We should allow them to put more money in and take it out for specific purposes. On the whole, parents want to do what is best for their children, and parents who in many cases spend 24 hours a day looking after disabled children will not raid child trust funds, robbing their children of an opportunity to have that money at 18. They will use it as a safety valve, putting a lot of money in I hope, but occasionally taking it out when they are under huge pressure and there are things that they genuinely need, as I shall explain.
      On a related matter, the support that families receive from the national health service and social services is rightly statutory support, mostly unrelated to the means to pay. It is a huge help, but all families with disabled children would agree that it is never enough, and is never going to be. I shall try to explain why. Some services are provided free at the point of use, including most nursing care, most equipment and all medical interventions. Worthwhile as those services are, the family will always want more. If they are looking after a disabled child 24 hours a day, they will get some help from social services, but there will always be times when they find it hard to cope arid would like some more. My modest amendments provide one vehicle for families to access that extra help.
      The disabled facilities grant is used to pay for modifications to the home such as installing a stair lift or a bath hoist, or changing its configuration to look after a disabled child. Such benefits tend to be means-tested. Families on modest incomes have to pay for such services, but if there was extra money in the child trust fund, they could access it for things for which they are currently means-tested. My proposal would help to provide services that are not means-tested but are by their nature limited, and also services that are means-tested and must be paid for even by those with relatively modest incomes.
      Some say that health and social services departments could do all this, but provision for families with disabled children is patchy and likely to remain so. According to its excellent report. the Audit Commission

      655
      "found a lottery of provision. The services that disabled children, young people and their families are offered depend largely on where they live and how hard their parents are able to push."
      The situation is unlikely to change overnight, and in many respects it may get worse before it gets better. More disabled children are surviving birth and more are living longer, thankfully, but the things that must be done to look after them, and the costs of that, are increasing.
      Even if the situation did change overnight—even if Camelot suddenly arrived—provision would never keep up with demand, because families and individuals always want more. Even if a miracle occurred and every service needed by a disabled child was available, would it not still be better sometimes for parents to have control over the way in which service are provided?
      My new clause refers to
      "the purchase or hire of equipment".
      Although the NHS provides most of the equipment, more may sometimes be needed. The child might spend one or two nights with a parent or grandparent, and on such occasions it would be useful to have an extra wheelchair or standing frame, but the NHS is unlikely to provide two. Then there is
      "nursing, night or child care".
      In most cases, social services departments struggle to provide the care that is needed, but people will always want more. Kensington social services are very generous to us: three nights a week a fantastic nurse is with us between 7.30 pm and 7.30 the following morning. Nevertheless, to sustain my life in this; place and do my work, I must dip into my pocket and buy a bit more care. At night my child is often awake, and may have epileptic seizures. Three nights a week are not enough, so I have to buy more. The same will apply to many parents with disabled children.
      Those in the disability sector tell me that "respite" is not a very politically correct word; we have to talk about "short breaks". Short breaks are essential to help families look after their children while keeping up the good work that they do, but the short breaks provided by social services are unlikely ever to be enough for all families in all circumstances. On occasion, people will need more.
      In referring to
      "specialist medical or palliative service"
      I do not want to trespass on new clause 2, but, especially in the case of severely disabled children, an essential operation or form of care may not be available in this country. We often read in the newspapers of families having to go to America to secure an operation that will be very expensive, and trying to raise funds in their communities. What I propose would make that more straightforward.
      How have charities responded to new clause 1? In general they have responded positively, but I will deal with some of the objections. Macintyre Care wrote to me
      "Your specific points are well made and will improve the Bill, if taken up".
      Contact a Family wrote:
      "We agree that the proposals will offer significant advantages to some parents."
      656
      It said that life-threatening illnesses
      "and the many others which may lead to early death are the main reason that we would support access to the Child Trust Funds prior to age 18."
      The Chiltern Centre for Disabled Children, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), wrote:
      "We fully endorse the changes proposed—as you can imagine, we could not be more aware of the additional cost burden on these families, and the difficulty they have in finding and funding the equipment and services they need."
      2.15 pm
      As for the objections, there are three. The first two come from Mencap, Barnardo's and the Disability Rights Commission. They are concerned about the "early draw-down" of money. They say:
      "we are concerned that any flexibilities within access to (or payments into) the Child Trust Fund for disabled children should not result in young disabled people receiving a much reduced sum at age 18 because of early withdrawals."
      The second point is, effectively, the one made by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that social services departments and the NHS might be encouraged to do less if they thought that families would do more.
      I discussed the third objection with the Minister this morning. It goes something like this: "If you want a trust fund for disabled children that you can dip into, do not use the child trust funds. There are existing trust funds that can be set up for children that would provide many of the same tax advantages." To argue that there are other trust funds out there, and financial vehicles for children, is really to argue against the whole concept of the Bill. More to the point, the great thing about the child trust funds is that they will be set up for all children. The other funds are extremely complicated. The beauty of my proposal is that because every child will have a fund, my modest amendments in respect of disabled children will provide the ideal vehicle for the investment of more money, while also providing a safety valve to allow some money out.
      Mr. Michael Weir: Does not the structure of the child trust funds pose a slight danger? In Committee, we heard much about why they should be equity-based. Is an equity-based fund the right vehicle for money that can be put in and taken out at regular or irregular intervals? The argument about disabled children is sensible, but should there not be a more hybrid fund to allow such withdrawals?
      Mr. Cameron: I understand that child trust funds are relatively flexible, and can contain cash, equities or bonds. Unless the relevant amendment was won in Committee, which I do not think it was, I believe that all contributions to the funds must be in cash, but can then be used for different purposes.
      I am not suggesting that families of disabled children should dive into the funds on a weekly basis. I see them as a safety valve. When those families are close to breaking point—when they really need extra help because what they are getting from social services and the NHS is not enough—the funds will be there. I hope that they will be able to gain access to cash. but if

      657
      necessary they can sell shares. The shares would attract no capital gains tax, and the dividend income would attract no income tax.
      It has been suggested that allowing families to dip into the funds might cause disabled children to receive a smaller trust at 18. There are two answers to that. As I think that I said earlier, I am not suggesting that families should be able to spend the initial Government contribution and the interest accruing on it. I am sure that we could protect that in regulations. I think that the objection misses the point. No two children are likely to receive the same amount; in fact, disabled children are likely to have more because families, communities and friends will contribute more. I believe that parents will behave responsibly, and will only dip in and spend the money when they really have to. Indeed, they will only be able to do that if there is more money in the fund because people have contributed. As I said, my change would tailor child trust funds to the needs of disabled children and their families.
      The final objection is that my proposals would encourage local authorities and the NHS to do less and that they would turn round to families with disabled children and say, "Sorry, you cannot have the services because you have got this lovely child trust fund so we won't give you night care or respite care and you can pay for your own equipment." I do not believe that that would happen because social services departments and the NHS have statutory responsibilities. Parents will always want more and child trust funds provide them with the means to get some more. On means-tested services, a child's wealth should clearly never count in a means test—I believe that that is the case—and only the parents' means should be examined. It would be better if measures such as the disabilities facilities grant were not means-tested at all.
      Finally, the Financial Secretary made one other point when we discussed the matter outside this House: if families with disabled children were allowed to dip in to the child trust fund, would it put up the cost of administering the fund and would that make life difficult? I have considered that point and do not believe that it is a real objection. People will dip in only if more money has been put into the fund for them to dip in to. If more money were put into the fund, the charges would probably be sustainable because there would be more money in the fund from which to draw a percentage administrative charge.
      The more I examine the amendments that I discussed on Second Reading and moved in Committee, the more I think that they have great merit. They have the beauty of simplicity: here is something that we can do that will help families with disabled children to build up a bigger baby bond for their disabled children, who will have great needs throughout their lives. When the need is there—in extremis and as a safety valve—parents should be able to dip in to the fund to make a real difference to the life of their child. I hope that the Financial Secretary will go on being as generous as she has been in entertaining these proposals and examining how we can implement them through regulations or in other ways. This is a real chance to do something positive for families with disabled children, and I am delighted to commend new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 15 and 16 to the House.
      Mr. Weir: I had some reservations when the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) first raised this question on Second Reading. Like him, I have a disabled child, although not one who will qualify for a baby bond. I have been largely persuaded by his argument today, which has a lot of merit.
      One problem will arise as disabled children move towards the age of 18. As we get older, we worry what will happen to our children once we are not about—disabled children survive to an older age than they might have done in earlier times. Some thought must be given to what happens to baby bonds once disabled children turn 18. Many children will never be in a position to manage money on their own. We must examine how we can address the needs of disabled children after they are 18, especially when their parents are no longer able to cope or are no longer around.
      The hon. Gentleman said that new clause 1 was more controversial than amendment No. 16, but he has persuaded me of his argument. As he rightly says, throughout life disabled children often need special care or special items. Whether we like it or not, NHS provision of specific items is to some extent a postcode lottery. It is also possible for the NHS and the parent to disagree about what the child requires. The parent will often be able to get equipment or care only if they can fund it or if they can persuade a local charity to help. Up and down the country, many local charities specifically deal with children in such circumstances, but many parents would rather not go through that process. New clause 1 has a lot of merit, and I am prepared to support it.
      As I mentioned in my intervention, my one worry about new clause 1 is the structure of child trust funds. We debated the issue in Committee, where I argued that child trust funds should permit an account similar to that offered by a building society. The Financial Secretary gave a good explanation of why that is not possible, and at great length discussed with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) her preference for an equity-based investment because of its growth over an 18-year period. Our discussion of the economy went back as far as William of Orange, which was before the Union, so that does not apply to Scotland. The point is that over any given 18-year period, growth is better in an equity-based investment than in other types of investment.
      My concern is that if new clause 2 permits regular—or perhaps irregular—withdrawals, we should be careful to ensure that regulations allow an investment that is suited to such regular withdrawals. According to the Financial Secretary's presentation of child trust funds, most of the companies or societies that will design them view them as long-term, 18-year investments with what she called "lifestyling" towards the end of the term. If new clause 2 is added to the Bill, different criteria will be required for disabled children. We must ensure that a child trust fund has, as far as we can determine it, potential for reasonable growth in the short-term, which obviously depends on many other factors, but can also be dipped in to, as the hon. Member for Witney put it, from time to time. It is to be hoped that dipping would not occur regularly, but it must be possible. I would hate trust funds to be set up for disabled children that lock in

      659
      the money for 18 years to get reasonable returns but prevent the very objective that the hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve.
      I am inclined to support new clause 1, but I say to the Financial Secretary that we must carefully examine the regulations to allow a different type or child trust fund for disabled children. New clause 1 states that the Inland Revenue and the account provider must be informed that the section would apply to them but perhaps we should go further and ensure that before advice is given on the type of trust fund the objective of the fund is made clear and an appropriate vehicle is available.
      Mr. George Osborne: I have little to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Witney said so eloquently about new clause 1 and amendment No. 16, which appear in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends but are wholly inspired by him. Indeed, readers of his weekly internet column in The Guardian will know that he hopes that the provision will be called "Cameron's law" when it is enacted. That would imitate what happens in the United States Congress, where significant legislation is named after the legislators who introduced it. We are not quite there yet, but I hope that my remarks will help him.
      My hon. Friend reminds us that some hon. Members have a direct interest in the Bill. Like him, the Financial Secretary and I have children under one year old who will benefit from child trust funds. He speaks from personal experience of the emotional and financial strain on families with severely disabled children. He is a personal friend as well as an hon. Friend of mine, and I can attest to the fact that he and his wife Sam are extremely loving and caring parents for their son, Ivan. They have been put under enormous pressure and strain and they have coped with it admirably. He is a personal testament to the unsung heroes in many families who deal with very disabled children.
      My hon. Friend reminded us of Mencap's "Breaking Point" campaign, which was very effective. It found that eight out of 10 parents with disabled children are close to breaking point. Indeed, today, in Committee and on Second Reading he has pointed to the gaps in society's provision of respite care—I suppose that I should use the term "short breaks" instead—equipment and support for parents with disabled children, and to the challenges facing severely disabled children who try to lead an independent life once they reach 18.
      2.30 pm
      My hon. Friend's amendments seek to help. They would, as he says, allow families to build up a pot of money to help children achieve as independent a life as possible, and to provide a home for the money given by charities, relatives and other family members. They would also allow for early withdrawal, to enable the provision of specialist equipment and of care in special circumstances. We had several debates in Committee on whether early withdrawal from the child trust fund should be allowed in general terms. Here, of course, he is talking about a specific case and about specific needs that the child trust fund could meet.
      I shall anticipate some of the objections that might be raised, the first of which is that such a provision could be open to abuse: that it could be used as some form of tax
      660
      avoidance scheme. Frankly, that is a highly unlikely, fairly low-risk possibility. In any case, there are limited tax advantages to child trust funds. There are many other tax loopholes that the Inland Revenue could spend its time investigating. I cannot see that such a provision would be widely abused.
      The second objection that might be levelled is that parents would withdraw the money and spend it on themselves: that they would abuse the rights that we would be giving them. Again, that is highly unlikely. We are talking about parents who have taken it upon themselves to look after their children, rather than throwing in the towel and saying that they cannot cope. Moreover, they are the kind of parents who will have built up a significant child trust fund, so they are unlikely to abuse it at a later point. However, we would be willing to look at restrictions that the Minister might want to place on the number of early withdrawals, or on the proportion of the fund that could be withdrawn at a particular time. Indeed, as my hon. Friend said, we could consider protection of the initial Government contribution, so that it could not be withdrawn early.
      The third objection that might be raised is that it would be difficult to police how the money is being used, even if it is being spent on the child. My hon. Friend's new clause sets out some of the uses to which that money could be put, but if the Minister feels that such a provision would be impossible to police I suggest that she simply trust that the parents would make good use of the money in such circumstances. In the light of that and of the restrictions to which I have referred, perhaps that would constitute a sufficient safeguard.
      I remind the House that my hon. Friend received generous support from other Members when we discussed this issue in Committee, including from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, and from the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who has just spoken eloquently in support of what my hon. Friend seeks to achieve. Indeed, my hon. Friend also enjoyed the support of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). He was the most vocal Labour Member in Committee— two contributed regularly; all the others were silent—and he made a number of good contributions, including in respect of these new clauses and amendments. He said that my hon. Friend's
      "proposal fits with the future model of social care that the Government want: it fits with a model in which more users of services are given the ability to determine their own services through direct payments."
      He continued:
      "There was some agitation on the Labour Benches because Members were genuinely taken by the strength of the hon. Gentleman's argument and the good idea that he has expressed. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the suggestion that has been made."
      Of course, the Minister did just that, and my hon. Friend and I were slightly taken aback by the enthusiastic support that she offered. We had always been led to believe that one achieves absolutely zero in Committee when in opposition, so we were absolutely delighted when she said that she found his amendments
      "forceful, interesting and creative. He highlights an opportunity that could be provided by the child trust fund and employs the sort of creativity that I would like to see applied to the fund as it develops over the coming years."

      661
      She was
      "struck by the force of his arguments",
      and said:
      "I would like to go away and consider the proposal, and to see whether we could work up a scheme to deal with such a category of person. I am advised that we could do that through regulation… if it is possible …I would introduce a further regulation, perhaps a few weeks later, to deal with the issue."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 January 2004; c. 167–172.]
      So the Minister was quite specific, and I know that, privately, she is very sympathetic to my hon. Friend's suggestion. Indeed, she has gone to considerable lengths to look at the technicalities and practicalities involved. I suspect that some of her officials in the Inland Revenue are presenting her with all manner of practical problems and objections. I urge her to override them, to exercise her ministerial discretion and to get the job done.
      New clause 2 deals with the tragic cases of children with terminal illnesses. It would allow the parents—the shorthand term for a "responsible person", which is the phrase used throughout the Bill—of a terminally ill child to withdraw anything up to the full amount from the child trust fund. In such circumstances, parents would require a certificate from a consultant, attesting that the child had a terminal illness. That consultant would have to be practising in the NHS, and be
      "qualified by speciality to make a professional diagnosis and prognosis regarding the child's illness".
      My attempted definition of terminal illness—arriving at it was not a particularly pleasant way to spend yesterday afternoon—is:
      "an illness which, in the opinion of the consulting physician, is inevitably progressive, the effects of which cannot be reversed by treatment (although treatment may be successful in relieving symptoms temporarily) and which will be likely to result in the child's death before his eighteenth birthday."
      The purpose of the new clause will be obvious to the House. The funds in the child trust fund of a terminally ill child could be used to bring a little happiness and relief in a desperate situation. They could be used, for example, to pay for a special holiday or treat, or for palliative treatment or special care if, for some reason, the NHS was not providing it. Everyone will doubtless agree that it would be a cruel situation if a family who could not afford such things, except through the money in the child trust fund, could access that money only on the death of the child. There would rightly be great public concern at such a situation, and one can imagine cases grabbing the public's attention in a fairly lurid way. That would undermine much of the good in the child trust fund proposal.
      The Government did look at this issue, but according to the White Paper they decided that they could not tackle it—for what I would regard as fairly bureaucratic reasons. The White Paper states:
      "Where a child develops a terminal illness, parents may want access to CTF funds"—
      child trust fund funds—
      "to pay for medical treatment or a special holiday. Although entirely understandable, particularly where parents have made contributions to the fund, the Government is concerned that this would be very difficult to administer fairly and with sensitivity.
      662
      It is also possible that some people would make fraudulent claims to access the money in the CTF account.
      In view of the difficulties and risks involved, the Government does not intend to allow access to CTF accounts in these circumstances."
      I suggest to the Minister that the prospect of fraud is extremely limited, not least because, if she adopted something like the safeguards set out in my new clause, a certificate from a consulting physician would be required, which would also help to provide sensitive and fair administration of the system. The alternative to the occasional case of fraud is far worse: a dying child who is deprived of the use of their money because of some pedantic concern.
      In Committee, the Minister was pretty positive on this issue; indeed, she was pretty positive about virtually everything that we said in Committee. She said that she was
      "struck by the arguments about terminal illness, which the Committee has already debated, and I shall consider whether parents of terminally ill children should have … access to the fund."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 January 2004; c. 172.]
      I know that she is sympathetic, but I would be grateful for further assurance that she is prepared to move forward on the issue and perhaps introduce regulations this year. We want to avoid the parents of a dying child being unable to access the pot of money or spend it to good purpose while the child is alive, and having to wait for the child to die before they can access the funds.
      Mr. David Laws: We have had a good airing of the issues surrounding new clauses 1 and 2 and their associated amendments today, and we discussed the same issues in Committee, so I can keep my comments relatively short. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) highlighted the two issues in the provisions: first, early access for parents of children with terminal illness; and secondly, the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron)—early withdrawal and the terms under which parents or responsible adults of disabled children can put moneys into the child trust fund accounts.
      In common with the hon. Member for Tatton, I hope that the Minister will confirm today that the Government will introduce regulations to deal with the problems facing parents of terminally ill children. I understand the Government's earlier comments and their concerns about the difficulty of implementing a particular scheme, but the hon. Member for Tatton has dealt with the point in stressing that we are talking about only a relatively small number of children. His new clause 2 is very good—something of a Rolls-Royce of its type, with excellent drafting on the involvement of medical practitioners. It contrasts powerfully, I am afraid, with my own amendment No. 58, which looks merely at the reassignment of child trust fund accounts for this particular category of children. I happily support new clause 2, and I hope that no Division will be necessary. I know that the Minister spoke with understanding and sympathy in Committee and I hope that she can give us the undertakings that we seek on that matter today.
      The Minister has more difficult issues to deal with in respect of new clause 1 and the associated amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Witney. I set out our

      663
      views in Committee and I have considerable sympathy and understanding for the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, all individuals who have care of disabled children. That is why I have an instinctive sympathy with his new clause. I also have sympathy with it in speaking for a political party that is sceptical about the whole value of the child trust fund accounts and believes, as the hon. Member for Witney put it, in giving more power to parents rather than to the state.
      As I said in Committee, I wonder whether new clause 1 cuts away at the basis for a child trust fund account, which is essentially to lock away a pot of money from birth to the age of 18 and prevent its use even where the parent might decide that the money could be used more effectively during the childhood period than at the age of 18. One could also imagine urgent circumstances in which parents whose children are not disabled might wish to draw early on the child trust fund account. That applies not just in the tragic and extreme case of terminally ill children—other aspects of deprivation could lead a parent to decide that the moneys could be better utilised rather than being tied up in the child trust fund account up to the age of 18. The key issue is whether the parent might want to put moneys into the fund account in the first place or, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Witney, choose to use a different account to accumulate funds—a more accessible account, but with similar tax advantages.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Witney understands that I have complete sympathy with the purpose of his new clause and that I hope that the Minister will give ground on it, not least because it underlines some of the weaknesses of the child trust fund account in denying access to people and children who could use some of the moneys in a far more effective way.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I am sure that the whole House would wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on his new arrival. We should also pay tribute to him for the way in which he spoke about his first son and how he brought his personal experience to bear on circumstances in which many parents find themselves. I am sure that, in listening to his arguments, we all feel that he made a persuasive and powerful case on their behalf.
      2.45 pm
      The hon. Member for Witney argued that parents of disabled children should be allowed to access child trust funds before the child reaches the age of 18—in the best interests of the child. He also argued that the annual limit on contributions should be higher than the currently proposed £1,200 limit. I have given much thought to his proposal and I understand his arguments. I shall not repeat the arguments in favour, because the whole House has heard them set out very persuasively and they will be available for all to read in Hansard. People who follow the events of the House can read them there.
      I am not going to argue that support for disabled children has increased markedly since 1997—in financial and non-financial aspects—even though it has. The hon. Gentleman brings a different argument to bear, which has wider implications than the provision
      664
      that the Government have made on this matter. However, I want to expose the House to some of the Government's thinking on the subject.
      The first major question that we have to answer is whether the child trust fund is the most appropriate vehicle for well-wishers, friends and the local community to invest money on behalf of a child. Is there an argument for the £1,200 limit to increase so that well-wishers and relatives can add further contributions beyond that already proposed? Having looked into those questions, I concluded that there is no real tax advantage to be gained, because contributions to children's savings accounts by anyone other than a child's parents are not affected by the income tax settlements legislation. In other words, the child can incur interest on an account in excess of £100 a year if the gift of that money, or that endowment, is provided by relatives and friends rather than the child's parents.
      If the purpose of increasing the limit is for others to contribute to the child trust fund, there is no inherent reason why the child trust fund route is appropriate because the tax advantages are already in the system. It would be possible to open an instant access account for well-wishers and others to invest on behalf of the child. Indeed, an endowment of £65,000 could be built up without triggering the income tax threshold of the child. so a fairly substantial sum could be built up by well-wishers and relatives in that way. It would be possible for disabled children to have twin accounts—a child trust fund account with the initial Government endowment building up so that the child has an asset at the age of 18, and a parallel account built up so that parents can have instant access to the money whenever they judge it the most appropriate moment to use it.
      Given that there are other vehicles that also have tax advantages, should the aims of the child trust fund be skewed or distorted to the potentially very good end of giving the parents of disabled children access to the account? I have considered at least three questions that have a bearing on this matter. First, will disabled children feel disadvantaged if parents decide to access the account before their children reach 18 years of age? This question is relevant to the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who said that children at 18 need to develop autonomy and responsibility, and that they should have a financial asset to back them up.
      The question is also relevant to the Barnardo's argument, raised by the hon. Member for Witney, that disabled children aged 18 face greater transitional costs. Those costs need to be met, and parental access to the account before children reached 18 could raise questions about whether the account had been run down. Would children feel disadvantaged if parents were able to access the accounts? The hon. Gentleman argues that more money might be invested in the child trust fund to start with, but that is open to debate.
      Secondly, would the growth of the initial endowment be diminished by possible early or frequent withdrawals? If that happened, the endowment built up over time would be lower. Thirdly, would stakeholder child trust fund accounts still be the appropriate vehicle for disabled children? That question was touched on by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir). Stakeholder accounts are primarily equity based, and lifestyling requirements mean that they move from riskier assets in

      665
      a child's early years to safer ones later on. Would those factors be appropriate in an account with the potential for early access? I think that the answer is probably not, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that it would be possible for parents of disabled children to choose a non-stakeholder, cash-based account instead.
      Mr. Weir: A parent may want to access an account fairly quickly. Stakeholder accounts are based on equities and depend on the state of the market at any given time, so it might not be feasible or reasonable to access them. Would it not make more sense to have the money in a more easily accessed account from the beginning?
      Ruth Kelly: Of course, parents could choose a cash-based account at the outset, but there is nothing to stop them transferring the fund from an equity-based account to a cash-based account. The regulations make it clear that no exit penalty would be attracted, and I would like to think that the process would cause little delay. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured on that point.
      The next set of questions has to do with proportionality. Would the administrative burden on providers and the Inland Revenue be proportionate to the policy objective, given that other vehicles exist for achieving that objective? The initial proposal from the hon. Member for Witney was that receipts could be provided by the families of disabled children. They would be checked, and it would be for the Inland Revenue to determine whether it would be in the best interests of the child to part with the money.
      The proposal would involve a significant administrative burden. Moreover, it is at least arguable that that burden would not be proportionate to the policy objective. However, I have undertaken to consider whether there might be less labour-intensive ways to achieve the same goals, and whether restrictions or safeguards could be built in, along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). Such possibilities raise different sets of questions.
      Finally, what is the constituency of support for this sort of change? Is there a demand—among disabled people, the parents of disabled children and disability groups—for the proposal? In Committee, I promised to consult disability groups on the matter. The hon. Member for Witney read some of the responses that he has received from disability groups. The response has been somewhat mixed, and it is not clear that the proposal has a strong basis of support. However, I undertake to consider the arguments further and to have a more in-depth consultation with disability groups. If a consensus emerges for the changes that have been proposed, I shall undertake to consider them seriously to see whether a sensible change can be implemented that would satisfy all concerned.
      I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Member for Witney a greater assurance than that at this stage, but I certainly agree to meet him over the coming weeks. I want to continue to engage him in the work on taking this agenda forward. I hope that we can persuade him of the rightness of the changes that we propose to make.
      Mr. David Ruffley: Will the Minister clarify the resource implications for the
      666
      Exchequer if the amendments were to be accepted in due course? She has not touched on that matter so far. Secondly, new clause 2 relates to the terminally ill —
      Ruth Kelly indicated assent.
      Mr. Ruffley: The Minister is nodding, so I am sure that she is about to deal with the question that I want to ask. However, I shall put my question on the record anyway. It seems that the Inland Revenue has concerns about when discretion might be exercised in cases where terminally ill children with only 12 months to live, as certified by a medical practitioner, need to draw money from the child trust fund. My understanding is that life insurance policies already pay out for adults in similar circumstances, where medical certification is available. Will the Minister clarify that matter? The Inland Revenue seems to be talking about a problem already covered, for adults, by existing products.
      Ruth Kelly: It is not clear that there would be significant resource implications for the Exchequer from the system offering tax advantages in addition to what is already available, but the Inland Revenue would face a significant additional administrative burden, in that it would have to set up the system and run it. The burden on providers would also be greater. We do not know how serious that administrative burden is likely to be, and I am not able to tell the House today what our best estimate is. However, I pledge to keep the hon. Gentleman informed of progress on this matter. I hope that we can work towards a sensible system, as he desires.
      On terminal illness, I am persuaded of the case for change for the parents of terminally ill children. However, I cannot give hon. Members the assurance that they seek in respect of the exact details of such a scheme. I have considered the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Tatton, but at first sight there seem to be some difficulties with it. A certificate from an NHS doctor may be the best way to tackle the matter, but less burdensome ways to achieve the same goal may be found. Again, I pledge that we will continue to examine the matter thoroughly. If there is a reasonable way to achieve the goal, we will introduce regulations to that effect.
      I hope that I have given the House sufficient guarantees that we are looking at these matters seriously. If I think that we can deal with them in a proportionate and appropriate way, we will do so.
      Mr. Cameron: I am grateful for the Minister's undertaking to look at these matters carefully and to see what progress can be made. She is right to listen to the lobby groups, and I am listening to them too. Inevitably, they focus on the statutory services provided by social services and the NHS. I shall ask them to talk as much as they can to their Members of Parliament, with a view to enlightening them and ordinary members of the public about the suggestions that I have made.
      The Minister asked whether the child trust fund was the right vehicle. I think that it is because, like Everest, it is there. That is the main point: all children will have the fund. Other accounts may be worth while, but not everyone will have them or know how to get them. The

      667
      child trust funds will be available for everyone, so other factors become somewhat secondary. I am keen to work with the Minister to get my proposals on to the statute book, as I think that would be a good thing. In the meantime, I am happy to withdraw new clause 1. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 3

      OPENING BY RESPONSIBLE PERSON WITHOUT VOUCHER
      In the case of each child who is first an eligible child by virtue of section 2(1)(a) and was born on or before 31st August 2002 a responsible person may apply to the Inland Revenue, in a manner prescribed by regulations, to open a child trust fund account.

      Upon receipt of an application, the Inland Revenue must give the responsible person concerned written authorisation to open a child trust fund account.

      A responsible person may, by giving the written authorisation to an account provider, apply to open for the child with the account provider a child trust fund of any description provided by the account provider.

      On receipt of the authorisation the account provider must—

      open, in accordance with regulations, a child trust fund of that description for the child and

      inform the Inland Revenue in accordance with regulations.'.—[Mr. George Osborne.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3 pm
      Mr. George Osborne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Uprating of Inland Revenue contributions in line with inflation—

      The amount of Inland Revenue contributions under sections 8 to 10 other than—

      original contributions, or

      initial contributions the amount of which is determined in accordance with the provisions of section [determination of initial contributions for children born before 1st April 2005],
      shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this section.

      The amount of a contribution to which this section applies shall be increased from the previous applicable amount with effect from 1st April in every calendar year by such amount as the Treasury determines is required to maintain the value of the amount in real terms.'.

      New clause 9—Determination of initial contributions for children born before 1st April 2005—

      This section applies for the purpose of determining the amount of initial contributions for eligible children born during the period beginning with 1st September 2002 and ending with 31st March 2005.

      The amount of the initial contribution for eligible children born during the period beginning with 1st September 2004 and ending with 31st March 2005 shall be 107 pen cent. of the amount prescribed by regulations under section 8(1A).

      The amount of the initial contribution for eligible children born during the period beginning with 1st September 2003 and ending with 31st August 2004 shall be 107 per cent. of the amount determined in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2).

      668

      The amount of the initial contribution for eligible children born during the period beginning with 1st September 2002 and ending with 31st August 2003 shall be 107 per cent. of the amount determined in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3).'.

      Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13 [Clause 2], leave out '2002' and insert '1988'.
      Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 26 [Clause 2], leave out subsection (7).
      Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 29 [Clause 5], at end insert
      'and was born after 31st August 2002'.
      Amendment No. 62, in page 4, line 31 [Clause 8], after 'regulations', insert
      'under subsection (1A) or determined in accordance with the provisions of sections [uprating of Inland Revenue contributions in line with inflation] or [determination of initial contributions for children born before 1st April 2005]'.
      Amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 34 [Clause 8], at end insert—
      '(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) must prescribe an initial contribution of nil in respect of any child trust fund held by a child born on or before 31st August 2002.'.
      Amendment No. 63, in page 4, line 34 [Clause 8], at end insert—
      '(1A) Regulations under this subsection shall prescribe the amount of the initial contribution in respect of children born during the period beginning with 1st April 2005 and ending with 31st March 2006 ("the original contribution").'.
      Amendment No. 64, in page 5 [Clause 9], leave out line 3 and insert
      'determined in accordance with subsection (2A) or with the provisions of section [uprating of Inland Revenue contributions in line with inflation]'.
      Amendment No. 12, in page 5, line 3 [Clause 9], at end insert—
      '(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) may prescribe a supplementary contribution of nil or a lower rate of supplementary contribution in respect of any child trust fund held by a child born on or before 31st August 2002.'.
      Amendment No. 65, in page 5, line 3 [Clause 9], at end insert—
      '(2A) The original contribution payable under subsection (2) shall be twice the amount prescribed by regulations under section 8(1A) or determined in accordance with the provisions of section [determination of initial contributions for children born before 1st April 2005].'.
      Amendment No. 66, in page 6, line 9 [Clause 10], leave out from 'Revenue' to first 'of' in line 10.
      Amendment No. 67, in page 6, line 14 [Clause 10], leave out from 'by' to end of line and insert
      'regulations under subsection (2) or determined in accordance with the provisions of section [uprating of Inland Revenue contributions in line with inflation]'.
      Amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 14 [Clause 10], at end insert—
      '(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may prescribe a further contribution of nil in respect of any child trust fund held by a child born on or before 31st August 2002.'.
      Amendment No. 68, in page 6, line 15 [Clause 10], leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      '(2) Regulations under this subsection shall prescribe the initial amounts of contributions payable under subsection (1), which shall be expressed as amounts payable to children reaching a

      669
      specified age during any period beginning with 1st April and ending with 31st March of the following calendar year ("the original contributions").'.
      Mr. Osborne: I thank the Minister for her remarks about new clause 1 and her commitment to looking again at the terminal illness clause. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) in his remarks about considering the scheme for parents with disabled children.
      New clauses 3, 8 and 9 and the consequential amendments would allow the responsible person to open a child trust fund for a child born before 1 September 2002 but without the initial Government contribution or any top-up at age seven—so my proposal should not add significantly to the burden on the taxpayer; I would not have secured the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury team otherwise.
      Parents could set up a child trust fund account for an older child for savings of up to £1,200 a year, with a tax-free sum for the child when he or she turns 18. Amendments Nos. 8, 11, 12 and 13 make it clear that there would not be a Government contribution. In Committee, I restricted that arrangement to children born since 1992, who are not now teenagers. That arrangement drew some criticism—particularly from the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), who commented:
      "I support the principles that the hon. Member for Tatton displays in wishing to extend the benefits of this excellent scheme, which I wholly support. However, he is too modest in seeking…to extend it only to those born after 1992. If we want to benefit all children, we should extend it to all children. For that reason, I shall not support an amendment that simply creates a divide different from that which already exists."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 January 2004; c. 25.]
      I was happy to heed the hon. Gentleman, so the proposed amendments broaden the scope of the scheme, opening it up to all children born after 1988. By the time the scheme is introduced, it will be open to all children under the age of 18. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye is not in his place but I look forward to his support when he reads my comments in Hansard tomorrow.
      The benefits of extending trust funds to all children are obvious. The Government want to encourage children to save, and parents to save for their children, which is wholly admirable—but why restrict that ambition to newborn children? Why not give parents the opportunity—not force them—to open trust funds for older children who were not lucky enough to be born when the scheme was up and running? That would help people such as the Minister and myself, who will have children who qualify and children who do not. We may find it difficult to explain, when our children reach 18, why one has a child trust fund and another does not.
      The Minister and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) have made the point that other savings vehicles are available, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney said, that argument could be deployed against the entire concept of a child trust fund—the beauty of which is their simplicity and the fact that all children could have one. Such funds allow parents to tell their children, "You're all getting the same, except the initial
      670
      contribution." Parents with older children might be encouraged to save because that would piggyback on the Government's publicity campaign that the Financial Secretary is planning to coincide with the launch of child trust funds. My proposal would also remove the potential disincentive for parents such as myself, who may not want to single out one child for special treatment, and could be discouraged if they have some children who qualify and some who do not.
      My proposal has widespread cross-party support, such as that of the Treasury Sub-Committee, whose excellent report concluded:
      "We consider that the natural reaction of parents with children born on either side of the cut-off date will be to try to see that they are treated equally. This may mean that those parents with sufficient financial resources will make additional provision for children who do not qualify for a Child Trust Fund account. We believe they would be encouraged to do this if Child Trust Fund accounts, identical in all respects save the absence of a Government endowment, were available for their other children…In light of the evidence that the costs of the Treasury of the extra tax relief afforded by Child Trust Funds is negligible, we recommend that consideration be given to extending the availability of Child Trust Fund accounts but without Government endowments, to children before 1 September 2002."
      Both Labour Members who spoke on Second Reading also supported my proposal. I must say that as this is Government flagship policy, the Labour Whips did poorly in fielding only two speakers—and half the Labour Members in the Chamber at the moment are Whips.
      In Committee, the proposed change was supported by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, and by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye—and I have overcome his objection that my amendment was not ambitious enough. The initial objections of the Financial Secretary were difficult to understand—that is a polite way of putting it. They were not made on the grounds of cost because the hon. Lady had already told the Sub-Committee:
      "We had to make a costing assumption for the purposes of the Red Book and we came up with the conclusion that the cost of the extra tax relief"—
      for the entire scheme—
      would be negligible."
      The cost of extending the scheme to older children would also be negligible.
      The Financial Secretary deployed a curious argument to do with the administrative burdens on financial providers. She said on Second Reading:
      "We have looked at that"—
      that is, the proposed extension of the scheme—
      "extremely carefully, and I am disappointed to tell the House that the administrative burden on providers of allowing all children from previous cohorts to benefit from an identical tax-free vehicle is disproportionate to the benefits that would be offered."
      The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye intervened to ask:
      "Is that not a problem anyway? As time goes on, greater numbers will apply, so in 18 years' time people would have to deal with that volume of applications in any event."
      The Financial Secretary had to concede that the hon. Gentleman was right and that

      671
      "a greater number of children will have such accounts over time, but providers have made it quite clear that the scheme needs to be phased in."—[Official Report, 15 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1394.]
      I do not know which financial providers the Minister had spoken to, but all the financial providers and trade organisation representatives to whom I spoke were in favour of extending child trust funds to elder children.
      The Minister's argument on Second Reading was comprehensively knocked down by the chief executive of Children's Mutual, David White, who wrote to all members of Standing Committee A:
      "The Minister in her remarks at Second Reading argued that one reason for not extending the Child Trust Fund to ineligible children is that it would impose a burden on providers. We would be happy to work with the Government on how any administrative burden could be overcome, something we believe to be possible."
      Thankfully, the Minister listened to the arguments advanced in Committee with the help of some of the more vocal Labour Members, and said:
      "Having heard the strength of feeling on the matter, I am perfectly willing to talk to providers to see whether they think that there would be a gap that needed addressing.'
      She continued:
      "I undertake to ask providers whether they believe that such unmet demand exists or is likely to exist so that we can review the situation in the future."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 January 2004; c. 30.]
      The Minister was true to her word. I happened to bump into David White in the Commons about two days later. He said, "Thanks very much for what's going on in Committee, because the Inland Revenue has already been in touch with Children's Mutual, and no doubt others, and is working up a scheme." He confirms those comments in the briefing that his company has provided to all Members for this debate, which says:
      "We are delighted that the Government has agreed to consider opening up the Child Trust Fund wrapper to families of children born before September 2002 and look forward to continuing discussions on this development."
      I have tabled the new clause and the amendments so that we can discuss these matters now, on Report. I confess that they are much less elegant than the amendments that I tabled in Committee, but I was told that I had to come up with a different device so that we could discuss the same subject on Report. I have come up with a slightly less elegant version of what we did in Committee, but it is really only a device for getting some assurances from the Minister that discussions are ongoing, that she is talking to the providers, and that she is prepared to identify the regulatory changes that are needed, if any. She has indicated that none may be necessary. She may be right about that, but will she give me some specific assurances? That is the reason for all these amendments. If some regulatory changes are required, will she give an undertaking to make them?
      Mr. Laws: I shall not deal with the issues that have just been covered by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). As we pointed out in Committee, we are not in favour of the Bill or the child trust fund accounts, so we do not seek their extension to any other cohorts of children.
      I shall speak to new clauses 8 and 9 and amendments Nos. 63 to 68, which would lay down in a little more detail the basis on which the inland Revenue
      672
      contributions will be calculated over time. At present, most of those issues seem to be left entirely to the discretion of the Chancellor and the Treasury, so new clause 8 would index some of the contribution levels to the rate of inflation, while some of the amendments would fix the relationship between particular levels of contribution. For example, amendment No. 65 fixes the supplementary contribution at twice the initial contribution.
      I seek clarification from the Financial Secretary on an issue on which I thought we had made some progress in Committee: in essence, how much compensation will be paid by the Treasury because people entitled to child trust fund accounts from 1 September 2002 onwards will not receive the moneys until April 2005? I was expecting to tease the Financial Secretary by indicating that I thought that she would offer compensation at the rate that she anticipated the accounts would yield—that is, the 7 per cent. that the Government said would be yielded over time, which is an 8 per cent. rate of growth minus a 1 per cent. assumed level of charge.
      3.15 pm
      In Committee, to my surprise, the Financial Secretary said:
      "The hon. Member for Yeovil queried the assumption of a 7 per cent. nominal rate of growth. I assure him that it is the rate recommended by the FSA in its "conduct of business" handbook as a fairly cautious estimate of future growth. We are aware that children born after the qualifying date of 1 September 2002 but before April 2005, when the first payments are to be made, will lose out on the potential growth of the fund over that time."
      However, she went on to say:
      "I intend to make up for the difference in the regulations, and I can announce that the value of the endowments will reflect a 7 per cent. growth of the fund in nominal terms for each cohort or financial year in that period, but the exact figures will be laid down in regulations."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 January 2004; c. 120.]
      As we have finally been given the regulations, we can see that paragraph 7, on page 7, which deals with Government contributions, indicates how they are to be uprated to account for the fact that people will not actually get their hands on the money until April 2005.
      Perhaps it is just me—I do not know whether my brain is not working properly today—but those amounts seem lower than I would have expected from the application of a 7 per cent. yield, compared with the amounts that would be expected by children who would otherwise have received them from September 2002 onwards. I had assumed that the Minister would be generous—or, to put it another way, fair—in her calculation of the amounts, but the amounts set out in paragraph 7(ii) on page 7 of the regulations are somewhat mean in the application of the 7 per cent. yield, compared with the amounts that would be received by individuals in their child trust fund accounts.
      For example, sub-paragraph (ii) indicates that children born between 6 April 2003 and 5 April 2004 would receive £268. That seems to reflect an uprating factor of roughly 7 per cent., so anyone born during that period will receive a 7 per cent. uprate. However, children born at the beginning of the period, who would not otherwise receive their money until April 2005, could forgo two years of yields at 7 per cent. I have been

      673
      unable to work out the method of calculation under subparagraph (iii), which applies to children born between 6 April 2004 and the day preceding the appointed day—I assume that will be the end of March or the beginning of April 2005. The amount specified to be received by that cohort is only about £256, which seems to be a yield of only 2.5 per cent.
      There seems to be a gap between what we might have expected those cohorts to receive, with the full application of the 7 per cent. yield, and the amount that they will actually receive. I seek clarification from the Minister about how those amounts were calculated. Does she consider that the calculation is fair, especially to people born at the beginning of the periods in question? For example, a child born on or just after 6 April 2003 might have expected to receive 7 per cent. compounded for two years. There appears to be a gap between what the Financial Secretary is delivering and the undertaking that was made in Committee, so it would be helpful to have clarification on that point.
      Ruth Kelly: We have already held a significant debate in Committee about whether siblings should qualify for a look-alike child trust fund without Government contributions. It is a shame, but I have to say that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) rather misrepresented my position on Second Reading. In fact, I argued that if we allocated accounts to all siblings of children who qualify for a child trust fund account, there would be 10 million shell accounts, which would be an unwarranted burden for providers. They would not welcome that additional burden at this time.
      However, I recognised in Committee, as I recognise now, that there could be—indeed, would be—many parents who wanted to open similar accounts for older children and add their own endowment to the fund on a voluntary basis. That is a completely different proposition, with a much reduced impact and burden on providers. I continued to argue in Committee that if there was a demand for such a product, there was no reason why the market should not provide—and, indeed, market—a look-alike product for older siblings when marketing the child trust fund for younger siblings. It would be open to providers to offer a similar account; they could offer a charge cap which matched that on their child trust fund product, or they could offer a lifestyling facility which matched that on the child trust fund. The main difference between the accounts would be their tax treatment.
      I argued, however, that the child's income from savings would not be enough to incur tax in most cases. Children have the same personal allowance as adults—currently £4,615—and the parent is taxed only when a gift from a parent produces more than £100 gross income a year. I said that I was sure that the industry would provide a look-alike product without a Government endowment if there were sufficient demand in the marketplace for such a product. However, I did commit to consult providers on whether they thought that there would be a gap in the marketplace if the Government did not step in to offer a product identical to the child trust fund for older siblings.
      The Inland Revenue and I have undertaken some informal consultations with those in the industry, which has confirmed that of course, an identical product would
      674
      make life easier for them. However, they have also said that they would undoubtedly step into the market to provide a look-alike product on the day of the launch and that they would see that as opportunity to market a savings vehicle for older siblings, as well as the child trust fund to younger siblings.
      If we were to offer an identical child trust fund product—without the Government endowment, of course—to older siblings, it could not be up and running by 2005, which is the launch date of the child trust fund. Given that providers think that the market seems to exist and that they intend to fill that gap, we should monitor the situation to find out whether, after the launch of child trust fund products, parents feel that their demands have not been properly met, or providers feel that they have not had the opportunity to fill a gap in the marketplace. That issue will have real resonance for parents, but it will be fulfilled and taken up by the market place.
      Mr. George Osborne: What regulatory changes does the Financial Secretary think would be required to provide an identical product? What is the main regulatory problem? What would have to be changed?
      Ruth Kelly: As the hon. Gentleman correctly identified, we have been working up proposals so that we would be able to meet any unfilled gap in the market, if such a gap were identified. However, he will know that we are still at a very early stage of any plan, and I will continue to consider whether any change in regulation is required. If we find evidence of a gap in the marketplace and regulation is required to fill it, that is clearly something that we would consider.
      On new clause 8, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) asked us to commit to raising the Government contributions in line with inflation. It is only fair to say that it is much more sensible for the Government to keep the structure and level of the endowments under review, in the light of the progress and future evaluations of the child trust fund. I know that he is sceptical about the merits of the child trust fund, but surely he would agree that it is sensible to take into account how it develops before committing ourselves to stating in the Bill how that endowment will be increased in the future. The regulation-making powers that we are taking will enable us to develop the child trust fund further to achieve policy objectives if the evaluation of the policy suggests that that is a good idea.
      New clause 9 and the related amendments suggest what the retrospective payments to children born between September 2002 and April 2005 should be. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, those extra payments were set out in the draft regulations, published on 2 February 2004. All children born between September 2002 and April 2003 will receive £277, with those entitled to the higher amount getting an additional £266. Those born between April 2003 and April 2004 will get £268, with those entitled to the higher amount getting an additional £258, and those born between April 2004 and April 2005 will get £506. The hon. Gentleman suggests that that is somehow not generous and fair. In fact, I believe that it is both generous and fair. For example,

      675
      those figures do not include any allowance for the administrative cost to the Government, whereas, as he rightly points out, the illustrative figures in the projections included an amount for the charge cap.
      Mr. Laws: I wonder whether the Financial Secretary is taking this opportunity to trim back on her earlier commitment. Will she acknowledge that anyone born between 6 April 2003 and 5 April 2004 will essentially get the same compensation as though they had been born on the latter date? People born at the beginning of the period, who should get a 14 per cent. uprating, will get only 7 per cent. Why are the Government short-changing people in that way?
      Ruth Kelly: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are not short-changing people. For the initial payment, we calculate growth at the middle of each band, so there will be some winners and, undoubtedly, some losers. However, for administrative simplicity, we have averaged over the bands. For the supplement, we took April at the end of each band, which is when the supplement would be given to the family in the usual course of events. Given that the child tax credit has to be claimed, the hon. Gentleman will understand that the second payment is normally made after the first payment. In no sense have we short-changed families. In fact, we have been both generous and fair—while, of course, ensuring value for money for the Government. The figures were calculated using a 7 per cent. nominal rate of return in accordance with FSA guidelines, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Given that we have fulfilled his requirements, I ask him to reconsider his new clauses.
      Mr. Laws: I thank the Financial Secretary for giving way one more time. I remain dissatisfied about the way in which the Government will compensate people, but what does she expect to be the total cost of delivering all the amounts that it is now anticipated will be delivered in one go, in the 2004–05 fiscal year?
      Ruth Kelly: I do not have figures to hand on the total cost of the changes. I think that I gave them to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, but if I did not, I apologise. I will certainly write to him with those figures, but I can assure him that the amounts are fair, and no one is being short-changed. Given the hon. Gentleman's consideration of those factors, I hope that he will not press any of the new clauses to a Division.
      Mr. Osborne: I pretty much welcome what the Minister said about new clause 3, although the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) made it pretty clear what he thinks of what she said about his new clauses. My brief experience of politics shows me that when there are winners and losers, the winners do not thank people, but the losers complain. We shall see what happens with people born between 1 September 2002 and the date of the implementation of child trust funds.
      I turn to new clause 3, which I moved. I am sorry if I misrepresented what the Financial Secretary said on Second Reading, but that was an understandably easy mistake given that my thoughts were shared by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) and by Children's Mutual. I am sure that what she said was
      676
      clear. She was right to point out that there are other savings vehicles—she regularly points that out—but as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said at the start of our consideration on Report, that argument could be deployed against the entire Bill. She said that during her informal consultation, the providers said that an identical product would help them—I think that those were her words. She has given a commitment to monitor the situation so that if she finds a gap because of unmet demand that requires regulatory change, she will consider doing taking action.
      3.30 pm
      Although I shall not press new clause 3 to a Division, I send a message from the Dispatch Box to financial providers. If they become aware of unmet demands, believe that it would significantly help their marketing if they were able offer child trust funds to older children, and think that would encourage savings and help the child trust fund scheme to work from its launch, I urge them to make representations not only to me, but to the Financial Secretary, so that she will get on with making any regulatory changes that might be necessary. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New Clause 4

        REDUCTION OF AGE OF MAJORITY IN RESPECT OF CHILD TRUST FUNDS
        'For the purpose of any contact entered into in respect of a child trust fund, the age of majority shall be 16.

        The Family Law Reform Act 1969 (c. 46) is amended as follows.

        After section 1 insert—

        "1A Reduction of age of majority in respect of child trust funds

        For the purposes of any matter specified in subsection (2) which relates to a contract entered into in respect of a child trust fund, a person shall attain full age on attaining the age of sixteen

        Those matters are—

        any rule of law, and

        the construction (in the absence of a definition or of any indication of a contrary intention) of the expressions listed in section 1(2) and similar expressions in—

        any statutory provision, whether passed or made before, on or after the date on which this section comes into force; and

        any deed, will or other instrument of whatever nature (not being a statutory provision) made on or after that date.

        Subsections (6) and (7) of section 1 shall apply to the provisions of this section as they apply to the provisions of that section.

        In this section 'child trust fund' has the meaning given by section 1(2) of the Child Trust Funds Act 2004."

        In section 28(4) (extent), after paragraph (a) insert—
        (aa) section 1A extends to Northern Ireland;".'.—[Mr. George Osborne.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. George Osborne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—Designation of responsible person by young parents—

        677

        'This section applies to a person who has parental responsibility in relation to a child who is under the age of 18 or, in Scotland, 16 (person A).

        Person A may designate another person (person B) who is over the age of 17 or, in Scotland, 15 as the responsible person in relation to the child for whom person A has parental responsibility.

        Person B must inform the Inland Revenue that he has been designated as the responsible person in respect of the child.

        Regulations may prescribe—

        the required method of designation under subsection (2),

        any requirements relating to person B informing the Inland Revenue under subsection (3), and

        the circumstances in which person B shall cease to act as responsible person on or after the day on which person A reaches the age of 18 or, in Scotland, 16.'.

        New clause 11—Early withdrawal by young person in full-time employment—

        If this section applies to a child, that child may withdraw funds from his account in accordance with the provisions of subsections (4) and (5).

        This section applies to a child if—

        a child trust fund is held by the child,

        the child is over the age of 15, and

        the child is in full-time employment.

        Regulations may prescribe—

        the meaning of "full-time employment" for the purposes of this section, and

        the manner in which proof of full-time employment is to be provided for the account provider.

        A child to whom this section applies may apply to withdraw amounts from the fund, including the whole amount of the fund.

        On receipt of the proof of full-time employment prescribed by regulations under subsection (3)(b) and an application, the account provider must—

        release the amounts requested to be withdrawn, and

        inform the Inland Revenue in accordance with regulations.'

        Amendment No. 76, in page 2, line 44 [Clause 3], leave out 'as' and insert
        'in accordance with the provisions of section [early withdrawal by young person in full-time employment] or as otherwise'.
        Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
        Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 3 [Clause 3], after second 'person', insert
        'so designated in accordance with the provisions of section [designation of responsible person by young parents] or a person'.
        Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 8 [Clause 3], leave out '18, or in Scotland,'.
        Amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 9 [Clause 3], leave out', in Scotland,'.
        Government amendment No. 35.
        Amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 33 [Clause 5], leave out from 'or' to 'to' in line 34 and insert 'where subsection (2A) applies'.
        Amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 34 [Clause 5], at end insert
        '(2A) This subsection applies in the case of a child—

        who is such an eligible child because of section 2(3), or

        678

        in respect of whom a person has informed the Inland Revenue that he is the responsible person in accordance with the provisions of section [designation of responsible person by young parents](3).'.

        Government amendments Nos. 40 and 42.
        Amendment No. 77, in page 10, line 39 [Clause 20], after '3(4)(d)', insert
        'or by section [early withdrawal by young person in full-time employment]'.
        Government amendment No. 49.
        Amendment No. 28, in page 16, line 15 [Clause 30], after 'Act', insert
        'except section [reduction of age of majority in respect of child trust funds]'.
        Amendment No. 29, in page 16, line 16 [Clause 30], at end insert—
        '(2) Section [reduction of age of majority in respect of child trust funds] extends to Northern Ireland, but does not extend to Scotland.'.
        Mr. Osborne: I wish to speak to new clauses 4 and 5 and their consequential amendments, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) will speak to new clause 11.
        New clause 4 would give children aged 16 and 17 the power to manage their own child trust fund accounts, although it would not give them the power to make withdrawals from them. In effect, it would extend to children aged 16 and 17 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland the same rights that the Bill gives to 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland, owing to a quirk of Scottish law.
        The Bill's current drafting gives rise to all sorts of anomalies that we discussed in Committee. If people lived just over the border in England and opened a child trust fund account in a local village bank in Scotland, could the child manage it at the age of 16 or 18? If I walked into a branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland and opened an account for my daughter, could she manage that at the age of 16 or 18? If people born in Edinburgh moved to London on their 16th birthday—or at any other point—how would that affect the management of their child trust funds? When I read the Bill, I thought that the provisions would be a recipe for chaos and administrative complexity and that the situation would force providers to keep track of their Scottish and English customers.
        Mr. Weir: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is it not something of a red herring? The situation already exists because the age of majority in Scotland has been 16 for as long as anyone can remember. Financial institutions already face the problem with existing policies and investments, but it does not seem to have caused a difficulty until now.
        Mr. Osborne: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but the Government have caved in by accepting my proposal, so they obviously think that there is merit in what I am suggesting.
        I repeat a point that I made in Committee that goes beyond the technical aspects of the situation. It would be wrong to deprive 16 and 17-year-olds in England, Wales and Northern Ireland of the chance to manage their accounts. Surely one of the objectives of child trust

        679
        funds is to improve financial education for our children, and one of the best ways to do that would be to involve them directly in the management of their own accounts—that could be tied in with school lessons.
        The potential for damage to accounts and poor investment would be limited. For a start, most of the accounts will be lifestyle accounts, so risk will be minimised by the time that children reach 16. Indeed, given that children will have attended classes at school in which they will have discussed the accounts, they may well be better informed and able to make better choices than their parents.
        The Minister seemed convinced by the force of our arguments in Committee, but she was worried that we would undermine the foundations of contract law in the United Kingdom—that was certainly not my intention.
        She said in Committee:
        "this is not to do with anomalies between the general law in England and that in Scotland, but with whether, in England, we want children under 18—perhaps those over 16—to have some say in the management of their accounts. I put it to the Committee that there are real difficulties in changing contract law on that point. I certainly undertake to consider whether it is a simple issue, but I suspect that it is much more complicated than hon. Members appreciate. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I shall come back to him on Report to give an update on the complexities of changing contract law."— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 January 2004; c. 74.]
        Thankfully, unless I have misunderstood, it seems to be not all that complex, because Government amendments Nos. 34 and 35 achieve exactly what I wanted and urged, and with considerably greater elegance than my amendment. Indeed, amendment No. 35 is a model of simplicity. It says:
        "Where a contract is entered into by or on behalf of a child who is 16 or over in connection with a child trust fund—

        held by the child, or

        held by another child in relation to whom the child has parental responsibility,

        the contract has effect as if the child had been 18 or over when it was entered into."
        It is extraordinary how the entire basis of contract law can be changed by a single sentence saying that the situation is as it would be if the child were 18. I am delighted that the Minister has with such elegance been able to overcome that problem.
        I wonder if the hon. Lady could clarify the situation of parents who are themselves 16 or 17 years old. The Bill as originally drafted had a cumbersome process by which the Inland Revenue would manage accounts for the children of 16- and 17-year-old parents. My new clause 5 was designed to allow parents under 18, or under 16 in Scotland, to designate an adult as the responsible person who could manage their child's account until the parents themselves became adult. I thought that they could designate, for example, a grandparent or another relative. It seemed sensible, and it would avoid having to involve the Inland Revenue, with all the administrative cost that that would entail.
        I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm, first, that I have understood her amendments correctly and that she is giving 16 and 17-year-olds the power to manage their own accounts, and, secondly, that the effect of subsection (6)(b) of Government amendment No. 34 is that parents aged 16 and 17 will be able to
        680
        manage their children's account. That deals with the thrust of my argument in both new clause 5 and new clause 4.
        I have one final point on parents aged under 16. Is the Minister saying that their accounts will have to be administered by the Inland Revenue? Does she hold open the prospect of allowing a parent under the age of 16 to nominate a grandparent or other relative to manage the child's account for them, and in a sense not force the Inland Revenue to step in? It is a small point, but there are, sadly, a relatively significant number of children born to people who are under the age of 16, so the situation will arise on a weekly basis.
        All in all, the Government seem to have listened to and accepted almost all the arguments that we advanced in Committee. I tabled the amendments merely to provoke a discussion; indeed, I tabled them before I had seen the Government amendments. I am delighted that the Government have listened. This was not a matter that any financial provider or institution put to me. When I was reading through the Bill, trying to dream up all kinds of amendments to keep the Committee busy, I came across it, and I am pleasantly surprised that the Government have recognised that there is a problem and that they are correcting it.
        Mr. Laws: I too welcome the Government new clauses and amendments in this group.
        It would have been daft if the Government had stuck to their previous position in respect of the management of accounts, so that those over the age of 16 could not manage their own accounts, particularly if the Government are saying that one of the benefits of the child trust fund account is that it is supposed to encourage people to be more financially aware and take responsibility for monetary matters. Yet we were in the ridiculous situation whereby, even at the ages of 16 and 17, people would not be able to manage their own accounts, while, even more daftly, in Scotland people could. There would have been a complete anomaly across the borders within the United Kingdom, so I am relieved that the Financial Secretary has tabled a very elegant and unbelievably simple amendment to correct the problem.
        New clause 11 and the associated amendments encourage the Government to go a little further than they may be willing to go. In their own amendments, the Government have given way to the case developed by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), which we supported in Committee, for allowing children aged 16 and 17 to manage their own child trust fund accounts and, we hope, for allowing parents aged 16 and 17 to manage the child trust fund accounts of their children. It would be bizarre if that were not permitted under the Bill. Nevertheless, in respect of withdrawals, individuals aged 16 and 17 are treated as though they should have no responsibility and it should be a matter entirely for parents.
        When we discussed these matters previously, I reminded the Committee of the existing entitlements under the law at the age of 16. People of that age can leave education, enter full-time employment, have sex, smoke, play the national lottery, join a trade union, apply for a passport, pay tax, pay national insurance and, with parental consent, join the armed forces, get

        681
        married or leave home. We know that the Government are consulting on giving the vote to young people aged 16 and over. Under those circumstances, it seems bizarre that the Government are not considering allowing young people to access their child trust fund accounts at the age of 16, especially as one of the stated objectives of the account is to assist people starting off in employment.
        As the Minister knows, many young people leave school at 16 and do not go on to take A-levels or enter higher education. Many of them start their employment at 16 or 17. As the Government said earlier that they would like people to draw down their child trust fund account to provide the up-front capital for training or for the equipment that they might need in their places of work, it would be sensible to allow young people going into full-time work at 16 or 17 to draw down their child trust fund accounts.
        New clause 11 would allow young people who go into full-time work at the ages of 16 and 17 to draw down their child trust fund accounts so that they can use their moneys in the way that the Government intend—to help them as they start off in employment. It is a middle way between the extreme position that young people ought to be able to manage and access their child trust fund accounts at the age of 16, and the more moderate proposal tabled by the hon. Member for Tatton and accepted by the Government that would allow young people to manage their accounts but not access them at the age of 16.
        We suggest that young people who go into full-time work should be treated in a different way and be able to access their child trust fund accounts, and that the help that the Government intend should be available for people when they go into work should be available for this category of young people, who could make good use of the moneys at such an age.
        Ruth Kelly: As the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) explained, the main purpose of new clause 4 and the connected amendments is to reduce the age at which young people can have full legal control over their child trust fund accounts from 18 to 16. In Committee, he set out a case for allowing 16 and 17-year-olds in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to manage their child trust fund accounts, as 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland will be able to. I do not believe that this is a devolution issue. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) made an appropriate and fair point.
        This is not a problem for the Government, but I accept that it is an opportunity for us. As the hon. Members for Tatton and for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) pointed out, one aim of the child trust fund scheme is to improve people's financial education. In Committee, I accepted the argument that we should use the opportunity to consider whether children of 16 and 17 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland should also be able to manage their child trust fund accounts. The hon. Member for Tatton also argued that, following financial education classes, children of 16 and 17 could well be better placed to make informed decisions than their parents.
        682
        3.45 pm
        The hon. Gentleman was clear about his intention to restrict solely to child trust funds the change in the law allowing persons aged 16 and 17 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to enter into contracts to buy or sell equities. I am persuaded by those arguments. Further to the points that he made, I can see that if young people take a responsible role in managing their accounts, that will encourage them to make better and more considered decisions about how to use those funds when they turn 18 and gain access to them. Lowering the age of majority for the child trust fund will help very young parents, who will be able to administer their own child's account once they are 16, not 18. However, new clause 4 and the related amendments are not drafted in the best way to achieve those objectives. I think that the hon. Member for Tatton would accept that the Government amendments will better allow 16 and 17-year-olds in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to manage their child trust fund accounts by making a simpler change to the Bill.
        The Government amendments give children aged 16 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland the legal capacity to give instructions for the management of their child trust fund accounts. That does not alter the rule that there can be no withdrawals from the account until the age of 18. We do not want to give children wider capacity to engage in all sorts of investment contracts—nor, I believe, do the Opposition. The advantage of the amendment is that it does not require the alteration of any other statute, so the drafting is more direct.
        I understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the position of under-age parents and tabled new clause 5 to address the fact that parents under 18 would not be able to manage the child trust fund accounts of their children. Delegating parental responsibility would be a radical departure from general law, which provides that parental responsibility cannot, as a personal responsibility, be transferred. I hope that his concerns will be allayed by the Government amendments, which mean that parents over the age of 16 will be able to manage their children's accounts. Statistics show that the vast majority of under-age parents are between the ages of 16 and 18. However, it remains the case that, as I outlined in Committee, if a parent is under the age of 16, their child's account will be opened directly by the Inland Revenue and invested in a stakeholder product.
        Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34 ensure that, at any one time, only one person can give instructions about managing a child trust fund account. Where the child is aged 16 or over, it will usually be the child—otherwise, it will be a responsible person such as a parent or someone else with parental responsibility. That is to prevent possible confusion where more than one person has parental responsibility.
        On those grounds, I ask the hon. Member for Tatton to withdraw his new clause and associated amendments and to support the Government amendments.
        The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil would allow 16-year-olds entering full-time employment to access their funds. On Second Reading, he argued that there was no obvious reason why those 16-year-olds should have to wait two years before accessing the funds in their child trust fund accounts,

        683
        and he argued that again today. I am afraid that, as he suspected, that is a step too far for the Government. We have heard persuasive arguments that children should have to wait until they are 21, or even 25, to gain access to the funds, so that they are mature enough to decide how to use them. I do not accept that. The age of 18 strikes an appropriate balance, because it recognises that a child has reached the age of maturity, but does not allow undue access before then.
        Mr. Laws: Does the Financial Secretary accept that young people who go into full-time work at the age of 16 assume enormous responsibilities, yet the Government's position is that they cannot exercise responsibility over the money in their child trust fund accounts and use it sensibly?
        Ruth Kelly: I would not argue that in any particular case, whether a child is entering full-time employment at 16 or full-time education, they may or may not be responsible enough to exercise and make reasonable judgments about their future. An appropriate balance must be struck for the majority of children between allowing them to have access to the funds to further their goals, and forcing them to wait until they are sufficiently mature to make those decisions in their best interests. I do not think that the particular category of children who enter full-time employment at the age of 16 should be singled out. We must decide what is the appropriate age of maturity at which such decisions can be sensibly made. A balance must be struck, and that balance should be struck at the age of 18. For those reasons, the hon. Gentleman should accept the Government's case.
        Mr. Osborne: This is an extraordinary moment that I must savour. I doubt whether in my time in opposition, which will of course be short-lived, I will again be able to point to an area of the law that I helped to change in such an obvious way. As a result of the Government amendments and the arguments that I advanced, 16 and 17-year-olds will now have the power to manage their own child trust fund accounts. I hope that that teaches them about providing savings for themselves, and that it helps them when they learn about child trust fund management in their classrooms. I look forward to 16 and 17-year-olds around the country writing to me to thank me for this new right that I have secured for them, but I suspect that I may have to wait a long time for the first letter.
        The Financial Secretary is right that the Government amendments are far simpler and more elegant than mine. I merely took her at her word when she said that the matter was complex, so I went off to think of some complex thing that I had to do. As it turns out, it is simple. I am genuinely delighted that the Financial Secretary has listened and responded—she is a model, and other Ministers should follow her example—and secured the agreement of senior members of the Government Whips Office. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New Clause 6

        ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY INLAND REVENUE FOR CHILDREN IN CARE
        'If this section applies to a child The Inland Revenue must inform the account provider with whom a child trust fund is held by the child that this section applies to the child.

        684

        If the account provider makes a claim to the Inland Revenue in accordance with regulations, the Inland Revenue must pay to the account provider such amount as is prescribed by regulations.

        The amount prescribed by regulations under subsection (2) shall be calculated so as to represent a percentage of the average value of subscriptions to child trust funds made during the preceding financial year.

        On receipt of payment the account provider must credit the child trust fund with the amount of the payment.

        This section applies to a child if—

        a child trust fund is held by the child, and

        the child was first an eligible child by virtue of section 2(1)(b).'.—[Mr. George Osborne.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. George Osborne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 10—Additional contributions by Inland Revenue for children in care (No. 2)—

        'If this section applies to a child the Inland Revenue must inform the account provider with whom a child trust fund is held by the child that this section applies to the child.

        If the account provider makes a claim to the Inland Revenue in accordance with regulations, the Inland Revenue must pay to the account provider in respect of each year during which this section applies to the child such amount as is determined in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3).

        That amount shall be twelve times the minimum amount prescribed by regulations for any subscription.

        On receipt of the payment the account provider must credit the child trust fund with the amount of the payment.

        This section applies to a child if—

        a child trust fund is held by the child, and

        the child is an eligible child by virtue of section 2(1)(b).'.

        Amendment No. 69, in page 4, line 34 [Clause 8], at end insert—
        (1A) The amount prescribed under subsection (1) in respect of children to whom section [additional contributions by Inland Revenue for children in care (No. 2)] applies at the time the initial contribution falls to be made shall be four times the amount prescribed in respect of other children.'.
        Amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 31 [Clause 11], after '10', insert
        or [additional contributions by Inland Revenue for children in care]'.
        Amendment No. 70, in page 6, line 31 [Clause 11], after '10', insert
        or [additional contributions by Inland Revenue for children in care (No. 2)]'.
        Amendment No. 17, in page 10, line 27 [Clause 19], leave out 'and'.
        Amendment No. 18. in page 10, line 31 [Clause 19], at end insert
        and
        (d) that the Inland Revenue was required under regulations under section [additional contribution by Inland Revenue for children in care] to make a payment in respect of the child but either the payment had not been made or, if it had, the amount of the payment had not been credited to the child trust fund held by the child.'.
        Amendment No. 71, in page 10, line 31 [Clause 19], at end insert
        and
        (d) that the Inland Revenue was required under regulations under section [additional contributions by Inland Revenue for children in care (No. 2)] to make a payment in respect of the child but either the payment had not been made or, if it had, the amount of the payment had not been credited to the child trust fund held by the child.'.
        Amendment No. 21, in page 11, line 3 [Clause 20], after '10', insert
        [additional contributions by Inland Revenue for children in care]'.
        Amendment No. 72, in page 11, line 3 [Clause 20], after '10', insert
        [additional contributions by Inland Revenue for children in care (No. 2)]'.
        Amendment No. 22, in page 11, line 9 [Clause 20], after '10', insert
        or section [additional contributions by Inland Revenue for children in care]'.
        Amendment No. 73, in page 11, line 9 [Clause 20], after '10', insert
        or section [additional contributions by Inland Revenue for children in care (No. 2)]'.
        Amendment No. 23, in page 11 [Clause 20], leave out line 33 and insert
        9(3) or [additional contributions by Inland Revenue for children in care]'.
        Amendment No. 74, in page 11 [Clause 20], leave out line 33 and insert
        9(3) or [additional contributions by Inland Revenue for children in care (No. 2)]'.
        Amendment No. 24, in page 13, line 3 [Clause 22], after '10', insert
        or [additional contributions by Inland Revenue for children in care]'.
        Amendment No. 75, in page 13, line 3 [Clause 22], after '10', insert
        or [additional contributions by Inland Revenue for children in care (No. 2)]'.
        Mr. Osborne: I suspect that I will not make as much progress with this new clause as I did with the previous one, but it is worth trying because the issue that I am trying to address is children in care. The issue was raised on Second Reading, and gave rise to one of our best debates in Committee, in which more than the usual number of Committee members participated. Unfortunately, it is one of the few areas in which the Financial Secretary has not been prepared publicly to indicate any significant change, although she was careful not to rule out change in the future. I hope that we can secure a firmer commitment from her today—we shall see.
        As I said in Committee, the chances of children in care are among the poorest in our society. When I was preparing for this debate, I went through the statistics, which are indeed striking. Only 53 per cent. of the 6,400 young people who left care last year had at least one GCSE or GNVQ, compared with 95 per cent. of all
        686
        children. Only 8 per cent. of children in care achieved at least five good GCSE grades, compared with 50 per cent. of all children. Only 56 per cent. of children leaving care remain in full-time education at year 11, compared with 72 per cent. of all school leavers.
        The Office for National Statistics says, rightly and sensibly, that
        "educational achievement is felt to be an important indicator of children's life chances".
        Its words are sadly borne out by the example of children in care, whose poor educational achievement is such that 24 per cent. of those who leave care are unemployed by the September after they leave school, compared with 6 per cent. of all school leavers. In the past year, 10 per cent. of children aged 10 or over in care were cautioned or convicted—three times the rate for children of their age—and 49 per cent. of children in care end up in prison at some point.
        The record is depressing and we should all feel some shame. The state assumes the ultimate responsibility for bringing up children in care, so it is depressing that we have such poor results. Many of the reasons for their poor life chances and educational attainments are beyond the scope of the Bill. They are to do with the children's background, the emotional disturbance and possible abuse that they may have suffered in their families, and their upbringing in local authority care. However, perhaps another reason is that they have so little stake in society.
        It is undeniable that, at 18, almost all children in care lack anything like the sort of financial support on which most people can count from their families as they start work or seek higher education. The Bill goes to considerable lengths to give children in care some sort of start in life. I fully commend the Government for their efforts to ensure that those children get a child trust fund that is properly set up at the right time and that they receive the full £500 initial contribution. However, I am sure that the Financial Secretary agrees that, apart from the Government top-up contribution, not many people, if any, will make additional contributions to the child trust funds of children in care. I do not claim that there will not be instances of people making contributions, but I am sure that the generalisation is correct and that those children are unlikely to enjoy significant contributions to their child trust funds.
        By the time that children in care reach the age of 18, they will have approximately £1,000 and perhaps a little more in their child trust fund. I do not claim that £1,000 is insignificant and I do not dispute the reports and statistics that the Financial Secretary deployed in Committee and when she appeared before the Treasury Sub-Committee. They showed that even £1,000 can make a significant difference to people's attitude to saving and is a substantial asset for people on low incomes. It is also a vast improvement on what many children in care currently have.
        As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said, some local authorities give children a sum of money on leaving care, but others give them, as he memorably put it, no more than a bin bag in which to take their clothing. One of the great advantages of child trust funds is that, for the first time, all children in care will have a substantial asset by the time they reach 18.

        687
        We could do more, or at least look to do more. New clause 6 would require the Inland Revenue to make additional contributions, which would be pegged as a percentage of the average value of child trust fund subscriptions in the previous year. I suggest that partly because if child trust funds are a success and people use them, the contributions to children in care will also increase. If it is clear that many people are making contributions to their children, it is fair that children in care should not be left behind.
        I freely concede that the other reason for pegging the contributions as a percentage of the average value of child trust fund subscriptions in the previous financial year is that I had to suggest a new device, different from the one that I tabled in Committee. That proposal would have put a proportion of child benefit—otherwise forgone for children in care—into a child trust fund. I believe that that probably has more elegance and merit than my current proposal, but I had to change it.
        I accept that the new clause carries a financial cost, which depends on the size of the contribution. We cannot therefore include an accurate figure. If the proposal that I tabled in Committee were implemented and fully taken up—if all forgone child benefit were paid into the account of all 60,000 children in care for the relevant year—the cost, according to the Library, would be £33.5 million. However, the sum that we would pay in under the new clause could be far less than the £560 that the proposal that I tabled in Committee would entail. Children tend to move in and out of care, and would not necessarily receive the full amount during a year. Therefore, £33 million is at the top end of what the proposal might cost; I suspect that it would cost significantly less. I do not want to be seen to be profligate, so I have left the amount to be decided by future regulations and made it subject to affordability.
        4 pm
        My proposal in Committee received general support, not least from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, who spoke with considerable experience and knowledge, and mentioned a lady who had brought the matter to his attention. He made the important point—perhaps he will seek to catch your eye today, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that local authorities will have an important duty to help to educate and work with children in care so that they are not simply handed a large lump sum at the age of 18, with none of the educational equipment needed to manage their account. He tabled an amendment that, unfortunately, could not be selected for technical reasons, but his point was well made.
        Unfortunately, the Minister was not quite as enthusiastic as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. She said on Second Reading that local authorities might consider making contributions to child trust funds. That is certainly the case, but I was looking, as were other hon. Members, to central Government to do more themselves. In Committee, the Minister used a rather Whitehall argument to knock down my suggestion that we pay child benefit into the child trust funds of children in care, saying that child benefit was used to support a family looking after children, not given to the child itself. That was a Sir Humphrey
        688
        answer, but it knocked down my amendment. Another advantage, therefore, of the change that I have made to the proposal in the new clause is that it would allow the Government to set an amount and pay that into the child trust funds of children in care. I have tried to deal with the Minister's objections.
        When we discussed the matter in Committee, the Minister said:
        "I would not rule out any development in this area in future. As I have made it clear throughout the Committee stage and on Second Reading, this is an evolving policy, and it will develop into all sorts of areas. The most important issue for us is to get the policy up and running, see how it works in practice and monitor its development…However, I absolutely accept the principle that they"—
        children in care—
        "are a disadvantaged group of children and that we should work to maximise their opportunities."
        She went on to say:
        "I am not against the matter in principle and there are interesting possibilities. I said that I am not in a position today to say that that is a policy we will pursue."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 January 2004; c. 132, 137.]
        I hope that the Minister is able to say a little more now that we have reached Report stage, and at least say that she is working behind the scenes with her officials to examine the feasibility of doing something to help children in care. Perhaps she will agree, as she has over the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), to look at this proposal and, providing that there are not overriding practical or financial objections, consider introducing it. I am not looking to her to give a cast-iron commitment today, but I would love her to say that she is considering my proposal and working behind the scenes with Treasury officials to see whether it is feasible.
        Mr. Dawson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), and I agree with everything that he has said. The spirit behind new clause 6 is generous. I demur in just one respect. It is sometimes too easy for Members of Parliament to focus on the difficulties of children in care. It is right that they should, but we should not let those very serious, and sometimes quite dismal, facts overwhelm us or blind us to the reality that young people come through the care system and succeed. In only a few weeks' time, on 24 February in the Attlee suite, we shall have a celebration of children and young people in care, and I honestly hope that all hon. Members will come along to what will be a joyous and optimistic occasion.
        I commend my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which she has responded to this issue, not only in Committee but when she and her officials attended the January meeting of the all-party group for children and young people in care. Anyone who was in that room will have enjoyed the spirited, well informed, thoughtful and, indeed, surprising debate. I shall go into further detail on that later.
        I return to the crux of the new clause. There can be no doubt that young people leaving care will be among the most disadvantaged 18-year-olds in our society. They will have had life experiences that would have floored all of us in the House. They will have experienced huge

        689
        difficulties throughout their lives, including family breakdown, abuse, neglect and extreme poverty. They could well have experienced serious dislocation and disruption while in the care system, and they could have been through a large number of homes and schools.
        The Government have done a great service to young people leaving care through the introduction of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which has placed statutory duties on local authorities in respect of young adults up to the age of 21, or the age of 24 if they are still in education. Regrettably, however, the situation remains patchy across the country. We have pockets of extremely good practice where young people are supported very well indeed but, sadly, there are other parts of the country where they are supported very poorly.
        An important way of addressing that problem will be through the new children's legislation arising from the Green Paper, "Every Child Matters". I look forward to the Bill coming before the House and to the profound cultural and organisational changes that will be required to improve the lot of children and young people in care. Another important way to improve their circumstances, and those of every child in the country, will be to ensure that they have a good child trust fund, that they are able to manage it well, that they understand the significance of having their own money and that they are able to put the money to the best possible use.
        Those young people will face challenges that most other young people will not face. Even if they remain in care into adulthood, they will still embark on adulthood with little of the support that millions of other young adults rely on—extended families, resources, advice, assistance and somewhere to go when they are in trouble. Many young people leaving care will be left to their own devices, and will have no one else to rely on. It is therefore extremely important that we assist them to build up their resources. It is good that the Government will be giving them the full extent of what will be available under the child trust fund scheme. It is important, as I have said, that local authorities and people working with young people in care understand how to help them manage the new assets, as a good parent would do. It is essential that local authorities' leaving care plans take full account of young people's need to have substantial trust funds.
        It is essential, too, that the Government contribute significant extra sums to the trust funds. It is a naive but none the less compelling argument that as young people in care do not have the benefit of child benefit, which ceases to be paid to their parents a few weeks after they go into care, there should be regular contributions to their trust funds. It is important that local authorities, as good corporate parents, are encouraged to contribute to the funds. The situation is patchy, but the Government have a tremendous commitment to children and young people in care, so they may accept that the only way to ensure that all young people in care receive significant contributions to their trust funds and are able to make the very best of them is to make regular payments from a central source.
        That point was very much accepted by young people who attended the meeting in January. However, rather surprisingly, they said that they would not wish to have
        690
        that money until they were 21. They thought that young people leaving care at 18 would be more vulnerable if a significant asset were put in their hands at the precise time when, perhaps in contrast to other young people at that age, they would be making other major life changes, such as leaving home. They also said, perhaps less surprisingly, that they wanted local authorities to pay very little attention to the amount in their trust funds. They were concerned that if local authorities took account of trust funds they would feel entitled to reduce the money available to them through a leaving care grant and support into higher education, as well as practical and emotional support to which they would otherwise be entitled. They thought that the resources available to them might be diminished and undermined by the fact of their having a child trust fund, which is a tragedy. It would be an indictment of local authorities if such circumstances prevailed.
        Young people in care believe that the substantial assets, such as compensation for criminal injuries, that some of them have received have reduced the amount of support that local authorities were prepared to make available to them. That may not be the Treasury's responsibility, but the Department for Education and Skills certainly needs to take that point on board. Young people's reticence about the age at which they should receive trust funds is understandable, as it is entirely related to the amount of support that they believe will be available to them from the local authority, perhaps provided by a residential worker, foster carer or social carers, who can help young people to understand trust funds and manage them. The Government and local authorities clearly have a huge responsibility to ensure that the people who work with young people in care do so with alacrity, skill and a genuine understanding of the importance of trust funds to them.
        4.15 pm
        A great deal more needs to be done to ensure that the funds work well for young people in care. Nevertheless, anyone who was at last month's meeting or will be at the one later this month will have met, or will meet, young people with intelligence, ability and, in some cases, extraordinary resilience. I believe that they will use their trust funds well, and will benefit from having an asset over which they have complete control.
        That is an important message for young people leaving care. The Government should complement it by assuring those young people that they are prepared to consider whether, in principle, they could make regular payments to the trust fund of every child in care—above and beyond what goes to other young people, above and beyond what they or their parents might contribute, and above and beyond what local authorities might contribute. They should say that, because the state owes a duty of care to such children, they will support them even better.
        Mr. Laws: I agree with what has been said by the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). There seemed to be widespread agreement in Committee that the Government had a particular responsibility to look after children in care, given that they were essentially in loco

        691
        parentis. It was felt that the children should not lose out even more in relation to the value of trust fund accounts on maturity. That might well happen if no contributions were made by relations, as they would probably be in the case of most other children.
        The problem in Committee was the lack of amendments commanding the support of the Committee as a whole and, in particular, the Financial Secretary, perhaps for understandable reasons. Our amendment focused on the issue of the initial contribution. We accepted that it would be defective if we were to deal with children who might go into care later in their lives.
        Either the hon. Member for Tatton or the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) proposed an annual contribution tied to the level of child benefit. Although the hon. Member for Tatton might regard it as something of a Sir Humphrey excuse, I have some sympathy with the Minister's reservations about mixing up a benefit designed for a particular purpose with a contribution to a child trust fund account designed for a very different purpose.
        We wanted to table amendments that would not just get past the hon. Member for Tatton and the Clerk, but meet with the Financial Secretary's approval. I agree with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre that it would not be appropriate for us to rely on discretionary contributions from local authorities, and that if we did so, money for children in care might filter into trust fund accounts to which they would have no access until later in their lives. We certainly would not want to divert money that would go to such children anyway.
        New clause 10 and amendments Nos. 69 and 70 hold on to our first proposal that the initial contribution to the accounts of children in care should be twice that for any other child—in other words, four times the standard contribution and double the amount that would go to children from families on lower incomes. In order to address the annual contribution issue, we have added the proposal that an annual contribution should be linked not to child benefit, but to the minimum subscription that can be put into child trust fund accounts from time to time, perhaps on a monthly basis.
        We discussed the reasonable minimum amount in Committee, and I will not anticipate that argument because we will deal with it in a separate group of new clauses and amendments. The Government have set the minimum subscription at £10, which, I am embarrassed to say, is slightly higher than the sum that I have been paying into my godchild's savings account and may cause me to revise my contribution upwards. Nevertheless, the minimum subscription is a useful benchmark by which to consider the contribution that the Government might feel is reasonable and appropriate.
        In addition to an enhanced initial contribution to the child trust fund accounts of children in care, we propose that the Government should also pay in, presumably on an annual basis but it could be biannual or quarterly, an amount linked to the minimum monthly contribution, assuming that the contribution were paid monthly. In other words, if the amount were paid for a full year, it would be 12 times the minimum subscription rate, which has been set at £10, so it would be £120.
        692
        Using back-of-the-envelope calculations and the figure that the hon. Member for Tatton cited earlier of 60,000 children in care, that proposal would incur a significantly lower annual cost than his proposal to link contributions to child benefit. The cost would be £7 million to £8 million, which is affordable given that the annual cost of the Bill is likely to be between £250 million to £260 million once it is fully up and running—presumably the cost will be significantly higher once further contributions are made when children reach seven, 11 and 14.
        Such an addition to the cost is affordable, and linking additional contributions for children in care to the minimum subscription is as a good a rough and ready measure as any that we might arrive at using another source. The additional contributions would be linked to the minimum subscription to child trust fund accounts for children who are not in care, where it would be reasonable for the Government to aspire to the idea of people adding such a contribution on to their own children's child trust fund accounts.
        As the hon. Member for Tatton implied earlier, I do not necessarily expect the Financial Secretary to give way on the matter today. The Government have not tabled counter-proposals on children in care that we can debate today, but the Financial Secretary's responses in Committee were helpful and I hope that she can reassure Liberal Democrat Members and some Labour Members that she will go away, examine the issue and introduce a workable proposal to allow additional contributions for that particularly vulnerable category of young people.
        Ruth Kelly: The Bill is about extending life chances, especially to those children who are particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society. I accept that children in care undoubtedly fall into that category, despite their individual successes, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has drawn attention. I pay tribute to him for his work with young people in care, and he is right to celebrate their achievements.
        I accept the argument made by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) that children in care are particularly disadvantaged. The new clauses and amendments seek to boost the child trust funds of those children in care with accounts opened by the Inland Revenue in the absence of a child benefit claim. The hon. Gentleman suggests that few additional contributions will be made to those accounts, but I would not jump to that conclusion. It will be 15 years at least between the setting up of the accounts and the time that the first ones mature, which is a considerable length of time. I do not know how the accounts will evolve in the future, but I suspect that we will see creative and imaginative thinking on how we can best serve the most vulnerable groups in society. I am not convinced that fewer contributions will be made to the accounts of children in care.
        New clause 6 proposes that the Inland Revenue should contribute a sum related to the average value of contributions made to child trust funds in the preceding financial year, whereas new clause 10 would require the Inland Revenue to pay 12 times the minimum contribution level set out in the regulations. It is all too

        693
        easy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre suggested, to point to disadvantaged children and not recognise the successes. I would argue that it is also far too easy to point to the Government and claim that the answer always lies in more financial contribution from the centre. I understand the case that has been made, and I was so attracted to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Witney and his thinking on the matter because he recognised that point. There are other ways in which the interests of vulnerable groups can be advanced, and he proposed a creative and interesting solution to advance the interests of disabled children, which I have committed to considering further. We have 15 years before the first accounts mature, and I am sure that we will see innovative thinking on other ways to advance the interests of other vulnerable groups during that time.
        It is true that children in care may be some of the most disadvantaged while they are in care, but the vast majority move out of care and have families to care for them and contribute to their child trust funds, as other children have. While children are in care, there is nothing to stop grandparents, other relatives and friends contributing to their accounts. Indeed, the new clause fails to address the category of children who have a child benefit claim set up for them. When a child is looked after by a local authority, payment of child benefit ceases after the first eight weeks, recognising the fact that the state, rather than the family, effectively maintains such children, including those placed with foster parents. That is right, as the Government provide for the cost of children being looked after through the revenue support grant paid to local authorities for personal social services expenditure. I do not believe that further Government endowments for those children are the best way to help them. Children move in and out of care and any Government payment would be hit and miss in its effect.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned the important Green Paper, "Every Child Matters", and made a powerful case for engaging young people with their child trust fund plan. Local authorities should be encouraged to consider that account in the pathway plan that they develop with children leaving care. Financial considerations are already taken into consideration in the pathway plan, but I will ensure that specific consideration is given to the child trust fund account. We are already aware of some local authorities that take financial education seriously. For example, Warwickshire county council has introduced a scheme in which a savings account is opened for foster children to help to make them aware of the value of money as they build up savings. However, most financial education will still be delivered through the school curriculum, which is the best place for such education to take place because it reaches all children. In the coming months and years, we will consult various bodies and organisations on financial education and how we can make it real for all children, but especially for vulnerable children.
        Mr. Dawson: My hon. Friend is aware of the work of child-driven organisations such as A National Voice, a national organisation for young people in care, and of
        694
        the Careleavers Association, an organisation for adults—generally those over 25—who have experience of the care system. Together, they combine the experience of potentially millions of people. Can she assure me that those voices in particular will be heard in the ongoing discussions on the future of trust funds for children in, and leaving, care?
        4.30 pm
        Ruth Kelly: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I shall draw the point that he makes to the attention of the appropriate officials, and make sure that those voices are indeed heard. As part of our consultation, we intend to address the particular needs of looked-after children that may exist, and if possible to include some looked-after children in our consultation, so my hon. Friend's point is well made.
        Given the argument that I have set out, I hope that the hon. Member for Tatton will reconsider his new clauses and amendments.
        Mr. George Osborne: I am very glad that we have had this debate. When I tabled my new clauses and amendments, I was not confident that they would be selected, as we covered this ground in Committee. The Minister did not really open the door to allowing such a discussion on Report, so I was very grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing us to debate these issues. Through her reply, the Minister has moved matters on, a point to which I shall return.
        I thank the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) for his contribution. I apologise to him if I painted an unnecessarily gloomy picture of children in care—I was trying to build my argument and to give force to what I was trying to achieve. He is of course right to point out that there are some outstanding examples of children in care thriving, of local authorities that do a very good job—of which Warwickshire is perhaps one—and of people working with children in care who do an excellent job. But there are also many examples of children who do not thrive in local authority care, and of local authorities that do not do a very good job and fail their children.
        The Minister said that she is not convinced that the child trust funds of children in care will receive fewer contributions than those of other children. I am glad that she is confident about that, but I do not share her confidence. I suppose that time will tell who is right and who is wrong, but it will not take 15 years. It will be clear after just a few years whether any contributions are being made to the child trust funds of children in care. I hope that the Minister will at least give a commitment to monitor the situation, and to look specifically at the child trust funds of children in care. I know that the Inland Revenue will keep track of this policy in general terms—
        Ruth Kelly indicated assent.
        Mr. Osborne: The Minister nods, but it will be worth looking specifically at what happens to the child trust funds of children in care. As she knows, there is considerable interest throughout the world in the entire child trust fund policy, so such research would benefit

        695
        not just the people of this country but those of other countries, should other Governments follow the example of child trust funds.
        I accept that asking central Government to put more money in is quite a crude mechanism. I suggested it because I am not particularly confident that all local authorities will put money in: there will be good local authorities and bad ones. Something of a postcode lottery could arise, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said. As the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) suggests, there could be a fixed amount—I suppose that it would be £120, given that we now know that £10 is the minimum contribution; indeed, in that regard it turns out that the Financial Times was right—or an unspecified amount, to be determined in regulations. However, I accept that whether the amount is fixed or unspecified, such a mechanism is fairly crude.
        I was interested to hear what the Minister said about considering requiring local authorities, as part of the pathway plan, to consider child trust funds and how they can use them. That is a new development, which moves matters on. I should like to think that the Government looked at this issue and decided that that should happen because of our debates in Committee, on Second Reading and on Report, and because of the speeches not only of the hon. Member for Yeovil and myself, but of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. Because that has happened, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New Clause 7

        PROHIBITION ON PUBLICITY IN PRE-ELECTION PERIOD
        'The Government shall not advertise or publicise by the distribution of leaflets or other literature the introduction of child trust funds during the pre-election period.

        In this section. the "pre-election period" means the period that—

        starts with—

        the calling of a General Election by the Prime Minister, or

        the day that falls twenty-five days before any Parliament shall cease to have continuance in accordance with the provisions of the Septennial Act 1715 (1 Geo 1 Stat 2 c 38),
        whichever is the earlier, and

        ends with the day of the ensuing General Election.'.—[Mr. Laws.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Laws: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 51.
        Amendment No. 26, in page 15, line 14 [Clause 27], leave out subsection (2).
        Amendment No. 27, in page 15, line 17 [Clause 27], at end insert—
        '(4) No order may be made under subsection (3) before the dissolution of the present Parliament.'.
        Amendment No. 81, in page 15, line 17 [Clause 27], at end insert—
        696
        '(4) No order may be made under subsection (1) before the dissolution of the present Parliament.'.
        Government amendment No. 52.
        Mr. Laws: The Liberal Democrat new clause 7 deals with the prohibition of publicity and advertising in the pre-election period. It is a particularly sensitive and important issue, because of the timing of the payment by the Government of the initial amounts that will go into the child trust fund accounts. That will happen for those entitled to it by the likely date of the general election, and the Government are also paying out in 2005 all of the amounts to which individuals are entitled backdated to 1 December 2002. That might give rise to a particular temptation on the part of the Government in what might be the run-up to the general election in spring 2005 to devote much publicity and advertising to that particular disbursement of funds in the expectation that the effect may not be wholly unfavourable for the general election.
        We debated some aspects of the issue in Committee. I drew the Committee's attention to the Cabinet Office report entitled "Information Activities during a General Election", which specifies some of the existing limitations on Government advertising in the run-up to election periods. Paragraph 10(g) of the paper, under a section entitled "Paid Media", states:
        "New advertising campaigns will in general be postponed and running campaigns closed. However, some advertising (for example recruitment, health and safety) might be specifically approved to continue by the Head of the GICS in consultation with the Central Secretariat, Cabinet Office."
        An additional later section appears to go further than advertising campaigns alone, stating:
        "In addition, it has always been recognised that special care must be taken during the course of an Election since information material produced with complete impartiality which would be accepted as objective in ordinary times, may excite criticism during an Election period when feelings are running high."
        We debated some of the issues in Committee and some of the Financial Secretary's responses were to some extent contradictory. Towards the end of her comments, she said:
        "I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for Yeovil felt that new clause 11 was necessary. During any general election campaign the Government retain their responsibility to govern, and essential business must go on. It has long been the practice that, where possible, activities such as advertising are stopped for the duration of the pre-election period. The period starts when the Prime Minister calls a general election and asks the Queen for the dissolution of Parliament, and it ends once the result of the election is known. Under those rules, the operation of the child trust fund would continue during an election campaign, but any advertising surrounding its launch would cease."
        In other words, she seemed to believe that I merely wanted clarification and assurance that my new clause 11 was already the Government's practice. She meant that there was no need for concern about the Government hyping up the measure at a sensitive time because the Government would shut down advertising, as the new clause sought.
        However, when the hon. Lady concluded her speech, instead of accepting my new clause, which merely asked the Government to confirm that advertising should not take place during that period, she urged the Committee to reject the amendment. She said:

        697
        "Parents need a basic level of information to allow them to make sensible choices on behalf of their children".
        A little earlier, she had said:
        "It is essential to the operation of the policy that parents are well informed when they receive the voucher and have the opportunity to open a CTF account. That is at the heart of the financial education programme embedded in the Bill. Clearly, during such a period"2014;
        the run-up to the election—
        "the child trust fund information pack would be distributed to all parents, and I would be very surprised were the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we should not distribute such an information pack."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 January 2004; c. 232.]
        That raises a problem for the child trust fund account. Although the Government may seek to abide by the letter of the rules and regulations by ending what could be considered to be advertising campaigns, they will retain a strong incentive to inform people as much as possible about the child trust fund account. We need some clarification from the Minister about where the boundary between advertising and publicity will be drawn. That is why new clause 7 says:
        "The Government shall not advertise or publicise by the distribution of leaflets or other literature the introduction of child trust funds during the pre-election period."
        Of course, the election period may not cover the spring of 2005. The date about which everyone is speculating may not be the date of the general election, as the Government may decide to delay it further. The major launch of the child trust fund accounts may have happened already, and the problem may not arise. However, it is possible that a May 2005 election might take place just as the Government launch a major campaign to publicise the payments to be made for cohorts of children going back to 1 September 2002.
        If that happened, it would conflict with the advice given in the Cabinet Office paper to which I have already referred. Direct mail literature sent by the Government to inform people about the child trust fund account may cause concern in an election period. The Government need to be sensitive to this problem, as the number of people entitled to the payments is so large.
        I hope that the Minister will confirm that if the child trust fund scheme is launched in the run-up to a general election, there will be no advertising campaign. Also, I hope that she will set out the safeguards that will be put in place to ensure that none of the publicity or information material associated with the payments can be perceived to be political, or an attempt to underpin the Government's prospects in the campaign.
        Mr. George Osborne: We now come to the politics of the debate—a shame, given the constructive afternoon that we have had so far, in which hon. Members have worked together to improve the Bill. At the outset, let me say that I think that the Minister's motives in introducing the child trust funds are entirely pure. I have no doubt that she genuinely wants to encourage saving, to improve financial education and to build up the financial assets of those who are least well off in our society. However, she is surrounded by others who have impure thoughts and regard child trust funds as a clever election ploy.
        Mr. Richard Bacon: Where are they?
        4.45 pm
        Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend asks where they are, but I can tell him that they are not here: they lurk in the shadows, surrounding the Minister in the Treasury and in Downing street. The timings involved in the child trust fund proposals are strikingly suspicious. The proposals were announced in the April 2001 Budget, just a month before what was then the expected date of that year's general election. The scheme is due to be launched in April 2005—just one month before the most likely date of the next general election. Government amendment No. 44 reveals for the first time the date of the scheme's implementation as 6 April 2005. That date is not totally unexpected, and will appear on the face of the Bill. Any flexibility that remained in the legislation to delay implementation if the processes for delivering child trusts are not ready will disappear.
        I am not a cynical person, and thought that curious timing—with the scheme's announcement one month before the last general election and its implementation one month before the likely date of the next general election—was just coincidence. Then I came across the minutes of the Institute for Public Policy Research summit held at 10 Downing street in 2002. I felt a bit like an anthropologist stumbling across a forgotten tribe in the forests of Papua New Guinea cut off from the modern world and unaware of what had been happening around them.
        The tribe at the IPPR summit were still talking in mystical terms about the third way—in fact, they were talking about the third way within the third way. They were still inviting Will Hutton to attend their events and listened to everything that he had to say. A huge wave of nostalgia washed across me and brought back memories of cool Britannia, the stakeholder speech in Singapore and the days when Alastair Campbell and the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) ran things—mind you, Alastair Campbell and the right hon. Gentleman probably still do run things.
        There was a presentation at that IPPR summit by Mr. Kevin Rudd, who I assume is still the Australian shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. Maybe he has been promoted, or perhaps he has been sacked; I do not know what has happened to Mr. Rudd. I have not really kept up with the comings and goings on the Front Bench of the Australian Labour party. It is difficult enough keeping track of what goes on among shadow Ministers on my own party's Front Bench.
        I am not sure what Mr. Rudd was doing at the IPPR summit, but he gave the opening presentation to the assembled luminaries, including the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Home Secretary—I am not sure what he was doing there either.
        Ruth Kelly: What is wrong with that?
        Mr. Osborne: It was not his Bill. It is surprising that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present, but the Home Secretary was present. Mr. Rudd talked about child trust funds and asset-based welfare. The minutes of that meeting concluded:
        "Kevin finished his presentation with a potential problem. The long-term nature of the Child Trust Fund could mean that it does not fit well with the electoral cycle. It will need to be sold to the public as there are not necessarily any short-term gains to point to."

        699
        The Government, with their inevitable genius for spotting political tricks, solved Kevin's problem for him because they are about to send out 1.8 million child trust fund vouchers to parents just before the next general election.
        I am sure that such calculated political considerations did not enter the head of the Financial Secretary. Having worked with the hon. Lady in Committee, I genuinely do not think that she is one of those people always looking for a political advantage. The way in which she has engaged with Opposition Members during the passage of the Bill suggests that she does not always look for the party political advantage. Others probably do. I suspect that some of the timings relating to the Bill are motivated by the electoral cycle.
        If that is the case, the Financial Secretary would surely agree that it would undermine many of her more wholesome objectives in successfully launching and promoting child trust funds. The timetable imposed for child trust funds would force financial providers and the Inland Revenue into a tight corner. Only yesterday, the Financial Secretary published the regulations. In less than one year, the hon. Lady will be sending out the first vouchers. During that period, providers will have to design their products, prepare systems, organise marketing and otherwise prepare for distributing the vouchers. I think the indication from the Government is that it will happen in January.
        Even more worrying than the situation for the providers, in whom I have quite a lot of confidence, is the situation for the Inland Revenue. It, too, will have to get its systems up and running, and we already know what a mess it made of the introduction of tax credits. It is especially worrying that just after the introduction of the child trust funds, the Inland Revenue is to change its IT provider, and it is not yet clear who the new provider will be.
        Furthermore, there is the question of what will happen when the election is called. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) dealt with that by repeating what the Minister said in Committee, but it is not reassuring to realise that the launch of child trust funds and their promotional material could be interfered with by the election timetable. A simple solution would be for the Minister to accept my amendment No. 27, or my amendment No. 81 if the acceptance of a Government amendment renders amendment No. 27 inoperable. If the Minister accepted my amendment, she would give the Inland Revenue and providers more time, she would avoid any risk that an election campaign would interfere with the launch, and she would prevent the party political row that would inevitably have taken place.
        That would not affect the success of child trust funds, because they do not mature for 18 years, so I commend my amendments to the House, and shall probably press amendment No. 81 to a vote if the Minister does not accept them.
        Ruth Kelly: The new clauses and amendments are cynicism writ large. The hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) both seem to think that somehow the Prime Minister will choose the general election date based on the date of the launch of the child trust funds. I can reassure them, because I am sure that my right hon. Friend is not even aware of the implementation date for the child trust funds.
        700
        We are committed to implementation in spring 2005. As the hon. Member for Tatton pointed out, the manifesto pledge was made before the last election, so it is only right that we should try to introduce the policy during this term of government. The 2005 introduction date for the child trust funds was announced in the Budget in 2003. Parents of eligible children born since 1 September 2002 are waiting to open their child trust fund accounts, and we want that to happen at the earliest opportunity.
        The effect of new clause 7 would be to prevent any advertising of the child trust fund in a pre-election period. The hon. Member for Yeovil referred to the Government's responsibilities, and the point that I made in Committee about the fact that during any general election campaign the Government retain their responsibility to govern, and essential business must go on. It has long been the practice that once a general election is called, activities such as the advertising of policies are stopped, where possible, for the duration of the pre-election period. The proposal would thus have an impact not only on the child trust fund but also on the introduction of any Government policy during a general election campaign.
        I remind the hon. Member for Tatton that a general election can be called at any time up to—I believe—summer 2006. Were an election to be called, advertising would undoubtedly be stopped. He has urged me to set out, today, in this place, the precise contents of the information pack that would be sent to parents.
        Mr. Laws: If the Financial Secretary is willing to give us a guarantee that the child trust fund will not be advertised during a pre-election period, why did she oppose the new clause on that issue that we debated in Committee?
        Ruth Kelly: I think that the hon. Gentleman misinterprets the remarks that I made in Committee. I have always said that the basic information pack would be sent out to parents. It is integral to the policy that parents be fully informed, so that they can make a reasonable and informed judgment about the sort of account that they should open on behalf of their child. It is essential to the operation of the policy that financial education be built into that decision. However, the surrounding publicity and advertising would stop, exactly in line with the Cabinet Office guidelines. Of course, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
        Mr. Laws: I want the Financial Secretary to confirm what assurances she is giving to me. Is the first assurance that the child trust fund will not be advertised during the pre-election period? Can she give me a second reassurance that any material at all that is issued to promote the child trust fund account during that period will be considered very carefully indeed, to ensure that it is not outside the spirit of the existing Cabinet Office guidelines?
        Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman makes his point, but he is deliberately misinterpreting the nature of my comments. Of course all advertising would cease. Of course there would be no generic marketing of the new policy during any general election campaign. Cabinet Office guidelines, from which he quotes, set out precisely

        701
        the rules that we would follow during a general election campaign, and we would follow them. I can give him that assurance. He asks for that commitment; I give him that commitment.
        The proposal to remove the provision that allows the child trust fund to be phased in would not be helpful for parents, providers or the Revenue, as allowing parents of children born before April 2005 to set up child trust fund accounts before the launch date will allow people to manage what would otherwise be a pronounced peak of work at launch. Providers have welcomed the proposal to phase in the launch.
        The Government amendments are technical, so I do not intend to speak to them unless hon. Members wish me to do so. I hope that the arguments that I have set out and the assurances that I have given will allow the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.
        Mr. Laws: I am not sure whether I am fully reassured by the Financial Secretary, not least because she appears to continue to contradict herself. At times she indicates that there will be no advertising in the pre-election period, but the fact remains that in Committee, she resisted an amendment that asked for precisely that and no more than that. She criticises the Opposition amendments as "cynicism writ large". As the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) said, we are trying to protect her from the cynicism of others in the Government. She ought to welcome the measures that we are taking to try to protect her integrity.
        The Financial Secretary went on to say that we were somehow suggesting that the general election date had been fixed to match the launch of the child trust fund. That is not what we are suggesting at all; we are saying that it is fortuitous that the launch of the child trust fund and the payments under it seem to be matching the most likely date of a general election. That is our concern.
        We have made a little bit of progress today in getting the Financial Secretary to confirm that the child trust fund account will not be advertised during the general election campaign. I wish she was a little clearer in recognising that, as is indicated in the Cabinet Office paper on advertising information during an election period, there will still be tension between the Government's understandable desire to give information about the child trust fund to people during its launch and the possibility that that information could be given during a pre-election period, when people are bound to be looking carefully at what any information on the child trust fund says and the way in which that might seek to promote the Government. Obviously, the comments from various IPPR seminars cited by the hon. Gentleman are relevant. I note that he may wish to press one of his amendments to a Division.
        Mr. Osborne: I am told that apparently, I should indicate—now is a good time to do so—that we shall seek a Division, probably on amendment No. 81 if an earlier Government amendment is accepted.
        Mr. Laws: After that indication, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 2

        ELIGIBLE CHILDREN
        Ruth Kelly: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 2, line 4 [Clause 2], leave out
        'by a directly applicable Community provision'
        and insert
        'because of a directly applicable Community provision or an international agreement'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 32, 46 to 48, 50 and 53 to 55.
        Ruth Kelly: Unless the House wishes me to discuss these purely technical, drafting and minor amendments further, I am happy to ask the House to accept them.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment made: No. 32, in page 2, line 8 [Clause 2], after 'provision' insert 'or an international agreement'. —[Ruth Kelly.

      Clause 3

        REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED
        5 pm
        Mr. Laws: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—
        '(1A) Regulations shall not require account providers to provide equity-based accounts, and shall make provision for cash deposit accounts, including provision for such accounts provided by building societies.'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 82, in page 2, line 31 [Clause 3], at end insert—
        '(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not impose a requirement that the charge levied by the account provider must be set at less than 1.5 per cent. of the total value of the relevant funds under management by the account provider, divided by the number of child trust funds held with the account provider.'.
        Amendment No. 57, in page 2, line 33 [Clause 3], at end insert—
        '(2A) An account is not a child trust fund account unless it permits subscriptions of amounts of no more than £5.
        (2B) The minimum amount in subsection (2A) may be increased by regulations if the Treasury is satisfied that the increase is no greater than is required to maintain the value of the amount in real terms.'.
        Government amendments Nos. 36 to 39 and 41.
        Amendment No. 59, in page 4, line 5 [Clause 6], at end insert—
        '(1A) An account may only be selected in accordance with subsection (1) if it is an account of a description which has been designated by the Financial Services Authority in a manner prescribed by regulations as a low risk account.'.
        Government amendment No. 43.
        Amendment No. 60, in page 4, line 20 [Clause 6], at end insert—
        '(6) Regulations shall designate a person to act generally in the stead of a responsible person in the management and oversight of provider risk and investment risk for child trust funds opened by the Inland Revenue under this section.'.

        703
        Amendment No. 78, in page 4, line 27 [Clause 7], at end insert—
        '(2) No charge may be levied in respect of a transfer undertaken in accordance with the provisions of regulations under this section.'.
        Mr. Laws: The group of amendments deals with a whole series of issues relevant to the supervision of account providers and the selection and opening of accounts. I shall speak especially to amendments Nos. 56, 57, 59, 60 and 78. I am afraid that I shall cover some ground that we covered in Committee in the hope that we will receive assurances from the Financial Secretary.
        Amendment No. 57 addresses whether stakeholder and child trust fund accounts could be cash-based accounts rather than being required to be equity-based accounts. We have two worries about that aspect of the Bill, the first of which relates to choice and an issue raised by the Building Societies Association. Is it appropriate for the Government to rule out providers that could offer only cash-based accounts and thus perhaps rule out several building societies that might find it expensive to make provision for equity accounts? Associated with that is a concern that we expressed in Committee about whether the stakeholder accounts should all have an equity component, and whether that would be appropriate for many people who would end up with such accounts, especially if the Inland Revenue made a decision about the selection of them.
        Amendment No. 57 deals with the minimum subscription amount, and I certainly hope that the Financial Secretary will address our worry today. In Committee, we referred several times to the illustrative projections of the final proceeds of child trust fund accounts that were put out by the Government and referred to by her in the House and in front of the Treasury Sub-Committee. It was clear at that stage that the Government envisaged that the minimum subscription amount would be as low as possible, thus allowing people on low incomes to contribute easily to child trust fund accounts. Many examples cited by the Financial Secretary involved a minimum subscription of £5.
        We debated in Committee an article in the Financial Times that indicated that the Government had changed their mind about the £5 minimum subscription, and we became more concerned about that as our discussions evolved due to the Financial Secretary's unwillingness to confirm that £5 was still the Government's target. We now discover from the regulations that the Government have decided to plump for a minimum subscription of £10, although it will obviously be left open to account providers to choose a lower figure if they wish.
        I understand the difficult balancing act that the Government must execute in balancing account providers' desire for a reasonable return on their commitments with the Government's desire to ensure that child trust fund accounts are as accessible as possible for those on low incomes who are saving for children. I am worried that it has been necessary for the Government to move away from the £5 minimum subscription. Although many people may believe that the £10 figure is pitched at a low level, one must put that in the context of a situation in which a huge proportion of our population save little or nothing, as the Government have indicated. A huge proportion of people—even those in employment—have low incomes. Saving £10
        704
        regularly, particularly for families with two, three or even four children, could be an onerous financial responsibility. I would have preferred the Government to maintain their apparent commitment to the £5 minimum subscription. Has the Financial Secretary had any indication that any providers might be willing to accept regular subscriptions of less than the £10 minimum set down by regulation?
        We had prolonged debate in Committee about the stakeholder accounts, and in particular those where the Inland Revenue and the Government would be acting in loco parentis—for example, for children in care. I had a particular concern that the Government's eagerness to ensure that everybody should be able to benefit from the potential returns in the equity market might lead to that particularly vulnerable group of young people automatically having to have equity accounts.
        Last weekend, I received a letter from a company of investment managers and tax and trust consultants based in my constituency. In the penultimate paragraph, it reminded me of the quarterly performance of the funds managed by the group and stated:
        "Stock market investing is risky. Please remember that the value of investments and the income from them may fall as well as rise and there is no guarantee that you will get back the amount of your original investment. Past performance is not a reliable guide to future performance."
        That final sentence relates to a matter of particular concern to many of us, because it seems that the Government have decided that past performance is a reliable guide to future performance, and that the very high returns in the equity market seen since the second world war will continue. Returns in the post-war period have sometimes been extremely adverse in some markets—for example, in the Japanese equity market. We also know that before the second world war, there were long periods when returns in the equity market were considerably less buoyant than those that the Financial Secretary and the Government allude to in the material that has surrounded the Bill.
        We also have the uncertainty about the potential yield on cash-based accounts. When interest rates are rising, the responsible individuals might well put the child trust fund assets into longer-maturity deposits, where there could be a significant pick-up along the yield curve. In other words, the yields that the Government seem to think are achievable only in the stock market could be achievable by putting money into longer-term deposits for periods of years.
        I am not yet convinced that the Government have put in place adequate safeguards for prolonged periods when the returns from the equity market may be negative. Short periods are allowed for to some extent in the Government's provisions for dealing with these accounts as they approach maturity, but equity market returns have been negative for a prolonged period in some foreign markets over the last 20 years.
        The Government need to consider safeguards to be put into place where equity markets are in long-term decline. They should also bear in mind something that the Financial Secretary acknowledged on Second Reading: there is often a relationship between the amount of individuals' financial assets and the extent of the risk that they are willing to take. Individuals with large child trust fund accounts—where, for example,

        705
        parents and relatives are making large payments into the accounts or there is an affluent family background—may well be willing to accept more risk for the accounts. They know that if they endure large losses in parts of those accounts they will still have other financial assets, either in the child trust fund account or outside it.
        Individuals in a weaker financial position, particularly some of those for whom the Government are acting in loco parentis, might well have a much higher risk aversion. If they had had the opportunity, they might far rather have taken guaranteed returns of 5 or 6 per cent. in a cash-based account or an account linked to Government stocks than have taken a potentially much larger risk in an equity-based account, for a return that, over a significant period of time, might not be significantly higher. I am sure that all hon. Members can understand that. When we have fewer financial assets, we are all generally less inclined to take high risks with those assets than when we have a lot of money to play with.
        No doubt the Minister is motivated by legitimate concerns and a desire to make sure that people whose child trust fund accounts are managed by the Government should do as well as possible, but she needs to put in place adequate safeguards for those individuals. Some of those people, particularly if the accounts do badly, may not appreciate her taking larger risks with that money in terms of equity investment than they would have chosen to take, given that the money in their child trust fund accounts could represent a large proportion of their financial assets.
        That is why we tabled amendments Nos. 59 and 60, which seek more advice and information from the Government about the safeguards that they envisage putting in place for child trust find accounts, particularly stakeholder accounts, into which the Government may put money in loco parentis. Will there be a more explicit role for the Financial Services Authority in examining the risk characteristics of those accounts? In particular, where vulnerable individuals will not be taking decisions about the equity allocation themselves, or where their parents are not taking such decisions, but the Government are doing so instead, will the FSA have any role in ensuring that the risks are reasonable, and in policing those risks over time?
        In Committee, we had a not entirely enlightening debate about the individual who would act on behalf of children in care, for example, in respect of child trust fund accounts. Our discussion was predicated on the basis that the Solicitor-General would have a large role in that, but I think that the Government had in mind the Official Solicitor. The Financial Secretary has since confirmed that. In her comments to the Committee and to me subsequently, I believe that she was indicating that the Official Solicitor might play some role on behalf of children in care in respect of provider risk and investment risk, but I am not sure how far she will be able to ask the Official Solicitor to go down that route, especially as I assume that the Official Solicitor does not have the expertise to make judgments about provider and market risk.
        Will the Financial Secretary clarify the responsibilities that the Official Solicitor will have in respect of accounts where the Government are acting in
        706
        loco parentis? Will there be any attempt to ensure that the Official Solicitor or any other agent of the Government will manage and keep an eye on the provider risk and the investment risk inherent in the child trust fund accounts?
        Our final amendment in this group, amendment No. 78, deals with the absence of charging in respect of transfers from one child trust fund account to another or one class of account managed by a single provider. That point has been addressed by the Financial Secretary in Government amendments. I am pleased that the clarification that she provided in Committee has been backed up by those amendments.
        Mr. Adrian Bailey: I shall explore some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and, somewhat tangentially, by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir). First, I should declare an interest. I am chair of the all-party group on building societies and financial mutuals, and in another capacity, I am chair of the Labour and Co-operative group of Members of Parliament, so I have a specific interest in mutuality in the provision of financial services.
        This is a very good and well-intentioned Bill that has the long-term potential to transform the prospects of people who have hitherto been unable to access the personal wealth-creating processes that are available. I want to make a few comments about how we can maximise that potential.
        5.15 pm
        In the long term, the Bill's success will depend on its ability to attract low-income families into the habit of saving for their children. There is little point in the Government merely introducing yet another savings plan for middle-class children, because there are already plenty of those. Traditionally, because of their strong community roots and perceived safety, building societies have been the main source of savings products for low-income, working-class people—particularly in the context of children's savings, where they have played a pioneering role. The movement is concerned about the fact that the regulations stipulate that any provider must be able to offer both savings and equity-based products, which means that some 17 of the 63 building societies will be excluded because they cannot offer the latter.
        There are two possible responses. The first would be that those building societies should look to make the necessary arrangements to offer equity-based products. However, to secure e necessary compliance from the Financial Services Authority, they would have to enter into arrangements that would cost them considerable sums, making the whole process economically unfeasible. That most affects smaller building societies with the closest roots in particular communities, which means that those communities could be disadvantaged.
        The other response would be to ensure that financial providers that can offer equity-based products can move into the market. One potential obstacle to their doing so was removed by today's announcement of the cap in the regulations allowing them to charge up to 1.5 per cent. in management charges. If that had been set at a lower rate, they would have found it financially uncompetitive to offer such products.

        707
        Even in this context, low-income people have natural reservations about entering into equity-based savings schemes, because they tend to put a premium on safety and perceive mutuals to be more likely to deliver that. I am seriously worried that if equity-based providers do not want to target low-income people in certain areas, and no mutual is capable of delivering a savings product there, we could end up with deserts without provision. I hope that the Minister will monitor that position carefully.
        I am worried about other issues. First, as things stand, credit unions will also be excluded from the provisions, because they cannot provide equity-based products. There is a certain irony in savings institutions that have pioneered the savings habit among the lowest-income people, and in some cases with children, being excluded. For example, the Glasgow credit union, with 17,500 members and £40 million of assets, is very keen to launch a deposit-only child trust fund. The Leeds City credit union, with 14,000 members, £11.5 million of assets and, above all, a schools programme with 2,000 young savers, would also be potentially excluded. I hope that the Financial Secretary will examine how the scheme works with a view to trying to bring on board those institutions that have developed that savings ethic among low-income, working-class children.
        Secondly, under the default provisions, people who do not take up the provisions will almost certainly have their accounts put with an equity provider by the Inland Revenue. Those will tend to be people on lower incomes who will be even less confident about dealing with an equity provider. As a result, I do not believe that the potential of such a role will be fulfilled. Thirdly, the minimum £10 monthly requirement to save, which has been mentioned previously, could be a deterrent to people on very low incomes, who would not be able to fulfil their full savings potential.
        In total, the Bill is excellent. However, certain areas need to be monitored closely to ensure that the policy is reaching those people whom we most want to help and whom we feel will most benefit. I am reassured first by the Financial Secretary's history of support for mutuality—her contribution in relation to Private Members' Bills is recognised and acknowledged—and by her comments today and in Committee that the Government will review and monitor the working of the legislation to ensure that it achieves the objectives that have been set out. If the concerns that I have raised appear to be materialising, I hope that she will take steps to ensure that the Bill's full potential is fulfilled.
        Mr. Weir: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) and I agree almost entirely with his comments.
        I raised this matter both on Second Reading and in Committee, because I am concerned that many small building societies will not be able to offer child trust funds. We have seen almost a flight from mutuality over the past few years, and the main Scottish mutual life insurer, Standard Life, is now seriously considering going down the plc route, too, which will remove most mutuality from the life assurance business, at least in the Scottish context.
        In Scotland, only two building societies remain: the Dunfermline building society and the smaller Scottish building society. Under the Bill, the Scottish building
        708
        society will not be able to offer a child trust fund. That is a shame, because over the past few years it has opened agencies in many small towns from which many of the bigger building societies have pulled out, with some following plc status and some closing agency networks. I am not sure whether it is common in England, but in many small Scottish towns it is common for a solicitor, accountant or other professional to have an agency from a smaller building society.
        There is a bigger issue, however. As I have said previously, many people consider the traditional building society account to be a safe investment. The Financial Secretary said in Committee that the provider's main mechanism for selling funds was a direct offer, with little or no face-to-face advice. That concerns me greatly, as I suspect that many people who receive such an offer will not read all the small print and all the documents that come with it. That strengthens the case for allowing people to invest in something with which they feel comfortable—an ordinary deposit-based building society. I understand the Financial Secretary's argument—we have been through it several times—about equity-based investment working over a longer period, but it will not necessarily persuade many people who view the money as a significant sum that they would not otherwise get.
        I understood that one of the objects of the child trust fund was to encourage people to save more for the future and to encourage financial acumen. I have a horrible fear that, if we do not give people the option of saving in a way with which they are comfortable, the object will fail. If people are forced by circumstance to have an equity-based investment that they do not understand, they are unlikely to put more funds into it. The problem would be compounded for those on lower incomes by the nature of most of the equity-based funds.
        We have heard today that, according to the regulations, a minimum investment is expected to be £10 a month—a substantial commitment for anyone who has more than one child and exists on a low income. The beauty of an ordinary deposit based account is that one can put in money when one can afford it. Families on lower incomes thus have the option of investing for their children's future when they can do so, without committing themselves to the regular investment that equity-based accounts require. We therefore exclude people from what I accept, as a supporter of the Bill, to be a good system.
        For many people, equity-based funds will be fine, but others will be excluded—the very people whom we need to reach to improve their financial acumen and get them to save for the future. That is a serious defect in the Bill. and I ask the Financial Secretary to reconsider yet again, but I am not confident that she will do so.
        Mr. George Osborne: I shall speak about my remarkably prescient amendment No. 82. Before I do that, I want to point out that one of the most serious handicaps that hon. Members experienced in scrutinising the Bill is the absence of the detailed regulations on which most legislation greatly depends. Indeed, the success of child trust funds will depend on regulations. It is worth remembering that at the beginning of the process, the Treasury Sub-Committee stated:

        709
        "The Child Trust Funds Bill was introduced into the House without the relevant regulations covering important aspects including the proposed sales regime. We consider that these must be produced in time for the standing committee to consider them thoroughly."
        Of course, they were not produced. The White Paper promised them before the end of last year, but they did not appear then or during our Committee proceedings. Indeed, they appeared only yesterday—too late for any amendments that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) or I could have tabled to be selected. That is a shame.
        However, I struck gold because I tabled amendment No. 82, which suggested that the charge cap should be 1.5 per cent. Yesterday, the Government announced their decision to abandon the 1 per cent. charge cap, which they set out in their response to the Sandler review and in the White Paper. They decided instead to set a charge cap of 1.5 per cent. That is a U-turn, albeit not as dramatic as the Prime Minister's U-turn on an inquiry into weapons of mass destruction. However, most of the press comments on it today.
        It would be churlish not to welcome the decision, not least because I predicted it and tabled amendments to that effect in Committee. I have also tabled a similar amendment on Report. I propose a charge cap of 1.5 per cent. on, as I conceded in Committee, a remarkably unscientific basis. I took the 1 per cent., to which the Government appeared to be sticking, and the 2 per cent., for which most of the industry were calling, and suggested that we split the difference. Although unscientific, it was considerably cheaper than commissioning Deloitte and Touche to devise the same answer. Nevertheless, the Government and I reached the same conclusion by different routes.
        5.30 pm
        The Financial Secretary has been right to listen to the arguments advanced by the financial providers and by me and others during the passage of the Bill. With a charge cap of 1 per cent. there would have been very few child trust fund providers, most of whom would probably have cherry-picked at the more prosperous end of the market. The Government were right to swallow their pride and get themselves off the hook that they had put themselves on last July over Sandler. I agree with what the Minister said in her written ministerial statement yesterday:
        "The Government's decision on the charge cap is in the best interests of consumers, as it encourages as wide a selection of providers as possible to offer child trust fund accounts. A large number of providers will encourage competition and ensure the best value for consumers."—[Official Report, 2 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 25WS.]
        I agree with every word of that.
        I shall be interested to see whether the Minister follows a similar logic with other stakeholder products over the coming months. Ignoring what she has said before, I would urge her to look at stakeholder pensions, for example. Pensions are not part of my shadow Front-Bench portfolio, but one of the things that almost every provider said to me when I was talking to them about child trust funds was that they did not want to go down the route that they took with stakeholder pensions,
        710
        which are not working. They cited the 1 per cent. charge cap on stakeholder pensions as a particular problem, but that is an issue for another day. I hope that the Minister will approach the question of charges for stakeholder products with the same open mind with which she has approached child trust funds.
        Government amendment No. 39 represents another welcome U-turn, because it opens the door to allowing parents to open accounts by means other than physically handing in a paper voucher to a provider. It will allow them, for example, to open an account by telephone or on the Internet. I know that it will be possible to open an account in that way anyway, and I am sure that many providers will offer that service, but the amendment will mean that they will not then physically have to send in their voucher.
        In amendment No. 39, the Minister has given herself some room for the future, because she has removed from the Bill the requirement to provide a voucher to the financial provider and has at least opened the door to other methods. That is sensible, because we expect child trust funds to be with us for some time and, with all the developments that are taking place in technology, she would have been foolish to tie herself to a paper-based system. It is a shame, however, that she has not bitten the bullet and abandoned the idea of a paper-based scheme right from the start. I notice that on page 6 of the regulations there is still a requirement for the applicant to give the voucher relating to the named child to the account provider.
        All the providers and trade representatives whom I have spoken to made the point that the voucher was a cumbersome, bureaucratic and unnecessary feature. I do not accept the argument advanced by the Inland Revenue that it is all to do with the prevention of fraud. There are many sophisticated ways of preventing fraud by electronic means these days, and far larger sums of money are transferred electronically than will ever be transferred in the entirety of the child trust fund system, let alone in any individual account.
        Will the Minister assure us that she will monitor the way in which the system is working? I understand why she does not want to change it now—not least because she has already published the regulations—but will she do all that she can to allow providers to offer an entirely telephone or internet-based system, perhaps once the funds are up and running, when the system is working fine and when she has reassured herself that the scope for fraud is limited?
        Ruth Kelly: I shall deal with the Opposition amendments first. The child trust fund account is a long-term investment for 18 years. Although the value of shares can go down as well as up, the historical evidence is that shares provide the best returns on such a long-term investment.
        In Committee, we had lengthy debates with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), among others, about the historical returns on equities in this country and other countries, and I do not intend to repeat those arguments here. Amendment No. 56 proposes that account providers need not provide equity-based accounts. The Government's position, however, is that all children should have the opportunity to benefit from the generally higher returns on equities over the longer

        711
        term. The child trust fund stakeholder account that all providers will be required to offer will be equity based and risk controlled, and the charge cap will ensure that they provide value for money. Amendment No. 56 also proposes that provision be made for cash deposit accounts, including those provided by building societies. Draft regulations for the child trust fund ensure that parents may indeed invest in cash deposit accounts, including those offered by building societies, if they wish to do so.
        I turn now to arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), who has sustained a long-term interest in these matters, both before and after he became a Member of Parliament, and by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir). My hon. Friend argued that the success of the child trust fund depends on the savings that low-income families contribute to the fund. I do not dispute that. One indicator of success will be the savings contributed to the funds, but I am sure that he will accept, as I argued several times in Committee, that there is more than one factor in the success of the accounts. Other factors include the size of the asset that has built up for the child and is available to them at 18; the financial education attached to that, including the understanding of risk and reward; and whether responsible choices are made by the child at the age of 18. All those factors are important to the development of the policy. However, I accept my hon. Friend's argument that certain building societies, particularly some of the smaller ones, have special relationships with low-income communities. They may have deeper community roots, and indeed are highly regarded by some low-income communities as a particularly safe source for their funds. Families and individuals may well have well developed relationships with particular providers.
        I respect the arguments made by hon. Friend, and I hope that I can reassure him that I have considered the issue seriously. Most building societies, I am told by the Building Societies Association, will indeed be able to offer the stakeholder fund as well as the cash-based account. More importantly, given changes to the rules under which the Financial Services Authority operates and the depolarisation changes that it is bringing into effect, it will become possible for smaller building societies to team up with partner firms, which could provide the stakeholder account while the building societies provide a cash-based account. They will therefore be able to offer a range of accounts to people in low-income communities if they think that there is demand for them and apply for authorisation if they have not already done so. It is important that individuals and families in low-income communities are given the opportunity to have an equity-based account. Indeed, it would extremely negative if they did not have that opportunity and, as a result of living in a particular geographic location or having a particular relationship with a financial institution, were deprived of the growth opportunity available through a stakeholder account.
        Mr. Laws: On the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) about whether smaller building societies would have the capability to offer cost-effective delivery of equity-based accounts, will the Minister confirm that the discussion with the FSA to allow smaller building societies to team up with
        712
        larger building societies took place recently? Clearly, when the Building Societies Association wrote to Committee members on 15 December, it did not believe that such delivery would be possible, and said that 17 of the 65 building societies would not be able to offer the equity-based account.
        Ruth Kelly: I understand that, while 17 societies would not be able to offer stakeholder accounts on their own, if the demand existed there would be no reason for them not to team up with the partner firms. The FSA's change in the polarisation rules is a relatively new development and I do not know the extent to which it had been factored into the thinking of the Building Societies Association when it wrote to MPs, but the fact remains that if societies see a demand they will be able to offer accounts to individuals and families with whom they have a relationship.
        The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) was pleased that we had decided to set the charge cap at 1.5 per cent. I am delighted that he foresaw that. I have always made it clear to Members, and to people outside, that decisions on the charge cap in relation to stakeholder products will reflect the economics of those products. It will be a case of "what works" in each case.
        I also made clear, in my written statement to the House, that the economics of the child trust fund were different from those of other stakeholder products. For a start, lower minimum contributions are required. The nature of the contributions is likely to be very different from the nature of, for instance, a stakeholder pension: the contributions are likely to be less regular and of lower value. The market is also structured very differently. We want to encourage diverse providers into the market to ensure that consumers' needs are met, and that includes encouraging building societies.
        All those factors were taken into account by the research report given to us by Deloitte and Touche. We concluded, on the basis of the evidence, that a 1.5 per cent. charge was appropriate in this case. I should emphasise that that is a maximum—a cap on the amount that a firm offering stakeholder products can charge. It is desirable and, I hope, likely that providers will compete below the cap. Indeed, I have negotiated with providers who have told me of their commitment to 1 per cent. The 1.5 per cent. provision is a backstop to ensure that there is enough competition for low-income consumers in particular to feel that their interests are being met. Similar considerations apply to the minimum contribution level. The figure of £10 specified in the draft regulations is also a backstop. Again, I expect competition to drive it down if the demand is there. Firms have told us that they would accept lower levels, particularly if regular payments were made.
        I have also made it clear that firms must state their minimum contribution up front. If they intend to set it at £10, that must be made clear to parents when they open accounts. Parents can of course switch at any time, free of charge, if they decide that the account does not suit them.
        The draft regulations also specify the risk controls that will apply to stakeholder accounts. The provider will be required to diversify investments and to move over time into cash-based assets as a fund nears maturity in order to lock in the gains made from equities in the early years.

        713
        I find the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Yeovil rather strange. I fail to understand his logic. It is difficult to see what purpose would be served by asking for additional risk controls to be set by the FSA, over and above what is already proposed. Additional provision would over-complicate accounts. If the hon. Gentleman wants the FSA to consider parents' individual circumstances and decide whether an equity account would meet their needs better than a cash account, I can tell him that that would be inappropriate.
        5.45 pm
        Amendment No. 60 would amend the regulations to designate a responsible person for child trust funds opened by the Inland Revenue. The hon. Member for Yeovil has assumed that where the Inland Revenue opens a child trust fund account for a child, there will not be a responsible person willing to consider which provider or which investment is best.
        We will, of course, encourage parents—or someone with parental responsibility—to ensure that they take full responsibility for a child's account, and that important point will be a key message in our information and guidance on the child trust fund. We will monitor take-up by parents closely, and if large numbers of them are not using their children's child trust fund voucher we will call them to encourage them to do so. Parents can even take responsibility for the account after the Revenue has opened it. We know that some parents lead such busy lives that they may be so preoccupied with other matters that they fail to open the account before the child reaches the age of one. In that case, however, it is possible that later on in the child's life the parents will decide to activate their parental choice, switch provider and take full parental control of the fund. Nevertheless, the stakeholder account has been designed to offer the best prospects to children over the long term, even if there is no active management.
        The hon. Member for Yeovil is concerned about children in care, looked after children and the role of the Official Solicitor. We have not yet finalised the possible role of the Official Solicitor, with whom we are still negotiating, but I can confirm that we have discussed the need for the Official Solicitor to consider whether the account is performing poorly. The hon. Gentleman's concerns about an equity market slump or liquidity crisis that have driven him to make his many and varied comments would be the sorts of the concerns that the Official Solicitor, if he or she were to accept that role, should consider.
        Mr. Laws: The Financial Secretary is teasing me, but at the same time she appears to be indicating that the Government might take up my suggestion, so I am not sure whether she is in favour of it. Does she envisage a situation in which the Official Solicitor could consider provider risk and investment risk for the accounts of children in care? Is that what she is trying to persuade the Official Solicitor to do?
        Ruth Kelly: I am arguing that the Official Solicitor would act in loco parentis and take into account the same considerations as one might expect a parent to take into account.
        714
        On the Government amendments, I remain of the opinion that giving a voucher with the child's name on it to providers is the key to the operation of the policy, but it is also the key to operational efficiency and the most effective fraud deterrent as well. Possession of the voucher will enable providers to get Government payments into children's accounts as quickly as possible because they will be able to transfer the data encoded on the voucher to the Inland Revenue without risking the inevitable errors created by the manual transfer of such information and the need to return the claim for correction.
        We have learned from our experience of individual savings accounts, which has benefited the child trust fund policy. It is not unlikely that the same type of errors that have arisen in relation to ISAs will be made with child trust funds. We want to minimise delays due to wrongly opened accounts and inaccurate information, and data transfer using the voucher will help to achieve that. I am convinced that that is essential to ensure that the process for claiming Government endowments runs quickly and smoothly. However, I accept that we should retain an element of flexibility on that point in the future and that it would be sensible to amend the Bill so that that requirement is in the regulations rather than in primary legislation. I have no evidence to suggest that the impact on fraud will somehow lessen or go away in years to come, but it is sensible to retain an element of flexibility.
        I hope that my arguments have reassured both my hon. Friends and Opposition Members, and that they will withdraw their amendments.
        Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for her comments on several different amendments that deal with distinct issues in the Bill. I am pleased that she has offered a little more insight into the role of the Official Solicitor. However, this is a particularly critical issue, given that we are dealing with children in care, whose interests need to be properly looked after by the Government. I should therefore be very grateful if the Financial Secretary could update us on this issue, once her Department has agreed with the Official Solicitor just how proactive he or she is going to be. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary will succeed in persuading the Official Solicitor to take on what could be quite interesting investment responsibilities.
        The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) raised a number of important points about making the child trust fund account accessible to low-income savers, rather than simply making it another savings option and savings break for the more affluent in society. I very much agree with what he said, and I hope that the Government will review some of the key issues that we have covered, including the minimum subscription amount, to see whether their decisions are making accounts more inaccessible to those from lower-income backgrounds.
        Finally, I was very pleased to hear the Financial Secretary's comments on building societies. I assume that somebody at the Financial Services Authority will be available to talk to the Building Societies Association about the question of smaller societies twinning with larger ones, if they so wish. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 3

        REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED
        Amendments made: No. 33, in page 2, line 45, leave out from 'that' to end of line 46 and insert
        'instructions may be given to the account provider with respect to its management only by the person who has the authority to manage it.'.
        No. 34, in page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
        '(5A) The person who has the authority to manage a child trust fund held by a child—

        if the child is 16 or over, is the child, and

        if the child is under 16, is the person who has that authority by virtue of subsection (5B).

        (5B) If there is one person who is a responsible person in relation to the child, that person has that authority; and if there is more than one person who is such a person which of them has that authority is to be determined in accordance with regulations.
        (6) For the purposes of this Act a person is a responsible person in relation to a child under 16 if the person has parental responsibility in relation to the child and is not—

        a local authority or, in Northern Ireland, an authority within the meaning of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I.2)), or

        a person under 16.'.

        No. 35, in line 14, at end insert—
        '() Where a contract is entered into by or on behalf of a child who is 16 or over in connection with a child trust fund—

        held by the child, or

        held by another child in relation to whom the child has parental responsibility,

        the contract has effect as if the child had been 18 or over when it was entered into.'. — [Ruth Kelly.]

      Clause 5

        OPENING BY RESPONSIBLE PERSON
        Amendments made: No. 36, in page 3, line 35, leave out from 'may' to end of line.
        No. 37, in line 37, leave out second 'the' and insert 'an'.
        No. 38, in line 39, at end insert—
        '() The application is to be made in accordance with regulations.'.
        No. 39, in line 40, leave out
        'On receipt of the voucher'
        and insert
        'When the application has been made'.
        No. 40, in line 43, at end insert—
        '() If the child is 16 or over, the references in subsections (2) and (3) to a responsible person are to the child.'. —[Ruth Kelly.]

      Clause 6

        OPENING BY INLAND REVENUE
        Amendments made: No. 41, in ago, 4, line 3, leave out from 'selected' to end of line 5 and insert
        'in accordance with regulations a child trust fund of a description so selected.
        () The application is to be made in accordance with regulations.'.
        716
        No. 42, in line 17, at beginning insert
        'the child is under 16 and'.
        No. 43, in line 20, leave out 'by the Inland Revenue' and insert 'in accordance with regulations'. —[Ruth Kelly.]

      Clause 9

        SUPPLEMENTARY CONTRIBUTION BY INLAND REVENUE
        Amendments made: No. 44, in page 5, line 29, leave out
        'fell before the appointed day'
        and insert
        'is earlier than 6th April 2005'.
        No. 45, in line 41, leave out 'fell before' and insert 'is earlier than'.
        No. 46, in page 6, line 7, at end insert 'or an international agreement'.
        No. 47, in line 7, at end insert
        'or, in the case of a child to whom section 2(3) applies or section 2(5) has applied, such day as is prescribed by regulations.'. —[Ruth Kelly.]

      Clause 19

        PAYMENTS AFTER DEATH OF CHILD
        Amendment made: No. 48, in page 10, line 23, leave out from 'that' to 'had' in line 24 and insert
        'section 9 applied to the child (or would have'. —[Ruth Kelly.]

      Clause 22

        RIGHTS OF APPEAL
        Amendment made: No. 49, in page 13, line 8, leave out
        'is a responsible person and'—[Ruth Kelly.]

      Clause 24

        TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS
        Amendment made: No. 50, in page 14, line 21, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 23 and insert—

        the Social Security Act 1998 (c. 14) (social security appeals: Great Britain),

        '.—[Ruth Kelly.]

      Clause 27

        COMMENCEMENT
        Amendment made: No. 51, in page 15, line 12, leave out from '31)' to end of line 17 and insert
        'comes into force in accordance with provision made by order.'. — [Ruth Kelly.]
        Amendment proposed: No. 81, in line 17, at end insert—
        '(4) No order may be made under subsection (1) before the dissolution of the present Parliament.'. —[Mr. George Osborne.]
        Question put, That the amendment be made.
        The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 328.

        Division No. 42]

        [5:52 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

        Allan, Richard

        Greenway, John

        Arbuthnot, rh James

        Grieve, Dominic

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Gummer, rh John

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Hague, rh William

        Bacon, Richard

        Hammond, Philip

        Baker, Norman

        Hancock, Mike

        Barker, Gregory

        Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

        Baron, John (Billericay)

        Barrett, John

        Hawkins, Nick

        Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

        Hayes, John (S Holland)

        Beith, rh A. J.

        Heald, Oliver

        Bellingham, Henry

        Heath, David

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

        Blunt, Crispin

        Hendry, Charles

        Boswell, Tim

        Hermon, Lady

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

        Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

        Holmes, Paul

        Horam, John (Orpington)

        Brady, Graham

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

        Hunter, Andrew

        Brazier, Julian

        Jack, rh Michael

        Breed, Colin

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Bruce, Malcolm

        Keetch, Paul

        Burns, Simon

        Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

        Burnside, David

        Burstow, Paul

        Key, Robert (Salisbury)

        Burt, Alistair

        Kirkwood, Sir Archy

        Cable, Dr. Vincent

        Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

        Calton, Mrs Patsy

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Cameron, David

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

        Lamb, Norman

        Lansley, Andrew

        Carmichael, Alistair

        Laws, David (Yeovil)

        Cash, William

        Leigh, Edward

        Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

        Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

        Liddell-Grainger, Ian

        Chidgey, David

        Lidington, David

        Chope, Christopher

        Lilley, rh Peter

        Clappison, James

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Loughton, Tim

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

        Collins, Tim

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Conway, Derek

        Mackay, rh Andrew

        Cotter, Brian

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Malins, Humfrey

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

        Maples, John

        Maude, rh Francis

        Djanogly, Jonathan

        Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

        Doughty, Sue

        Mercer, Patrick

        Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

        Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

        Duncan Smith, rh lain

        Evans, Nigel

        Murrison, Dr. Andrew

        Ewing, Annabelle

        Norman, Archie

        Fabricant, Michael

        Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

        Fallon, Michael

        O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

        Flight, Howard

        Öpik, Lembit

        Flook, Adrian

        Osborne, George (Tattoo)

        Forth, rh Eric

        Ottaway, Richard

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Page, Richard

        Francois, Mark

        Paice, James

        Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

        Paterson, Owen

        Garnier, Edward

        Portillo, rh Michael

        George, Andrew (St. Ives)

        Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

        Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

        Gidley, Sandra

        Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Pugh, Dr. John

        Goodman, Paul

        Redwood, rh John

        Gray, James (N Wilts)

        Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

        Grayling, Chris

        Rendel, David

        Green, Damian (Ashford)

        Robathan, Andrew

        718

        Robertson, Angus (Moray)

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Tayor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Rosindell, Andrew

        Teather, Sarah

        Ruffley, David

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Thurso, John

        Salmond, Alex

        Tonge, Dr. Jenny

        Sanders, Adrian

        Tredinnick, David

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Trend, Michael

        Selous, Andrew

        Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

        Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

        Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

        Simmonds, Mark

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

        Walter, Robert

        Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)

        Waterson, Nigel

        Webb, Steve (Northavon)

        Soames, Nicholas

        Weir, Michael

        Spelman, Mrs Caroline

        Whittingdale, John

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Wiggin, Bill

        Spink,Bob (Castle Point)

        Wilkinson, John

        Spring, Richard

        Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

        Stanley, rh Sir John

        Williams, Roger (Brecon)

        Steen, Anthony

        Wilshire, David

        Streeter, Gary

        Wishart, Pete

        Stunell, Andrew

        Young, rh Sir George

        Younger-Ross, Richard

        Swayne, Desmond

        Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Syms, Robert

        Mr. Mark Field and Angela Watkinson

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Ainger, Nick

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Alexander. Douglas

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Allen, Graham

        Caplin, Ivor

        Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

        Caton, Martin

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

        Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

        Challen, Colin

        Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Chaytor, David

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

        Austin, John

        Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Bailey, Adrian

        Baird, Vera

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Banks, Tony

        Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

        Barnes, Harry

        Barron, rh Kevin

        Clelland, David

        Battle, John

        Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

        Bayley, Hugh

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Beard, Nigel

        Cohen, Harry

        Beckett, rh Margaret

        Coleman, Iain

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Colman, Tony

        Bell, Sir Stuart

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Bennett, Andrew

        Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

        Berry, Roger

        Cooper, Yvette

        Best, Harold

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Betts, Clive

        Corston, Jean

        Blackman, Liz

        Cox, Tom (Tooting)

        Blizzard, Bob

        Cranston, Ross

        Borrow, David

        Crausby, David

        Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

        Cruddas, Jon

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

        Brennan, Kevin

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

        Cummings, John

        Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Browne, Desmond

        Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

        Bryant, Chris

        Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Burden, Richard

        Dalyell, Tam

        Burnham, Andy

        Darling, rh Alistair

        Byers, rh Stephen

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Cable, Dr. Vincent

        David, Wayne

        Cairns, David

        Davidson, Ian

        719

        Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

        Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Dawson, Hilton

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Jamieson, David

        Denham, rh John

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Dismore, Andrew

        Jones, Jun Owen (Cardiff C)

        Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

        Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

        Dobson, rh Frank

        Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Donohoe, Brian H.

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Doran, Frank

        Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

        Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

        Keeble Ms Sally

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Keen, Alan (Feltham)

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Keen, Ann (Brentford)

        Edwards, Huw

        Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Kemp, Fraser

        Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

        Khabra, Piara S.

        Etherington, Bill

        Kidney, David

        Farrelly, Paul

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Fisher, Mark

        King, Andy (Rugby)

        Flint, Caroline

        Knight Jim (S Dorset)

        Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

        Kumar, Dr. Ashok

        Follett, Barbara

        Ladyman Dr. Stephen

        Foster, rh Derek

        Lammy, David

        Foster, Michael (Worcester)

        Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

        Lazarowicz, Mark

        Lepper, David

        Foulkes, rh George

        Leslie, Christopher

        Francis, Dr. Hywel

        Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

        George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Gerrard, Neil

        Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

        Gibson, Dr. Ian

        Linton, Martin

        Gilroy, Linda

        Love, Andrew

        Godsiff, Roger

        Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

        Goggins, Paul

        Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Grogan, John

        McCartney, rh Ian

        Hain, rh Peter

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        MacDonald, Calum

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        McDonnell John

        Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

        MacDougall, John

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        McFall, John

        Hanson, David

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Harman, rh Ms Harriet

        McIsaac, Shona

        Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

        McKechin, Ann

        Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

        McKenna, Rosemary

        McNamara, Kevin

        Healey, John

        McNulty, Tony

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Mactaggart Fiona

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        McWalter, Tony

        Hendrick, Mark

        McWilliam, John

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Mahmood, Khalid

        Heppell, John

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Hesford, Stephen

        Mallaber, Judy

        Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

        Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

        Heyes, David

        Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Hill, Keith (Streatham)

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Hinchliffe, David

        Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

        Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

        Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Hoon, rh Geoffrey

        Martlew, Eric

        Hope, Phil (Corby)

        Meacher, rh Michael

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

        Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

        Merron, Gillian

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

        Michael, rh Alun

        Milburn, rh Alan

        Howells, Dr. Kim

        Miliband, David

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Miller, Andrew

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Moffatt, Laura

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Mole, Chris

        Hurst Alan (Braintree)

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Iddon, Dr. Brian

        Moran, Margaret

        Illsley, Eric

        Morris rh Estelle

        Ingram, rh Adam

        Mountford, Kali

        Irranca-Davies, Huw

        Mudie, George

        720

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Soley, Clive

        Naysmith, Dr. Doug

        Southworth, Helen

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Squire, Rachel

        O'Hara, Edward

        Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

        Olner, Bill

        Steinberg, Gerry

        O'Neill, Martin

        Stevenson, George

        Owen, Albert

        Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

        Palmer, Dr. Nick

        Perham, Linda

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Picking, Anne

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Pickthall, Colin

        Stoate, Dr. Howard

        Pike, Peter (Burnley)

        Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

        Plaskitt, James

        Straw, rh Jack

        Pollard, Kerry

        Stringer, Graham

        Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Pound, Stephen

        Tami, Mark (Alyn)

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Tipping, Paddy

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

        Purchase, Ken

        Trickett, Jon

        Quin, rh Joyce

        Truswell, Paul

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

        Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

        Raynsford, rh Nick

        Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

        Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

        Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

        Vis, Dr. Rudi

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Ward, Claire

        Rooney, Terry

        Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

        Watts, David

        Ruane, Chris

        White, Brian

        Ruddock, Joan

        Whitehead, Dr. Alan

        Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Salter, Martin

        Wills, Michael

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Wilson, Brian

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Winnick, David

        Sawford, Phil

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Woodward, Shaun

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Woolas, Phil

        Sheerman, Barry

        Worthington, Tony

        Sheridan, Jim

        Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

        Short, rh Clare

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Wright, David (Telford)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

        Wyatt, Derek

        Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        Vernon Coaker and Jim Fitzpatrick

        Question accordingly negatived.

      Clause 29

        INTERPRETATION
        Amendments made: No. 52, in page 16, leave out line 8.
        No. 53, in line 11, at end insert—
        '"the General Commissioners" means the Commissioners for the general purposes of the income tax appointed under section 2 of the Taxes Management Act 1970) (c. 9),'.
        No. 54, in line 12, leave out 'and'.

        721
        No. 55, in line 13, at end insert
        'and
        "the Special Commissioners" means the Commissioners for the special purposes of the Income Tax Acts appointed under section 4 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (c. 9).'. —[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
        Order for Third Reading read.
        6.7 pm
        Ruth Kelly: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        The child trust fund is a radical and ambitious policy with four key objectives. They are helping people to understand the benefits of saving and investment; encouraging parents and children to develop the savings habit and engage with financial institutions; ensuring that in future all children have a financial asset at the start of adult life; and building on financial education—working with the Department for Education and Skills and the Financial Services Authority in helping people to make better financial choices throughout their lives.
        The Third Reading of the Bill is a milestone on the route to achieving that ambitious policy. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House for their support and constructive debate today and in Committee—when our deliberations were steered efficiently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) and the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). The hon. Member for Southend, West commented that it was a model Committee. I have Opposition spokesmen to thank for that praise because their contributions were invariably made in the spirit of improving the Bill.
        The value of our debates in Committee is demonstrated today by Government amendments tabled to reflect proposals discussed and agreed. The Government have presented an amendment to lower from 18 to 16 the age at which young people can manage their accounts, Young people will not be able to touch the funds until they are 18, but from 16 they will be able to make their own investment decisions. I am delighted that the House supported that amendment, which is a real improvement to our policy.
        Debate in Committee focused also on the need for providers to collect the child trust fund voucher before opening an account. I still feel that collection of the vouchers is the best method to reduce errors and deter fraud, but I have signalled, by tabling an amendment allowing that feature to be changed in regulations, that the issue will be monitored in the future.
        Concern was expressed about who might act for children in care in the unusual circumstances where no one had parental responsibility. I was able to inform the Committee that we were holding discussions with the Official Solicitor about whether his office could take on that role. Members will understand that a sensitive issue such as that needs to be considered thoroughly, so it was not possible to introduce an amendment at this point, but it is our intention to do so when the Bill is considered in another place.
        722
        Perhaps one of our most important debates in Committee was on the question of whether the child trust fund should have special rules for disabled children. I pay tribute to the efforts of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) for moving important and interesting amendments on that subject. In Committee, I promised that I would give the matter serious consideration. There are some difficult issues, both of concept and practice, and they cannot be rushed. Furthermore, I have made it clear that changes could be made by regulation without the need to amend the Bill.
        Members of the Committee expressed particular interest in the level of the charge cap and the minimum contribution that providers would have to accept from parents and others who invest in the child trust funds. I am pleased to tell the House that the charge cap for stakeholder child trust fund accounts, which all providers will be required to include in their range of child trust fund accounts, will be 1.5 per cent. The decision to set the cap at 1.5 per cent. recognises that the child trust fund has certain key features that are not typical of other products in the stakeholder suite, such as stakeholder pensions. The funds in CTF accounts will be lower than funds in pension funds, for instance, and there will also be a lower level of minimum contribution than for other stakeholder products.
        Providers will have to accept contributions of £10 and above for the stakeholder child trust fund account. The minimum contribution level has been chosen to ensure that the child trust fund is accessible to as wide a range of savers as possible, including those who might find it difficult to make regular contributions.
        Mr. Andrew Love: I thank my hon. Friend for informing the House about the charge cap, which I think everyone accepts, and about the minimum deposit required. After the child trust funds have been introduced, will she consider a review of the minimum amount of £10, to determine whether low-income groups, in particular, have been able to meet that hurdle, so that we ensure that they can save properly with the child trust fund?
        Ruth Kelly: I certainly give my hon. Friend that commitment. Accessibility for low income groups is a vital component of the success of the policy. I anticipate that some providers will accept lower levels of contribution, especially if they are regular. I have also made it a requirement that they tell customers up front what the minimum contribution is likely to be, so that families and individuals, especially those on low incomes, can make appropriate choices in the best interests of their child.
        Members will be interested to hear that there are no charges for transferring between different types of CTF account—whether between a stakeholder account and other types of account, or between providers. For example, if a family on a low income suddenly find that they are unable to make a contribution of, say, £5 with their current provider, they are at liberty to switch, with no charge, to another provider who accepts lower

        723
        amounts. A key objective of the child trust fund is to improve financial literacy, so I judged it appropriate that there should be no charge for families who choose to switch provider.
        The child trust fund is a foundation on which we can build. I believe it is the key to creating a real change in people's ability and desire to save for the future, so that children can make the most of their opportunities. I ask hon. Members to support the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
        6.10 pm
        Mr. George Osborne: This is the first Bill that I have shadowed as an Opposition spokesman. It has been a steep learning curve, but I have enjoyed it, especially as the Committee process was particularly constructive. That was largely due to the Financial Secretary, in the sense that it is in a Minister's hands to determine the mood of the Committee—it depends on whether he or she accepts amendments and is prepared to listen to arguments. I served on several Committees as a Back Bencher and on one Committee as a Whip, and it is fair to say that we made more progress on this Bill and that there was a more constructive dialogue than in all those other Committees put together, so I thank the Financial Secretary, as without her input that would not have happened.
        I thank the other members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats. We occasionally co-operated with each other and worked out where we would cause Divisions and so on, so I thank him for his support. I particularly thank Colin Lee, the Clerk to the Committee, who gave me an enormous amount of help, not least because, as I say, this was the first Bill that I have shadowed for the Conservative party. Perhaps it will be the last Bill that I shadow—it depends on when the general election takes place.
        On Second Reading, I said that we Conservatives support the principle behind the Bill because we believe in the value of savings. We believe that savings nurture independence, that they encourage self-reliance and that they bolster the individual against the state. I also said that we did not stumble across those beliefs through a focus group, an Institute for Public Policy Research summit or some belief in asset-based welfare—they are rooted in the Tory tradition—but that we had concerns about the detail.
        I am pleased to say that many of those concerns have been addressed by the very constructive approach that the Government have taken in considering the Bill. For example, I shall repeat some of what the Financial Secretary has just said. She accepted that 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to manage their accounts. The Government agreed to consider the situation of children with terminal illnesses. They looked very constructively—the Financial Secretary is still doing so—at the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron).
        The Government have agreed to work with providers on the opening up of child trust funds to elder children
        724
        and to consider regulatory changes if they are required. They have agreed to consider options to help children in care, and the Financial Secretary said some interesting things about that today. She has opened the door—no more than that—to a telephone and internet-based system, rather than a voucher system, by amending the Bill. She accepted the argument that sticking with a 1 per cent. charge cap would have been a mistake. I am glad that she recognised that and agreed with the 1.5 per cent. figure.
        All that represents a constructive approach, but it would be a mistake to say that we do not still have some concerns, not least about the extension of means-testing to a cradle-to-grave society. We are instinctively against the extension of means-testing; it is our greatest concern, but we discussed that in Committee and I knew that it was unlikely that we would change the Government's mind on that.
        Only time will tell whether child trust funds succeed in encouraging savings, educating people about the value of saving and spreading financial education. I suspect that we will not really know for 18 years whether they have been a success. We will then start to see how people spend or invest the money that they have at the age of 18, and there may be some horror stories at the time, but we shall see. Conservative Members are committed to trying to make child trust funds work, so we will support the Government if there is a Division tonight.
        6.18 pm
        Mr. Dawson: I have never before served on a Standing Committee that has considered a Treasury Bill and, frankly, it is an experience that I would have avoided before now. We have talked a lot about financial education. I am one of those people who tends to avoid banks, building societies, financial institutions, regulations and all those worrying things, but I have thoroughly enjoyed serving on the Committee, partly because of the Front-Bench spokesmen and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who have occasionally characterised themselves, and been characterised, as the young, thrusting generation of the House. We have been talking about a Bill whose effects we will only see over a generation and the generations beyond that. By the time that the first trust funds come to fruition, I can confidently predict that my hon. Friend will have attained great eminence in government, and I am sure that the other extremely able. Members will have enjoyed themselves making small achievements amid the general wastes of Opposition for many years to come.
        It is important to recognise that the consideration of the Bill has been helpful and constructive, because underlying the whole debate has been the recognition that its proposals have enormously exciting potential. We heard about the grand old Tory values of savings, self-reliance and all the rest of it, but the Bill is new Labour. It is a universal provision that addresses the most serious issues in our society: child poverty, the urgent and desperate need for regeneration and the absolute need to ensure that every child in our society has real opportunities to succeed and make the best of what they have. It takes an entrepreneurial attitude

        725
        towards the future and gives young people the chance to own a substantial asset. It will create an imaginative process and implement a grand proposal that will tackle poverty and help people to address their own circumstances and future in a way that neither this country nor any other country in the world has ever seen before.
        I am sad, in a way, that we have not reached the conclusion that I wanted on a matter about which I feel strongly—children in care. However, I am encouraged by the idea that over the next 16 years—the next generation—people who work with children, and children themselves, will have the opportunity to determine the way in which the development of child trust funds may be adapted, adopted and improved to support children's lives in ways that we have perhaps not been able to foresee readily during the Bill's parliamentary stages.
        Some grand ideas were expressed in Committee by not only the Government, but the Opposition. Ideas on working with and supporting children with disabilities and the way in which trust funds could be adapted to meet their needs in a new future of social care are important and point the way forward. A good Committee considered a good Bill that implements a truly inspirational idea and gives us something for the future of which we can all be proud.
        6.23 pm
        Mr. Laws: The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) started his speech by saying that he was not always invited to serve on Committees to consider financial Bills, and that he had not expected to enjoy his experience in Committee. I share his view that our scrutiny of the Bill has been especially interesting. I warn him not to read too much into his experience on that Bill Committee, however, in case any of his Whips come running to ask whether he wants to serve on the Finance Bill Committee. I assure him that that is an altogether different prospect—I give him that advice freely and constructively.
        We have been engaged in a good constructive process over the past few weeks. Our consideration of the Bill has undoubtedly been interesting because whether one agrees or disagrees with the Government's proposals—we have disagreed—their effects will clearly be felt by many families throughout the country, so it was important for us to get the Bill right and amended as best we could. I pay tribute to the Financial Secretary for her constructive approach throughout our proceedings and her patience and tolerance when I pressed her on Japanese equity markets and other such matters on many occasions, without necessarily getting very far.
        It has also been a pleasure to work with the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), who on occasion has been more critical of his own amendments than of the Government's, and has brought great honesty and candour to the Conservative Front Bench. Now we accept that the hon. Gentleman speaks for the Conservative party on this issue, and after its previous leader went out of his way some time ago to criticise the proposal, the hon. Gentleman has clarified its position on this matter.
        726
        I also pay tribute to the Clerk of the Committee, who was extremely helpful to Opposition Members in particular, especially as those on the Front Bench for both parties were relatively inexperienced. His assistance in the drafting of amendments was particularly useful. In addition, I thank those who chaired our proceedings, and the Minister's staff, who no doubt had to do a great deal of work in responding to the amendments.
        I also thank the Minister for amending certain parts of the Bill to take on board some of the considerations expressed from the Opposition Benches. She mentioned the important issue of account management at the age of 16, on which the Government have made genuine progress. It is also clear that they will introduce regulations to deal with the issue of terminally ill children, which is extremely important, and I welcome the fact that the Minister has made it clear that no charges will be imposed on transfers.
        There are a number of issues that we hope the Minister will return to at some stage, either because of undertakings that she has given or because the passage of time proves that our concerns were justified. In particular, I drew attention to the minimum subscription level, which we remain uncomfortable about leaving at £10. We would like to see the accounts more open to low-income savers. I also drew the hon. Lady's attention to the issue of children in care. She has agreed to look into the matter and review the progress of our support for children in care in its totality.
        I have often expressed my concern about the emphasis on equity-based investment for the accounts to be opened by the Inland Revenue, including the accounts of children in care. I am pleased that the Minister said tonight that she was thinking about how that can be dealt with, including through the involvement of the Official Solicitor. If I were the Official Solicitor I would be pretty nervous about taking the responsibility of monitoring the accounts and investment returns unless I had a guarantee that my time in that job would not last the full 18-year life of a child trust fund account.
        We pressed the Minister on access to the accounts for 16-year-olds, particularly those in full-time work. I acknowledge that it seems unlikely that she will change her mind on that subject.
        In Committee we had debates, which we did not air again tonight, about the interaction between child trust fund accounts and the benefits system, including issues such as the deprivation of capital. There was not much movement from the Minister on those issues in Committee, but I hope that she will keep them under scrutiny, so that if it turns out that some of the concerns were justified, the Government will be able to respond to those concerns as evidence bears them out.
        I am afraid that in the final stages of Third Reading, I shall add a somewhat discordant note. As the Minister knows, we do not share her enthusiasm, and the enthusiasm of her hon. Friends and most Conservative Members, for the Bill. Our reservation is not based on the details—important, but details none the less—that I have just outlined. Our concern is about the bigger issues involved in the Bill—whether it will succeed in doing what the Government have said it will, and to some extent whether the Government are spending the

        727
        large amount of money involved in the most effective way, particularly if they are concerned about child poverty.
        Mr. Love: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the question that he has been asked throughout the passage of the Bill. He was constructive in Committee, and has been the same so far on Third Reading, and that constructive approach included tabling amendments that would have enhanced the Bill. Does he see any contradiction between that and his opposition to the Bill overall?
        Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman may not be surprised to hear that I see no contradiction at all. We said at the beginning of the debates on the Bill that we were fundamentally opposed to it, because we did not believe that it would achieve its objectives, and because we thought the money could be better spent elsewhere. We made it clear that we would seek to amend the Bill, in Committee and elsewhere, as effectively as we could, to improve it. That seemed the sensible and constructive thing to do.
        Nobody has mentioned in detail, although the Financial Secretary may have touched on them, the four fundamental reasons that the Government set out to justify the introduction of the child trust fund account. I shall run through them briefly, so that we can see whether the Government have satisfied the House that those objectives will be met. The first two seem to be more or less the same—first, to build on financial education to help people make better financial choices, and secondly, to help people understand the benefits of saving and investing.
        We have questioned, as have the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others, whether the child trust fund accounts will succeed in those objectives, and whether money invested in financial education in schools could achieve that out-turn more effectively. After all, it was not until the past couple of days that the Financial Secretary accepted the proposal that 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to manage their own accounts, and that children should have any involvement in the running of those accounts. They were to have been run entirely by their parents, which seems an odd way to give people financial experience and education. We do not believe the Government have demonstrated that the large amount of money to be spent on the Bill satisfies those two criteria. The Minister referred in Committee to evidence-based policy. On these two objectives, we see a lack of clear economic evidence that the Bill will have the effects that the Government intend.
        The third stated objective was that the Bill would ensure that in future all children had a financial asset at the start of adult life. That seems to be at odds with the Government's recent decision to encourage students to take on greater debt to fund themselves through university. The question is whether people need financial assets at particular periods of their life, or whether there is a rhythm in the way in which people earn money and save money, which means that the Government should leave those matters to people themselves, rather than interfering. There seems a particular contradiction between the Government's determination to give young people, through the Bill,
        728
        assets at the age of 18, and their willingness to encourage people to take on debt at a similar age to fund themselves through university.
        Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the poorest 30 per cent. of students going into higher education will have substantial grant assistance? Might that not complement the asset that they will have in the child trust fund?
        Mr. Laws: I accept the veracity of the hon. Gentleman's point, but it does not address my concern that Government policy appears to be heading in two contradictory directions. On one hand, there is the desire and willingness for people to have large financial liabilities at the age of 18, and the Government say, "Don't worry, you can pay it off through your income. You'll earn a lot of money over your life in employment. You shouldn't be worried about having the debt." On the other hand, the Government say that it is vital to give children a financial asset at the beginning of their working life. Those two things are clearly contradictory.
        The final objective of the Bill was to encourage parents and children to develop the savings habit. That implies that the Government expect additional saving as a consequence of the Bill; otherwise the Bill would simply shift the savings habit from one savings vehicle to another. I have not seen a shred of evidence that suggests that the Financial Secretary knows whether the Bill will increase saving. Not only has she been unwilling to put a target on the additional savings, but she has been unwilling even to estimate the extent to which the Bill will increase saving. That suggests a certain scepticism on the part of the Government, or at the very least uncertainty about whether their policy will deliver one of the stated objectives.
        The Financial Secretary will say that the Government have received many representations from individuals and corporate entities welcoming the Bill. As I pointed out earlier, that is not surprising, given that the financial market providers ought to gain business from the activity envisaged in it.
        Lest it seem that these are only Liberal Democrat objections, I want to bring the House back to some of the comments that have been made by independent bodies that have scrutinised the Bill—[Interruption.] They include not only the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as the hon. Member for Tatton suggests, but the Treasury Sub-Committee, whose Chairman commented that the proposals in the Bill were likely to be of most benefit to better-off families. That must surely worry the Financial Secretary.
        In connection with the Government's four objectives, I draw the Financial Secretary's attention to comments made by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. In its report of October 2001, it evaluated the savings gateway and the child trust fund and concluded that
        "it is not possible to state with certainty whether the Child Trust Fund or the Saving Gateway will lead to an increase, a reduction or no change in the rates of saving among the target groups."
        The Minister should take the IFS's representations seriously, because I can think of no more independent and credible body that has made representations to the Government on the Bill. Its criticisms have covered a

        729
        wide variety of areas. For example, it also questions whether the educational aspects of the Bill are best delivered through the child trust fund or could be better delivered through improved financial education.
        In its paper to the Treasury Sub-Committee in November 2003, the IFS summed up its position by saying that the policy has not been satisfactorily justified, and went on to say:
        "it is quite possible that the immediate beneficiaries of the Child Trust Fund will be richer families who can substitute the endowment payment for saving that they would have done for their children, and so increase their current consumption. Families who would not have saved for their children, many of whom will be poorer families, will have to wait eighteen years to benefit from their Child Trust Fund."
        That takes me to my final point. Several hon. Members remarked on how valuable the policy will be in dealing with child poverty, which was one of the reasons that the Prime Minister cited in launching it a couple of years ago. However, they have all entirely missed the fact that it will not deal with child poverty at all, because the assets will not be available until the age of 18. That is presumably why the IFS, in its "green Budget" of 2002, concluded its assessment of asset-based welfare by saying:
        "Equally, it is not clear that children from low-income families will be better supported by being provided with an asset that grows through their childhood, rather than by targeted increases in financial support to their families or by targeted education spending. Prior to considering design issues, it would have been useful to have had a stage of the consultation process that invited comments on whether the new policy direction that is asset-based welfare is a good one to take."
        Perhaps the most important reason why Liberal Democrat Members will vote against the Bill is that we question not only whether it will deliver on its objectives, but whether this is the best use of a very large amount of Government money, starting at £250 million per year and probably going up to £350 million or £400 million per year. If the Government are really concerned about child poverty, as the Prime Minister suggested when he launched the policy, the money should be focused on the early years, where the roots of inequality in our society are based.
        Mr. Dawson: Is not the hon. Gentleman overlooking the generational nature of poverty, whereby one poor generation begets another: and is not this policy entirely complementary to the work that the Government are doing on Sure Start, and in many other respects, to help people out of poverty at a crucial stage of their lives?
        Mr. Laws: It is of far less importance than the other good work that the Government are doing in trying to tackle inequalities of opportunity and child poverty, particularly in the early years. At a time when so many of the population, including many children living in poverty, do not have access to services such as Sure Start, the Government's first priority should be to extend the provision of those services, not to launch a Bill whose policy is supposed to be evidence based, but where evidence that the policy will work is in such short supply.
        6.40 pm
        Mr. Weir: The Scottish National party supports the Bill. Perhaps some of the claims for it have been overplayed, but it is none the less an interesting idea and an interesting way forward, and we have supported it throughout its various stages.
        However, there are still some concerns about the Bill, and I share some of the concerns of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), although not his opposition to it. I raised on Second Reading, in Committee and again today the whole question of access for lower-income families. We have seen movement on many areas from the Financial Secretary—or potential movement, as we have yet to see the outcome, which will be interesting over the next year or so. We even saw perhaps a slight indication of movement on the question of deposit-based accounts, but the absence of those will be a serious drawback for low-income families.
        We live in a society in which hundreds of thousands of low-income families do not even have a bank account. Those people are to be encouraged to make their first financial investment an equity-based one, which many will not understand. As the Financial Secretary said in Committee, if my understanding is correct, most of the selling will be direct, and little will be done through face-to-face interviews. I fear that many people will end up with an investment that they do not understand, and in which they will be unable to invest in future years.
        As to whether the scheme is a success, the real question, as the Treasury Sub-Committee said, and as was generally accepted on Second Reading, is whether parents will invest in these funds in the future. The absence of a building society account option will mean that many low-income families will not be able to invest, and it will fail on that level.
        Secondly, the scheme may fail in relation to the minimum investment being set at £10. We discussed in Committee setting the minimum at anything between £5 and £20. For someone with two or three children, living on a low income, £10 will be an impossible target to meet on a regular monthly basis. As a result, in many cases the £250 initial investment will be all that is invested. That, too, will be judged a failure of the policy.
        As I said, the policy merits support, and we will support it tonight. but I ask the Minister to review it as it goes forward. We must look at how lower-income families deal with it. If we find that there is no addition to the initial investment, and that many low-income families are not able to top it up as we would desire them to do, we will need to look again at the policy. We will need to consider again whether alternative investments, which they understand, with which they are happy, and which provide them with access to saving and to the whole banking and insurance business, would be better for those families. Although we have reservations, we support the Bill, and we look forward to seeing how the scheme works out in the future.
        Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 415, Noes 45.

        Division No.43]

        [6.43 pm]

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Chaytor, David

        Ainger, Nick

        Clapham, Michael

        Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

        Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Alexander, Douglas

        Allen, Graham

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

        Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

        Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

        Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

        Clelland David

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Cohen, Harry

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Colman, Tony

        Conway, Derek

        Austin, John

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Bailey, Adrian

        Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

        Baird, Vera

        Cooper, Yvette

        Baldry, Tony

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Barker, Gregory

        Corston, Jean

        Barnes, Harry

        Cox, Tom (Tooting)

        Barron, rh Kevin

        Cranston, Ross

        Battle, John

        Crausby David,

        Bayley, Hugh

        Cruddas, Jon

        Beard, Nigel

        Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

        Beckett, rh Margaret

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Cummings, John

        Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

        Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

        Bell, Sir Stuart

        Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

        Bellingham, Henry

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Bennett, Andrew

        Dalyell, Tam

        Berry, Roger

        Darling, rh Alistair

        Best, Harold

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Betts, Clive

        David, Wayne

        Blackman, Liz

        Davidson, Ian

        Blizzard, Bob

        Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

        Borrow, David

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Boswell, Tim,

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

        Dawson, Hilton

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

        Denham, rh John

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        Brazier, Julian

        Dismore, Andrew

        Brennan, Kevin

        Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

        Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

        Dobson, rh Frank

        Donohoe, Brian H.

        Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

        Doran, Frank

        Dorrell, rh Stephen

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

        Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

        Browne, Desmond

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Bryant, Chris

        Edwards, Huw

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Burden, Richard

        Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

        Burnham, Andy

        Etherington, Bill

        Burns, Simon

        Evans, Nigel

        Burnside, David

        Ewing, Annabelle

        Burt, Alistair

        Fabricant, Michael

        Byers, rh Stephen

        Farrelly, Paul

        Cameron, David

        Fisher, Mark

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Flint, Caroline

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Flook, Adrian

        Caplin, Ivor

        Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

        Caton, Martin

        Foster, rh Derek

        Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

        Foster, Michael (Worcester)

        Challen, Colin

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Foulkes, rh George

        Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

        Francis, Dr. Hywel

        Francois, Mark

        732

        Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

        Kemp, Fraser

        Garnier, Edward

        Key, Robert (Salisbury)

        George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

        Khabra, Piara S.

        Gerrard, Neil

        Kidney, David

        Gibson, Dr. Ian

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        King, Andy (Rugby)

        Gilroy, Linda

        Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

        Godsiff, Roger

        Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

        Goggins, Paul

        Kumar, Dr. Ashok

        Greenway, John

        Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

        Grieve, Dominic

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Lammy, David

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

        Grogan, John

        Lazarowicz, Mark

        Hain, rh Peter

        Lepper, David

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Leslie, Christopher

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

        Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

        Hammond, Philip

        Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

        Hanson, David

        Liddell-Grainger, Ian

        Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

        Lidington, David

        Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

        Linton, Martin

        Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

        Hawkins, Nick

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Healey, John

        Loughton, Tim

        Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

        Love, Andrew

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

        Hendrick, Mark

        Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

        Heppell, John

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Hermon, Lady

        McCabe, Stephen

        Hesford, Stephen

        McCartney, rh Ian

        Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Heyes, David

        MacDonald, Calum

        Hill, Keith (Streatham)

        McDonnell, John

        Hinchliffe, David

        MacDougall, John

        Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

        McFall, John

        Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Hoon, rh Geoffrey

        McIsaac, Shona

        Hope, Phil (Corby)

        Mackay, rh Andrew

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        McKechin, Ann

        Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

        McKenna, Rosemary

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        McNulty, Tony

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        MacShane, Denis

        Howells, Dr. Kim

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        McWalter, Tony

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        McWilliam, John

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Mahmood, Khalid

        Hunter, Andrew

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Iddon, Dr. Brian

        Mallaber, Judy

        Illsley, Eric

        Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

        Ingram, rh Adam

        Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Irranca-Davies, Huw

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Jack, rh Michael

        Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

        Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Martlew, Eric

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

        Jamieson, David

        Meacher, rh Michael

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

        Jenkins, Brian

        Merron, Gillian

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

        Michael, rh Alun

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Milburn, rh Alan

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Miliband, David

        Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

        Miller, Andrew

        Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Jowell, rh Tessa

        Moffatt, Laura

        Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

        Mole, Chris

        Keen, Alan (Feltham)

        Moonie, Dr. Lewis

        Keen, Ann (Brentford)

        Moran, Margaret

        Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

        Mountford, Kali

        733

        Mudie, George

        Simmonds, Mark

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

        Murrison, Dr. Andrew

        Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

        Naysmith, Dr. Doug

        Norman, Archie

        Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        O'Hara Edward,

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Olner, Bill

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        O'Neill, Martin

        Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

        Osborne, George (Tatton)

        Soames, Nicholas

        Ottaway, Richard

        Soley, Clive

        Owen, Albert

        Southworth, Helen

        Page, Richard

        Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

        Palmer, Dr. Nick

        Squire, Rachel

        Paterson, Owen

        Stanley, rh Sir John

        Pearson, Ian

        Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

        Perham, Linda

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

        Picking, Anne

        Pickthall, Colin

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Pike, Peter (Burnley)

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Plaskitt, James

        Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

        Pollard, Kerry

        Stringer, Graham

        Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Pound, Stephen

        Swayne, Desmond

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

        Tami, Mark (Alyn)

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Purchase, Ken

        Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

        Quin, rh Joyce

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

        Tipping, Paddy

        Raynsford, rh Nick

        Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

        Redwood, rh John

        Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

        Tredinnick, David

        Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

        Trickett, Jon

        Robertson, Angus (Moray)

        Truswell, Paul

        Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

        Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

        Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

        Rooney, Terry

        Vis, Dr. Rudi

        Rosindell, Andrew

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Walter, Robert

        Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

        Ward, Claire

        Ruane, Chris

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Ruddock, Joan

        Waterson, Nigel

        Ruffley, David,

        Watkinson, Angela

        Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

        Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

        Salmond, Alex

        Watts, David

        Salter, Martin

        Weir, Michael

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        White, Brian

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Whitehead, Dr. Alan

        Sawford, Phil

        Wick, Malcolm

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Wiggin, Bill

        Selous, Andrew

        Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Wills, Michael

        Sheerman, Barry

        Winnick, David

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

        Sheridan, Jim

        Wishart, Pete

        Short, rh Clare

        Woodward, Shaun

        734

        Woolas, Phil

        Wyatt, Derek

        Worthington, Tony

        Young, rh Sir George

        Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Wright, David (Telford)

        Vernon Coaker and Jim Fitzpatrick

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        NOES

        Allan, Richard

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Baker, Norman

        Keetch, Paul

        Barrett, John

        Kirkwood, Sir Archy

        Beith, rh A. J.

        Lamb, Norman

        Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

        Laws, David (Yeovil)

        Breed, Colin

        Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

        Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

        Öpik, Lembit

        Bruce, Malcolm

        Pugh, Dr. John

        Burstow, Paul

        Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

        Cable, Dr. Vincent

        Rendel, David

        Calton, Mrs Patsy

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

        Sanders, Adrian

        Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)

        Carmichael, Alistair

        Chidgey, David

        Stunell, Andrew

        Cotter, Brian

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Teather, Sarah

        Doughty, Sue

        Thurso, John

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Tonge, Dr. Jenny

        George, Andrew (St. Ives

        Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

        Gidley, Sandra

        Webb, Steve (Northavon)

        Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

        Williams, Roger (Brecon)

        Hancock, Mike

        Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Richard Younger-Ross and Mr. David Heath

        Holmes, Paul

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Bill read the Third time, and passed.

      EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees)
      EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

        COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY (REFORM)
        That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12965/03, Commission Communication 'Accomplishing a sustainable agricultural model for Europe through the reformed Common Agricultural Policy-the tobacco, olive oil, cotton and sugar sectors': and supports the Government's objective of securing reform of these subsidy regimes. in line with the reforms agreed in June this year for other sectors, which will pave the way for a more sustainable, market oriented and less trade distorting system of agriculture in the European Union.—[Mr. Heppell.]
        Question agreed to.

      School Transport
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
      7 pm
      Matthew Taylor: Last week the House witnessed a fierce debate about student top-up fees. But while it is still the case that a minority of people go to university, everyone goes to school; and while tuition fees are a serious issue, school transport fees are an issue that is even more relevant to millions of pupils and parents across the country.
      As the Minister will know, there have been striking developments in school transport patterns over the last 20 years. The proportion of children travelling to school by car has doubled, bus and train use has remained steady, and the proportion of children walking or cycling has decreased sharply.
      That is contrary to what the Government would like, and it clearly poses serious problems and challenges. There is the problem of congestion, as more children travel by car. There is the problem of pollution, for the same reason. As traffic speed and congestion increase, there are more fears about safety even for those who live less than three miles from their schools. In fact, as more children travel by car, more children—and their parents—feel vulnerable if the children are still walking or cycling, so even more go by car. Thus the situation gets worse and worse, and with fewer cycling or walking, health gets worse too. The only success story, in terms of policy, is free school buses.
      I should stress that I welcome many of the initiatives recently outlined by the Government in the travelling to school action plan. They include promoting road safety skills for pedestrians and cyclists, establishing safer walking and cycle networks, and providing secure cycle parking and locking and bus bays. Such measures to promote sustainable travel are obviously welcome. However, I applied for this debate in response to a proposal referred to in the Government's action plan, and described in the Queen's Speech, to
      "enable some local authorities to pilot new arrangements for school transport to reduce road congestion".
      What may sound a rather welcome statement is in fact intended to empower local authorities to charge for school transport, which at present is provided free of charge.
      First, there is a point of principle. As the Minister is no doubt well aware, the law currently requires local education authorities to provide free travel for children living more than three miles from their schools, or two miles in the case of those under the age of eight. That is the maximum distance that it is felt reasonable to expect children to walk. The draft transport Bill to be presented to the House next month would free certain LEAs from that statutory obligation.
      The Secretary of State for Education and Skills has insisted that the proposals are being pursued on a non-partisan basis and are at an early consultative stage. I want to express my worries now as part of that consultation. I believe that the statutory entitlement to free transport is part of the principle of free education. More than three miles is clearly too far to walk to school, and without a free bus the only option is paid
      736
      transport. Effectively, education for some children, especially in rural areas, will come with a compulsory price tag: the cost of getting to school.
      As the Minister probably also knows, there has already been a sharp reaction to the proposals. In Cornwall, head teachers, school governors and parents have all expressed serious concern about any plan to introduce charges, and I want to add my voice to theirs. Last month, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) questioned the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), on the issue. The Under-Secretary of State replied:
      "There is no intention to introduce a widespread withdrawal of the free transport system."—[Official Report, 6 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 143.]
      I am not sure what "widespread" means in this context. The launching of a trial suggests that the Government expect the withdrawal to be widespread in the future, if they judge the trial a success.
      The Government also claim that all money raised through charges would have to be reinvested in better transport provision, but I oppose the principle of charging for school transport. Making parents pay is not a good transport or education policy. Moreover, there is no guarantee that new income raised through charges will not just provide an excuse for a future Government to cut funding for education to local councils, and in particular the funding that councils currently receive to meet transport costs. That is what happened to universities after the introduction of tuition fees in 1997, and the truth is that no Minister can bind their successors.
      once the principle of free transport to school is lost, the principle that every child should be entitled to a free education is also lost. Free education includes the right to get to school in the first place. Transport is free on foot or by bicycle when pupils live close enough to school, and it should be free by bus when the distance is too great.
      Given that, at least in theory, the formulae provide local education authorities with the money to provide free transport, it is clear that where local authorities are allowed to charge for transport, it will be more and more difficult to make the case at local government grant settlement time that they need the money if they have the alternative of charging for it, and it will be even more difficult if they already charge for it.
      More than the principle of free education is at risk, and there are clear practical reasons to oppose charging. As a Cornwall Member, I have particular concerns about the proposals. Families in rural constituencies such as mine will be hit especially hard because home-to-school distances are often greater than in urban areas. The nearest village schools are often full, so children are sometimes required to travel even further than normal to get to their allocated school. Across the county as a whole, more than 10,000 children are entitled to free transport because they live more than three miles away from their local school. Some 99 per cent. of eligible pupils take up free transport—the policy is a success, it works and it clearly provides children with a transport solution that they need and that their parents welcome.
      In other words, while walking or cycling to school decline and roads become ever more congested, free school buses are the one real success story of the

      737
      Government's transport policy. School buses are well used, well liked and clearly necessary. The Government's stated aims in the travelling to school action plan are to reduce car usage, increase bus patronage and reduce congestion. I fail to see how the introduction of charges for a service that has been provided for free until now and has a 99 per cent. take-up in Cornwall can be the best way to fulfil those objectives.
      The simple fact is that free school buses are already extremely effective in reducing congestion. In my constituency, as elsewhere in Cornwall and indeed across the UK, the uptake of free school buses, where they are provided, is nearly 100 per cent. If only for psychological reasons, charges will deter parents from using the bus and will put children back in the car. Given the proven popularity and effectiveness of free school buses, surely we should be extending provision, not cutting it back.
      It is unreasonable to expect a child to walk a six-mile round trip to school every day, even in ideal conditions. To expect them to do so along unlit rural roads with no pavements is patently wrong and dangerous. Parents object over and over again and call for free school buses within the three-mile zone. The real issue—I accept that there is a debate to be had about how buses should be funded—is not whether parents should pay if they live more than three miles away from their child's school. If the Government are serious about cutting congestion and increasing safety, why is school transport policy centred around a three-mile limit that was set in legislation dating back to world war two? The policy has become increasingly unrealistic, unsafe and inappropriate for children living in rural areas given the reality of fast cars, no pavements and increasing parental concerns.
      Even children entitled to free school meals do not qualify for free transport if they live within three miles of their schools. Given that 99 per cent. of those living more than three miles from school use their free bus entitlement, the current congestion is clearly caused by families travelling less than three miles, and we should encourage those children to take the bus.
      The Minister may argue that charges could provide funds for greater school bus provision, so most would pay and more buses would be laid on. However, charging families who live outside the three-mile limit in order to provide more charged buses within it seems perverse in the extreme. The Government do not want to charge only wealthy families. They defend that position by arguing that it is okay to charge because those entitled to free school meals will still be entitled to free school bus trips, but that covers only families on household incomes below £13,200. Even in Cornwall, that is a very low household income. Indeed, it is almost 50 per cent. lower that the average household income. The great majority of hard-working families, even those with incomes well below average, will be expected to pay.
      Of course, the quality of transport is fundamentally important to parents. Are the buses of a high standard? Are they clearly identifiable and recognisable? Is the bus manned by a regular driver who knows the route? Are the pick-ups and drop-offs close to home and school? I
      738
      am not saying that there is no room for improvements, and I understand the Government's financial concerns in terms of how to make them, but those improvements should not be at the cost of the free service currently provided, which is overwhelmingly popular and clearly successful in meeting the Government's own objectives.
      If we are to get serious about increasing bus usage, reducing congestion and improving safety and security for children, arguably, we should look at what is happening in the US, for example, and build on the model of the yellow buses. Fifty per cent. of children in the US go to school by bus, compared with just 20 per cent. in the UK. However, that statistic is linked to the fact that every child in the US has the right to a free school bus place. That is the primary reason why they use it. As a result, school run congestion is relatively rare in the US.
      The US has other lessons for us, as well. Yellow buses are not available to the general public, which reassures parents that their children are safe. Drivers are usually allocated to specific routes, so they get to know the schools, parents and children. Again, that reassures parents. The colour and identity of the buses increases awareness among parents, and therefore increases usage, and pick-ups and drop-offs are close to schools and homes.
      I know that the Government have piloted such schemes. That is welcome, but charging for what is usually a free service is a step in the wrong direction; it is not the route that the US goes down. We have a system that is broadly popular with families, reduces congestion and improves safety and security. Let us build on it, not dismantle it. If there are cost issues, perhaps we should look at the cost of school run congestion, and consider whether the advantage to the economy of getting children out of the family car and on to the bus would be sufficient to make it sensible to consider extending, rather than reducing, provision, at least to those who are in receipt of free school meals. That is the exact opposite of the Government's position, which is to charge more children. Perhaps we should charge fewer children within the three-mile zone. Six miles is a very long round-trip on a dark, cold and wet night, on a fast rural road with no pavement.
      Let me finish by quoting the response of the National Association of Head Teachers to the Government's draft proposals. It said:
      "It will lead not only to a rural revolt by parents who are going to be worse affected, but there will be parents all around the country who will be asking themselves whether this seriously undermines free education."
      The NAHT is right on both counts. I represent just such a rural constituency, in which a very significant number of families will be badly affected if these proposals go through. It is my belief that they threaten the principle of free education. For people living outside the three-mile zone, there is no viable alternative to the free school bus. We cannot possibly expect children to walk or even cycle such distances. That means paid provision.
      Most of all, the proposals run counter to the Government's primary policy objective, on which we are agreed. How do we reduce congestion, and get more children travelling safely to school, and, therefore, on to the buses? Charging will not help us to do that. For

      739
      10,000 families in Cornwall—a low-income area—on below average earnings, it will impose a further burden. Parents who live just within the three-mile boundary have applied pressure to get a free school pass. Such people are on very low incomes and struggle to pay the bus fares, which are not insignificant It will be a real blow to those families if they are asked to make these payments.
      7.14 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on securing the Adjournment debate. I know that he has a genuine interest in many aspects of this important issue, as do other hon. Members—although not many are present this evening. I hope that we can have a constructive debate over the next few months about the matter. We need a cross-party debate that involves local communities and the Church, which also has an interest.
      My desire for a consensual approach is genuine, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that it is a common characteristic of Liberal Democrat Members to share an analysis of a problem that genuinely faces the country, but never want to rule out any option that might challenge citizens' contributions to resolving the problem. Liberal Democrat representatives have to answer the question: if we agree that we need to expand, invest in and improve home-to-school transport, how will the expansion be paid for in the long term? Will it be another item that comes from raising the 40 per cent. tax rate up to 50 per cent., for example? That is not a churlish comment, but a genuine one. We will have to find a way of identifying the resources to improve access to transport—not only for children and young people in rural communities, but in all communities.
      It is also important to say that, in the context of the proposed legislation, a local education authority would have to consult the local community and volunteer to run a pilot. The proposal would then have to be approved by the Secretary of State before the pilot would be considered acceptable as a means of testing the innovation, experimentation and new ideas. If it is true that the hon. Gentleman's local authority and community do not feel that it is worth testing those ideas in a pilot or trying to solve some complex long-running problems, there would be no compulsion to participate in the process. That is an important point.
      We should not be scaremongering either local education authorities or, more importantly, local parents by saying that a compulsory obligation will soon be imposed on them to participate in a pilot against their wishes, leading to various problems. The only way that a local education authority could end up participating would be if it were initially to volunteer because the local community supported it, and if the Secretary of State were to approve the application to be one of the pilot areas.
      Matthew Taylor: I accept the Minister's point about the pilot areas and I believe it extremely unlikely that Cornwall county council would volunteer to start charging parents in a pilot scheme, but the Minister
      740
      must accept that the principle is to remove the entitlement and if the Government view the initial pilots as successful, they could become more general. That brings into question the principle that local authorities are automatically funded on the basis of the free school provision. That may not be the Government's view now, but they could be opening the gate to a future Government who might adopt precisely that position. It could be the start—or the thin end of the wedge—of eroding a guaranteed free school bus place for every child.
      Mr.Lewis: The hon. Gentleman says that it is unlikely that his local communities, local education authority or constituents would volunteer for the experiment to introduce charging, as he puts it. However, they may seek to volunteer to test out innovative ways of tackling some of their fundamental problems in respect of travel between school and home. People are mature enough and communities are able enough to make rounded judgments about what is in the best interest of a particular community to solve some long-running problems. Any decision about the lessons learned from pilots or testing new ideas will clearly have to demonstrate that a particular course of action is, in the round, in the best interests of local communities—all local communities that face problems of access and isolation. It is unfair and unreasonable scaremongering to suggest that the proposals are the thin end of the wedge. That takes no account of our capacity to adopt a consensual approach to tackling a problem that is very real for many communities in this country.
      It would be irresponsible of the Government to turn their back on the problem and not to try to resolve it. Our proposals would free up local authorities, and allow them to experiment and innovate. They would have to consult their local communities before they went down that road—I hope that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell will excuse the pun.
      The problems that need to be resolved cross the political divide. There will be a process of pre-legislative scrutiny before legislation comes before the House. That is important and will allow hon. Members and others to express and articulate their views in a powerful way. It must be more sensible to approach the matter with an open mind and a blank sheet of paper, as that will allow everyone to make a genuine contribution to the debate. Such an approach means that nothing is ruled either in or out when we consider how to remove many of the barriers faced by children and young people who need to travel to schools, further education institutions and other education providers.
      Politicians have to make decisions, often on questions that frequently offer no easy answers or choices. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell will not appreciate my using the example of the council in Luton, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. It is proposing to cut school transport resources and school crossing patrols. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) is leading a campaign in her community to stop the council's plan. As I said, politicians have to face up to difficult choices. I suspect that the question of home-to-school transport has been avoided for many years because it is too controversial, difficult or sensitive. Politicians have walked away, leaving people facing the

      741
      same difficulties that they have faced for a long time, and which have affected young people's access to education, the local environment and the quality of life of local families and parents.
      I am proud that the Government are willing to tackle this issue. We do not rule out any option, or rule any option in—we want to facilitate and enable solutions at local level. Central Government are often prey to the criticism that they seek to dictate policy in the search for one-size-fits-all solutions. Another accusation is that central Government change policy in ways that are too dramatic and hasty to take people with them.
      On school transport, enabling legislation will be produced, after a pre-legislative scrutiny process, that will give local education authorities the freedom and flexibility to face up to what in many areas is a chronic problem. They will have the opportunity to step up to the mark and take responsibility for tackling the problem, and the freedom to innovate and test out new ideas as they do so. We want local authorities to achieve a step change in their response to a problem that has resisted progress for many years.
      It must be right for central Government to create an environment in which local education authorities are freed from some of the constraints that prevent them from being innovative in their response to the problem. Our proposals will give them the power and the freedom to test the innovations and original ideas that they come up with.
      Matthew Taylor: It was clever of the Minister to work in Luton, but people living there may not understand how their Member of Parliament can defend free transport at the same time as the Minister is arguing to remove the statutory protection for entitlement to free transport for persons resident more than 3 miles away. In Cornwall, 10,000 persons who live more than 3 miles from a school rely on free transport, but 60,000 others live closer. If they were offered a discount at the expense of people living farther away losing their free entitlement, they might vote for that change. But would it make sense to help with a bus ride those who live close enough to their schools to walk or cycle, at the expense of free transport for those who do not? The majority could take a decision that was not right for people who depend on free transport because the only way of getting their children to school is by bus.
      Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is one of the architects of his party's strategy—and central to it is the concept of localism, devolution and empowering local communities to make the right decisions for themselves. That is exactly what the Government are doing with this policy. The hon. Gentleman appears to be afraid of local
      742
      communities and LEAs reaching conclusions on what is in the best interests, in the round, of the young people and families in his constituency.
      The Luton analogy was not fair, because there the proposal is seriously to cut home-to-school transport provision. Government policy is about freeing up local education authorities to enable them significantly to improve and expand the ways in which children and young people can have access to education and to increase capacity. I feel passionately about encouraging many more children and young people to stay on in education post-16, so that they may see the benefits and progress into further or higher education or a skilled job. It is particularly important for older young people to have access to institutions of their choice, to motivate them in staying on in education or training. An important part of that is a sensible approach to transport policy, which is fundamental to increasing aspirations and levels of attainment—particularly in low-aspiration communities, where the belief can permeate that, on reaching 16, one drops out of education and training.
      Whether it be education maintenance allowances or revamping modern apprenticeships, the Government are doing much to boost post-16 participation, but there is still the problem in many families and neighbourhoods of low aspiration. If we permit significant barriers to be put in the way of children and young people in making the choice to progress and develop, we will damage the long-term social fabric and economy of communities such as that which the hon. Gentleman represents.
      I ask the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell to participate in this debate in a fair-minded and objective way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that we want to work on policy in a consensual way. We seek consensus on a difficult and challenging issue facing the whole country, which is most acute in particular areas. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resist the temptation to play party politics. I can see that scaremongering to his constituents about the thin end of the wedge and the end of free education is attractive and seductive politically, but in an era in which politicians have a problem with being trusted, it should be remembered that the public know some issues are difficult and that there must be an honest dialogue about how to resolve them.
      The checks, balances and stages we propose will ensure that we shall genuinely, not superficially, engage, involve and consult local communities and give them the power to decide whether they want to be part of our policy initially. Then we must learn from best practice locally in resolving some of the issues that continue to present problems in respect of access by children and young people to education and their local environment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

All-postal Ballots
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
9.30 am
John Robertson: It is a pleasure to have secured this debate. Some colleagues whom I expected to attend are serving on Standing Committees this morning; it is a bad morning for the debate, but I know that the hon. Members present will do their best to make it interesting.
This is the second opportunity that I have had to exchange views with the Minister. I was able briefly to make a few relevant points in the previous Session on Second Reading and in Committee on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on the wider issues raised in the debate.
In setting out the case for all-postal ballots, I shall begin by placing the debate in the historical context of the development of representative democracy in Britain, and the philosophical context of the rights of the citizen in such a democracy. I shall then negotiate my way through the details of whether all-postal ballots are practicable and finally examine the implications of my analysis for British elections.
It is necessary to begin from first principles. Why is voting important? The idea of democracy was discussed as far back as "The Histories" by Herodotus as an alternative to hereditary autocracy. Direct democracy was implemented in Athens and, although it may have been practical in a Greek city state where the polis was small—this has nothing to do with the Glasgow polis that I know—in a large state, some kind of representation became necessary. Whether the nature of democratic participation is direct or representative, the principle of active involvement by citizens in the political process remains.
In the British context, debates have focused on, first, who should have the right to vote, and secondly, the manner in which that right should be exercised. I believe that all-postal voting follows logically from the progressive widening of the franchise in Britain. In the past, voting was restricted on the basis of wealth, poverty and sex. Those who had the right to vote were forced to exercise it in public, without the protection of a secret ballot. The reform and representation of people Acts of the 19th and 20th centuries gradually altered the situation. We now recognise that every adult of sound mind should be permitted to vote, irrespective of background or knowledge. We are all rational and moral agents, and a person's capacity to will freely as a rational agent is not dependent on any empirical capacities that he or she may have. In practice, many are prevented from exercising the right to vote that follows on from that premise.
180WH
The 2001 general election turnout was the lowest since 1918. In the last European elections, fewer than one in four voters went to the polling station. Low turnouts are noticeably concentrated in the poorest socio-economic groups and in certain geographical areas. The people who did not vote are not lazy, and many were not making a positive abstention because of their disagreement with the policies of every political party. Many of them are simply in pressured jobs and have substantial family commitments. Many are socially excluded. The law says that those people have the right to vote, but in practice it is more difficult for them to do so.
If we are to make the legal right into a practical reality, it is necessary to find easier ways for people to vote. All-postal voting could provide one of the solutions to that problem, because it works. The Representation of the People Act 2000 introduced new provisions on postal voting and resulted in important changes to absent voting arrangements, including the introduction of postal voting on demand. In my constituency, the turnout for the Scottish Parliament elections in May was 45 per cent., which is down 5 per cent. on 2001. Postal votes, however, were returned at a rate of 72 per cent.—almost 2,500 votes.
The pilot schemes for all-postal ballots also had excellent results. Among the most notable was that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). Turnout in the 1998 local elections in Chorley was 31.3 per cent., but in 2002 it was 61.5 per cent. Further remarkable improvements have been seen in pilots from Tyneside to Trafford and from Bolton to Brighton.
It is not only hon. Members—well, most of them—who have expressed approval of that development. The Electoral Commission has concluded that all local elections should be run as all-postal elections unless there are compelling reasons against doing so. The commission made a series of recommendations about making such ballots easier and more secure. For example, it recommended that the current declaration of identity should be replaced by a new security statement and that staff delivery posts should be provided as part of the ballot to allow voters to have access to assistance and to deliver their completed postal vote by hand. The commission also recommended the creation of a new offence of intending fraudulently to apply for a postal or proxy vote, and tough new penalties.
We are not, therefore, considering a whim for some new-fangled development or a party political stunt. All-postal voting is a serious option backed by serious research. Nevertheless, the opposition, especially from the Conservatives, has been considerable, as was particularly evident in debates on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) declared that he would have to give me a reality check. He mentioned fraud and compared postal voting with the pinnacle of confidentiality supposedly provided by voting at a polling station, but he conveniently forgot the enormous potential for fraud when all that one needs to do to obtain a ballot paper is state a name to an officer at a polling station. He and other hon. Members should pay close attention to the Electoral Commission recommendations to which I have referred.

181WH
Likewise, the hon. Members for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) expressed concerns that there would be a detrimental impact on voter confidence if all-postal voting were introduced. The hon. Lady and others advancing that argument would do well to remember that the most telling indication of voter confidence in the process is voter participation. The most effective rebuttal of their argument, therefore, is reference to the substantial increase in turnout that occurred in the majority of areas in which pilots took place.
It is disappointing that the hon. Member for Upminster was forced to resort to spurious arguments about ceremony and to saying that going to a polling station gives the act of voting more significance. Such comments remind me of a long-running historical theme—Tory opposition to measures that empower more people to participate in the democratic process. I fear that we are seeing the latest chapter in a long history.
Students of history will recall that at the time of the Reform Act 1832, the Duke of Wellington declared that the House of Commons would end up rotten to the core if poor people were ever allowed to vote. We are used to Tories clutching at straws when trying to ensure that only Tories get out to vote. Of course, Tory antipathy to making the franchise a reality is understandable. The most significant occasion on which a Tory Government widened the franchise was the introduction of the second Reform Act, of 1867. Within months of that legislation being passed, the newly enfranchised masses booted the Tories out by a landslide.
Whereas the Tories of the 19th century sought to defeat legislation that would give people the legal right to vote, the Tories of the 21st century oppose measures that will make it easier for people to exercise what is already their legal right. They do not even like Scottish Members of Parliament exercising their right to vote as equal Members of the House.
It might be interesting to see what participation there has been and what questions have been asked by the Opposition. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) asked a question about postal ballots on 12 May 2003 and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) asked one on 30 June. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) asked a question on 2 July, and the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale asked one on 12 September. They all asked roughly the same question. I shall read out the last one:
"To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many trial postal ballots have been conducted in local elections; where they were held; and how much each one cost."—[Official Report, 18 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 966W.]
That series of questions suggests that the Opposition were looking for excuses not to conduct a postal ballot. I am sure that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will tell us why, even though the Opposition want nothing to do with such ballots, they are so concerned about them that they had to ask those questions.
What lessons can be learned? First, we should select appropriate locations for pilot schemes in the European and local elections this year, for which I believe Scotland
182WH
is ideally suited. Secondly, depending on the operation of pilot schemes in those elections, we should consider the possibility of an all-postal ballot in general elections. I am disappointed that the Electoral Commission decided not to recommend that Scotland be chosen as one of the pilot zones. In my view, it fulfilled all the necessary criteria.
Pete Wishart: What are the hon. Gentleman's conclusions on why Scotland has not been selected, given that the Minister was close to declaring that it would be selected during the final stages of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill? I understand that the change has occurred on the initiative of the returning officer. What is the hon. Gentleman's view of what happened?
John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has asked a valid question. If he can be patient, he will find that my view will be well laid out in this speech.
The low turnout in much of the country means that there is a greater urgency and much more potential for improvement. That is proven by the track record in constituencies such as mine of campaigns to encourage postal votes. The situation would also be helped by the fact that, unlike in the English regions, no local elections would be held on the same day as European Parliament elections. A change in turnout could be affected as much by local matters as by the introduction of different voting methods. Holding a pilot scheme in an area in which two different elections are taking place on the same day would complicate matters further. Furthermore, the European and local elections will be taking place under different voting systems. My view is not new, but was echoed by many on Second Reading of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. Unfortunately, it appeared to fall on deaf ears.
Mr. David Heath: That view did not entirely fall on deaf ears as far as the Electoral Commission is concerned, as Scotland was identified as the second best region that meets the criteria. So why on earth have the Government chosen two English regions rather than Scotland?
John Robertson: That question is not for me to answer, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will address it.
The multiplicity of variables in the elections in England and Wales next June will make any scientific assessment of the impact of new voting methods much more difficult. In Scotland, however, there will be one election under one voting system with one ballot paper, so it provides the perfect testing ground for the pilot schemes to which the Bill refers.
Even the Electoral Commission recognised what it called "several distinct advantages", notably including Scotland's several separate media outlets, such as the strong Scottish press and clearly defined radio and television markets, which would make any voter awareness campaign much easier. Scotland's own distinctive identity would ensure that electors were well aware that any campaign on Scottish voting arrangements would apply to them.

183WH
Why was the Electoral Commission not convinced? It gave two principal reasons. One was the potential pitfalls of organising a postal ballot in rural areas, some of which do not have access to a daily postal service. The Royal Mail, however, specifically recommended Scotland in its submission. Indeed, it stated:
"Royal Mail recommends that one of the other regions chosen as a pilot should include a mix of rural and urban voters, and Scotland would be an ideal choice from this point of view. It has the largest geographical area of all the regions with the smallest population density. Its large rural profile would allow an all-postal voting scheme to offer the greatest advantage in voter convenience and, therefore, voter turnout. In terms of the knowledge derived from the pilots, such a region would test the capability of Royal Mail to coordinate some of its most remote collections with some of its most urban ones: a challenge we welcome. Furthermore, choosing such a region should lower the cost per vote cast, increasing value for money."
That is a glowing endorsement.
The second reason given by the Electoral Commission was the submission that it received from the regional returning officer, Mr. Tom Aitchison. Its report states:
"The Regional Returning Officer has informed the Commission that he believes there is insufficient time available to put in place the necessary mechanisms to deliver an all-postal pilot with any reasonable guarantee of success."
It has been reported that Mr. Aitchison also raised the problem of resources, but the Minister has indicated that resources could be made available for areas selected for pilots. I have also been told that Mr. Aitchison told Ministers that his colleagues supported him, but my information is that that is not true. Does the Minister know who is right? Did he contact other returning officers, as requested on Second Reading of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill?
Perhaps Mr. Aitchison's reluctance can partly be explained by his experiences in the 1999 Scottish parliamentary elections, when 2,000 ballot papers from the Edinburgh, West constituency, which he oversaw, went missing. If Mr. Aitchison has no faith in his own ability or that of his colleagues, he should stand down and make way for someone with the ability and confidence that he obviously lacks. I would like to know what the Minister's assessment is of the advice received from the regional returning officer for Scotland, and I would appreciate his comments on the situation. Perhaps he can tell me how one gets rid of an electoral returning officer.
It is especially important that that question is cleared up, because the Electoral Commission stated in evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs that Scotland would meet criteria for an all-postal ballot if the Government provided the necessary resources and Royal Mail the necessary commitment. As has been heard, the Minister and the Royal Mail have both given that commitment, so why is Scotland not being considered for a pilot? It would be very unfortunate if the returning officer's decision to oppose an all-postal ballot unnecessarily wrecked our opportunity to enfranchise thousands of people who are often prevented by time or other factors from going out to vote.
Finally, if the pilots in June this year are successful, the Department for Constitutional Affairs should give serious consideration to the use of all-postal ballots
184WH
across the country at general elections. There would have to be areas where people could still deliver their ballot paper by hand, but one such location per constituency would probably be enough, except in more rural areas, where there might be two or three.
I am aware that when the chairman of the Electoral Commission, Mr. Sam Younger, was asked about all-postal voting at general elections, he said:
"Let's not run before we can walk."
However, if the Opposition get their way, we probably will not even start crawling. I agree with Mr. Younger that we must take our time, put effective safeguards in place and ensure that we are well prepared for pilot schemes, but let us still be ambitious and rise to the challenge of increasing voter participation, given that all the identified problems are addressed. In Britain we have a proud tradition of a representative democracy, but we must seek continually to reinvigorate the process. Having listed the problems that we face, I have demonstrated why all-postal voting is required.
In conclusion, I have to ask the following questions for all who are connected with the elections. Why did the Electoral Commission not support Scotland for an all-postal ballot even when the concerns were addressed? Why did the returning officer refuse to allow Scotland to be a pilot for all-postal ballots? His own colleagues wanted the pilot provided that all the concerns were met, as they were. Why would opposition parties want to prevent people from voting? What are their real motives? What is the Minister doing for Scotland given the obvious unfairness that has been shown? I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members, in particular my hon. Friend the Minister, have to say.
9.51 am
Mr. Patrick Hall: I am pleased to contribute to this debate on an issue that has considerable importance, not just for us as party activists and politicians, but for the general public.
The case for all-postal ballots has been made overwhelmingly, not just by the Electoral Commission, political parties and the Government, but, more importantly, by the voters when they have had the opportunity to participate in elections in which the vote has been cast entirely by postal ballots. Recent pilots have demonstrated that the average turnout in local council elections increases by about 50 per cent.—from about 35 per cent. to 49 per cent.—when there are all-postal ballots. Some may argue that that increase is not good enough, but it is far better than the normal situation. Although the average turnout at local council elections is 35 per cent., turnout in some areas is even lower—20 per cent. or less in some cases.
The Electoral Commission has evaluated the pilots since 2000 and has reported that not only has turnout been boosted, but opportunities for abuse and misuse of the system—many have raised that point; no doubt we will hear more on it this morning—are no greater than under the present system of partial postal voting. Nowadays, the hurdles in the way of achieving a postal vote have been removed. People can vote by post if they choose to do so, although they have to apply. A few years ago, there were all sorts of reasons why people applied. For example, they might have been going on

185WH
holiday or have been ill. In those circumstances, they had, for example, to get a signature from a doctor or a family member. Those difficulties have been removed.
Abuse can exist under the present system. Candidates and parties have been accused of building up postal votes in unethical ways. While canvassing, one comes across people who would like to vote, but who will be away or who work long hours and cannot predict when they will come home.
John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, come election time, those out walking the streets and meeting people find that the electorate always ask how they can cast a vote? They want to know if they can get a postal vote or a proxy vote. In general, there is an increase in activity at that time. Our problem is trying to secure that increase in activity all the time.
Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend is right and demonstrates that he is speaking from experience. He has walked the streets and knocked on doors for years, as we all have. Making personal contact with people, even if they are not initially interested in party politics, means that there is a much higher chance that they will express an interest in issues that affect them and their community—they want to have a say. If they cannot vote at the polling station on a particular day for various reasons, they are often delighted to know that they can do so by post. As I said, that has been made much easier. The process is one of opting in. People can vote by post if they want to in elections in which people can also vote in person at the polling station in the traditional way. Assisting people to participate in elections, by explaining that they can get a postal vote or a proxy vote, is welcomed by the public.
In 25 years of election campaigning activity I have come across only one example of unethical practice with regard to absent votes, which took place in a local council by-election in Bedford. Liberal Democrat activists targeted elderly Labour voters, who had been carefully canvassed, and offered to assist them to cast their vote by proxy, which no doubt the individuals concerned saw as extremely helpful. They may not have felt like going out and getting wet, or may have had difficulty walking. I am sure, because I went and saw some of the voters myself, that it was not made plain that the helpful members of the community who suggested that they might vote on the elderly people's behalf by proxy would cast those votes for the Liberal Democrat candidate. About 20 elderly Labour voters assisted the Liberal Democrat candidate to achieve a narrow victory. I was not happy with that and neither were other people.
There are no doubt examples from elsewhere in the country of an unfair pushing of the ethical line in previous years. However, none of us has campaigned nationally that the principle of absent voting, by post or proxy, is therefore wrong. It is not; it is absolutely right. People welcome it and it should be extended.
John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is perhaps time that the Government wrote to every elector explaining what they can and cannot get in relation to a ballot? People can already get a postal
186WH
ballot on demand. Is it not time to tell people that? Plenty of people do not realise that they can have a postal vote on demand.
Mr. Hall: I have not read any national assessments of whether the electorate in all council areas are told that they can have a postal ballot on demand. I think that that happens in my constituency. In many places, people at least receive something in writing that says that they can opt in, but that should take place in a more rigorous and coherent way. However, I do not think that that message will sink in unless people like us knock on the door and tell voters that they can have a postal ballot. When we do that and they say, "Oh really?", we can then say, "Here's the form" and so on. It is still a little difficult to get people to opt for something that many of them would want if they knew about it. The best way to deal with that issue is to have an all-postal ballot.
I welcome the Government's decision to double the number of all-postal ballots in England next June. They are doing so not only in the north-east and the east midlands, but in the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside. I regret the exclusion of the rest of the country, including the eastern region, where my constituency lies. I am not convinced of the reasons for that. I understand that in the eastern region there was no enthusiasm among returning officers for such a ballot. Indeed, some political party organisers were not too keen either and did not want to risk change. However, the pilots that have taken place, and the further pilots to which we are committed this June, pave the way for the inevitable. That is the way forward.
We will have a three-month evaluation after 10 June this year, the results of which will be published in September. That is the intention. That will provide the opportunity to iron out procedural difficulties before national implementation. I do not want to pre-judge the evaluation. It may be that it raises issues of which I am not aware, requiring us to stop or turn back, but I do not think it will. Experience so far indicates the road along which we are travelling. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to pre-judge that evaluation any more than I would by closing the door on national implementation in 2005. If the lessons so far are anything to go by, higher turnout is there for the taking. Surely that is essential if we wish to restore the credibility of our political system, the quality of our democracy and the legitimacy of the outcomes of our elections.
People often mention the low turnout in the last general election. Although it was low, I am aware that it did not represent a wholesale rejection of the system. The main feeling I got on the doorsteps in the 2001 general election campaign was one of a foregone conclusion. People said that they did not need to bother to vote because they knew what the result was going to be. That does not sound terribly sophisticated, but the public were right. It is not a healthy situation. It gives grounds to those who are cynical about our system to say that there is less and less interest in the system and we are more and more separated from the people we represent. That might be so, but I do not believe that the majority of people want no further say in the system. Declining turnout is worrying, even if people at the last general election could say that they knew what they were doing because the result was a foregone conclusion. All-postal ballots would almost certainly reverse that

187WH
decline and I want those to take place at the next general election. There will have to be some very good reasons for not introducing them at the next general election.
People nowadays have complex lives, with a lot of demands on their time. They are busy. Perhaps getting to and queueing at a polling station in the rain and cold is not terribly attractive. Having a say, however, remains attractive and most people still believe in it. The method of having a say must be tuned to the more complex and busy lives that most of us lead.
A fully electronic system is not yet available. The technology is not sufficiently secure, people do not have total confidence in the system, which is not user-friendly, and many voters would be averse to an electoral system based entirely on electronic voting. We can, however, be 100 per cent. confident of postal voting. It is 150 years old, and is tried and tested.
From the point of view of political parties, an all-postal ballot election would still require campaigning, people would still expect to meet candidates, and parties would want to remind people to vote, all of which is healthy. It may well be that, under such a system, polling day as such—it would, in fact, not be polling day, but the day on which the process ended—would be an anticlimax for the parties, but so what? The system should not be devised for the entertainment of political hacks and political parties; it must serve the people, and they are not impressed by the build-up to polling day and all the leaflets that go out because, certainly in local elections, the majority take absolutely no notice and do not vote. We may be entertained by it, but that is not the issue.
The test is what the people feel. They have shown that they want all-postal ballots and that they respond to them more than they do to the current system. The facts show that clearly. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, when considering national implementation in 2005, to keep an open mind about the outcome of the evaluation in September.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): It might be opportune to remind the three hon. Members who will respond to the debate that it is accepted practice in the Chamber to divide the remaining time into three equal parts and that any exercise that may infringe on that would be considered infra dig.
10.6 am
Mr. David Heath: I hope that you will not mind, Mr. Cook, if I do not take up my entire allocation, as I may be able to express myself adequately in less time than I have available. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing the debate and on his contribution to it. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on his speech—once he had been coaxed to his feet.
I do not want to rehearse all the arguments that were laid out in the context of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. The Minister knows that whatever the merit of novel forms of electoral practice—and there are some that we want to encourage—we have two principled problems with the current proposals. First, they will create the circumstance in which a single election is held on two
188WH
different bases according to where one is in the country. Secondly, there are still serious issues to address about electoral fraud in all-postal ballots.
I accept the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland. There is scope for fraud in conventional systems and we have had postal ballots for a long time. However, if more widespread postal voting is introduced, it will be incumbent on us to do whatever we can to mitigate the opportunity for fraud. The Electoral Commission has come up with some proposals that I hope to see implemented, but there are still problems with the system for houses in multiple occupation, of which we should be aware.
I agree with those who raise the principle of the secret ballot as a valid objection to postal voting. The head of the household or some other dominant person has more scope for inappropriate influence on the individual elector. We should guard against that as far as possible, but there is no wholly acceptable answer to it.
Mr. Hall: Surely the points that the hon. Gentleman has made about the opportunities for postal ballots to be seen by other members of the family or other residents of houses in multiple occupation apply 100 per cent. to the current system—never mind the proposal for all-postal ballots. How would he address the disadvantage of the current system?
Mr. Heath: I thought that I had made my position absolutely plain. Of course opportunities for fraud occur under the current system, but the effect on the outcome of an election is greater in a 100 per cent. postal ballot. It is therefore proper that we address those issues in so far as we are able. No system is absolutely foolproof, but things can be done to improve the situation. Rather than rehearsing those points yet again, I will address what the Government have done since the Bill left the House for the other place.
We have already discussed the Electoral Commission's proposals for the regions that it identified as appropriate for pilot schemes. It came up with only two regions: the north-east and the east midlands. I will not argue about those proposals further; they were the proposals of an independent body. If the Government wish to go ahead, clearly those are the regions that should be taken.
I did, and do, have problems with the fact that the Government said that, although the Electoral Commission identified only two regions as appropriate, there would be more than two and that we would have a repechage event to identify further regions. I thought that that was code for, "We are going to give in to our colleagues in Scotland who feel strongly about this." The Electoral Commission clearly stated:
"The next region that best meets the criteria is Scotland."
I can understand the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland being a little upset. Although he chose to express his upset as criticism of the Electoral Commission, which is not entirely fair, his Minister has chosen to ignore what the commission said—which supported the hon. Gentleman's case that, if there were to be more than two regions, Scotland should be next in the frame. The Minister ignored the claims of Scotland and instead went for two further English regions. The Minister must explain to the hon. Member for Glasgow,

189WH
Anniesland and other Scottish Members why he does not feel able to support what the Electoral Commission clearly said about Scotland.
John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman feels that I was overly critical of the commission, but that is not what I intended. The point that I was trying to make was that its concerns had been identified. In its evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, it stated that, provided resources were put in place, it could see no reason why Scotland should not be used for a pilot scheme. Those concerns were taken care of by the Minister.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because that means that the situation is worse than I thought. There were no barriers to Scotland being chosen as a region except the Minister's will, which is to entertain the English regions rather than Scotland. He must explain why that is.
The two regions that were chosen do not meet the basic criteria. One is the north-west, which clearly had strong advocates. However, a principal problem stems from one of the criteria that the Government originally set for inclusion, which concerned the number of local authorities in the region and the number holding local elections in June 2004. The Electoral Commission felt unable to recommend the north-west principally because it had so many elections on the day that there was considerable scope for problems. The Government have ignored that. They have not reduced the number of local elections, but have decided to override the criteria and go for the north-west for no apparent reason.
The other region is Yorkshire and Humberside. Again, there is a fundamental problem, as expressed by the Electoral Commission. The complaint in the case of Yorkshire and Humberside is that:
"the Commission notes the distinct preference among Returning Officers and their staff to run the elections on conventional lines."
In this case, the Minister has decided to ignore not just the Electoral Commission but local returning officers.
The result is a pilot scheme that is hardly a pilot at all. The whole of the north of England will have one voting system and the whole of the south of England, Wales and Scotland will have a different one. It is just as well that there has been a good deal of ethnic mixing over the years in this old country of ours, because it looks like the Danelaw has one system but us Saxons and Celts are not able to use that same system.
The Government must explain why that is. They must explain why they do not use the advice of their independent arbiter. They must explain why we are not able to move to a national election. We are to have a quasi-national election that involves a land mass that is bigger than many European countries. Belgium is normally the unit of currency in these matters. I am sure that the land mass and the population involved are bigger than Belgium's. The north of England will have one system and the rest of us poor peasants in the south are to have a different one. Why has the Minister decided that that is a sensible way to run a pilot scheme? My argument is that it is not, and I hope that he will be able to come up with some explanations. His proposal
190WH
gives rise to much concern and suspicion about the Government's motives and a belief that they are applying jiggery-pokery to the independent advice that they were given.
We had a lot of debate about the marked register when discussing the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. We have also had a letter from the Electoral Commission expressing some concerns and suggesting some provisos. Can the Minister help us by explaining his intentions?
This has been a useful debate, if only because it has exposed the fact that the Government ask for independent advice, but ignore it completely when it suits their purposes and do exactly what they want to do, irrespective of whom it upsets, including the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland.
10.16 am
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I want to follow up what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, especially in his last point. Like him, we are very suspicious about the Government's motivation. I want to say a little more about what the Government have done, which is contrary to what the Minister told us on Report and Third Reading of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, and as recently as 16 December 2003. The Bill is still passing through another place, so the process is far from finished.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), who initiated this interesting debate, started his speech by talking about historical and philosophical context, but it turned out that, as I had anticipated, all he really wanted to do was have a serious go at his own Government and the Minister for not accepting Scotland as a pilot region. He has made the same point on many occasions during the passage of the European Parliament and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill.
I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman decided to make what I can only describe as an ad hominem attack on the regional returning officer for Scotland. In the light of recent events, I would have thought that Labour Members might have learned that it is unwise to make ad hominem attacks on dedicated public servants. I do not know Mr. Aitchison, but I have no doubt that he carried out his duties in reporting his views to the Electoral Commission in a straightforward and sensible way. The hon. Gentleman is effectively saying that he does not like the conclusions that Mr. Aitchison came to.
I want to draw specific attention to what the Electoral Commission said about Scotland. It is important to bear in mind what the commission said about its reasons for not recommending that Scotland be part of the original proposals for pilot regions:
"Scotland has the fifth highest electorate of those regions we can consider. It is the largest geographically of the European parliamentary regions and is the most sparsely populated, with approximately 49 electors per square kilometre. The degree of population scarcity varies enormously from the very densely populated central belt urban areas to very remote rural areas.
Scotland has 32 unitary authorities; There are no local elections scheduled for 2004 as Scotland combines full council elections with the Scottish Parliament elections (last held in May 2003). This combination of local elections with parliamentary elections has left Scottish authorities with little opportunity to run pilot schemes".

191WH
That is what the Electoral Commission reported and it believes that it is important. It went on to say that that was
"reflected in the minimal level of pilot experience in Scotland—it ranks tenth in terms of percentage of past pilot authorities at 9.3 per cent. and all of these have been at by-elections."
The regional returning officer, Mr. Aitchison, who has been so savagely attacked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, held that post in 1999, and the Electoral Commission's report quite clearly says—this is the crucial point—that his views were supported by "a large urban authority." Listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech, one might have thought that the returning officer was speaking purely for himself.
The Electoral Commission goes on to say that the
"regional returning officer has informed the Commission that he believes there is insufficient time available to put in place the necessary mechanisms to deliver an all-postal pilot with any reasonable guarantee of success."
Those are very strong words. The report continues:
"The geographic diversity of Scotland poses particular challenges to an all-postal election. Some remote rural parts of Scotland do not have a daily mail service, and any all-postal elections in these areas would need to examine carefully the provision and position of delivery points; special postal arrangements may be required. More conclusively, the dispersed nature of the Scottish electorate coupled with low rates of home access to the internet would hinder the delivery of an electronic voting pilot."
To our great pleasure, the Government dropped any plans to conduct an electronic voting pilot. They were absolutely right not to do so in Scotland, given that the strong and compelling words of the regional returning officer, whose views were supported by a large urban authority, were among the reasons why the Electoral Commission made its recommendation. The report says that a very large number of Members of Parliament and other people involved in government made individual submissions. They included 45 Members of Parliament, nine Members of the European Parliament, two peers, two Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish First Minister, but not the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, who did not make a submission to the Electoral Commission, did not like what it said and has been complaining ever since. In the Opposition's view, the Government were absolutely right to recommend against Scotland, as we said in Committee and on Report and Third Reading of the European Parliament and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill.
However, we have severe concerns about what the Government have done. On 16 December, the Minister said:
"We remain keen, however, to proceed with all-postal voting in three regions. In scaling up towards a multi-channel general election"—
I made fun of the phrase then, as I do now—
"after 2006, we believe that pressing ahead with a wider range and variation of piloting provides the best opportunity to learn lessons and to develop capabilities in new electoral techniques … The Government will consider in more detail each of the potential candidates with a view to announcing the location of the third all-postal pilot in the coming weeks."
He went on to say:
"we can conclude which third all-postal voting pilot will proceed."
Apparently, he hoped to come to a conclusion soon on
"which region or nation should be the third choice".
192WH
He also said:
"I intend to make a decision relatively quickly on which third region or nation we wish to select."
Later, he said that the Electoral Commission had
"recommended that there should be three all-postal pilots regions."—[Official Report, 16 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1511—1515.]
The Electoral Commission did not make such a recommendation; the Minister was making a mistake. The commission was asked to recommend three regions, including one for an electronic pilot, and it only recommended two, for very good reasons. As recently as 16 December, the Minister said not only once, but about six times over five columns in Hansard, that there were going to be three regions—the two that the Electoral Commission had recommended and a third one.
Suddenly, in a written statement made on 21 January 2004, however, the Minister slipped out this announcement:
"I can today announce … that two further regions will also hold all-postal pilots. These regions will be Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-west."—[Official Report, 21 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 64WS.]
Instead of a third region, there was now to be a fourth as well. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, the Opposition are bound to be suspicious as to why that division suddenly emerged between Danelaw and the rest of the country, as he wittily put it. Suddenly it was announced that a swathe of the country—the whole of the north of England—would be involved.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend also press the Minister to tell us who was involved in taking those decisions? Was it the totally unelected head of his Department, the Lord Chancellor—or whatever it is we have to call him these days? Was it the Minister himself, whose constituency falls within the added area, who took the decision, or was it taken on a wider basis? The way in which the recommendations came about is important for accountability, bearing in mind that the Electoral Commission was set up and then ignored, and that other areas were added.
Mr. Hawkins: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope the Minister will deal with those points in some detail. I join my hon. Friend in pressing the Minister to say exactly who was involved.
I return to the two extra regions that the Government have now surprisingly added to what the Electoral Commission recommended. As I pointed out on Report and Third Reading on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, the Electoral Commission is a creature of this Government. It seems to us extraordinary that, after this bureaucratic system has been set up and its independence has been trumpeted by the Minister and others in the Government, its recommendations should be ignored.
Why did the Government ignore what the Electoral Commission said about Yorkshire and the Humber? The report states that Yorkshire and the Humber
"is a mid-ranking region, in terms of opportunities for discrete media campaigns. Its strong daily and weekly press is coupled with a clear regional identity."

193WH
That is one side of the argument, but the report goes on to state:
"Some parts of the region have reported that fraud and the perception of fraud has risen since the introduction of postal voting on demand; the Commission appreciates that such concerns could serve to undermine the acceptance of the election."
In this case, the regional returning officer was in favour of an all-postal pilot for the region. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out, however, the commission goes on to say:
"it is clear that returning officers would strongly prefer not to be involved in any all-postal pilot at the combined elections"
in 2004. That is a good reason why Yorkshire and the Humber should not have been added to the all-postal pilot.
For similar reasons, in paragraph 284 of the report, the Electoral Commission says this about the northwest:
"There have been several allegations of electoral fraud in the north west in recent years. These have centred around interference with postal votes or intimidatory procurement of proxy votes in conventional elections. Some of these investigations could proceed to court in early 2004; this would be likely to produce unfavourable publicity about the security of postal voting."
Again, those are good and compelling reasons why there should not be an all-postal pilot in either the north-west or Yorkshire and the Humber, and yet the Government have proceeded to ignore their own Electoral Commission.
As we have consistently said, our view is strongly influenced by the Electoral Reform Society, which is totally independent and is not a creation of this Government. We prefer its approach to these matters to that of the Government. We point out to people such as the hon. Members for Glasgow, Anniesland and for Bedford (Mr. Hall) that it is not a universal truth that all-postal voting leads to an increase in turnout. It has done so in some areas, and it certainly did so in part of my constituency, when we succeeded in defeating the Liberal Democrats and getting control of Guildford borough council in May last year on the basis of an all-postal pilot. We therefore do not have a principled objection to all-postal voting everywhere. However, the Electoral Reform Society says this about turnout:
"we note that all-postal ballots are not a guarantee of much higher turnout. In a by-election in Lewisham"—
we discussed this issue in Committee and on Report and Third Reading—
"ending on 23 October 2003, there was a rise of just 2 per cent. to only 24 per cent. turnout despite the ward being hotly contested and changing hands"
in an all-postal ballot.
The Electoral Reform Society also says that, in respect of all-postal ballots, some of the safeguards introduced by the 1872 ballot secrecy legislation with regard to undue influence and bribery have been removed. It states:
"Whilst these risks have always existed with postal votes, until now they could only affect a small minority of votes. Corrupt practices on a grand scale have become feasible again for the first time in 130 years. Of course this is not a guarantee that any such events will occur, but the risk is increased."
194WH
The hon. Members mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow Anniesland—my hon. Friends the Members for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)—as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I, have all made clear our belief that there is something significant about voters taking a decision to go to a polling station and vote in person. We are delighted that the Government have made it absolutely clear that the next general election will take place in the traditional way.
Mr. McLoughlin: On increased turnout, my hon. Friend might like to reflect on the situation a few years ago, when the Liberal party, along with the Government, very much supported the new system of electing Members of the European Parliament on a regional basis. They argued that a system of proportional representation would lead to increased turnout. Indeed, that is exactly what the Foreign Secretary, then the Home Secretary, used as his principal argument for introducing the system, which has actually led to a fall in turnout because people do not feel associated with those whom they have elected.
Mr. Hawkins: I can only agree with my hon. Friend. I recall that Conservative Members tabled amendments in Committee to try to bring back first-past-the-post voting. I have no doubt that turnout for European elections would increase again if we were to reintroduce a constituency-based system, because voters would strongly identify with the people whom they elected. They do not feel that they have that link under the list system and PR. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
We are suspicious about what the Government have done, particularly because the Minister completely contradicted in his 23 January announcement what he had said on numerous occasions in the past, and as recently as 16 December. Furthermore, we do not agree with the views of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland.
John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; it is a pity that he did not let me in earlier. If I may return to his original point, I would hate to have him think that all my attacks were on the returning officer for Scotland, as there are plenty on the Tory party. As he has plenty of time, I hope that he will try to answer one question: what is his objection to asking people to vote? Why does the Tory party have a problem with people casting their vote? It is an historical activity—it goes back centuries. Once again, he has indicated that he does not want anyone to cast a vote other than by the traditional method. Are we not to encourage people, including those who have difficulties, to vote?
Mr. Hawkins: The modest changes that have been made to enable people to apply for a postal vote if they want one have been successful, but there is no need to go down the slippery slope towards treating elections as if they were some popularity contest like "Big Brother" or "Pop Idol". That is the danger that we have identified.
Of course, the hon. Gentleman has a problem, in that his own Government have said that they still want general elections to take place in the traditional way, as

195WH
we do. It is important that electors take voting seriously. The best way of taking it seriously is for people to vote in person at a polling station. As I said, we are delighted that that will continue in the next general election.
Mr. Patrick Hall: On electors taking elections seriously, is the hon. Gentleman making a serious point himself about the clear evidence of much higher participation in all-postal ballots for local council elections? The turnout was significantly higher in those elections. He said that the process is not a guarantee. He is absolutely right, but the evidence is that there was significantly higher participation. Is he actually suggesting that those people were not serious?
Mr. Hawkins: No, I am not suggesting that. I am saying that the evidence is contradictory, as the Electoral Reform Society pointed out. The postal voting system did not increase turnout everywhere. It did so in some places, but not others.
The Electoral Reform Society is also quite right to stress the dangers of electoral fraud. I shall not repeat all that was said in Committee and on Report and Third Reading, but Conservative Members stressed concerns about the need for extra security wherever there is all-postal voting, particularly for houses in multiple occupation. We think that the Government have much more work to do on that issue.
There are balancing factors, but there is no doubt that the best system, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) pointed out, is a system of first-past-the-post elections with a constituency link, and not an arrangement involving list systems and PR. We should also ensure that people are voting at polling stations if they can do so, with the opportunity to apply for a postal vote if they do not want to vote in that way or find it difficult to get to the polling station. However, it would be detrimental to move down the slippery slope towards treating elections as though they were as trivial as "Big Brother" or "Pop Idol" in a desperate attempt to try to make them trendy.
Although the issue that has been raised has been of some use in allowing us to ventilate the issues further, I deprecate some of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, and I am pleased that his Government do not agree with him.
10.35 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing the debate on this important issue. I hope to respond to some of the points made and to set out the Government's wider approach.
It is always my dubious pleasure to follow the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, who says how dreadful and appalling is the Government's desperate attempt to make voting easier and more convenient for people. I am afraid we are guilty of that; it is important for any Government to try to make the democratic process as accessible and convenient as possible. I am disappointed that the Opposition do not share in that fairly worthy aspiration, which I hoped would have been shared on both sides of the House.
196WH
Obviously, the House is aware of the history—how we come to be where we are today. The Representation of the People Act 2000 was the main legislative vehicle to provide initially for the piloting of all-postal and other innovative voting methods in local elections in England and Wales. That was partly in response to calls from election administrators who wanted to try new methods, changing the system of voting that had not had any significant alterations since the ballot legislation in the 19th century. They were keen to innovate and to improve their systems. There were calls, too, from many others who wanted voting made easier and more accessible so that it fits around modern ways of living. That is one reason why the Government set up a working party in 1997 under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). The hope then was to make voting more convenient, to find a way to persuade more electors to become inclined to participate and to halt, or try to deal with, some of the decline in turnover in a variety of elections.
In 2000, local pilots were undertaken, some of which were on the voting times of the day, others on electronic voting, methods of counting, mobile ballot boxes, weekend voting and so forth. Postal voting proved by far the most popular; the initial pilots were mostly on a small scale and took place in seven local authorities, but they all showed a significant—in some cases substantial—rise in turnout. For example, in Gateshead, turnout more than doubled. Because of that initial success, we wanted to consider the issues further and to increase the number of pilots. That was not done in 2001 because the local elections were combined with the general election. However, despite that gap, in 2002, 13 authorities ran pilots, some of them across the whole of the authority, and large rises in turnout were the result. In 2003 more local authorities—39 in total—were keen and eager to run all-postal pilots in their area and an increase in turnout, sometimes a substantial increase, was the rule.
Given that experience, which was built up over a wide range of different local authorities, we did not want to ignore the message being sent, not only from the electoral administrators, who were keen on the proposition, but from the public: the electorate were telling us that they preferred this manner of voting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) said, they wanted to participate more actively, and local councils were becoming more representative of their electors. The elected representatives thus had a more solid mandate and they, in turn, felt more confident to take forward the policies on which they were elected. That is the enrichment of the democratic process that I am sure that we would all want to see.
Mr. McLoughlin: The Minister says that he genuinely wants to test whether there has been an increase in turnout. One of the ways in which that could be done would be to compare the results with what happened at the last European elections, when we had results for individual constituencies. I understand that the Government have changed the rules in such a way that we will not be able to make those comparisons, because

197WH
we will not get the results for individual constituencies. How will we be able to make a true comparison of whether turnout is better or worse than last time?
Mr. Leslie: We will have results from the European constituencies because the regions are the constituencies. The hon. Gentleman mentioned parliamentary constituencies. The electoral administrators expressed a preference to count on the basis of district council election areas, but whether votes are counted on that basis or at parliamentary constituency level makes no difference to the outcome of the election in a particular European constituency. His point is rather obscure, but I shall let him pursue it.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am sorry that the Minister thinks that the point is obscure. One of the things that people say to us in arguments about turnout is that the turnout in certain areas cannot be seen. If, from now on, we receive only the results for the whole of Liverpool or Manchester, rather than for the constituencies of which those two cities are composed, there will not be the same degree of accuracy as in the last elections, when we were able to see how individual parliamentary constituencies voted. I am sure that there will be many studies on the increase in turnout, but we will not be able to see where that turnout has occurred as well as we could have done if the counting basis had remained the same as in the last European elections.
Mr. Leslie: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. These are not parliamentary elections, but European elections. It is therefore right that they should be counted on the basis of European constituencies. The electoral administrators can then decide how best to break down the different counting areas. I believe that we will be able to carry out a proper analysis of the different effects that occur in relation to all-postal voting versus the conventional arrangements, given that the pilot schemes will be carried out on quite a large scale.
We have had many pilot schemes in local elections, and we now want to move on to a wider regional scale. That takes us into new territory; if we are to extend all-postal voting to a wider range of people, we must take difficult decisions about the scale on which that should be done. We feel that now is the right time to use those constituencies as a comparator for conventional and all-postal voting, not least because of the occurrence of the European elections.
We cannot rely, however, solely on volunteer local authorities—in some areas there may need to be a greater level of compulsion, so that there is uniformity across a particular constituency. That is why we introduced the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). The Bill continues its passage through Parliament in the other place, and will enable the Government to proceed with the planned pilot schemes.
Many hon. Members asked why we recommended and selected particular regions, so it would perhaps be helpful if I were to give the rationale behind that. The regions, and the local authorities within them, that will run all-postal ballots this year were selected on the basis
198WH
of advice from the Electoral Commission, and after discussions with the returning officers—the people who administer the elections. The Electoral Commission's advice indicated that the north-east and the east midlands should be chosen, but also listed a number of second-rank authorities and regions that might run the pilot schemes. It deemed them potentially suitable, but they were less favoured and not positively recommended.
I am aware that Scotland was at the top of that second list and I should like to explain how the discussions about additional regions progressed. We considered the regions in the order of the Electoral Commission's ranking. Initially, there was discussion with Scottish returning officers about the issues that they raised in response to the commission's consultation. Their concerns were largely focused on the same practical issues that affected all the other regions. We made efforts to allay their concerns, but the returning officers remained unconvinced that effective elections could be held in Scotland in June on an all-postal basis. As a consequence of those concerns, which were in essence about operational capability, the Government were advised, particularly by the Secretary of State for Scotland, that we should not proceed with an all-postal pilot in Scotland.
Government officials then spoke to the returning officers for Yorkshire and Humber and the north-west, which were the next in the Electoral Commission's ranking. In Yorkshire, there was little enthusiasm from the returning officers for piloting the election, although the electoral administrators were confident that they could deliver successful pilots. That point was conceded by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath; there is a difference between the returning officers' approach in Scotland and in Yorkshire. Although they expressed little enthusiasm in Yorkshire, they recognised that the region could work together to deliver a successful pilot scheme. The returning officers' level of confidence is very important. Similarly, in the north-west, they were also very confident that they could deliver, despite the Electoral Commission's concerns about the complexity of a successful all-postal election. The electoral administrators' views have become an important part of the ultimate decisions that we hope to take about which regions will be selected.
Although enthusiasm and willingness are important in the consultation exercise, and while the Electoral Commission's recommendations are clear, they are, ultimately, recommendations. It falls to Ministers to make decisions to put before Parliament on which region should be chosen. We have decided that operational capability and capacity to deliver successful elections must be the paramount concerns. That was the rationale behind our decisions.
Mr. Hawkins: The Minister says that it must be for Ministers to decide and to put the matter before Parliament, but does he not think that it is completely inappropriate to put the matter before Parliament in a two-paragraph written statement? Should not matters as important as this—when the Government disagree with their own independent Electoral Commission—be debated? Should not everything that the Minister

199WH
announced on 23 January be properly debated in the main Chamber so that we can see whether they were right to reject the Electoral Commission's advice?
Mr. Leslie: First, I do not think that it is inappropriate to make announcements to Parliament in written statements; I think that that is the appropriate manner to make announcements. Secondly, Parliament will have every opportunity to debate the recommendations that Ministers make in the Bill, including any amendments that have been tabled in another place, when the Bill returns to this House. That is a fair approach. We do not want to stifle debate. Heaven knows, we have had every opportunity this morning to investigate many of the issues.
I, together with the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and the Lord Chancellor, met returning officers from Yorkshire, Humber and the north-west to investigate how they feel about operational capability and whether they can deliver. I do not want problems to develop in elections. That would clearly not be in our interests. We have been careful to take into account their views on the capacity to deliver. Consequently, we have made decisions about the four regions that we want to recommend. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath made fun of the fact that we initially asked the Electoral Commission to recommend three regions. It made two firm recommendations and then suggested a list of others, ranked in order, as potentially suitable. So it is open to us to make a choice from that second-rank list. That is not in conflict with our decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland highlighted a number of significant benefits that arise from all-postal voting. First, he referred to the convenience that it offers the voter. He is absolutely right. Experience shows that a large proportion of the electorate would prefer to vote by post rather than go to a polling station, so postal voting also helps with participation. Secondly, all-postal voting gives voters a greater sense of control when choosing whom to vote for and casting their vote. It is not just about convenience for the elector; it also gives the elector more time, after receiving the ballot paper, to consider the candidates and the news in the media, and to look at the literature from candidates from different parties. Electors do not need to make up their mind on the spot: they can consider the matter in greater detail and become more aware of who is standing for election before casting their vote and returning it in good time. Some critics may have overlooked that benefit.
All-postal voting is extremely popular and higher turnouts also produce other benefits, such as more interest in local politics and a greater sense of mandate for those elected on a higher turnout. The MORI opinion poll commissioned by the European parliamentary office predicted yesterday that only 18 per cent. of the population were certain to vote at the June European elections. We should all be exceptionally concerned about that. One way, though not the only way, in which we can make it easier for people to express their views is to make it more convenient for them to vote by testing all-postal voting on a scaled-up basis. That is precisely the policy that we are pursuing.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised specific concerns about all-postal voting, which he has mentioned before, and the unease felt in
200WH
some quarters. I appreciate that that is the view of the Electoral Reform Society, a body quite different and distinct from the independent Electoral Commission, which comes under the auspices of the House and from which we prefer to take our advice and recommendations. The Electoral Reform Society suggests that there is a possibility of greater fraud with all-postal voting. That criticism does not necessarily stand up to scrutiny, although there have been concerns about ballot papers going astray or falling into the wrong hands.
There is no fail-safe electoral mechanism. We should not look at all-postal voting in isolation and pretend that every other electoral system is watertight. Much can be done to ensure that people are aware of their rights and responsibilities in all-postal voting. Amendments have been tabled to the Bill to extend the ability to prosecute personation, to extend the offence of personation outside the polling station and to ensure that we put other security improvements in the pilot order. The Electoral Commission also recommended a code of practice for political parties and their workers and set out acceptable practices for dealing with postal votes. I fully support the development of such a code of practice and urge all those involved to abide by it. Everybody should know where they stand on the rules.
Mr. McLoughlin: Should the Government's proposals be accepted, and there is every likelihood that they will be, will the Minister assure us that all the rules relating to the last day of recommendation, the last day for ballot papers to be returned and so on are given to the political parties and the regions concerned well in advance of local elections? At the last general election, changes to postal voting were made late in the day for all political parties to be able to understand them. If he introduces such a system, I hope that he has a better timetable than the one used at that election.
Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about providing information not just for the public, on their rights and responsibilities with regard to postal voting, but for political parties. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford said about not running elections simply for the convenience of political parties and that, although polling day might feel more like an anti-climax under all-postal voting arrangements, we should not consider simply what suits a particular political party. Nevertheless, it is important to allow parties to adjust their campaigning capabilities to the new circumstances. We want personal contact with the electors and for electors to receive information from different candidates. So it is important to share information as widely as possible and I take the point made.
There have been a number of criticisms. The criticism of funding has been addressed by ensuring that pilots will be fully funded from the centre. Those criticisms are not onerous and can be overcome by the work that we have put into the Bill. I hope that the House understands the rationale behind our decision.
John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend have any intention to distribute literature to explain postal ballots

201WH
and proxy votes, not just in pilot areas but across the country? Everyone should be able to understand their voting rights.
Mr. Leslie: There is certainly a fine balance to strike between the state producing too much literature at expense and us giving people information on how to vote. In the previous European elections, in which the new electoral system was used, a leaflet was distributed to every household to explain that new system. We have no specific plans to repeat that exercise, but I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's concerns.
It is important to commit to improving electoral turnout and to make voting more convenient and attractive for the whole population. Therefore, we intend not only to improve piloting, but carefully to monitor and evaluate that process in conjunction with the Electoral Commission. I hope that the House will continue to scrutinise the issue and will welcome our initiatives.
Mr. Hall: In the few seconds that remain, will my hon. Friend briefly outline the programme that the Government may follow with regard to examining the September report of the evaluation of the elections in June?
Mr. Leslie: There is specific provision in the Bill to make the evaluation and for the Electoral Commission to undertake that independently. We will carefully consider that. We want to extend new forms of voting, but it is important to evaluate each pilot step by step to learn lessons, and I commend that approach to the House.

Feudal Land Law
11 am
Paul Flynn: On new year's day, 40 families in the beautiful village of Peterstone Wentloog, formally known as Llanbedr Gwynllwg, in the rural part of the city of Newport, received a bombshell in the post in the form of a letter demanding 9 per cent. of the value of their homes in return for permission to have vehicular access to those homes—access that they have enjoyed all their lives. The letter also demanded that they pay the legal fees of the person—Mr. Mark Roberts of Friar's Point, Barry island—who claims ownership of the land, in particular the common land, that is near their homes. It threatened litigation if they did not speedily accede to that extortion.
Many of the residents are elderly. Some inherited their homes. They are almost all of modest means and it would be impossible for the great majority of them to pay the sum demanded of between £19,000 and £45,000. Understandably, the letter caused great distress, anger, fear and resentment. The residents sought legal advice immediately, but the news was, for some of them, very depressing. As this area of law is little understood, much of the legal advice was that they would be wise to settle with Mr. Roberts and pay those amounts. The alternative was to go to law. That could cost between £40,000 and £50,000, and they would still have to pay the money demanded.
In addition to the threats in the letter, a caution was placed, through the Land Registry, on land near the residents' homes. That made their homes unsellable because if people sought to buy them, they would discover the caution and, understandably, would not want to face the possibility of bills of between £20,000 and £100,000 on the purchase of properties that are, in some cases, worth less than that.
That extraordinary situation is not unique and has been raised in the House of Commons before. It relates to a part of the law that has been exploited by two people, Mr. Michael Farrow and Mr. Mark Roberts, in other parts of the country. I am grateful for the help that I have received from other hon. Members who have experienced similar problems in their constituencies as far back as 1999. Mr. Roberts and Mr. Farrow have deployed the scam in places such as Newtown, near Newbury, where a campaign has been going on for five years, in Alstonefield in the Peak district, in Chalfont St. Giles and in Holmbury St. Mary near Guildford.
The claim to ownership of the land known as Broadstreet common in Peterstone Wentloog is based on the manor of Romney title, which Mr. Mark Roberts purchased at an auction. As a result, he claims ownership of common land. Many of us probably believe that no one owns common land but, sadly, at least half the commons in the country have owners and it is possible that they could make claims.
The legal position is a morass. It goes back to changes in the Law of Property Act 1925. Rules were changed that were beneficial to home owners, allowing them to gain access to their homes, particularly if they had been using that access for 20 years. To simplify a highly complex situation, let me explain that, sadly, a decision taken in a notorious court case in 1993—Hanning v.

203WH
Top Deck Travel Group—allows the loophole to be exploited. That is now the settled law. The decision that has been exploited was taken on the basis that no one should be granted a right of access for vehicles under the 20-year rule, because crossing the land in a vehicle was a criminal offence.
That has a perverse effect as far as my constituents and those of several other hon. Members are concerned. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) for their help with the debate. They have all been affected by similar scams.
One of the groups—the Newtown Common action group—has conducted a vigorous campaign during the past four years. I pay tribute to it because it is made up of people of modest means who have had to spend more than £100,000, which they raised in whist drives and other fundraising events, to take their appeal against the judgment in the case of Hanning v. Top Deck Travel Group through the courts. The case has reached the House of Lords, where the Law Lords will make their decision on 25 and 26 February. The group's fight is about the right to use access ways across common land that have been established for 20 years or longer. If the decision goes the right way, there is hope that there will be some relief for my constituents.
The Peterstone Wentloog village group has formed a resourceful and energetic action team. I attended a meeting a fortnight ago, at which there was great gloom and despair because it had just received the threat. The mood was low. Another depressing factor was that at least two families who live nearby had already acceded to the demands of Mr. Mark Roberts. Deciding to cut their losses, they paid the amount involved. I cannot give details because the court placed a gagging order to prevent them from discussing it. However, the villagers are aware of those payments, which have added to the pressure on them.
There was more optimism at a meeting on Sunday because several beneficial things had happened. One problem was the difference in the laws in England and Wales, but that was solved thanks to the swift work of my colleague Mrs. Rosemary Butler, the Assembly Member for Newport West. She has persuaded Carwyn Jones, the relevant Minister in the Welsh Assembly, to introduce secondary legislation this week. It will be retrospective and mean that an outrageous claim for 9 per cent. can no longer be made. The maximum will be 2 per cent., which is still an unfair amount when people are effectively paying for nothing, but at least the sums that are demanded are being reduced. There has also been further action from Newport city council, which has sent a letter to Mr. Mark Roberts to demand that he provides more evidence of his claim to ownership of the land.
We are going over ground that was covered some years ago by the village group in Alstonefield. One of the leading campaigners, Sue Fowler, is contemptuous of Mark Roberts' claims. She reports that he did not produce any convincing evidence when he was challenged in court to prove ownership of the land. It was all very nebulous: he reproduced ancient statutes, but nothing to convince people that he was entitled to
204WH
the ownership of the land involved. Sue Fowler also reports that the whole legal area is greatly uncertain. It consists of what remains of a feudal system that is little understood by many lawyers, civil servants, land registry officials or government bodies. Consequently, people are left wide open to abuses by unscrupulous people, such as the two I mentioned.
Sue Fowler also said that historians and other scholars had advised her that the titles, which are often up for auction and bought for vanity, are empty and have no powers attached to them. It is likely that the claims made by Mr. Mark Roberts are baseless, but even if it is discovered that there is no substance to his claims, my constituents and people in other villages will have been subjected to enormous distress and expense in defending their case.
The laws relating to manorial laws were laid down by common law rather than statute, which is reminiscent of many cases we hear about. There was a famous story of a student at Oxford turning up at an examination and producing an ancient statute that said he had the right to have a pot of ale during his examination. The university authorities provided him with a pot of ale but fined him a large sum for not wearing a sword.
There are things with which the lord of the manor in this case has not complied. I am informed that for a manor court to exist it must have a lord and suitors and established customs. To claim a manorial lordship the lord must hold a court of recognition at which his free and unfree tenants "do suit". In other words, they must acknowledge his or her lordship. The lordship must hold a court in the manor at least once a year to which all suitors over whom he claims jurisdiction have been summoned. Without that annual event the lordship ceases to be. That is further convincing evidence that the claims of Mr. Mark Roberts about his lordships are empty.
The victims of this scam have run their campaigns at their own expense. They have borne an enormous burden financially as well emotionally. They do not fight just for themselves. Contrary to popular belief, many commons and common land in Britain are in private ownership. The scam could multiply throughout the land and affect many millions of people. If land ownership is established by someone buying a title, they could make similar demands for wayleaves, public utilities, electricity lines, power cables and sewers that run through the land. There will be enormous repercussions if those two men get away with it.
I am grateful for the attention that the Minister has given the matter. Does he know of any national funding that could be made available to help those groups, which are fighting a national cause? I have been in correspondence with Baroness Scotland who has kindly kept me up to date on the effect of other proposals to reform land law. I understand that no final decisions have been taken. In the light of what has happened in Peterstone Wentloog and other villages, a review of manorial land law should be a priority above all others in that reform. I understand that the consideration of what the review should include has been going on for some years now. Will the Minister energetically back manorial reform in the package?
I should also like an overdue change in the law that would exempt homeowners and tenants from easements. There might be a case in some circumstances

205WH
for charging for easements in areas where the landowners are conscientiously caring for it and keeping it in good order. That is not the case with the case that concerns me. The two individuals involved have no interest in maintaining the common land and live many miles from it. What about ending the sales of titles? Many of those sales are entirely fraudulent and the one highlighted on the internet site showed that half the manorial rights that were being sold were entirely fictitious and had no basis in history.
I informed the solicitors who produced this atrocious letter that I would name them today if they still had Mr. Mark Roberts as a client. Yesterday they told me that they had had a meeting with the solicitor and his partners and decided that they would continue to serve Mr. Roberts in his campaign of extortion. Their clients, and potential clients, should note their names if they are considering doing business with them and decide for themselves how scrupulous they might be in serving their clients. Their names are: Donald Gray, Bethan Darwin, Jason Smith and Rhodri Lewis. What they are doing may be legal, but such extortion is unethical, unprincipled, cruel and immoral. Mark Roberts and Michael Farrow are parasites feeding off others; the solicitors who feed off them are the parasites' parasites.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on securing the debate and bringing to the attention of the House the need for reform of the remnants of feudal and manorial law, which in some parts of the country are causing serious problems in people's everyday lives. He made his case thoroughly and powerfully.
The Government have introduced specific reforms that should address the worst of the problems highlighted by my hon. Friend, but fundamental reform of this difficult and complex area of law may be needed. That would be a significant undertaking requiring considerable expertise.
My hon. Friend made his case by highlighting the sufferings of his constituents in Peterstone Wentloog, where properties adjoin the Broadstreet common. They have endured a campaign by the said Mark Roberts, the so-called Lord Marcher of Trellech, who, effectively, has forced them to buy the rights of their vehicle access to their own homes, asking prices that are more than 400 per cent. greater than will prevail when section 68 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduces a statutory right to a vehicular right of way. That is already in force in England, and it will come into effect in Wales later this year.
We have heard about the campaign that is affecting these good people, many of whom are elderly, and about the hardship, stress and pain that they have suffered. This matter involves more than just the vanity of the Lord Marcher of Trellech; to some extent, it is a means of exploiting the lacunae in the law. In Wales, the law relating to common land is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, which is therefore responsible for the implementation in Wales of section 68 of the 2000
206WH
Act. Like my hon. Friend, I was delighted to learn yesterday that Carwyn Jones, the Assembly Minister for Environment, Planning and Countryside, has decided to use the executive procedure to implement section 68 later this month, rather than waiting until the present consultation exercise is complete. I hope that that will do a great deal to bring immediate relief to the home owners of Peterstone Wentloog.
However, rights of vehicular access over common land are not the only remnant of feudal and manorial land law that might cause problems to ordinary people. My hon. Friend referred to the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Land Registry in their report "Land Registration for the 21st century: A Conveyancing Revolution", published in 2001. They recommended that there should be a clear and comprehensive legal framework to govern both the holding of the land by the Crown and the royal duchies, and the circumstances in which ownerless land passes to them. They also commented that they could not immediately see any good reason for the retention of the remnants of feudalism in land law in England and Wales.
At much the same time, problems similar to those at Peterstone Wentloog, involving the same Mark Roberts, were occurring at Alstonefield in Staffordshire, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins). Concern about those problems highlighted the need for consideration to be given to the reform of the remnants of the manorial system. Since then, as I have mentioned, section 68 of the 2000 Act has come into force in England and we can look forward to it doing so in Wales.
In addition, we have brought the Land Registration Act 2002 into force, which has made significant changes to the law relating to manors. Most importantly, manorial land will now have to be registered in the same way as any other land when it changes hands and, after a 10-year transitional period, manorial rights will have to be registered to bind purchasers of the land that they affect. That should do much to dispel the uncertainty and confusion created by purchasers buying strips of land in such a way and felt by those needing access to that land. However, neither Act modernises the underlying remnants of feudal and manorial law. To test the need for reform, my Department carried out a limited consultation with other interested Government and Crown bodies. It established that there was general support for fundamental reform.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West has said much about the antiquated nature of the laws in this area, and the legal theory underpinning the ownership of even the smallest piece of land in England and Wales can be traced with relatively few evolutionary steps back to the Norman conquest. If you, Mr. Cook, or I own freehold property, we are tenants in chief of the Crown or one of the royal duchies of Cornwall or Lancaster. We do not own the land; we own an estate in land known to all land law students as a fee simple absolute in possession. I suspect that that legal theory does not bear much relation to everyday life, and it causes few problems in practice.
The same cannot be said of the rules that apply if, following insolvency or intestacy, a freehold estate reverts to the Crown. Therefore, there are benefits from

207WH
that side. That happens about 300 times a year. I will not go into too much detail, but Charles Harpum, the former law commissioner, in something of an understatement, commented:
"The present state of the law can be described rather charitably as nonsensical."
Following discussions with my Department, the Law Commission is considering whether the proposed reviews should form part of its ninth programme of law reform. I have no doubt that it will pay much heed to what Charles Harpum said. The draft programme will be sent to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs for approval later this year. Whether the reviews of the feudal and manorial systems will be included in the programme depends on their relative priority compared with other proposed reforms. The proposals have no special priority in the assessment process; there are always several worthy contenders for each place on the programme. Any further reform that results from the process will, of course, have to comply with the European convention on human rights.
My hon. Friend asked whether funds would be available, and I have to say that no special funds would be. Clearly, in all areas there is a question of priority and my Department would have to balance scarce resources. However, I hope that section 68 and capping the amount involved at 2 per cent. will alleviate many problems. I am also aware of the pending appeal to the Law Lords, which may provide additional comfort to my hon. Friend's constituents, although equally it may not. We must wait for the Law Lords' decision on that case.
In conclusion, I hope that the measures that the Government and the National Assembly have taken will alleviate the problems of the people of Peterstone Wentloog and ensure that such exploitation cannot be repeated. I also hope that a way will be found to replace the remnants of feudal and manorial law with a clear modern code that fits with the current environment. We in the Department for Constitutional Affairs have done much to update arrangements and I am sure that this is also a worthy case.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended till Two o'clock.

Sickness and Disability Benefits
2 pm
Sir Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to spend some time this afternoon discussing some of the implications of the important report produced by Citizens Advice Scotland at the end of last year, entitled "Riding the Benefits Roller-coaster". The report reminds us that, although we are always looking to the future and seeking to improve policy—which is right and proper—there are significant lessons to be learned from examining how the existing system works. I hope that we shall be able to get the Minister to listen to some of the real experiences of people that are mentioned in the report. We can learn from the existing system, and we must, if we are to do justice to the needs of our constituents who suffer from sickness and various sorts of mental illness and other disability.
I am sure that I echo the view of all colleagues in saying that we recognise the service that citizens advice bureaux provide nationally, as well as in Scotland. As professional politicians we can never be experts in all things, but the valuable service, volunteers and expertise that are enshrined in the citizens advice network make up an invaluable resource, assisting our deliberations and helping our constituents to get the entitlements that they deserve. I hope that this debate will be taken in that spirit.
Reading the report, I was struck by the extent to which we do not consider disability in a long-term way. I know the particular circumstances of the Government's drive to abolish child poverty by 2020. That is an ambitious plan and it has made the research community and the pressure groups involved think a little bit more about the long term. Perhaps that is a lesson that we can learn from by applying the same long-term thinking to sickness and disability. I hope that the Government will start thinking about that in future.
I have come to the conclusion that the piecemeal review and reform process that we have had until now has left us with a conflicting system that is contributory and means-tested, has an element of medical testing and is increasingly work-related. In relation to sickness benefit, it becomes ineffably complicated—even those of us who study such matters struggle. Perhaps there is a case for asking, if we want to change things in the long term by 2010 or 2020, where we want to be at that stage. That would give us a focus with which the rest of the policy could be configured. Such things take time to change, and if one adopts a piecemeal approach the temptation will be to fix a short-term problem, which means one ends up adding to the complexity. The question is not an easy one, but a longer-term view—a five or 10-year strategy—on sickness and disability is greatly needed.
In the short term, there are things that we can do to fix the existing system, and I want to concentrate on the contribution that the Citizens Advice Scotland report makes in that regard. I acknowledge at the beginning that the Government have done an enormous amount in the field of benefit policy and reform. Work-focused active benefit policies have been successful, but it is fair to say that it is now time to turn to the other half of the promise. Arguably, not nearly so much has been done

209WH
for those who have no realistic prospect of work. We must turn our attention to giving security to those who cannot be expected to work.
Perhaps the Minister can put me right, but I do not believe that the Government have stated recently which cohort of the population they consider to be excluded from work. Which people in today's circumstances does society believe can legitimately be excused from work? There must be some, and we need to be clear about how we serve them, as well as those who compete in an increasingly competitive labour market.
From my constituency experience and from watching carefully the work of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, it is increasingly obvious that the transition phases are often the worst for sickness and disability claimants. The transition from school to work—going from the education system to the benefit system—is not always easy, nor is the transition when a person falls out of work and goes back to benefits. People always find it difficult to deal with transition phases. Finally, the transition into retirement is another vulnerable period in a person's life history, particularly if they are on incapacity benefit. It would be constructive if we were to start concentrating a bit more on how changes take place in transitional phases.
Jobcentre Plus must be monitored very carefully, because whatever successes it may have in its more active focus on work, there are real and exceptional needs for the specialist expertise that is available in its regime, as well as for the package of continuing support that must be offered to disabled and sick claimants. I have always believed that the success or otherwise of the work-focused policy depends on realistic case loads. I sometimes worry and fret when I hear stories about case loads that I consider unrealistic in terms of meaningful delivery of support and back-up, even for able-bodied claimants trying to get back into the labour market. If that is true for such claimants, it is certainly true of people with sickness and disability. New structures by themselves are not the whole answer, particularly when there is still, alas, a highly discriminatory aspect of the labour market that is often a hurdle on which people who are seeking work, and especially those with disabilities, flounder.
If that is all true for people who are sick and disabled, it is certainly true in spades for people with mental illness. I have noticed a dramatic change in my constituency during the past 20 years. I do not know whether diagnoses are cleverer or whether the medical services are better at picking up on mental illness, but it is now a huge issue. If that is true in a constituency such as mine, it must be more so in urban constituencies and centres.
That is some background to issues that Parliament must consider. The report, "Riding the Benefits Roller-coaster", was very stimulating. Nothing that I read took me by surprise, but I came to the conclusion that we really need a period of considered reflection on some of the evidence that it presents. It was compiled on the basis of real evidence and was submitted by Citizens Advice Scotland, including the excellent CAB in Hawick.
210WH
The report examines the complex statutory regime governing entitlement to social security benefits for sickness and disability. It reports experiences of CAB clients throughout the whole process, not just when claiming benefits but from decision making and medical examination all the way through to the appeals system. It is true and fair to say that the report finds that obstacles are being put in the way of legitimate claimants at every stage in that process.
While the report recognises, as I do, that the Department for Work and Pensions is pursuing several initiatives and that it hopes to improve the way in which medical benefits are assessed and administered in future, it concludes that the present system is not delivering what the Government have promised, and if that is true we must consider the matter further. I hope that the Minister will get a chance to answer some of the points raised in this afternoon's debate.
The report covers a lot of ground, and it would be impossible to do it justice in the course of a 15 or 20-minute opening statement. I shall consider just two aspects for illustration: incapacity benefit and disability benefit. I have some constituency experiences in this regard, and I think they would be valuable to share with colleagues.
On incapacity benefit, the report rightly highlights the question of permitted work. The changes to the new permitted work rules came up in evidence to the Select Committee when the Secretary of State was in front of us, and it was my hon. Friend—I call her that in the context of our Select Committee work—the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) who acutely raised the important question of the different phases of the 26-week rule for permitted work. The new rules disregard income for those in permitted work, working fewer than 16 hours a week on average, with earnings of no more than £67.50—but that lasts for only 26 weeks. That period can be extended for a further 26 weeks if a person is working with a personal adviser or a job broker, and if that adviser agrees that another 26 weeks will help them move towards work of 16 hours or more, but after that time the disregard falls to £20. As the hon. Lady acutely pointed out to the Secretary of State, there is a real danger of ping-pong as people float between the two rates.
In April this year, I understand that the system will have been in operation for two years. It would be interesting to have figures on the permitted work regime—what proportion of people are on the higher rate and what proportion are on the lower: how many have had that 26-week period extended, and indeed how many go on to raise their hours beyond 16. The Secretary of State said in response to the hon. Lady that he was trying to increase the then therapeutic earnings from a 1 or 2 per cent. base to a 2 to 4 per cent. base, and it would be interesting to know whether that has been achieved. I would not expect the Minister necessarily to have that information off the top of her head, but it would be helpful if she could write me a note on the matter if the figures are available.
The CAS report raised the fact that, while incapacity benefit may not be affected by the permitted work income, that is not the case with housing benefit and council tax benefit. They do not disregard these earnings, which means that a lot of people do not really

211WH
gain financially from their permitted work. This is a shame, as the permitted work mechanism has a lot of potential and could be expanded. It may just be that the Government plan to run the current rules for a couple of years, see how it goes and then look at the possibility of expansion, and I hope that they will be encouraged to do that, but it would assist the rest of us in making sense of how effective the scheme is if the figures were available.
It will come as no surprise to any of us that passported benefits are raised in the report—I am sure that the issue comes up regularly in all our surgery casework. The report clearly shows a number of continuing problems relating to incapacity benefit. The most obvious one is that because the benefit is contributory, those in receipt of it do not automatically qualify for passported benefits—although they can if they are getting another means-tested benefit such as income support. Assistance in the form of free prescriptions is also sometimes available to incapacity benefit claimants through the lower income scheme.
One case that sticks in my mind is that of the incapacity benefit claimant whose payment was uprated by £2.50, but the amount relating to income support was uprated by only £1.20. The differential method of uprating income-related benefits and contributory benefits meant that he was no longer able to get passported benefits. That can involve a dramatic increase in weekly costs.
Another case clearly demonstrates the point in another way. A person who spends £20 a week on prescriptions had his application refused on the grounds that his income exceeded his requirements by just 15p a week. His income was £74.60 and his assessed requirement was £74.45. That is a high tightrope to fall off when £20 a week is being spent on essential medicines.
The report suggests creating some sort of buffer zone. I know that it is not easy. It would complicate the system, and I have already said that it is about time we simplified the system. I understand that such situations are complex and difficult, but the cases that are highlighted starkly and clearly in the report are unfair and should be considered.
The review process for incapacity benefit needs to be reconsidered. There are exceptions to the rule that incapacity benefit awards must be reviewed every three or five years. People entitled to the high-rate care component are an example. The report also found examples of people entitled to the high-rate care component within disability living allowance who continued to receive review questionnaires. The Government should consider that.
In passing, the report also makes the point that claimants waiting for an appeal relating to incapacity benefit face claiming jobseeker's allowance, which they do not like to do, or moving to income support, but suffering a 20 per cent. deduction. I remind hon. Members that the Government claim that the applicable amount for a single person over the age of 25 is £54.65 a week. If 20 per cent. is taken off, we are asking single people over the age of 25 to live on £43.72 a week. That is not fair.
It struck me in reading the report that the standards of decision making for disability living allowance are getting worse—if I read the figures correctly. I went
212WH
back and checked, and according to last year's report on the standards of decision making in 2001—02, 55 per cent. of all decisions taken were correct. In 2000—01, the accuracy level was 61 per cent., so it seems to be slipping, which is a matter for concern. I would expect Ministers to be asking some pretty pertinent questions about the systems if they have been presented with those figures. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at that.
About 20,000 appeals are lodged each quarter. The figures for the second quarter of 2003 for disability living allowance and attendance allowance appeals show that in 62 per cent. of oral hearings the applicant was successful. That almost makes appeals relating to DLA and AA the most successful of all benefits appeals. The compensation recovery unit comes out top, with a success rate of 84 per cent., but far fewer cases are involved. That raises some real questions.
It was the conclusion of Judge Michael Harris, in his latest president's report on decision making within the Department's agencies, that the decision-making process, and in particular the process of information and evidence gathering that takes place at the first stage and subsequently, when the decision is reviewed following the appeal, ought to be more rigorous. That is true. The evidence in "Riding the Benefits Roller-coaster" underscored that for me very graphically indeed.
The example that leaps from the page and demonstrates the truth of the points that have been made is the case of the son suffering from a rare genetic metabolic disease that is new to me, called medium chain acyl-coa dehydrogenase deficiency, or MCAD. The diagnosis was confirmed by the child's GP and a consultant. His care needs were extensive. His claim was turned down, but his brother, who suffers from the same condition, got the award. It seems to me impossible to understand how the system can come up with two such blindingly different decisions. Poor decision making causes financial and emotional distress. I do not see enough evidence that it is being tackled by the Government, though it is a problem that they recognise.
I have raised the periodic inquiry process for DLA in the House before, because I am still concerned that the evidence shows that one in five who have DLA awards are underpaid. Every time I consider the results of the periodic inquiries, I find that that does not change. It is true to say that a small number of cases are overpaid, but it is always the case that significant numbers receive less than they are entitled to. The last time I did the calculation was in 2002. When I added up how much it might amount to if everybody's DLA was reviewed, the net cost of changes in the sample was more than £160,000 a week. That was something like a 3 per cent. sample, and grossing it all up would suggest that one in five DLA recipients are being short-changed throughout the United Kingdom, to the tune of about £5 million a week. That is a concern to myself and to colleagues.
To give a closing example from the report, there is evidence—I have had a recent example of this in my constituency—of people being afraid to challenge a DLA award. If claimants have both elements of a DLA award, both are considered, so someone who wants to challenge a higher-rate mobility and a lower-rate care award risks having both elements reviewed. People are frightened to take the risk, despite the fact that they

213WH
think they have had a bad decision. I know that the situation is not an easy one to deal with, but I think that the Minister should consider it.
Moving away from the report, I was struck by the idea that John Wheatley floated in an article in The Guardian last week or the week before, that citizens advice bureaux might be able to act as electronic intermediaries for clients. The Department is spending a lot of money on getting the ICT system sorted out and it is troublesome because large technology projects are not always easy to implement, but if we could get to a situation where clients, working with dedicated CAB computers, such as in the Hawick office, have a direct link into the official system, and there is a direct delegated authority available to the Department from the client, the John Wheatley case is that, in those restricted, carefully controlled circumstances, CAB advisers could deal with complicated sickness and disability cases. There is a case for considering that as a way of short-circuiting the process and making it more transparent, providing a better service for the clients. All sorts of complications might make that difficult to do, but it is something that the Department should consider.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to spend a little time recognising the work done on the report and that CABs do generally. We should consider some of the benefits strategically and in the longer term. If it were left to me, I would take five or 10 years and ruthlessly simplify the whole thing. I would work with the research community and pressure groups and say to them that over that period we must make the system more understandable. It is too complicated even for me, and I am supposed to be a specialist. If it is too complicated for me, it is too complicated to be relied on to serve our constituents well.
2.24 pm
Miss Anne Begg: I thank the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) for securing the debate. I commend much of what he said—I hope that this does not sound too much like a Select Committee love-in, with cross-party agreement on the various things done—but, rather than repeating it, I start by paying tribute to the work of the Minister, who has always listened to the points that we have repeatedly made with regard to sickness and disability benefits.
The Minister understands the subject extremely well, and I think she is more aware than anyone of the difficulty of bringing about changes to those benefits. That is partly due to their complicated nature, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned: if we start changing one aspect of one benefit, that can have repercussions that not everyone appreciates, so it is very difficult to model or plan the exact impact on the other benefits.
Although I had not intended to say this when I came to the debate, I am tempted by what the hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps we should be looking to the future, and some strategic plan for how we can involve the disabled community and society in general in a debate on where we want to be by perhaps 2015 or 2020 with
214WH
regard to disability benefits, simply because the system is extremely complicated. We would hope that there is a means of simplifying it.
That must be a long-term aim, and we must engage with those who will be affected, because whenever any reform is suggested with regard to disability benefits there is a fear, first, that the Government are bent on saving money and, secondly, that in any reform there are often winners as well as losers. We must guard against that.
The discussion must be held more widely than within the confines of this place so as to look ahead and get some strategic views on how we can deal with this issue. Now is probably the time to start that, thanks to a lot of the work that the Government have already done, particularly in changing the attitude that once someone is on an incapacity or disability benefit, that is it— are essentially written off by society, and we no longer need to engage with them because they are getting their benefit, they do not need to bother anyone any more and they certainly should not be looking for work.
It has been interesting watching how the change has come about in my own constituency and elsewhere in Aberdeen. When it was proposed that the Government would perhaps like to get more people with disabilities into work, there was a lot of suspicion and anxiety as well as the fear that people would be forced into finding work. Now, a few years down the line, I have organisations coming to me seeking advice on how they can engage in the process and how they can get their client group into work and make them more work-ready. Voluntary sector organisations, which know that groups of people are sitting on incapacity benefit, are seeking advice on how they can get that group of people engaged.
I must also pay tribute to the work done locally by Jobcentre Plus, which has been very good at engaging with voluntary sector organisations and others in Aberdeen and has, in some cases, used them as subcontractors, which leaves the specialists to help people with disabilities into work. There is an enthusiasm that was not there five years ago, when there was fear and anxiety. Perhaps that is a lesson. We must ensure that if any changes are proposed to disability and incapacity benefits, they happen with the participation and consent of those who will be most affected.
I want to throw out for discussion a subject that I have pontificated on quite often—although I have not done the statistical and modelling work—and which is certainly something we have discussed in the Select Committee, and that is why incapacity benefit should exist at all. Why should there not be just one out-of-work benefit for everyone? Why should we let the benefits that deal with people's incapacity or disability involve differentiation between someone who is out of work because of disability and someone who is out of work because of unemployment?
I think that, sometimes, that is a false distinction, and the creation of one benefit would do away with the stigma of being on incapacity benefit or having to make the case that a person is unfit for work. The problem with incapacity benefit is that those who qualify have to make the case that they are unfit for work, when we want people to be judged on what they can do, rather than on what they cannot do. In spite of the introduction of the

215WH
personal capability test, the thinking is still that someone has to prove how bad they are, so that they can get their incapacity benefit, rather than worrying about getting the right level of benefit or the appropriate work for them. It is worth looking into that.
Most of the other points that I would like to make I have already mentioned to the Minister. One is about disability living allowance and its associated problems. I have no argument with disability living allowance being a difficult benefit to get—it should be, because we want to ensure that the people who get it are genuine cases and that it goes to the right people. It is also a passport benefit that leads to many other benefits, so, if someone is judged to require the higher rate for care or mobility with regard to disability living allowance, the door is open for a lot of other benefits.
The criteria are very strict, which is absolutely right, but we should ensure not only that they are strict, but that they do not act as a barrier to the genuine claimant. This is a difficult assessment for the doctors to make, and very difficult for those making the judgement according to a filled-in form. The fraudster with an invisible disability can lie through their teeth—that their back is so sore that they cannot get out of bed in the morning—and what they say might be difficult to disprove, whereas, very often, the genuine claimant goes out of their way to show how much they can do.
I give as an example the lady who, when the doctor from medical services arrives, puts on a spread like your granny would put on, with all the scones and the tea, and the doilies and everything. The fact that she has done all that makes the medical examiner think that this woman can certainly look after herself, but he might not realise that it may have taken her three days to put the spread together and it will take her another four to recover.
I appreciate that there are difficulties, but one of the problems, which has been identified from a particular individual's case, is that sometimes the assessment is too mechanistic—there is too much box ticking to deal with whether something can or cannot be done. The example I am thinking of came out of a periodic review; I will come back to problems with those.
My constituent is partly blind and partly deaf, and has a bad back, but, because in the periodic review he did not hit the percentages needed to qualify automatically for his former level of DLA—regarding blindness or deafness or because of his bad back—his DLA was reduced. Anyone who knows this particular individual, and I know him very well, knows that, all those things considered, he is very disabled.
On my reckoning, my constituent should qualify for the higher rates of DLA, both in mobility and in care. He recovered some DLA on appeal, but there was a problem in the mechanistic way that the medical examiner considered his disability. Sometimes, a combination of different disabilities in the same person might make them extremely disabled because of the interplay of those disabilities and illnesses—it is not a case of 30 per cent. blindness and 30 per cent. deafness making someone 60 per cent. disabled.
I said I would come back to the issue of the periodic review. The same constituent and a number of others have found the same problem: if they go through a periodic review where the mobility element of DLA is reduced, they lose access to their Motability car. The
216WH
problem is that if they get their mobility element reinstated on appeal, it is too late because in the intervening two or three months they have lost their Motability car and have been unable to get around.
Moreover, my constituent was considerably out of pocket, because he could not access a new Motability car that he had already ordered and paid a deposit for. Perhaps it would be worth awaiting the outcome of the appeal before removing the mobility element, particularly when a Motability car is involved and the loss of the benefit cannot be backdated. The use of a car that someone has not had for the previous three months cannot be backdated, so, where possible, the final decision should not be taken until the appeal has been heard.
If my constituent had been aware, in the periodic review, that he needed to get supporting evidence at the time of the initial contact with the medical examiner, as he did for his appeal, he might have been able to hand it over then. He did that subsequently—after he had lost his benefit—which is probably why his appeal was successful. Therefore, there should be a warning mechanism to let people know that, when they face a periodic review, it is better if they have all the evidence available for the medical examiner.
I also want to back up what my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said about it being time to look again at the permitted work rules. I have used the words "hon. Friend" too—is there a Select Committee love-in going on? Those rules have certainly encouraged a number of people to go back to work, but I know of someone who is ping-ponging backwards and forwards. That person has had a year on permitted work but is now going back to the lower rate of £20 a week—the old therapeutic earnings—and in a year's time may be able to do permitted work again.
There is a group of people—I have spoken to the Minister about this before—for whom the 16 hours will never be possible, and seven or eight are all they can manage. The permitted work rules allow them to do that. Would it be possible for them to stay on permitted work a little longer or could they move on to something else that reflects the permanent nature of the disability? I appreciate, as the Minister pointed out, that people cannot stay on benefit for ever and keep earning money on top of that for ever, but there may be some leeway in the permitted work rules to take account of that example.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to put this case, which I have spoken and written to the Minister about, on the record. I hope that, in years to come, we will be back here discussing the new strategic design for incapacity and invalidity benefits.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): I should perhaps remind the Chamber that it is customary to start the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the termination of proceedings—in other words, in 22 minutes.
2.39 pm
Annabelle Ewing: I assure you, Mr.Cook, that I shall not take up the remaining 22 minutes.
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) on securing this important debate. Having heard the two contributions

217WH
that have been made so far, I hope that I do not unduly upset the Select Committee love-in, but I have a few strident things to say. I see that the Minister is not the slightest bit surprised to hear that.
The issue of sickness and disability benefits is of importance throughout the United Kingdom. Indeed, I believe that in Scotland, some 13 per cent. of the population receive a sickness or disability benefit. The key question today is whether unnecessary and/or disproportionate difficulties are encountered in claiming the benefits. To put it another way, the question is about how effective the social security system is in supporting those who are sick or disabled.
In my experience to date as an MP, which is not quite as long as that of the other hon. Members who have spoken, and in seeing constituents who have had problems vis-à-vis the social security system, I have found that the system is not particularly effective in providing the necessary support. Constituents to whom I have spoken perceive the process as unduly complex and full of unnecessary uncertainty.
Many share that perception, which echoes concerns raised by the Citizens Advice Scotland report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I should like to associate myself with his comments on the report, which is excellent. Indeed, I appreciate the invaluable work done in Scotland and elsewhere by citizens advice bureaux. I imagine that an invaluable service has been provided to the Department for Work and Pensions, as many people are being referred to the helpful staff working at the bureaux.
The report noted the uncertainty facing claimants and potential claimants as a result of the ongoing assessment of entitlement. No one is suggesting that there should never be a review, but many people consider the frequency of reviews intrusive in some cases. The fear is that they are simply designed to take away benefits. I recall cases in which a review has resulted in benefits being reduced or taken away despite the fact that the claimant's circumstances have apparently not changed one iota. That must be looked at very carefully. It is a pity that discretion has not been reintroduced to the benefits system, as it would benefit from such an approach.
The decision-making system was another key area to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He mentioned statistics for the last quarter of 2003, and I received another set of statistics for the year 2002–03 on 27 January in response to a written question. It appears that, in the year to November 2003, about 53 per cent. of disability living allowance appeals were successful and 48 per cent. of appeals about personal capability assessment under incapacity benefit were successful.
From my previous life as a lawyer, I find those figures alarming, because they suggest that there are serious flaws in the accuracy of the initial decision making. I wonder why that is the case. The matter must be considered because, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, those appeal rates, excepting a few other specifics, far outweigh the success rates for any other benefit. There must be something that can be done to improve the initial decisions.
218WH
Reference has already been made to the quality of medical reports. The Citizens Advice Scotland report says that underestimation of disability is the problem, and that is a serious matter. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) rightly said that there might have been a failure to consider the situation of individuals in the round rather than with regard to the ticking of boxes. It has certainly been my constituents' experience with the DLA that the approach is to tick a box, and that if they fall outside the categories or do not have enough ticks, that is it. That is a peculiar way of assessing whether someone is capable of doing various tasks.
I hope that we shall find out more from the Minister about why so many appeals are successful in comparison with appeals on other benefits. I also hope that she will comment on the quality of initial decision making and on the medical assessments, which frequently differ from those of the GP. I have always found it curious when someone has been a patient with the same GP for many years, but that GP's knowledge of the patient seems to be completely at odds with the view of the official medical investigator.
The quality of decision making is central. If people are knocked back when applying for the DLA, they may be deterred from pursuing their claim further. If the appeals success rate is 53 per cent., however, such people will be well advised to continue the process, as I always tell my constituents. However, many people are put off, and that should worry the Department. I wonder what estimate the Government have made of the current level of disability benefits that remain unclaimed. I fear that the number is unduly high.
I want to end on a slightly optimistic note, which may surprise the Minister, by welcoming the good news that the over-complex and long forms are to be simplified. I believe that there is currently a pilot project. Such a project could have been introduced sooner, but I welcome it now and I hope that it will be assessed and implemented throughout the UK as quickly as possible. I hope that simplification will mean simplification and that we will not see yet another example of the Government's increasingly flexible use of the English language in the benefits system. I welcome the attempts to simplify the form, but I caution the Minister that the other problems that have been identified must be addressed, as simplification of the form will not by itself solve the problem of the difficulties that people perceive when trying to claim sickness or disability benefits.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): For the benefit of the House, it might be advisable to remember that it is customary for those making winding-up speeches to take no more than one third of the time remaining in the debate, although they may take less if they want to do so.
2.48 pm
Paul Holmes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) on securing this debate. He speaks with great knowledge as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and with his long experience in Parliament, working on behalf of his constituents.

219WH
I associate myself with many of my hon. Friend's comments, including those in support of some of the Government's improvements to benefits provision, which is certainly much better than it was before 1997. I also associate myself with his praise for the excellent report from Citizens Advice Scotland. The report and its contents apply not just to Scotland, but are widely echoed in England and in the report from the excellent citizens advice bureau in Chesterfield. I know from my work as a local councillor for more than 12 years and now as a Member of Parliament, as well as from my dealings with, for example, the unemployed workers' centre in Chesterfield, that the sort of issues, difficulties and problem that the CAS report picked up on are certainly reflected throughout Chesterfield.
The report highlights several different issues, which hon. Members have mentioned. I will not repeat what they said, but I will highlight one or two of the things it covers, including the sheer complexity of the system, the multitude of benefits and the different ways of gaining access to them. As Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend is a specialist and probably one of the most knowledgeable people in the country on how the labour system works, but even he has trouble understanding it. People have brought me forms in my role as party spokesman on the subject or as a constituency MP, but I have had trouble understanding them because of the complexity of the system. I am a graduate—I also have a post-graduate certificate—and I find the forms very complex.
The system is so complicated that there is an industry to help people to unravel it. I mentioned the citizens advice bureaux and in many areas there are excellent unemployed workers' centres, which pick up much of the work. In Chesterfield, Derbyshire, there are county and borough council advisers who try to plug the gaps in the system and help to guide people through it. In addition, many people go to their councillors and their MPs' surgeries for help. An industry is devoted desperately to trying to clarify the complex system for individuals who are caught up in it.
Some Government policies make the system more complicated. The means-testing of different types of benefit is increasingly complex, which makes the entire system more difficult to use. The time available for people who work in the system is reduced by the introduction of blanket work-focused interviewing for various things, in particular for IB recipients, which adds to the strains on the system.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) referred to the fear engendered in many people when they receive a summons to attend a compulsory work-focused interview. Many disabled people worry that it will lead to the removal of their benefit, often after many months or years spent establishing their right to it. Many cases in Chesterfield reflect the experience of those in Aberdeen.
The hon. Lady gave examples of how many disability organisations are trying to overcome that fear by working more positively with the system. That has been my experience when I have talked to organisations throughout the country. However, individuals who receive a summons to attend an interview are still fearful; they often feel that the interview is too brief and that they are dealt with rather brusquely.
220WH
I echo the hon. Lady's comment that in assessing disabled people, we need to shift the system from focusing on asking disabled people to prove what they are incapable of doing to emphasising what they are capable of doing. For a long time, my party's policy has been to have a partial incapacity benefit rather than an all-or-nothing system. People would be able to do some work rather than having to prove either that they are totally unfit for work or that they are capable of doing full-time work. Progress is needed on that.
The role of the staff of the Department for Work and Pensions is crucial. For most people they are the front line—their first contact with the benefits system. The report from Citizens Advice Scotland gives some examples. It tells of a local DWP office in Scotland which stated that it was not the responsibility of front-desk staff to advise people on their entitlement. Even though that is the first port of call for almost everyone, they are being told by the local office, "That's not our job. Find out for yourself."
The report also mentions 22 per cent. of DLA and attendance allowance cases that were overturned on appeal. The president of the appeal system said that the the initial decision maker was unwilling to accept evidence that was available at the start of the process. The tribunal, however, did accept that evidence and overturned the decision.
Clearly, there are problems in the service as delivered through DWP staff, but that is not to blame those workers. The Public and Commercial Services union released a survey in May 2003 which reported that 72 per cent. of its staff working in DWP offices had thought of resigning because they were overworked and lacked staff. Low pay is a big issue among those Government staff. People who work in Jobcentre Plus offices have told me that, as the system is rolled out across the country, their work loads are increasing dramatically compared with work under the initial Jobcentre Plus pilots. The sheer quantity of casework that individuals are supposed to deal with has been mentioned. Talking to Jobcentre Plus staff in Sheffield, I was told that the training available has been cut as the work load has increased. However, as the regulations change regularly, the need for constant up-to-date training becomes more, not less, important.
The report also discussed the shift in the regulations from therapeutic work to permitted work, as hon. Members mentioned. I have two examples of that. The first is a public example, because it appeared in the local press in the west country. Carole Lilly, who lives in the Truro constituency, is 47 years old and is disabled. In 1999, her doctor told her to finish work completely because of her disabilities. After a while, she felt that she could not cope with staying at home watching television 24 hours a day and doing nothing with her life. She returned to work for a reduced work load of 10 hours per week. Under the new rules on permitted work, as opposed to therapeutic work, she will have to give up work. She calculates not only that that will have a negative effect on her self-esteem and her life, but that it will cost the Government an extra £3,000 in benefits because she will give up the low amount of work that she can do.
Another example is anonymous. It was passed to me only this morning, so I have not had time to check whether to make the name public. It concerns someone

221WH
who wrote to the Prime Minister on 8 January. She is a 28-year-old fully trained nurse who has had to give up work because of arthritis, osteoporosis and reflex sympathetic dystrophy. She did not want to waste her training as a nurse and did not want to spend her life
"sitting in front of daytime television",
as she put it in her letter. Having retrained as a medical secretary, she has gone back to work for six hours a week of voluntary work in her local hospital. She will be forced to give that up under the new rules that relate to permitted work rather than therapeutic work. She says in her letter to the Prime Minister that that will have an intense effect on her depression. Her doctor encouraged her to do some work because of that depression, which she fears will only return.
Miss Begg: It is worth pointing out that no one will be forced to give up work. If someone on the new permitted work rules is not working for 16 hours a week after a year, there is still provision for them to move to the £20 therapeutic earnings. Plenty of people—my cousin is one—work three days a week and still earn only £20 because they are on therapeutic earnings and have not shifted to permitted work. I accept, however, that the situation is not ideal and I want the Minister to consider the system. I hope that people are not saying, "I have to give up work." They are not allowed to earn as much as they did the previous year, but they still have their benefits and the extra £20.
Paul Holmes: I thank the hon. Lady for that explanation. In the first case I mentioned, the person works for 10 hours, but fears that she will have to give up that work. She gives the example of a colleague in the same situation who has already given up work. Whether, after going into the details of the system, she will have to give up work is another matter. The second instance—as I said, I received it only this morning and have not had time to reply to it—may fall into the category that the hon. Lady describes.
The system is complex. Many people's initial response to the complex regulations that they get through the post, and the instructions on how they reply to them, is often one of fear. The system must be simpler and better explained, and there should be more up-front support and advice from the Department for Work and Pensions. What we have is a network of other people, such as the CAB, unemployed workers' centres and MPs' surgeries, having to piece everything together.
On the issue of appeals, the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) picked up on the alarmingly high rate of successful appeals in some categories. I asked parliamentary questions on 9 June 2003, which I updated on 13 January 2004, on the number of successful appeals by the PCS. The rate of successful appeals is climbing markedly. In 1998, the successful rate of appeals was 41 per cent., which rose to 45 per cent. in 2002. In response to my January question, the most up-to-date figures, up to November 2003, showed that the rate had risen to 48 per cent. A Public Accounts Committee report on the subject found that there is clearly something wrong with any system that has a successful appeal rate of more than 40 per cent. Given
222WH
that successful PCS appeals have risen from 41 per cent. to 48 per cent. in five years, there must be something wrong with the system.
So what is wrong with the system? It is clear from my dealings with constituents and Schlumberger Sema—it has shortened its title to Schlumberger—that there are alarming issues, which at least one hon. Member highlighted. The Scottish report points out that the time allowed for assessments is sometimes too short. People feel that the compulsory assessment by a doctor from Schlumberger is far too short to judge properly their medical capabilities. The report includes the comment from one doctor that the living room was neat and tidy, as if that had any relevance to the case.
Last November, a constituent of mine told me that the Schlumberger doctor commented that the garden was well maintained and that the recipient must be fit and capable because they opened a heavy garage door to park their car. If the doctor had asked about that, the recipient would have told them that the car—an automatic—is always parked on the road and the garage is never used. He would also have been told that the family tend the garden. In response to my intervention in that case, I received a letter apologising for the doctor's behaviour. It is interesting that the Scottish report outlines similar examples.
3.2 pm
Mr. Paul Goodman: At the cost of being accused of prolonging a Select Committee love-in, I begin by congratulating, as I always say, my Chairman on the Select Committee, under whom I am happy to serve, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), on instigating this intimate but important debate and on tabling early-day motion 496 on "Riding the Benefits Roller-coaster".
The hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) was right to draw attention to her experiences at her citizens advice bureau, and I attended a quarterly meeting of my local CAB on Friday. All hon. Members present will know that top of the list of items raised by people going to CABs is the complexity of the benefits system. That was the case in High Wycombe on Friday, and I expect it to be so when I return.
The charity Carers UK claims that between 40 and 60 per cent. of disability-related benefits go unclaimed. That is only one example of the intrinsic difficulties to which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred. He perhaps did not have an opportunity to put on record the words of Kaliani Lyle from Citizens Advice Scotland on the report that is the centrepiece of the debate, who said:
"Even civil servants and medical professionals don't always understand the regulations".
As the hon. Gentleman said, we often do not understand the regulations ourselves. Ms Lyle continued:
"The welfare system should work smoothly to give people with sickness and ill-health an opportunity to live their lives with some dignity and security, not condemn them to a roller-coaster experience of labyrinthine regulations, endless reviews and poverty incomes".
She also said that the system
"too often fails those with a disability or illness".

223WH
Those are strong words, but I want to step back from them, be fair to the Government and point to the intrinsic difficulty faced by all Governments, to which the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire both referred.
At the risk of saying something that I might regret later, it occurs to me that there is a peculiar aspect of disability-related benefits that might not apply to all others. If one is a member of an ethnic minority, for example, one is always a member of that minority, whatever choices one may make in life. It is not the same for people with disabilities, as one can move in and out of disability, as I have done myself. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South referred to the interplay of disabilities, which is another complexity. Governments of any party will always have to deal with assessments and appeals and the difficulty with time lags—the hon. Lady referred to that in relation to Motability.
Having bent over backwards to be fair to the Government, I should also say that the system is far too complex and rigid, and it does not seem to be in the process of being made much simpler. The hon. Lady made an interesting suggestion, which she has made in the Select Committee in relation to the Employers Forum report, about having a single work-related benefit and reconsidering incapacity benefit. That is the type of long-term reform to which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred in introducing the debate. As the hon. Members for Perth and for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) said, if the number of successful appeals is rising, there must be a flaw in the system somewhere.
In the remaining time, I shall rattle through a series of quick questions to the Minister. I realise that she will not be able to answer them all today, but she may be able to deal with them in writing. Will she make a formal response to the CAS report? Does she have an estimate of the sum of benefit entitlement unclaimed by potential claimants with disabilities?
Representations might have been made to the Minister about extending the winter fuel allowance to those who receive the middle or higher rate of the disability living allowance mobility component. She may, like me, also have had representations about extending the allowance to those who care for children with severe disabilities. Has she made any costing on that, and what is her view of the proposal?
The Minister will also have had representations on incapacity benefit and prescription charges. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also referred to that, so will she comment on whether any estimate has been made of the cost, and her view of the proposal? She will also have had representations about extending disability and attendance allowances to 52 weeks for those who are hospitalised. Has she estimated the cost of that proposal, and what is her view of it?
Representations will also have been made on people who are over 65 with mobility needs, who are inevitably a growing group, and attendance allowance, which does not include a mobility component, and we would all be interested to hear the Minister's views. It was announced that the disability and carers service is to gain formal Executive agency status. Does the Minister have any news on when that is likely to happen and when a chief executive may be appointed?
224WH
I want also to probe the Minister on the Downing street strategy review on disability that I understand is taking place. It has been suggested that the review is largely concerned with incapacity benefit. Any comment that she has on that would be welcome, as would any comment on the extent to which she will examine the issues that we have debated this afternoon, which were encapsulated in the CAS report that has been the centrepiece of our discussion.
3.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I add to the general congratulations that are being aimed at the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood). I feel rather alone, although I know that I am not completely alone, in not being on his Committee. He is to be congratulated on securing the debate and on setting out with such clarity his reactions, some of which were quite strategic, to the report and to the questions that he believes arise from it. I intend to do my best to deal with the points that have been made, but there will inevitably not be enough time to deal with all of them. However, I undertake to do what I can to plug any gaps that remain at the end of the debate by writing to hon. Members.
Let me also add my congratulations to citizens advice bureaux in Scotland. I am sure that they are similar to those in England and Wales. I believe that all hon. Members find them a tremendously valuable asset. We all have two or three in our constituency and tend to swap case loads: they send stuff to us and we send stuff to them, and that is of mutual benefit in all kinds of ways. They do a valuable job in my constituency, and I am sure that that is the case elsewhere. I can tell that that is the case in Scotland on the basis of the quality of the report that we have been discussing.
The report raises some serious issues of administration and policy, although some issues that appear to be about administration are actually about policy, but let us not quibble. Let me just say a little about the modernisation programme. The Department for Work and Pensions has undertaken a rather enormous programme of modernisation. When one deals with it on a day-to-basis as I do, it is tempting sometimes to assume that everyone out there knows about it. Alas, people do not follow such things with quite the assiduity with which they follow the activities of their local football club, so it is wrong of me to assume that everyone knows about the programme. The Department is making improvements to its programme for people who claim incapacity and disability benefits. I am grateful for the general acknowledgments in this Chamber that some improvements have been made, although they are always offered with a caveat.
The Department follows some key principles: first, to provide a better service for all its customers, including those who are on sickness and incapacity benefit, whether or not they are trying to get back to work. We talk a great deal about the work focus, but as the hon. Gentleman said, the other half of the equation is about making things better and improving security for those who cannot work. We all accept that work is not a sensible option for many people, so we want a better service for all our customers.

225WH
Better assessment of disability or incapacity for work in order to improve the quality of decision making about benefits, and better work-focused help for those who in the past have been written off but who these days want to get back to work and feel that they have something to offer are also important. In conjunction with the improvements that we are making in civil rights and in tackling discrimination, those people have a right to expect us to be ambitious about their future, just as much as anyone else's.
On the process of claiming incapacity or disability benefit, the hon. Gentleman quoted from the report and referred to obstacles put in the way of legitimate claimants. That is not something that we seek to do. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) made the point rather kindly—my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) also mentioned this-that there is a legitimate requirement to ensure that those people who are entitled to benefits should receive them, because we spend a great deal of money on them in the average year.
There is no doubt that we have to have proper and rigorous assessment, but it is very difficult to get it right if a benefit involves a medical element. Both disability living allowance and incapacity benefit have an element of medical assessment, although its importance varies from one to the other. There is no perfect way of getting that right, but we know that we have to improve the way in which we deal with it.
I recognise that the need for care and help with mobility can be a very personal matter. The effects of a disability, and how one copes with those effects, can vary tremendously from one person to another, as can the ability to express those needs, particularly in respect of disability living allowance. The benefit is designed to take that into account. Disabled people sometimes find it difficult to express their needs: they make the best of it, when perhaps they should be a bit more honest with the doctors and make it clear how bad things are. It can also sometimes sound—and be—impertinent to ask such personal questions. People get offended by the forms and by feeling that they have to jump through hoops to make their entitlement clear. We are sorry about that, and do our best to minimise it, but inevitably that can be a problem.
The very diversity that the benefits have to cater for has meant that the system has become more complex to administer, and in an attempt to enable people to express the full range of their needs, the claiming process has become unwieldy. Until recently, changes to the claim forms meant that they increased rather than decreased in size. However, we have now acknowledged that it is not possible to devise one claim form that fits everyone, nor is it desirable or sensible as a means of dealing with those issues, because that is not sufficiently sensitive to the individual needs of our customers. Our IT improvements are helping us to address that issue.
Hence, as the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) acknowledged—I am grateful to her for doing so—there has been some improvement in the forms. We have introduced a new single-part attendance allowance claim form, which is 16 pages shorter. It is a single pack instead of a double pack. A new disability living
226WH
allowance claim form, based on a similar model, is currently being tested at the Wembley disability benefits centre, with a view to introducing it at the earliest opportunity, if it proves as effective as the attendance allowance form. The reaction from our customers and their advisers has been generally positive in respect of the attendance allowance claim form, which is encouraging. If the exercise is successful, we will have halved the size of both those forms. That is harder to achieve than one might think, and is certainly a move in the right direction.
The changes focus on devising a more interactive form, designed to discern the needs of the individual by speaking to them. That might not be a revolutionary concept outside Government, but is sometimes hard to do when one is administering a massive system that deals with millions of claims. The idea of talking personally to people is not always as obvious as it might seem to the rest of humanity—but we have made progress. The changes encourage greater interaction and a more personal relationship, which should lead to better understanding between us and our customers and to better decision making.
We are helped in that progress by improvements in our IT, which will assist us in providing a more modern and customer-focused service. I am sure that most of the hon. Members who served on the Select Committee have visited a disability benefits centre. When I, as a Minister, first went to visit one, I was shocked by how old-fashioned the administration was. Our decision makers were still using paper and pen—I nearly said quill and ink—to set out their decisions. We were therefore starting from a difficult base, but we are now seeing some important improvements, because of the kit that we have been able to put on people's desks. There is more to do, but we are moving in the right direction.
The Government set stringent medical targets covering the speed, accuracy and quality of the medical advice that informs decision making on benefit entitlement. We review those targets monthly, and the vast majority are met, although there are always blips. Last October, the National Audit Office acknowledged that good progress had been made and there had been significant improvements in the contracted service. That is not to say that it is perfect, but there have been improvements.
All our medical services doctors receive specific and ongoing training in the specialist field of disability assessment medicine. We are developing a computer-supported system in medical services to try to improve medical assessments, to ensure that they are performed in a fair and consistent manner, and supported with up-to-date, evidence-based medical information.
We should also acknowledge that only a very small proportion of assessments result in a complaint about the doctor. I know that there are people who do not complain when they feel that they would like to. I urge hon. Members to get their constituents to complain if there is a valid reason to do so. We do not defend the actions of doctors who fall short of the high standards expected of them. We heard one or two anecdotal instances from the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) about the kind of thing that can happen. We will not tolerate such poor practice. We have peer review, and we have retraining, and if at the end of the day doctors do not come up to our required standard,

227WH
we throw them off our lists and we stop using them. Over the past year we threw 58 doctors off our lists for not achieving high standards. That shows our determination to ensure that we get this right.
Miss Begg: Has the Minister thought about her Department giving any advice to GPs, not those who are working through the medical services? I often find that constituents have been told by their GP that they cannot work any more. What the GP means is that they cannot be forced to work and should qualify for incapacity benefit, but if they are feeling better they should be encouraged to work. There is quite a job to be done at that level with GPs. Attitudes have changed, and someone who is ill today need not be out of work for the rest of their life.
Maria Eagle: That is an important point. GPs may not often want this, but they have a role to play in the original certification for an IB or statutory sick pay claim. They are the clinical adviser of our customers. Of course, our customers take what they have to say very seriously, so we recognise the important role that GPs play in providing advice on fitness for work. We do our best to ensure that GPs understand this. Many of them do not come at this from the point of view of work: they rightly come at it from the point of view of clinical advice to their patients.
The Department's chief medical adviser issues advice to all GPs, which tries to deal with many of these issues. We have a website link that GPs can use. Some interesting work is going on in the pathways pilot areas. We are trying to work much more closely with GPs on what people coming into incapacity benefit might gain from seeking to return to work. My Department and the Department of Health are working closely together on this. It will be interesting to see what impact that has both on the relationships that we manage to have with GPs in the local area and on our customers who often feel that their GP has definitely told them not to touch work with a bargepole. We are doing some work in that area.
I shall try to deal with some of the specific points raised in the debate. I will deal first with permitted work, because almost everyone who spoke had something to say about it. I am particularly interested in this. I get many letters, including some from hon. Members, about permitted work and the change from the therapeutic earnings rules to the permitted work rules and the impact that has had. The hon. Member for Wycombe raised it as one of his specific issues.
The aim of the change was to try to remove the need for our customers to get a doctor to say that it would be therapeutic for them to take advantage of this. That is entirely right. Another aim was to ensure that the rules act as a stepping stone from not working and being on incapacity benefit into work: hence the rules about 26 weeks and another 26 weeks. We have to bear in mind the fact that incapacity benefit is an out-of-work benefit. It is not generally available for those who are in work. We do not want there to be a huge cohort of people claiming incapacity benefit for ever, while working. We need an arrangement to ensure that it does not go on for ever: hence the limit.
As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said, it is almost two years now since the changes came in, and we are evaluating them. I cannot tell the
228WH
Chamber when I shall have the information that emerges from that evaluation, but we are considering carefully how the rules work.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that I might not have to hand the figures for the number of those on higher-level, lower-level and supported permitted work. By some great feat of organisation on the part of my officials, I do have them here. About 1 to 2 per cent. of the IB case load—about the same level as those taking advantage of therapeutic earnings—are on some form of permitted work. The numbers at 15 January were 12,705 on permitted work lower limit, 14,635 on permitted work higher limit and 9,010 on supported permitted work. That is as accurate as I can be. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman. We shall keep the figures updated. Because permitted work is seen as a stepping stone back into work, we want to see what happens to those with a deteriorating, chronic condition who are never likely to aspire to go back to 16 hours. We need to find a way to provide support for those people, but I have not found the answer yet, so answers on a postcard, please, if hon. Members have any great ideas.
The other broad theme in the contributions to the debate related to the accuracy of decision making. I acknowledge that there is a high level of successful appeals. I think that the reasons in DLA are slightly different from those in IB personal capability assessments, although, the personal capability assessment being a medical assessment, there is always scope for disagreement. With PCAs it is much more about the evidence that is available at a certain time, and often the appeals are successful because more evidence comes forward.
With DLA, it is not about finding a diagnosis, so that one can then have the benefit, but about the impact that the disability or the illness has on one's ability to look after oneself or get around—care or mobility—and that can vary. The same diagnosis can require radically different levels of support. A person who loses a leg may sit in their chair in the front room for ever, being depressed about it, and never stand up again. The reaction of another person is to get a prosthesis and run a marathon. The second person would not retain their DLA once they started walking well again.
That is a radical example, but similar examples occur in DLA all the time. The benefit is not designed to recognise a medical diagnosis—the disability lobby would lobby us if we said that it was—but is about the impact that a disability has on a person's ability to look after themselves or get around. That must be borne in mind when considering the number of successful appeals for DLA, but I am not trying to hide the fact that there are many successful appeals, and always have been.
The increase in the number of successful DLA claims is still high and is still increasing at about 5 per cent. of spend a year. Indeed, I believe that there has been a 44 per cent. increase in successful claims for DLA in the hon Gentleman's constituency. He is clearly working hard, but there is no evidence that complaints about the obstacles are stopping people making successful claims and getting the benefit, because the levels of benefit are significantly increasing recipients' spend.

229WH
I realise that I am running out of time and I have not dealt with half the questions that were raised. However, I undertake to write to hon. Members to try to answer some of the points that I have been unable to deal with.

Magistrates Courts (Mid-Wales)
3.30 pm
Mr. Roger Williams: I am pleased to have a chance to raise with the Minister this afternoon an issue that is causing a great deal of concern in my constituency and in the whole of mid-Wales. It concerns the proposals that have been made by the magistrates courts committee to reduce the access to the criminal justice system of people living in the area. Such has been the concern that people living in the area around Llandrindod Wells—the court in that town is one of those identified for closure—have raised a petition of 3,500 names. That gives some indication of the level of concern. This is not a topic that often raises a tremendous amount of emotion and enthusiasm, but people see what is happening as a real attack on services in rural areas.
Before I go on to the meat of the issue, I must place on record the fact that my wife is a magistrate sitting in the Brecon court, and she sometimes also sits in the Llandrindod Wells and Ystradgynlais courts. It is about the latter two courts that I feel deep concern. People are worried about the proposals and about the process that led to their being made. In particular, they are worried about the magistrates courts committee, how responsive it is and what accountability it has to the people whom it serves. People are also worried about Powys county council, their paying authority, which had the opportunity to object to the proposals, but chose not to do so. In taking that decision, the authority received representations only from the magistrates courts committee, which made the proposals, and it did not have the opportunity to receive representations from other court users, such as members of the legal profession and representatives of Victim Support. In a way, it saw only one side of the argument.
I am also worried about the role of the then Lord Chancellor's Department, which is now the Department for Constitutional Affairs. While the Department claimed that the decision was a local one, it seemed to have a certain central control over the matter—a centralised iron fist within the velvet glove of localism. However, we will come back to those issues later.
I should like to set the matter in the context of the geographic and demographic nature of the area served by the courts. When I brought a delegation to Westminster to meet the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who was then a Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department, she looked at the case sympathetically. She pointed out that she needed an objection from the paying authority—in this case, Powys county council—before she could take any action in the matter.
The hon. Lady was also well apprised of how sparsely populated the area in question is. Some people who live in England may be more familiar with Cumbria as a sparsely populated area, for example, but the county of Powys is three times more sparsely populated. That gives some idea of the rural nature of the area. Without using visual aids, it is very difficult to give an indication of the nature of the area, so I hope that hon. Members will bear with me as I try to explain it. If one put a hinge at the bottom of Powys and tipped it towards London,

231WH
it would reach almost to the Greater London area, but the magistrates courts committee's proposal is to serve the area with two magistrates courts. If one were to carry out the same hinging operation on my own constituency, Brecon and Radnorshire, it would reach to Swindon, and the proposal is that there will be only one magistrates court in that area.
The area also has very little public transport. For instance, if the magistrates court in Llandrindod Wells were closed, people would have to travel 25 miles to the court at Newtown, but the only bus service leaves at 7.40 am and does not return until 5 o'clock. That might not be so bad in some ways, but many of the people concerned live six, 10 or 12 miles from Llandrindod Wells, and have to get into Llandrindod in time to catch the bus to Newtown. Those who live in Knighton and Presteigne have no access to either Llandrindod Wells or Newtown, and we already have anecdotal stories of people hitch-hiking to court and of witnesses having to be ferried to court by solicitors. That is not very satisfactory.
Lembit Öpik: Lawyers feel that when they are ferrying defendants around in their cars while having to conduct other business, it compromises their ability to do their job. On occasions when it is not possible for them to do so, individuals such as Robert Hanratty, a local lawyer, have sometimes found that justice has not been served because people have had such trouble getting to court that they have not been able to turn up at all.
Mr. Williams: I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. We are both aware of a case in which a young mother was unable to attend a court a long distance away when the issue at stake was whether the council should take her children into care. The situation raises human rights issues.
Circumstances are the same in Ystradgynlais, where travelling to Brecon over the mountain in winter conditions is sometimes impossible. Ammanford is the next magistrates court in the Dyfed-Powys area. If someone wanted to go to Swansea, they would be looking outside that area. Since the decisions have been taken, new legislation has been enacted, including the Courts Act 2003, one of whose implications is that more emphasis has been placed on the accessibility of courts. Magistrates courts committees are to be abolished under the Act, and a new system is to be put into place.
In making its case, the magistrates courts committee placed great emphasis on the problem of substandard buildings. That is understandable, but my constituents are more concerned about people than buildings. Justice delivered locally is better than justice that is delivered in an accessible building 30 or 40 miles away. Over the weekend, one of my constituents said to me that justice is a right, not a luxury. However, it is becoming something that is available to the rich with access to transport but not to the poor and less well-off in society. Poor people are as often the victims of crime as rich people, although crime against celebrities and the rich is reported in the papers.
Powys is a low-crime area because we have an efficient police service that detects a high number of crimes. Criminals are taken to court, and if they are found
232WH
guilty, they are given an appropriate sentence. The certainty of apprehension, conviction and sentence makes ours a low-crime area, because criminals know that they cannot operate there with impunity. I am sure that the Minister would like to see Powys remain a low-crime area; the people who live there would certainly like it to remain as such, because they value it very much.
The running costs of the courts in Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod Wells are very low. The extra expenditure that would be generated by the extra costs of ferrying witnesses on longer journeys and the extra remuneration from Legal Aid to solicitors because of their longer journeys and the longer time spent on a case would soon do away with any savings on running costs in respect of discontinued buildings.
Ystradgynlais is a deprived community that was based around its mine. When that industry closed, very little employment was available. The area is now pulling itself together, and there is a better environment and sense of community. The Welsh Assembly has identified it as one of the Communities First areas into which it puts regeneration money. Communities First included the 100 most deprived wards in Wales. Doing away with the court in Ystradgynlais will do nothing to enhance the sense of civic pride there. Llandrindod Wells is one of the areas in my constituency that has the highest unemployment, and many of the same arguments apply there.
I return to the process that led to what we believe is rather flawed decision making. The people felt that the magistrates courts committee did not consult them enough. They did not understand what was happening or what the outcome of the consultation process would be. Indeed, a number of threats were made by the magistrates courts committee. Yesterday, I received an e-mail from the clerk to the magistrates court:
"The procurement of the two Court Houses for Powys has reached a critical stage. If it is undermined now, then the investment which is planned for Powys will be lost. The support of the Local Authorities has been critical"
for
"the achievement of this investment and any wavering of this support could be fatal to both schemes.
There is a real risk, that not only will the investment in new Courts for Powys be lost, but the current Court Houses will be closed sooner rather than later because they do not meet the standards required of them. Powys could be left with no effective Court … provision at all.
The employment of that sort of bullying tactic by the clerk to the magistrates court has done nothing to prevent a huge wave of opposition building up in the Llandrindod Wells area. None of us wants to see a lack of investment in either Brecon or Newtown. We understand the necessity in that respect, but what we are saying is that justice will not be available to a great many of the people living in Powys unless we have better coverage of magistrates courts in Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod Wells.
I turn now to Powys county council. There was concern when the position was put to it. It heard some threatening talk involving the suggestion that if it objected to the proposals, it could lose all the magistrates courts in Powys. Naturally, some representatives—particularly those representing the Newtown and Brecon areas—felt that they could not object because of the risk of losing their courts as well.

233WH
They were put in an intolerably difficult position. Also, as I said earlier, while representations were made to them by representatives of the magistrates court, they were not able to hear representations by Victim Support, which is such a wonderful organisation in ensuring that victims can get to court and are supported in giving their evidence.
The Government have put accessibility to justice at the centre of their criminal justice system. I do not believe that the closure of the courts in Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod Wells will do anything to further the Government's objectives, which I support. The Minister has already agreed to meet me and I thank him for that; I have no doubt that we will discuss the issues again. The point that the people of Radnorshire and Ystradgynlais are making, however, is that this was a flawed process and it should be rerun. I am sure that he will not be able to respond to that point today, but that is the position that we are coming from, and over the weeks and months to come, we shall return to the subject again.
3.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): For the second time under your chairmanship today, Mr. Cook, it gives me great pleasure to respond to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) on securing this important opportunity to express his views on access to magistrates courts in mid-Wales, even though the annunciator screen refers to widows' benefits, which are not quite the subject of this debate.
As the hon. Gentleman said, magistrates courts are managed by local magistrates courts committees, as is set out in the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Many people are unfamiliar with that arrangement, and they sometimes feel that Ministers have a system of dictating what goes on at the local level. At present, there are 42 different magistrates courts committees. The arrangement is likely to change eventually with unified administration, but for the time being, we operate under that system.
Each of the magistrates courts committees is solely responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates courts in its area. It is for the MCCs to determine how many courthouses, whether they are urban or rural, and what other accommodation might be needed locally. In discharging their statutory responsibility, we expect MCCs to undertake regular reviews of their accommodation requirements. The strategic aims of the MCCs, the facilities needed and the results of user surveys are just some of the factors that MCCs take into consideration when undertaking their reviews.
Decisions to close or retain magistrates courts are also the responsibility of MCCs after consultation with the local paying authority—the local council. It is common for MCCs to consult more widely than the local paying authority, as we and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire would expect. Consultees usually include the magistrates, court staff, the police, the probation service, the Crown Prosecution Service, Members of Parliament and other professional users.
234WH
The Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees has published a good practice guide on courthouse closure. The guide is very comprehensive and includes guidance on the impact of new legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1998. It is an invaluable reference document when considering courthouse closure and the hon. Gentleman would find it well worth referring to.
The Dyfed-Powys MCC published the reasons behind the closure of courthouses in its estate strategy document, dated April 2000. It stated that, of the 14 courthouses in Dyfed Powys, 15 per cent. required major refurbishment and the remaining 85 per cent. could not be brought up to standard and had only a short-term life. To address that position, the MCC embarked on a major estate strategy to provide for sustainable and modern courthouse provision with the facilities to meet both current and foreseeable needs.
On 18 February 2003, the Dyfed-Powys MCC made a determination to close four courts in Powys—Ystradgynlais, Llandrindod Wells, Machynlleth and Welshpool. The local paying authority, Dyfed-Powys county council, did not lodge an appeal with my Department against those closures. That is a very important point. The work from Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod Wells will be transferred to a refurbished courthouse in Brecon and the new courthouse in Newtown and the work from Machynlleth and Welshpool will also be transferred to the new courthouse in Newtown.
The decision to close the courts was reached after a period of consultation with both the paying authority and a wide variety of stakeholders, and it went beyond the guidance note issued by the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees. The overall consultation period lasted from February to April 2001 and a total of 73 responses were received, which the MCC fully considered. The Dyfed-Powys police, the witness service, which is a voice for Victim Support, and the CPS supported the MCC's proposals, but there is a difference in understanding and I want to get to the bottom of it. I am told that the witness service at least supports the proposals.
The MCC's consultation document was submitted to Powys county council and meetings were held with the individual shire committees in the county council area. Powys county council in particular discussed both the proposed closures and the provision of new courthouses at a full county council meeting in public on 16 January 2003 and, in a vote of the full council, it voted to support both. I have not had a chance to speak to Councillor Jones, the chairman of the council, but it will be interesting to know the rationale for that decision.
If a formal determination is made by an MCC and an appeal is lodged by the local paying authority with the Lord Chancellor within one month of receipt of the notification, I can have a specific role in the matter. My role in magistrates court closures is as an appellant authority in the event of an appeal being lodged. I will consider any appeal with my Department on the merits of the case presented by each party when dialogue has ended between the relevant paying authority and officials. In this case, an appeal has not been lodged, so I have not had an opportunity to decide one way or the other because the court closure is not subject to appeal.

235WH
As the county council did not see fit to appeal, I have no role to play. That is not my choice; it is set out section 56(3) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.
I understand the points made by the hon. Gentleman about the need always to try to improve access to justice and about having a strong sense of local justice. In this country we not only have justice that is administered by our peers but we expect magistrates to have a strong local connection and to live or work in the area in which they serve.
We must be realistic about what we mean by local justice. Clearly, local justice does not mean having a court on every street corner, which would be absurd. We must always balance the different factors affecting access to justice. Geographical access, important as it is, is not the only factor. Other factors such as disabled access to buildings and facilities for victims and witnesses are also important. For example, victims and witnesses may feel intimidated if they do not have separate facilities, wherever they may be. Magistrates courts committees have a difficult job to ensure that they deliver the best combination of services for an entire area, provide value for money and look to some of the other aspects of their schemes.
The term "rural proofing" is used by Government quite a lot these days. It may not mean much to most people outside, but it comes into our decision making at a local level. It means that when a decision comes forward, there is a process by which the effect on a rural area is properly analysed and considered. We have been working with the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees to promote rural issues within the considerations of magistrates courts committees so that that they can focus on some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised. I feel a little powerless today only in so far as we have not had an appeal, although it allows me to talk a little more about the particular situation.
There is some good news for the people who will need to use court services in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere. The Dyfed-Powys and Gwent magistrates courts committees have worked with the Court Service and local authorities during the past few years and have managed to put together a fairly bold and improving private finance initiative scheme to improve and upgrade much of the court estate in mid-Wales. The proposals are for new courthouses to be provided at Newport, Ebbw Vale, Newtown and Carmarthen, as well as refurbished court facilities at Abergavenny. The magistrates courts committees have had to make a case to the Department and to the paying authorities for the resources for replacement courthouses. They were able to consider many different issues, including work load, travel distances, costs and so on, and consulted widely over a two-year period until 2002, producing a strategy for the provision of more modern courthouses which will go a lot further towards meeting the requirements of legislation and key services.
Lembit Öpik: I am delighted that Newtown will eventually get its court and I am pleased that the Minister is sympathetic to that plan, but he will be aware that many of the lawyers in my constituency are concerned about the timetable because it is taking a long time. I do not expect him to provide specific information
236WH
on that issue now, but I would be grateful if he could find out through whatever channels are available to him whether the process can be speeded up.
Mr. Leslie: I shall certainly talk to my officials about the time scale. I know that there is a lot of anxiety locally, and that people want the process to be speeded up so that improved facilities are delivered as quickly as possible. We are all anxious to see those facilities, and all the local authorities involved have been supportive of the scheme. They want the new and refurbished courthouses to be completed as quickly as possible. Powys county council, which has discussed the proposed closures and the new courts at its public meeting, was supportive of the private finance initiative package.
My Department is considering closely the work that takes place between the Court Service and the magistrates courts committees, and the needs of court users—victims, witnesses and so on—so that we can find a way of improving services. We are even looking at combining the locations of county courts and crown courts so that we can overcome some of the problems that existed in the estate to date.
Mr. Roger Williams: I thank the Minister for covering that point in such a complete way. One of the reasons given for the closure of the Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod Wells courts was the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, but that Act was introduced not to close facilities for the disabled, but to improve the standard of access. We thought that that was a poor argument.
Mr. Leslie: It is certainly not the case that the only rationale for those closures related to disability. In fact, some of the primary reasons were more to do with court security. Poor security related not only to the fact that defendants were sometimes sharing an entrance with the public and magistrates, but to dock facilities and poor holding areas for imprisoned defendants. There was a need to take radical action.
The procurement process for the public-private partnership arrangement is due to commence early this year, which will mean some of the new court facilities will be provided in 2007. That is our broad timetable. We know that such matters can be subject to change, but I hope that we can stick to that timetable. The capital funding arrangements have been quite generous, particularly for Welsh facilities. In 2002–03, approximately £2.7 million was provided for courthouses in Wales. In the last financial year, £2.8 million was provided, and we anticipate a further £4 million in the current financial year. That will not only allow the completion of the new courthouse at Haverford West, but help to upgrade some of the other facilities outside the public-private finance package of schemes.
I reiterate that, given that there was no appeal from the paying authority, I have had a limited ability to intervene. The decision was very much a local one that was made with the support of the county council, which is where I suggest with respect that many of the hon. Gentleman's questions should be focused. Nevertheless, the Government and my Department remain keen to ensure that we provide investment so that good

237WH
decisions can be made about new courthouse facilities. That is exceptionally important not only in serving the wider public, but in ensuring that we raise confidence in the justice system as far as we can. I know that we shall have a continuing dialogue on this matter.

Widows' Benefits
4 pm
Mr. Colin Challen: I apologise in advance if my voice gets croaky because am halfway through a heavy cold. If I get into a fit of coughing, I shall crave your indulgence, Mr. Cook.
I thank Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity to have this debate, which deals with a tragic and infuriating case. My constituent, Mrs. Diane Johnson, approached me last year to help her win a pension, which she believes is her due. Mrs. Johnson's husband, Mark, worked for a company called Carlton Cards for 10 years, but in 2001 was diagnosed with cancer. On 2 August 2002, Mr. Johnson died. For eight years prior to his death, Mr. Johnson had been paying into the AG pension plan and reasonably expected that, should he die in service, his widow would receive a lump sum calculated on his salary in addition to a widow's pension.
However, earlier in 2002 the trustees of the pension plan changed its terms, effectively removing any rights for a widow to claim a pension. The new rule became effective on 1 August 2002, one day before Mr. Johnson's death. The decision to change the rule was not communicated to Mrs. Johnson. She only received, three weeks after her husband's death, a copy of an internal letter sent to employees.
Mrs. Johnson has since spent a lot of time on the problem and has spent much money on legal fees trying to get justice. While no one could claim that the company did not have a right to change the plan, the way in which it did so without consulting the plan's members, and its attitude to Mrs. Johnson's case, show that it is bereft of any moral or ethical standing. I make a point of saying that because the parent company of Carlton Cards is American Greetings—the "AG" of the pension plan, I assume—and its mission statement says that it will
"adhere to the highest standards of moral and ethical conduct in dealing with our customers, suppliers, shareholders, associates and the community at large".
In this context "associates" means employees. In that vein of false sincerity, its mission statement also says:
"American Greetings helps people everywhere express their innermost thoughts and feelings, enhance meaningful relationships and celebrate life's milestones and special occasions".
That did not extend to sending Mrs. Johnson a bereavement card.
Mrs. Johnson wrote to the president of that $2 billion a year business, Mr. Morry Weiss, to seek his support for her claim. In a reply from their director of human resources, she was told:
"management did contact the insurance carrier and attempted to have the policy reinstated to cover you with a pension. Unfortunately the carrier was unwilling to make such an accommodation".
That hardly comes as a surprise. If the company had taken such benefits off risk they would presumably have to restart paying premiums of some description to get Mrs. Johnson back on risk. The apparent act of seeking to help Mrs. Johnson was as empty and meaningless as their mission statement—a complete red herring.

239WH
I have tried to contact American Greetings to advance Mrs. Johnson's case. I wrote to it on 24 November last year and received no reply. I faxed my letter to it on 6 January this year and again have had no reply. I rang the company on 21 January and was told that I would be called back. Again, I heard nothing. I take it that American Greetings sets the rules of the game for its subsidiary companies, since it was American Greetings that decided to change the plan on costs grounds. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider intervening in this case with the American authorities to see if they can urge American Greetings to see the light and honour its much-publicised commitment to behaving morally and ethically? I know that is a long shot, but surely our American friends might listen to the pleas of their closest ally.
That set of tragic circumstances is unlikely to set a precedent—it is clearly a one-off that cannot be repeated—but if the situation is not rectified American Greetings, a company that claims to "say it best", should be exposed for the parsimonious callousness that it has displayed in Mrs. Johnson's case. She has been forced to give up her legal battle for justice because of mounting costs. She is still pursuing the matter through the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service, but the company is likely to drag that process out as long as it can.
Apart from the above request, I will not press my hon. Friend to comment on the merits of Mrs. Johnson's particular case. However, given the part of the law involved and the number of companies that are reducing their pension schemes because of various belt-tightening pressures, others may behave in the same way as American Greetings. Section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995 stipulates a duty on pension trustees to consult their members if they intend to alter their scheme. According to subsection (2) of section 67, the power to modify the scheme
"cannot be exercised on any occasion in a manner which would or might affect any entitlement, or accrued right, of any member of the scheme acquired before the power is exercised unless the requirements under subsection (3) are satisfied."
The requirements in subsection (3) relate to the consent of the members to proposed changes.
Mrs. Johnson was not a member, but her husband was. In a complex set of interpretations of the words "entitlement", "accrued" and "contingent", the company has escaped its clear moral and ethical commitments to Mrs. Johnson. It appears that this wriggle room was created by the timing of Mr. Johnson's death. Had he died 25 hours earlier, Mrs. Johnson would have had her pension. It would have been her "contingent" entitlement. The company said, through its solicitors, that the decision to change the scheme was made early in 2002 and that it was announced by an internal memo, which by definition Mr. Johnson was never going to see, on 30 July 2002. There was plenty of time to consult and to ensure that scheme members, if they wished, could make alternative arrangements. In Mr. Johnson's case, it may, for example, have been better had he taken early retirement, but the couple had no way of knowing that they needed to consider other options.
As there is no case law to help clear up the interpretation of this particular aspect of the law, particularly as it may impact on beneficiaries who are
240WH
not members, the Government should consider making it plain how the law affects such things as widows' occupational pensions. It should not be for Mrs. Johnson, who has already suffered enough, to enter a lengthy and expensive legal battle to achieve that. So these are my two requests: to ask the Government to use their influence to seek an amicable settlement of this particular case, and to look at the 1995 Act to see if it can be made less ambiguous in regard to widows' pensions.
If anybody from American Greetings or Carlton Cards happens to be listening, I urge them to pre-empt my first request. In addition, they might also look again at what they owe Mr. Johnson's estate in other regards. The company he worked for relocated its premises and paid employees a relocation grant. It appears that because of his long-term illness, the company only paid a third of that money. They also appear to have reduced the lump sum that his pension plan was to pay out. Before he fell ill, Mr. Johnson was earning £28,000 a year. After his long-term absence, his pay was reduced to £16,000 a year. It was on the latter amount that his lump sum was calculated. The lesson here is that whatever one does, do not fall ill: it can make you considerably poorer.
To be fair, eight years' worth of Mr. Johnson's pension contributions were refunded, a sum of around £9,000, plus some interest. Solicitors claim that that was hardly going to pay for much of a pension—a few hundred pounds perhaps—so why should Mrs. Johnson be so bothered about it? In their eagerness to dismiss Mrs. Johnson's claim, however, they forgot that the whole point of the exercise was to save the company money. Thus they failed to say what had happened to the employer contributions over that time. How much has the company saved? What has happened to the contributions made in respect of Mr. Johnson? Is the sum so vast that it would bankrupt the company to use it for its intended purpose? This company, in its initial actions and in all its dealings with Mrs. Johnson since her husband's death, has displayed a disgraceful disregard for its associates. I hope that it will see sense and do something positive to start honouring its solemn mission statement.
4.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on such an important subject and at such an opportune time. He deserves tribute for keeping the interests of his constituents in the spotlight. May I also take this opportunity to add my condolences to Mrs. Diane Johnston, especially given the tragic circumstances in which she lost her husband? I know that the whole House will understand her concerns at this time.
Mrs. Johnson is going through the internal disputes procedure with Carlton Cards and the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service, as my hon. Friend explained. Hon. Members will understand that it would therefore be inappropriate for me to discuss the case before knowing the outcome of that procedure. My hon. Friend asked whether I might make representations to AG on the issue, but he will understand that such political intervention would be inappropriate, as Mrs. Johnson is going through the proper procedures at

241WH
present. However, I am sure that AG and Carlton Cards will read our proceedings this afternoon and realise the seriousness with which this House treats such matters.
The issues raised in this debate highlight the importance of the partnership between the Government, employers, trade unions and individuals, which we believe is essential to deliver safe and secure pensions in the future. My hon. Friend referred to section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995, which requires that trustees consult scheme members before closing a scheme. I can confirm that section 67 prevents changes from being made to the rules of a scheme that would reduce a member's accrued pension rights without his or her consent. It preserves not just the value of the member's rights but the rights themselves. Clearly, in this situation, that will have to be determined through the internal disputes procedure and, subsequently, perhaps the ombudsman. Ultimately, it will be for the courts to decide whether the changes made by Carlton Cards breach section 67, although I note my hon. Friend's point that Mrs. Johnson is unable to take the matter through the full legal procedures.
In general, for section 67 purposes, the fundamental question is whether the changes that are being introduced will have a detrimental effect on members' accrued pension rights. That may not be simple to determine and may depend on the precise wording of the rules of the scheme, on which I cannot comment for the reasons that I have given. I should make it clear that, in general, trustees may approve changes within section 67 if they will benefit members as a whole, even if individual members are disadvantaged.
Our proposals, announced in "Action on Occupational Pensions—Simplicity, security and choice: working and saving for retirement" in June will amend the legislation so that schemes will be able to make changes to members' accrued pension rights without obtaining the consent of affected members, but only if the total actuarial value of each member's accrued rights at the point of change is maintained, and if the change does not involve converting any defined benefit pension rights into defined contribution rights.
This debate raises wider issues about the future of pensions. Mrs. Johnson's situation is reflected in different ways around the country by people who feel that their contributions over time have not been honoured in the pension and security with which they are provided in retirement. That is why we take seriously our role in partnership and why we are taking such positive action to protect current and future pensioners and to promote savings and adequate pension provision. As I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, this is a crucial time for pensions. It seems that not a day passes without some aspect of pensions coming under the
242WH
spotlight. I again congratulate him on ensuring that this afternoon the spotlight is focused clearly on the situation in which Mrs. Johnson finds herself.
The Government believe that pensions are too important to be used as a political football. They affect the quality of people's lives in retirement, and that is why we take them seriously. However, we also seek to build consensus for the future. The case before us highlights the reality of the need to take action now that will strengthen, secure and simplify pensions provision in the UK. The pensions Bill, which will be introduced in the near future, will take forward the Government's proposals to bolster confidence in the pensions industry. It will provide a balanced package of measures to ease the financial and administrative burden on employers and will also bring forward measures to ensure that the pensions promise made to individuals is a promise kept without exception.
The new legislation will introduce a pension protection fund that will, for the first time in the UK, step in to protect members of defined benefit schemes if their sponsoring employer becomes insolvent and the scheme is underfunded. There will be a new proactive pensions regulator who will concentrate on the areas of greatest risk to members' benefits. The Government are committed to long-term reform to enable individuals to plan for their retirement and make informed choices about saving and how long they work. We are taking forward some important reforms in the occupational pensions area, including the pensions protection fund and the proposals on full buy-out—several small schemes have been recently wound up by solvent employers where the schemes were not fully funded. Hon. Members will know that we are seeking to change the priority order when schemes have been wound up. That is to ensure fairness between the treatment of different members of the scheme.
Through all of these measures, we are trying to strike a better balance of interests that will be fairer to all scheme members. We believe that the sustainable future of pension provision in this country is dependent on a continuing mix of provision between the state, occupational and private schemes. Our policies are aimed at promoting that continuing partnership, and on demonstrating that it remains worth while for people to save for a pension in the knowledge that their pension savings will be secure and there when they—or in this case, their survivors—need them.
We sympathise with Mrs. Johnson's situation and with other pension scheme members who may have lost out due to changes in their occupational pension scheme. We hope that the matter will be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Four o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Civil Service (Disabled People)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the number of employees in his department who have a disability, broken down by disability type. [148989]

  Mr. Caplin
  The number of employees within the department as at 1 October 2003 who have a disability by disability type is:

  Description

  Number

  Hearing impairment

  1,040

  Visual impairment

  310

  Speech impairment

  60

  Mobility impairment

  810

  Physical coordination difficulties

  140

  Reduced physical capacity

  1,010

  Severe disfigurement

  90

  Learning difficulties

  140

  Mental illness

  110

  Multiple impairment

  20

  Unknown disability

  20

  Disability total

  3,700

  Not disabled

  49,150

  Status unknown

  35,200

  Overall total

  88,100

  Notes:

  1. Permanent staff excluding Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and those not currently paid by the department (e.g. maternity leave, secondment).

  2. Values are rounded separately and may not add to totals.

  Iraq
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date in October 2002 the military decision was taken to supply all troops in Iraq with enhanced body armour. [151435]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]In line with normal practice, an Urgent Statement of User Requirement, generated by Land Command on 21 October, was endorsed by the Permanent Joint Headquarters on 5 November 2002. This recommended that all ground forces deploying on Operation Telic should be equipped with Enhanced Combat Body Armour.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether permission was obtained from the Prime Minister's office before the orders for extra sets of enhanced body armour were placed; [151438]

  (2) which Ministers gave approval for the placing of orders for extra sets of enhanced body armour within (a) his Department and (b) other departments; [151437]
  756W
  (3) for what reason political approval for the placing of orders for extra sets of enhanced body armour was not given until 25 November 2002; [151436]

  (4) what (a) instruction and (b) guidance was given by (i) the Prime Minister's office and (ii) other Ministers that orders for equipment required for possible military action should not be placed while diplomatic efforts for a solution in Iraq were still underway. [151359]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]The overall process to be followed for meeting the urgent equipment and stock requirements for Operation Telic was approved by Defence Ministers. The basis on which preparatory work was undertaken took appropriate account of the continuing diplomatic process. As the Ministry of Defence's publication "Operations in Iraq—Lessons For the Future" states, operational security and the requirement not to prejudice the UN process limited early planning and engagement with industry until the Urgent Operational Requirement process was announced on 25 November 2002. Neither the approval of Defence Ministers, nor the approval of the Prime Minister or of other Ministers outside the MOD, was required or given for the placement of individual orders, including for Enhanced Combat Body Armour (ECBA).

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) manpower strength and (b) manpower strength requirement is of the Ministry of Defence Police. [152237]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 1 December 2003, the total authorised complement of Ministry of Defence Police officers was 3,433 and the strength, 3,290.

  Timber
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether contracts which involve the supply and consumption of timber include the Defence Contract Condition (DEFCON) 691. [152190]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 30 January 2004]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 21 January 2004,Official Report, columns 1250–51W. The Ministry of Defence does not keep central records of the number of contracts, which contain DEFCON 691.

  Unfair Dismissal Procedures
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures exist for soldiers who consider themselves to have been unfairly dismissed from the Army but failed to submit a redress within three months of discharge to appeal against their dismissal; and if he will make a statement. [152748]

  Mr. Caplin
  The three-month time limit within which a complaint must be submitted begins from the day on which the soldier is formally notified that they are to be dismissed or discharged. Complaints submitted outside this period will normally be rejected as 'out of time' unless the officer to whom the complaint is first presented judges that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been submitted earlier.

SCOTLAND

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the proposed construction and finance costs were of the two alternative bids to construct the Skye Bridge brought forward in 1990 by the construction firms Morrison and Trafalgar House. [147132]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Following devolution, responsibility and documentation relating to the construction and financing of the Skye Bridge are now a matter for the Scottish Executive. The right hon. Member may wish to write to Nicol Stephen, the Scottish Minister with responsibility for this matter.

  The Scotland Office has no continuing responsibility and does not hold information about the Skye Bridge.

  Whisky Industry
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish whisky industry; and what plans he has to do so in the future. [150394]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend will shortly be meeting representatives from Diageo and the Scotch Whisky Association to discuss issues affecting the whisky industry in Scotland.

PRIME MINISTER

  Child Access
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister what conclusions he has reached following his investigations into the treatment of child access by the courts announced by him on LBC Radio on 14 January. [149941]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government believes that children benefit from a continuing relationship with both parents following parental separation, where it is in the best interests of the child. The Children Act 1989 requires the court to make the welfare of the child concerned its paramount consideration when considering cases where parents are unable to agree on access arrangements for their children.

  Courts can enforce contact for non-resident parents with deliberate refusal by resident parents leading to fines of up to £2,500 or imprisonment of up to 2 years. However, such penalties may not be appropriate due to the effect this may have on the child at the centre of the dispute.

  The Government published its initial response into "Making Contact Work". a report by the Children Act Sub-Committee (CASC), on the issue of facilitation and enforcement of contact orders in August 2002.

  In light of this report, we established a stakeholder group comprising representatives from the judiciary, legal professionals, Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, other government departments and the voluntary sector to examine the issue of facilitation and enforcement. The
  758W
  Government's full response to the CASC report, which will be published shortly, will address the issue of effective enforcement of court-ordered contact.

  Dalai Lama
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to meet the Dalai Lama during his forthcoming visit to the United Kingdom. [150785]

  The Prime Minister
  I regret that because of diary commitments I will be unable to meet the Dalai Lama during his forthcoming visit to the UK.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to visit Gibraltar in the Tercentenary; if he plans to attend St. Clement Daines tercentenary service; and if he will make a statement on Gibraltar and its tercentenary. [151271]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministerial visits to Gibraltar in 2004 and attendance at the St. Clement Daines Tercentenary Service are currently under consideration and details have not been finalised.

  The Government intends to play a full part in celebrating the Tercentenary. I refer the hon. Member to the statement given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Hoon), during the debate on the Gracious Speech on 27 November 2003, Official Report, columns 224–25.

  Hutton Inquiry/Report
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish his witness statement to the Hutton Inquiry. [152312]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Hutton set out the process for his Inquiry with which we agreed.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Prime Minister who in his Office saw the embargoed version of Lord Hutton's report. [152599]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Hutton set out the process for those to receive embargoed copies of his report. The number of advance copies and the associated undertakings of confidentiality were agreed between each of the parties and Lord Hutton. We have nothing further to add.

  Iraq
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will respond to the Intelligence and Security Committee's Report on "Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction—Intelligence and Assessments, of September 2003". [152964]

  The Prime Minister
  I am today laying before the House the Government's Response to the Intelligence and Security Committee's September 2003 Report "Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction Intelligence and Assessments".

  Public Bodies
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister who the members of the(a) Museums and Galleries Commission, (b) National Heritage Memorial Fund, (c) Security

  759W
  Vetting Appeals Panel and (d) Committee on Standards in Public Life were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and what their remuneration is. [151456]

  The Prime Minister
  The Museums and Galleries Commission has been replaced by Resource: The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries. The members and their term of office are as follows:

  Mr. Mark Wood BA MA (Chair)

  Appointed June 2003 for a four-year term

  Mr. David Barrie

  Appointed July 2000 for a four-year term

  Ms Lynne Brindley BA MA FRSA

  Appointed January 2003 for a four-year term

  Mr. Ajay Chowdhury

  Reappointed April 2003 for a four-year term

  Dr. Maurna Crozier

  Reappointed April 2003 for a one-year term

  Mr. Loyd Grossman

  Reappointed January 2004 for a four-year term

  Mr. Mark Jones

  Reappointed April 2003 for a four-year term

  Mr. Neil MacGregor

  Reappointed April 2003 for a four-year term

  Mr. Bill Macnaught

  Appointed February 2003 for a four-year term

  Dr. Robert McKee

  Appointed January 2003 for a four-year term

  Ms Jane Ryder

  Reappointed June 2003 for a three-year term

  Mr. Michael Stevenson

  Reappointed on April 2003 for a four-year term

  Mr. Alan Watkin

  Reappointed June 2003 for a four-year term

  Mr David Henshaw, Sir Geoffrey Holland, Mr. Nicholas Kingsley and Ms Virginia Tandy all appointed January 2003 for four-year terms.

  The Chair is paid £32,000 per annum. Other board members do not receive remuneration although they are reimbursed for actual expenses incurred.

  The members of the National Heritage Memorial Fund and their term of office are as follows:

  Ms Liz Forgan OBE (Chair)

  Appointed April 2001 for a three-year term

  Ms Madhu Anjali

  Appointed July 2002 for a three-year term

  Professor Chris Baines

  Reappointed July 2001 for a three-year term

  The Earl of Dalkeith

  Reappointed June 2003 for a three-year term

  Mr. Nicholas Dodd

  Reappointed September 2003 for a three-year term

  Ms Catherine Graham-Harrison

  Appointed August 2002 for a three-year term

  Sir Angus Grossart (Deputy Chair and Chair of the Committee for Scotland)

  Reappointed March 2002 for a three-year term

  Dr. Derek Langslow

  Appointed February 2002 for a three-year term

  Ms Susan Palmer

  Reappointed January 2001 for a three-year term

  Dr. Mike Phillips

  Appointed January 2002 for a three-year term

  760W

  Professor Tom Pritchard (Deputy Chair and Chair of the Committee for Wales

  Reappointed April 2002 for a three-year term

  Mr. Giles Waterfield

  Reappointed September 2003 for a three-year term

  Ms Primrose Wilson (Deputy Chair and Chair of the Committee for Northern Ireland)

  Reappointed April 2003 for a three-year term

  Mr. James Wright

  Reappointed November 2003 for a three-year term

  Mr. Mike Emmerich

  Appointed July 2003 for a three-year term.

  The Chair is entitled to claim £39,025 per annum, the Deputy Chairs are entitled to claim £17,590 per annum, and the Trustees may claim £5,832 per annum.

  The members of the Security Vetting Appeals Panel and their term of office are as follows:

  Right Hon. Dame Janet Smith (Chair)

  Reappointed October 2003 for a three-year term

  Sir Stephen Mitchell (Deputy Chair)

  Appointed June 2001 for a three-year term

  Sir John Blelloch KCB

  Reappointed July 2003 for a two-year term

  Sir Peter Woodhead KCB

  Reappointed July 2003 for a four-year term

  Mr. Peter Jones

  Reappointed July 2003 for a two-year term

  Dr. George Gray CBE

  Reappointed July 2003 for a four-year term.

  The Chair and Deputy Chair are unpaid. Other members are paid a daily rate of £203 when the Panel is sitting.

  The members of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and their term of office are as follows:

  Sir Nigel Wicks (Chair)

  Appointed March 2001 for a three-year term

  Ms Rita Donaghy QBE

  Reappointed March 2001 for a three-year term

  Professor Hazel Genn CBE

  Appointed October 2003 for a three-year term

  Sir Alastair Graham

  Appointed October 2003 for a three-year term

  Dame Patricia Hodgson DBE

  Appointed January 2004 for a three-year term

  Baroness Maddock

  Appointed November 2003 for a three-year term

  Rabbi Dame Julia Neuberger DBE

  Reappointed March 2001 for a three-year term

  Right Hon. Gillian Shephard DL MP

  Appointed November 2003 for a three-year term

  Right Hon. Chris Smith MP

  Appointed October 2001 for a three-year term

  Dr. Brian Woods-Scawen DL

  Appointed January 2004 for a three-year term.

  Those Committee members who do not already receive a salary from public funds may claim £180 for each day they work on Committee business. The Chair may claim £380 for each day spent on Committee business.

  Secret Intelligence Service
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since May 1997 he has called for specific briefing from the Secret Intelligence Service; and if he will list the countries involved. [152319]

  The Prime Minister
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence matters.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Cambridgeshire Schools
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason the time limit given to Cambridgeshire county council for an appeal against the Government's grant settlement is 27 January. [150134]

  Mr. Miliband
  The deadline for Cambridgeshire county council to give notice of any objection to the Secretary of State's notice dated 13 January 2004 determining a minimum schools budget for the Council for the financial year 2004–05 was actually 26 January because section 45C(1) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 provides that any such objection must be made within 14 days beginning with the date of the notice determining a minimum schools budget. The Council did give notice of objection on 26 January.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reasons his Department rejected a request on 2 December 2003 from the leader of Cambridgeshire county council to discuss Cambridgeshire school's budgetary problems. [150835]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Leader of Cambridgeshire county council wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister on 2 December with a copy to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills requesting a meeting with local government and education Ministers to discuss the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement for 2004–05 and the implications for school funding. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope), replied declining a meeting in line with the Government's clear position of not holding face-to-face meetings with local authorities during consultation on the provisional settlement. The Government believe that it would not be equitable to meet some authorities and not others. I recently met the Leader of the Council to hear the authority's position on the level of its schools budget for next year.

  Chorley School Transport
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Chorley received free school transport to(a) secondary, (b) primary and (c) special schools in each year since 1996. [151273]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Although we collect data on home to school transport expenditure, we do not usually collect data on the number of children receiving free transport. However, in response to a recent survey,762W
  Lancashire said that it provides free home to school transport to about 17,000 pupils. Its expenditure on this was £16 million in 2001/02.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effect on further education colleges of the recent increase in fees set by the Criminal Records Bureau; and if he will make a statement. [151859]

  Alan Johnson
  The effect on further education colleges of the recent increase in fees set by the Criminal Records Bureau will vary from institution to institution depending on staff turnover and the number of students for which criminal records checks are required. The Department does not collect data relating to staff turnover as this is a matter purely for the institutions, neither can it predict the likely rate of staff turnover in future years.

  It is the Government's policy to provide colleges with core funding levels which enable them to raise standards while meeting necessary cost pressures, rather than to compensate colleges separately for individual cost increases. Under the spending review 2002 proposals funding per student will rise by 7 per cent. on average in real terms between 2002–03 and 2005–06.

  Funding rates are kept under review and adjusted to reflect changes in costs incurred by colleges.

  Food Advertisements (Schools)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans his Department has to ban fast food advertising from vending machines in schools in England; and if he will make a statement. [152518]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department for Education and Skills has no plans to ban fast food advertising from vending machines in schools. The Headteacher and governing body of a school decide whether or not to install vending machines in schools, and where they are installed, the products that are sold.

  Higher Education Funding
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effects of tuition fees on women medical students. [149761]

  Alan Johnson
  Under our proposals for the introduction of variable fees from 2006, women medical students who commence their undergraduate course in 2006 or later, will be liable to pay variable fees of up to £3,000 per year, if the institution they attend decides to charge them.

  The Government have made a number of proposals to safeguard access to higher education for those from low income families. Such students will continue, as now, to have the cost of the standard tuition fee (£1,125 in 2003/04) met by the Government. Around three in 10 students will also receive means tested Higher Education Grants of £1,000, to be raised to £1,500 for new students from 2006. In addition, many students

  763W
  from lower income families will be eligible for partial grant as well as bursaries and other support from universities under arrangements agreed by the Office of Fair Access.

  Fees for English domiciled medical students in years five and six are currently paid by the Department of Health. These students also qualify for means tested NHS bursaries in their fifth and subsequent years of study. Department of Health Ministers have indicated that they will, if necessary, take measures to ensure that any increase in the level of tuition fees will not have an adverse impact on the supply, retention, diversity or quality of students on health professional courses, including medicine. Arrangements for repayment of fee loans will, for all graduates, be heavily subsidised: graduates will repay their loans at zero real rate of interest and only when their income exceeds £15,000 per year. Repayments will then be made at a rate of 9 per cent. of income above £15,000. Loans will be written off after 25 years: that could particularly benefit female doctors who opt to take a career break.

  Figures collected in March 2003 show that 73 per cent. of newly qualified medical graduates in hospital posts earn £34,533 per annum. This compares very favourably with the salaries of other newly qualified graduates. According to Graduate Prospects, the average starting salary for graduate-level jobs was £18,000 in 2002/03.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether it is his policy that trainee teachers will be exempt from university top-up fees; and if he will make a statement. [151238]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend announced on 27 January that he will commission a report next year to examine gateways into the professions and the recruitment of graduates to the public services under the new student finance system. The findings of the report will inform the next comprehensive spending review.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether after the introduction of higher student fees he intends to maintain the universities block grant in real terms. [151966]

  Alan Johnson
  Future levels of funding for higher education will be subject to the outcomes of the current and subsequent spending reviews. I am, however, committed to safeguarding the level of funding for universities already set out to 2005–06 and expect to be able to deliver increases in future years.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to transfer powers and responsibilities held by Learning and Skills Councils to elected regional assemblies where they are introduced. [152100]

  Alan Johnson
  None. However, elected Regional Assemblies, where introduced, will have an important economic role. In our White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" we set out proposals for each Assembly to 764W
  appoint two members to the Board of each local Learning and Skills Council (LSC) in its region, and for the national LSC to consult Assemblies on its guidance to the local LSCs. We also propose that focal LSCs will be required to have regard to Assembly strategies, including in drawing up their spending plans; and to consult the relevant Assembly about their local plans.

  School Funding
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the implications of the grant settlement for 2004–05 on local education authorities' ability to provide centrally funded services. [152135]

  Mr. Miliband
  The increase in Formula Grant for local education authorities for 2004–05 is 6.1 per cent. The increase for Schools Formula Spending is 5.7 per cent., which includes funding for centrally provided education services. The increase in the LEA sub-block is 3.4 per cent. which is higher than the rate of inflation. It is for authorities to balance their overall resources and spending pressures in drawing up their budgets.

  School Meals
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 26 January 2004,Official Report, column 145W, on school meals, who has statutory responsibility for the provision of school meals if the governing body of a school resigns. [152219]

  Mr. Miliband
  School meal provision is the responsibility of the governing body of a school if the school's delegated budget share included funding for meals. If the members of the governing body of such a school all resigned, the governing body would still exist as a corporate entity and would retain the statutory responsibility for meals provision. Although the head teacher would be able to exercise decision-taking powers in accordance with any formal delegation previously agreed by the governing body, it would be for the local education authority to make arrangements as soon as possible for the reconstitution of the governing body membership.

  School and College Performance (Value Added Measures)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how value added measures will be used to determine action to be taken in(a) individual schools and (b) local education authorities. [152307]

  Mr. Miliband
  Value added information on individual schools is published within the DIES School and College Performance Tables. The data may be used by schools and local authorities, alongside other information, to evaluate their performance in relation to pupils' progress. Local education authorities may augment the published information by providing schools with additional value added data, for example in relation to the performance of individual departments.
  765W
  The Government are keen to promote intelligent accountability of performance by individual schools as a key step in self-evaluation, and in order to identify areas where improvements may be needed. Value added data may also identify strong areas of the curriculum, and therefore examples of best practice, where expertise may be shared within schools, and with other schools. The Pupil Achievement Tracker, supplied by the DfES, enables schools to benchmark their value added performance against other schools with similar characteristics.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what value added score(a) a school and (b) a local education authority will need to achieve to be judged as satisfactory. [152335]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 2 February 2004]Independent judgments about both schools and LEAs are principally a matter for Ofsted, through the inspection system. While an Ofsted judgment is likely to take into account value added criteria, the overall decision will be made on the basis of a wide range of inspection evidence.

  The Government have not set any upper or lower benchmarks in relation to published value added scores, but it is recognised that schools with scores at the lower end of the distribution for schools with similar levels of prior attainment are likely to be underperforming.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the Government's response to the proposed Common Agricultural Policy reform. [151958]

  Alun Michael
  The Government will announce in a matter of weeks their decision on the method of payment for the CAP reform agreed last June.

  The Government are also engaged in the EU negotiations on proposals for further reform of the cotton, hops, olive oil, sugar and tobacco regimes.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when a national grant scheme will be set up to assist local authorities with their new powers under Part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; and when the details of the scheme will be made available to local authorities. [151627]

  Alun Michael
  I am very keen to ensure that the new right of access is implemented as smoothly as possible on the ground and I met the Countryside Agency recently to consider its proposals for a National Grant Scheme to help local authorities, land managers and communities manage open access in their areas proactively. If this scheme is approved, the Agency will announce further details and guidance including the percentage grant-aid available and when it will accept applications.
  766W
  I hope to make a decision soon, but if we are able to help this will be a bonus for everyone. It is at least as important that local authorities start to gear up now for the introduction of the right of access under the Act, recognising the benefits and opportunities for them and those who live in their area.

  Crematoria
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will quantify the financial impact on crematoria of introducing gas cleaning systems to all crematoria; and whether the principle of polluter pays will be adhered to. [151304]

  Alun Michael
  In reply to the point on financial impact, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer of 17 November 2003,Official Report, column 623W, by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw).

  In line with the Polluter Pays Principle there are no funding packages linked to the Local Authority Pollution Control regime.

  Large Combustion Plant Directive
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the implications for United Kingdom industry of the National Emissions Reduction Plan in relation to the Large Combustion Plant Directive. [150228]

  Alun Michael
  Defra commissioned analysis from independent consultants which examined the costs and benefits of the two implementation approaches. This analysis carried out prior to the 2003 consultation on the Directive, suggested that for the 2008–2024 period the national plan approach would cost UK industry as a whole around £650 million whereas the alternative approach—the emission limit values approach—would cost around £900 million.

  We have received a range of comments on the analysis in the consultation, and are continuing to assess the potential economic impact on UK industry of the introduction of the Directive using both internal analyses and independent research. We are also in detailed dialogue with industry to help us to understand their views as expressed in response to consultation.

  Farming Subsidies
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the schemes under which payments are made to farmers in England; and what the total amounts paid under each scheme to(a) limited companies and (b) individuals were in the most recent year for which figures are available. [144458]

  Alun Michael
  Providing this information in the form requested has involved considerable work to interrogate the computer records in order to produce the required figures for England. In order to do so it has been
  767W
  necessary to include all businesses that do not incorporate the term "limited" in their title in the trading name under the heading "individuals".

  The following figures represent payments made in the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund Year 2003—16 October 2002 to 15 October 2003—and do not include Common Agricultural Policy market support schemes.

  £

  Scheme

  Limited companies value

  Individuals value

  Arable Area Payments

  186,582,223.13

  682,615,833.19

  Arable Agrimonetary Aid

  105,596.05

  69,870.01

  Beef Agrimonetary Aid

  29,533.43

  473,716.88

  Beef National Envelope

  991,509.93

  13,630,439.57

  Beef Special Premium

  7,348,365.73

  109,024,177.25

  Extensification

  3,338,151.33

  51,927,956.37

  Hill Farming Allowance

  947,164.39

  38,212,678.88

  Milk

  —

  263,043.48

  Sheep Annual Premium

  4,437,189.52

  100,437,173.61

  Suckler Cow Premium

  5,236,163.74

  71,972,974.84

  Sheep Agrimonetary Aid

  89.70

  7,809.36

  Slaughter Premium

  5,375,867.10

  61,472,846.45

  Rural Development Service Operated Schemes

  Arable Stewardship

  4,047,399.33

  1,313,793.43

  Countryside Access

  2,417,329.19

  16,643,660.50

  Countryside Stewardship

  —

  31,451,770.61

  Energy Crops

  75,096.40

  66,693.60

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas

  4,430,669.21

  57,170,574.76

  Farm Woodland Premium

  1,518,910.06

  6,809,501.96

  Habitat

  223,389.40

  1,622,720.89

  Moorland

  —

  25,350.00

  Nitrate Sensitive Areas

  333,897.80

  1,304,479.48

  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones

  55,680.09

  396,565.20

  Organic Farming

  1,855,784.37

  7,833,778.95

  Processing and Marketing Grant

  5,558,457.51

  1,664,423.52

  Rural Enterprise

  3,285,539.56

  14,709,634.85

  Vocational Training

  601,553.90

  1,296,838.65

  Structural Funds

  13,474,107.46

  8,505,521.90

  Total

  252,269,668.33

  1,280,923,828.19

  Information Technology
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) number and (b) location of Information Technology staff in her Department employed directly or on contract at each location outside Guildford. [150614]

  Alun Michael
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has made a strategic decision to outsource the majority of its IT service delivery and functions under the e-nabling Defra Programme.

  The following table outlines the number of people involved in IT-related work based at each location, outside Guildford (based on our records as at December 2003):

  Location

  Number of people undertaking IT related work1

  9 Millbank, London

  1

  Alnwick

  1

  Ashdown House, London

  26

  Bristol

  2

  Bury St Edmunds

  2

  Caernarfon

  1

  768W

  Location

  Number of people undertaking Location IT related work1

  Cambridge

  4

  Cardiff

  2

  Carlisle

  1

  Chelmsford

  1

  Crewe

  9

  Cromwell House, London

  2

  Dorchester

  1

  Eastbury House, London

  1

  Ergon House, London

  8

  Foss House, York

  9

  Gloucester

  1

  Harrogate

  1

  Heathrow

  1

  Kings House, Reading

  21

  Launceston

  21

  Leeds

  6

  Leicester

  1

  Lincoln

  1

  Newcastle

  2

  Nobel House, London

  219

  Northallerton

  1

  Norwich

  2

  Nottingham

  5

  Oxford

  1

  Page Street, London

  4

  Penrith

  1

  Preston

  2

  Shrewsbury

  1

  Stafford

  1

  Reading

  1

  Reigate

  1

  Taunton

  1

  Temple Quay House, Bristol

  3

  Trowbridge

  1

  Truro

  1

  Whitehall Place, London

  4

  Woburn Place, London

  6

  Wolverhampton

  1

  Worcester

  5

  Workington

  10

  Wye

  1

  Total

  158

  1 Some of these people are undertaking a very minimal amount of IT work.

  2 One of these posts is filled by a contractor.

  Water Pollution
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research has been conducted on measures to deal with diffuse water pollution; and when she expects to bring forward proposals for legislation. [150964]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 January 2004]The Government have funded programmes of research on the sources, transport and control of diffuse water pollution from agriculture over the last decade. The programmes cover nitrate, phosphorous, sediment/soil erosion, pathogens and the potential implications of control measures for different pollutants. The total annual budget (in 2003–04) is £3 million. The results of this research are available on the Defra website (www.defra.gov.uk/ science). The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) has also published related work in its report "The impacts of agricultural environmental management: case studies from theory to practice", which is available on the SEPA website (www.sepa.org.uk/publications/index.htm).
  769W
  This year we intend to publish for consultation detailed proposals for new powers to prevent and control diffuse pollution in England, as part of the action to implement the Water Framework Directive referred to in the "Third Consultation Paper on the Implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)", published in August 2003. The extent to which such new powers might need to be used in the future will depend on how far diffuse pollution can be controlled through other potential policy instruments, including voluntary action and economic instruments.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Gender Pay Gap
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for Women what steps she has taken to reduce the pay gap; and what evaluation she has made of the success of those steps. [152066]

  Ms Hewitt
  The pay gap is a complex issue and the Government have limited direct levers to reduce it. However, the Government have taken a number of steps to address the underlying causes including promoting pay reviews by providing business with the tools to undertake them, leading the way through Civil Service pay reviews, introducing the Equal Pay Questionnaire and increasing support for child care, flexible working and work-life balance.

  It is extremely difficult to measure the impact of Government policy on the gender pay gap. Latest figures show that the gender pay gap closed by 1 percentage point to 18 per cent. on the mean measure, and stands at 12.9 per cent. on the median measure.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for Women what assessment she has made of the implications of the gender pay gap for levels of female employment. [152067]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have not made any specific assessment of the implications of the gender pay gap for levels of female employment. The employment rate for women in the UK currently stands at 70 per cent., well above the EU average and above the Lisbon target for the female employment rate of 60 per cent.

  What research has shown is that higher levels of female employment tend to be associated with larger gender pay gaps. For example Eurostat figures show that the EU country with the lowest gender pay gap, Italy, also has one of the lowest female employment rates in the EU at just 42 per cent., nearly 30 percentage points below the UK's.

  Informed Choice/ Extending Working Lives Programme
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on the work of the(a) Informed Choice programme and the (b) Extending Working Lives programme. [150146]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written Ministerial Statement issued today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, at column 33WS.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Agricultural Research
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how, following the grant to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research in December 2003, he will ensure that there is parallel continuity for the bilateral centrally-funded research programmes upon which developing countries have been relying for capacity building and poverty-eradicating applied research; and whether he is providing bilateral funds for such strategic activity. [152719]

  Hilary Benn
  I was pleased to announce in December 2003 an additional £30 million over the next three years for the work of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. The UK is an active member of the Group and will continue to play a full part in its efforts to mobilise agricultural science to reduce poverty. This funding is additional to the bilateral research programme. I expect to maintain a strong bilateral programme into the future with a clear focus on the millennium development goals.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff in his Department have been(a) investigated, (b) suspended, (c) dismissed, (d) prosecuted and (e) convicted for involvement in benefit fraud in each of the last six years; and what the amounts involved were in each of the cases listed. [152424]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID does not hold a central record of the information requested. I can confirm, however, that the Department is not aware of any of its staff having been involved in benefit fraud in any way within the last six years.

  Direct Budget Support
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps his Department will take in relation to budget support to identify trends in where the Department's money is being spent. [152084]

  Hilary Benn
  By its nature general budget support cannot be explicitly tracked once it reaches the recipient country budget. Sector budget support can be clearly classified at the broad level, although how this is subsequently distributed between sub sectors is not always known. For example, we may not be able to say how much of our support to the education sector in a particular country is spent on basic education.

  However to inform our understanding of where DFID aid flows are being directed, we are developing a method whereby budget support will be notionally classified by extrapolation from the recipient country's own budget plans. So, for example, if the Government were planning to spend 30 per cent. of its budget1 on education, then 30 per cent. of our budget support to that country would be classified as expenditure on education. All reporting will state clearly that figures are based on notional allocations derived from budget plans and are therefore only indicative. Some data are already available along these lines.
  771W
  In the longer term we will seek to agree a standard methodology with other donor agencies facing similar problems.
  1The extrapolation would only reflect that part of the budget which was for developmental purposes.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of direct budget support in Uganda. [152086]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK's current budget support arrangement in Uganda began in 2000. Its purpose is to support continued growth and economic stability, to reduce inequality, and to improve the impact of public spending in sectors that are key to poverty reduction and growth.

  An internal Project Completion Report (PCR) of the arrangement was completed in September 2003. It concluded that our support had significantly achieved its purpose. The flexibility and predictability of our budget support, together with the role we play in policy dialogue and in providing technical assistance, were identified as important to this success. The strength of our partnerships with Government and also with other donors have also been crucial. Most macroeconomic targets have been met, and the share of Government spending on poverty programmes has increased significantly. The impact of this expenditure has been shown, for example, in growing primary education enrolment, and in important health indicators such as attendance at primary health care clinics. A recent `stocktaking' review of the World Bank's Poverty Reduction Support Credit (PRSC), to which DFID's budget support is linked, has also reported positively on the PRSC budget support instrument.

  DFID commissioned an independent evaluation study of direct budget support in 2002. The first phase of this study (December 2002) developed a framework for evaluation that could be applied widely, using Uganda as a particular example. It concluded that budget support had led to improvements in the efficiency of budget allocations, the effectiveness of state institutions, and the degree of public accountability. This work is being used as the basis of a more comprehensive joint donor evaluation of budget support that is now getting under way.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations he has received from the National Audit Office on financial controls on direct budget support. [152087]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID works closely with the National Audit Office (NAO) to improve the value for money of the work we do. DFID worked with the NAO to develop and implement our corporate fiduciary risk policy. This is central to the appraisal and management of the risks associated with providing direct budget support.

  The NAO recently undertook a review of the safeguards we have in place to prevent misappropriation and diversion of UK aid. This was an important opportunity to take a joint look at the full range of our
  772W
  financial controls, including how we manage the fiduciary risk of budget support. The review concluded that:
  "DFID's work is well-regarded by its partners who acknowledge the leading and proactive role that DFID plays in tackling corruption issues."

  It made a number of detailed recommendations which we have taken forward.

  We will continue to work with the NAO in this area to ensure that we are able to maximise the developmental benefits associated with budget support.

  North Korea
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the nature was of the £800,000 in bilateral aid from the UK to the People's Democratic Republic of Korea in 2001; and what the nature is of current UK bilateral aid to North Korea. [152404]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The £800,000 was humanitarian assistance that was channelled through the International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC) to support the health care system through the distribution of drugs and basic medical equipment. Also in 2001–02, we provided £1,200,000 to support UNICEF's primary health care programme and £75,000 to the IFRC for emergency assistance to flood victims. In 2002–03, we provided £200,000 to the IFRC for its flood prevention work.

  We have recently approved a grant of £1,023,000 to support UNICEF's work, in 2004, in primary health care, including improvements to the water and sanitation systems as well as essential medical supplies such as vaccinations.

  Renewables
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to maintain the UK's role in European Union research networks for renewable natural resources which are geared to helping developing countries to attain the Millennium Development Goals. [152539]

  Hilary Benn
  The principal network is the European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development which aims to improve the relevance and effectiveness of European investments in agricultural research to reduce poverty in developing countries. The initiative is recognised by the European Parliament and Council and implemented by a coordinating group of members of the European Commission, the member states of the European Union, Norway and Switzerland. The UK is an active participant in the initiative and in the co-ordinating group. An official from my Department is currently seconded to the initiative as its executive secretary.

  University Links
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many university links have been established by the higher education Link Scheme funded by his Department; and how the scheme is promoted in UK universities. [152082]
  773W
  Hilary Benn
  It is estimated that some 3,200 Links between higher education institutions in the UK and in 45 developing countries have been supported by the scheme since its establishment in 1981. The British Council manages and promotes the scheme. Higher education institutions in developing countries submit applications for Links funding to the Council (which will help identify suitable UK partners if the applicant requests this).

  The current Links Scheme is due to end in March 2006 and no new applications for funding can be accepted. However DFID is currently considering the report of a review of the scheme and possible future options for higher education partnerships. A decision on the outcome of that review is expected shortly.

  Zimbabwe
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which non-governmental organisations active in Zimbabwe are receiving funding from his Department. [152514]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID directly funds a large number of international and Zimbabwean NGOs as part of its humanitarian support for food aid, agricultural recovery and HIV/AIDS. We support numerous NGOs indirectly through the funds we provide to UN agencies operating in Zimbabwe, such as World Food Programme (WFP), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Through our membership of the European Union (EU), the UK is also a significant contributor to NGO programmes through the EU's ECHO and Euronaid humanitarian programmes in Zimbabwe.

  DFID's main international NGO partners for relief and recovery in Zimbabwe are CAFOD, Christian Aid, Save the Children (UK), Oxfam, John Snow International, HELP (Germany), CARE international and Catholic Relief Service. Our major Zimbabwean NGO partners are FOSENET (a consortia of Zimbabwean NGOs), Farm Community Trust Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwe Red Cross.

  Our HIV/AIDS programme in Zimbabwe includes support for HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives implemented by local faith-based organisations, through Population Services International, and home-based care groups through John Snow International (UK).

WALES

  Dee Cockle Regulation Order
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to hasten the implementation of the Dee Cockle Regulation Order. [150041]

  Mr. Touhig
  I understand that both the Welsh Assembly and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have responded swiftly and positively to requests for assistance in this matter from the Environment Agency Wales and stand ready to do so again if required.
  774W
  When the Environment Agency Wales submit a formal application for a Regulation Order, the Government will act as quickly as possible.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the visits he has made to armed forces' bases in Wales since October 2002. [151739]

  Mr. Hain
  I recently met Brigadier Iain Cholerton, Commander 160 (Wales) Brigade and will shortly be visiting a Territorial Army training operation at Maindy Barracks in Cardiff.

  National Assembly Powers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the First Minister of the National Assembly to discuss(a) the Richard Commission in general, (b) the Labour Party's evidence to the Commission and (c) any differences between the Labour Party's Assembly Group's evidence and the evidence given by some Welsh Labour hon. Members. [150056]

  Mr. Hain
  I meet the First Minister on a weekly basis and we discuss a wide range of issues including the Richard Commission. The Labour Party's position vis-à-vis the Commission is a matter for the party.

  Wales Office
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the transfer of money for 2003–04 to the Department for Constitutional Affairs in respect of the Wales Office. [152245]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 27 November 2003,Official Report, columns 1–2WS, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's written statement on 11 November 2003, Official Report, column 17WS.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Agency Workers
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the provisions relating to statutory sick pay, contained in the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 apply to agency workers. [151838]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 repealed a provision that prevented workers with contracts of three months or less from being entitled to SSP. Therefore all workers including agency workers may be entitled to SSP from day one, if they are treated as employees for National Insurance Contribution purposes.

  Agricultural Labour
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many successful prosecutions have been brought under the Employment Agencies
  775W
  Act 1973 against (a) employment agencies and (b) gangmasters supplying labour to the UK's agricultural industry. [152098]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The total number of successful prosecutions undertaken by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 is as follows:

  Prosecutions

  1977

  1

  1978

  12

  1979

  15

  1980

  8

  1981

  7

  1982

  5

  1983

  5

  1984

  0

  1985

  2

  1986

  3

  1987

  1

  1988

  0

  1989

  0

  1990

  0

  1991

  0

  1992 (to 31March 1992)

  0

  1992–93

  3

  1993–94

  7

  1994–95

  3

  1995–96

  3

  1996–97

  11

  1997–98

  14

  1998–99

  3

  1999–2000

  3

  2000–01

  2

  2001–02

  8

  2002–03

  8

  Data broken down by sector of the private recruitment industry are not available. However, a gangmaster was prosecuted in 1994–95.

  Computers (Tax Exemption)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action has been taken and how much has been spent by the Government on promoting the annual tax exemption on loaned computers since it was introduced in 1999. [152064]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The exemption was set out in Budget and other published material when it was introduced in 1999, and it now features in publicly available Inland Revenue guidance on employment expenses and benefits.

  The exemption has recently received a major promotional boost with the launch, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 19 January, of guidelines on Home Computing Initiatives. The Government have spent £370,000 on the production, promotion and distribution of these guidelines. Industry partners have also pledged significant funds and resources to promote the guidelines and HCI schemes more broadly.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the(a) resource and (b) capital budget for her Department for each year between 1997 and 2007. [151800]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 January 2004]These are listed on pages 190 and 194 of "Central Government Supply Estimates 2003–04 Supplementary Budgetary Information" (Cm 5797, May 2003), where a breakdown is available. Figures are shown from 1998–99 (the first year for which resource information was produced) to 2005–06 (the final year of the current Spending Review period). The summary figures are:

  £000

  Resource budget

  Capital budget

  1998–99

  3,107,878

  18,303

  1999–2000

  4,547,569

  -8,205

  2000–01

  6,579,561

  37,860

  2001–02

  6,595,438

  88,840

  2002–03

  7,652,813

  376,308

  2003–04

  4,918,551

  1,196,194

  2004–05

  5,260,042

  164,000

  2005–06

  5,738,519

  101,000

  Employment Rights (Information)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether her Department has made an analysis of the impact of withdrawing paper copies of its leaflets on employment rights on the availability of free-of-charge, printed information at public libraries; [149488]

  (2) whether her Department has made an analysis of the impact of withdrawing paper copies of its leaflets on employment rights on voluntary sector organisations providing free advice to the public in this area. [149489]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Yes. Last year the Department consulted leading customers to find out how our information on employment rights could be better focussed on users' needs. As part of this review, an assessment was made of the impact of withdrawing employment rights booklets, using information provided by the Department's distribution service. Public libraries did not appear as regular customers of the distribution service.

  The review concluded that Acas and other organisations who provide advice to employers and employees are generally better able to provide user-focussed advice, based on factual advice supplied by the Department. Acas recently produced a series of booklets summarising individual rights. These can be obtained free-of-charge from the Acas distribution centre on 08702 429090.

  Although voluntary sector organisations have been major users of the Department's employment rights booklets, I consider that Acas is generally better able to provide advice which meets the needs of these organisations.
  777W
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the impact of withdrawing paper copies of its leaflets on employment rights on sections of the public who have difficulties either accessing or using the internet. [149561]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his Question No. 149488, at column 776W.

  The Department has put in place special arrangements to supply our employment rights booklets on request where individuals are unable to access or use the internet.

  Fisheries (Compensation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she intends to publish the list of additional middle water vessels to be added to the list of vessels eligible for Icelandic fishermen's compensation claims; what period will be allowed for appeals; and when she plans to begin processing claims. [151978]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 30 January 2004]I expect to publish a list of additional vessels on 2 February 2004. There will then be a period of three weeks for trawlermen or their representatives to appeal in respect of vessels not accepted on the list. Work on processing claims will begin immediately—there is no need for claimants to submit new applications.

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what surveys between employers and employees were carried out before the legislation on flexible working was implemented; and what comparative surveys have been carried out since the legislation has been implemented. [151830]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Between December 2002 and April 2003, fieldwork was carried out for two DTI Work-Life Balance studies. Data were collected from employers and employees to provide a baseline for future evaluation of the availability and take-up of flexible working. Details of the results can be found at: www.dti.gov.uk/er/emar To provide a direct comparison over time, it is planned that both surveys will be repeated in 2006.

  The Department has subsequently commissioned questions on flexible working for an Office for National Statistics Omnibus survey. Results will become available in spring 2004.

  The Department is also working with key intermediaries, such as Working Families and Maternity Alliance, to gather qualitative evidence through member/supporter surveys. Additionally, in September
  778W
  2003, the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development and Lovells conducted a survey of employers on the use of the flexible working law in the first six months after its implementation.

  Data collected will form the evidence base for a review of the legislation which the Government have said will commence in 2006.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) children and (b) elderly people are living in fuel poor households in (i) the East Midlands and (b) West Derbyshire. [150922]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Fuel poverty defined as occurring when a household needs to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income (including housing benefit and income support for mortgage interest) on all fuels in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime.

  The available information from the English House Condition Survey indicates that in 2001 there were 160,000 fuel poor households in the East Midlands Government Office region. (The current published official estimates of fuel poverty are extrapolated from a sample survey of 17,500 dwellings).

  More detailed breakdowns within the East Midlands Government Office region are not available from this survey as the sample size is not large enough to enable reliable detailed estimates of fuel poverty at a more local level to be produced.

  In England in 2001 under this definition there were 1.7 million households in fuel poverty. Of these, 210,000 contained children. 904,000 contained one or more persons aged 60 or more. The Government's estimates are available at:www.dti.gov.uk/energy/consumers/ fuel_poverty/index.shtml

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to maintain the nuclear skills base. [152042]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have been assisting in the establishment of a Sector Skills Council to represent the needs of the nuclear industry. Cogent Sector Skills Council is expected to be licensed shortly and will take a strategic view of the nuclear sector to ensure that the education and training base can meet nuclear employer's current and future needs.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will conduct a public consultation on nuclear power. [152043]

  Ms Hewitt
  No. The Government consulted fully on energy policy, including nuclear, for the Energy White Paper published in February 2003. The White Paper clearly states that before any decision to proceed with the building of new nuclear power stations, there would need to be the fullest public consultation and the publication of a white paper setting out the Government's proposals.

  Post Office
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what discussions she has had with Postcomm about the access charges to be charged by Royal Mail to private mail companies using parts of their network; [146125]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the (a) revenue and (b) profit that will be generated by the access charges to be charged by Royal Mail to private mail companies using parts of their network. [146126]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has a regular dialogue with Postcomm on a wide range of postal issues concerning the postal market. However, decisions on access pricing are a matter for the companies concerned and for the regulator.

  Estimating the revenue and profit generated by Royal Mail through access charges charged to private mail companies using part of their network is a commercial matter for the Board of the company.

  Research and Development Tax Credits
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what mechanisms are in place to assess the development of new products, services and processes which arise as a result of research and development tax credits; and what assessment has been made using these mechanisms. [152061]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 19 January 2004, Official Report, column 1044W.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of completed projects failed to meet their required performance targets in each of the regional development agencies in each of the last five years. [152062]

  Jacqui Smith
  Each RDA is involved in a huge number of projects at any one time and many as a co-funder with local and regional partners. Output targets are set for each project but this information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Smart Award
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the take-up rates have been for the New Elements of the Smart scheme in each quarter since their inception in 1999. [152057]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The figures in the following tables show the number of applications received and offers made under the Smart scheme from 1 March 1999. The new elements introduced under Smart in 1999 were Micro Projects, Technology Reviews and Technology Studies. Micro projects were launched in August 1999 and Reviews and Studies in October 1999.

  The Feasibility, Development and Micro elements of Smart closed to applications on 31 August 2003. The Reviews and Studies element closed to applications on 31 May 2003.
  780W

  1999–2000

  Q1 April to June

  Q2 July to September

  Q3 October to December

  Q4 January to March

  Total

  Feasibility

  Application

  61

  81

  75

  57

  274

  Offer

  33

  58

  97

  63

  251

  Development

  Application

  41

  37

  41

  43

  162

  Offer

  18

  49

  39

  26

  132

  Micro

  Application

  0

  0

  9

  26

  35

  Offer

  0

  0

  2

  11

  13

  Reviews

  Application

  0

  0

  2

  4

  6

  Offer

  0

  0

  0

  6

  6

  Studies

  Application

  0

  0

  3

  1

  4

  Offer

  0

  0

  0

  4

  4

  2000–01

  Q1 April to June

  Q2 July to September

  Q3 October to December

  Q4 January to March

  Total

  Feasibility

  Application

  64

  78

  87

  111

  340

  Offer

  61

  43

  66

  67

  237

  Development

  Application

  63

  52

  43

  65

  223

  Offer

  43

  32

  46

  31

  152

  Micro

  Application

  40

  53

  40

  50

  183

  Offer

  23

  24

  39

  19

  105

  Reviews

  Application

  5

  16

  12

  31

  64

  Offer

  4

  13

  11

  27

  55

  Studies

  Application

  3

  6

  12

  12

  33

  Offer

  4

  13

  11

  27

  55

  Studies

  Application

  3

  6

  12

  12

  33

  Offer

  3

  5

  10

  11

  29

  2001–02

  Q1 April to June

  Q2 July to September

  Q3 October to December

  Q4 January to March

  Total

  Feasibility

  Application

  95

  102

  118

  118

  433

  Offer

  66

  83

  81

  82

  312

  Development

  Application

  45

  51

  55

  64

  215

  Offer

  36

  38

  30

  41

  145

  Micro

  Application

  50

  50

  49

  53

  202

  Offer

  21

  21

  26

  38

  106

  Reviews

  Application

  38

  44

  72

  62

  216

  Offer

  35

  35

  62

  46

  178

  Studies

  Application

  12

  12

  20

  24

  68

  Offer

  7

  9

  8

  12

  36

  2002–03

  Q1 April to June

  Q2 July to September

  Q3 October to December

  Q4 January to March

  Total

  Feasibility

  Application

  132

  219

  198

  180

  729

  Offer

  107

  102

  139

  150

  498

  Development

  Application

  71

  101

  90

  69

  331

  Offer

  51

  59

  67

  60

  237

  Micro

  Application

  28

  56

  63

  48

  195

  Offer

  18

  36

  40

  40

  134

  781W

  2002–03

  Q1 April to June

  Q2 July to September

  Q3.October to December

  Q4 January to March

  Total

  Reviews

  Application

  73

  74

  53

  43

  243

  Offer

  56

  65

  52

  44

  217

  Studies

  Application

  16

  22

  9

  12

  58

  Offer

  13

  20

  10

  13

  56

  2003–04

  Q1 April to June

  Q2 July to September

  Q3 October to December

  Total

  Feasibility

  Application

  192

  166

  0

  358

  Offer

  158

  115

  73

  346

  Development

  Application

  79

  29

  0

  108

  Offer

  50

  34

  29

  113

  Micro

  Application

  43

  19

  0

  62

  Offer

  24

  17

  9

  50

  Reviews

  Application

  106

  0

  0

  106

  Offer

  93

  0

  0

  93

  Studies

  Application

  17

  0

  0

  17

  Offer

  16

  0

  0

  16

  Wage Levels (Catering, Tourism and Leisure industries)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of low pay levels in the(a) catering, (b) tourism and (c) leisure sectors; and if she will make a statement. [150976]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  According to the April 2003 grossed New Earnings Survey the bottom decile hourly earnings of employees in(a) the catering sector (SIC code 55.5) was £4.23 (b) tourism related industries (SIC codes 55.1, 55.2, 55.3, 55.4, 63.3., 92.5, 92.6, 92.7) was £4.20 and for (c) sports and leisure assistants (SOC 2000 code 6211) was £4.20. This compares to the bottom decile hourly earnings of £4.67 for all employees in the UK. The adult and youth rates of the National Minimum Wage at the time were £4.20 and £3.60 respectively.

  The vast majority of employers in the UK are complying with the National Minimum Wage but we will continue to take enforcement action where necessary to tackle the minority of bad employers.

  Trade Barriers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it is her objective to achieve a total elimination of all tariff barriers by all World Trade Organisation members. [149146]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The chances of a total elimination of all Tariff barriers by all members of the World Trade Organisation are remote. Our aim is to reduce barriers as much as reasonably possible. A number of studies have concluded that the elimination of tariffs and other trade barriers would bring major benefits. In recent years, studies by Michigan University and the World 782W
  Bank suggest that the elimination of tariffs and other trade barriers in industry and agriculture could boost global incomes by between ․450 billion and ․830 billion per annum over the longer term. From time-to-time for short periods tariffs or safeguards may have merit but our broad approach is to press for the elimination of as many tariffs as possible.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate the greater use of interim orders for anti-social behaviour; and what discussions he has had with the(a) police and (b) Crown Prosecution Service on this issue. [151779]

  Ms Blears
  Interim Anti-Social Behaviour Orders were introduced in December 2002 under the Police Reform Act 2002 to prohibit anti-social behaviour at the start of the court process pending the outcome of the full application. Relevant authorities, that is, the police, local authorities, registered social landlords and housing action trusts can apply for interim orders in the civil magistrates and county courts. Feedback from these agencies is that they find interim orders to be a quick and effective tool in protecting people from anti social behaviour.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the details held on an asylum seeker include the region of the country from which they arise. [148021]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information about the region of the country from which an asylum seeker has arrived or originated may be obtained as part of the asylum screening process or during the investigation into their claim. Any such information will normally be recorded on an individual asylum seeker's Home Office case file.

  McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance will be given to failed asylum-seeking families who cannot be returned to their country of origin because there are no removal agreements or removal arrangements have been suspended. [151444]

  Beverley Hughes
  Support will not be withdrawn from failed asylum-seeking families if they are taking reasonable steps to leave the United Kingdom voluntarily or placing themselves in a position in which they are able to leave voluntarily. Instances where there are no removal agreements or that removal agreements have been suspended, this factor will be taken into account but will not necessarily be the determining factor.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff in his Department have been(a) investigated, (b) suspended, (c) dismissed, (d) prosecuted and (e) convicted for involvement in

  783W
  benefit fraud in each of the last six years; and what the amounts involved were in each of the cases listed. [151649]

  Cases of benefit fraud

  Department

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Home Office

  Investigated

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1—

  1—

  n/a

  Suspended

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1—

  n/a

  1—

  Dismissed

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1—

  1—

  Prosecuted

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Convicted

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1—

  1—

  Amount housing benefit (£)

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  19,000

  Amount council tax benefit (£)

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  2,000

  UK Passport Agency

  Investigated

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1—

  Suspended

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1—

  Dismissed

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Prosecuted

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  n/a

  Convicted

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Amount housing benefit (£)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,947.89

  Amount council tax benefit (£)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  482.18

  n/a—indicates that no comprehensive figures available.

  1The process from investigation to conviction does not necessarily span only one year. E.g. suspended 2001, convicted 2002 and dismissed 2003.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to encourage(a) clubs and (b) pubs to ensure that their bouncers undergo professional training. 151983]

  Ms Blears
  From 1 March this year, the Security Industry Authority (SIA) will roll out a mandatory national licensing scheme for door supervisors ('bouncers'). Licensing will commence in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and then roll out on a geographical basis across England and Wales. On current plans, door supervisors in the Midlands must obtain an SIA licence by 18 October 2004.

  To qualify for a door supervisor licence, applicants will be required to pass three checks. The first will be an identity check, the second a criminal record check, and the third a check on professional competence to do the job. Professional competence will be demonstrated by successfully completing a training course provided by a training provider accredited by an SIA approved awarding body. Details of the licensing criteria for door supervisors will shortly be posted on the SIA's website www.the-sia.org.uk.

  Burglaries
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many burglaries were committed in the last 12 months for which figures are available, broken down by police force area; and in how many of those cases convictions were obtained for(a) custodial and (b) non-custodial sentence, broken down by police force area. [150723]

  Ms Blears
  Information on recorded burglaries in 2002–03, and sentencing statistics for 2002, are given in the tables.

  Total recorded burglary comprises the offences of burglary in a dwelling, and burglary in a building other than a dwelling.
  784W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  The figures so far as information is. available in the form requested are as follows.

  Number of persons sentenced for burglary1 at all courts and those sentenced to a custodial and non-custodial sentence, by police force area—England and Wales 2002

  Sentence breakdown

  Police force area

  Total sentenced

  Sentenced to a custodial sentence2

  Sentenced to a non custodial sentence

  Cleveland

  677

  377

  300

  Durham

  432

  217

  215

  Northumbria

  927

  389

  538

  North East Region

  2.036

  983

  1,053

  Cheshire

  500

  288

  212

  Cumbria

  253

  120

  133

  Greater Manchester

  1,614

  816

  798

  Lancashire

  1,223

  610

  613

  Merseyside

  650

  358

  292

  North West Region

  4,240

  2,192

  2,048

  Humberside

  579

  318

  261

  North Yorkshire

  300

  162

  138

  South Yorkshire

  937

  523

  414

  West Yorkshire

  1,598

  873

  725

  Yorkshire and the Humber Region

  3,414

  1,876

  1,538

  Derbyshire

  533

  290

  243

  Leicestershire

  458

  212

  246

  Lincolnshire

  323

  137

  186

  Northamptonshire

  237

  122

  115

  Nottinghamshire

  747

  356

  391

  East Midlands Region

  2,298

  1,117

  1,181

  Staffordshire

  534

  301

  233

  Warwickshire

  187

  95

  92

  West Mercia

  494

  246

  248

  West Midlands

  1,862

  1,039

  823

  West Midlands Region

  3,077

  1,681

  1,396

  Bedfordshire

  224

  131

  93

  Cambridgeshire

  335

  174

  161

  Essex

  434

  230

  204

  Hertfordshire

  314

  145

  169

  Norfolk

  261

  109

  152

  Suffolk

  235

  89

  146

  East of England Region

  1,803

  878

  925

  London. City of

  27

  14

  13

  Metropolitan police

  3,234

  1,776

  1,458

  London Region

  3,261

  1,790

  1,471

  785W

  Number of persons sentenced for burglar at all courts and those sentenced to a custodial and non-custodial sentence, by police force area—England and Wales 2002

  Sentence breakdown

  Police force area

  Total sentenced

  Sentenced to a custodial sentence2

  Sentenced to a non custodial sentence

  Hampshire

  776

  310

  466

  Kent

  489

  220

  269

  Surrey

  191

  88

  103

  Sussex

  402

  214

  188

  Thames Valley

  744

  360

  384

  South-East Region

  2,602

  1,192

  1,410

  Avon and Somerset

  695

  379

  316

  Devon and Cornwall

  526

  188

  338

  Dorset

  244

  131

  113

  Gloucestershire

  247

  93

  154

  Wiltshire

  233

  92

  141

  South-West Region

  1,945

  883

  1,062

  Dyfed Powys

  214

  77

  137

  Gwent

  384

  146

  238

  North Wales

  317

  147

  170

  South Wales

  785

  388

  397

  Wales

  1,700

  758

  942

  England and Wales

  26,376

  13,350

  13,026

  1These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2Detention and training order, detention in a young offender institution, detention under secs 91/92 of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 and unsuspended imprisonment.

  Source:

  Offending and Criminal Justice Group.

  Recorded offences of burglary by police force area and region 2002

  Police force area

  All burglary offences recorded

  Cleveland

  14,856

  Durham

  7,656

  Northumbria

  22,704

  North East Region

  45,216

  Cheshire

  14,194

  Cumbria

  4,898

  Greater Manchester

  75,367

  Lancashire

  20,487

  Merseyside

  25,956

  North West Region

  140,902

  Humberside

  27,127

  North Yorkshire

  11,595

  South Yorkshire

  34,468

  West Yorkshire

  69,807

  Yorkshire and the Humber Region

  142,997

  Derbyshire

  18,465

  Leicestershire

  12,832

  Lincolnshire

  10,831

  Northamptonshire

  11,381

  Nottinghamshire

  33,190

  East Midlands Region

  86,699

  Staffordshire

  15,172

  Warwickshire

  7,437

  West Mercia

  16,375

  West Midlands

  56,531

  West Midlands Region

  95,515

  Bedfordshire

  8,336

  Cambridgeshire

  12,775

  Essex

  16,909

  Hertfordshire

  11,713

  786W

  Recorded offences of burglary by police force area and region 2002—03

  Police force area

  All burglary offences recorded

  Norfolk

  9,681

  Suffolk

  6,248

  East of England Region

  65,662

  London, City of

  444

  Metropolitan police

  113,427

  London Region

  113,871

  Hampshire

  18,217

  Kent

  18,371

  Surrey

  9,727

  Sussex

  17,321

  Thames Valley

  29,432

  South East Region

  93,068

  Avon and Somerset

  30,182

  Devon and Cornwall

  15,700

  Dorset

  7,355

  Gloucestershire

  8,694

  Wiltshire

  6,242

  South West Region

  68,173

  Dyfed Powys

  2,104

  Gwent

  7,586

  North Wales

  8,543

  South Wales

  18,615

  Wales

  36,848

  England and Wales

  888,951

  Notes:

  1. All burglary comprises burglary in a dwelling, and burglary in a building other than a dwelling.

  2. Total numbers of recorded crimes will be affected by changes in recording as a result of the implementation of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) across England and Wales on 1 April 2002. This impact will vary for different types of offences, with the impact for domestic burglary being an increase of 3 per cent. in the number of crimes recorded due to the NCRS.

  Community Support Officers
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many community support officers are employed by each police authority. [151866]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 2 February 2004]The table gives a breakdown of the number of Community Support Officers (CSOS) employed by each police authority.

  CSOs recruited to the end of January 2004

  Authority5

  Total CSOs recruited

  Avon and Somerset

  46

  Bedfordshire

  8

  Cambridgeshire

  59

  Cheshire

  33

  Cleveland

  80

  Devon and Cornwall

  55

  Dorset

  7

  Durham

  27

  Dyfed-Powys

  5

  Essex

  77

  Gloucestershire

  60

  Greater Manchester

  160

  Gwent

  50

  787W

  CSOs recruited to the end of January 2004

  Authority

  Total CSOs recruited

  Hertfordshire

  30

  Kent

  58

  Lancashire

  111

  Leicestershire

  44

  Lincolnshire

  44

  Merseyside

  78

  Metropolitan Police

  1,372

  Norfolk

  34

  Northamptonshire

  12

  North Wales

  8

  North Yorkshire

  37

  Northumbria

  45

  Nottinghamshire

  43

  South Wales

  63

  South Yorkshire

  42

  Staffordshire

  5

  Suffolk

  12

  Surrey

  64

  Sussex

  72

  Thames Valley

  6

  Warwickshire

  28

  West Mercia

  55

  West Midlands

  59

  West Yorkshire

  206

  Wiltshire

  24

  Total

  3,219

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Spelthorne of 10 November 2003, about a constituent, Mr. J. A. Hernandez. [149030]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]I wrote to the hon. Member on 29 January 2004.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 8 December 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Dr. Louis Sterling; [149550]

  (2) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 8 December 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Dr. Louis Sterling. [151232]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 28 January 2004.

  Corruption Offences (Legal Assistance)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests for mutual legal assistance his Department has received for corruption offences since November 1997; from which countries these requests came; when they were received; and how long it took for his Department to process each request. [151316]

  Caroline Flint
  The United Kingdom is committed to assist its international partners in the fight against corruption and has recently signed the UN Convention 788W
  Against Corruption. The UK Central Authority (UKCA) in the Home Office has processed a number of such cases during the period in question. However, the more detailed statistics sought by the hon. Member are not available as UKCA does not currently collate them in a manner that can produce data according to offence type.

  Crime Statistics
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect on total recorded crime of changes in recording practice since 1997—98. [150185]

  Ms Blears
  There have been two major changes to recording practices which have affected total recorded crime since 1997-98. In April 1998, the Home Office Counting Rules were substantially revised and in April 2002 the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) was adopted nationally in England and Wales. These changes were introduced to promote greater consistency between police forces in the recording of crime, to take a more victim-oriented approach to crime recording and to improve the overall quality of statistics on recorded crime.

  It is estimated that the changes to the Home Office Counting Rules introduced in April 1998 had the effect of increasing total recorded crime by 14 per cent. and the introduction of the NCRS is estimated to have increased total recorded crime by 10 per cent. in 2002—03.

  Further details on these changes to recording practices and their effects on recorded crime statistics can be found in "Recorded Crime Statistics England and Wales, April 1998 to March 1999" and "Crime in England and Wales 2002—03". copies of which are available in the Library. A more detailed account of the impact of NCRS is given in "National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS): An Analysis of the Impact on Recorded Crime. Companion Volume to Crime in England and Wales 2002—03", which is available on the Home Office website.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects measures introduced by the Department to result in a reduction of recorded crime. [150186]

  Ms Blears
  The latest published data, covering the period July to September 2003, show that total recorded crime is stable compared to the same period 12 months previously. This includes falls in robbery (2 per cent.), domestic burglary (3 per cent.), other burglary (8 per cent.), and thefts of and from vehicles (8 per cent.).

  Recorded crime is not the best indicator of long-term trends in crime because it is sensitive to changes in police recording practices and public reporting to the police. However, the British Crime Survey, which is not affected by these factors and which covers unreported

  789W
  and unrecorded crime as well as crimes reported to the police, shows that crime has fallen by 25 per cent. since 1997, with a further I per cent. fall in the 12 months to September 2003 compared to the year ending September 2002.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why statistics on crime in Wales are not separated from statistics for England. [150463]

  Ms Blears
  Statistics on crime in Wales are published separately in a number of publications. For example, the "Digest of Welsh Statistics 2003", published by the National Assembly for Wales, contains a chapter on crime and justice statistics. This can be found on the Welsh Assembly website at http: //www.wales.gov.uk/ keypubstatisticsforwales/content/publication.htm. A range of other statistics are available through the Welsh Assembly website at http: //www.wales.gov.uk/ keypubstatisticsforwales/topicindex/topics.htm under "Crime".

  The Home Office Statistical Bulletin 7/03, "Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003" includes breakdowns of statistics for Wales, and for police forces within Wales, along with equivalent figures for English regions. These statistics include the number of recorded offences broken down by offence group, with offences per 1,000 population given for these figures. Victimisation rates are also given, as well as overall detection rates over time for Wales, methods of detection in 2002—03, and rates of detection for each main offence group in 2002—03. There are also breakdowns of violent crime offences, burglary and vehicle crime offences by police force area. In the internet publication, a separate chapter contains a summary for Wales of the main findings from crime statistics and British Crime Survey and this is available at http: //www.homeoffice.gov.ukirds/pdfs2/wales.pdf.

  Supplementary Volume 2 to "Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003", which deals with public attitudes to crime, disorder and the criminal justice system, was published on 22 January. It includes figures for Wales, as well as English regions, concerning confidence in the criminal justice system, confidence in the police, perceptions of crime, and worry about crime.

  Police Service (Essex)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time police officers were employed in Southend in each of the last 10 years. [152201]

  Ms Blears
  The deployment of officers to basic command units and to other specialist units in Essex police is an operational matter for the Chief Constable (Mr. David Stevens QPM).

  Information on police officer numbers for each Basic Command Units is only available for March 2002 and 2003 and is set out in the table.
  790W

  Southend basic command unit

  Basic command unit strength

  31 March 2002 1267

  1267

  31 March 2003 2273

  2273

  Source:

  1.HM Inspectorate of Constabulary Annual Statistical Return for March 200

  2.Research, Development and Statistical Directorate (RDS).Details for BCU strength in Essex police can be found on the RDS pages of the Home Office website.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to increase the establishment of the Essex Constabulary.[152154]

  Ms Blears
  It is for the Chief Constable (Mr. David Stevens QPM), in consultation with the Essex Police Authority, to determine police officer numbers subject to the budget set by his authority.

  At the end of August 2003 Essex Police had record strength of 3,063, which is 102 more officers than in March 1997. I understand that Essex Police expect strength to he 3,081 by March this year. In addition Essex Police plan to have 55 Community Support Officers by 31 March 2004.

  We have supported increases in police strength through the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF). Essex Police was allocated 197 CFF recruits over the three years to March 2003 fully funded by the Home Office. Continuation funding will continue for these posts. In addition Essex was allocated a further 10 CFF posts for 2003–04 funded at the rate of 75 per cent. For 2004–05 it is proposed that funding for these posts will be at the rate of 60 per cent.

  Police staff make an important contribution to policing of Essex as many have been used to free police officers for operational duties. Between March 1997 and March 2003 police staff strength in Essex increased by 483 to 1,682.

  Criminal Records Checks
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what unplanned expenditure has been incurred in each financial year by(a) his Department and (b) the Criminal Records Bureau since the commencement of the Criminal Records Project. [141822]

  Ms Blears
  The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) is an executive agency of the Home Office. The CRB's Corporate and Business Plans for 2000–07 projected planned expenditure of £167.7 million up to 30 September 2003. Actual expenditure for the period was £123.9 million. In addition. £1.26 million was spent in the first financial year of the project, financial year 1999-2000. Planned and actual expenditure can be broken down by financial year as follows.
  791W

  £million

  Financial year

  Gross spend

  Planned Fee income

  Operating deficit

  Gross spend

  Actual Fee income

  Operating deficit

  1999–2000

  1.20

  0.00

  (1.20)

  1.26

  0.00

  (0.06)

  2000–01

  5.30

  0.00

  (5.30)

  4.60

  0.00

  (4.60)

  Percentage

  36.80

  3.30

  (33.50)

  27.60

  1.50

  (26.10)

  2002–03

  83.30

  63.20

  (20.10)

  57.90

  18.30

  (39.60)

  ¾(to 30 September 2003)

  42.30

  38.60

  (3.70)

  33.80

  17.10

  (16.70)

  Total

  168.90

  105.10

  (63.80)

  125.16

  36.90

  (87.06)

  The Home Office and other departments have contributed towards meeting deficits.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the Criminal Records Bureau is meeting its targets for processing applications for taxi driver licences; [148481]

  (2) what percentage of applications for taxi driver licences were processed by the Criminal Records Bureau within target times in the latest month for which figures are available; [148482]

  (3) how many applications for taxi driver licences are (a) awaiting processing and (b) being processed by the Criminal Records Bureau. [148483]

  Ms Blears
  I am unable to answer my hon. Friend's question about the percentage of applications for taxi-driver licences processed by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) within target times because the CRB does not hold information in that format. However, overall, the CRB has been consistently meeting its targets for processing Disclosure applications since June 2003. The following table illustrates the current position.

  Service performance

  December

  Year to date

  90 per cent, of Standard Disclosures issued within two weeks

  Exceeded

  93 per cent.

  90 per cent, of Enhanced Disclosures issued within four weeks

  Exceeded

  92.9 per cent.

  90 per cent, of calls answered within 20 seconds

  Exceeded

  89.6 per cent.

  5 per cent, of applications over six weeks old

  Exceeded

  n/a

  To the CRB, applications awaiting processing are those where an applicant has asked for a form to be sent out and the form has not been returned to the CRB. Applications being processed are those that have been fully and correctly completed by the customer and returned to the CRB. No disclosure applications for taxi drivers or anyone else are withheld from going on to the CRB computer system; all are immediately processed upon receipt.

  European Arrest Warrant
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many EU member states have adopted the recent proposals for a European Arrest Warrant; and how many have indicated that they will adopt it in due course. [150661]

  Caroline Flint
  Eight EU member states are now operating the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). They are Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Portugal, Spain. Sweden and the United Kingdom.
  792W
  The remaining member states are in the process of implementing the EAW into their domestic legislation.

  Extraditions
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what records are kept on extraditions to EU countries from the UK. [150791]

  Caroline Flint
  Since the commencement of the Extradition Act 2003 on 1 January 2004, the National Criminal Intelligence Service has maintained an electronic record of extradition requests to the UK from those EU countries which have implemented the European Arrest Warrant, while the Home Office has maintained an electronic record of extradition requests from other EU countries. Prior to 1 January this year, the Home Office maintained an electronic record of such requests from all EU countries going back to 1997; and there are earlier paper records.

  Home Office Challenge Fund
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which local initiatives have benefited from the Home Office Challenge Fund; and how much each local initiative has received. [150191]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  In 2003–04 almost £2 million will have been allocated to 43 projects, both new recipients and existing ones, throughout the United Kingdom. These projects cover a range of innovative local schemes to help refugees play a full and active role in their new communities, for example through assisting access to the job market, acquisition of employable skills, English language tuition, and supporting families through education and training.

  More information on all the selected projects is available on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate Home Office website.

  List of organisations awarded grants from the 2003–04 challenge fund

  £

  East of England

  Employability Forum

  28,650

  East of England Consortium

  47,300

  London

  East London Somali Association

  43,585

  Evelyn Oldfield Unit

  31,500

  Refugees Into Jobs

  93,297

  Prisoners of Conscience Appeal Fund

  40,000

  Common Purpose

  32,000

  Ethiopian Community Centre in the UK

  27,917

  South London Tamil Welfare Group

  25,750

  Praxis

  71,496

  793W

  List of organisations awarded grants from the 2003–challenge fund

  £

  Hackney Playbus

  13,390

  RETAS

  73,812

  The Presswise Trust

  90,640

  FOREF (Friends of Refugees Forum)

  12,950

  Sierra Leone Refugee

  Welfare Association

  21,750

  Holy Cross Centre Trust

  31,500

  Council for Assisting Refugee

  Academics

  30,000

  North East

  Newcastle City Council

  31,800

  Mental Health Matters

  62,000

  Stockton District Advice and Information Service

  12,588

  North West

  North West Consortium

  63,189

  Toxteth Community College

  44,954

  Liverpool Family Service Unit

  64,714

  North West Consortium

  14,041

  British Red Cross (running two projects)

  88,000

  Scotland

  Scottish Refugee Council

  19,489

  Prince's Trust

  44,800

  Glasgow ESOL Forum

  35,506

  South East

  Care co-operatives

  19,570

  Thanet Early Years Project

  14,404

  Kent Refugee Action Network

  39,140

  Community Self Build Agency

  33,000

  South West

  Women's Business Development Agency

  50,000

  Wales

  Cardiff City Council

  51,272

  SOVA

  78,093

  West Midlands

  Roselodge—CIP

  116,000

  Wolverhampton Refugee Settlement and Integration

  67,364

  Midland Refugee Council

  56,650

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Refugee Lifeline

  40,000

  Yemeni Economic and Training

  50,000

  CALTEC

  41,541

  Yorkshire and Humberside Consortium

  46,014

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Home Office Challenge Fund will continue indefinitely; what funding will be made available in each of the next five years; and what criteria are used in allocating funding from the Challenge Fund. [150192]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Challenge Fund was introduced in 2001 to support local projects helping those who have fled persecution and been granted asylum in the UK to integrate into their new communities. Initially a three-year scheme, the Home Office announced in December 2003 that it planned to continue the Challenge Fund for the foreseeable future.

  The availability and amount of funding over the next five years is dependent on future Spending Reviews and on evidence of how beneficial the funding stream has
  794W
  been to support the integration of refugees. It is currently expected that £3 million will be made available for both 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  When allocating funding, consideration is given to the relevance of the project to the Home Office integration strategy, outlined in "Full and Equal Citizens", to its cost-effectiveness, and to the expertise and reliability of the applicant and any partner, organisations; applications must, of course, be focused on refugees and those granted Humanitarian or Discretionary Leave. Projects are subjected to a programme of monitoring and evaluation in order to identify those projects that are most effective in helping to integrate refugees.

  Illegal Entrants (London Airports)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal entrants have been detected at(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick, (c) Stansted, (d) Luton and (e) City airport in each of the last six years. [148439]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]The number of people against whom illegal entry action was initiated in each of the last six years for which information is available is shown in the table. Information on the ports at which these persons were detected is unavailable and would be available by examination of individual case-files only at disproportionate cost.

  Persons against whom illegal entry action was initiated 1997 to 2002

  Number of persons

  1997

  14,390

  1998

  16,500

  1999

  21,165

  2000

  47,325

  2001

  69,875

  20021

  48,050

  1Provisional figures.

  Illegal entry action is initiated against those people who are detected entering the country clandestinely or by means of deception, either verbal or documentary.

  This information and other statistics on the immigration and asylum system are published annually in the Command publication "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom" a copy of which is in the House Library and can be found on the Home Office website: http: //www.homeoffice.gov.u1c/rds/immigrationl.html

  information Technology
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what audit mechanisms are in place to determine whether information technology(a) hardware and (b) software products are being used properly in his Department. [150932]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office (core directorates including the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND)) has outsourced support for most of its IT infrastructures, including desktop computers, to three companies:Sirius (Fujitsu Services with IBM and Global Crossing) covering the core office and some IND locations (the 'POISE' infrastructure);

  795W
  Siemens covering caseworking for IND; and
  Steria covering the Probation Service areas.

  Home Office contracts provide for the audit of supplier service provision including licence provision. Asset registers are maintained for the major infrastructures. The Home Office allows its staff and people working on behalf of the Department reasonable personal use of its IT equipment. Usage is monitored in accordance with the Information Commissioner's Code of Practice: Monitoring at Work. The Department's notices: 'Non-official use of Home Office telephones and computer facilities', 'Use of POISE and the Internet including non-official purposes' and 'Warning to Staff: Misuse and Abuse of IT' set out Departmental policy to staff. Misuse of hardware and/or software assets may lead to disciplinary measures including dismissal.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what cost savings have been made in his Department since the introduction of the Information Technology Procurement Centre of Excellence; and how these were calculated. [151048]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  A Centre of Excellence was established within the Home Office in June 2003 to integrate the essential functions which underpin the successful delivery of all types of acquisition based programmes and projects. As cost benefits will not accrue until improvements start to take effect, it is too early to measure cost savings. All centres of excellence are currently developing future plans and as part of this process measurement of savings will be defined.

  Knives
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring forward proposals to differentiate between kitchen knives and combat knives in legislation. [150954]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]None. Current legislation recognises that all knives have potential to cause injury and, in general, does not

  Number of constables abstracted for Counter Terrorism (Ceremonial, Royal visits and security Events) from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  Barking and Dagenham

  2

  32

  154

  361

  194

  166

  109

  Barnet

  4

  94

  205

  457

  221

  290

  126

  Belgravia

  0

  90

  144

  260

  145

  122

  76

  Bexley

  0

  53

  128

  361

  129

  167

  86

  Brent

  1

  176

  55

  339

  265

  283

  148

  Bromley

  0

  86

  185

  544

  210

  247

  100

  Camden

  4

  159

  243

  534

  423

  339

  103

  Charing Cross

  8

  123

  124

  198

  128

  102

  116

  Croydon

  0

  108

  185

  553

  316

  360

  89

  Ealing

  0

  218

  184

  456

  166

  323

  103

  Enfield

  2

  82

  201

  472

  168

  257

  43

  Greenwich

  0

  80

  223

  567

  404

  340

  198

  Hackney

  0

  89

  109

  326

  307

  332

  53

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  111

  41

  230

  56

  81

  73

  Haringey

  2

  89

  69

  241

  249

  346

  76

  Harrow

  0

  95

  121

  276

  62

  153

  86

  Havering

  2

  35

  164

  377

  235

  205

  70

  Hillingdon

  0

  255

  190

  500

  237

  257

  25

  Hounslow

  0

  232

  156

  503

  90

  255

  108

  Islington

  6

  108

  184

  404

  201

  310

  110

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  141

  186

  415

  313

  284

  104

  Kingston

  0

  71

  105

  239

  214

  130

  23

  Lambeth

  13

  280

  188

  780

  504

  372

  186

  796W
  distinguish between kitchen knives and combat knives. Under the Knives Act 1997, it is an offence to market a knife which indicates that it is suitable for combat or is likely to encourage violent behaviour.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what efforts are being made to ensure that children under the age of 16 do not(a) buy and (b) carry knives. [150956]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]Section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it an offence to sell a knife or other article with blade or point to persons under 16 years of age. Under Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 it is an offence of having an article with a blade or point in a public place without good reason or lawful excuse. An exemption applies to folding pocket knives with a blade of less than three inches. The Government supports operations by the Police and Trading Standards Officers to enforce this legislation.

  Metropolitan Police
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the rate of Metropolitan police officer abstractions was from each London borough for(a) counter-terrorism, (b) special operations and (c) public order event policing work in each of the last 12 months; what the average was for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [151075]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]The numbers of Metropolitan police officer abstractions from each London borough for counter-terrorism, public order and other event policing work during the last 12 months and average abstractions for each borough for the last three years are shown in the following tables. These statistics are taken from data stored within the Public Order Strategic Management Information System held by the Metropolitan Police.

  Information on abstraction by borough prior to 2001 is not available.
  797W

  Number of constables abstracted for Counter Terrorism (Ceremonial, Royal visits and security Events) from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  Lewisham

  0

  88

  182

  436

  191

  302

  83

  Marylebone

  0

  89

  101

  240

  65

  140

  104

  Merton

  0

  77

  119

  259

  99

  47

  33

  Newham

  8

  60

  473

  921

  154

  178

  140

  Paddington

  0

  83

  107

  187

  70

  51

  79

  Redbridge

  6

  76

  68

  288

  153

  183

  98

  Richmond

  1

  109

  118

  242

  88

  130

  71

  Southwark

  0

  247

  143

  654

  442

  371

  145

  Sutton and Epsom

  0

  97

  105

  323

  225

  103

  86

  Tower Hamlets

  4

  78

  370

  583

  319

  371

  123

  Waltham Forest

  0

  84

  209

  438

  257

  231

  62

  Wandsworth

  0

  192

  189

  427

  268

  232

  59

  West End Central

  0

  110

  162

  185

  284

  173

  82

  Total

  63

  4,197

  5,890

  14,576

  7,852

  8,233

  3,375

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Total

  Barking and Dagenham

  1

  231

  18

  150

  22

  1,440

  Barnet

  14

  273

  35

  333

  45

  2,097

  Belgravia

  14

  196

  62

  209

  25

  1,343

  Bexley

  0

  151

  1

  169

  12

  1,257

  Brent

  37

  338

  19

  335

  51

  2,047

  Bromley

  2

  209

  6

  273

  21

  1,883

  Camden

  12

  234

  55

  587

  49

  2,742

  Charing Cross

  84

  432

  42

  328

  47

  1,732

  Croydon

  14

  187

  6

  299

  3

  2,120

  Ealing

  30

  274

  19

  350

  26

  2,149

  Enfield

  8

  290

  100

  292

  18

  1,933

  Greenwich

  1

  373

  7

  289

  14

  2,496

  Hackney

  17

  400

  25

  456

  66

  2,179

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  7

  370

  3

  306

  2

  1,280

  Haringey

  7

  427

  46

  337

  19

  1,908

  Harrow

  15

  167

  12

  149

  8

  1,144

  Havering

  0

  216

  25

  189

  12

  1,530

  Hillingdon

  65

  192

  0

  210

  43

  1,974

  Hounslow

  42

  159

  5

  266

  25

  1,841

  Islington

  0

  346

  19

  401

  58

  2,147

  Kensington and Chelsea

  36

  385

  12

  424

  7

  2,307

  Kingston

  35

  71

  2

  146

  1

  1,037

  Lambeth

  48

  416

  57

  547

  45

  3,436

  Lewisham

  15

  387

  8

  405

  9

  2,106

  Marylebone

  14

  188

  15

  262

  37

  1,255

  Merton

  7

  83

  6

  169

  3

  902

  Newham

  39

  468

  23

  361

  23

  2,848

  Paddington

  13

  271

  23

  321

  64

  1,269

  Redbridge

  15

  267

  38

  245

  20

  1,457

  Richmond

  22

  136

  2

  162

  0

  1,081

  Southwark

  50

  484

  21

  527

  36

  3,120

  Sutton and Epsom

  14

  80

  4

  141

  2

  1,180

  Tower Hamlets

  28

  437

  61

  475

  65

  2,914

  Waltham Forest

  21

  273

  38

  269

  22

  1,904

  Wandsworth

  21

  293

  5

  344

  25

  2,055

  West End Central

  7

  254

  47

  290

  43

  1,637

  Total

  755

  9,958

  867

  11,016

  968

  67,750

  Number of constables abstracted for Public Order (includes Public Order, Football and other sporting events) from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  Barking and Dagenham

  189

  102

  189

  105

  99

  85

  61

  Barnet

  190

  149

  261

  129

  172

  64

  221

  Belgravia

  82

  31

  97

  96

  47

  75

  53

  Bexley

  94

  64

  158

  99

  47

  46

  35

  Brent

  129

  78

  226

  382

  310

  122

  198

  Bromley

  132

  88

  171

  150

  80

  57

  95

  Camden

  197

  140

  322

  225

  295

  156

  162

  Charing Cross

  162

  198

  155

  138

  115

  96

  89

  Croydon

  123

  158

  353

  316

  135

  67

  113

  Ealing

  221

  133

  '44

  205

  187

  166

  131

  Enfield

  217

  116

  165

  148

  89

  59

  341

  798W 799W

  Number of constables abstracted for Public Order (includes Public Order, Football and other sporting events) from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  Greenwich

  267

  127

  243

  261

  174

  89

  140

  Hackney

  285

  88

  248

  425

  152

  340

  144

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  243

  289

  352

  478

  163

  129

  156

  Haringey

  182

  151

  200

  481

  137

  269

  319

  Harrow

  142

  81

  163

  114

  142

  55

  66

  Havering

  92

  87

  200

  118

  147

  36

  43

  Hillingdon

  131

  75

  235

  111

  116

  36

  105

  Hounslow

  165

  110

  325

  212

  120

  74

  84

  Islington

  303

  168

  343

  217

  307

  122

  168

  Kensington and Chelsea

  127

  92

  121

  172

  77

  110

  161

  Kingston

  58

  71

  139

  78

  76

  81

  104

  Lambeth

  258

  212

  423

  546

  222

  230

  131

  Lewisham

  201

  169

  298

  203

  121

  96

  173

  Marylebone

  94

  43

  176

  117

  205

  112

  132

  Merton

  106

  76

  140

  113

  109

  286

  231

  Newham

  273

  283

  248

  263

  180

  78

  127

  Paddington

  54

  32

  108

  76

  54

  90

  66

  Redbridge

  194

  91

  185

  156

  120

  116

  157

  Richmond

  78

  117

  168

  124

  133

  66

  38

  Southwark

  221

  142

  311

  471

  191

  173

  153

  Sutton and Epsom

  76

  33

  141

  90

  56

  101

  49

  Tower Hamlets

  255

  370

  204

  134

  142

  29

  126

  Waltham Forest

  241

  166

  219

  189

  207

  196

  44

  Wandsworth

  148

  117

  257

  184

  108

  142

  160

  West End Central

  123

  73

  172

  111

  45

  70

  107

  Total

  6,053

  4,520

  7,960

  7,437

  5,080

  4,119

  4,683

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Total

  Barking and Dagenham

  178

  33

  118

  56

  139

  1,354

  Barnet

  262

  103

  143

  91

  179

  1,964

  Belgravia

  156

  37

  62

  29

  28

  793

  Bexley

  129

  46

  82

  45

  118

  963

  Brent

  409

  248

  106

  174

  311

  2,693

  Bromley

  206

  78

  111

  50

  127

  1,345

  Camden

  476

  361

  181

  89

  365

  2,969

  Charing Cross

  164

  92

  75

  2

  137

  1,423

  Croydon

  419

  136

  171

  76

  253

  2,320

  Ealing

  406

  99

  106

  292

  164

  2,354

  Enfield

  343

  130

  68

  68

  285

  2,029

  Greenwich

  279

  83

  70

  85

  82

  1,900

  Hackney

  360

  174

  54

  77

  489

  2,836

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  389

  196

  236

  242

  292

  3,165

  Haringey

  463

  253

  266

  162

  448

  3,331

  Harrow

  93

  106

  91

  87

  179

  1,319

  Havering

  210

  35

  63

  73

  166

  1,270

  Hillingdon

  251

  69

  79

  93

  196

  1,497

  Hounslow

  239

  103

  140

  108

  191

  1,871

  Islington

  406

  237

  169

  182

  357

  2,979

  Kensington and Chelsea

  384

  71

  174

  44

  141

  1,674

  Kingston

  144

  69

  68

  34

  123

  1,045

  Lambeth

  481

  321

  221

  135

  264

  3,444

  Lewisham

  496

  190

  220

  124

  261

  2,552

  Marylebone

  323

  32

  40

  54

  83

  1,411

  Merton

  252

  36

  61

  34

  109

  1,553

  Newham

  510

  176

  176

  141

  228

  2,683

  Paddington

  235

  53

  94

  64

  112

  1,038

  Redbridge

  390

  86

  78

  147

  136

  1,856

  Richmond

  103

  101

  50

  29

  133

  1,140

  Southwark

  428

  201

  199

  77

  243

  2,810

  Sutton and Epsom

  131

  33

  74

  20

  72

  876

  Tower Hamlets

  301

  154

  60

  94

  226

  2,095

  Waltham Forest

  318

  105

  88

  95

  216

  2,084

  Wandsworth

  314

  77

  161

  70

  218

  1,956

  West End Central

  170

  52

  96

  70

  86

  1,175

  Total

  10,818

  4,376

  4,251

  3,313

  7,157

  69,767

  800W 801W

  Number of constables abstracted for 'Other' events (other than Football, Sport, Public Order, Ceremonial, Royal Visit or Security) from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  Barking and Dagenham

  34

  48

  21

  27

  22

  24

  182

  Barnet

  26

  39

  16

  46

  22

  28

  82

  Belgravia

  12

  6

  1

  17

  11

  24

  43

  Bexley

  28

  25

  21

  20

  10

  11

  42

  Brent

  54

  38

  25

  43

  34

  43

  49

  Bromley

  40

  10

  21

  13

  54

  63

  122

  Camden

  43

  22

  4

  6

  19

  10

  144

  Charing Cross

  65

  20

  11

  20

  22

  11

  17

  Croydon

  27

  20

  23

  20

  37

  25

  79

  Ealing

  40

  171

  97

  157

  55

  49

  84

  Enfield

  42

  36

  21

  21

  23

  23

  90

  Greenwich

  82

  24

  28

  41

  30

  12

  80

  Hackney

  56

  40

  25

  21

  64

  42

  138

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  25

  7

  2

  0

  18

  9

  9

  Haringey

  71

  31

  57

  19

  60

  60

  95

  Harrow

  36

  21

  16

  37

  3

  23

  4

  Havering

  39

  36

  10

  26

  9

  44

  90

  Hillingdon

  47

  31

  26

  28

  4

  7

  43

  Hounslow

  26

  44

  33

  20

  24

  28

  83

  Islington

  16

  9

  1

  18

  4

  21

  96

  Kensington and Chelsea

  20

  27

  8

  20

  66

  30

  73

  Kingston

  10

  1

  30

  8

  25

  6

  28

  Lambeth

  62

  26

  21

  29

  62

  61

  254

  Lewisham

  87

  31

  21

  20

  35

  24

  187

  Marylebone

  3

  27

  1

  0

  3

  1

  34

  Merton

  26

  8

  21

  17

  3

  8

  43

  Newham

  36

  49

  40

  89

  40

  26

  86'

  Paddington

  18

  10

  16

  21

  2

  24

  34

  Redbridge

  24

  33

  32

  29

  14

  37

  85

  Richmond

  10

  10

  70

  10

  21

  39

  21

  Southwark

  42

  30

  21

  20

  107

  48

  204

  Sutton and Epsom

  18

  23

  23

  20

  23

  18

  45

  Tower Hamlets

  48

  491

  126

  29

  42

  71

  202

  Waltham Forest

  122

  35

  28

  28

  21

  45

  106

  Wandsworth

  28

  26

  49

  20

  24

  28

  65

  West End Central

  5

  7

  16

  0

  10

  24

  79

  Total

  1,368

  1,512

  982

  960

  1,023

  1,047

  3,118

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Total

  Barking and Dagenham

  46

  19

  9

  22

  17

  471

  Barnet

  67

  30

  52

  63

  32

  503

  Belgravia

  22

  28

  38

  86

  31

  319

  Bexley

  28

  38

  89

  121

  71

  504

  Brent

  56

  46

  196

  48

  22

  654

  Bromley

  31

  38

  108

  129

  88

  717

  Camden

  54

  26

  23

  76

  30

  457

  Charing Cross

  23

  54

  185

  138

  62

  628

  Croydon

  28

  45

  90

  124

  84

  602

  Ealing

  108

  54

  108

  51

  33

  1,007

  Enfield

  55

  43

  32

  50

  25

  461

  Greenwich

  183

  37

  119

  99

  84

  819

  Hackney

  121

  40

  40

  139

  43

  769

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  17

  21

  34

  77

  27

  246

  Haringey

  46

  30

  32

  92

  15

  608

  Harrow

  70

  17

  17

  23

  36

  303

  Havering

  66

  32

  13

  18

  7

  390

  Hillingdon

  14

  11

  29

  4

  12

  256

  Hounslow

  55

  27

  39

  71

  28

  478

  Islington

  48

  17

  226

  55

  34

  545

  Kensington and Chelsea

  36

  56

  65

  257

  172

  830

  Kingston

  18

  20

  15

  26

  23

  210

  Lambeth

  97

  71

  99

  238

  155

  1,175

  Lewisham

  69

  55

  117

  229

  98

  973

  Marylebone

  13

  49

  68

  112

  31

  342

  Merton

  25

  18

  107

  153

  84

  513

  Newham

  123

  50

  116

  153

  101

  909

  Paddington

  26

  25

  33

  58

  1

  268

  Redbridge

  61

  34

  33

  30

  13

  425

  Richmond

  55

  14

  22

  43

  22

  337

  802W 803W

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Total

  Southwark

  176

  53

  118

  240

  117

  1,176

  Sutton and Epsom

  21

  25

  65

  94

  67

  442

  Tower Hamlets

  82

  45

  120

  163

  97

  1,516

  Waltham Forest

  91

  51

  39

  57

  31

  654

  Wandsworth

  44

  60

  105

  179

  85

  713

  West End Central

  38

  50

  75

  106

  62

  472

  Total

  2,113

  1,329

  2,676

  3,624

  1,940

  21,692

  Average monthly number of constables abstracted by borough

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Counter Terrorism

  Public Order

  Other

  Counter Terrorism

  Public Order

  Other

  Counter Terrorism

  Public Order

  Other

  Barking and Dagenham

  65

  50

  149

  30

  77

  35

  120

  113

  39

  Barnet

  81

  120

  165

  58

  109

  75

  175

  164

  42

  Belgravia

  103

  66

  42

  45

  52

  22

  112

  66

  27

  Bexley

  51

  69

  154

  35

  63

  68

  105

  80

  42

  Brent

  124

  144

  59

  82

  153

  84

  171

  224

  54

  Bromley

  76

  82

  171

  50

  92

  59

  157

  112

  60

  Camden

  138

  173

  118

  88

  184

  62

  228

  247

  38

  Charing Cross

  108

  105

  79

  64

  98

  38

  144

  119

  52

  Croydon

  89

  145

  169

  67

  208

  62

  177

  193

  50

  Baling

  103

  157

  160

  61

  185

  69

  179

  196

  84

  Enfield

  132

  135

  80

  45

  158

  60

  161

  169

  38

  Greenwich

  14

  147

  123

  66

  150

  68

  208

  158

  68

  Hackney

  130

  142

  208

  76

  180

  92

  182

  236

  64

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  65

  244

  103

  42

  293

  29

  107

  264

  20

  Haringey

  99

  194

  85

  47

  230

  80

  159

  278

  51

  Harrow

  84

  87

  66

  28

  63

  28

  95

  110

  25

  Havering

  91

  80

  69

  35

  77

  41

  127

  106

  32

  Hillingdon

  86

  95

  94

  48

  120

  41

  164

  125

  21

  Hounslow

  70

  123

  108

  43

  137

  41

  153

  156

  40

  Islington

  106

  212

  79

  62

  232

  44

  179

  248

  45

  Kensington and Chelsea

  129

  145

  85

  55

  170

  55

  192

  139

  69

  Kingston

  65

  68

  67

  29

  70

  32

  86

  87

  17

  Lambeth

  166

  215

  197

  94

  268

  84

  286

  287

  98

  Lewisham

  104

  184

  170

  75

  189

  67

  175

  213

  81

  Marylebone

  105

  88

  56

  34

  74

  15

  105

  118

  28

  Merton

  47

  84

  142

  25

  87

  26

  75

  129

  43

  Newham

  153

  134

  184

  70

  164

  92

  237

  224

  76

  Paddington

  76

  85

  54

  76

  74

  11

  106

  86

  22

  Redbridge

  91

  93

  110

  41

  107

  50

  121

  155

  35

  Richmond

  63

  66

  69

  28

  79

  21

  90

  95

  28

  Southwark

  151

  168

  192

  102

  204

  70

  260

  234

  98

  Sutton and Epsom

  38

  50

  140

  29

  53

  21

  98

  73

  37

  Tower Hamlets

  95

  126

  129

  75

  167

  81

  243

  175

  126

  Waltham Forest

  123

  128

  78

  44

  128

  63

  159

  174

  54

  Wandsworth

  74

  133

  192

  52

  155

  82

  171

  163

  59

  West End Central

  102

  92

  39

  47

  71

  14

  136

  98

  39

  Source:

  P.O.S.M.I.S.

  National Criminal Intelligence Service
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many allegations of corruption received by the National Criminal Intelligence Service have resulted in NCIS reporting these allegations to authorities in a foreign jurisdiction. [151381]

  Caroline Flint
  There are currently nine entries on the Register of reported allegations. On one occasion National Criminal Intelligence Service has, on behalf of a UK police force, made an enquiry in a foreign jurisdiction relating to one of these allegations.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the National Criminal Intelligence Service(a) has provided and (b) is intending to produce a problem profile of the offence of bribery of a foreign public official. [151382]
  804W
  Caroline Flint
  The National Criminal Intelligence Service has not provided a problem profile on the specific subject of bribery of foreign public officials, although the issue of corruption is discussed in a number of the wider assessments. There are no current plans for a specific assessment on this topic.

  Police (North Wales)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last received a report on policing in North Wales from the Chief Constable of North Wales police. [150468]

  Ms Blears
  The Chief Constable of North Wales incorporated his annual report for 2002–03 into the North Wales police "Policing Our Communities 2003–2004" publication which was sent to my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary in July 2003. This document can be found at www.north-wales.police.uk.
  805W

  Police (Cumbria)
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Cumbria Police's local policing teams initiative. [151876]

  Ms Blears
  In February 2003, the Chief Constable of Cumbria, Michael Baxter, introduced, with the agreement of the police authority, a four-year programme to establish local policing teams in response to demand from the local community. Early signs are encouraging. Those community constables already in place are providing reassurance to the public and helping to develop longer-term strategies to improve people's quality of life in Cumbria.

  Police (Early Retirement)
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of police officers in each police force has been given early retirement in each of the last four years. [151601]

  Ms Blears
  Figures relating to the number of police ill-health retirements in forces between 1999–2000 and 2002–03 are given in the table. For greater consistency police ill-health retirements are now measured in terms of the number of retirements per 1,000 force strength.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Force

  Police Medical retirements

  Medical retirements per 1,000 officers

  Police Medical retirements

  Medical retirements per 1,000 officers

  Avon and Somerset

  40

  13.6

  42

  14.0

  Bedfordshire

  18

  17.5

  18

  17.4

  Cambridgeshire

  10

  8.1

  11

  8.5

  Cheshire

  17

  8.5

  22

  10.9

  City of London

  11

  14.9

  9

  12.6

  Cleveland

  15

  10.6

  9

  6.3

  Cumbria

  20

  18.5

  24

  22.9

  Derbyshire

  12

  6.8

  12

  6.6

  Devon and Cornwall

  20

  7.0

  15

  5.0

  Dorset

  10

  10

  7.7

  12

  8.9

  Durham

  8

  5.1

  8

  5.0

  Dyfed-Powys

  12

  11.5

  14

  13.2

  Essex

  51

  18.2

  34

  11.6

  Gloucestershire

  8

  7.2

  7

  6.0

  Greater Manchester

  132

  19.4

  110

  16.0

  Gwent

  25

  19.8

  16

  12.6

  Hampshire

  20

  5.8

  17

  4.9

  Hertfordshire

  10

  5.7

  13

  6.8

  Humberside

  11

  5.9

  20

  10.5

  Kent

  18

  5.6

  29

  8.7

  Lancashire

  17

  5.3

  30

  9.2

  Leicestershire

  22

  11.0

  28

  13.6

  Lincolnshire

  10

  9.0

  4

  3.3

  Merseyside

  45

  11.0

  47

  11.5

  Metropolitan Police

  289

  11.4

  225

  9.0

  Norfolk

  12

  8.7

  10

  7.0

  Northamptonshire

  5

  4.5

  8

  6.9

  Northumbria

  43

  11.4

  28

  7.3

  North Wales

  15

  10.8

  31

  21.5

  North Yorkshire

  25

  19.5

  37

  28.2

  Nottinghamshire

  21

  9.4

  16

  7.0

  South Wales

  52

  17.6

  76

  24.4

  South Yorkshire

  24

  7.6

  30

  9.4

  Staffordshire

  3

  1.4

  9

  4.2

  Suffolk

  15

  13.1

  14

  12.4

  Surrey

  14

  7.8

  18

  8.7

  Sussex

  16

  5.7

  16

  5.6

  Thames Valley

  19

  5.1

  20

  5.4

  Warwickshire

  9

  10.0

  15

  16.2

  West Mercia

  27

  14.3

  28

  14.4

  West Midlands

  28

  3.9

  29

  3.9

  West Yorkshire

  45

  9.3

  44

  9.1

  Wiltshire

  8

  7.2

  5

  4.5

  Total

  1,232

  10.1

  1,209

  9.8

  806W

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Force

  Police medical retirements

  Medical retirements per 1,000 officers

  Police medical retirements

  Medical retirements per 1,000 officers

  Avon and Somerset

  42

  13.6

  34

  10.8

  Bedfordshire

  8

  7.5

  7

  6.3

  Cambridgeshire

  10

  7.0

  8

  5.8

  Cheshire

  22

  10.7

  25

  11.9

  City of London

  8

  10.0

  4

  4.9

  Cleveland

  21

  14.4

  11

  7.6

  Cumbria

  7

  6.4

  7

  6.1

  Derbyshire

  9

  4.9

  12

  6.0

  Devon and Cornwall

  19

  6.1

  9

  2.9

  Dorset

  10

  7.0

  3

  2.1

  Durham

  15

  9.2

  11

  6.9

  Dyfed-Powys

  13

  11.5

  11

  9.5

  Essex

  32

  10.8

  21

  7.1

  Gloucestershire

  10

  8.5

  13

  10.5

  Greater Manchester

  57

  7.8

  33

  4.5

  Gwent

  24

  18.0

  22

  16.3

  Hampshire

  19

  5.3

  11

  3.0

  Hertfordshire

  8

  4.1

  7

  3.4

  Humberside

  11

  5.4

  10

  4.7

  Kent

  38

  11.3

  21

  6.0

  Lancashire

  39

  11.8

  22

  6.4

  Leicestershire

  7

  3.4

  9

  4.2

  Lincolnshire

  3

  2.5

  10

  8.1

  Merseyside

  58

  14.1

  51

  12.4

  Metropolitan Police

  219

  8.4

  150

  5.3

  Norfolk

  16

  10.9

  13

  8.6

  Northamptonshire

  6

  4.9

  3

  2.5

  Northumbria

  33

  8.4

  21

  5.2

  North Wales

  20

  13.3

  14

  9.0

  North Yorkshire

  16

  11.4

  9

  6.2

  Nottinghamshire

  14

  6.0

  16

  6.3

  South Wales

  50

  15.8

  33

  10.1

  South Yorkshire

  30

  9.4

  17

  5.3

  Staffordshire

  24

  11.3

  22

  9.7

  Suffolk

  13

  10.8

  12

  9.8

  Surrey

  24

  11.9

  12

  6.2

  Sussex

  16

  5.5

  9

  3.0

  Thames Valley

  17

  4.4

  29

  7.4

  Warwickshire

  7

  7.2

  8

  8.0

  West Mercia

  28

  13.9

  20

  8.8

  West Midlands

  30

  4.0

  21

  2.7

  West Yorkshire

  61

  12.5

  23

  4.0

  Wiltshire

  3

  2.6

  15

  12.8

  Total

  1,114

  8.8

  821

  62

  Police Patrols
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued in relation to(a) police officers and (b) community support officers patrolling in groups of two or more; and if he will place copies in the Library. [151415]

  Ms Blears
  Issues relating to patrol, whether carried out by officers or Community Support Officers are operational matters and as such the responsibility of Chief Officers.

  I understand that the Assistant Chief Police Officers are considering the issue of advice to Chief Officers on risk assessment in relation to patrol.

  Police Pensions
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many former police officers are receiving pensions from each police force; and what the annual cost will be in 2003–04. [151602]

  Ms Blears
  Specific information relating to each police force about the number of former police officers with pensions is not held centrally. The total number of
  807W
  police pensions in payment (including ill-health retirees and dependants) at 1 April 2003 was 106,739. The most recent estimate is that about three-quarters of these pensions in payment will be to former officers. The estimated total number of police pensions in payment at 31 March 2004 is 109,502.

  The annual cost of police pensions in 2003–04 has not yet been determined. However, in total, forces in England and Wales estimate that their police pension bill for 2003–04 will be £1,234,675,000. As stated in the National Policing Plan 2002, we are exploring the options for a revised system of funding which would bring greater clarity about pensions obligations on individual police authorities.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent on each phase of the "Could You?" police recruitment campaign to date; and how many officers have been recruited as a direct result. [151417]

  Ms Blears
  The first phase of the Police "Could You?" recruitment campaign ran for three years from 2000 to March 2003 and cost just under £16 million. This was the first national police recruitment campaign and it was launched against a background of police numbers which had been steadily falling for years. The campaign was executed on TV, cinema, press, radio and on-line. We cannot say how many police officers were recruited as a direct result of the campaign. While advertising is an important factor in encouraging potential applicants to apply, it is not the only factor. However, we know that interest in the police service rose during and after the campaign and the numbers of police recruits went up after a prolonged period of decline. Three years later we now have record numbers of police officers.

  The current recruitment campaign will run from November 2003 to March 2004. The campaign is targeted at women and minority ethnic people who are currently under-represented in the police service. It is also aimed at increasing the number of Special Constables. The campaign will cost just under £5.8 million in total. It includes TV, radio and press advertising and on-line advertising. It also includes production of a recruitment brochure and a recruitment video, PR support for four pilot forces, enhancement of the police recruitment website, and call handling facilities.

  It will not be possible to say how many people were recruited as a direct result of the campaign. However, we will be tracking the level of interest in the police service generated by the campaign through the website and call centre. We will also be tracking the visibility of our advertisements, public perception of them, and attitudes towards the attractiveness of a police career through regular surveys.

  Police Reform
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the results of the consultation exercise on police reform launched on 4 November 2003 will be available. [150184]
  808W
  Ms Blears
  The results of the initial consultation exercise on police reform will be made available as soon as possible after the end of the consultation period on 27 January 2004. However, consultation on police reform will be an on-going process and will continue beyond this date. The responses received will be used to develop the reform agenda and we will consult on more detailed options for reform later in 2004.

  Rural Policing
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what areas in Lancashire meet the requirement for the Rural Policing Fund. [151268]

  Ms Blears
  The Rural Policing Fund is allocated to police authorities on the basis of population and a measure of sparsity of population. The sparsity measure is calculated at Census enumeration district level, aggregated for the whole authority area. The police authority area as a whole rather than particular parts, qualifies for allocation from the Fund.

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces have dedicated anti-paedophile units; and how many officers are working in those units. [151420]

  Paul Goggins
  Every chief officer of police has dedicated staff and resources to tackling sexual offending against children and child pornography. Separate anti-paedophile units are one way for police forces to organise operations against those who sexually abuse children. However, in some forces officers work within different structures, such as child protection teams, intelligence units or public protection units. Information on the approach adopted by each police force is not held centrally.

  In all cases, forces will be supported by the specialised teams working on this issue in the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. There is no central record held of the numbers of officers currently engaged in work on the specific issue of child sexual abuse.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources have been made available to police forces to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of offenders under section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. [151421]

  Paul Goggins
  The investigation and prosecution of offenders under section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act will be undertaken within existing resources. Whilst the offence is designed to allow earlier intervention than is possible under the current law, that is, before a child is sexually abused, the investigation of grooming of children for sexual motives is not a new area of responsibility for the police.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people employed in his Department have claimed statutory sick pay for(a) less

  809W
  than one week, (b) one to three weeks, (c) four to six weeks, (d) seven to 12 weeks, (e) 13 to 20 weeks and (f) 21 to 28 weeks in each year since 1997. [148623]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Please see the figures given in the following table, which relate to staff in central Home Office plus Immigration and Nationality Directorate

  Staff total for 1 April at end of financial year1

  Tax year

  Less than 5 days

  5 to 15 days

  16 to 30 days

  31 to 60 days

  61 to 100 days

  More than 101 days

  Total cases

  Staff totals

  Cases of sickness divided by staff levels

  1997 to 1998

  1,101

  639

  235

  172

  75

  71

  2,293

  8,070

  3.52

  1998 to 1999

  1,199

  772

  259

  199

  82

  71

  2,582

  7,710

  2.99

  1999 to 2000

  1,380

  858

  299

  177

  96

  112

  2,922

  9,270

  3.17

  2000 to 2001

  1,643

  1,069

  365

  220

  110

  159

  3,566

  13,020

  3.65

  2001 to 2002

  1,763

  1,147

  416

  295

  143

  196

  3,960

  13,550

  3.42

  2002 to 2003

  2,063

  1,310

  501

  376

  198

  211

  4,659

  16,157

  3.47

  2003 to January 2004

  1,827

  1,094

  379

  325

  185

  147

  3,957

  17,968

  —

  1FTE of permanent staff, core Home Office including IND but not Prison Service or agencies.

  Source:

  Civil Service statistics for staff totals up to year 2002; after that, provisional figures taken from Home Office PIMMS staff database.

  Victim Support (Data Protection)
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department has issued to chief constables in England regarding the disclosure of names and contact details of victims of crime to victim support charities following recent data protection legislation. [150997]

  Ms Blears
  Guidance regarding the arrangements for referring the contact details of victims of crime to Victim Support by police forces was issued in Home Office Circular 44/2001 of 3 October 2001. This guidance was developed following extensive consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers, Victim Support and the Information Commissioner. It takes into account the requirements of the data protection legislation.

  Violent Crime (West Mercia)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many violent crimes against people were committed in each year since 1997 in West Mercia. [151360]

  Ms Blears
  The available information is given in the following table.

  Numbers of violent crimes1 recorded by West Mercia police

  Offences recorded

  19972

  4,213

  1998–993

  7,964

  1999–2000

  9,157

  2000–01

  8,765

  2001–024

  18,440

  2002–03

  21,499

  1 In accordance with Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded crime, violent crime comprises offences of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery.

  2 Crimes were recorded on a calendar year basis until 1997, and on a financial year basis thereafter.

  3 The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the expanded offence coverage and revised counting rules which came into effect on 1 April 1998.

  4 West Mercia Police implemented the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) on 1 April 2001, which was a year earlier than the official introduction across England and

  810W
  and cover approximately 20,000 staff. The details have been broken down by tax year (6 April to 5 April) with the exception of the current tax year, for which data has been supplied up to 31 January 2004. The Home Office pays Statutory Sick Pay over five days, Monday to Friday. A week has therefore been classed as five days.

  Wales on 1 April 2002. Broadly, the NCRS had the effect of increasing the number of crimes recorded by the police, with violent crime in particular being affected. Therefore, following the introduction of the Standard, numbers of recorded crimes are not comparable with previous years.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC Charter
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the budget is for implementing the young people's version of the BBC Charter Review consultation; and if she will make a statement. [152396]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 2 February 2004]There is no separate budget for consultation of children and young people. The current consultation stage is expected to cost around £325,000 (not including staff costs) and part of this will provide for events, currently being planned, for children and young people.

  The consultation was translated by the Children's Rights Alliance for England at no cost to the Department. Graphic design of the accompanying leaflet and an initial print run of 5,000 copies cost a total of £2,454.

  We are publicising this consultation via existing relationships, as well as with around 150 organisations with an interest in increasing young people's participation in decision-making. The consultation will also be publicised in the DIES publication, Spectrum, which is distributed to schools.

  Licensing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) whether her Department encourages staged closing times for(a) pubs and (b) clubs in England and Wales; [151984]

  (2) what discussions her Department has had with the Home Office regarding the public order implications of a standard closing time for pubs in city centres in England and Wales. [151985]
  811W
  Mr. Caborn
  Current closing times are matters of legislation and extensions of these hours are matters for consideration by licensing justices under that legislation, on a case by case basis.

  The Licensing Act 2003 will, when it is brought into force, allow applicants for premises licences or club premises certificates to state in their application, to the relevant licensing authority, what hours they wish to be authorized to carry out licensable activities and to stay open to the public (these times may be different). Where there are representations, relating to the licensing objectives, from interested parties or responsible authorities about opening hours the licensing authority will, in most cases, have to hold a hearing in order to decide what the opening hours should be. These decisions will be taken on a case by case basis. The 2003 Act does not require and the Guidance, to be issued by the Secretary of State under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (which will be subject to parliamentary approval), will not promote staged closing times. The Licensing Act 2003 was not designed to replace the peaks of disorder and anti-social behaviour, which currently occur at fixed closing times, with a series of smaller peaks. On the contrary, our aim is to promote, in areas where it is appropriate, generally later (but not standard) closing times for pubs and clubs, which will allow customers to disperse gradually over a longer period. We consider, for these reasons, that the 2003 Act will reduce the concentrations of people leaving premises at the same time and queuing for public transport and fast food, which can lead to disorder under the present system.

  The policy underpinning the Licensing Act 2003 was originally developed in the Home Office and, since the policy responsibility was transferred to my Department in June 2001, we have continued to work closely with the Home Office on all aspects of the prevention of crime and disorder that arise in the context of licensing law.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money her Department has received from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in each year since 1998; and how much her Department estimates it will receive from the ERDF in each year until 2006, broken down by(a) capital and (b) resource income. [151951]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department does not receive money from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) directly. However, projects in the English regions that fall within DCMS' policy responsibility have received the following amount of ERDF funds in each year since 19981

  ERDF (£)

  1998

  62,057,761

  1999

  47,558,076

  2000

  37,245,008

  2001

  41,453,979

  2002

  41,988,937

  2003

  52,965,361

  812W
  We expect that ERDF expenditure on cultural-related projects will remain at broadly this level until 2006.

  1The Department has been unable to break down the figures by (a) capital and (b) resource income as the necessary codings have changed year-on-year.

  Food/Drink Advertisements
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress her Department has made in reviewing the code of conduct relating to food and drinks advertisements in order to encourage the promotion of healthy eating. [152521]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has a responsibility only in relation to broadcast advertising. It is currently participating in the consultation being undertaken by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) on food promotion to children, and the Department of Health's Food and Health Action Plan group, both of which are exploring ways to promote healthy eating. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also written to Ofcom asking them to examine the adequacy of their codes regulating the content of broadcast advertising of food, in light of the conclusions of the work undertaken by the FSA, the Department of Health and the Health Select Committee's inquiry into obesity. It is principally the responsibility of Ofcom to ensure that there is an appropriate code for the regulation of broadcast advertising and the Secretary of State looks forward to the outcome of their work.

  Honours
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her answer of 19 January 2004,Official Report, column 1001W, on honours, if she will name the three individuals who have received an honour since 1999. [151802]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 2 February 2004]Alexander Murphy was awarded the OBE in the new year 1999 honours list for his contribution to rugby league football. Both Jason Robinson and Phil Larder were awarded the MBE in the new year 2004 honours list for their achievements in rugby union, but also in recognition of their previous involvement in rugby league at the highest level.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her Department's progress against its Public Service Agreement to raise significantly, year on year, the average time spent on sport and physical activity by those aged 5 to 16 years. [151926]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 2 February 2004]This target was replaced following the 2002 Spending Review with the PSA target that I share with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to increase the percentage of school children who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high-quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum. Detailed data are now being collected for the first time-for publication in April—on progress against the new target.
  813W

  Regional Sports and Arts Boards
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many members there are on each(a) regional sports board and (b) regional arts board; and how many of each are local government councillors. [151950]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not responsible for appointing the members of the nine regional sports boards and the nine regional arts boards. Sport England (SE) and Arts Council England (ACE) will be able to provide the requested information. The Chair of each regional arts board has a place on the main ACE board, as do three of the SE Regional Sports Board Chairs at any one time on a rotational basis. The Secretary of State has a role in these appointments and a list of current Regional Chairs follows, one of whom is a local government councillor.

  Chairs

  Regional arts council chairs

  East

  Professor Stuart Timperley

  East Midlands

  Stephen Lowe

  London

  Lady Hollick

  North East

  Paul Collard

  North West

  Tom Bloxham MBE

  South East

  Deborah Grubb

  South West

  Professor Alan Livingston

  West Midlands

  Dorothy Wilson

  Yorkshire

  Sir Norman Adsetts QBE

  Regional sports board chairs

  East

  Robin Miller

  East Midlands

  Len Jackson1

  London

  VACANT

  North East

  Tim Cantle-Jones

  North West

  Andy Worthington

  South East

  Mary Me Anally

  South West

  Ged Roddy1

  West Midlands

  Vacant

  Yorkshire

  Peter Price1,2

  1Currently on the national board of Sport England

  2 Member of Sheffield City Council

  S4C
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport if she will list the sums committed b: her Department to S4C in each year since 1997; am what the projected sums are for each of the next three years. [151995]

  National Museums Liverpool

  Position

  Name

  Start date

  End date

  Remuneration

  Chair

  David McDonnell

  1 April 2000

  31 March 2005

  No

  Trustee

  Alan Waterworth

  1 April 1999

  31 March 2004

  No

  Trustee

  Margaret MacKeith

  1 February 2000

  31 January 2005

  No

  Trustee

  Sarah Palmer

  1 February 2000

  31 January 2005

  No

  Trustee

  Eva Wisemark

  21 January 2002

  20 January 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Professor Gordon McGregor Reid

  1 February 2001

  31 January 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Christopher Green

  1 April 2001

  31 March 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Dr. Janet Kear

  1 April 2002

  31 March 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Gillian Reynolds

  1 April 2001

  31 March 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Graham Barrie Marsh

  1 April 2002

  31 March 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Professor John Tarn

  1 April 2001

  31 March 2006

  No

  Trustee

  The Earl of Derby DL

  1 April 2001

  31 March 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Viscountess Mersey

  1 April 2001

  31 March 2006

  No

  814W
  Estelle Morris
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport's for S4C for each financial year from 1997–98 to 2005–06 are:

  £millions

  Departmental allocation

  1997–981

  18.4

  1998–99

  75.1

  1999–2000

  75.1

  2000–01

  75.1

  2001–02

  76.8

  2002–03

  80.2

  2003–04

  85.2

  2004–05

  92.2

  2005–06

  92.2

  1 From January 1998, under the new funding formula introduced by the Broadcasting Act 1996,S4C's annual grant ceased to be paid in full in January each year and became payable in instalments. The budget allocation for 1997–98 therefore covered the period January to March 1998 only.

  Departmental allocations for 2006–07 have yet to be determined.

  S4Cs statutory grant entitlement is calculated on a calendar year basis and may therefore differ from the Department's allocation for the corresponding financial year.

  Scottish Gaelic
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the expenditure by her Department on reserved functions relating to Scottish Gaelic since 1999. [151996]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department has not incurred any expenditure on reserved functions relating to Scottish Gaelic. Responsibility for the Gaelic Broadcasting Fund (GBF) was devolved to Scottish Ministers in June 1999.

  Public Bodies
  Keitch Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for culture, Media and Sport who the members of the(a) National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, (b) public Lending Right Advisory Committee, (c) Radio authority,(d)Reviewing Committees on the Export of works of Art and (e) Royal National Theatre were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151816]

  Mr Caborn
  The information requested is shown in the following tables.
  815W

  National Museums Liverpool

  Position

  Name

  Start date

  End date

  Remuneration

  Trustee

  Councillor Frank Doran

  20 April 2002

  19 April 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Sir Neil Cossons

  14 May 2002

  13 May 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Loyd Grossman OBE

  21 July 2003

  20 July 2007

  No

  Trustee

  Alexis Redmond

  24 July 2003

  23 July 2007

  No

  Public Lending Right Advisory Committee

  Position

  Name

  Start date

  End date

  Remuneration

  Chair

  Simon Brett

  7 August 2003

  6 August 2007

  No

  Member

  Gill Coleridge

  29 October 2001

  28 October 2005

  No

  Member

  Theresa Breslin

  18 March 2002

  17 March 2006

  No

  Member

  Miranda McKearney

  16 May 2002

  15 May 2006

  No

  Member

  Dr. James Parker MA PhD

  1 August 2001

  31 July 2006

  No

  Member

  Robert Froud

  20 January 2003

  19 January 2007

  No

  Member

  Dr. Maggie Gee

  6 August 2003

  5 August 2007

  No

  Radio Authority

  Position

  Chair

  Name

  David Witherow

  Start date

  29 December 2003

  End date

  28 December 20081

  Remuneration

  No

  1Or until wound up, if earlier.

  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art

  Position

  Name

  Start date

  End date

  Remuneration

  Chair

  Lord Richard Inglewood

  1 December 2003

  30 November 2007

  No

  Member

  Pamela Robertson

  1 December 2003

  30 November 2007

  No

  Member

  Martin Levy

  1 March 2003

  28 February 2005

  No

  Member

  Timothy Knox

  14 March 2002

  13 March 2006

  No

  Member

  Dr. David Ekserdjian

  14 November 2002

  13 November 2006

  No

  Member

  Johnny Van Haeften

  28 June 2001

  27 June 2004

  No

  Member

  Amanda Arrowsmith

  1 February 2002

  31 January 2006

  No

  Member

  Catherine Johns

  19 February 2003

  18 February 2007

  No

  The National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside has changed its name to National Museums Liverpool. The Radio Authority was subsumed into the Office of Communications (Ofcom) on 29 December 2003 and the Chair alone remains to oversee residual work. The Secretary of State is not responsible for the membership of the Royal National Theatre, which makes its own appointments and can provide details.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who the members of the

  Position

  Name

  Start date

  End date

  Remuneration

  Independent Television Commission

  Chair

  Sir Robin A. Biggam

  29 December 2003

  31 December 20081

  Yes

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  Chair

  Right Hon. Lord Waldegrave of North Hill

  1 July 2002

  30 June 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Martin Smith

  25 August 1999

  24 August 2004

  No

  Trustee

  Professor Ann Dowling

  25 August 1999

  24 August 2004

  No

  Trustee

  Gregory Dyke

  3 October 2000

  2 October 2005

  No

  Trustee

  David Rayner

  28 January 2002

  27 January 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Dr. Anne Grocock

  8 March 2001

  7 March 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Professor Roderick Smith

  23 April 2002

  22 April 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Richard Haythornthwaite

  6 June 2002

  5 June 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Sir Ronald Cooke

  6 June 2002

  5 June 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Dr. Simon Singh MBE

  12 July 2002

  11 July 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Lord Puttnam of Queensgate CBE

  12 September 2001

  11 September 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Sir William Wells

  6 June 2003

  5 June 2007

  No

  Trustee

  Professor Sir Martin Rees

  6 June 2003

  5 June 2007

  No

  Trustee

  Douglas Gurr

  6 June 2003

  5 June 2007

  No

  816W
  (a) Independent Television Commission, (b) Library and Information Commission, (c) Museum of Science and Industry, (d) National Film and Television School and (e)National Lottery Charities Board were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151817]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is shown in the following tables.
  817W

  Position

  Name

  Start date

  End date

  Remuneration

  Trustee

  Professor Kathy Sykes

  10 October 2003

  9 October 2007

  No

  Trustee

  Dr. Maggie Semple OBE

  10 October 2003

  9 October 2007

  No

  National Lottery Commission

  Chair

  Moira Black CBE

  16 October 2003

  15 October 2004

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Timothy Hornsby

  26 March 2001

  25 March 2004

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Brian Pomeroy

  16 October 2003

  25 March 2004

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Harriet Spicer

  1 April 2003

  31 March 2005

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Josephine Valentine

  17 September 2002

  30 September 2005

  Yes

  The Community Fund

  Chair

  Lady Diana Brittan CBE

  10 May 2002

  9 May 2005

  Yes

  Deputy Chairman

  Dame Valerie Strachan

  26 July 2003

  25 July 2004

  Yes

  Member England

  Steven Burkeman

  1 January 2004

  31 July 2004

  Yes

  Member England

  Elaine Appelbee

  2 August 2001

  1 August 2004

  Yes

  Member England

  Richard Martineau

  1 November 2001

  2 November 2004

  Yes

  Member N. Ireland

  James Kearney

  25 July 2003

  24 July 2004

  Yes

  Member N. Ireland

  Sheila Jane Malley

  1 January 2004

  31 July 2004

  Yes

  Member N. Ireland

  Paul Cavanagh

  5 September 2001

  4 September 2004

  Yes

  Member Scotland

  Douglas Graham

  26 July 2003

  25 July 2004

  Yes

  Member Scotland

  Kay Hampton

  1 January 2001

  31 December 2004

  Yes

  Member UK

  Benjamin Whitaker CBE

  28 July 2003

  27 July 2004

  Yes

  Member UK

  Carole Tongue

  1 September 2002

  31 August 2005

  Yes

  Member Wales

  Elisabeth Watkins

  1 January 2004

  31 July 2004

  Yes

  Member Wales

  Jeff Carroll

  5 September 2001

  6 September 2004

  Yes

  Member Wales

  Taha Idris

  1 April 2003

  31 March 2006

  Yes

  1Or until wound up, if earlier.

  The Independent Television Commission was subsumed into the Office of Communications (OFCOM) on 29 December 2003; the Chair alone remains to deal with residual work. The Library and Information Commission has been replaced by Resource. The Secretary of State is not responsible for the membership of the National Film and Television School, which makes its own appointments and can provide details. The National Lottery Charities Board became the Community Fund in April 2001.

  Position

  Name

  Start date

  End date

  Remuneration

  VisitBritain

  Chair

  Sir Michael Lickiss

  1 April 2003

  31 March 2005

  Yes

  Trustee

  Kumar Muthalagappan

  1 April 2003

  28 February 2006

  Yes

  Trustee

  Martin George

  1 November 2003

  31 October 2007

  Yes

  Trustee

  Digby Jones

  1 April 2003

  31 March 2006

  Yes

  Trustee

  Alan Parker

  1 April 2003

  31 March 2006

  Yes

  Trustee

  Lady Cobham

  7 April 2003

  6 April 2006

  Yes

  English Heritage

  Chair

  Sir Neil Cossons OBE

  1 April 2000

  31 March 2005

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Gillian Drummond

  1 April 2002

  31 March2006

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Michael Jolly CBE

  I October 2002

  30 September 2006

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Prof. David Cannadine

  1 October 2001

  30 September 2005

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Piers Gough CBE

  17 May 2003

  16 May 2007

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Manish Chande

  1 September 2003

  31 August 2007

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Bill Bryson

  1 September 2003

  31 August 2007

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Elizabeth Williamson

  1 September 2003

  31 August 2007

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Jane Grenville

  14 May 2001

  13 May 2004

  Yes

  Commissioner

  The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Leicester

  21 January 2002

  20 January 2006

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Leslie Peter Sparks

  14 May 2001

  13 May 2004

  Yes

  Deputy Chairman

  Andrew W. Fane

  9 June 2001

  8 June 2004

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Richard Morris

  16 July 2002

  15 July 2005

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Joyce Bridges

  1 September 2003

  31 August 2007

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Maria Adebowale

  1 September 2003

  31 August 2007

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Marquess of Douro

  1 September 2003

  31 August 2007

  Yes

  Commissioner

  Michael Cairns

  20 September 2003

  19 September 2007

  Yes

  England Marketing Advisory Board

  Chair

  Hugh Taylor

  1 April 2003

  31 March2005

  Yes

  Trustee

  Brian Summers

  1 May 2003

  30 April 2006

  Yes

  Trustee

  John Govett

  1 May 2003

  30 April 2006

  Yes

  818W
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who the members of the(a) British Tourist Authority, (b) Crafts Council, (c) English Heritage, (d) English Tourist Board and (e) Horniman Museum were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151818]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is shown in the following table.
  819W

  Position

  Name

  Start date

  End date

  Remuneration

  Trustee

  Suzanne Bond

  1 May 2003

  30 April 2006

  Yes

  Trustee

  Tim Cantle-Jones

  1 August 2003

  31 July 2006

  Yes

  Trustee

  Nicholas Cust

  1 September 2003

  31 August 2006

  Yes

  Horniman—Public Museum and Public Park Trust

  Chair

  Donald Kirkham CBE

  23 September 1999

  31 March2004

  No

  Trustee

  Susan Minter

  1 February 2000

  31 January 2004

  No

  Trustee

  Timothy Hornsby

  18 July 2003

  1 April 2004

  No

  Trustee

  Michael Wheeler

  18 September 2000

  17 September 2004

  No

  Trustee

  Prof. Kenneth J. Gregory

  1 October 2001

  30 September 2005

  No

  Trustee

  John Mack

  21 September 2002

  20 September 2006

  No

  Trustee

  Dame Jocelyn Barrow DBE

  22 September 2003

  21 September 2007

  No

  Trustee

  Genie Turton

  23 September 2003

  22 September 2007

  No

  The British Tourist Authority became VisitBritain on 1 April 2003. The Secretary of State is not responsible for the membership of the Crafts Council, which makes its own appointments and can provide details. The English Tourism Council is now known as the England Marketing Advisory Board.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who the members of the(a) Advisory

  Position

  Name

  Start date

  End date

  Remuneration

  Advisory Committee on the Government Art Collection

  Chair

  Julia Somerville

  3 September 2003

  2 September 2007

  No

  Member

  Margot Heller

  3 August 2003

  2 August 2007

  No

  Member

  Dr. Richard Dorment

  1 January 2003

  31 December 2006

  No

  Member

  Penelope Curtis

  1 May 2003

  30 April 2007

  No

  Member

  Sarah Shalgosky

  1 May 2003

  30 April 2007

  No

  Ex-officio

  Penny Johnson

  1 June 1997

  No

  Ex-officio

  Charles Saumarez-Smith

  6 April 1999

  No

  Ex-officio

  Sir Nicholas Serota

  6 April 1999

  No

  Ex-officio

  Alan Davey

  1 September 2003

  No

  Ex-officio

  Sandy Nairne

  30 March 1999

  No

  Advisory Council on Libraries

  Chair

  William MacNaught

  3 February 2003

  2 February 2007

  No

  Member

  Catherine Blanshard

  3 February 2003

  2 February 2005

  No

  Member

  Martin Molloy

  3 February 2003

  2 February 2005

  No

  Member

  Pamela Usher

  3 February 2003

  2 February 2005

  No

  Member

  Keith Webster

  3 February 2003

  2 February 2005

  No

  Member

  Jane Hall

  3 February 2003

  2 February 2005

  No

  Member

  Patsy Heap

  3 February 2003

  2 February 2005

  No

  Member

  Peter Marchant

  3 February 2003

  2 February 2005

  No

  Architectural Heritage Fund

  Chair

  Jane Sharman CBE

  10 October 2002

  9 October 2007

  No

  Member Scotland

  George McNeill

  1 January 2003

  31 December 2007

  No

  Member Wales

  John Pavitt

  I October 2003

  30 September 2008

  No

  Trustee

  Nicholas Baring

  6 April 1999

  31 March 2004

  No

  Trustee

  Malcolm Crowder

  6 April 1999

  31 March 2004

  No

  Trustee

  Merlin Waterson

  8 November 1999

  7 November 2004

  No

  Trustee

  Fionnuala Jay-O'Boyle

  1 April 2000

  31 March 2005

  No

  Trustee

  Roger Wools

  1 April 2002

  31 March 2005

  No

  Trustee

  Roy Dantzic

  29 June 2001

  31 March 2006

  No

  Trustee

  William Cadell

  9 October 2002

  8 October 2007

  No

  Trustee

  Robert Boas

  26 March 2003

  31 March 2008

  No

  Trustee

  Colin Amery

  30 April 2003

  29 April 2008

  No

  Arts Council England

  Chair

  Gerry Robinson

  1 February 2001

  31 January 2004

  No

  Member and Chair North West

  Tom Bloxham

  1 June 2002

  31 May 2006

  Yes

  Member and Chair Northern

  Paul Collard

  1 June 2002

  31 May 2006

  Yes

  Member and Chair East Midlands

  Stephen Lowe

  1 June 2002

  31 May 2004

  Yes

  820W
  Committee on the Government Art Collection, (b) Advisory
  Council on Libraries, (c) Architectural Heritage Fund, (d) Arts Council of England and (e) British Film Institute were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151819]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is shown in the following tables.
  821W

  Position

  Name

  Start date

  End date

  Remuneration

  Member and Chair West Midlands

  Dorothy Wilson

  1 June 2002

  31 May 2005

  Yes

  Member and Chair Eastern England

  Stuart Timperley

  1 June 2002

  31 May 2004

  Yes

  Member and Chair London

  Sue Hollick

  1 June 2002

  31 May 2006

  Yes

  Member and Chair South/South East

  Deborah Grubb

  1 June 2002

  31 May 2005

  Yes

  Member and Chair South West

  Alan Livingston

  1 June 2002

  31 May 2006

  Yes

  Member and Chair Yorkshire

  Norman Adsetts

  1 June 2002

  31 May 2004

  Yes

  Member

  Deborah Bull CBE

  1 June 2002

  31 May 2005

  No

  Member

  William Sieghart

  1 June 2002

  31 May 2006

  No

  Member

  Elsie Owusu

  1 June 2002

  31 May 2005

  No

  Member

  Brian McMaster

  1 June 2002

  31 May 2005

  No

  Member of the British Film Institute are appointed by the UK Film Council which can provide details of its membership.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who the members of(a) S4C and

  S4C

  Position

  Name

  Start date

  End date

  Remuneration

  Chair

  Elan Closs Stephens CBE

  1 April 2002

  31 March 2006

  Yes

  Members

  Carys Howell

  1 January 2003

  31 June 2006

  Yes

  Member

  Cefin Campbell

  1 May 2002

  30 April 2004

  Yes

  Member

  Christopher Llewellyn

  1 November 2001

  31 October 2005

  Yes

  Member

  Eira Davies

  1 November 2001

  31 October 2005

  Yes

  Member

  Nic Parry

  1 May 2002

  30 April 2004

  Yes

  Member

  Enid Rowlands

  1 April 2003

  31 March 2007

  Yes

  Member

  Dafydd Wigley

  24 November 2003

  23 November 2007

  Yes

  Member

  Roger Jones

  24 November 2003

  23 November 2007

  Yes

  The Treasure Valuation Committee

  Position

  Name

  Start date

  End date

  Remuneration

  Chair

  Prof. Norman Palmer

  3 May 2001

  2 May 2006

  No

  Member

  Thomas Curtis

  3 May 2001

  2 May 2005

  No

  Member

  Mary Sinclair

  3 May 2001

  2 May 2004

  No

  Member

  Trevor Austin

  19 December 2003

  18 December 2007

  No

  Member

  Dr. Arthur MacGregor

  3 September 2001

  2 September 2006

  No

  Member

  Dr. Jack Ogden

  1 April 2001

  31 March 2006

  No

CABINET OFFICE

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the guidance issued to civil servants responsible for drafting parliamentary answers. [152268]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office "Guidance to Officials on Drafting Answers to Parliamentary Questions" sets out the principles that civil servants should follow when preparing draft answers for parliamentary questions. The guidance was revised in September 2002 and re-issued to Departments.

HEALTH

  Hospital-acquired Infections
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Communicable Disease
  822W
  (b) the Treasure Valuation Committee were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151820]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is shown in the following tables.

  Surveillance Centre of the Health Protection Agency has in place a mechanism for collecting the number of deaths associated with (a) bloodstream infections and (b) MRSA. [145041]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Health Protection Agency operates the national mandatory surveillance system for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bloodstream infections and this does not include information on deaths. Collecting data on deaths is not practical for routine reporting as aggregated data rather than individual patient data are collected. Currently mortality information can only be provided by enhanced surveillance or special studies.

  Death certificates are designed to identify the underlying cause of death rather than track healthcare associated infections (HCAIs). The new action plan to reduce healthcare associated infections, Winning Ways, includes a commitment to set up a national audit of deaths from HCAIs.

  Health Screening (Overseas Visitors)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the review of policy regarding health screening for foreigners before they enter or are permitted to stay in this country. [152269]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Cabinet Office is continuing to co-ordinate work between relevant Government Departments, including the Department of Health, to review imported infections and immigration. The review aims to establish the facts about the impact of immigration on public health and national health service expenditure, consider all relevant issues including health screening and propose solutions should action be required. It is on-going and no decisions have been taken yet.

  Monoclonal Antibody Drugs
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why the monoclonal antibody drugs(a) Cetuximab and (b) Bevacizumab are not available through the NHS. [152011]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 30 January 2004]Cetuximab and Bevacizumab are not currently on the United Kingdom market as they are not yet licensed as medicinal products in the UK or European Union.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the impact of settlement in the UK of citizens of EU accession states on demand for NHS services in(a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06 financial years. [150076]

  Mr. Hutton
  The impact on demand for national health service services will ultimately depend on the numbers of people who might migrate to the United Kingdom from the new member states. Research for the Home Office does not suggest that the numbers will be significant. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration on 2 February 2004,Official Report, column 705W.

  Stroke(Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of whether the stroke units in the NHS in Gloucestershire are large enough to accommodate all stroke victims in Gloucestershire needing hospitalization; and if he will make a statement. [149466]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have made no assessment because in line with our Shifting the Balance of power policy it is now for primary care trusts in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernizing services, based on the specialized knowledge they have of the local community.
  824W
  I am assured by Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire SHA that the national health service in Gloucestershire has developed the two specialist stroke units in line with national service framework guidance.

  The stroke service links with other services to enable appropriate lengths of stay within the unit to be supported. Patients have access to other support services including intermediate care to enable rehabilitation of people in their own homes or in community hospitals. As a result of service reconfiguration, the numbers of people accessing specialist stroke services have increased in the last year.

  Higher Education Funding
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether courses attracting payment of tuition fees by the NHS will attract payment of top-up fees. [145029]

  Mr. Hutton
  Existing contracts between strategic health authorities and higher education institutions for nursing, midwifery and allied health professional training, cover the full cost of that training, including tuition. The consultation document "Funding Learning and Development for the Healthcare Workforce" sets out our proposal for a national model contract. It is intended that this contract for national health service funded pre-registration courses, to be introduced from 1 April 2004, will specifically prohibit the charging of variable fees to students.

  In the case of medical and dental training, the NHS currently meets students' liability for a contribution to tuition fees for the later years of the course. There is as yet no clear indication from the higher education sector of the scope or scale of any increases that they may intend to make to these fees. The Department of Health will continue to monitor demand for, and take up of, places on courses in medicine and dentistry after the introduction of variable fees in 2006–07. It will consider, in consultation with the Department for Education and Skills, any measures it deems necessary to safeguard the supply, retention, diversity or quality of students on medical and dental training programmes, once the full implications of the introduction of variable tuition fees can be assessed.

TRANSPORT

  Driving Instructors
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on changes to the rules governing advanced driving instructors. [152286]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The periodic re-assessment of car driving instructors is already provided for in their registration scheme. We are going to use modern computer-based assessment to check that instructors have kept up to date with the modern syllabus for learning to drive and can demonstrate high levels of hazard perception skills.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what research his Department has commissioned into the benefits of requiring driving instructors to be reassessed after 15 years; [151986]
  825W
  (2) what discussions his Department has had with the Department of Trade and Industry regarding the implications for driving instructors of a requirement to be reassessed after 15 years. [151987]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The periodic re-assessment of driving instructors is already provided for in their registration scheme. The frequency of assessments varies according to the standard of the instructor. The higher the standard, the greater the interval until a further re-assessment takes place. Every instructor should have at least one assessment during their four-year period of registration. A research report published in 2000, recommended that the current method of periodic reassessments should be retained. The report made no recommendation that instructors should be reassessed at 15 year intervals. In the circumstances, we see no need to hold discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Roads
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage change he predicts for road traffic volumes by 2010. [152288]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Road traffic is forecast to grow by between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. in England between 2000 and 2010.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the factors other than speed which contribute to road traffic accidents. [152289]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Contributory factors are assessed in a wide range of research projects including in-depth studies of particular accident types, on-the-spot accident investigation, and driver behaviour has been shown to be the key factor. A pilot scheme for assessment of contributory factors in road accidents has been used by some police forces alongside the national road casualty statistics reporting system since 1999.

  Buses
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress with improving bus transport in urban areas. [152290]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government are working to improve bus services in urban areas in a number of ways. This includes the recent award of £19.6 million from the Urban Bus Challenge, full or provisional funding of £250 million for major bus schemes under the local transport settlement for 2004–05 and £20 million towards implementing real-time passenger information.

  A21
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a further announcement in respect of the A21 between Flimwell and Robertsbridge. [151297]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]This is a particularly sensitive section of the A21 and it is important to find a solution to the traffic problems, which minimises any damage to the environment and to local communities. My officials now need to discuss the 826W
  way forward with DEFRA colleagues to identify the right solution. I expect to make an announcement on the way forward when the discussions are completed.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the implications of re-testing drivers after(a) 10 and (b) 15 years; [151638]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of requiring drivers to pass a refresher test to retain their driving licence after (a) 10 and (b) 15 years. [151639]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 29 January 2004]We do not consider that the regular retesting of drivers would be a proportionate measure to deliver road safety benefits. We have made no estimate of the cost to public funds, but requiring all driving licence holders to undergo a periodic retest would be an onerous and expensive obligation, particularly since there is no evidence to suggest that road safety would be improved as a result. Most road accidents are caused by careless or inconsiderate driving, rather than a lack of skill.

  Courts already have powers to require those drivers who offend to undergo a driving test. Where a driver is guilty of a serious motoring offence, this involves an extended length driving test.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of his powers will be transferred to elected regional assemblies where they are introduced; and which body holds each of those powers. [152104]

  Mr. McNulty
  The transport powers of elected regional assemblies were set out in the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions" (Cm5511).

  Elected regional assemblies will be given powers to make Rail Passenger Partnership grants, which is currently the responsibility of the Strategic Rail Authority. They will also be responsible for advising government on funding allocations for local transport, taking over functions currently exercised by regional government offices. In addition, elected regional assemblies will be responsible for a regional transport strategy, which is currently prepared by regional planning bodies and issued by the Secretary of State for planning as part of regional planning guidance.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money was raised in fines from speed cameras in the last year for which records are available in(a) Essex and (b) the West Chelmsford constituency. [151354]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 28 January 2004]In 2001–02 £3,524,120 in conditional offer fixed penalties was collected by the Essex Safety Camera Partnership which includes West Chelmsford, for which separate figures are not available.
  827W
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money raised in fines from speed cameras during the last year for which records are available, was spent in(a) Essex and (b) the West Chelmsford constituency. [151355]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 28 January 2004]In 2001–02 £3,003,763 from conditional offer fixed penalties was passed to the Essex Safety Camera Partnership for the operation and administration of their safety cameras. The Essex Partnership includes West Chelmsford, for which separate figures are not available.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  European Convention on Contact
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether the Government intend to become a signatory to the European Convention on Contact. [152229]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government are at present considering the results of their expert consultation on the Council of Europe Convention on Contact. Public consultation will take place in due course. A decision on signature will be made in the light of the consultation responses.

  Family Law Act
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when the Government will implement section 11(4) of the Family Law Act 1996. [152228]

  Mr. Leslie
  On 16 January 2001 the Government announced that they had decided not to implement the provisions of Part II of the Family Law Act 1996, including section 11(4), and that the provisions would be repealed when a suitable legislative opportunity arose.

  Land Registration
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the conclusion of the Law Commission's report, "Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century: A Conveyancing Revolution", concerning the remnants of feudalism in England and Wales. [152344]

  Mr. Lammy
  The joint Law Commission and Land Registry report, "Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century: A Conveyancing Revolution", concluded that there was a strong case for creating a clear and comprehensive legislative framework for the holding of land by the Crown and the Royal Duchies, and in relation to their role when land is ownerless. The report also stated that the Commission and Land Registry could not see any good reason for the retention of the remaining aspects of feudalism in England and Wales.

  The Law Commission are now considering whether a proposed review of the remnants of feudalism in land law in England and Wales should form part of the Commission's 9th programme of law reform. The programme is expected to be published later this year.

  Under Sheriffs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) what the implications of the Courts Act 2003 are for the remuneration of Under Sheriffs; [151133]

  (2) what steps he has taken to make up shortfalls in Under Sheriffs' remuneration arising from changes introduced in the Courts Act 2003. [151134]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Courts Act 2003 removes the link between responsibility for High Court Enforcement work and the ceremonial functions of the Shrievalty. The latter attracts no remuneration. The arrangements for remuneration for High Court Enforcement work are unchanged. Where Under Sheriffs do not seek or receive authorisation as High Court Enforcement Officers, they will no longer be obliged to undertake High Court Enforcement work, so the issues of remuneration, or any shortfall in remuneration do not arise.

TREASURY

  Respiratory Diseases (Children)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children between five and 15 years died of respiratory-related diseases in each year since 2000. [152555]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Tim Loughton, dated 3 February 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many children aged between 5 and 15 years died of respiratory-related diseases in each year since 2000. (152555)
  The latest available data are for 2002. Figures for children aged 5 to 15 in England and Wales in the three years 2000 to 2002 are given in the table below.

  Deaths from diseases of the respiratory system, 1England and Wales, 2000 to 20022

  Children aged between 5 and 15 years of age

  2000

  62

  20013

  53

  20023

  67

  1 Selected using codes 460 to 519 from the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision for 2000 and codes J00-J99 from the International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision for 2001 and 2002.

  2 Figures are for deaths occurring in each calendar year.

  3 The introduction of ICD-10 for coding cause of death in 2001 means that data for respiratory diseases from this year onwards are not completely comparable with data for earlier years. The data should therefore be interpreted with caution. For respiratory diseases the effect of the change in classification in 2001 is described in a report published in May 2002.*

  * Office for National Statistics. Results of the ICD-10 bridge coding study, England and Wales, 1999. Health Statistics Quarterly 14 (2002), 75–83.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the overpayment of tax credits, in particular to claimants who have overpayments being recovered from their awards at high rates. [149720]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue's Code of Practice 26, "What happens if we have paid you too much tax credit?", sets out the rules that the Inland Revenue follows when adjusting an award to recover an overpayment.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many teenage pregnancies there were in each year since 2000. [152516]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Tim Loughton, dated 3 February 2004:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on how many teenage pregnancies there were in each year since 2000. (152516)
  The numbers of teenage pregnancies in England and Wales, in 2000 and 2001 (the latest year for which figures are available), are shown below. Figures shown are for conceptions to women aged under 18, because the target set by the Government Strategy on Teenage Pregnancy is for this age-group.

  Year

  Number1

  Rate2

  2000

  41,349

  44.1

  2001

  40,964

  42.7

  12001 figure provisional.

  2Rate per 1,000 women aged 15–17 based on population estimates as at September 2003.

  Provisional figures for the most recently available year were first published in Health Statistics Quarterly, the latest edition of which also shows provisional estimates for March quarter 2002. This publication is available in the libraries of both Houses. Provisional estimates for the calendar year 2002 will be published in Health Statistics Quarterly later this month.

  Birth Rates
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many live births there were in each year since 2000. [152515]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Tim Loughton dated 3 February 2004:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on the number of live births in each year since 2000.I am replying in his absence. (152515)
  A table showing data for live births occurring in England and Wales and in the United Kingdom in 2000, 2001 and 2002 is provided in the following table. Figures for 2003 are not yet available.
  830W

  Live births occurring in England and Wales, and the United Kingdom, 2000–2002

  2000

  2001

  2002

  England and Wales

  604,441

  594,634

  596,122

  United Kingdom

  679,029

  669,123

  668,777

  Annual figures for live births are routinely published in Births Statistics Series FM1 for England and Wales and in Annual Abstract of Statistics for the United Kingdom; provisional figures for the most recently available year are first published in Population Trends, the latest edition of which also shows figures for March and June quarters 2003. All three publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Cancer/Coronary Death Rates
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the latest figures for the death rate from(a) cancer and (b) coronary heart disease are in (i) the Jarrow constituency, (ii) South Tyneside, (iii) Tyne and Wear, (iv) the North East and (v) the UK; and what they were in 1997. [152108]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Stephen Hepburn dated 3 February 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the latest figures for the death rate from (a) cancer and (b) coronary heart disease in (i) the Jarrow constituency, (ii) South Tyneside, (iii) Tyne and Wear, (iv) the North East and (v) the UK; and what they were in 1997. I am replying in his absence. (152108)
  Figures for the Jarrow constituency are not available, as annual mid-year population estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies are not produced by the Office for National Statistics. Figures for the other areas are included in the following table.

  Death rates1 from cancer and coronary heart disease2 in South Tyneside metropolitan district, Tyne and Wear metropolitan county, North East Government Office Region and the United Kingdom3 1997 and 20024

  Death rates per 100,000 population

  1997

  2002

  Cancer

  South Tyneside

  225

  226

  Tyne and Wear

  245

  229

  North East

  235

  216

  United Kingdom

  203

  189

  Coronary Heart Disease

  South Tyneside

  210

  138

  Tyne and Wear

  191

  146

  North East 197 149

  197

  149

  United Kingdom

  163

  128

  1Rates per 100,000 population standardised to the European Standard Population.

  2 The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) for 1997, and the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) for 2002. The codes used are listed as follows:

  Cancer (malignant neoplasms)—ICD-9 140–208; 1CD-10 COO-C97;

  Coronary Heart Disease—ICD-9 410–414; ICD-10 120–125.

  3 Usual residents of these areas.

  4 Deaths occurring in each calendar year in England and Wales, and deaths registered in each calendar year in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Climate Change Levy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has been raised by the Climate Change Levy in each year since its introduction. [152072]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton South (Mr. Tynan) on 29 January 2004(Official Report), column 375. Revenue receipts from the Climate Change Levy are published monthly in Table 2.1D of ONS "Financial Statistics" and annually in Customs and Excise's Annual Report and Accounts. Both are available in the Library of the House.

  Annual and monthly figures are also available online at Customs' trade and statistics website: www.uktradeinfo.com in the Statistical Bulletins and Factsheets section.

  Customs and Excise (Correspondence)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford of 19 October 2003 concerning Mr. C. Silvester, PO Reference 5.09712/2003). [152111]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 30 January 2004]I have replied to a letter dated 19 November 2003 from the hon. Member concerning Mr. Silvester with this reference number.

  Financial Services
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government has to remove stamp duty on the financial services sector. [152386]

  Ruth Kelly
  All aspects of the tax system are kept under review as part of the annual budget process.

  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what initiatives are in place to assist the financial services industry to ensure probity and transparency in dealings with the public. [152388]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has statutory responsibility to promote public understanding of the financial system and to secure the right degree of protection for consumers. The FSA carries out Conduct of Business regulation of all firms doing investment business to ensure, for example, that the information firms provide to investors is clear, fair and not misleading.

  Infant Mortality
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the infant mortality rate was in 2003. [152560]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Tim Loughton, dated 3 February 2004:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what the infant mortality rate was in 2003. (152560)
  832W
  The most recent complete year for which infant mortality data is available is 2002, when the rate for England and Wales was 5.2 per 1,000 live births. This covers deaths to babies aged less than one year and excludes still-births.
  Annual figures for infant mortality in England and Wales are routinely published in the DH3 series 'Mortality Statistics: Childhood, infant and perinatal'. Provisional figures for the first two quarters of 2003 were first published in Health Statistics Quarterly number 20, Winter 2003 edition (Table 2.1). These publications are available in the libraries of both Houses.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reform Stamp Duty Land Tax on leases. [152607]

  Ruth Kelly
  All tax rates and thresholds are kept under review by the Chancellor and any changes are announced in the Budget.

  Following consultation last year, substantial changes were made to the Stamp Duty Land Tax charge on the rental element of new leases which will help all tenants and will be of special benefit to small and medium sized businesses.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Civil Servants (Disabilities)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made in meeting targets for the proportion of people with disabilities in senior posts in his Department. [146001]

  Maria Eagle
  Statistical information about senior civil servants with disabilities is available on the civil service statistics website at http: //www.civil-service, gov. uk/statistics/documents/pdf/disability-oct03.pdf.

  This information is also available in the Library. The latest statistics show that at 1 April 2003, there were 12 disabled senior civil servants in the Department, 5.4 per cent. of the total.

  Construction Site Accidents
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many serious accidents have been recorded on construction sites in the last 10 years. [148147]

  Mr. Browne
  The information in the table shows fatal and major injuries in construction reported to HSE under the RIDDOR Regulations during the period 1993–04 to 2002–03.

  Workers

  Member of the public

  Fatal

  1993–94

  91

  6

  1994–95

  83

  5

  1995–96

  79

  3

  1996–97

  90

  3

  1997–98

  80

  6

  1998–99

  65

  3

  1999–2000

  81

  6

  2000–01

  105

  8

  2001–02

  80

  5

  2002–031

  71

  5

  833W

  Workers

  Member of the public

  Major/non-fatal injury

  1993–94

  2,574

  116

  1994–95

  2,627

  121

  1995–96

  2,477

  117

  1996–97

  4,054

  405

  1997–98

  4,326

  339

  1998–99

  4,656

  378

  1999–2000

  4,749

  403

  2000–01

  4,708

  316

  2001–02

  4,595

  381

  2002–031

  4,780

  259

  1 The definition of a non-fatal injury to members of the public is different to that of workers.

  Notes:

  1. Non-fatal injury statistics from 1996–97 cannot be compared directly with earlier years due to the introduction of revised injury reporting requirements (RIDDOR95) in1996.

  2. The information available under RIDDOR 95 includes three categories of severity, fatal, defined major injuries and other injuries leading to more than three days absence (over-3-day). RIDDOR specifies serious injuries as (i) a list of major injury conditions for employees and self-employed people (ii) non-fatal injuries for members of the public, which cause a person to be taken from the site of the accident to hospital.

  3. Incidents reported are defined under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1985 and1995.

  4. Injury statistics are those reported to all enforcing authorities.

  5. Construction has been identified using Standard Industrial Classification 1992 division 45.

  6. The annual basis is the planning year from 1 April to 31 March.

  These and additional figures are available on the internet at http: //www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/pdf/table13.pdf.

  Disability and Carers Executive Agency
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to consult Scottish-based groups representing disabled people in setting-up the new Disability and Carers Executive Agency. [152523]

  Maria Eagle
  Plans for consulting with disability organisations about the agency proposals are in hand. The organisations already contacted by officials include UK disability organisations, some of whom, like the DRC, have a key presence in Scotland. As part of this process, officials have also written to Citizen's Advice Scotland.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people claimed Incapacity Benefit for financial years(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03 in (i) the Perth constituency, (ii) Scotland and (iii) the UK. [152524]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the following tables.

  New claims for IB/SDA in the periods shown

  Scotland newclaims IB/SDA

  Great Britain newclaims IB/SDA

  April 2001 to March 2002

  101,400

  835,570

  April 2002 to March 2003

  101,440

  812,065

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest five

  834W

  2. Incapacity benefit figures include national insurance credits only cases.

  3. Figures for Great Britain will include a small number of claimants resident overseas.

  4. Figures for Northern Ireland are a matter for the Northern Ireland Office and are not given here.

  Source:

  DWP Information Center, 5 per cent. Samples.

  Live IB/SDA claims in February 2002 and 2003

  Perth IB/SDA

  Scotland IB/SDA

  Great Britain IB/SDA

  February 2002

  3,500

  327,300

  2,695,600

  February 2003

  3,600

  326,500

  2,710,200

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Incapacity benefit figures include national insurance credits only cases.

  3. Figures for Great Britain will include a small number of claimants resident overseas.

  4. Figures for Northern Ireland are a matter for the Northern Ireland Office and are not given here.

  Source:

  CDU 100 per cent. counts.

  Northern Ireland Troubles
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the funding of victims work in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Great Britain will be continued after the end of the current funding in 2004. [142721]

  Angela Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1998, Government have committed more than£20 million for victim's initiatives. I am currently consulting on what will be the next phase of victim's policy and funding will be a consideration in that context.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many calls were made to the Pension Credit Helpline in each month since April, broken down by(a) calls classed as engaged, (b) calls answered within periods of 20 seconds and (c) length of calls in periods of 10 minutes. [146041]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Calls to pension credit application line—April to December 2003

  Calls received by application line

  Calls receiving engaged tone or recorded message

  Calls answered within 30 seconds

  Average call duration(minutes: seconds)

  2003

  April

  20,810

  0

  17,680

  12:15

  May

  32,750

  10

  32,730

  12:03

  June

  60,240

  1,790

  57,730

  14:05

  July

  118,220

  3,050

  112,010

  13:09

  August

  181,860

  7,250

  177,340

  15:19

  September

  427,900

  18,540

  352,280

  11:27

  October

  482,780

  2,850

  429,950

  09:35

  November

  318,280

  990

  302,400

  08:56

  December

  193,900

  30

  183,650

  08:28

  Notes:

  1. Numbers of calls are rounded to the nearest 10.
  835W
  2.The number of calls receiving the engaged tone or a recorded message was unusually high in September due to technical problems with the telephony at one particular site. The number of calls affected by these problems cannot be separated out.

  3.The number of calls received is a measure of the total number of calls from customers made to the application line number 0800 99 1234. The number of calls answered within 30 seconds is a measure of all calls answered in application line sites and excludes any calls abandoned by the customer.

  Pension Service
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) research and (b) evaluation his Department has commissioned into customer service in the Pension Service since the relocation of pension work from local offices in the South East region to pension centres elsewhere; and if he will make a statement. [151533]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Pension Service commissioned BMRB Social Research to conduct research on customers' experience of, attitudes towards and satisfaction with our service in its first year. The survey is an important demonstration of our commitment to understanding and responding to customer requirements and will assist in future service development.

  The survey findings are based on approximately 4,300 face-to-face interviews with a random sample of current pensioners, their representatives and future pensioners who had contact with The Pension Service during the first half of 2003. The findings are the first nationally representative assessment of how The Pension Service is delivering to its customers. The report will be published shortly.

  In addition, the Department has recently commissioned research to examine service delivery to older people with special needs and customers who represent older people.

  The Pension Service will introduce a national mystery shopping programme from April 2004. This will provide an independent, robust, and real time measure of our customer service delivery. It will drive improvement activity in areas of high importance to our customers.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the impact on his Department's budget of contracting the self-employed with immediate effect into the state second pension, in each of the next 20 years. [150454]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The following table shows the projected increase in expenditure on state second pension to pensioners, if all self-employed people with profits greater than the small earnings exception (and hence who are assumed to pay Class 2 contributions) accrue flat-rate state second pension, based on earnings at the lower earnings threshold, from April 2007 onwards. Costs are shown in £ billion, in 2003–04 prices terms, for the first 20 years in which there would be increased expenditure.
  836W

  Projected increase in expenditure on state second pension, if all self-employed with profits above the small earnings exception accrue flat-rate S2P from 2007–08 to 2003–04 price terms

  Cost (£ billion)

  2008–09

  0.0

  2009–10

  0.0

  2010–11

  0.0

  2011–12

  0.0

  2012–13

  0.1

  2013–14

  0.1

  2014–15

  0.1

  2015–16

  0.1

  2016–17

  0.2

  2017–18

  0.2

  2018–19

  0.3

  2019–20

  0.3

  2020–21

  0.4

  2021–22

  0.5

  2022–23

  0.6

  2023–24

  0.7

  2024–25

  0.8

  2025–26

  0.9

  2026–27

  1.0

  2027–28

  1.1

  Notes:

  1. The projected increase in S2P expenditure to pensioners shown in the table does not allow for (a) offsetting savings in income-related benefits, or (b) increased expenditure on S2P paid alongside bereavement benefits to those below state pension age.

  2. The projected expenditure has been calculated on a consistent basis to that used for the projections in the Quinquennial Review of the National Insurance Fund as at April 2000 (Cm 6008), assuming real earnings growth of 2 per cent. a year. No allowance has been made for the effects of the most recent (2002-based) population projections, or any other information which has become available since the results underlying the Quinquennial Review were prepared.

  3. The projected expenditure relates to the GB National Insurance Fund (Northern Ireland has a separate Fund).

  4. It has been assumed that the self-employed would not be able to contract out of S2P.

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets exist for backdated awards of retirement pension; and how many such backdated pension awards there were in each month of the 12 months before the most recently available monthly figures. [149642]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Entitlement to the state pension is dependent on a claim being made for it and the amount is determined in accordance with the legislation. To aid the claim's process the Department sends out a claim pack to those approaching state pension age inviting them to make their claim. It is for the individual to decide whether or not to claim their state pension at state pension age. Some may choose to defer claiming for a variety of reasons, in which case they could get a higher amount of state pension when they do make their claim. It is therefore not appropriate for the Department to set a target.

  However, where a person chooses to make a claim after state pension age, his or her state pension can be awarded for up to three months prior to the date of claim subject to the entitlement conditions.

  The Department publicises the time limits for claiming state pension and the effects of not doing so on time.
  837W

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people employed in his Department have claimed statutory sick pay for(a) less than one week, (b) one to three weeks, (c) four to six weeks, (d) seven to 12 weeks, (e) 13 to 20 weeks and (f) 21 to 28 weeks in each year since 1997. [148628]

  Maria Eagle
  Information for DSS and ES prior to April 2001 is not available.

  The information from April 2001 is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table. Further information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Number of staff claimed SSP

  2001–02

  32,855

  2002–03

  35,936

  2003–04

  29,384

  Notes:

  1. Figures refer to individual members of staff, some of whom will have claimed SSP on more than one occasion.

  2. Figures for 2003–04 are for the year to 31 December 2003.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to extend the Winter Fuel Payment Scheme to people with severe disabilities. [151295]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Help is already available through disability benefits and the disability premium in Income Support in recognition of the extra costs, including heating, which disabled people may have. There are no plans to extend the Winter Fuel Payment Scheme to disabled people under age 60.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bribery
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many reports of concerns of bribery registered by UK companies about foreign competitors have been made by his Department to foreign governments; and to which governments. [151518]

  Mr. MacShane
  To provide the information requested would involve a manual search of files that would incur disproportionate costs.

  Burundi
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking, with reference to recent reports concerning those responsible, to assist the Burundian authorities to bring to justice the perpetrators of the crime against humanity in which Charlotte Wilson was murdered; and if he will make a statement. [151766]

  Mr. Mullin
  We continue to press the Burundi Government for a full investigation into Miss Wilson's murder and for the perpetrators to be brought to justice.838W
  We have offered assistance to the Burundi authorities from the Metropolitan Police and have raised the case at every suitable opportunity.

  The current security situation and the functioning of the judicial system, as well as the current political climate, make investigations in Burundi very difficult. We are working hard with our international partners and those in the region to bring peace to Burundi. This will help create the conditions in which a thorough investigation can be made.

  We have offered Miss Wilson's family all the consular assistance we properly can and shall continue to do so.

  Chechnya
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the meetings, their dates and the officials involved at which the issue of human rights abuses in Chechnya were raised by his Government with Russia(a) prior to 11 September 2001, and (b) since 11 September 2001; and if he will make a statement. [151678]

  Mr. Straw
  The breadth of UK-Russia bilateral relations are such that to provide detailed information on all meetings before and after September 2001 would involve disproportionate cost and in many cases would not be possible.

  The issue of Chechnya has been raised with the Russians at Prime Ministerial, ministerial and official level since September 2001. High-level bilateral meetings over last year included during Putin's State Visit in June, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (Mr. Rammell) meeting with the Russian ambassador in October, and during the Russian ambassador's separate meeting with the Prime Minister's Foreign Policy Adviser in October. We have also supported the numerous EU statements since September 2001 on the human rights situation there. As the right hon. Gentlemen would expect, Chechnya also featured in our annual Human Rights talks with the Russians in 2001, 2002, 2003 and will no doubt be raised in this year's talks.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 15 December 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. A. Faqi;. [1495451]

  (2) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 15 December 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. A. Faqi. [151230]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary replied on 27 January. I apologise for the delay.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter to him dated 15 December 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to M. Din. [151231]
  839W
  Mr. Mullin
  The response to my right hon. Friend's letter of 15 December 2003 was delayed pending checks with the high commission in Islamabad. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary replied on 27 January.

  Council of Europe
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom and other member states were consulted by the Council of Europe over its decision to produce a hip-hop version of the European anthem; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost of this production was. [151796]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 2 December 2003]According to the Council of Europe, the purpose of this project was to provide music for different European events and ceremonies and as background music for radio and television programmes with a European theme.

  United Kingdom Government was not consulted. I have been informed that the cost of producing the CD was €7,000. If I had been consulted, I would have said that it was a waste of money.

  General Affairs and External Relations Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs and External Relations Council held on 26–27 January; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including their voting record; and if he will make a statement. [151974]

  Mr. MacShane
  The information is as follows:

  Outcome of the 26 January 2004 General Affairs and External Relations Council

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the UK at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels on 26 January 2004. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development represented the UK for the Orientation debate.

  Conclusions were agreed on the Orientation debate; Western Balkans; Georgia; Middle East Peace Process; Afghanistan; Colombia; European Security Strategy; and conflict prevention in Africa.

  General Affairs Session

  Debate on operational programme of Council activities for 2004

  The Council held a public debate on the annual operational programme, which the Irish and Dutch presidencies presented at the December GAERC. The programme aims to build on the work of the Greek and Italian presidencies from 2003. It covers the economic reform agenda, justice and home affairs, and external relations. The debate concentrated on implementation of the European Security Strategy and on conflict prevention in Africa.

  Progress of work in other Council configurations

  The presidency gave a standard progress report on work in other Councils. The report highlighted the results of the Transport, Telecommunications and
  840W
  Energy Council; the Agriculture and Fisheries Council; the Environment Council; and the Economic and Financial Affairs Council. There was no discussion.

  MEPs Statutes

  The Council examined a draft Decision of the European Parliament on the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. In June 2003, the Council had indicated that it could not give its approval to an earlier draft of the Statute. In December the European Parliament proposed a number of amendments. The Council failed to reach the necessary qualified majority to agree the Statute. The presidency concluded that he would report this decision back to the EP.

  External Relations Session

  Orientation debate

  The Under-Secretary of State for International Development represented the UK for the annual discussion on the effectiveness of EU external action programmes. This year's discussion was structured around three headings (i) EU leadership in progressing development issues multilaterally, (ii) maximising effectiveness of EU external assistance, and (iii) meeting the Millennium Development Goals. Conclusions were agreed on a number of steps to improve the effectiveness of EU aid; including the introduction of more transparent resource allocation.

  Iran

  High Representative, Javier Solana, reported on his visit to Iran on 12-13 January. Ministers welcomed steps taken by Iran, in the nuclear area (particularly the signature and implementation of the Additional Protocol to the Non-proliferation Treaty) but underlined the need for Iran to comply fully with the IAEA Board of Governors' November Resolution. The Council agreed to return to the issue after the next report on Iran's nuclear programme by Mohammed El Baradei, the IAEA Director-General. There was also discussion on the current political situation.

  China

  In line with the mandate of the 12–13 European Council, the GAERC discussed the embargo on the sale of arms to China. It invited the Permanent Representatives Committee and the Political and Security Committee to look into the matter, with a view to returning to the issue later in the year.

  Georgia

  The presidency reported on the 25 January inauguration of President Saakashvili. High Representative Solana also gave a read out of his 14–15 January visit to Georgia. Conclusions were agreed which: provided for targeted assistance to Georgia, pressed for progress on economic reform and tackling corruption; and mandated the Commission to bring forward a recommendation on the relationship of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia to the European Neighbourhood Initiative before the end of the Irish presidency.

  Middle East Peace Process

  The presidency reported on its recent talks in Israel and Egypt. There was discussion on possible ways forward to overcome the current deadlock. Short Conclusions were adopted on the recent Israel-Hizbollah agreement to exchange prisoners. The

  841W
  Council expressed the hope that this exchange would clear the way for the resolution of all remaining issues between Israel and Lebanon concerning prisoners.

  Western Balkans

  The Council adopted Conclusions on the 28 December Serbian parliamentary elections calling for the democratic parties to work together to ensure the early formation of a government committed to the reform agenda and to further progress towards EU membership. Conclusions also welcomed the successful launch of the EU police mission—PROXIMA—in Macedonia and the appointment of new EU Special Representative, Jesen-Peterson.

  The High Representative also notified Ministers of the death of Commissioner Sven Frederiksen, the head of EU Police Mission in Bosnia.

  Afghanistan

  High Representative Solana debriefed on his 14 January visit to Kabul. Conclusions were adopted welcoming the new constitution and calling for increased efforts to restore security ahead of the elections in the summer.

  A0B: Colombia

  Commissioner Patten gave a report of his recent visit to Colombia.

  Immigration
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people entered the UK from(a) Venezuela, (b) Suriname and (c) Bolivia in the latest year for which figures are available. [150805]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest available information shows that a total of 27,900 Venezuelan nationals were admitted to the United Kingdom during 2002.

  I regret that is not possible to identify nationals of Suriname and Bolivia separately in our admission statistics.

  Data on passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom are published in the Command Paper `Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2002'(Cm6053), obtainable from the House Library, The Stationery Office and via the Home Office website http: //www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hobpubs1.html

  Intelligence Services
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate a review of the operation of the secret intelligence services. [152314]

  Mr. Straw
  I am satisfied that the work carried out by the Intelligence Services continues to be an essential tool in protecting the nation's security, for instance, in countering the risks posed by terrorists, international criminals and drug dealers, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

  Their work is underpinned by legislation, and subject to oversight by the Intelligence and Security Committee and by the Commissioners appointed under the
  842W
  Intelligence Services Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. These mechanisms serve to keep their work under continuing review.

  Iraq
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria were used to select British companies to carry out reconstruction work in Iraq. [150604]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are several different organisations involved in Iraq's reconstruction. British companies have won contracts from a number of these, including the Department for International Development, the Development Fund for Iraq, the US Government and the United Nations. Each organisation has its own criteria for selecting companies. All have used competitive bidding or existing contracts for reconstruction work in Iraq.

  I will write to my hon. Friend with further details.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place a transcript of his interview on the Today Programme on 26 January on Iraq in the Library. [151851]

  Mr. Straw
  Yes.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Special Intelligence Service has interviewed Iraqis who had worked in Saddam Hussein's programmes of weapons of mass destruction-related activities(a) prior to March 2003 and (b) since May 2003. [151852]

  Mr. Straw
  It is not the Government's policy to comment on the operations of the Intelligence Services. The Security and Intelligence Agencies are not within the scope of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Paragraph 6, Part 1).

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether evidence of nuclear weapons of mass destruction programme-related activities have been discovered in Iraq by the Iraq Survey Group since the statement to the United Nations Security Council on 27th January 2003 by Dr. Mohamed El-Baradei on the status of nuclear inspections in Iraq. [151968]

  Mr. MacShane
  In his interim report of 2 October 2003, Dr. David Kay reported that the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) had uncovered evidence that a senior scientist at the Iraq Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. Sa'id, had started work on several small and relatively unsophisticated research initiatives in 2000 that could be applied to nuclear weapons development, and which could have been useful in developing a weapons-relevant science base for the long-term.

  Dr. Kay also referred to uncovering evidence of a number of other steps taken by Iraq to preserve some technological capability from its earlier nuclear weapons programme. Iraqi scientists and senior government officials have told the ISG that Saddam Hussein remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons.

  The text of Dr.Kay's interim report can be found on the CIA internet website at www.cia.gov.
  843W
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific steps have been taken by the Iraq Survey Group to follow up the unresolved disarmament issues in respect of(a) VX nerve agent, (b) thiodiglycol mustard gas precursor,(c)anthrax, (d)AI Samoud 2 rockets and (e) AI Fatah rockets presented to the United Nations Security Council by Dr. Hans Blix on 27 January 2003. [151969]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Iraq Survey Group is continuing to search for any evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and programmes for their production. The Iraq Survey Group produced an interim report on its findings in October 2003.

  NATO
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the military preparations for joining NATO of(a) Bulgaria, (b) Estonia, (c) Latvia, (d)Lithuania, (e) Romania, (f)Slovakia and (g) Slovenia; and if he will make a statement. [151673]

  Mr. Straw
  In making the decision to invite the seven countries to join the alliance, NATO evaluated their progress against the areas for reform set out under NATO's Membership Action Plan (MAP).

  All of the invitees have been in an intensive dialogue with NATO to establish what reforms were necessary in the political and economic, defence and intelligence, resource, security and legal fields. Agreed reform objectives set out in Annual National Plans (ANP) have been reviewed annually with NATO International Staff and Allies.

  The UK has provided considerable bilateral assistance to all of the countries and will continue to provide support once they have joined the alliance. This assistance will help to ensure that the invitee countries to NATO can continue their reform programmes and make an effective contribution to the alliance's military and political structures.

  Nigeria
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Nigeria about(a) increases in Muslim fundamentalism in that country and (b) the potential for terrorism; and if he will make a statement. [151948]

  Mr. Mullin
  We hold regular discussions with the Nigerian authorities at Federal and State level and with others in Nigeria, including religious leaders and NGOs on these issues. We keep developments under careful review.

  British Council Board: List of Members as of 1 January 2004

  Appointed

  Retires

  Remuneration(£)

  Baroness Helena Kennedy QC Chair

  Augest 1998

  31 July 2004

  135,000 pa

  Gerard Lemos CMG Deputy Chair

  February 1999 D/Chair 1 December 2003

  December 2006

  —

  Zeinab Badawi

  1 December 2003

  1 December 2006

  —

  Catherine Eva

  April 2001

  September 2004

  —

  Charles Grant

  October 2002

  October 2005

  —

  Richard Haythornthwaite

  May 2002

  May 2005

  —

  Sir Michael Jay KCMG

  January 2002

  ex-officio

  —

  Jude Kelly QBE

  October 2002

  October 2005

  —

  Overseas Bribery and Corruption
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many reports of bribery and corruption overseas were received from diplomatic posts between November 1997 and February 2002. [151385]

  Mr. MacShane
  To provide the information requested would involve a manual search of files which would incur disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many allegations of overseas bribery involving UK companies his Department has received from the US Administration since February 1999; on what dates; and what action his Department took on each allegation. [151390]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on 10 December 2003, Official Report, column 512W. We cannot comment on individual reports received in order not to prejudice criminal investigations.

  Payments
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the payments in each financial year since 1999–2000 to(a) Uzbekistan, (b) Turkmenistan, (c) Kazakhstan, (d) Kyrgyzstan, (e) Pakistan, (f) Georgia and (g) Azerbaijan; what the purpose was of each payment; and if he will make a statement. [151671]

  Mr. Straw
  Thousands of payments have been made by Foreign and Commonwealth Office Posts and Departments to suppliers in these countries from the financial year 1999–2000 to date. To list all of these payments could be done only at a disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who the members of the(a) British Council, (b) Commonwealth Institute and (c) Westminster Foundation for Democracy were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and what their remuneration is. [151869]

  Mr. Mullin
  Both the British Council and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy are non-departmental public bodies for which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has responsibilities. The Commonwealth Institute is a registered charity and company limited by guarantee. As an independent body, we do not have access to the terms of office of its Board members.
  845W

  British Council Board: List of Members as of 1 January 2004

  Appointed

  Retires

  Remuneration (£)

  Professor Lord May of Oxford OM AC Kt PRS

  December 2001

  December 2006

  —

  professor Tim O'Shea BSc. PhD

  September 2003

  September 2006

  —

  Heather Rabbatts CBE

  February 1998

  February 2004

  —

  Sir Robert Smith MP

  April 2002

  April 2005

  —

  1This payment will be discontinued after 31 July 2004. The new Chair, yet to be appointed will not be remunerated.

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy: List of members as of 1 January 2004

  Appointed

  Retires1

  Remuneration

  Michael Aaronson

  19 October 2001

  October 2004

  Reimbursed expenses

  James Arbuthnot MP

  23 January 2004

  January 2007

  Reimbursed expenses

  Georgina Ashworth

  22 May 1998

  August 2004

  Reimbursed expenses

  James Bewsher

  19 November 2003

  November 2006

  Reimbursed expenses

  Frances D'Souza

  8 July 2000

  July 2006

  Reimbursed expenses

  Michael Gapes MP, Chair

  20 August 2002

  August 2005

  Reimbursed expenses

  Nik Gowing

  25 June 1996

  May 2005

  Reimbursed expenses

  Mary Kaldor

  7 July 1997

  June 2006

  Reimbursed expenses

  Elfyn Llwyd MP

  24 August 2001

  August 2004

  Reimbursed expenses

  Michael Moore MP

  31 January 2002

  January 2005

  Reimbursed expenses

  Patrick Smith

  19 October 2001

  October 2004

  Reimbursed expenses

  Richard Spring MP

  14 June 2000

  June 06

  Reimbursed expenses

  Gisela Stuart MP

  5 December 2001

  December 2004

  Reimbursed expenses

  Michael Trend MP

  30 June 1999

  August 2005

  Reimbursed expenses

  1WFD Governors are permitted to serve a maximum of 3 x 3 year terms. Date shown is end of current term.

  Commonwealth Institute

  List of members of the Board of Trustees as of 1 January 2004

  Ms Judith Hanratty, Chair The Lord Fellowes, Vice Chair

  The right hon. Donald McKinnon, Commonwealth Secretary-General

  Mr. Algy Cluff

  Mrs. Helen Robinson

  The High Commissioners to the United Kingdom of Nigeria, Malta, Tanzania and New Zealand

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the outcomes of the six-month pilot scheme under which visa applicants in Sri Lanka were required to provide fingerprints; and if he will publish the findings of the research. [151413]

  Mr. Mullin
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism at the Home Office (Beverly Hughes) will be writing to Members of the Seventh Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation about the six-month trial in Colombo and will be placing a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the security situation around Juba, Sudan; and what discussions he has had with the Sudanese Government about the situation. [152397]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have no particular concerns about the security situation around Juba. Juba has not come up in our recent discussions with the Sudanese Government of the security situation in Sudan.
  846W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the advice he is offering to British companies which are either involved or intend to become involved in the oil industry in the Sudan. [152398]

  Mr. Mullin
  The British embassy in Khartoum receives inquiries from British companies in many sectors, including oil, who are interested in becoming involved in business in Sudan. In response to their requests the embassy has provided briefing on the commercial, political and security situation. In addition to briefings it has on occasion provided security advice to companies interested in operating outside Khartoum.

  UN Corruption Convention
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what measures the Government are taking to ensure that the UK will be able to meet its commitments under the UN Convention on Corruption; [151510]

  (2) when the UK Government will ratify the UN Convention on Corruption. [151516]

  Mr. MacShane
  Government officials from, in particular, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office and the Department for International Development are working to ensure that the UK is in a position to meet its obligations under the UN Convention Against Corruption. Once we have ensured that UK legislation and administrative arrangements satisfy these obligations, the UK Government will seek to ratify the Convention at the earliest opportunity.

  UN General Assembly Resolutions
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy considerations dictated the UK's vote against UN General Assembly resolution 58/51, Towards a Nuclear Weapon-Free World; and if he will make a statement. [151674]
  847W
  Mr. Straw
  Government policy on nuclear weapons remains as set out in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review and the 2003 Defence White Paper. We are committed to working towards a safer world in which there is no requirement for nuclear weapons and continue to play a full role in international efforts to strengthen arms control and prevent the proliferation of nuclear—as well as chemical and biological—weapons.

  Resolution 58/51, Towards a Nuclear Weapon-Free World, has been tabled over several years and contains many important elements that we support. However, as we explained in our Explanation of Vote, the text presented to UNGA 58 contained several elements that were inconsistent with the consensus reached at the 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference. The UK remains committed to the NPT, which we regard as the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation and disarmament regime.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the UK is taking in support of UN General Assembly Resolution 58/36, on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space; and if he will make a statement. [151675]

  Mr. Straw
  The UK traditionally votes in favour of an annual UN 1st Committee Resolution on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS).

  We have signed and ratified the Outer Space Treaty that places important constraints on the basing of weapons in space, including a prohibition on the deployment of weapons of mass destruction. However, we derive considerable military and security benefits from the use of space, and would not like to see a general prohibition on the military use of space.

  In addition, we support agreement of a programme of work at the Conference of Disarmament (CD) in Geneva, which includes issues relating to PAROS. We also participated in a recent informal seminar on PAROS at the CD.

  Visa Applicants (Fingerprinting)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the estimated cost is of extending the fingerprinting of visa applicants announced on 21 January. [151414]

  Mr. Mullin
  The cost of introducing fingerprinting in our visa sections in Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Uganda is estimated at £325,000 for the current financial year and £410,000 for the 2004–05 financial year. Costs are being met from the budget allocated to the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate. The costs will include initial

  £ million

  Region

  Coalfields1

  Community chests1

  European Regional Development Fund Areas

  Housing market Renewal Pathfinders1

  Liveability2

  2002–03

  North East

  2.6

  2.17

  20.34

  2.64

  0.0

  North West

  1.1

  3.85

  57.31

  10.56

  0.0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5.3

  1.95

  40.68

  5.28

  0.0

  East Midlands

  4.2

  1.06

  11.09

  0.0

  0.0

  West Midlands

  1.6

  1.66

  24.04

  5.28

  0.0

  East of England

  0.0

  0.22

  5.55

  0.0

  0.0

  848W
  start-up expenses such as procurement and deployment of equipment, IT development, additional staff and accommodation changes. Running costs thereafter are estimated at £117,000 per year.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many units of affordable housing for(a) rent and (b) sale were built with funding generated by recycled capital grant in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03, broken down by Government Office Region. [152024]

  Keith Hill
  The total number of affordable housing dwellings built with recycled capital grant in England for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are as follows:

  Rent

  Sale

  2001–02

  555

  234

  2002–031

  365

  418

  1Subject to validation

  information on the split of these dwellings by region is being collated. I will write to the hon. Member and make a copy available in the Library of the House.

  In addition, Registered Social Landlords built affordable housing dwellings by combining recycled grant with new social housing grant from local authorities or the Housing Corporation. Dwellings produced in this way are not counted in the table and appear in the record of dwellings produced through the Approved Development Programme or the former local authorities' social housing grant programmes.

  As well as building additional affordable housing, registered social landlords recycled grant into major repair and improvement of their older, existing housing.

  Area-based Initiative Budget
  Mr. Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the budget was for each area-based initiative for(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04, broken down by English region; and what the total budget was for each region in each year. [151878]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The allocations issued to area-based initiatives totalled by region for the years sought are tabled as follows.
  849W

  £ million

  Region

  Coalfields1

  Community chests1

  European Regional Development Fund Areas

  Housing market Renewal Pathfinders1

  Liveability2

  London

  0.0

  3.20

  7.40

  0.0

  0.0

  South East

  0.2

  0.40

  1.85

  0.0

  0.0

  South West

  0.0

  0.47

  16.64

  0.0

  0.0

  Total

  15.0

  14.98

  184.90

  23.76

  0.0

  Neighbourhood Management1

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  Neighbourhood Wardens/Street Wardens1

  New Deal for Communities

  Total allocation

  North East

  1.9

  39.73

  1.2

  25.27

  95.85

  North West

  2.3

  81.18

  3.5

  26.60

  186.40

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1.5

  45.48

  2.05

  23.67

  125.91

  East Midlands

  1.3

  19.51

  1.2

  14.86

  53.22

  West Midlands

  0.9

  40.51

  0

  18.27

  92.26

  East of England

  0.4

  2.64

  1.3

  15.05

  25.16

  London

  1.03

  61.60

  4.6

  9.18

  87.01

  South East

  0.60

  3.24

  1.9

  11.17

  19.36

  South West

  1.07

  6.11

  1.5

  41.93

  67.72

  Total

  11.00

  300.00

  17.25

  186.00

  1For some programmes not all of the budget has yet been allocated to individual initiatives.

  2Figures for 2003–04 are for the provisional allocations as agreements have not you been completed.

  £ million

  Region

  Coalfields1

  Community chests2

  European Regional Development Fund Areas

  Housing market Renewal Pathfinders1

  Liveability2

  2003–

  North East

  2.8

  3.55

  24.5

  4.0

  0.7

  North West

  1.4

  6.49

  71.7

  28.0

  0.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6.0

  3.36

  52.0

  4.0

  0.8

  East Midlands

  4.8

  1.79

  14.5

  0.0

  0.8

  West Midlands

  1.8

  2.89

  29.9

  8.0

  0.8

  East of England

  0.0

  0.34

  6.0

  0.0

  0.7

  London

  0.0

  5.3

  9.6

  0.0

  0.8

  South East

  0.2

  0.58

  1.5

  0.0

  0.8

  South West

  0.0

  0.73

  19.2

  0.0

  0.8

  Total

  17.0

  25.03

  228.9

  44.0

  7.0

  Neighbourhood Management1

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  Neighbourhood Wardens/ Street Wardens1

  New Deal for Communities

  Total allocation

  North East

  2.57

  52.97

  1.25

  31.21

  123.55

  North West

  1.71

  108.20

  2.76

  52.50

  273.56

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2.52

  60.63

  1.84

  30.06

  161.21

  East Midlands

  1.73

  26.00

  0.52

  24.22

  74.36

  West Midlands

  1.61

  53.98

  1.38

  30.53

  130.89

  East of England

  1.15

  3.50

  0.91

  9.60

  22.20

  London

  0.85

  82.04

  2.88

  62.79

  164.26

  South East

  0.88

  4.56

  1.26

  13.27

  23.05

  South West

  0.73

  8.12

  0.92

  10.82

  41.32

  Total

  13.75

  400.00

  13.72

  265.00

  1 For some programmes not all of the budget has yet been allocated to individual initiatives.

  2 Figures for 2003–04 are for the provisional allocations as agreements have not yet been completed.

  Single Regeneration Budget

  In 2001, the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) was subsumed into the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) Single Programme (`Single Pot') from which RDAs will continue to fund existing SRB commitments. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's contribution to the RDAs Single Pot is £4,679 million for 2003–06 and £1,523.7 million for 2003–04.

  Urban Regeneration Companies (URCs)

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not directly fund URCs as funding is channelled through non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and other delivery agents.

  Brownfield Land
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's commitment to develop brownfield land. [152467]

  Keith Hill
  The Government want to make the best use of disused brownfield land in and around our towns and cities. This will help to ease pressures on the countryside and avoid urban sprawl. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister wants to create more welcoming and attractive places in which people can take pride. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working closely with English Partnerships to develop a national strategy
  851W
  for brownfield land. English Partnerships has published the results of the first stage of work on the strategy, which provides a better understanding of what land is available. Through English Partnerships and the Regional Development Agencies we are remediating brownfield land at a rate of over 1,400 hectares a year.

  Council Tax
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many applications have been made under section 76 of the Local Government Act 2003 for reductions or variations in the level of council tax payable, broken down by local authority. [152808]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None. Local authorities do not need to make applications to the Government in order to use the power in section 13A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as inserted by section 76 of the Local Government Act 2003. It is up to local billing authorities to decide whether to use this new provision and to assure themselves that what they are proposing is within their powers.

  Cumbria County Council
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Government grant for Cumbria county council was in(a) 1996–97, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [152338]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Formula Grant comprises Revenue Support Grant and National Non-Domestic Rates. Allocations to Cumbria county council were:

  (a) £229.1 million

  (b) £269.5 million

  (c) £293.7 million

  The amounts are not strictly comparable because of changes in council functions between years.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage increase in grant would be necessary to bring Cambridgeshire county council up to the full Formula Spending Share for 2004–05. [152328]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Formula Spending Shares (FSS) and Formula Grant are not strictly comparable as FSS includes an element of assumed council tax and the grant distribution system uses floors and ceilings on grant changes as well as FSS. However, Cambridgeshire would have received 3.87 per cent. more grant in 2004–05 had floors and ceilings not applied.

  Market Renewal Pathfinder Budget
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the budget was for each market renewal pathfinder scheme for(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04, broken down by (i) English region and (ii) pathfinder area. [151880]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Over the financial year 2002–03 and 2003–04, there has been a budget of £2.66 million for each pathfinder for preparation of a strategic scheme and where considered appropriate by them some early action projects.
  852W
  For 2003–04 to 2005–06, a market renewal fund of £500 million has been created for the nine pathfinders. So far for 2003–04, Birmingham Sandwell, East Lancashire, Oldham and Rochdale, Merseyside, NewcastleGateshead, North Staffordshire and South Yorkshire have been allocated £4 million to begin action on the ground ahead of scheme agreement.

  Manchester Salford is the first pathfinder to complete and agree their strategic scheme. They have been awarded £125 million over the next two-and-a-half years to implement their scheme. Merseyside has recently been awarded £86 million and NewcastleGateshead £69 million. Three other pathfinders have submitted their scheme to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—East Lancashire, Oldham Rochdale and South Yorkshire—these are currently being assessed and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to announce allocations later this year.

  The table summarises funding allocations thus far for 2002–03 and 2003–04 by pathfinder and English region. The figures for Manchester Salford, NewcastleGateshead and Merseyside show funding up until March 2006.

  £ million

  Region/pathfinder

  Total funding for pathfinder

  Total funding for region

  North West

  Manchester Salford

  127.66

  233.64

  Merseyside East Lancashire

  92.66

  East Lancashire

  6.66

  Oldham Rochdale

  6.66

  North East

  NewcastleGateshead

  75.66

  75.66

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  South Yorkshire

  6.66

  9.32

  Hull and East Riding

  2.66

  West Midlands

  Birmingham Sandwell

  6.66

  13.32

  North Staffordshire

  6.66

  Rural Land Use
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the concept of temporary development which applies to minerals and landfill operations with a restoration condition will remain unchanged by the Draft Planning Policy Statement Number 7—Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. [152465]

  Keith Hill
  In September 2003 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published a public consultation draft of a new Planning Policy Statement (PPS7), Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. The draft sets out proposed national planning policies to deliver sustainable rural communities by focussing most new development on towns and villages, and through strict control over new development in the open countryside. PPS7 does not propose any changes to the established definition of previously-developed land which excludes land used for mineral extraction and waste disposal where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures.
  853W
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether land and buildings within the rural land use classification are prima facie protected from development. [152466]

  Keith Hill
  National planning policies for rural areas are principally set out in Planning Policy Guidance 7 (PPG7), "The Countryside—Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development". This guidance is not based on a rural land use classification. PPG7 advises that building in the open countryside, away from existing settlements or areas allocated for development, should be strictly controlled. Further restrictions on development in Green Belts are set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 2.

  It is for the local planning authority in the first instance to determine planning applications for the development of land and buildings in accordance with policies in an adopted development plan for the area, and with regard to national and regional planning guidance.

  In September 2003 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published a public consultation draft of a new Planning Policy Statement (PPS7), "Sustainable Development in Rural Areas". The draft sets out proposed national planning policies to deliver sustainable rural communities by focussing most new development on towns and villages, and through strict control over new development in the open countryside.

  Social Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2004,Official Report, column 1464W, which column of the table includes units built or acquired by registered social landlords with recycled capital grant. [152188]

  Keith Hill
  Dwellings built or acquired by registered social landlords using recycled capital grant funding are included in column A of the table produced on the 22 January 2004,Official Report, column 1464W.

  Thames Gateway
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans the Government have for the adoption of standards for access to(a) schools, (b) healthcare facilities, (c) leisure facilities, (d) open spaces, (e) shops and (f) new jobs in the communities that are planned in the Thames Gateway, Essex area. [152431]

  Keith Hill
  For the Thames Gateway Essex area and elsewhere, Government planning policy (in particular Planning Policy Guidance 13) is to promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling.

  In addition, the Social Exclusion Unit's "Making the Connections" report, published in February 2003, sets out a strategy to help people on low incomes access work, food shops and key public services, notably education and healthcare. This includes the approach of accessibility planning in those areas that produce a Local Transport Plan, where local transport planners and others work together to examine accessibility needs
  854W
  and how to overcome barriers. Accessibility planning is currently being piloted and various accessibility indicators are under consideration.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how he will ensure that new housing development in the Thames Gateway, Essex area will meet(a) flood resistance standards sufficient for the Association of British Insurers and (b) high standards of design. [152432]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recognises the importance of ensuring that new housing development in the Thames Gateway meets flood resistance standards. All new housing is subject to compliance with Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 on `Development and Flood Risk'. Furthermore, projects that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is funding in the Thames Gateway are required to undertake an appropriate Flood Risk Assessment and consult with the Environment Agency where there is a potential risk of flooding. Officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are also meeting with the Association of British Insurers to discuss flood management issues.

  To ensure that new housing development meets high standards of design, Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 on 'General Policy and Principles' requires that "good design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process and should be encouraged everywhere". This policy is supported by our good practice guidance 'By Design'. Projects that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is funding in the Thames Gateway have been selected against thematic objectives, one of which is "to implement a consistent policy of quality design". The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also increased funding for the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), who are launching the Growth Areas Housing Quality Forum in March 2004 to disseminate best practice. Furthermore, the Building for Life award has been developed by CABE, the House Builders Federation and the Civic Trust to reward development that incorporates high standards of design.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) whether the Thames Gateway area of Canvey Island will receive additional road access before the new housing development planned by the Thames Gateway initiative is completed; [152433]

  (2) if he will instruct the Thames Gateway initiative to carry out a feasibility study on the provision of a new terminus station for Canvey Island. [152434]

  Keith Hill
  The East of England Local Government Conference, the regional planning body that has jurisdiction for the Borough of Castle Point, is currently preparing a new Regional Planning Guidance for the East of England (RPG14). This will cover growth proposals for the local authority areas in South Essex with respect to housing and jobs. It will also provide commentary on the sub-region's transport infrastructure.

  It is therefore open to partners to make representations for improved access to Canvey Island through the Regional Planning process, alongside the identification of locations where development should be supported within the region.
  855W
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what investigations the Thames Gateway Initiative has carried out into the(a) numbers of vehicle movements (i) on to and (ii) off Canvey Island and (b) road capacity for access to the Island; [152435]

  (2) what investigations the Thames Gateway Initiative has carried out into the (a) number of rail passengers originating from Canvey Island and (b) the capacity of the rail infrastructure. [152436]

  Keith Hill
  The Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership that 1 chair has not undertaken any investigation of the number of vehicle movements to and from Canvey Island, nor the capacity of roads that provide access to and from the Island.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has contributed to the London to Southend Movement Study, commissioned in 2003 by the Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership. The outcome of this study has yet to be published.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many planning applications for(a) housing and (b) mixed use development in the Thames Gateway, Essex area have been refused since March 2000 on the grounds of poor design. [152437]

  Keith Hill
  Information relating to the number of planning applications refused in the Thames Gateway since March 2000 on grounds of poor design is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All Local Planning Authorities within the Thames Gateway and elsewhere, are statutorily obliged to keep information relating to the status of individual planning applications within their area of operation.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average residential density was of housing developments given planning permission since March 2000 in areas of south Essex which fall within the Thames Gateway. [152439]

  Keith Hill
  Information relating to the average residential density of housing developments given planning permission in the south Essex Thames Gateway area since March 2000 is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All Local Planning Authorities within the Thames Gateway and elsewhere, are obliged to keep information relating to the determination of planning applications within their area of operation.

  Authority Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

  CPA score weak

  Council' Improvement Priorities

  Title of focus of proposed Audit or Inspection activity

  Outline scope of proposed Audit or Inspection activity

  Proposed timetable for audit, inspection and other activity (if Known)

  Output of proposed Audit or Inspection activity

  Organisation(s) undertaking the audit and/or the inspection activity

  From

  To

  Strengthening Corporate and strategic planning

  Corporate Service and Financial Planning

  To assess development of corporate service and financial planning as part of Best Value Performance Plan audit

  July 2003

  November 2003

  Audit Report

  Audit Commission

  Strengthening Corporate and strategic planning

  Corporate Service and Financial Planning

  To assess development of medium term financial strategy

  January 2004

  April 2004

  Audit Report

  Audit Commission

  Thistle Hill Development
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what infrastructure plan has been agreed between Government agencies in relation to additional homes on the Thistle Hill development agreed by the Planning Inspector. [152110]

  Keith Hill
  The Thistle Hill housing scheme, which is expected to yield approximately 1,000 dwellings, already had planning permission, granted by Swale borough council, but was limited to 340 houses before the new Swale Bridge was opened. The appeal decision made by the inspector on 15 January allows a further 85 houses per year to be built before the bridge opens, up to a maximum of 540.

  The contract for the new bridge is expected to be awarded shortly and it should be completed by summer of 2006. The consent for the Thistle Hill scheme requires the applicant to provide contributions for education, including a site for a new school, and various transport improvements including improvements to the nearby Cowstead Corner Roundabout.

  The Isle of Sheppey is an important part of the Thames Gateway growth area and the MISC 22 cabinet committee are looking at the broader implications of infrastructure provision across the whole Thames Gateway area. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is aware of the existing infrastructure problems on the island, particularly in education and primary health care, and these are being addressed by the relevant agencies.

  Trafford Council
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 19 January 2004,Official Report, column 1097W, which specific (a) areas and (b) departments of Trafford council were identified as being in need of improvement during the improvement planning process orchestrated by the Audit Commission; and if he will provide details of the programme of follow-up inspections. [152426]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Details of the improvement priorities for Trafford metropolitan borough council and the programme of follow-up inspections established as a result of the improvement planning process are tabled as follows. The Audit Commission's website lists this information for all single tier and county councils (http: //www. audit-commission.gov.uk/cpa/performance_planning/ImprovementPlanninglsifData.asp). Further details are included in Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council's Best Value Performance Plan.
  857W

  Authority Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

  CPA score weak

  Council' Improvement Priorities

  Title of focus of proposed Audit or Inspection activity

  Outline scope of proposed Audit or Inspection activity

  Proposed timetable for audit, inspection and other activity (if Known)

  Output of proposed Audit or Inspection activity

  Organisation(s) undertaking the audit and/or the inspection activity

  From

  To

  Strengthening corporate performance improvement and management

  Performance Management

  Assess improvement in Performance Indicator collection and development of performance monitoring systems

  July 2003

  November 2003

  Audit Report

  Audit Commission

  Strengthening Human Resources and finance support to the Organisation

  Development of Financial Management

  Assessment of the effectiveness of the integrated business units including financial management schemes of delegation, human resources management and E-

  To be agreed

  To be agreed

  Audit Report

  Audit Commission

  Strengthening financial and performance improvement monitoring systems

  Information Technology and E-government arrangements

  Assurance review of new information systems implementation

  Ongoing

  Ongoing

  Audit Report

  Audit Commission

  Strengthening financial and performance improvement monitoring systems

  Information Technology and E-government arrangements

  Inspection of Information Technology and E-government Best Value Review

  May 2003

  July 2003

  Inspection Report

  Audit Commission

  Improving the effectiveness of partnership working

  Effectiveness of partnership working

  Assessment of partnership working and delivery of outcomes focussing on Local Strategic Partnership

  September 2003

  December 2003

  Audit Report

  Audit Commission

  Improving the effectiveness of partnership working

  Effectiveness of partnership working

  Assurance review of post contract arrangement for: Leisure Trust, Learning disabilities partnership

  To be agreed

  To be agreed

  Audit Report

  Audit Commission

  Improving the effectiveness of partnership working

  Effectiveness of partnership working

  Continuing assessment of development of Children and Young People's company

  Ongoing

  Ongoing

  Audit Report, Guidance

  Social Services Inspectorate. Ofsted and Audit Commission

  Transforming the way we support and work with young people and children

  Focus on various aspects of support for children and young people

  Performance audit to monitor the implementation of change in social services provision for children in care from: residential to home care and responsive to preventative services

  June 2003

  October 2003

  Audit Report

  Audit Commission

  Transforming the way we support and work with young people and children

  Focus on various aspects of support for children and young people

  Performance audit to review the statement program for children

  May 2003

  August 2003

  Internal Report

  Audit Commission

  Transforming the way we support and work with older people

  Inspection of Older People's Services

  Social Services Inspectorate inspection of older people services including Best Value Review

  October 2003

  November 2003

  Inspection Report

  Social Services Inspectorate

  Transforming the way we support and work with older people

  Focus on various aspects of support for older people

  Performance audit of delayed discharge arrangements including associated health bodies

  June 2003

  August 2003

  Audit Report

  Audit Commission

  Transforming the way we care for and manage places where people live and the way we work through area planning

  Focus on care of the environment

  Upstream inspection work on-waste Best Value Review including links to street scene Best Value Review

  May 2003

  July 2003

  Internal Report

  Audit Commission

  Transforming the way we care for and manage the places where people live and the way we work through area planning

  Focus on care of the environment

  Upstream inspection work on—area regeneration Best Value Review

  July 2003

  September 2003

  Internal Report

  Audit Commission Inspection

  858W

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Broadband
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his latest estimate is of the level of broadband coverage in(a) North Down and (b) Northern Ireland. [151323]

  Mr. Pearson
  Based on analysis of information obtained from the public domain, industry sources and service providers, it can be estimated that broadband services aimed at small and medium enterprises and residential users are available to approximately 70 per cent. of households and business sites across Northern Ireland. Figures for North Down are not available. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is actively pursuing the availability of equitable broadband services to 100 per cent. of businesses and households by the end of 2005.

  Car Documentation
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his latest assessment is of the number of car owners driving in Northern Ireland without valid(a) car tax, (b) insurance, (c) MOT certification and (d) driving licence; and what steps he is taking to reduce these figures. [151326]

  Angela Smith
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The most recent detailed survey on vehicle excise duty evasion, undertaken in mid-2002, indicated that there were 74,700 unlicensed vehicles in the private and light goods (cars and vans) tax categories.

  (b) No detailed information is held on the number of car drivers without valid insurance, but a report produced by the PSNI concerning 107 unlicensed vehicles, under operation Nemesis, in October 2002 indicated that 80 per cent. were also evading insurance requirements. The Association of British Insurers, 51 Gresham Street, London, EC2B 7HQ may have more detailed information on uninsured drivers.

  NICS staff by department and grade at January 19971

  Grade 5 and above

  Senior Principal/ Principal Officer

  Deputy Principal

  Staff Officer

  Executive Officer I/ Executive Officer II

  Department of Health and Social Security

  45

  156

  194

  353

  2,121

  Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland

  24

  273

  385

  299

  989

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  18

  80

  38

  62

  157

  Department of Environment

  43

  251

  505

  793

  2,085

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  43

  128

  174

  218

  304

  Department of Economic Development

  37

  137

  210

  315

  897

  Northern Ireland Office1

  46

  116

  134

  154

  373

  Total

  256

  1,141

  1,640

  2,194

  6,926

  Administrative Officer

  Administrative Assistant

  Industrial grades

  Total

  Department of Health and Social Security

  3,125

  1,059

  2

  7,055

  Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland

  368

  390

  729

  3,457

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  167

  61

  2

  585

  Department of Environment

  1,338

  653

  2192

  7,860

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  408

  159

  1

  1,435

  860W
  (c) An analysis of data collected in 2002 estimated that 28 per cent. of vehicles of MOT age did not have valid MOT certificates at the date of sighting. This would equate to approximately 150,000 vehicles.

  (d) No information is held on the number of car owners driving without a valid driving licence.

  A range of measures are in place to reduce vehicle excise duty evasion and indirectly insurance and MOT evasion as valid insurance and MOT documents have to be produced at re-licensing. These include on-going detection by the PSNI and traffic wardens, wheel-clamping, detection by Automated Number Plate Reading cameras, Statutory Off Road Notification, and from 1 January 2004, the introduction of Continuous Registration, which allows detection from the vehicle record. There are also special joint exercises involving the PSNI, HM Customs and Excise, Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland (DVLNI) and Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency.

  Specific measures to tackle MOT evasion include the introduction of an MOT disc for display at present voluntarily, but which will be made mandatory in 2004–05, on vehicle windscreens, and the intention to issue MOT reminders starting in March 2004.

  The detection of those driving without a valid driving licence is a matter for the PSNI and tackled through their on-going programme of enforcement against traffic offences. Reminders are issued by DVLNI to all driving licence holders prior to the expiry of their licence.

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants, broken down by grade, there are in the Department and the agencies for which the Department is responsible; and what the figures were in January 1997. [150257]

  Mr. Pearson
  The following tables list the number of Northern Ireland civil service staff at 1 January 1997 and 1 September 2003:
  861W

  Administrative Officer

  Administrative Assistant

  Industrial grades

  Total

  Department of Economic Development

  558

  276

  61

  2,491

  Northern Ireland Office1

  356

  257

  8

  1,444

  Total

  6,320

  2,855

  2,995

  24,327

  1 Includes 187 home civil servants working in the NIO. Figures also include NICS staff working in the NI Prison Service.

  Figures include both permanent and casual NICS staff (industrial and non-industrial). Staff on career break are excluded.

  NI Prison Service staff (non-NICS) by grade at January 1997

  Governor

  67

  Principal officer

  167

  Senior officer

  244

  Officer

  2,404

  NICS staff by department and grade at September 20031

  Grade 5 and above

  Senior Principal/Principal Officer

  Deputy Principal

  Stuff Officer

  Executive Officer I/Executive Officer II

  Department of Agriculture & Rural Development

  23

  290

  504

  337

  1,205

  Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure

  7

  27

  45

  58

  189

  Department of Education

  13

  84

  56

  59

  159

  Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment

  12

  52

  102

  97

  205

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  38

  194

  374

  436

  668

  Department of Employment and Learning

  10

  39

  102

  163

  675

  Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

  35

  119

  154

  166

  242

  Department of Environment

  17

  99

  222

  326

  731

  Department of Regional Development

  20

  136

  321

  492

  1,306

  Department of Social Development

  18

  74

  180

  353

  2,681

  Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

  28

  49

  74

  53

  62

  Northern Ireland Office1

  52

  176

  193

  245

  465

  Total

  273

  1,339

  2,327

  2785

  8,588

  Administrative Officer

  Administrative Assistant

  Industrial grades

  Total

  Department of Agriculture & Rural Development

  476

  524

  661

  4,020

  Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure

  69

  58

  16

  469

  Department of Education

  173

  87

  1

  632

  Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment

  163

  95

  2

  728

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  821

  377

  31

  2,939

  Department of Employment and Learning

  553

  173

  1

  1,716

  Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

  165

  145

  0

  1,026

  Department of Environment

  533

  319

  137

  2,384

  Department of Regional Development

  603

  281

  1,771

  4,930

  Department of Social Development

  3,730

  1,481

  0

  8,517

  Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

  96

  34

  0

  396

  Northern Ireland Office1

  391

  275

  6

  1,803

  Total

  7,773

  3,849

  2,626

  29,560

  1 Includes 226 Home Civil servants working in the NIO. Figures also include NICS staff working in the NI Prison Service. (industrial and non-industrial), staff on career break are excluded.

  Figures include both permanent and casual NICS staff

  NI Prison Service staff (non-NICS) by grade at September 2003

  Governor

  39

  Principal officer

  66

  Senior officer

  178

  Officer

  1,332

  Auxiliary

  1

  Night patrol officer

  align="right">6

  Prison civilian

  72

  Total

  1,694

  862W

  NI Prison Service staff (non-NICS) by grade at January 1997

  Auxiliary

  68

  Night patrol officer

  3

  Prison civilian

  41

  Total

  2,994

  Civil Service
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to decrease sick leave in the Northern Ireland civil service; and if he will make a statement. [150757]

  Mr. Pearson
  The 11 departments of the Northern Ireland administration have in place a comprehensive range of initiatives aimed at reducing the level of sickness absence, and further work is planned. These are
  863W
  broadly similar in the Northern Ireland Office. The actions being taken include: the collection of robust statistical information on the extent and causes of absences to inform actions by departments and enable the setting of departmental-specific targets; on-going reviews of policies and procedures to both strengthen the arrangements for ensuring prompt action by management and to assist staff in rehabilitation and return to work; comprehensive guidance for managers and GPs, communicated though a variety of media; mandatory training for line-managers; a strengthened occupational health support; and promotion of health improvement through a number of initiatives.

  Coroners (Foyle)
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many full-time equivalent coroners practise in the Foyle constituency; what the average coroner to population ratio is in(a) Foyle and (b) Northern Ireland; and what plans he has to increase the number of coroners available in the Foyle constituency. [151574]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is responsible for the Coroners Service in Northern Ireland. The Foyle constituency is located within the coroner's district of Londonderry, which comprises the local government districts of Derry, Limavady and Strabane. A part-time coroner and a part- time deputy coroner are currently appointed to this district. Coroners' caseload is based on deaths reported and not on population. In 2002 there were 206 deaths reported in the coroner's district of Londonderry. The average number of deaths reported in the six coroners' districts excluding Greater Belfast was 189. Each of these districts has one part-time and one deputy part-time coroner appointed. The Northern Ireland Court Service will shortly be publishing proposals for improvements to the coroners' service in Northern Ireland, including creating a single, national coroner's jurisdiction in Northern Ireland.

  Doctors
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the implications of experienced senior house officers from Northern Ireland who complete their general practitioner registrar training in the United Kingdom outside Northern Ireland remaining in practices in England, Scotland or Wales. [152351]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has carried out a review of the medical workforce, which confirms that there is no shortage of general practitioners in Northern Ireland and that the number in training is sufficient to meet current demand. In determining the requirement for general practitioners, allowance is made for the movement of doctors into and out of the service locally.

  The position will be kept under review through the Department's workforce planning process.

  Employers' Liability Insurance
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to tackle the problem of 864W
  small and medium-sized businesses which are unable to obtain renewal of employers' liability insurance in Northern Ireland. [152211]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) takes the lead on insurance, as it is a reserved matter. DWP recently published an agenda for action in its second stage report on employers' liability insurance. This includes actions such as longer renewal periods by insurers and brokers, and a scheme called 'Making the Market Work' to help trade associations and others access the insurance market more easily.

  These actions are being taken forward in parallel in Northern Ireland. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) is already pursuing a range of initiatives aimed at improving the insurability of small and medium sized businesses and strengthening the insurance market in Northern Ireland.

  In addition, DETI officials are meeting with the British Insurance Association to explore other possible actions which the industry might take. It is also planned to have discussions with the FSB to identify what further actions their members might take to improve their prospects of securing employers' liability insurance at competitive rates.

  Estate Wardens
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many estate wardens have been appointed by the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland to date; and for which areas. [152595]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are 21 staff in post, including one agency worker and there are two vacant posts distributed as follows:

  Area

  Number

  Antrim

  1

  Armagh

  12

  Banbridge

  1

  Ballymena

  3

  Carrickfergus

  1

  Coleraine

  1

  Dungannon

  2

  Enniskillen (Fermanagh District Office)

  1

  Larne

  1

  Lurgan/Brownlow

  11

  Newry

  1

  Newtownabbey Office 1 and 2

  4

  Portadown

  2

  1Plus one vacancy

  Film Making
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) financial and (b) other assistance has been provided towards film making in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [151184]

  Angela Smith
  The information is as follows:

  (a) In the years in question the following financial assistance was provided towards film making in Northern Ireland.
  865W

  £

  DCAL

  DETI

  1998–99

  965,850

  412,384

  1999–2000

  1,006,335

  571,106

  2000–01

  816,081

  491,855

  2001–02

  739,911

  363,000

  2002–03

  1,097,324

  300,000

  2003–04

  1,038,459

  —

  TOTAL

  5,663,960

  2,138,345

  (b) In terms of other assistance, the Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission, which comes under the remit of DCAL, promotes awareness of Northern Ireland locations, crews and facilities to producers nationally and internationally, and promotes films produced in Northern Ireland. It also supports the development and production of films in Northern Ireland and encourages private sector investment in the industry. The Commission provides free advice to film-makers on all aspects of the business, including locations, casting, crews, facilities, safety, finance and trainees.

  No other non-financial assistance has been provided to the industry from DETI or Invest NI.

  Fly-tipping
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what studies have been conducted into the extent of fly-tipping in Northern Ireland. [151187]

  Angela Smith
  Environmental Campaigns Limited (ENCAMS) produced a Fly-Tipping Study in 2003 to establish the extent of fly-tipping in the UK during 200–02. This study gave details of trends from 1994 to 2002 including Northern Ireland. ENCAMS (an environmental charity, which runs the "Keep Britain Tidy" campaign and has a regional office in Belfast) has also produced a guide for the public entitled "Fly-Tipping and the Law". Beth publications are available on their website www.encams.org/publications and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  The Environment and Heritage Service of the Department of the Environment and District Councils are working together to design a code of practice for dealing with the issue of fly-tipping.

  Government Solicitors
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether solicitors have been retained to draft legislation in respect of water charging. [152213]

  Mr. Spellar
  No. Assembly Bills introduced by the Northern Ireland Executive during devolution and Orders in Council made under the Northern Ireland Act 2000 while the Assembly is suspended are drafted by the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

  However, the Department for Regional Development has appointed legal advisers to provide specialist expertise on the water industry regulatory, consumer protection and environmental issues to be addressed in the legislation which will be necessary to give effect to the wide-ranging Water Reform agenda.
  866W
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money was paid to solicitors employed by the Government in the drafting of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01, (c) 2001–02 and (d) 2002–03, broken down by firm. [152214]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 was drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Costs were therefore met within existing Government resources. No payment was made to any private firm of solicitors.

  Higher Education
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of school leavers in Northern Ireland went on into higher education in each year since 1997; what steps he is taking to increase these figures; and if he will make a statement. [150675]

  Jane Kennedy
  Information for the 2002–03 school year is not yet available. The percentages of school leavers entering institutions of higher education are as follows:

  Percentage

  1997–98

  28.6

  1998–99

  30.0

  1999–2000

  30.5

  2000–01

  32.9

  2001–02

  35.0

  I have no policy to increase, overall, the number of school leavers progressing into higher education. I am, however, keen to increase the number of students progressing from those groups that are currently underrepresented in HE. In particular students from disadvantaged backgrounds and students with learning difficulties and disabilities.

  Widening participation in HE by students from these groups is one of the Department for Employment and Learning's key strategic goals. The Department is addressing the issue of widening access to higher education through a number of broad policy directions and through a range of specific actions.

  These include an increase in domestic HE provision between 1999–2000 and 2004–05; the introduction of Foundation Degrees; the introduction of a package of student support measures to assist students from low income families; widening participation premia for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and students with learning difficulties and disabilities and special initiative funding to develop partnerships between the universities and schools with traditionally low levels of participation in HE.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of school leavers in each of the past five years went on to attend a university in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [150679]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is not available in the requested format.
  867W
  (a)–(c) The percentages of school leavers who went on to attend institutions of higher education in Great Britain are as follows:

  Percentage

  1997–98

  9.3

  1998–99

  8.6

  1999–2000

  7.7

  2000–01

  8.5

  2001–02

  9.0

  (d) The percentages of school leavers who went on to attend institutions of higher education in Northern Ireland are as follows:

  Percentage

  1997–98

  18.4

  1998–99

  20.6

  1999–2000

  22.0

  2000–01

  23.5

  2001–02

  25.0

  The following table provides information on the number of 18 and 19-year-olds who enter university for a full-time undergraduate course. Not all of these students will have progressed direct from school to university. Some, for example, will have left school at an earlier age and qualified for university entry through further education.

  Northern Ireland domiciled first year full-time undergraduate students aged 18 and 19 entering HE institutions in the UK by country of study 1997–98 to 2001–02

  Percentage

  Total number of students

  2001–02

  Northern Irish Institution

  73

  English Institution

  15

  Scottish Institution

  12

  Welsh Institution

  1

  Total

  100

  9,311

  2000–01

  Northern Irish Institution

  72

  English Institution

  16

  Scottish Institution

  12

  Welsh Institution

  1

  Total

  100

  8,933

  1999–2000

  Northern Irish Institution

  69

  English Institution

  17

  Scottish Institution

  14

  Welsh Institution

  1

  Total

  100

  8,643

  1998–99

  Northern Irish Institution

  65

  English Institution

  18

  Scottish Institution

  16

  Welsh Institution

  1

  Total

  100

  8,577

  1997–98

  Northern Irish Institution

  64

  English Institution

  19

  Scottish Institution

  16

  Welsh Institution

  1

  Total

  100

  8,592

  868W
  Notes:

  1. Source of data-Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)

  2. The latest year of information on enrolments is 2001–02

  3. Entrants to HE are based on students on their first year of a course

  4. Age as at 31 August

  5. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding

  6. Information from HESA does not enable the identification of school leavers. For example, some of these students may have progressed to HE via the FE route.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been waiting for(a) inpatient admission and (b) initial outpatient assessment for orthopaedic surgery for more than (i) one year, (ii) two years and (iii) three years. [152367]

  Angela Smith
  Waiting list statistics are submitted to the Department at specialty level. The information in this answer relates to people waiting in the trauma and orthopaedics specialty at 30 September 2003 (the most recent information available). Waiting list statistics are collected in three-month time bands for all patients waiting up to 24 months. Patients waiting 24 months or more are grouped together within one category therefore patients waiting three years or more cannot be separately identified.

  One year

  Two years

  Three years

  Number awaiting inpatient admission

  1,725

  604

  n/a

  Number awaiting initial outpatient assessment

  6,998

  3,352

  n/a

  Source:

  CH1 and CH3

  Industrial De-rating
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what research the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment based its assessment that industrial de-rating will not result in widespread job losses. [146310]

  Mr. Pearson
  Evidence to assist our thinking on the way forward on this issue came from a variety of different sources: for example, studies conducted by DTZ Pieda, Invest NI and CBI as well as submissions made during the public consultation exercise in 2002 by the DETI and DFP Assembly Committees and local economists. The policy paper published in April last year also included a Regulatory Impact Assessment. All this evidence was analysed and considered objectively and the various options were discussed openly with representatives of the business community before a final decision was taken.

  Invest Northern Ireland
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many businesses based(a) in Northern Ireland, (b) in the rest of the United Kingdom and (c) outside the United Kingdom have received assistance from Invest Northern Ireland in each year since its formation. [151333]
  869W
  Mr. Pearson
  Information on Invest NI offers of Selective Financial Assistance (SFA) to businesses is as follows:

  Location

  Number of businesses

  Northern Ireland

  1,284

  Rest of the United Kingdom

  10

  Outside the United Kingdom

  22

  Total

  1,316

  Information on businesses assisted by Invest NI through programmes other than SFA is not available for the above locations.

  Late Flights
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many flights at Northern Ireland's airports were delayed(a) arriving from and (b) departing for London in the last month for which figures are available as a result of air traffic control restrictions in London. [151335]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  For December 2003, of the 3,346 arrivals at Belfast City, Belfast International and Londonderry/Eglinton airports, 139 flights were delayed by air traffic control regulations imposed within the London Flight Information Region (FIR). Of the 3,348 departures from those airports, the corresponding figure was 145 flights.

  Maternity Services
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the cost incurred as a result of women from outside Northern Ireland giving birth in local hospitals in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [152362]

  Angela Smith
  Using an estimate based on average expenditure, the cost to the HPSS of such births was £211,445, excluding private patients, for the financial year 2002–03.

  National Stadium
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with(a) sports bodies, (b) local councils and (c) local representatives on the creation of a national stadium in Northern Ireland. [152585]

  Angela Smith
  The issue of a National Stadium has involved discussions with sports bodies and other relevant interests for some time. You may be aware that I have recently invited the Strategic Investment Board to commission a study to establish if a National Stadium in Northern Ireland is a viable option. It will be part of the brief for the consultants appointed for this work to have discussions with sports bodies and other appropriate interest groups.

  Paramilitary Activities
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the 870W
  financial cost of paramilitary beatings which resulted in long-term NHS treatment of victims in 2003. [152352]

  Angela Smith
  This information is not available.

  Peace II Programme
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much of the funds from the Peace II programme were distributed by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in each of the last six months; and how much of these funds was distributed to(a) Greenmount Agricultural College and (b) Enniskillen Agricultural College. [152216]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Greenmount and Enniskillen Campuses are now part of the single DARD College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE).

  The following table details expenditure under PEACE II measures for which the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is responsible and identifies how much of this expenditure was distributed to CAFRE.

  Expenditure DARD PEACE II Measures

  CAFRE Expenditure

  July 2003

  51,429

  August 2003

  831,856

  September 2003

  7,689

  October 2003

  947,301

  November 2003

  9,299,114

  8,652,472

  December 2003

  364,878

  Pension Inquiry Line
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average time taken to respond to telephone inquiries made to the Social Security Agency Northern Ireland's pension service inquiry line was in each of the last 12 months. [152092]

  Mr. Spellar
  Unfortunately, information on the time taken to clear telephone inquiries is not available.

  Post-primary Education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the cost of setting up and implementing the proposed new Northern Ireland post-primary education system. [152090]

  Jane Kennedy
  Until specific proposals for new arrangements begin to emerge at local level, it will not be possible to make reliable estimates of costs. I will be looking at the available options and discussing with my ministerial colleagues ways to ensure the necessary resources to enable the new arrangements to be implemented, taking account of the opportunities offered by the Strategic Investment Programme.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of how the proposed new post-primary education system will affect funding for(a) schools and (b) Further Education colleges. [152091]
  871W
  Jane Kennedy
  The arrangements for funding schools and Further Education colleges will require further consideration in light of the new arrangements. The Government's decisions announced on 26 January provide the context for further work on this issue to be carried out, in consultation with our education partners.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when research will be completed on(a) the post-primary pupil profiles and (b) new admissions criteria for the proposed new post-primary education system; and whether the research process will be open to full public consultation. [152125]

  Jane Kennedy
  CCEA is developing and piloting the pupil profile which will apply to both primary and post primary schools. The aim is to have it in place as soon as possible in order to improve the information available to parents.

  Research on new admissions criteria, which will produce a list of potential criteria for consideration, is expected to be completed by the end of this year. There will be full consultation on this proposed list.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of how the implementation of the proposed new post-primary education system will affect staff employment levels in(a) post-primary schools and (b) further education colleges. [152126]

  Jane Kennedy
  Until specific proposals emerge at a local level it will not be possible to determine the affect on staff employment levels in post-primary schools or in further education colleges. Proposals for new post-primary arrangements will be developed at local level by schools and further education colleges working together to ensure that all pupils have access to the "Entitlement Framework".

  Potato Ring Rot
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the costs are of equipment purchased to deal with potato ring rot in the last 12 months. [152217]

  Mr. Pearson
  I am aware that the recent finding of potato ring rot in Wales posed a significant threat to the potato industry, though no infected stocks of seed or ware potatoes have been identified in Northern Ireland.

  Stringent preventative measures to minimise the risk of further spread are already in place. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has however increased its existing preventative actions, including:
  Checking and sampling of crops produced from GB seed potatoes in 2003;
  Further targeted sampling of GB seed potatoes due to be planted in Northern Ireland in 2004;
  Increased monitoring by inspectors at the ports of Belfast, Lame and Warrenpoint of all seed and ware potato imports;
  Increased inspections at premises of importers and processors, including inspections of stocks and checks on sources and reliability; and
  Meetings with stakeholder representatives and key industry individuals to provide scientific information on the disease and advice on new preventative measures.
  872W
  The majority of costs associated with these additional measures are DARD staffs' time.

  There is little need for equipment to deal with potato ring rot. DARD Science Service secured £6,500 in 2003 from budget to specifically address its laboratory diagnostic capacity following enhanced sampling by the Inspection Service and to accommodate any necessary emergency response to potato ring rot. This has enabled the provision of enhanced diagnostic capability within DARD for both classical and EU prescribed molecular diagnostic protocols in anticipation of an increased sampling regime for potatoes.

  Prescription Fraud
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what he estimates the cost was of prescription fraud in Northern Ireland in 2003; and if he will make a statement. [152414]

  Angela Smith
  It is estimated that the cost of prescription fraud in 2002–03 was £8.3 million. Estimates for 2003–04 will be available by the end of May 2004.

  Tackling fraud remains a key priority for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, which has introduced a range of measures to combat exemption fraud. These include setting up a dedicated Counter Fraud Unit, the introduction of fixed penalty charges for patients who misclaim and the creation of the specific criminal offence of evading health services charges.

  Rating
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to bring forward proposals in relation to rates in the domestic sector. [152209]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have already announced that I propose to replace the current rental based domestic rating with a system based on market values and I plan to bring forward detailed proposals on the reform of the domestic rating system before Easter this year.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the level of domestic rates in the next financial year in Northern Ireland of the phasing out of industrial de-rating. [152210]

  Mr. Pearson
  The phasing out of industrial de-rating is scheduled to commence in April 2005 so there is no impact on the level of domestic rates in the next (2004–05) financial year.

  Schizophrenia
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the financial cost of schizophrenia in Northern Ireland in the last five years. [152356]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available.

  South Eastern Education and Library Board
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action has been taken by the
  873W
  South Eastern Education and Library Board to complete the asbestos survey of its estate; when he expects the survey to be completed; and when its findings will be published. [149780]

  Jane Kennedy
  I understand from the Chief Executive of the South Eastern Education and Library Board that 62 per cent. of asbestos surveys have been completed to date, 18 per cent. of surveys are currently on-going and all surveys will be completed by May 2004. Information on the survey results for individual schools will be available on a phased basis from February 2004 onwards on request to the Chief Executive SEELB.

  Timber
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by what means the policy for purchasing timber and timber products of(a) the Northern Ireland Office, (b) the Compensation
  874W
  Agency, (c) the Forensic Science Northern Ireland and (d) the Northern Ireland Prison Service ensures that they are obtained from legal and sustainable sources. [141338]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Timber purchased by the Northern Ireland Office and its agencies is obtained via contracts established by the Central Procurement Directorate.

  The directorate uses the National Building Specification (issued by NBS Services) as its standard technical specification for major construction projects and this has an optional timber procurement clause which is in line with central government policy. The directorate is in the process of adopting this clause for major works and will be introducing similar requirements for other specifications.

  Recent contracts for the purchase of wooden furniture have complied with the current Green Housekeeping guidance.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  Following a careful and detailed assessment of HMS Daedalus in Gosport as a potential accommodation centre for asylum seekers, we have concluded that the difficulties associated with the conversion of historic buildings and the creation of a suitable access point into the site mean that we will no longer be pursuing this site for the purposes of the trial. I can confirm that we will not be proceeding with a planning notification for this site.

  It remains our intention to include within the trial of accommodation centres at least one centre which is smaller than the 750 bed model, and is located in, or near, an urban area. We are still in discussions with the Refugee Council about the core and cluster model proposed by them. We will not be putting details of potential sites into the public domain unless and until they appear to be a good prospect for the siting of an accommodation centre.

DEFENCE

  Reserve Forces
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  We are making an important administrative change to the recruitment and re-engagement procedures for the volunteer reserve forces. From 1 April this year, new recruits to the volunteer reserve forces and applicants for re-engagement will be required to agree to their unit contacting their employer about their membership. The purpose of contacting employers is to ensure that they are aware of those employees who are members of the volunteer reserve forces and also to provide information about training and call-out liabilities.

  As a safeguard, reservists will have a right to submit cases to their commanding officers if they believe that they have particular reasons for not having their membership of the volunteer reserve forces disclosed. Cases will be considered on their merits.

  This change to our administrative procedures will enable employers to be in a better position to plan for the absence of employees who are reservists and also to be better informed about their rights and obligations. It builds on our policy of recognising that the effectiveness of the reserves ultimately depends on a three-way relationship between the Ministry of Defence, the reservists themselves and their employers.

  Colchester Garrison PFI
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  I am very pleased to announce to the House that the Ministry of Defence has reached agreement with RMPA Services plc to redevelop and operate Colchester garrison. This PEI contract will provide effective services to the army for 35 years and is worth approximately £2 billion through the life of the project.

  This is an arrangement which is beneficial to both parties and we shall shortly see work on the new barracks starting on the ground. The result will be a fully serviced and modern garrison for a modern army with living and working accommodation that is amongst the best, demonstrating our commitment to providing our armed forces with facilities that are up to date and appropriate for the 21st century. I expect approximately 190 civil service posts to transfer to the contractor and these will be handled in accordance with existing legislation. We do not envisage any redundancies arising out of this transfer.

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  Further to my answer to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth),Official Report, 21 January 2004, column 1244W, the proposals set out in the Treasury and Inland Revenue document Simplifying the taxation of pensions: the Government's proposals", published on 10 December 2003, would allow all such pension guarantee lump sum payments to continue to be paid free of income tax, subject to the proposed £1.4 million lifetime allowance.

  The original answer was incorrect following advice from officials across Government, and I unreservedly apologise for this inaccurate answer.

  The new armed forces pension scheme currently in Committee stage will in the event of the member's death, be able to pay both death-in-service lump sums of the type already paid under existing pension arrangements and the new pension guarantee lump sums applicable in cases of death in retirement, without any income tax charge. So, subject to the £1.4 million allowance, the rate will not be 35 per cent. but zero.

  I have today written to the hon. Member for Aldershot enclosing a copy of this statement.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Energy White Paper Annual Report
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  The Energy White Paper first annual report will be published shortly after the Easter recess. This will allow the Government to report on a full year from the launch of the White Paper in February 2003, as we are legally required to do by the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, as well as to capture some key energy statistics for the relevant period. Given the importance of energy efficiency to delivery of the Energy White Paper objectives, the Government intend to publish the energy efficiency implementation plan at the same time as the
  31WS
  Annual Report. The Government also envisage simultaneous publication of the fuel poverty strategy implementation plan and the CHP strategy.

HEALTH

  Foundation Trusts
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  I have been informed by the chairman of the independent regulator of National Health Service foundation trusts that applications for the first wave of NHS foundation trust status will be considered in two groups. This reflects the complexity of a number of applicants and the rigorous approach to assessment that the regulator is adopting.

  Subject to assessment criteria being met, the first group will be considered for authorisation from 1 April 2004 and the second group of 12 from 1 July 2004.

  The first group of 12 are:

  Basildon & Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  Doncaster & Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Trust

  Homerton University Hospital NHS Trust"

  Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust

  North Tees & Hartlepool NHS Trust

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Devon & Exeter Health Care NHS Trust

  Stockport NHS Trust

  The Royal Marsden NHS Trust

  The second group are:

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Trust

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Guy's & St Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospital Services NHS Trust

  The Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israel's Fence
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  On 8 December 2003 the UN General Assembly in Resolution ES-10/14 requested the International Court of Justice to render urgently an advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In response to the request, the International Court of Justice has invited UN Member States, Palestine and certain international organisations to contribute written and/or oral 32WS
  statements to the court if they wish to do so. On 30 January the UK submitted a national written statement to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

  As I have repeatedly made clear, here and elsewhere, the UK considers the building by Israel of a fence, or wall, in the West Bank to be unlawful. The UK's written statement submitted to the court recalls that we voted in favour of UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/13, adopted on 21 October 2003, which demands that Israel stop and reverse construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. I regret that Israel has not complied with the General Assembly's demand. We recognise Israel's legitimate security concerns. The latest, horrifying suicide bombing in Jerusalem on 29 January only too clearly shows the continuing threat faced by Israel from terrorists, but building the fence on occupied land only complicates efforts to make progress towards a comprehensive peace settlement.

  Despite our view on the illegalities of the fence, we argued against this question being referred to the International Court of Justice. This approach is one shared by all members of the European Union including all accession states. This is being communicated by the Irish Presidency to the court. The UK has also submitted a detailed written statement to the court arguing that the court ought to exercise its discretion to decline to give an opinion. Our arguments are about the use of the court's advisory jurisdiction. We believe that it is inappropriate to embroil the court in a heavily political bilateral dispute. We also believe the court should not be engaged where the consent of both parties has not been given. An opinion is not necessary to assist the General Assembly in reaching a view on the fence. Nor, in the absence of participation from one side, will the court have all the facts before it.

  Submissions to the International Court of Justice are confidential until the court decides to make them public. We expect the court will make the written statements submitted to it public at the start of the oral proceedings, due to begin on 23 February. At that stage, I will place a copy in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  Census 2001
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  The 2001 Census National Report (part 2) for England and Wales is being published and laid before Parliament today by the Office for National Statistics. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses. The report is also available on the National Statistics website.

  This follows the publication of the National Report (part 1) in May 2003. These two documents are prepared under section 4(1) of the Census Act 1920.

  The printed National Report (part 2) contains tables on migration and on travel-to-work and workplace populations as well as new tables on members of the Armed Forces and on same-sex couples. The report is accompanied by a CD that includes all tables contained in either part of the National Report at regional and local authority level. Copies are being provided free of charge to all local authorities.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Working and Saving
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  The proposals we are publishing today are the next part of the Government's strategy for private and occupational pensions as set out in the pensions Green Paper.

  Informed Choices for Working and Saving (Cm 6111) takes forward a central element of the pensions agenda and sets out our strategy for empowering individuals to make real and informed choices on working and saving for their retirement.

  The Government's strategy is based around three steps—activation, education and information. We are determined:

  to enable people to make the most of pension provision and encourage availability of the right pension products;

  to raise people's awareness of their options and improve financial education; and

  to ensure that everyone has high-quality, accurate and timely information.

  We in Government want to build on our partnership working with employers, individuals, the financial services industry, trade unions and the voluntary sector who all have a part to play taking this agenda forward.

  Our Informed Choice strategy is only one part of our wider pension reform programme. Alongside Informed Choice the forthcoming Pensions Bill will take forward measures that bolster security for scheme members while also making it easier, simpler and more flexible for employers and employees to contribute to pensions.

  Benefit Fraud Inspection (Portsmouth City Council)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the benefit fraud inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Portsmouth city council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.
  34WS
  Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The performance standards for housing benefits' allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  The BFI inspected Portsmouth city council against the performance standards for housing benefits. The report finds that the council is not at standard for any of the seven functional areas of the standards.

  There were some significant strengths in strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, internal security and working with landlords. However, in the areas of counter-fraud and overpayments, the council has much to do to improve its performance.

  Although not at standard for customer services, the council delivers a comprehensive range of customer services throughout eight area housing offices, and the work in encouraging take-up of benefits through the access point initiative was particularly commendable. The council also produced comprehensive and well-documented procedures for selecting suitable landlords. New benefit claims were taking an average of 38 days to clear compared with the national target of 36 days.

  Portsmouth city council needed to improve its counter-fraud work by revising its prosecution policy, developing procedures for counter-fraud officers and improving its management of investigations.

  The council could not accurately report performance for benefit overpayments, and the areas of decisions, calculations and recovery of overpayments needed to be critically addressed.

  In 2002–03, Portsmouth City Council administered some £61 million in housing benefits, about 14.6 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to further improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

North Korea
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare a non-financial interest as chairman of the All-Party British North Korea Parliamentary Group.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the security and human rights situation in North Korea.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government fully support the six party talks process, which began in August 2003. The agreed objective of those talks is to rid the Korean peninsula of nuclear weapons, peacefully and through dialogue.
On human rights, we are concerned about reports of continued, serious violations of human rights in North Korea. We raise these issues regularly in our dealings with the North Korean authorities in London and in Pyongyang.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and welcome the strong approach that the Government have adopted. What assessment have they made of the BBC television documentary that was broadcast on Sunday evening, which documented examples of lethal chemical weapons tests against civilians? Does she agree that the best way forward in North Korea is to continue the process of engagement and dialogue, so that the dangerous nuclear stand-off and the serial human rights abuses can be consigned to the past?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I wish that we were able to engage on these serious allegations of human rights abuses. I saw part of the programme to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred and I—like, I suggest, many others who saw that programme—was completely appalled at the practices outlined in the documentary. I share the noble Lord's concerns about the cruel and inhuman treatment in those kinds of facilities.
Yesterday, we made representations to the embassy in London as a result of that programme. The embassy denied that any such activities take place in North Korea. It refuted all the allegations made. We have requested a meeting next week with the ambassador on
548
wider issues of human rights. Although the North Koreans are finding it hard to engage with us, we shall persist.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister may be sceptical about the allegations of the development of chemical and biological weapons made in the programme, although less so when they come from the BBC than when they come from 10 Downing Street. The programme displayed an atmosphere of collective paranoia. Does she not agree that the people of North Korea seem to be convinced that they need these weapons of mass destruction to defend themselves against American aggression? Therefore, apart from the six nation talks at high level to try to remove nuclear weapons from the peninsula, does the Minister think that the western world should campaign to open up North Korea, so that the people can see for themselves that no one has aggressive intentions against them?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords. I confess that I am slightly taken aback by what the noble Lord said. I am sure that he is not trying to play politics with questions of human rights. I do not know whether the noble Lord saw the programme. If half of what was alleged in the programme is true, I suggest to him that there can be no possible excuse for such experimentation involving whole families being herded into rooms and subjected to lethal conditions. It was disgusting and appalling to see.
As to the threat to North Korea, the issues of its security are being addressed through the six party discussions. We learnt this morning that it is proposed that the talks will be resumed on 25 February. I hope that that is something that your Lordships will be pleased to hear.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, does the Minister know the results of the recent visit by five American observers to Yongbyon nuclear facility in North Korea, with regard to the obvious security threat from its nuclear programme? Does she consider that it would be appropriate for a comparable British delegation to visit North Korea to discuss these serious human rights issues, which concern us all?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I understand that the visit provided no conclusive evidence about the state of North Korea's nuclear programmes. Such evidence could be provided only by a comprehensive inspection by international monitors, which would require the full co-operation of the DPRK authorities. It is an area on which we must do more work.
As to the question of whether non-governmental groups could engage on human rights issues, the problem is that the Government of North Korea will not engage. I welcome interest taken by anybody who tries to get to the bottom of these issues. It is important that, despite the non-engagement, we do not let up on the dialogue.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the role of China in the human

549
rights situation is wholly deplorable? It arrests refugees from North Korea, and imprisons them or returns them to face torture or, possibly, death. It even imprisons international humanitarian workers. Can it be made clear to China that if, as appears, it wants to earn the respect the international community, it must work at it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we expect all countries with whom we engage to respect human rights. Regrettable as some of the practices are in a number of different countries around the world, in respect of China at the moment we very much rely on its engagement in the six party talks. It is a very difficult situation. The fact is that until we can engage properly on a nuclear issue, we are very unlikely to make real progress on human rights issues. That, of necessity, is where we start with the nuclear issue but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us, we must not lose sight of the deplorable state of human rights in North Korea.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the Minister give some thought as to the possibility of using the mechanisms of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which has rapporteurs for dealing with these kinds of allegations, as a way of starting a dialogue with the North Koreans which might be a little more difficult to fend off than just bilateral approaches?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we supported the 2003 UN Commission on Human Rights resolution that calls for access to the country by independent monitors and for engagement by North Korea with the UN human rights mechanisms. That is something that we very warmly support. We want to pursue a dialogue with North Korea on human rights as I have indicated, including with its national commission on human rights. However, I must re-emphasise to your Lordships that this is not for want of trying. The fact is that North Korea simply refuses to engage. We shall continue to raise all our concerns and we shall also raise those concerns when the Supreme People's Assembly delegation visits the United Kingdom between 15 and 18 March this year.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall saying last November that the Government's judgment is that North Korea has the fissile material with which to make one or two nuclear weapons, has the technical ability to make them and can also make missiles that will travel 10,000 miles? Am I alone in finding it rather surprising that in this situation the United States is taking rather a leisurely attitude towards the problem? If I am right, what is the explanation for that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not think that the United States is taking a leisurely attitude. The fact is that the North Koreans have so far publicly acknowledged one plutonium-based programme. They admitted in discussions with United
550
States officials in October 2002 that they had also pursued a clandestine uranium enrichment programme. The international community is seeking to resolve this issue through the six party discussions. Those six parties include not only the United States and North Korea but also South Korea, Japan, China and Russia. The first round of talks that began in August last year sadly did not get very far but the second round of talks is due to begin towards the end of this month. This will be a very long process, but it is one in which the North Koreans are proposing to be engaged.

Rail Franchisingon
2.45
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will explain the role of the Office of Fair Trading in the rail franchising process.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the award of a rail franchise constitutes an acquisition of control by virtue of Section 66(3) of the Railways Act 1993 as amended, for the purposes of the merger provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002. The Office of Fair Trading has a duty under the Enterprise Act to refer certain mergers to the Competition Commission if it believes that the arrangements in question have resulted, or may be expected to result, in a substantial lessening of competition.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply but, with regard to the rail franchise in Scotland, does he share my concern that the competition authorities left it until very late in the franchising process before deciding that there might in principle be a conflict regarding the same company operating the bus and the rail franchise? Does not the noble Lord agree that clarification in that area needs to be sought urgently to bring a little more stability into what is already a very difficult industry?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that we want to see movement on this decision as expeditiously as possible. However, she will recognise that it is not a matter for Ministers but for the properly constituted authorities which will note the point that she has made so volubly today.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, how does the Minister's last answer sit with the Government's intention to promote co-ordinated transport? If transport operators are not allowed to co-operate with each other on services, fares and co-ordination of bus and rail, what does their policy amount to?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord has highlighted an important principle of the Government's transport policy. We want to see greater integration of such activities. However, that does not mean that we necessarily want to see one company

551
running all rail and bus services in an area as that would lead to obvious dangers so far as the fare-paying and travelling public are concerned.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in relation to the supplementary question of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, did I understand her to suggest that the people who run the railway line are in competition with the people who run the trains? The idea in Scotland is that they should work together. I do not see that there is any objection to that. Do the Government agree with me on that?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not think that is the issue regarding competition. A potential situation has been identified in which a company with substantial bus interests would take over the Scot Rail franchise. That is the nub of the problem. The relationship between the companies that own the rolling stock and the trains and Network Rail, which owns the rail track, is a different matter altogether.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, how many organisations are involved in controlling and regulating the rail industry?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there are several and the co-ordination is not all that we should like, which is why the Secretary of State has indicated that he wants a review carried out over the next five months. By June we should be in a position to produce a rationalised system of regulation and control for the railways.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, is not the most relevant form of competition that between public transport and the private motor car? Should not the OFT be focussing on that rather than the rail passenger franchising process?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the OFT has a limited role which relates to competition between companies. I do not believe that the noble Lord is indicating that particular companies present problems relating to car traffic, however large they may be regarding hire cars and so on. So that issue is not quite four-square with this issue, which is about a bus company and a rail franchise.

Tax Evasion
2.50 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their policies to combat tax evasion in relation to offshore financial centres and overseas territories.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe that international co-operation to promote transparency and exchange of information is
552
the most effective way of tackling cross-border tax evasion. We welcome the progress that our overseas territories and the Crown Dependencies have made in committing to international standards and we will continue to promote the adoption of the highest standards in all financial centres.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that there are perfectly reputable accountants who set up tax avoidance schemes which are then abused by taxpayers and used for evasion purposes? The Minister mentioned the question of co-operation. Can he confirm that the OECD is trying to ensure that there is a rule drawn up for all countries where there are tax havens? Without such a ruling, no single country would agree to co-operate with the OECD. I understand that a number of countries are not co-operating. What exactly is the UK Government doing about that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, regarding the first question of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I would have thought that one of the professional responsibilities of perfectly reputable accountants would be to see that their clients do not use their advice for tax evasion.
Regarding his second question, I agree that it is necessary for us to support the OECD's pursuit of all financial centres to ensure that they adopt the highest possible standards. Most recently we have succeeded in ensuring the highest possible standards in the Crown Dependencies. The issue of overseas territories is being pursued by the European Union with a good deal of success, but we need to continue to pursue many other financial centres. We totally support the OECD in doing that.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, what estimate do the Government make of the tax loss each year from tax evasion through offshore financial centres? Will he say how much that has been reduced by government policies over the past seven years?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that might be the classic unknowable statistic. Tax evasion is tax that is unpaid by breaking the law. If we had statistics on law breaking we could stop that. By definition, estimates of tax avoidance may exist, but that was not the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Yes, we are making progress, but it is inevitably slow. First, it has been through the EU savings directive; and all but three countries in the EU now agree to exchange of information, which is our preferred method. Those countries—namely, Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria—which still maintain withholding taxes, will have to increase them. All of that puts pressure on the next group of countries, including, most importantly, Switzerland; and that, in turn, puts pressure on those outside countries which are also resisting. It is a long and difficult task, but as we make step-by-step progress it becomes more difficult to use offshore tax havens.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does the existence of tax havens mean that what the rest of us would regard as "tax evasion" is described as "tax avoidance"? I thought that was the point of my noble friend's Question. Is it not the case that whereas ordinary British people work extremely hard and end up paying the maximum rate of tax, other people earn infinitely more and end up paying lower rates of tax? Do not the Government—not just accountants—have a responsibility to act as vigorously as they can to deal with that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that I answered a question like that in some detail a couple of weeks ago in the House. I agree that it is in all our interests that we should pursue tax avoidance and tax evasion. Lower rates of tax in themselves cannot be pursued. We are not looking for harmonisation of either corporation tax or income tax. But through the European Union and OECD we pursue the use of those lower tax rates by offshore financial centres to facilitate tax avoidance.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, why should the Minister seek to make a moral argument that says that the Inland Revenue can use all of its powers and legal advice to obtain the maximum amount of tax from the taxpayer, while the taxpayer is criticised for doing no more than seeking the best advice that he can afford to ensure that he pays the minimum amount within the law? That is spoiling a perfectly happy relationship between those people and the Inland Revenue.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already made clear that we cannot pursue differential rates of taxation in different centres. It is when those rates are used to avoid taxes due to this country that we are obligated to pursue the matter—in that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. That is why we have supported the savings directive and, particularly, its disclosure provisions, which will help to ensure that people pay tax in the tax regime where they are supposed to pay it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, displays an untypical streak of naivety in his comments regarding tax evasion. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett—
Noble Lords: Avoidance!
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, all right—"avoidance" or "evasion"; it is a very—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, those of us who have practised in the field, whether as accountants or solicitors, might be a little more sceptical.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, my question relates to the report of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee on tackling tax fraud, which was published three weeks' ago. It pointed out that the Inland Revenue would like to have the same power as the United States Internal Revenue Service to issue information notices to banks, asking them if a customer has an overseas account. Would the Government contemplate giving our Inland Revenue the same powers, because they would be effective?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall not comment on the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—called by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, "the fine line" between tax evasion and tax avoidance. For me one is illegal and the other is legal and that is not a fine line at all.
Regarding the second point, I acknowledge the valuable report of the Public Accounts Committee. In turn, it recognised that in the 2003 Budget we introduced new compliance and enforcement initiatives to enable us to deal with offshore problems. The committee agreed that any further steps should await confirmation of the success or otherwise of the initiatives that were introduced last year. We are certainly prepared to go further if that proves necessary.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend recognises the fine line between tax avoidance and tax evasion occasionally. However, in his earlier reply he appeared to place responsibility on perfectly reputable accountants who have devised perfectly legal tax avoidance schemes that are misused by taxpayers. That is what I was referring to and I hope that that was what he had in mind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the phrase "fine line" was used by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I see no fine line between illegality and legality. It is different under different legal jurisdictions, but it is there and it ought to be adhered to.
My point in relation to the first supplementary question was that professional advisers, be they lawyers or accountants, have a responsibility to ensure that clients who take their advice do not transgress the line between avoidance and evasion. If he is saying that others who have no professional relationship to a client are doing that, clearly professional advisers cannot intervene.

Avian Flu
3 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether consideration has been given to the likelihood of the avian flu being spread to Europe by wild caught birds imported for the cage-bird trade from south-east Asia, and whether this trade should be halted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whirry): My Lords, in the light of the outbreak of avian flu, European law was introduced on 29 January addressing concerns about live birds. Accordingly, the UK Government took measures that same day to ban the importation of all live birds from Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Pakistan, China, South Korea and Vietnam.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am surprised that the Government, in choosing to ban a number of imported products on 23 January, did not ban the import of live birds until a week later. In the light of lessons learnt during the foot and mouth outbreak about transmission between live animals or birds being so much more dangerous, can the Minister explain that? Furthermore, is this not a good moment to call a halt to a trade which is a disguise for some of the illegal imports of wild birds into this country, decimating the populations in the countries from which they come?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are two different points. The EU decision to ban the import of live birds of all kinds from the nine south-east Asian countries was a precautionary move and further precautionary moves have been introduced. The risk of them having the strain of avian flu that exists among poultry is very low. The number of imports of live birds from those countries directly into the UK during the past few years has been very low indeed.
In so far as live exotic birds are imported from tropical climes, they tend to come from South Africa and not from south-east Asia. While there have been concerns about legitimacy and bird welfare involved in the trade, it is a legal trade under EU and international law, provided that animal welfare legislation is observed.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, are chicken droppings made into fertiliser and then exported from the Far East? If so, should not that trade be halted?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, fertiliser made in that way should not be imported from the Far East but, on a precautionary basis, the EU is banning imports of feathers and a number of products based on bird droppings from those countries. That therefore minimises any risk, however remote, of the particular strain of avian flu coming into Europe.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, we should be glad that the Government have banned the import of live birds. There is of course the major problem of poultry products coming from the Far East in massive amounts. This virus spreads rapidly and is lethal. What is the capability of this country and the European Union in the production of a vaccine against this avian flu and possibly the recombination of avian and human flu viruses? Are we set up to respond to the danger should it enter the EU?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the ban is on fresh and frozen meat of all sorts dispatched from the countries
556
involved after 1 January. Processed meat will have gone through a heat process that will have eliminated the virus. Indeed, the virus probably disappears from meat, although not necessarily from chilled and frozen meat.
As regards the vaccine, the World Health Organisation network is working on vaccines which meet particular strains of avian flu. The vaccine is not at this point available and it may take weeks or months before it would be available on a sufficiently usable scale in Europe. If there were a recombination of the kind the noble Lord refers to in humans, that would be a different strain again on which one would have to develop a vaccine. A base vaccine exists, but one would have to develop it in order to meet the particular strain.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, do the Minister and the Government share the concerns I have heard expressed by some biologists that avian flu would be more likely to spread to pigs than humans and that if it did a new virus could be generated which would be far more infective between humans because the pig is much nearer to our construction than is the bird?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is true that pigs are susceptible to avian flu. In the same way as a reconstitution of the virus can occur in humans, in effect creating a new virus, it can do so in pigs for the very reason the noble Baroness outlined. Therefore, there is undoubtedly that danger, which is probably higher because frequently in south-east Asia—in China in particular—pigs and poultry are kept together. That form of husbandry may maximise the danger, which is why Europe and other importing areas of the world must be on their guard against importing any poultry or pig produce from the affected areas.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, will the Minister confirm whether or not wild birds are able to contract avian flu? When the question was first raised a few weeks ago, he said that it was not possible. Secondly, although the embargo was slapped on as soon as it was known, the outbreak occurred in October/November. Is there any tracking of cage-birds that have entered the country? If so, what results have been shown?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, extremely few cage-birds have entered this country from south-east Asia in recent years and therefore a tracking system could not effectively be pursued. In any event, the virus would have run out by October. As I said last week, there is a low level of avian flu in wild bird populations. It tends to be of low pathogenecity and in poultry the pathogenicity increases. Therefore, the transferability of avian flu in wild birds to humans is probably very limited indeed, if it exists at all. It must be transmitted via poultry before it becomes infective to humans. Nevertheless, that situation must be kept under control.
As for the outbreak in October, we had continuous reports until 23 January that the Thai outbreak was not avian flu. The position in relation to the other

557
countries was that for other reasons poultry from all of them has been banned for some considerable time and the situation would not arise.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, have there been any seizures of chicken produce from Asia since the ban came into being? If so, have there been any prosecutions of the people who have brought in that produce?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, since the ban on imports from Thailand, which is the only new ban, there have been no seizures. There may well have been seizures prior to the avian flu of produce coming from China and other banned countries. If I can acquire such information, I will let the noble Lord know.

Wind Farms
3.9 p.m
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have ceased permitting the erection of onshore wind farms in the light of recent evidence of their effect on human health.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, we have no plans to change current procedures for giving consent to onshore wind farms. Currently planning authorities take into account the recommendations and methodologies for the measurement of noise in the case of wind farms as set out in the report ETSU-R-97: The Assessment & Rating of Noise from Wind Farms.
The methodologies applied during the planning application stage to satisfy authorities that noise emission levels will fall within accepted levels do not include the measurement of infrasound, as we are not aware of any scientifically validated evidence that infrasound emitted from wind turbines affects human health.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister will undoubtedly be aware that the Danes have ceased the erection of further on shore wind farms, in part as a consequence of health concerns. I hope he will also be aware that his colleagues in Defra have commissioned an investigation into the effects on health of infrasound; that is, low-frequency sound. Does that not suggest at the very least that the Government should consider a moratorium on further construction until the matter is properly cleared up?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have no reason to suppose that the Danes have started to build more offshore wind turbines because of health reasons. They have done so for the good reason that offshore wind turbines can be larger, which is more economical. Denmark already has a density of wind turbines 30 times greater than this country.
558
Defra is carrying out a further study on the effect of low-frequency noise on health, but it is not related to wind farms. The study by Dr Harry, which suggested that low-frequency noise from wind farms could have an effect on human health, is contradicted by the study carried out in 1997, which showed that vibrations from wind farms have no impact on low-frequency vibration levels at the distances we are talking of.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in the light of well documented research on the damage that offshore and coastal wind farms have done to bird life in Spain, the greatest care will have to be taken on the location of wind farms? Will he assure that House that the matter is subject to active research by the Government?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly this issue is of great importance and we are very aware of it.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, will the Minister say why the Ministry of Defence still objects to the erection of windmills in south-west Scotland on the basis that they interfere with radar? I understand that the only interference they make is similar to that of a heavy rainstorm or a clump of trees. I do not think that that justifies such objections
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this matter is being considered by the Ministry of Defence. As far as I know, no health issues are involved—which is what the Question is about—but if they have an impact, obviously we need to take it seriously.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, given the controversial nature of wind farms, will the Minister consider that the time might be right to expend more effort and finance on tidal power, which is a guaranteed source of energy for 20 hours out of every 24,365 days of the year? If it was applied through tidal lagoons it would cause no problems to marine or avian life and could be as beneficial as wind power.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, tidal power is extremely expensive at this stage compared to wind turbines. Wind turbines are by far the most economical option. There is no kind of energy generation that does not have some downside. The question is therefore to balance the risks, the costs and the energy security objectives. The health downsides of wind turbines, as I hope I pointed out, are non-existent at this stage.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the psychological health of the nation is deeply related to the quality of our countryside, which is becoming at a premium? Will he assure the House that in future policy towards wind farms—which have an

559
indispensable contribution to make—great care will be taken to ensure that the quality of our countryside is not threatened?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is a major part of the planning process that the important consideration of the impact on the environment is taken care of.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, what does the Minister believe to be the safe separation between dwellings and wind turbines in terms of low-frequency considerations?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the latest figure in the planning guidelines is 300 to 400 metres. Some bodies producing wind power such as National Wind Power use a more stringent guideline of 600 metres, which is probably desirable, but not necessary.

Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Intelligence Review Committee
3.16 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement was as follows:
"Mr Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a Statement. The Prime Minister has decided to establish a committee to review intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. This committee will be composed of privy counsellors. It will have the following terms of reference: to investigate the intelligence coverage available on WMD programmes of countries of concern and on the global trade in WMD, taking into account what is now known about these programmes; as part of this work, to investigate the accuracy of the intelligence on Iraqi WMD up to March 2003, and to examine any discrepancies between the intelligence gathered, evaluated and used by the Government before the conflict, and between that intelligence and what has been discovered by the Iraq Survey Group since the end of the conflict; and to make recommendations to the Prime Minister for the future on the gathering, evaluation and use of intelligence on WMD, in the light of the difficulties of operating in countries of concern.
"The Prime Minister has asked the committee to report before the Summer Recess. The committee will follow the precedent in terms of procedures of the Franks committee, will have access to all intelligence reports and assessments and other relevant government papers and will be able to call witnesses to give oral evidence in private.
560
"The committee will work closely with the United States inquiry and the Iraq Survey Group. The committee will submit its final conclusions to the Prime Minister in a form for publication, along with any classified recommendations and material. The Government will, of course, co-operate fully with the committee.
"The members of the committee will be the Lord Butler of Brockwell, the chairman, Sir John Chilcot, Field Marshal Lord Inge and two senior Members of this House, the right honourable Member for Dewsbury and the honourable Member for East Hampshire, who will be made a privy counsellor.
"In setting the terms of the inquiry and its membership there have of course been discussions with the leaders of the two main opposition parties. I regret, however, that the leader of the Liberal Democrat Party has declined to support the inquiry; that, and that alone, explains the absence of a senior member of the Liberal Democrats on it.
"As the House will be well aware, there have already been three inquiries into aspects of the Iraq war. The first, established in early May last year, was by the Intelligence and Security Committee. This considered in some detail the intelligence received in London, its assessment, and use, including in the dossier. It reported to Parliament on 9 September.
"The second, by the Foreign Affairs Committee, was established on 3 June last year against the background of the controversy surrounding the Andrew Gilligan report on the "Today" programme on 29 May. It reported on 7 July.
"The third, the judicial inquiry by Lord Hutton, was established following the death of Dr David Kelly, and it of course reported last Wednesday.
"Although the terms of reference of the three inquiries varied, a central theme of each of them was whether the Government had acted improperly or dishonestly in using the intelligence available to them. Echoing the conclusions of the earlier reports, and in categorical terms, Lord Hutton made emphatic last week that such allegations were unfounded. This new inquiry will obviously not be revisiting the issues so comprehensively covered by Lord Hutton.
"Whilst these inquiries were under way, three proposals were put before the House in June, July and late October on opposition Motions calling for wider inquiries into aspects of the Government's handling of events in the run-up to the Iraq war. The Government resisted these calls, including on the grounds that the inquiries already under way should be allowed to complete their work. Later, both the Prime Minister and I referred also to the continuing activity of the Iraq Survey Group.
"Over the past week, we have seen the publication of the Hutton report and the evidence of Dr David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, to a US congressional committee. It has also emerged that the ISG may take longer to report than we had originally

561
envisaged. All this has led the Government now to judge that it is appropriate to establish this new inquiry of Privy Counsellors.
"Lord Hutton has, as I have said, dealt conclusively with the very grave charge against the Government that we had in some way acted improperly or dishonestly in the preparation of intelligence put before the House and the public.
"But the Government recognise that there are wider and entirely legitimate concerns about the reliability of the original intelligence, which have been heightened by Dr Kay's evidence. Dr Kay, repeatedly in that evidence, emphasised his continued support for the decision to take military action and that Iraq was in clear and material violation of UNSCR 1441. But he also said to Congress on 28 January:
'Prior to the war, my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq, indeed, had weapons of mass destruction. I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war—certainly the French President Chirac … referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The German intelligence certainly believed that there was WMD'.
Dr Kay added:
'It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgement, and that is most disturbing'.
"In the intervening period since the Iraq war began, there have, however, been events elsewhere which have greatly increased anxieties about the proliferation of WMD and of the need for reliable intelligence and effective international action. According to reports over the weekend, an individual has sold nuclear secrets to Pakistan. Iran, for a long time, did not report all that it should have reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency under its Safeguards Agreement. Libya was in breach of its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty and both countries are now the subject of considerable activity by the International Atomic Energy Agency. There are other concerns, too. So we have judged it prudent for this inquiry to consider these wider issues as set out in its terms of reference. But, of course, a great focus of the committee's work will be on Iraq, and rightly so.
"It is, however, important to remind ourselves both about the significance and the limits of the use of intelligence in relation to Iraq. The September dossier made a powerful case for the world to take notice of Iraq; it did not make a case for military action. And, as the record shows, the case for military action was fundamentally based upon Iraq's breach of UNSCR 1441.
"Saddam Hussein had used WMD against his own people and against his neighbour, Iran. He had invaded two of Iraq's neighbours, leading to the deaths of a million people. For 12 years after the Iraqi army was expelled from Kuwait, Saddam Hussein defied repeated United Nations resolutions calling for him to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors to dismantle his WMD programmes. Resolution 1441 unanimously found Iraq in material breach of previous resolutions and offered
562
it a 'final opportunity' to comply fully and immediately with UN inspectors or face 'serious consequences'. The head of the UN inspectors, Hans Blix, published on 7 March 2003 a 173-page document listing the unresolved issues in respect of Iraq's WMD programmes—a document which I placed before the House in a command paper some days later.
"All this painted a compelling picture. As the Prime Minister and I have said repeatedly, it would have been gravely irresponsible not to have acted against this. We took the right decision in agreeing military action against Iraq, and it is still the right decision today.
"For the sake of completeness, it may be helpful to give a more rounded picture of Dr Kay's evidence to Congress last week. These are some of the things that he said:
'I think, when we have a complete record, you are going to discover that after 1998 Iraq became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection and, in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out to be a not fully accurate estimate.
'All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD.
'I think you will have, when you get the final ISG report, pretty compelling evidence that Saddam had the intention of continuing the pursuit of WMD when the opportunity arose'.
I shall place in the Library of the House a full copy of Dr Kay's evidence.
"Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the outstanding work of Britain's intelligence agencies around the world, often in hostile conditions. This inquiry is emphatically not an attack on that vital work, nor on the dedication and the professionalism of the people who work in those agencies. But what it should do is help the Government better to evaluate and assess the information they provide.
"The decision which this House took 10 months ago to go to war was justified, given the defiance of a regime which uniquely had used WMD and had refused to comply with obligations unanimously imposed upon it by the United Nations Security Council.
"That is a decision for which we, as elected representatives, took responsibility and will continue to take responsibility. We cannot sub-contract that to any inquiry, however distinguished. But I believe that Lord Butler and his colleagues will be able to perform a most valuable service to this House and the country, and I express my appreciation to them".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to the Minister for repeating this Statement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. Obviously, we welcome the

563
decision to hold this inquiry and, in particular, we welcome the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, as its chairman and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, as a member of the inquiry team.
It is very much in the interests not only of the Government but also of the Opposition—indeed, of all those who seek to participate responsibly in public affairs and the democratic process—that trust and confidence in government institutions should be restored, including in our intelligence services.
In this terrorist age, when failure to anticipate attacks can be fatal and when the alternative to intelligent and well informed pre-emption of threats is defeat and possible mass murder, the quality and integrity of intelligence becomes even more crucial—indeed, fundamental. So it is all the more vital to establish beyond doubt in people's minds what were the real reasons and justifications for removing Saddam Hussein and his hideous regime. As the Prime Minister emphasised and this Statement confirms, the inquiry now proposed will not go over the narrow ground covered by the Hutton inquiry. Personally, I have never doubted that the Prime Minister is entirely honourable. I am very glad that he escapes all criticism and that Downing Street is cleared of "underhand or duplicitous strategy", to quote the Hutton report, in the tragedy. Anyway, we shall debate that tomorrow.
But our concern has all along been something wider. While we thought, and still think on these Benches, that there were good grounds for getting rid swiftly of the monstrous Saddam regime, which incidentally, Dr Kay himself concluded did pose a serious and imminent threat despite no weapons of mass destruction being uncovered, we did repeatedly question at the time the main reasons being given by Ministers for going to war as part of the coalition. That is why we have been calling for a deeper inquiry for many months past; in fact, since last June.
I have some brief questions for the Minister. First, how is it that, despite our pleas over many months past, the Government have only now changed their mind and that very suddenly indeed? Only last Sunday the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, on whose guidance we so often in this House respectfully rely, was saying:
"Little would be achieved by continually looking and re-looking at what the intelligence shows at a particular time".
Yet by Monday evening it seems that a lot would be achieved. This is a sudden and rapid U-turn without any signals, even by the erratic driving standards of the present administration.
Secondly, the terms of reference, to which I attach great importance, refer to the "evaluation" of intelligence gathered. Does that mean evaluation by intelligence officials themselves of the material they receive or does it mean evaluation by government of what they have received? The text appears to support the latter and surely it is bound to be the latter. In that case the role of government officials in handling and presenting intelligence will properly come in for scrutiny in this inquiry. I am not too clear why our
564
Liberal Democrat friends are so convinced it will not and why they have refused, rather regrettably in my view, to take part. But we shall doubtless learn about that in a moment.
Thirdly, while the terms of reference focus on WMDs, or rather the lack of them, how far will the investigation look at other areas of poor planning arising from poor intelligence? Obviously, that seems relevant to the overall performance of the intelligence services. For instance, it was widely predicted, presumably based on intelligence, that after the invasion of Iraq there would be massive refugee problems there, mass starvation and vast spread of disease. In fact, none of this happened. But as a result of those predictions based on intelligence, resources were deployed in the wrong form, at the wrong time and in the wrong direction, with very severe consequences from which the coalition efforts are only now recovering.
Fourthly, will this inquiry look closely at the role of the Joint Intelligence Committee and its relationship with Downing Street officials, which many people felt, and still feel, was too matey.
Fifthly, could we know more on timing and procedure? I understand that it will be a private inquiry, but that, as with Franks, all the evidence that is not highly classified will be fully published in due course. Is that correct? Will it be completed in 18 months like the American inquiry which, by an amazing coincidence, was also announced over the weekend, indeed yesterday?
However, the main thing is that an inquiry which was deemed previously "not useful" by the Government is now held to be useful and necessary after all. So we on this side should be thankful that the Government have now changed their mind and agree with us, and thankful for this Damascene conversion on the road to clarity and public reassurance.
3.35 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place and make the comment that, paraphrasing a former Prime Minister, a day appears to be a very long time in politics. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, has said. Only as long ago as yesterday the Government, in the shape of the noble and learned Lord, were repeating the lack of necessity for an inquiry.
So the first question I ask the Government is this: exactly what happened between Sunday and Tuesday that changed the Government's mind? It was clearly not Dr Kay's evidence, which was given as long ago as last Wednesday and was not followed by any similar statement by the Government.
Secondly, on what basis did the Government take us to war? In that context I quote the answer given by the Prime Minister to a question asked by my right honourable friend in another place, Alan Beith, as long ago as the last meeting of the Liaison Committee on 8 July 2003. In answer to Mr Alan Beith's question

565
about what steps might be taken and what were the reasons for the Government's invasion of Iraq, Mr Blair replied:
"The truth is that to take action we had to have the proper legal basis and that was through the weapons of mass destruction issue and the non-compliance with the UN inspectors".
The Prime Minister could not have stated more clearly the basis, as he saw it, of the decision to make war on Iraq.
The question which arises in this context is why, when we were assured by Mr Hans Blix last March that he needed only a few months to complete his work on the disarming of Iraq, nevertheless the Government, together with their American ally, decided to make war on that country?
The third question concerns an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and echoed by the Minister herself. That is the absolute importance of the credibility and reliability of intelligence. There is no doubt that in a world of terrorism, rogue states and pre-emptive policies intelligence must be as credible and reliable as it can be. Given the remit of the inquiry, there is a danger that the intelligence services may become the scapegoats. I quote the former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, who said on "The World at One" on Sunday that the inquiry,
"could become a device for making scapegoats of the intelligence people and diverting the primary responsibility from politicians".
Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have an interest in that happening.
I come finally to respond to the question legitimately put by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, which is why the Liberal Democrats feel unable to participate in this inquiry. It comes straight back to the remit—the terms of reference. In a letter to the Prime Minister dated yesterday, 2 February, the leader of my party in another place asked whether the subsequent presentation of intelligence could be taken within the remit of the inquiry and whether,
"the political judgments based on that intelligence which led us to go to war in Iraq",
could be included within that inquiry.
Both were refused. I am surprised that the leader of the Conservative Party did not throw his weight behind widening the remit of the inquiry in that way which I believe would have made it difficult for the Government to refuse. But it was refused and we believe that, by placing the remit where it is, by above all excluding the political judgments about going to war from the terms of that remit, the Government are once again risking a loss of public trust. Without public trust, which must include the question of the judgment of politicians, we believe that from the very beginning this inquiry is jeopardised and will not bring to an end the serious questions asked about the United Kingdom's involvement in the war against Iraq.
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for welcoming, if not the contents of the Statement, the fact that I repeated it.
566
Like the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, I also welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, will be chairing this inquiry and that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, who is well known in this House, will be a member of it.
I agree with the noble Lord; it is now very much in our interest that any vestige of mistrust or lack of confidence in the intelligence and the way it was gathered, evaluated and used by the Government before the conflict, is now laid to rest. This inquiry is a means of attempting to do so.
I also agree with the noble Lord about the importance of confidence in the evaluation and gathering of our intelligence. It is not just a question about WMD, although this inquiry is about WMD. Questions are of course raised, as the noble Lord pointed out, in relation to terrorism, but he and other noble Lords will have noticed that this inquiry is about the gathering of intelligence in relation to WMD.
The inquiry will not go over the Hutton points any further. The Hutton points have been exhausted in one of the most public exposures of the workings of the intelligence agencies that I can recall, in terms of what was put in the public domain. I thank the noble Lord for what he said about my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and Downing Street. I am glad that he was pleased that they were exonerated in the way that they have been. Similar views have been expressed from many sides of this House—not just on my own Benches but from Benches right around your Lordships' House, and I welcome that.
The noble Lord said that the concerns went wider than the Hutton remit and that they repeatedly questioned, during the run-up to the war, the basis for going to war with Iraq; I believe that he referred to wanting to get rid of Saddam Hussein. On most occasions when we discussed this, if not every occasion, I reiterated to your Lordships that the basis for our going into a war was the flouting of the United Nations resolution over a very long period. I am sure your Lordships will recall the unanimous passing of UNSCR 1441—my right honourable friend referred to it in his Statement in another place—and the fact that that was passed unanimously. It gave Saddam Hussein's regime one last chance to conform with United Nations Security Council resolutions.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised the question, "Why now?" and referred to my noble and learned friend's intervention in the media this week. I fully acknowledge that I stood at this Dispatch Box only last Thursday and said that the Government had no plans in this regard. I shall say it before any of your Lordships point it out to me—I did indeed do exactly that. Let me try to explain.
First, we had indeed got Hutton out of the way; that was an important point. In government, despite what the noble Baroness implies, there are not instant decisions based on "we have done this and now we turn to that". The Hutton issue is important and it was only got out of the way last Thursday.

567
We also believed—I certainly implied as much, although I did not say so definitively when I spoke before your Lordships' House last week—that the ISG report would be ready at some point. I did not say "in the near future" but it was certainly in my mind that it would be in the near future and I understand from my right honourable friend that it is now likely to be somewhat delayed. Again, that is an important point, because, as the noble Lord made clear, questions about trust and confidence must be addressed; they cannot be allowed to run.
On my part and that of many of my right honourable friends, the evidence that Dr Kay gave last week was a very important factor. Some noble Lords may have heard my right honourable friend the Prime Minister speaking at the Liaison Select Committee this morning. I found the detailed reading of the evidence before the Armed Services Committee on 28 January important in relation to the decision-taking that has come to pass.
That is an honest explanation. Those three factors were involved and for me—I do not speak for my honourable and right honourable friends elsewhere—the Kay evidence is an important factor. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said he would put the evidence in the Library of another place; I will ensure it is put in our Library too.
The noble Lord talked about the evaluation of intelligence. This is a point that I have also raised today in relation to these terms of reference. Evaluation of the intelligence is not undertaken by government Ministers. In this sense "undertaken by government" comprehends Ministers and Civil Service agencies. Ministers occasionally see raw intelligence but mostly, as the noble Lord will know, by the time intelligence reaches Ministers it has gone through some evaluation process; it has been assessed. A variety of different bodies—agencies, civil servants or the JIC—might do that. It is important that we understand that Ministers do not go through that evaluation process; I am sure that the noble Lord is as aware of that as I am.
The noble Lord went on to ask whether this implied that the WMD inquiry would go wider because of what he claimed was poor planning because of poor intelligence. Again, I refer your Lordships back to the terms of reference and suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, will be able to look at the precise areas that he wants to investigate within the terms of reference. These questions were raised earlier in another place.
The noble Lord asked about relations with the JIC. That question was partly addressed by the Hutton inquiry, although that very much involved the allegation with which the Government had some dispute. Those matters can be looked at by the noble Lord's inquiry if he wants to consider specific areas. No doubt he will make his views clear.
On the question of timing, the Statement makes it clear that we hope that the report will appear before the Summer Recess. As I understand it, the privacy will be analogous to that afforded to the Franks committee. We will publish what we can but that has to be consistent with security considerations.
568
The noble Lord said, somewhat tongue in cheek, that it was an amazing coincidence that this had happened this weekend. I do not think it is an amazing coincidence—I have tried to be as frank as I can. My right honourable friend in another place frequently said today that he had discussed the matter with the American Administration. Of course he had; that is right and proper. The Kay evidence has obviously played its part in terms of thinking on both sides of the Atlantic. I make no apologies for that. It is an entirely reasonable position for the Government to have articulated.
I turn to some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness and the basis on which the Government went to war. We discussed that very thoroughly both here and in another place. Indeed, there was a vote taken in another place before the military action began. I very much agree with the remark of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary that it is not for an inquiry, however distinguished, to sub-contract that decision from politicians. That is a very important point in a democracy. The fact is that there is an elected House and there is your Lordships' House, which also has oversight. It is for the Houses of Parliament, not the inquiry, to look at those decisions.
I turn to the statement that the noble Baroness quoted. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister stood by that statement this morning in the Liaison Select Committee.
My 20 minutes are up, but, if your Lordships will indulge me, I want to make a final point about, the question of political judgment. The noble Baroness said she was surprised that the Conservatives had agreed with the Government on that. I am bound to say to the noble Baroness that I find her surprise really quite astonishing. When one has been in government dealing with these very difficult issues, one knows that the responsibility must lie with government. The noble Baroness knows that from her own period in government. The responsibility and accountability lie with government. The Government are not flinching from that. My right honourable friend made that clear today in another place.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has already reported on some of these issues. Is it not clear from the reactions to the Hutton report that any inquiry these days is liable to be rubbished by those who do not find its conclusions to their liking? Are we not in danger of running out of distinguished public figures who are prepared to give their time and energy to produce further reports simply to attract further ill conceived criticism?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the comments of my noble and learned friend. I believe that the thanks we give to those who are willing to serve on this inquiry should be unstinted. Certainly, I do not envy them their task. My noble and learned friend is right. The problem with any report of this nature is that people commit themselves to a definitive view before the report is published and then find it difficult to depart from that view.

569
That is one of the penalties we pay for open government. The evidence is given in open session. Everyone assesses the evidence as it goes along, leaps to conclusions, writes them down, publishes them, talks about them and then finds it almost impossible to consider the matter in the round. Perhaps one of the benefits from conducting the inquiry in this way will be that that kind of running commentary may not feature quite so much.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, in inviting the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, and his colleagues to undertake this extremely difficult task, is it not imperative that before they start there is no uncertainty about the meaning of the terms of reference? I have already identified that that uncertainty seems to exist at present.
Of course there is ministerial responsibility for taking a decision, but intelligence, and the decisions taken on it, is a seamless process. In that connection, the Statement says that this is to assist the Government better to evaluate and assess information that the inquiry will provide. This has nothing to do with Hutton and whether the intelligence was improperly or dishonestly used, but perhaps I may ask what was the quality of evaluation and assessment by Ministers. The Statement reads:
"to examine any discrepancies between the intelligence gathered, evaluated and used by the Government".
Are we to understand that the committee is entitled to consider how it was used by the Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that there will not be doubt about the terms of reference. If the noble Lord means that the committee has still to explore the terms of reference, he is entirely right. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is not in the country at present. However, I am sure that he will want to look closely at the terms of reference with his colleagues on the committee. Of course, they have been acquainted with the terms of reference, but the noble Lord will know that very often in setting up a committee the chairman will explore the terms of reference with the committee members to decide the appropriate limits of the remit.
As regards the quality of intelligence, it is enormously important that we visit the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, regarding confidence in the gathering, quality, and evaluation of intelligence and, indeed, as the terms of reference make clear, the use of intelligence by government before the conflict and how that compares with what has been discovered now on the ground.
I assure noble Lords—I did not have the opportunity to do so in answering the noble Baroness—that there is no question of scapegoating the intelligence services for shortcomings. We rely on our intelligence services. As the Minister responsible for counter-proliferation and counter terrorism, I have a great deal to do with them and have the utmost admiration for them.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I very much welcome the setting up of this inquiry. The quality of
570
our intelligence services is crucial to the long-haul struggle against terrorism that lies ahead. I speak as someone who was not able to support the military action because I did not believe that the threat was so imminent and serious. However, I did believe, for two reasons, that there were weapons of mass destruction, and my questions are related to that.
First, when the United Nations inspectors left in 1998, they reported that although Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons had been destroyed, as had his means of delivery, his biological weapons were still there as were a great number of chemical weapons. Will the inquiry, as I very much hope, consider the reports of the United Nations inspectors as well as those of our own intelligence services?
Secondly, I believed that weapons of mass destruction were there because of some of the reports of the highly respected independent think tanks, such as the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Where did that organisation get its information, or did it rely simply on government sources? I very much hope that the inquiry will be as wide-ranging as possible and include those two issues.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his remarks. He made it very clear that he did not support the Government in the military action, as did many others in your Lordships' House, many in my own party. I respect that view, as I have made clear over and again. This was a genuine disagreement with many not only in your Lordships' House but elsewhere and throughout the country.
The right reverend Prelate is right to remind the House about the UN inspectors. My right honourable friend was right to remind us about what Mr Hans Blix said in the 173 pages of unanswered questions that he published before the military conflict. Not only were WMD thought to be there by our own intelligence services and the United States intelligence services but also by the intelligence services of those who did not agree with the military conflict, that is, France and Germany.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, if, as the Statement says and as the Minister has confirmed, the justification for the war was the breach of UN Resolution 1441 which called on Iraq to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction, and if by November 2002, the date of that resolution, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction as now seems very likely, how could it dismantle what it did not have?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord is aware, Mr Hans Blix raised a number of questions, including the non-co-operation in establishing what was on the ground in Iraq. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will recall that we had a very lengthy process with the Government of South Africa, in which we considered ways in which they were getting rid of their capabilities. We discussed that at the time. That is the way to engage: in an open and

571
transparent way. Indeed, at present we are considering ways of engaging similarly with Libya on outstanding questions in relation to its weapons of mass destruction.
The point here is the lack of co-operation in dealing with these issues and the material breach of UN Resolution 1441, which was unanimously found to have occurred. That was not just the view of the United States and the United Kingdom. The whole of the United Nations Security Council found that Iraq was in material breach.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Statement says that the Government will evaluate evidence that has been discovered by the Iraq Survey Group since the end of the conflict. The evidence given by Dr David Kay was that the two mobile weapon laboratories that we heard so much about—indeed, the President of the United States mentioned them in the State of the Union address as evidence of weapons of mass destruction—were no more than hydrogen producers either for hydrogen balloons or rocket fuel. Will the Minister immediately release the information about who produced the equipment that was on the back of these vehicles? They were Iraqi produced, although some of the equipment was British. Who produced this British equipment, and when did they do so? I have asked the Government this question a number of times. They have refused to answer it. I took the Government to the ombudsman, and we are waiting to receive that report. However, in the light of Dr Kay's evidence, the Government could report it. I hope that they will be able to give us that information now.
The fact that the Government could not release information to the British people about equipment that was produced in Britain, and that they used exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to say that the Americans did not allow us to use that, gives the impression that there was collusion between the British Government and the American Administration to suppress the information that there was nothing untoward about these two vehicles in the case of weapons of mass destruction. I request that this issue be part of the report. If that is the case, the Government have a case to answer.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not have details about these two vehicles with me at the Dispatch Box. The noble Lord is pushing his luck in thinking that I do. Let me be clear with him. I will release whatever information that I can that is consistent with security. The noble Lord is shaking his head, but he must understand the nature of releasing this sort of information. It is not just that you tell people how your security services work, you may also be exposing sources and putting people in jeopardy. This is not a game; we are not playing some elaborate game of how much I can withhold and how much the noble Lord can winkle from me.
This Government have put more information on intelligence into the public domain over the course of this year and the Hutton inquiry than any government that I can recall. I have been in and around Whitehall for some 25 years, and I have never seen openness of
572
government the way this Government practise it. I will look at anything that can be released sensibly, but I will do nothing that I think, or that others advise me, is against the security interests of this country.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I am one of the few remaining members of the Franks committee, which investigated the origins of the Falklands War. Will this new committee have the power to call any body or any individual that it wishes to give evidence?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that that will be the case. The powers of the committee will be similar to those of the Franks committee. They are not exactly the same, because these are different circumstances, and it is a different conflict in different times. I hope that the committee will be able to make full use of those powers.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am glad that the Government have decided to set up an inquiry of Privy Counsellors. I was the Secretary of the first Privy Counsellors' conference on security, which looked into the disappearance and reappearance in Moscow of Burgess and Maclean. In that case, our report had two parts; one was open and the other was top secret. I remember delivering the top secret part to No. 10 Downing Street. Will the same procedure be carried out on this occasion, with an open part of the report and a secret part?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I understand it, that is the case. There will be an open report, and there will be parts of the report that cannot be put into the public domain, because of the nature of the evidence that will be taken. The noble Lord has reminded us of the enormous wealth of experience that there is on these issues in your Lordships' House.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the legal basis of the military action was UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which was based on the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that he was concealing. Should the committee consider whether we really had a legal case for military action, particularly in the absence of the second Security Council resolution, which we never managed to obtain? Will the committee be shown the Attorney-General's full opinion, which the Government have so far refused to disclose?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on that last point, it is the convention that the Government do not expose the advice of the Attorney-General. we have been over this point many, many times before. Had the noble Lord's party been on the committee it could have argued vigorously on that point.
As far as UN Security Council Resolution 1441 is concerned, the legal advice was based—as I remember debating at some length in your Lordships' House, when the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was a robust interlocutor—on not just Resolution 1441, but Resolution 1441 in relation to Resolution 678 and Resolution 687. If the noble Lord is really suggesting

573
that we revisit UN Security Council resolutions, our poor committee will not be reporting by this summer's Recess, but by many summer Recesses from now.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords—
Lord Biffen: My Lords—
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I think it is the turn of these Benches, and then the Conservative Benches.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is not the first time, sadly, that the Liberal Democrats have refused to participate on a tri-party basis in examining issues of national security? Will my noble friend, even at this late stage, make a special plea to the Liberal Democrat Benches to reconsider their decision? They have excluded Mr Alan Beith MP from this committee. He is one of the members of the committee with the most experience, as he has been on the committee since its inception in 1993. He knows the security services through and through, and he has extensive knowledge of every aspect of their operations. He has a formidable brain, and he is exactly the kind of person required on that committee—to act like a ferret to find out where the truth lies. I appeal to them to reconsider.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said. I very much regret this. After all, as the noble Baroness has told us on a number of occasions, the Liberal Democrat Benches have a different view of the rights and wrongs of what happened in relation to Iraq. That has been a valuable contribution, which has kept us all up to the mark. The noble Baroness never has any nonsense about anything—not that she gets nonsense from this Dispatch Box—she is very clear in the way that she pursues these issues.
I am not as well acquainted with Mr Alan Beith MP as my noble friend, because he had experience in the other place. Nevertheless, I regret enormously that the Liberal Democrat Benches will not be making the sort of point that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was able to make to us a moment ago. It is sad that they will shout from the sidelines and not in the heart of the debate. That is to be regretted.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, it would be churlish not to admit that the Minister has given a formidable exposition of the latest turn in the Government's policy, although with a little more contrition than she showed last Thursday.
The reality has already been indicated by my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater. Plenty of arguments are going on before this inquiry has even begun about its terms of reference, and the like. It is not a shortage of discussion or a shortage of committees that we have in the prosecution of this war; it is a lack of confidence on the part of the British public.
574
Absent spectres from this evening's miserable feast are Robin Cook and Kenneth Clarke, who, in their respective positions, have been able to give voice to the powerful feeling that there is throughout the country that we are fighting an American war, on American terms, in a sequence of events dictated by Americans. That is no position from which to summons national support, whether through further meetings or further committees, or by a more direct appeal on the part of the Prime Minister to the public at large. The truth is: we are in this position, and it is a miserable position in which to be.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord's question was. I did not detect one in the exposition that he just gave us. I am sorry if I appeared to be contrite today; I did not mean to be. I meant to offer your Lordships a clear explanation of the Government's position. I hope that I did that. I shall have to watch my step.
Was it an "American war"? No, it was not. It was not an American war, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister fought for his point of view over and over again in another place and was the first Prime Minister to subject that point of view to a vote of the House of Commons. There was nothing "American" about that; it was very British. If I may say so, it was very much in tune with the way in which my right honourable friend conducts himself.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Transfer to Lord Chancellor of functions relating to Judicial Appointments Commission]:
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 1.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I sometimes think that, now that the nation is in the mood for inquiries, it would be exciting to have an inquiry into what intelligence provoked the Government to bring a Bill of this kind to the House. It has been brought to us in its present form for the second time in two years.
In Committee, when I spoke on Clause 1, I hoped that somehow I would be enlightened about the Bill. Sadly, that was not the case. I accept that the Tory amendment relating to the Lord Chancellor was accepted, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, knew of and alluded to proposed changes in the role of the Lord Chancellor, I have to ask what was really achieved by that concession.
My party is opposed to the whole concept of devolving judicial appointments, especially, I emphasise, the appointment of our 17 High Court judges, as it does not go hand-in-hand with the devolution of responsibility for criminal justice. The Criminal Justice Review saw the devolution of judicial appointments happening only in the context of the devolution of criminal justice. They are

575
two aspects of the same issue, so why separate them? One recalls that, at Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, indicated that the review had shown that something like 77 per cent of the population had expressed confidence in the fairness of judges and magistrates. Why, then, the urgency?
I ask that in the light of the Government's promise that none of it would happen without broad support from the political parties in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has written to me, and I am grateful for his correspondence. However, I am unhappy that he has confirmed the reason why the Government broke that promise. Although the noble Lord does not spell it out, the reality is that, at Weston Park, where we went to meet the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in good faith, a nasty little deal was done with Sinn Fein, leading ultimately to the Joint Declaration. I cannot say that political parties in Northern Ireland were not properly consulted—they were not consulted at all about some of the important points.
With no devolution of responsibility for criminal justice, we would be content for Northern Ireland to be part of whatever emerges with regard to a Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales. Does the noble Lord foresee the composition of the commission for England and Wales having the same balance as that for Northern Ireland? If not, why not?
I end, as I began, by questioning the intelligence behind what is happening with the Bill. The one thing that we see again and again in Northern Ireland legislation is an entrenchment—a re-entrenchment—of the things that derive from sectarianism. The overall interests of the community at large are ignored—sometimes one tradition in the community, sometimes another—and the overall effect is that the community as a whole in Northern Ireland suffers from the compulsory re-entrenchment of sectarianism that is built into every Bill that the Government bring forward on such issues. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, although I have a lot of sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, and a lot of sympathy with his aversion to the Bill as a whole, I do not share all of that aversion. Were the noble Lord to divide the House, I would not feel able to support him in the Lobbies. However, I have made the point several times that I disagree strongly with the timing of the Bill and many of the issues in it. We will come to those issues later.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to respond to the two questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, on the clause. One is, "Why now?", and the other is, "What is the genesis of some of the measures?".
The Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 provides for the Judicial Appointments Commission to be established after the devolution of responsibility for justice matters
576
to the Assembly. The purpose of the Judicial Appointments Commission is to enhance the process for judicial appointments. I hope that the House will agree that bringing forward the establishment of the commission should, in principle, be welcomed as part of that process. I shall explain why I believe that it does.
Speaking personally, I am confident that the commission will make an important contribution to building greater public confidence in the Northern Ireland justice system, although I know that, as yet, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, is not persuaded of that. We seek to strengthen the independence of the judiciary, which is essential to any justice system, perhaps especially in Northern Ireland. Section 1 of the 2002 Act states:
"Those with responsibility for the administration of justice must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary".
I should like to spell out in a little more detail the slightly complicated issue of which aspects of the Bill are being brought in now and which are being brought in subsequently. That is, perhaps, the first time that we have done that, and it may assist, even if it does not set the noble Lord's mind totally at rest. Our position is that the commission will stand on its own merits. First, it will enhance judicial independence. For the first time in Northern Ireland, we will have a statutory mechanism separating the selection of persons for listed judicial offices from the Ministers who appoint or recommend for appointment. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the separation of powers is a keystone of democracy and should be vigorously pursued.
Secondly, one of the tasks of the commission will be to encourage diversity in the judiciary in terms of gender balance and the representation of those from ethnic communities. We discussed those issues in Committee. It is an important objective, and there was strong support for it in our earlier discussions, subject to the overriding question of merit. There is sense, therefore, in getting on with it.
Thirdly, the establishment of the commission with responsibility for the appointment of the judiciary is in keeping with the broad thrust of government policy. There is already a commission in Scotland; one is proposed in England and Wales; and the 2002 Act provided a statutory one ahead of the pack in Northern Ireland. The Bill allows that part of its role to be brought into operation earlier than might otherwise be the case.
Finally, political interference in the appointments process of judges is to be guarded against, and the commission will have a strong safeguard. We shall talk more about that later. The Lord President and I have had useful discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, on some of those issues, and I hope that the correspondence has clarified some of the measures in the Bill and when they will be implemented.
For the record, I shall now give a little more detail. The Bill provides for the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission before devolution by transferring to the Lord Chancellor functions in relation to the commission that the First Minister and the Deputy

577
First Minister would have had, were devolution to have happened. We are not in a devolved state, so the Lord Chancellor takes over functions regarding the Judicial Appointments Commission. The Lord Chancellor will appoint commission members, and the commission will be required to select a person for appointment to a listed judicial office.
The Lord Chancellor will also have the power to require the commission to reconsider its decision as to the person to be selected, and to deal with the outcome of that reconsideration. There are also a range of consequential functions, such as receiving copies of the annual report, making grants to the commission, and so on.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, how on earth can we have what has been described as a more acceptable judiciary—if we get devolution—if we are to revert to the position stated in the Bill that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, working together, shall appoint Her Majesty's judges, and the same First Minister and Deputy First Minister shall dismiss Her Majesty's judges, if they feel so inclined? Is there any hope of a neutral and widely respected judiciary? Does that now depend on our not ever having devolution? When devolution is brought back, we shall bring back the divisive factor of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister appointing and dismissing judges.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, neither of those propositions is true. We shall come to those issues in subsequent parts of our consideration on Report, when I shall be pleased to set out in detail why they are not true. At this point, I shall address the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.
The Lord Chancellor, unlike the First Minister or Deputy First Minister, already has the power to recommend appointments to a listed judicial office. Therefore, all that needs to be done is to ensure that in making those recommendations and appointments, the Lord Chancellor acts on the recommendation of the commission. I am simply explaining how technically the Bill puts the Lord Chancellor in a pre-devolution position. The commission will have another role under the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 later on when devolution takes place, which is to advise the First Minister and Deputy First Minster on the procedure that they should adopt in formulating a recommendation to the Prime Minister. We shall come to those issues later today.
The appointments of Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice of Appeal will continue before devolution to be made as they are now. Appointments to the office of High Court judge will also still be made by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. I hope that it will be reasonably clear that the functions of the commission in selecting persons to office up to and including High Court judges will be activated prior to devolution of responsibility for judicial functions. The commission's other function, however, in providing advice in relation to the
578
formulation of recommendations for appointment to Lord Chief Justice or Lord Justice of Appeal will not be commenced at this stage. Why does that matter? The Judicial Appointments Commission fulfils two functions. First, it puts a transparent process in place for the appointment of judicial office holders, which we believe strengthens the independence of the judiciary. Secondly, it can begin work on a process of seeking over a period of time to work towards an appropriate process, subject to merit, to increase the diversity of the judiciary.
I also affirm that there has been no breach of promise. The 2002 Act was crafted in the context of hoping and expecting that devolution was about to happen. Unfortunately, devolution is suspended, but on this day we are seeing the start of discussions around the Belfast agreement, which we all hope will lead to the possibility of a recommencement of the Assembly and devolution, but no one knows that for certain. We are, therefore, in a strange limbo land at present. There is benefit, for the reasons I have given, in making progress.
It is also not true that the nine measures that came out from the Hillsborough agreement with relevance to the Bill being discussed today—specifically the issues around judicial appointments—were not the product of pressure from Sinn Fein. Other political parties were interested in those issues, not Sinn Fein. It is not the right way forward for Northern Ireland affairs to be made as part of the Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales. We want to move towards more self government in Northern Ireland, subject to a time and place process. I very much hope that the reverse of the entrenchment of sectarianism will be the product of such a process.
There was consultation with the parties. The Bill's contents were discussed in detail with the local political parties at Hillsborough, including the Ulster Unionist Party. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that the devolution of justice and judicial appointments should go hand in hand. The JAC will make its recommendations to the Lord Chancellor, and the provisions on senior judicial appointments and judicial removal will not be commenced before justice is devolved to Northern Ireland.
I hope that I have done better than last time in addressing the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for addressing the points that I raised. I note that I did not have much competition on this amendment.
Will the Minister clarify a point? When he talked about the Hillsborough round of talks, he seemed to say, "and" the Ulster Unionists, as though somehow there had been encouragement or pressure from the Ulster Unionists to devolve judicial powers. He and I both know that that was not the case. The Ulster Unionist Party was totally opposed, and will remain totally opposed to the devolution of criminal justice responsibilities until there is absolute certainty of

579
stability in Northern Ireland. I hope that the noble Lord will confirm that so that there is no confusion in anyone's mind that somehow my party is of a mind to have early devolution of criminal justice.
I have one or two other very brief points to make. I concur with my noble friend Lord Molyneaux, if not for the same reason, when he alludes to the separation of powers. It is nonsense to talk about the separation of the judicial process from the political process, and then to suggest that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be indulging in what can only be Buggins' turn. It will be nothing else. If that does not divide the judicial process along sectarian lines in Northern Ireland, I simply do not know what does.
Those are my reasons for opposing everything that I see in the Bill as being not only unhelpful but also dangerous. However, I am not one to waste the time of the House. I have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has intimated—would the Minister like to respond?
4.30 p.m
Lord Filkin: My Lords, out of courtesy I shall respond to the specific point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, about the Ulster Unionist Party and Hillsborough. I responded to whether there had been consultation and involvement of political parties in the Hillsborough agreement and I commented on the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party had been involved in the Hillsborough discussions. I made no comment about its stance on the early devolution of justice. I hope we agree in part, if not in totality.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says. I did not want there to be any doubt. I may go into a public house, but I shall not be one of those who leaves drunk. Our position is much the same in regard to the Ulster Unionists; we may have been involved in the talks, but that does not indicate any concurrence with what has been brought forward against our wishes. However, as I was about to say before the Minister intervened, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Membership of the Commission]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) In section 3 of the 2002 Act (makeup of the Commission)—

(a) in subsection (5)(a), for "five" substitute "six", and

(b) in subsection (5)(c), for "five" substitute "four"."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, before speaking to Amendment No. 2, I thank the Lord President for a meeting that we had last week in her office, which was very helpful. I also thank her officials, some of whom are in the Box today, for the number of meetings that I have had with them and for the good will and help that they have given us while preparing amendments for today.
580
We have discussed Amendment No. 2 for some considerable time. We discussed much of it when dealing with the previous Bill and we have been over it in Committee. For me, the Government's proposals in relation to this item may seem like only one small step, but it is a step in the wrong direction, towards more politicisation in the appointment of Northern Ireland judges. Noble Lords will find that all my amendments and all my arguments will focus on trying to prevent the Government increasing politicisation of the judicial system in Northern Ireland as opposed to decreasing it. That is what they declare they arc doing. but I do not believe that is what they are doing.
All the changes that are being made mount up, and cumulatively we are faced with a system which does not guarantee judicial independence and which threatens the until now unimpeachable record of those judges who have dispensed justice in Northern Ireland thus far. If appointment is to be on merit, what possible basis is there for having an equal number of judicial and lay members on the Judicial Appointments Commission? The Secretary of State claims that eight out of 13 of the members are judicial professionals. That is misinformation because he includes the solicitor and barrister under that umbrella of judicial professionalism. As I understand it, those people do not take the judicial oath and are not normally considered to be part of the judiciary.
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, also tried to claim that the lay members would in some way be vital in trying,
"to widen the diversity of the judiciary"—[Official Report, 15/1/04; col. 690],
and would aid "public confidence" in the judiciary. We accept that there should be some representations from the lay community on the Judicial Appointments Commission, but while it hopefully plays a useful role in enhancing confidence in the judicial system, it also runs a real risk that political considerations will assume too great a prominence.
One matter that I believe has been missed by the Minister and his colleagues—particularly when I look at the make up of the suggested Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales—is that in Northern Ireland 95 per cent, or probably 100 per rent, of those who are likely to be appointed to the commission will be extremely politically sensitive, extremely politically active, and extremely politically aware. Without wishing to insult anyone in the kingdom, particularly in England and Wales, I suspect that a similar group of people from whom one could select members for the JAC for England and Wales, would probably contain fewer than 20 per cent and may be fewer than 10 per cent of people who would be politically sensitive to one party or another or to one issue or another in relation to appointments to the judiciary. A crucial plank in my argument is that it is quite wrong to overplay and to oversubscribe to the lay element on the Judicial Appointments Commission. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I adopt the argument of my noble friend Lord Glentoran in supporting the amendment. Ministers insist that the overriding and dominant criterion for the

581
appointment of a judge shall be merit. Of course, that is right; that has to be so. The Bill stipulates that and it does so on ministerial instructions. It could hardly be otherwise if a non-politicised judiciary is the aim.
However, it is not enough for Ministers merely to proclaim that; they have to go further and in the language of Cranmer they have to "ensue it". That means identifying what constitutes merit and examining who is best fitted to discern it among the pool of likely candidates. I suggest that in that context merit includes displaying the judicial qualities of independence, integrity, impartiality, intellect, courage, courtesy and efficiency in the dispatch of business.
Therefore, the assessment of a candidate for those qualities surely has to be a specialised business. The reason is that those qualities, or the absence of them, will have been displayed when candidates have been seen at work—in action—whether as an advocate or as a judge. It is hard to see where a lay person can have as useful, or at least equally useful, a standpoint as a judicial person. The assessment by judges themselves must be the most reliable that is available. They will have reviewed the summings up, the sentences, the judgments and the transcripts of trials over which inferior judges will have presided; they will have seen how the candidates have performed. They will have observed the performance of advocates appearing before them, whether at first instance or on appeal.
It is true that the opinions of barristers and solicitors will go some way towards approaching the value of the experience of a judge in this context, provided that they are advocate solicitors or advocate barristers, which is not specified in the Bill. I respectfully suggest that a lay magistrate in Northern Ireland can have had very little experience that is relevant and I suggest that a lay person who is not a magistrate can rarely bring experience that is at all relevant. Lay people may ask themselves, "What can we bring?", and they will have to reply in the words of the well known hymn,
"Just as I am, I come".
That will be very nice, but what will it contribute, beyond what we misleadingly call transparency? In Northern Ireland there is some value in that, but there is also some danger. As my noble friend has said, I believe that it will bring the risk that certain attributes, quite extraneous to those judicial ones, that make for judicial merit, will be looked for by the public and disproportionately rewarded, most notably those of background and religion—where does the candidate come from?
I therefore endorse what my noble friend Lord Glentoran said in Committee. He said:
"The fact that the Lord Chief Justice and five judges could be outvoted on this commission can make no sense if one has the objective of maintaining that the judicial system be depoliticised and clear of political influences".—[Official Report, 15/1/04; col. 687.]
582
I would add that if we are to ensure the true predominance of merit as the criterion, the only-reliable and safe way to do it is by putting the judicial members in the majority on the commission.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, it might be helpful to the House, in so far as I fully support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, if I address some of my remarks to the next group of amendments, because—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, is the noble Lord seeking to group and to debate all the amendments together or to debate this amendment and then move on? Members of the House may become confused about the point at which they should speak.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I would not wish other Members to be in the same state as me; namely, one of confusion. The next group of amendments is not entirely mine. If the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, intends to push this amendment to a vote, I would be happy to accede to the noble Baroness's point and combine the next group of amendments with this group.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I do not wish to group the next group of amendments with this one. I am quite happy to stay where we are.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in that case, we have clarified the position. At this stage, Members will speak to this amendment only.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Indeed, my Lords, I will do so. When we consider the next group, I shall be able to speak with much greater brevity.
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said in Committee:
"The further argument was made by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and others that the lay members have no function at all, or they should have a function only if they are expert in some way in legal processes. I believe that that short changes the role of the commission".—[Official Report, 15/1/04; col. 690.]
I could not quite understand what the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, was intimating. I would have thought that expertise, no matter how little, was an absolute necessity. There would not be much point in employing a sausage maker to repair my motor car. Hence, it was difficult to follow his arguments, which appeared to be a series of unconvincing contradictions. He said that the system had proved itself over 30 difficult years. However, we have to ensure public confidence. I had thought that 77 per cent of the public has confidence in judges and magistrates. That point was conveyed in this House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton.
If lay people are involved in the Judicial Appointments Commission, they will be seen as "quango-ites". If 77 per cent of the public has confidence in judges and magistrates, not even 0.7 per cent of it would have confidence in many of those who are mostly unelected and often unelectable. Quango-ism in Northern Ireland

583
has become a kind of covert profession. It is pretty much despised. There are exceptions in the form of some very able, publicly spirited people, but there are others whom I would fear if they made up the lay element of a Judicial Appointments Commission.
When one comes to selecting those lay people, they will inevitably be selected because they are Protestant or because they are Catholic. However often I speak about this Bill, I have to emphasise the sectarianising that is inherent in it. Some of us have worked a lifetime to try to reduce that in Northern Irish society.
I referred in Committee to the Minister's remarks on merit at Second Reading. She had said:
"Merit has been and will continue to be the overriding principle for judicial appointments".—[Official Report, 16/12/03; col. 1092.]
She said "overriding". Merit cannot be overriding if it is subject to one condition after another. That is exactly what we are hearing from government. The condition will be traditional balance in terms of only one criterion: Protestant or Catholic. I could never concur with that. My party has worked for years to try to eliminate it.
I shall draw attention to research paper No. 5 that was commissioned during the review of the criminal justice system. Page 60 states:
"The international models of Appointments Committees have varying degrees of similarity. Most feature a Chief Justice as Chairperson; representatives from courts, Bar Council and legal profession. When lay members are included they are chosen from individuals with a sophisticated knowledge of appointments procedure and legal issues".
I do not know how we can bring that kind of professional advice to the review of criminal justice. The Minister cannot argue that meritocracy and competency are overriding, while all those elements of sectarianism are being built in. It does not square up. That is the sad reality of the situation.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I am somewhat depressed by the denigration of the contribution of the lay element to appointments. I always listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, with great respect, but we should not be seduced by his mellifluous articulation of his points. His words smack heavily, as they have done before, of those of an eloquent shop steward for the legal trade union. There is no question that the balance that we have is the right one. Undoubtedly, the lay members will listen most assiduously to what the legal and judicial representatives say. However, selecting on the basis of integrity, knowledge, independence and all the other criteria referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, is not the preserve of the legal profession. Many of us feel that we can discriminate between those who possess them and those who do not. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to some extent, and, in his most mellifluous way, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, have rather over-egged the pudding in making their point.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the amendment would increase the number of judicial members and decrease the number of lay members on the Judicial Appointments Commission. To some extent, it is
584
surprising to be debating this amendment because the Bill does nothing to change the composition of the Judicial Appointments Commission which this House and another place passed into legislation nearly two years ago. That was a decision that Parliament made at that point in time, and I think it was the right decision. The composition was debated at length in both Houses during the passage of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.
The 2002 Act reflected Recommendation 78 of the Criminal Justice Review which sought to have a careful balance in terms of the commission's membership. Indeed, as I made clear in Committee, out of a total of 13 commission members, eight will have knowledge of the law, legal processes and legal systems. I sought to say that there would be eight members of a commission of 13 who would either be judicial or legal professionals. It may well have been slightly condensed in the process of transmogrification. However, the point I was making was that there were eight people who were either acting as judges or who were professional lawyers.
Furthermore, the chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission is the Lord Chief Justice himself. He is sitting on top of this apex, bringing all of the weight of his office, experience and intelligence to its functions. In that respect, the Judicial Appointments Commission in Northern Ireland is quite different from the system currently operating in Scotland and what is proposed for England and Wales. I make no issue with that—there are good reasons for where the 2002 Act positioned it, and we think that that is right. Therefore, we are slightly at a loss about why the question is being reopened at this time, given that we have had some good debates and have sought, through Parliament, to settle the matter.
Let me turn to a number of the points that were made in the addresses to the amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, is right to bring the issue of appointment on merit before us early in our proceedings. He said that Ministers proclaimed that this was the objective. Yes, they do, but we go substantially further than that—we enshrine it in the legislation. It spells out with absolute clarity that there is only one criterion for this Judicial Appointments Commission making a decision on a judicial appointment, and that is merit. In that sense, this goes way beyond proclamation—we are enshrining it in legislation. The commission is statutorily charged to behave in that way.
Identifying which candidates have judicial skills is clearly part of the job of the commission. Judicial skills are partly about knowledge of the law and partly about knowledge of judicial processes. They also include some of the other human skills needed to manage the judicial process in ways that build the confidence of the community that justice is being fairly done. Undoubtedly the judicial members of the commission will be powerfully positioned to have their arguments on some of those skills, but lay members may make a contribution when it comes to some of the other skills as well. Lay

585
members will also make a contribution in terms of looking at the selection procedures—the advertising, recruitment and attraction of people—to ensure that a rich pool of talented candidates is coming forward for consideration by the panel.
I should also mark the fact that the Judicial Appointments Commission has a second role. It does not just make short-term decisions about judicial appointment. However—I repeat this so that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is in no doubt about this—its secondary role in trying to promote a more diverse judiciary is subordinate to the appointment on merit. In other words, it only does those other things subordinate to merit, not the other way round, as I think it was being interpreted.
We had a good discussion on these issues in Committee, and it seemed to me that there was a strong measure of consensus. The judiciary in Northern Ireland, no different from that in England, is not, in gender terms, representative of society broadly. Therefore the commission has to think what can be done over five, 10 or more years to ensure that people of talent in all walks of life come forward. That is its second role. It is self-evident that a commission which has on it lay people with relevant experience will be very powerful. That was what I was meant when I referred in Committee to short-changing.
On sectarianism, the Lord Chancellor appoints the lay members of the Judicial Appointments Commission in the pre-devolution situation. They will be selected in accordance with the Commission of Public Appointments code of practice. In addition to having to swear an undertaking to uphold peace and justice, they must be able to command the confidence of a broad swathe of society in Northern Ireland and, by their stature and integrity, have demonstrated their ability to contribute to decisions in a non-sectarian way. While Scotland does not have the same level of sectarianism that Northern Ireland has, tragically, had, we have already seen a Judicial Appointments Commission in Scotland chaired by a lay member making good progress on addressing some of these issues, albeit in an advisory capacity. I think confidence is developing in Scotland in that respect.
We got it right when we established the composition in 2002, and we are right now to implement some, if not all, of the Judicial Appointments Commission's functions because we need to make progress in the areas I have outlined. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, will feel minded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his lengthy explanation. However, I do not really understand why the Government are sticking to their guns so strongly on this and they probably do not understand why I am sticking to mine. Neither the Criminal Justice Review—see paragraph 6.103—nor the implementation plan—see page 44—called for a majority of lay over judicial members.
586
I would be very satisfied if the Government would undertake that the casting vote was left with the Lord Chief Justice, but I feel that in the Province that I know and have lived in for many years, the climate is not right to have a commission to appoint the judiciary made up with a majority of non-judicial persons. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents, 156.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Arran, E.

Laird, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Lindsay, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Listowel, E.

Attlee, E.

Liverpool, E.

Biffen, L.

Luke, L.

Blaker, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Brigstocke, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Brookeborough, V.

L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern. L.

Burnham, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mancroft, L.

Byford, B.

Marlesford, L.

Caithness, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Miller of Hendon. B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monson, L.

Chadlington, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cobbold, L.

Montrose, D.

Colville of Culross, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Naseby, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Newton of Braintree, L.

Courtown, E.

Noakes, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Northcsk. E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Elton. L.

Onslow, E.

Erroll, E.

Palmer, L.

Ferrers, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Patten, L.

Fowler, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Geddes, L.

Plumb, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone. L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rees, L.

Glentoran, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Goschen, V.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Gray of Contin. L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hanham, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly

Higgins, L.

Sanderson of Bowden. L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Home, E.

Selborne, E.

Hooper, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Jopling, L.

Stewartby, L.

Kimball, L.

Strange, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kingsland, L.

Tebbit, L.

Kirkham, L.

Thatcher, B.

587

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Waddington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wakeham, L.

Ullswater, V.

Walpole, L.

Vinson, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Addington, L.

Hooson, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Andrews, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Archer of Sandwell L.

Hughes of Woodside L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Avebury, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Barnett, L.

Hylton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Berkeley, L.

Jeger, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Jones, L.

Bhatia, L.

Judd, L.

Billingham, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Borrie, L.

Levy, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brookman, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Burlison, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Christopher, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McNally, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Crawley, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

David, B.

Marsh, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Desai, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dholakia, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dixon, L.

Newby, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Parekh, L.

Eatwell, L.

Pendry, L.

Elder, L.

Peston, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Puttnam, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Fearn, L.

Rea, L.

Filkin, L.

Redesdale, L.

Finlayof Llandaff, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rennard, L.

Gale, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gilbert, L.

Roper, L.

Golding, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sandberg, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sawyer, L.

Goudie, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Grabiner, L.

Sheldon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Grantchester, L.

Simon, V.

Gregson, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Harrison, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hayman. B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

588

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Warner, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Whitaker, B.

Thornton, B.

Whitty, L.

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Triesman, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Walmsley, B.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.9 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 is another amendment that we have already discussed at considerable length. In Committee we clarified the important point that the Lord Chief Justice who chairs the committee sits ex officio and is therefore not caught by the 10-year limit. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that,
"on promotion to another tier of the judiciary, a person can have another opportunity to enter the judicial appointments commission".—[Official Report, 15/1/04; col. 695.]
If that is so, it would go far to meet our concerns as the high flyers will almost certainly be promoted through the system, typically from High Court judge to Lord Chief Justice or resident magistrate to county court judge. But if what the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said in Committee is correct, what is the point of the statutory restriction as it will so seldom apply? In my view it is far from clear that sub-paragraph (IA)—I read it several times along with advisers—means what the Minister thought that it meant and I hope that it means. I await the noble Lord's comments on that point. I beg to move
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am very glad to repeat and re-emphasise the explanation and the commitment that I gave in Committee in this respect. While the clause that we are discussing puts all judicial members on a level playing field regarding their terms of office—there seem to be good reasons for doing that both in principle and also because it was one element of the Hillsborough agreement—a lay member or a judicial member can serve five years as their first term. They are eligible to be reappointed for a second term, if that is the decision of the relevant appointing body. That second term can either be served directly subsequent to the first term or after a period of time has elapsed.
It is also the case—I again emphasise this, as I think I have said, and I may have also written to the noble Lord—that were a judicial office holder to be promoted, he or she is open to a further opportunity for appointment as they may then move into a different category. For example, if they move into the High Court, they would be open to a further opportunity for consideration and selection. In theory in extremis one can envisage the slightly bizarre situation in which a

589
person who was promoted could end up serving on the Judicial Appointments Commission for 20 years. That is the theoretical extreme logic of the measure. However, I should be surprised if that occurred. As I signalled in Committee, there are good reasons for wanting turnaround while also wanting experienced people to serve on the body.
In essence I can give exactly the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, seeks. People may be reappointed to serve a second term in their existing role or be reappointed in a different capacity if they are promoted. Why is that? As I have signalled, it seems right in principle that both lay and judicial members should be on a level playing field as that was part of the Hillsborough agreement. I hope that having re-emphasised what I said in Committee, the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, will be appeased.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very clear explanation which I accept. Being rather churlish, I hope that the draftsmen and officials will reconsider the relevant phrasing to reassure themselves that future generations will interpret it correctly. The provision comprises only about three lines. It is rather difficult to interpret it correctly unless the relevant explanation in Hansard is attached to it.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. If it will help our processes, I shall threaten to send him one of my tedious letters in which I shall spell out explicitly why we believe that we are right.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that. His letters are by no means tedious. I have received some in the past for which I am very grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 6, I must inform the House that, if it were to be agreed, I would not be able to call Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, due to the rules of pre-emption.
Clause 3 [Duty of Commission to secure judiciary reflective of the community]:
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, leave out lines 26 to 35.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I return to the question of what is actually meant by the wording in the Bill. I do not care whether the relevant phrase is "representative of the community" or "reflective of the community". Clause 3 is entitled:
"Duty of Commission to secure judiciary reflective of the community".
590
We are told in new subsection (8) of Clause 3 that selection for appointment,
"must be made solely on the basis of merit".
A certain logic flows from that. If selection for appointment is,
"solely on the basis of merit",
and we are not of the opinion that males are cleverer and more able than females or vice versa, or that black people are more able than white or coloured people or vice versa, or that Protestants are more able than Catholics or vice versa, new subsections (9) and (10) of Clause 3 are absolutely unnecessary. However—I do not need to emphasise this point much more—I and anyone who comes from Northern Ireland believes that this has to do with creating a sectarian trade-off—nothing more and nothing less. It is about creating a sectarian trade-off. I am as opposed to a sectarian trade-off as I am opposed—and have been opposed in my 20 or so years in public life—to sectarianism. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, replies to the amendment will he say whether there is a legal precedent for using the word "reflective"? He and I and other Members of the House probably have a fair idea of what is intended by the word but it would be slightly disappointing if a subsequent judicial interpretation showed that we were wrong.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I too hope that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, can clarify one or two matters when he replies to the amendment.
In the course of replying to Amendment No. 1, the noble Lord mentioned that the Government aimed to achieve gender balance in the Northern Ireland judiciary. Does that mean that where two equally well qualified candidates present themselves—one male and one female—the woman will always be chosen until such time, many years hence, when 50 or 51 per cent of the judiciary in Northern Ireland is female? I do not think that any other interpretation is possible but there may be one of which I am unaware.
Leaving aside the question of gender, what other characteristics are sought in the Government's ambition to achieve a judiciary "reflective of the community"? Both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, have assumed that religious affiliation will be the main criterion, judging by their earlier contributions this afternoon, but I wonder whether they are right. If a Roman Catholic Unionist—whether with a capital U or a lower case u—were to be proposed to fill the notional Roman Catholic quota, my guess is that he or she would be totally unacceptable to Sinn Fein and quite probably unacceptable to the SDLP as well.
Therefore, "reflective of the community" could only mean reflective of the political community, with 30 per cent of new appointments going to known DUP supporters—assuming they have all the correct legal

591
qualifications—and 23 per cent or so going to Sinn Fein supporters and so on. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case?
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I support the amendment. Regarding the word "reflective", I am involved in the Northern Ireland Policing Board. When we chose members of the district policing partnerships, of which the noble Lord, Lord Maginiss, will be aware, we had to appoint people who were "reflective" of the community. The first issue to be taken into account was religion. That was not our choice, but, we were told, it was through the "political correctness" of the situation. That is how it will be done. The second issue was gender but the first was clearly religion.
I have one question for the Minister. If merit is the number one objective, how on earth can that be distorted by bringing religion or gender into it? That is not possible.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thought that we had one of the best discussions on the Bill on such issues in Committee. I value the exchange that we had with the Opposition Front Bench, particularly with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
I start by addressing Amendment No. 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, which would remove the requirement that is inserted into Section 5 of the 2002 Act by Clause 3 that the Judicial Appointments Commission should,
"engage in a programme of action designed to secure"
a judiciary,
"reflective of the community in Northern Ireland".
I made it clear in Committee and shall do so again that the duty to engage in a programme of action is subject to the immutable principle of appointment on merit.
The Judicial Appointments Commission can make a decision only on which applicant is best for that judicial post. It can take no account of whether the person is a man or a woman; whether they are from one community or another; or whether they are of one ethnic group or another. The Bill could not be clearer. Appointment has to be on merit.
However, in our discussions in Committee we addressed the issue of the judiciary of Northern Ireland no differently from issues relating to the judiciary in Britain. If one looks at the composition of the judiciary in Northern Ireland—which I repeat is deeply impressive in very many respects in terms of its judicial skill and courage over some difficult periods of time—it is apparent that 87 per cent are men and 13 per cent are women. The question that faces society, which is the subject of this part of the Bill, starts from the premise that we talked about then: no one in the House believes that women are more stupid than men. Therefore, that begs a question: what is in the nature of the processes that leads to the disproportionate composition of the judiciary in Northern Ireland?
The nature of that discussion in Committee was that one had to ask the commission and others in Northern Ireland society—the Bar Council and the Law Society—
592
to reflect on the nature of judicial careers, including the way in which people came forward for them, to see whether anything in the nature of those processes was likely to lead to a disproportionate composition. I shall not repeat the arguments for those who want to engage further. We have set out why the issue matters profoundly. I shall not weary the House with that again, but the issue is asking the commission what it can do to give leadership in civil society in Northern Ireland over a period of years to seek to bring about change.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who was clear that we are talking about actions that might take five, 10 or 15 years. But they are important to try to redress the composition of a judiciary that, while it is eminently skilled in what it does, is not reflective of the diversity of society. That was the essential issue and although in Committee I churlishly refused to accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about a continuing programme of action, I agree with him that that was what the issue was about. Therefore, we tabled Amendment No 7 to make it absolutely clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, invited us, that a programme of action by the Judicial Appointments Commission was necessary over a period of years.
Regarding the concerns raised by noble Lords, I gladly pay tribute to the reminder by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, of his lifetime opposition to sectarianism. We recognise how difficult that is in Northern Ireland and how that requires leadership and courage. But we are not putting the issue of sectarianism at risk by the Bill. Regarding the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about what matters most, I said in Committee that one had to expect a judiciary, everything being equal, to be roughly reflective of society.
The greatest deviance in society is not community background but gender. That is my direct response. We do not know the exact figures for community background in Northern Ireland, but the best estimates suggest that probably around 35 per cent come from a Roman Catholic background and about 65 percent come from a Protestant background. That is not to say that there is anything fundamentally wrong or that there is perfection. But the last thing that the Judicial Appointments Commission is entitled to do is to make any decisions on appointments based on the community background of people. I am signalling that the issue matters most on gender, given my figures.
Regarding ethnicity, there is such a small ethnic minority population in Northern Ireland that there are no people on the judiciary from ethnic minorities, as they represent only 1 per cent of the population. They are small figures. It is not a situation of appointing people in order to achieve quotas. Quotas are illegal—as set out by the thrust of the Bill. Age is another issue that one might look at, but there is a limit to what might be achieved regarding age, given that holders of judicial office often require many years of experience. Therefore, one cannot expect a complete balance there of adult society, for obvious reasons.

593
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked me about the terms "representative" and "reflective". We have changed the wording to "reflective" because the Liberal Democrats pointed out—although I cannot remember the context—that it was a better word. I stand by that because there is a slight risk that "representative" sounds as if a person on the Judicial Appointments Commission would be "representative" of the community and that would be the last thing that we wanted. All we are seeking is that the Judicial Appointments Commission is not totally male or female or totally Catholic or Protestant, but has a fair or as reasonable a balance as possible.
Regarding the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, on district policing partnerships, I do not wish to go into detail about any such future programme of action, but it does require a root and branch inspection of the processes that lead to that type of outcome. It is nothing new. A whole range of public bodies have been doing that for 20 or 30 years—seeking to uphold appointment on merit, but nevertheless inquiring into the processes which may lead to a disproportionate outcome.
I hope that my reply has been helpful, and I apologise if it has been too long.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It is what I expected. I shall have a moment to debate the matter further in the next government amendment. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I owe it to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, to point out that as the two amendments are grouped together there will be no opportunity to discuss the Government's amendment. The debate is concluded. The noble Lord may press his amendment to a Division or withdraw it, but there will be no more debate on either amendment.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I apologise; I overlooked that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BaronessAmos moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 26, leave out from "must" to end of line 35 and insert "at all times engage in a programme of action which complies with subsection (10).
(10) A programme of action complies with this subsection if—

(a) it is designed to secure, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, that appointments to listed judicial offices are such that those holding such offices are reflective of the community in Northern Ireland;

(b) it requires the Commission, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, to secure that a range of persons reflective of the community in Northern Ireland is available for consideration by the Commission whenever it is required to select a person to be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to a listed judicial office; and

(c) it is for the time being approved by the Commission for the purposes of this section.""

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Appointment of Lord Chief Justice and Lords Justices of Appeal]:
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 12 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Removal or suspension from listed judicial offices]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 13:
Leave out Clause 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have debated the issue at length and wonder why the Government have changed from their position in 2002. Why should the Lord Chief Justice now be only consulted rather than have to agree with the removal or suspension of a listed judicial official? Perhaps most iniquitous of all is the fact that in the constitutional Bill the Lord Chief Justice must agree—that is, for England and Wales he retains his veto. Removal in England and Wales will be by the Secretary of State with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. That was made clear at col. 16 of Hansard on 26 January, on page 19.74 of Constitutional Reform and in the Lord Chancellor's judiciary-related functions proposals of January 2004.
The Lord Chancellor, the Minister at that time, in his Statement covered his tracks somewhat by saying:
"My responsibilities also extend to Northern Ireland. Consideration will be given to the future handling of my functions that relate to the Northern Ireland judiciary. That process, which is currently under way, will include consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and will be based on the same guiding principles as in England and Wales, taking into account any provision already made for Northern Ireland to give effect to the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Review".—[Official Report, 26/1/04; col. 17.]
This is a very important topic. In fact, nothing is more important in relation to the independence of the judiciary and the prevention of its politicisation than the right of a judge to security of tenure of office. A judge must be able to be confident that party politics will play no part in his selection and appointment and have no influence on his security of tenure. He must be unfettered in his ability to do justice to all without fear or favour, affection or ill will.
The issues and the proposals in the Bill as a whole must be seen not only from the standpoint of how they will be put into effect in practice, but also how they will be perceived by the judiciary themselves. There can be little doubt that a judge in Northern Ireland will feel less secure as a result of this provision and hence less confident in showing robust independence from the powers that be.
What have the Government to fear from maintaining this safeguard, which was so widely inserted when the matter was decided by Parliament less than two years ago? It must be unlikely in the extreme that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland will refuse his consent to the dismissal of a judge following the adverse decision of a tribunal headed, as it must be, by a Law Lord unless there are very good reasons for him to do so. But by parity of reasoning, if he feels it right to withhold his consent, he will have such reasons.
It may be precisely because he understands in a way which the tribunal does not that the sectarian politics of Northern Ireland, which the judiciary have been

595
astute to avoid to the admiration of all fair-minded observers, has impinged on the case. It must be recognised that the Law Lord heading the tribunal may well not be—indeed, probably will not be—a Law Lord with deep knowledge of Northern Ireland and, unlikely as one hopes it will be, such a situation could arise. In such circumstances, the protection of the Lord Chief Justice's consent would be critical.
In England and Wales, the Government's proposal—the Lord Chief Justice the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has confirmed this—that the consent of the Lord Chief Justice is essential. It should be the same in Northern Ireland. What possible reason can the Government give for proposing otherwise? I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am so anxious to hear the answer from the Government Front Bench to the question my noble friend has posed that I hesitate to intervene. But the issue is so important that I am going to none the less.
The change which Clause 5 makes is extremely important. The case for it is not made out and I believe it ought to be vigorously rejected. It is said by the Minister, "Don't worry, there will first have to be a tribunal with two judges and one lay person. One will be a Law Lord. It must have recommended removal or suspension". My answer to that is that the Lord Chief Justice does not even have to have agreed to the establishment of such a tribunal; he has only to have been consulted about it. He may have objected to it and he will not necessarily sit on it. In fact, if he has objected to it, it is almost certain that he will not sit on it.
Nevertheless, as my noble friend said, under the 2002 Act, he was given a veto on removal or suspension of a judge. And that notwithstanding that the Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Review was already published so that it was known that the review,
"did not recommend a requirement for the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice".
The Explanatory Notes at paragraph 14 lamely state that the change in Clause 5 reflects more closely the recommendations in the review. Why then was it not in the 2002 Act, which succeeded the review? The answer given is that it: is in the Hillsborough agreement. I suggest to your Lordships only that if it was in the Hillsborough agreement it should not have been, and the Hillsborough agreement cannot pre-empt what Parliament may decide in its wisdom.
I ask noble Lords to put themselves in the position of a judge if Clause 5 is carried. Only two years ago the judge would know that he was protected by the necessity for a joint resolution of both Houses of Parliament, like his counterpart in England and Wales. Then that provision went by virtue of the 2002 Act. But still the judge could not be removed without the agreement of his chief. Now he realises that that is to go. He may be dismissed only on the recommendation of a tribunal with whose establishment his chief may have disagreed, upon which he did not sit and with whose recommendations he disagrees.
596
What is the judge, in those circumstances, to make of this one-way progression of so-called reform? I offer this suggestion. He will calculate that the maintenance of a fail-safe system for judicial independence is now manifestly of less concern to the Government than that the so-called political process should be furthered by what is seen at Hillsborough to be expedient. In those circumstances, will he not be tempted to trim his sails accordingly? The very existence of such an obvious temptation, publicly perceived—as it will be—will serve to diminish public confidence in the independence of the judiciary. I suggest that it is not a temptation to which either the judiciary or the public should be exposed.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, when we discussed the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, I offered the advice that we should not miss an opportunity to invent or slim down a judicial apparatus for Northern Ireland commensurate with the size of Northern Ireland. Parliament in its wisdom chose to ignore my advice; and we have now replicated there all the paraphernalia that we have in England and Wales. It is therefore consistent that we also follow the practice of England and Wales. For that reason, should the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, seek to test the opinion of the House, noble Lords on these Benches will support him.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I understood that it was contrary to judicial independence to alter the terms of service of a judge once he was appointed. If the proposal were to affect judges differently accordingly to the time at which they were appointed, that would be a serious and difficult situation for the judiciary in Northern Ireland to accommodate.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I had the opportunity of speaking on this matter both at Second Reading and in Committee. I am not going to state again my objections in principle to the Government's proposals. I simply want to emphasise the different treatment that High Court judges will receive in England and Wales on the one hand and in Northern Ireland on the other.
In England and Wales they will continue to receive the security they derive from the fact that they can be dismissed only on an address by a vote in both Houses of Parliament. Moreover, paragraph 74 of the document placed in the Library by the Lord Chancellor in the light of the Government's new proposals for judicial appointments in England and Wales states:
"High Court Judges and above can only be removed from office by The Queen on an Address from both Houses of Parliament. Subject to this, a judicial office-holder will only be removed from office by the Secretary of State with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice".
Even if one sets aside the issue that Northern Ireland High Court judges will no longer enjoy the protection of a vote by both Houses of Parliament, it remains inexplicable why the additional protection of the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice should apply to all English judges, irrespective of whether they are High Court judges or circuit judges, but that equivalent

597
protection should be expressly removed, for no apparent reason, in the case of newly appointed Northern Ireland High Court judges.
Perceptions matter enormously in decision making. If the High Court judges in Northern Ireland think that they no longer have security of tenure, it will affect the courageous independence they have shown for the past 30 years. I find the Government's conduct on the matter inexplicable.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I take a different position. I understand the much greater legal knowledge of many of the noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on the amendment so far, but we are talking about a situation that is not identical to that pertaining in England and Wales. The Government gave their commitment at Hillsborough in the Joint Declaration. It would be a sad day if the Government were to renege on a promise they made to the Northern Ireland parties.
I understand that that is the main reason why there will be a different approach from that which noble Lords believe to be appropriate for England and Wales. Furthermore, the argument was also put in the implementation plan of the Criminal Justice Review that was updated in June 2003, when the point was clearly stated in the foreword to the document. It is not a new issue; it has been in print and understood by the main Northern Ireland political parties for some time. It would be a sad day if the House were to say, "Never mind what undertakings the Government made; we think differently". The situation in Northern Ireland, with the start of the talks today on the review of the Good Friday agreement, is sensitive. It would be unhelpful if this House were to change the Bill in the way the amendment suggests
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, any Government who make such a commitment without recognising the important repercussions ought to be big enough to say, "We gave this commitment in good faith. However, we have considered it carefully and seen what effect it will have. We are very sorry, but we have decided that we no longer intend to keep that commitment". If they are big enough as a government they can say that; and they have a duty to do so because the whole of Northern Ireland justice depends on retaining the confidence and power of the judges.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, it was not my intention to intervene—not because I am not party to this amendment but because there are those who are judicially qualified to speak on the matter and, as a layman, I feel that I am not. However, that was until the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, raised the issue of Hillsborough yet again. I always understood during my period both in another place and here that Parliament was supreme and that no politician, even the Secretary of State, could arbitrarily usurp its authority.
598
In this case, we are dealing with something that has a long proven tradition. It is totally wrong to make such a change to please some small element of society in Northern Ireland, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, may think. Hence I support the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and hope that he will press the matter to a Division.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, it may horrify your Lordships to know that the magic words "Hillsborough" and "Weston Park" could in any way justify the change in legislation brought forward by the Government. I shall take Weston Park first. We were told in this building—many noble Lords will remember the occasion—that these very serious changes were authorised at Weston Park.
A Minister of the Crown was present who is now unfortunately deceased. He repeated to me that one could not argue with him because the matter was carried and arranged at Weston Park. I said that I was sorry, but there was no such thing as "the Weston Park agreement". I apologise to your Lordships, because this may seem removed from Hillsborough, but the pattern is exactly the same.
The deceased very senior Lord on that occasion said that he was sorry but I was not up to date because the matter was agreed at Weston Park. My noble friend Lord Maginnis was present at the gathering in Weston Park. There was never at any stage in the proceedings a get-together around any table; there was never a vote taken. What happened was that the two Prime Ministers consulted with various groups and parties when it suited them. The others, I suppose, went around feeding the ducks, but at no time was there a legal gathering and at no time were decisions taken.
The late Lord telephoned me the next morning and said, "Jim, I owe you an apology. You were correct. There was no agreement because there never was any sort of an Assembly. When I left you last night. I went over to No. 10 and asked to see a copy of the Weston Park agreement. There was confusion in that building—I shall not say anything about more recent confusions—and, in the end, a very senior official said, 'I'm sorry. We don't have it. We can't have it. No one has it because there was not an agreement".
Much the same operation continued at Hillsborough. Others were present—I was not in the magic circle. On that occasion, we were blessed with the presence of the President of the United States. However, as I understand it, there was a fair amount of drama with television statements and so on, but no concrete, definite legal agreement. Therefore, I am afraid that I have a duty to issue this caution lest we blunder into accepting as the law something which was never put in place by any democratic body.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I believe that this is the most important and challenging issue that we shall debate on this Bill. First, this measure is superfluous in practice. I shall seek to explain that I cannot conceive of circumstances in which a Lord Chief Justice would wish to oppose a decision of a properly constituted tribunal.

599
Secondly, I shall seek to set this issue within the reality of our considerations—the reality of the challenge facing this Government and civil society in Northern Ireland—on how to build on normalisation and work towards devolution. As part of that, it is clearly important that we honour our commitments if we are to expect others to do so also. The commitment given as part of the Hillsborough agreement is reasonable and it does not undermine judicial security or judicial independence. I shall speak on those two issues.
I turn to why there is no reason to believe that the processes that will come into force post-devolution—we are talking about post-devolution here—will not put the independence of the judiciary at risk or cause a problem to the Lord Chief Justice. There are three categories of judicial office-holder. I must ask for the patience of the House in this respect as I want to explain how these measures will apply to the three categories of those office-holders.
First, Section 7(5) of the 2002 Act—the section that we are talking about—will not apply to the removal of the Lord Chief Justice or a Lord Justice of Appeal; nor will it apply to a High Court judge appointed before the section comes into force, which would be post-devolution of judicial functions. The removal of those office-holders, were they to be found guilty of a judicial misconduct, would require not only the recommendation of a removal tribunal but also an address to both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, this amendment does not refer at all to that category of judicial office-holder.
I turn to the second clutch of judicial office-holders, if I may use that term. I refer to all other listed judicial office-holders, as set out in Schedule 1 to the 2002 Act; for example, as the 2002 Act currently stands, the removal of one of the 17 county court judges or one of the 19 resident magistrates would require the consent of the Lord Chief Justice.
However, as a consequence of this Bill, a tribunal would be established, as was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, either at the initiation of the Lord Chief Justice himself or at the initiation of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. The tribunal that would be set up for this category of judicial office-holder would be chaired by the Lord Chief Justice himself, a former Lord Chief Justice or a Lord Justice of Appeal. It would also have a High Court judge member. The crucial point in this respect is that the chair and the High Court judge will be selected by the Lord Chief Justice. Therefore, for this clutch of judicial office-holders, which is by far the vast majority—roughly speaking, we are talking about some 1,000 posts—the Lord Chief Justice will select the High Court judge and the Lord Chief Justice, if he wishes, can put himself on the tribunal and can chair it.
A third—lay—member will be selected by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Therefore, if, for some reason, one chose to believe that the lay member was nothing other than a patsy or a pawn of politicians, two senior judges would clearly form the
600
majority of such a tribunal. One of those would be the Lord Chief Justice, if he wished to chair it; the other would be a High Court judge whom he would have chosen to sit with him on that panel.
Next, the tribunal's procedure will be determined by no other than the Lord Chief Justice himself. In those circumstances, I cannot see how it is conceivable that a tribunal so composed with such a procedure could come forward with a recommendation with which the Lord Chief Justice would not be in accord.
The third set of judicial office-holders—High Court judges—are potentially the smallest group and form potentially the most sensitive and challenging area. As I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, signalled, the measure would apply only to a High Court judge appointed post-devolution, not prior to it, but a High Court judge appointed after the new removal provisions come into force. And, were such a High Court judge to be charged with a misdemeanour which appeared either to the Lord Chief Justice or to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting together to require investigation, the process would be as follows.
A tribunal would have to be convened and it would be chaired by a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary—we know who those are—or the holder of a high judicial office. That could mean an English High Court, Court of Appeal or Court of Session judge. The other judicial member would be a judge of the Court of Appeal in England and Wales or a judge of the Inner House of the Court of Session. Those persons would be selected by the Lord Chancellor.
Also, if such a distinguished tribunal recommended the removal of a High Court judge, then it seems to me inconceivable that a body consisting of those people and making such a momentous recommendation would do so without the greatest inspection of the evidence and the greatest inspection of whether they believed it was fair, right and proper to do so.
Therefore, two of the highest judicial office-holders in the land would make a recommendation that a judge—in this category, a High Court judge—be removed. Can we conceive of a situation where the Lord Chief Justice would consider it right to say in that circumstance, "No, I will have my way. The decision of that tribunal should not carry"? In the difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland, in essence we are saying that no person, however high or low, can appoint a judge and no person can veto a judge.
Lastly, I turn to why this matters and why I particularly hope that the arrangements which we have always enjoyed in this House of a bi-partisan approach to the crucial issues of Northern Ireland will sustain and continue. I do not need to tell the House what a deeply divided society it is and how previous governments have been struggling for years with the parties in Northern Ireland to try to bring an end to the appalling divisions in that society. Many Members of this House know vastly more about that than I do, but I mark that we have not concluded that process at this stage.
In fact, the Northern Ireland parties have gathered today to begin a review of the operation of the Belfast agreement. I, and I am sure all Members of the House,

601
hope that that will lead to a successful outcome. The Government will work with the parties to try to create the conditions which will enable a working executive to be formed. But what is needed is confidence between the parties and among the public. Everyone must live up to the commitments which they have given. How do we expect other political parties to honour their difficult commitments if the Government themselves do not honour theirs?
The proposals contained in the Bill were the subject of extensive discussion at Hillsborough to try to ensure the broadest possible support. We have been completely transparent about these commitments. The Joint Declaration by the UK and the Irish Governments in May last year set out the Hillsborough discussion. This declaration confirmed that there would be a second justice Bill and the nine specific commitments were made public in the up-dated implementation plan. One of those is Clause 5 of the Bill.
There has been a great tradition in this House of co-operation across the parties on matters affecting the political process in Northern Ireland. I very much hope and expect that we will continue that tradition because the greater good of Northern Ireland and peace require that. I am worried by what I have already heard in terms of the signals and soundings that have been given by both Opposition Benches in that respect.
In conclusion, a clear, transparent process for both the appointment and the appropriate removal of judicial office holders is set out in this Bill, which I believe is both fair to the person complained against and to society. No one acting alone would be able to appoint, dismiss or veto a judge. That is right. These are carefully crafted measures which increase transparency in judicial independence. I believe that the House should support them. I call on it to do so.
6 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain to me, as a total ignoramus on this topic, what appears to be a total dichotomy between his two opening sentences? First, he said that it will make no difference because he cannot conceive of any circumstance in which the Lord Chief Justice would disagree with the tribunal. Secondly, he said that it is a very important provision of the Hillsborough agreement, which we must not tear up. If it is totally unimportant and there is never going to be any choice, why did people make so much fuss to make it a term of the Hillsborough agreement?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government did not make so much fuss to get it into the Hillsborough agreement. It was very important indeed to some of the parties. There is absolutely no contradiction between the two points I have been making.
I shall explain why. Northern Ireland is such a divided society and the Lord Chief Justices I have met in Northern Ireland—and that is two only—will be aware of the great courage and integrity which Lord Chief Justices have displayed in the appallingly
602
difficult times in Northern Ireland over the years. I believe that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland have respect for Lord Chief Justices both past and present. But because it is such a divided society, some political parties might be apprehensive that a future Lord Chief Justice with a power of veto might exercise it in the face of a decision, which was not fair and balanced, by a properly constituted tribunal. I believe that that concern may be seen by some as extreme but it is a real issue. Therefore, because there is no threat to judicial independence in practice, as I have explained, it is important that the Government honour their commitments in that respect. It is part of building confidence in the wider part of civil society in Northern Ireland in the integrity of the judicial processes there. I commend it to the House.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his lengthy expose of the Government's position. I am not convinced. Some of the contradictions which have appeared make me even more convinced that there is absolutely no need for this clause and that the Bill would be considerably better without it. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 149; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Elton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Enroll, E.

Attlee, E.

Falkland, V.

Avebury, L.

Ferrers, E.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Fookes, B.

Barker, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fowler, L.

Biffen, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Blackwell, L.

Geddes. L.

Blaker, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Glentoran, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Goodhart, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L

Coschen, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hamwee, B.

Burnham, L.

Hanham, B.

Buscombe. B.

Hanningfield, L.

Byford, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Caithness, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Higgins, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Home, E

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Cobbold, L.

Huntof WirralL.

Colville of Culross, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Jopling, L.

Courtown, E.

Kimball, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kingsland, L.

Crickhowell. L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Laird, L.

603

Lang of Monkton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Razzall, L.

Lindsay, E.

Rees, L.

Liverpool, E.

Rennard, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Lucas, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Luke, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lyell, L.

Roper, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Rotherwick, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Russell-Johnston, L.

L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sandberg, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

McNally, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Selbome, E.

Mancroft, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Marlesford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Stewartby, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Monson, L.

Swinfen, L.

Montrose, D.

Taverne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Naseby, L.

Tebbit, L.

Newby, L.

Thatcher. B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Noakes, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Northbrook, L.

Tope, L.

Northesk, E.

Tordoff, L

Northover, B.

Trumpington, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Ullswater, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Vinson, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Onslow, E.

Wakeham, L.

Palmer, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Walmsley, B.

Phillips of Sudbury. L.

Walpole. L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Wilcox, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ahmed, L.

Desai, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dixon, L.

Alli, L.

Donoughue, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Dubs, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Eatwell, L.

Andrews, B.

Elder, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord)

Barnett, L.

(Chancellor)

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Berkeley, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Filkin, L.

Billingham, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gale, B.

Borrie, L.

Gilbert, L.

Bragg, L.

Golding, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brookman, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Burlison, L.

Grabiner, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carter, L.

Grantchester, L.

Christopher, L.

Grenfell, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Harrison, L.

Crawley, B.

Haskins, L.

David, B.

Hayman. B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

604

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Puttnam, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Radice, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Rea, L.

Hylton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Jones, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Judd, L.

Sandwich. E.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Sawyer, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Simon, V.

Levy, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Lipsey, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Strange B

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Symoas of Vernham Dean, B.

McIntosh of Haringey L.

Teylor or Blackburn, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Temple-Morris L

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Thornton B

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Tomlinson L.

Marsh, L

Triesman, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Turnberg, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mishcon, L.

Warner, L.

Mitchell L

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Nicol, B.

Weatherill, L.

Parekh, L.

Whitaker, B.

Patel, L.

Whitty, L.

Pendry, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pitkcathley, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.16 p.m.
Clause 6 [Duty of Director of Public Prosecutions to refer certain matters to Police Ombudsman]:
Lord Maginnis of Drumglassmoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 35, leave out "may have" and insert "has''
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment (deals with the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to refer certain matters to the Police Ombudsman. I particularly refer to subsection (3), which will insert a new subsection (4A) in to the 1955 Act:
"The Director shall refer to the Ombudsman any matter which—
(a) appears to the Director to indicate that a police officer—
(i) may have committed a criminal offence".
It is our proposal that "may have" be changed to "has".
It appears absolutely ridiculous that the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has the duty to make decisions about matters being referred to the court, should have to relegate his position to that of the Police Ombudsman. That is what it boils down to.
The reality is that the Director of Public Prosecutions will look at a case where there has been an allegation that a police officer may have committed a criminal offence and he will then make a decision that he has enough evidence to test the matter in court, or that he does not have enough evidence and that the matter should not be tested in court. That has to be an

605
end of it. It appears to go against the course of natural justice that the matter would then be passed on to the Police Ombudsman for further investigation.
Recently the Police Ombudsman went back in one case for a period of 10 years where a complaint had been made by an injured party. He decided to reopen a matter that had previously been referred to the DPP and where no action had been taken. When I questioned that, I was told that where a matter appears to have involved criminality, the ombudsman has an obligation to deal with it no matter how far back the issue goes.
When the legislation creating the post of Police Ombudsman was passed through Parliament, I understood that there was to be no retrospection. Now I am told that that is in respect of policy, not matters of criminality. So, at present if someone takes an allegation to the Police Ombudsman, she considers that it is her legal obligation to pursue the issue. However, I do not believe that this House should endorse legislation which states not only that, but that the Director of Public Prosecutions, irrespective of any decision he makes within the powers of his office, has to subject himself to second-guessing by the Police Ombudsman.
For that reason, I propose that in line 35 we leave out "may have" and insert "has". Amendment No. 15, grouped with this amendment, leaves out lines 36 to 38, which state that a police officer,
"may, in the course of a criminal investigation, have behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings".
That is so ill-defined that, again, I believe that it should not be part of the Bill. We have a Chief Constable and a police board, and disciplinary procedures are already in place. Once again, it appears that we are saying that the Chief Constable and officers in command of the PSN1 must subjugate themselves to the will and interests of the Police Ombudsman. Again, it strikes me as an absolute travesty that that should be the case.
In the debate on Clause 5 it was interesting to hear the Minister virtually admit, and to receive support from his noble friend Lord Dubs, that concessions were being made to a very small minority—we all know that we are talking about Sinn Fein. Those cannot be deemed to be in the best interests of the community: Protestant or Catholic, Unionist or Nationalist, where neither has any difficulty at present. We are being asked to accept an intervention by Sinn Fein for some narrow nationalistic or sectarian reason. I beg to move.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, we discussed this clause at some length in Committee. The amendments deal with the reference by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Police Ombudsman in certain cases.
I re-emphasise what I said in Committee; that is, this clause does not undermine in any way the professionalism of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Perhaps I may respond straightaway to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that the effect of this
606
clause may be that the director is delegating in some way his decision to the ombudsman. Clearly, that is not the position. As I said in Committee, decisions as to whether there should be a prosecution will still lie entirely with the director and his staff. It is his decision as to whether a prosecution should take place, and that will continue to be the position. If there is to be a prosecution, that will take place before reference to the ombudsman. So, there is no question of delegating a decision. The point is that the ombudsman has a different function. The ombudsman is not concerned to make a decision as to whether there should be a prosecution. As I said, that is for the director. The issue for the ombudsman is a different one and not one which falls within the director's responsibilities.
The provision therefore delineates sensibly the respective roles of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Police Ombudsman by ensuring that any decision taken on the conduct of the police—not prosecution decisions but other decisions—are taken by the Police Ombudsman as Parliament intended. The director may already make reference to the Police Ombudsman in these circumstances, and we are strengthening that provision.
If Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 took effect, that would mean that the director would be obliged to refer cases to the ombudsman only where a police officer had in fact committed a crime. In effect, that means only where the officer has been convicted of a crime. In our view, that is a much narrower and less helpful provision than ensuring that the ombudsman is in a position to know of cases where there may be a justification for considering, as the ombudsman may, other powers rather than prosecution.
The other aspect to which the noble Lord referred is the second part of the clause, which his amendment would remove. That relates to cases where it appears to the director that a police officer,
"may, in the course of a criminal investigation, have behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings"
The noble Lord worries about that being ill-defined. However, the virtue of the clause is that it is not for the director to decide whether disciplinary proceedings should take place. Ultimately, that is a matter for the ombudsman. He is simply making a reference to matters which may fall within that category. He and his staff will need to be guided—I have discussed this with the director—as to the kind of areas that may cover. However, as I have said, in view of the great experience of the director and his staff in dealing with police investigations, they will certainly have a good idea of conduct which may justify disciplinary proceedings.
Finally, the noble Lord referred to the issue of retrospectivity. We dealt with that also in Committee. We tabled amendments then, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, who drew this to our attention, to ensure that this clause is consistent with the existing legislation in terms of retrospective investigations by the ombudsman. There are certain circumstances in which, within limits, it may be retrospective. This clause makes no changes to those

607
and is entirely consistent with them. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord does not press his amendment.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, it is difficult to convince me. Certainly, I have not found the Minister's response convincing. It appears that there is a form of double jeopardy that has not been addressed. It is left to me to ask whether the Minister can illustrate a case in which, a criminal having gone through the due process, someone who. is not a police officer will find himself in a similar situation to a police officer as here proposed. If the Minister can give me an example of that, I will be happy to give way. It is not my intention to press this, but it is disappointing that the Government are simply putting this provision in the Bill to placate a small section of society, namely Sinn Fein/IRA.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, once we reach Report, and the Minister has sat down, only the mover of the amendment may speak. Technically, the mover of the amendment must move the amendment in order to say anything. The House is slightly lenient on that point. The Minister listens and obviously if appropriate, will drop a line or two to the noble Lord.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Influencing a prosecutor]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 17:
Leave out Clause 7.
The noble Lord said: At Committee stage, I thought that we had support from all around the House. I had hoped—perhaps expected would be overstating it—that the Government might have seen a way to leaving this clause out and taking our advice that it was unnecessary, especially in the light of my reading of Hansard, where I found the Attorney-General's arguments less than convincing. I have great admiration for the Attorney-General in 99.9 per cent of what he does for our nation.
This is a new offence of influencing a prosecutor. It is neither necessary nor wise. The Government rightly realised that, for it to have legal certainty, an essential of any such criminal offence is that it must be done with the intention of perverting the course of justice. Any attempt to influence a prosecutor with such an intent is already a criminal offence at common law, and the proposed statutory offence adds nothing to it. I am well advised by my noble friends who are not in their places at the moment, but who are much more skilful lawyers than me.
The Attorney-General was asked specifically by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern to illustrate circumstances in which there would be a breach of the clause and yet not of the common law provisions. I sensed from Hansard that he was not able
608
to answer that. He said that there was an advantage in having it in the statute. The real problem is that while to do so adds nothing in law, it has a significant down side. As the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General made clear, reference to the "Director of Public Prosecutions" refers also to his deputy, to any public prosecutor, and to any barrister or solicitor appointed to prosecute on his behalf. Yet, there can be many perfectly valid reasons why individuals can and should be able to seek to influence the prosecutor, be it the DPP himself or any other prosecutor.
Such representations may concern not only the evidence, but the public interest reasons for bringing the case. Before any case can be prosecuted not only should there be a sufficiency of evidence to give a reasonable prospect of conviction, but prosecution must also be in the public interest. The existence of this new offence is unlikely to have much effect on professional criminals or terrorists, or on those who intimidate on their behalf. It may well inhibit the innocent person who wishes to make a pressing representation, whether it be on evidential or public interest grounds. It is essential that the law be clear in this area. We suggest that this clause reduces clarity and may well restrict proper representations. It should not stand part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, this clause is a mystery. It is a harmful mystery because, as my noble friend has just said, common law achieves everything, on a more general basis, that this achieves in a particular focus. It is harmful, because the existence of this specific offence will be a temptation and will lead to the foreseeable use by prosecutors of this specific offence. This has harmful connotations for exactly the reason that my noble friend has just given.
He said correctly, as the Attorney-General knows so well, that there are two limbs to what a prosecutor must ask himself. Is there enough evidence to justify a conviction on the basis that there will be a reasonable chance of getting a conviction? That is how it is put in Northern Ireland, if I remember correctly—it is either reasonable or realistic, but I believe that it is reasonable; the effect is the same either way.
Is a prosecution in the public interest? That is the second limb, which applies if the first question has been answered in the affirmative. Why should a member of the public not have a view as to what is or is not in the public interest? It is entirely foreseeable that a member of the public will have a view on any particular case, and he may be moved to express it to the prosecuting authorities. Why should he not seek to influence a prosecuting authority in those circumstances? There can be no reason whatever why he should not be permitted to seek to do so, and foreseeably he will.
What can be more readily foreseeable than that a prosecutor in such circumstances will say to himself, "This is intended to pervert the course of justice by an interference with my impartial discretion"? It will be for the prosecutor to decide whether to prosecute the member of the public for that offence.

609
I invite your Lordships to accept that this clause is unnecessary, and it will give rise to confusing uncertainty. It will result in inexpedient criminal proceedings, and at worst it may well lead to an oppressive prosecution. This clause should be struck from the Bill, and I hope that it will be.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I will give the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General a practical example of a case in which I might well have been deemed—if this clause became legislation—to have committed an offence.
An elderly widow was accused of being involved in a hit and run accident about 30 miles from her home on a Saturday morning. She was taken to court, the case had been adjourned, and she was going back to court. Knowing the family and knowing that the woman would not be involved in such a case, I went to see her. I discovered that the police had come out, they had seen a dinge in her car, which had happened before—she had had the car for years. The police had taken paint samples, but they had not given her a report of what those samples indicated.
I intervened on her behalf. I discovered that the paint samples proved nothing. I approached the chief superintendent, and I suggested that he had no case and should not prosecute. He insisted that he would prosecute, because he had an eyewitness. I had the idea of getting her telephone account. She lived on her own, and I discovered that at the very time that she was supposed to be 30 miles away bashing into the car, she had made a series of telephone calls to people who could be identified as members of the bowling club where she was secretary and of the Mothers' Union where she was secretary.
The case still went to court, despite my making representations and presenting that evidence. I had to go to court and give evidence. Eventually, the resident magistrate understood and dismissed the case, realising that the eyewitness had made a mistake. Given that series of events, would I have been guilty of an offence under this Bill? I believe that I would have, because I pleaded with the chief superintendent not to pursue the case against the woman. If the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General can convince me that I am wrong in that opinion, I might better understand the purpose of duplicating the provision.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Glentoran, put his proposition on the basis that having the offence was neither necessary nor wise. In my view, it is both, and I will explain why. Before I do, I shall emphasise two factual points of importance. The first is that, in some of the observations made by noble Lords, the spectre was raised of a prosecutor misusing the clause to the detriment of those who have perfectly legitimate reasons to put representations before him. The two points relate to that.
First, there is no offence, unless the intention of the person seeking to influence the Director of Public Prosecutions is to pervert the course of justice. That is
610
critical. It is not an offence of seeking to influence; it is an offence if there is an intention to pervert the course of justice. I have no hesitation in saying to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, that, on the account that he gave of the proper steps that he took on behalf of a constituent so that the course of justice would run true, rather than be perverted, he did not commit any offence and would not commit an offence on any further occasion. I hope that the noble Lord, who said that he hoped to be convinced by me, will, at least, find that statement by me of some comfort, even if he is not prepared to be wholly convinced, as I hope he will be. It is important to recognise that the provision requires that absolutely key condition.
The second point—it is not unimportant—is that Section 32A(4) will provide that the proceedings cannot be brought just on the whim of a prosecutor, a barrister or a solicitor. They can be brought only with the consent of the director. It will take a decision by the director for such proceedings to be brought. They cannot be brought on a whim or so as to frighten someone off.
Why is the provision necessary and wise? A new system of justice is being created for all the people of Northern Ireland. Under that system, the director will explicitly be an independent officer. That is unlike the position in England and Wales, although I do not suggest for a moment that the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales is not independent. The position will be different in that there will be a wholly new relationship with the Law Officers.
At the moment, the Director of Public Prosecutions is subject to the superintendence of the Attorney-General—my superintendence. After the devolution of justice, that relationship will change, and the director will be in a more direct and, if I may say so, free-standing position. He will have a relationship of consultation with the new locally appointed Attorney-General and a relationship of consultation with the Advocate-General. The reason for that is to make it very clear, in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, that people must have absolute confidence that prosecution decisions taken in Northern Ireland are taken independently, impartially and objectively on the evidence and nothing else and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, on a proper consideration of the public interest. Those of us who have to make those decisions know that it is a question of public interest and not, for example, of any party political interest, which would be an inadmissible consideration.
Everyone needs to be clear that those decisions will be taken independently. In the past, there have been assertions—assertions that I have repudiated and repudiate now—that prosecution decisions have not been taken on that basis. I unreservedly pay tribute to the present and past director for the independence of the decisions that they have taken. Those decisions were taken conscientiously and properly, but I know for a fact that people have questioned them. Therefore, it is important and necessary for Parliament to express very clearly that the independence of the director is

611
absolute and that anybody who seeks to influence him with the intention of perverting the course of justice shall not do so. It is necessary so that there is a clear statement, and it is necessary so that the people of Northern Ireland can be assured that decisions affecting them, their family, their relatives or their neighbours will be taken properly, objectively and impartially. It is necessary to state that to give that assurance and, as I said, to give a clear statement that the independence is to be respected.
I have declined to speculate on all the circumstances in which the common law might afford a remedy at the moment. As I said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in Committee, the difficulty about the common law is, as he and all lawyers will know, that its edges are often not that precisely clear, until a court gives further clarity. By putting this provision in the statute, we will make it clear that,
"if, with the intention of perverting the course of justice, he seeks to influence the Director"—
or one of those persons, a person is guilty of an offence.
It may be that, in certain circumstances, the common law could have done the job, but it is better that what we expect from people should be clear in the statute. I have made it clear in what I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, and on a previous occasion, that the provision will not stop proper representations being made by people who, to put it broadly, have a legitimate interest in doing so—there will be many—to the prosecutors. However, there comes a point at which it crosses the boundary into seeking to pervert the course of justice, and that shall not be done. It is both necessary to say it—to give assurance—and wise to say it, in order that there should be a very clear message in the statute about the independence of the director. Those are the reasons why I continue to believe that it is an important and proper provision.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for that very clear set of arguments and advice. At this time, I am content to accept his advice, on the premise that I will return to my legal team and take further advice before Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Guidance for criminal justice organisations on human rights standards]:
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos) moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 36, leave out "issued or revised" and insert "for the time being in operation"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 18 to 24 and Amendment No. 29 seek to meet the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. In its report, the committee recommended that the human rights guidance to be issued by the Attorney-General under Clause 8 should be brought into operation by an order subject to the negative resolution procedure when it is
612
issued and each time that it is revised. That is to give Parliament some control over the coming into operation of the guidance.
In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Kingsland, tabled an amendment relating to that issue. In response, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General stated that it was the Government's intention to adopt the committee's recommendations but that time had not permitted amendments to be tabled for the Committee stage.
The amendments in this group amend Clauses 8 and 21 to make provision for the Attorney-General's guidance on human rights that will be brought into force by order, subject to the negative resolution procedure when it is issued and each time it is revised.
I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its advice. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Lord President for moving the amendment, which we support.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 19 to 24:
Page 4, line 42, leave out "and"
Page 4, line 43, at end insert "; and
(c) shall not come into operation until the Attorney General for Northern Ireland by order so provides."
Page 5, line 27, leave out from "code" to end of line 30 and insert "the Chief Constable and the Board shall also have regard to any guidance for the time being in operation under section 8 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004."
Page 5, line 33, leave out from "code" to end of line 37 and insert "the Director must also have regard to any guidance for the time being in operation under section 8 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004."
Page 5, line 39, leave out "issued" and insert "for the time being in operation"
Page 6, line 7, after "subsection" insert "(3)(c) or"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 12 [Bail to which Part II of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 applies]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 8, line 24, after "court" insert "and at the end insert—
"in order to carry out an arrest under this paragraph, a constable may enter any premises where he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that person to be"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her letter to me referring to this amendment. It concerns the powers of access for the PSNI when a person has jumped bail. Having spoken to the noble Baroness, the chief constable's office at the PSNI and officials, I understand that while the Government are unwilling to alter the Bill to include this amendment, or a similar one, they are giving serious consideration to how such an amendment could be brought into future Bills on Northern Ireland justice, which we are led to believe are in the pipeline. I understand that the amendment could cause difficulties with the ECHR. I accept those arguments and should be grateful if the noble Baroness could give me an undertaking today that the Government are

613
considering the matter and intend to facilitate the PSNI and those concerned with enforcing law and order in this area. I beg to move.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, proposed a similar amendment in Committee. I gave an undertaking then to consider the proposal in so far as it related to a breach of bail. I have written to the noble Lord and, with the leave of the House, I shall set out what I said in that letter to clarify matters. Before doing so, it would be helpful to set out the powers that are currently available.
At present, the police have an automatic power of entry to effect arrest when an arrestable offence, as defined in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed. The power also applies for the purpose of saving life or limb, or for preventing serious damage to property, where a court issues a warrant of arrest in criminal proceedings and in a number of other specified instances.
In bail cases police powers are already in place to deal with the most serious breaches. When a person absconds from bail, committing the offence of failing to surrender to custody, the court would issue a warrant of arrest on his non-appearance, and thus a power of entry would follow. If a breach of a bail condition is of a serious nature, it may well constitute an arrestable offence—for example, the intimidation of witnesses—and thus, again a power of arrest and entry already exists.
It is only in relation to the less serious breaches and anticipated breaches, which do not constitute criminal offences, that a power of entry is not presently available. I would have real concerns that to create a power of entry for police in those less serious scenarios might be disproportionate and incompatible with the ECHR, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
Since the Committee stage, my officials have been working closely with the chief constable's staff in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They have been exploring the need to create a power of entry, proportionality and ECHR compliance. It is our view, which is now shared with the PSNI, that more joint work needs to be done between policy and legal staff.
Against the backdrop of the availability of other powers of entry, the pressing need for such a power in the circumstances proposed needs to be fully explored. Providing such a power should not be done lightly. It would be preferable to consider the power of entry in the context of all other related issues, including other powers in relation to arrest and bail.
I intimated in Committee that the need for a power of entry could be looked at in the context of the planned review of PACE in Northern Ireland. We have now agreed a revised way forward with PSNI whereby we shall fully explore the detail and prioritise the issue ahead of the planned PACE review. If legislation is still required, a legislative vehicle will be found.
614
If that approach were to be adopted I would be more confident that a proper exploration would be conducted into all the implications and peripheral considerations of such a change. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for his interest in this matter and hope that, with my explanation, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I have not taken part in the progress of this measure, but may I say that that was an admirable reply?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, knows the rules about speaking after the Minister on Report.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Lord President for her undertaking, in light of which I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Transfer of prisoners]:
Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 9, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) In paragraph 5(1) (conditions of transfer) after "this Part" insert "(other than a transfer under paragraph 1 (2A))".
( ) After paragraph 5 insert—
"Conditions of transfer under paragraph 1(2A)
5A

(1) A transfer under paragraph 1(2A) shall have effect subject to—

(a) such a condition as is mentioned in paragraph 6(1)(a);and

(b) such other conditions (if any) as the Secretary of State may think fit to impose.

(2) Such a condition as is mentioned in paragraph 6(1)(a) shall not be varied or removed.

(3) A condition imposed under sub-paragraph (1)(b) may be varied or removed at any time.""

The noble Baroness said: The main effect of the amendment is to provide that all transfers under the new power will be on a restricted basis and that, accordingly, the prisoner's release date will not be effected by the transfer. I said in Committee that any transfers would be on a restricted basis to ensure that there was no possibility of the prisoner benefiting from it owing to the more generous early release arrangements available in England and Wales.
We reflected on the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in Committee, and concluded that it is right that the fact that all transfers will be on a restricted basis should appear on the face of the Bill. The amendment also provides that it will not be possible to convert a transfer from being on a restricted basis to an unrestricted basis. The amendment mirrors existing provisions of Schedule 1 to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 by providing that any transfer under the new power may be subject to such other conditions, if any, as the Secretary of State may think fit to impose. Those additional conditions will be capable of being varied or removed at any time.

615
The amendment does not change the policy in any way. It simply makes that policy more transparent by providing on the face of the Bill that all transfers will be on a restricted basis. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, once again I thank the Lord President. That, was largely what our amendments in Committee were about—clarification and transparency. The amendment goes a long way towards solving the problem of potential misunderstandings. I support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Commencement]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 10, line 13, at end insert—
"( ) Any order under subsection (1) bringing into force any of sections 1 to 5 shall not be made before the end of the period of 6 months beginning from the date on which this Act achieves Royal Assent."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am unsure how to handle this amendment. Part of the response to Amendment No. 27 was given earlier today by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. I have also received a letter from the Lord President on this topic which almost satisfies me. It certainly clarifies issues about which I was concerned. Alongside the explanations given by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to earlier amendments today, it clears up the matter.
I have one concern: that this Bill will not run concurrently with the constitution Bill because I do not believe that it has yet been printed. A number of issues in this Bill could change fairly dramatically should the constitution of England and Wales Bill be altered significantly on its passage through Parliament. I was anxious to find a vehicle through which we could return to this Bill, or to parts of it, even though it had been enacted, so that we could change certain points should the constitution Bill be significantly altered. I want to avoid a widening gulf of differentials on particular aspects of the Bill, most of which we have talked about in Committee and on Report at some length. I do not know how to do that. I tabled this amendment as an opportunity to open the debate for probably the last time. I beg to move.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, when we discussed this matter in Committee I anticipated some overlap between the two Bills being considered by the two Houses of Parliament. In that event, if there were considerable changes that had an impact on this Bill, we would have to find a way of considering the matter.
As I said in Committee on Clauses 1 to 3, which relate to the Judicial Appointments Commission, the practical steps to create a commission should not be rushed and will take time. We aim to have the commission in place by spring 2005, so there is some time available to us. Clauses 4 and 5 come into effect only after the devolution of criminal justice. I hope that in the light of that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Lord President for that response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Statutory rules]:
Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 10. line 22, leave out from "power" to end of line 24.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during the debate in Committee we accepted a number of amendments that changed references in the Bill from Secretary of State, meaning the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, to Lord Chancellor. These further amendments serve to tidy up the remaining references to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs that are found in Schedule 3 to the Bill. The amendments to Clause 21 are consequential. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, we support this group of amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 34:
Page 10, line 30, after "section" insert "8(3)(c) or"
Page 10, line 34, leave out from "made" to end of line 36 and insert "under this Act may include supplementary, incidental, transitional or consequential provisions."
Page 16, line 10, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
Page 16, line 15, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
Page 17, line 31, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
Page 18, line 23, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Gender Recognition Bill [H.L.]
7.4 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, 1 beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Effect on marriage]:
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 26, line 4, at end insert—
"( ) Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, no two persons each possessing XX chromosomes nor each possessing XY chromosomes, nor each possessing genitalia appropriate to the same sex, may be married the one to the other."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I expect to be told that the amendment is in conflict with the European Court ruling, but I do not believe that it is. In aid of that view I shall quote the finding of the court which the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, mentioned on 13 January in Grand Committee:
"The court had found under Article 8 of the Convention that a test of congruent biological factors could no longer be decisive in denying legal recognition to the change of gender of a post-operative transsexual'".—[Official Report, 13/1/04: col. GC 5.]

617
I believe that those last words are the most important.
The amendment states that:
"Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, no two persons each possessing XX chromosomes nor each possessing XY chromosomes, nor each possessing genitalia appropriate to the same sex, may be married the one to the other".
It is slightly badly drafted and it would be better if it said, "and each possessing genitalia". I leave that to one side.
Last week on 29 January, during the first day of Report stage, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, set out in commendably robust and clear terms the policy of the Government:
"We are not going to allow same-sex marriage; I said that very clearly at Second Reading and that is our position".—[Official Report, 29/1/04; col. 401.]
One may believe that the noble Lord would welcome an amendment that would prohibit marriage between persons of the same sex. That is a marriage between persons whose chromosomes and sexual organs are of the same sex. After all, that is the undoubted determinant of biological sex. I know that some people think that one's sex is determined by one's mind, but that is surely no more than a superstition.
I hope that the noble Lord will acquit me of discourtesy—I am sure he will—if I say that his robust rejection of same-sex marriage does not go so far as rejection of same-sex marriage. In his answer to a Written Question on 19 January he set out his position more openly. I asked Her Majesty's Government,
"Whether they intend to legalise marriage between persons each possessing the XX chromosome (or each possessing the XY chromosome) and each possessing the genitalia of the same sex.
The noble Lord replied:
"The Government believe that marriage should only be possible between people of opposite gender in law".—[Official Report, 19/1/04; col. WA 124.]
There we have the problem. The Government believe that marriage should only be possible between people of opposite gender in law. I believe that it should only be possible between people of opposite sex.
The noble Lord may yet have to eat some of his words. The other day I was reading my birth certificate. I have brought it into the Chamber this evening. I know that Government Whips suspect that I might not have had one, but here is the document. At the bottom, I found something that I had never noticed before. It states:
"Caution. Any person who (1) falsifies any of the particulars on this certificate, or (2) uses it as true, knowing it to be false, is liable to prosecution under the Forgery Act 1913 or the Perjury Act 1911".
I presume that if I were to be overtaken by sexual dysphoria and became possessed of the idea that I was indeed a woman, and secured the agreement of a gender recognition panel to that, I would receive a new certificate. However, it would be in conflict, quite clearly, with the Forgery Act 1913 or the Perjury Act 1911, in that it would state, contrary to this certificate, that I had been born as a female. We do get into deep water in these matters, do we not?
Let us consider the Minister's proposition from the Written Answer to the Parliamentary Question that I have just recounted. His answer would mean that two persons, each of whom had given birth to children—and I can think of no better test of whether a person is female than that—and each of whom remains capable of bearing children, could be legally married provided that one has been given a certificate that states that she was born a male, was a male at the time she gave birth, and remained a male. That is the implication—nay, the meaning—of the Minister's reply. What would the noble Lord think should appear on their child's birth certificate; that his mother was a man? For sure, that would have to appear on it.
Let me remind the Minister of his Written Answer to another Parliamentary Question of mine on 19 January. I asked the Government whether they were,
"aware of any cases of persons certified at birth as male who had given birth to children".—[Official Report, 19/1/04; col. WA 125.]
I have just enunciated the circumstance where somebody who had been certified as male at birth could give birth to children. Will any such caveat as appeared on my birth certificate appear on those issued under the Bill?
What of the marriage so disrupted by the person who purports to be the husband and who then gives birth? Would such an event establish in the minds of the noble Lord's legal advisers that it was a same-sex marriage? Would that marriage fall to be annulled under the dictum of the Minister as enunciated in his response last week to Amendment No. 28; that is, that a marriage between persons of the same sex should be annulled? Or would the noble Lord's advisers shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, it's just one of those things, isn't it? People giving birth these days might well be women; they might well be men. Anyway, so long as they are legally female, all is well".
Even at this late stage, I beg the Government to see the world as it is. There is something absurd in the proposition that the problems—I accept that they are very real ones—of transsexual people require us to accept that while today the marriage of two people each bearing the chromosomes and the sexual organs of the same sex would be a same-sex marriage and therefore illegal, a piece of paper that declares one of those two people to be of the opposite sex would be permitted by this legislation to make it a legal marriage of opposite sexes. That cannot make sense. I beg the noble Lord to consider that matter and to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I am afraid that I do have a problem with the amendment. A problem arises from the attempt to base so much on the possession of the X and Y chromosomes and on the external genitalia, not least because there are so many exceptions to the general rule that one can determine a person's sex by them. One example is the condition known as Turner's syndrome, which affects women, most of whom have only one X chromosome. Is one X enough to count as a woman? Those who have Turner's syndrome certainly are women. Another is Klinefelter's syndrome, which affects men who have two Xs and a Y. Should they be classified

619
as men or women? They believe that they are men, but they have two Xs. Genes on other chromosomes also contribute to the sexuality of a person.
One comes then to the possession of the relevant genitalia as the determining factor. However, there are many examples of babies born with genitalia that are at variance with their chromosomes. Some of those babies have had some form of surgery that placed them clearly and permanently in one or other gender. Only in some cases do those genders coincide with their chromosomes. Some of those people have married on reaching adulthood. Those couples are of course infertile as, unfortunately, are many other couples, but infertility was never a bar to marriage. However, the amendment would prevent their marriage on the chromosomal count.
All of the above says nothing of the rights of transsexual people to marry, which the Bill would allow, but it simply points out the difficulties in practice of using the criteria that are set out in the amendment. I cannot support it.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I reluctantly join the debate at this stage of the Bill. I apologise for not being in the House at Second Reading and for hearing only part of the Committee stage. However, I feel so strongly about the amendment, as well as about Amendment No. 128, that it is important to put on record the medical facts.
As a practising obstetrician and gynaecologist who has been involved with reproductive medicine and the definition of sex in both animals and humans for the past 30 years in my research, I can only reiterate the comments of my noble friend Lord Turnberg.
The definition of sex is extremely complicated. It is not just a question of chromosomes. It is possible of course to have chromosomal sex and it is probable, though by no means certain, that all of us in this Chamber have chromosomes that are either XX or XY. However, even in the case of Turner's syndrome, which my noble friend has just described, it is possible to have an XY mosaic, with some of the cells carrying a Y chromosome and some having a deleted X chromosome. The variations of that syndrome mean that people may have different degrees of masculinity or femininity.
Most practising doctors in the field would describe sex on six, totally separate, definitions. Those definitions can be chromosomal but, more importantly, they are genetic. It emerges that genes on the Y chromosome are not the only genes that define sex. Although the SRY gene is by far the most common and important, there are genes on chromosome 17, chromosome 11, chromosome 10, chromosome 6 and chromosome 3 that can, in exceptional circumstances, determine sex of various kinds. Those people can carry on a completely normal life.
Genetic sex is therefore no less important than chromosomal sex, but that is not the end of the story. There is also hormonal sex. Some people will produce
620
hormones that will tend to feminise them, while others will be masculinised. That can happen in utero. Good evidence has emerged from Professor Waters of Monash University in Australia—he is now long retired—that suggests that some people who become transsexuals later in life have been exposed to an abnormal surge of either male or female hormones during pregnancy. That has caused them to have a different psychological sex from their genital sex. Psychological sex of course depends on brain function. That also varies greatly and is probably genetically determined, but so much exploration of that subject is being conducted that it is not fully understood.
Genetics is rapidly changing our understanding of where sex is determined. But to define it simply as genital, hormonal or, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. seeks to do, as gonadal, is a travesty of what really happens.
Let me give one example. Janice was the most beautiful woman, who came to my unit some time: ago. She was six feet tall, and had been brought up as a woman. She had very well developed breasts, a perfect physique, and was actually XY. She did not find that out until she was 20. Some people with XY dysgenesis believe themselves to be female and relish being female. Others find that when they are actually male because of their chromosomes, they entirely change their view psychologically.
I should like to make the point made by Robert Jaffe, now retired, a very distinguished endocrinologist. He says in his chapter on reproductive medicine headed "Disorders of Sexual Development":
"It is crucial that the clinician who deals with patients with genital ambiguities be sensitive to the emotional as well as the physical needs of the patient. The patients frequently have a great deal of confusion and anxiety about their sexual roles Whereas genetic, gonadal, hormonal, and genital sex may be of prime importance to the physician, the gender identity (that is. how the patient views himself or herself) and the sex of rearing are paramount in determining the patient's sexual identity".
Robert Jaffe is effectively saying that there needs to be an understanding of the autonomy of the person concerned because, on the whole, they are the best people to judge how they feel about their sexuality. That is true of the 200 different mutations which could have affected Janice, my patient. There are so many different fluctuations in this broad spectrum of sexuality that I urge the House to be very cautious about defining it in terms of chromosomal, genital or any other simple definition. It simply is not medically just, and I am sure that it would produce bad law.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has just said. Klinefelter's syndrome, in particular, seems to be quite common, occurring in one in 1,000 male births. We are not talking about a collection of extremely rare symptoms but about something which probably affects someone we know. I do not think there is any way in which we can sensibly define gender as a biological phenomenon. It is too much a continuum, much as we may like to think that it is separated. It just does not exist in that way.

621
It makes the Minister's arguments quite attractive to say that someone's gender is what the law says it is and that is to be accepted. It will make for an interesting variant on the Scottish play—a man not of woman born—and there can be other explanations once the Bill is passed. It could perhaps explain what is going on in the words of "Colonel Bogey", when it was clear that the Third Reich was populated almost entirely by people afflicted by such symptoms.
The noble Lord knows that I sympathise with the amendment. What hurt me in the earlier amendments was the tearing apart of a marriage between a genetic man and a genetic woman just because of some legal fiction. That does offend me. But allowing a marriage between an emotional or a psychological man and a psychological woman who are apparently, in some aspects of their genetics, both of the same sex, is much more reasonable. I am happy to go down that route, particularly given the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. Tearing apart a real marriage seems much more serious than allowing the sort of marriages that will be allowed if the Bill is passed in its current form. I will therefore not be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in this amendment
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is always a fascination. His knowledge and experience of these matters go way beyond anything any of us would normally know about or experience. However, I do not agree with him that sex is quite difficult to decide. Sex, on the whole, is pretty obvious. There may be a difficulty in the one thousandth or one millionth case, but on the whole there cannot be a real difficulty because it is obvious, is it not?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is novel to have the support of my noble friends Lord Turnberg and Lord Winston and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, at the same time. It is also a privilege. I will speak briefly, because as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and I spoke before we started this stage of the Bill, we have rehearsed these arguments in part before, although I am interested in some of the legal conundrums and challenges he posits for me today. 1 will look with interest at what he has said when I study Hansard and reflect on it.
At heart, the noble Lord knows that we will not agree because the system for recognition under the Bill in the acquired gender is not to be based on chromosomes or genitalia. It has been set on the tests that are set out on the face of the Bill, the three measures which we have debated time after time. Those do not turn on the genitalia or the exact chromosomes, nor should they, as my noble friends Lord Winston and Lord Turnberg have made clear so powerfully as part of their expert advice to us from their medical practice.
Sex and gender are not determined purely by chromosomes. Recognition, therefore, cannot depend purely on chromosomes. Similarly, having or lacking the right genitalia is not the nub of the Bill, and surgery
622
should not be a precondition either. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was with me on the last point, and I respect him for that.
The appropriate test is whether a person has taken decisive tests to live fully in the acquired gender and there is clear evidence of gender dysphoria after a proper process of inspection and testing over a number of years. We do not intend to compel transsexual people to undergo surgery, even though most wish to do so. The principle of legal recognition in the acquired gender will, subsequent to the issue of a gender recognition certificate, become the acquired gender for all purposes in law, as we have said before.
The amendment would have us define a person's gender in law in one way but define the person's gender for the purposes of marriage in another way. That goes against the central purpose of the Bill.
Marriage in our society is a status for two parties of the opposite gender in law. The Bill retains that principle, hence the basic nature of marriage as an institution. The amendment would mean that a person who had been recognised by the state as being of a changed gender in law after the process we have discussed would not be able to marry. That would not be compliant with our ECHR obligations and would also, I believe, be wrong in principle for reasons we have debated many times.
I am grateful for the clarity that my noble friends Lord Turnberg and Lord Winston brought to the complexity of the issues. When I was younger, I tended to think that the world was rather simple. As one becomes older, one learns that the world is more complex; it is clearly more complex medically, whereas I perhaps focused on its greater social complexity. By and large, I have found that that complexity enriches life rather than diminishes it.
With regard to what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, we are talking about only 5,000 people in Britain. That is why this is such a unique and specific set of circumstances. This is one of the smallest minorities in our society, yet the evidence we have had prior to the Bill and during our debates shows that for that very small minority this issue is very significant. I think we have an obligation in justice to help them live their life as they believe it to be. Therefore, while I have a lot of respect for the unflinching opposition of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, to the Bill, we will not be able to support the amendment for these reasons, and I hope he will not press it.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Let me make it absolutely plain that I would not be party to any legislation that forced a transsexual person to undergo surgical mutilation in order to benefit from the provisions of the Bill, if it becomes an Act of Parliament. That would be quite wrong and quite outrageous.
I am enormously flattered that this evening the Government had to bring in the heavy mob, in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, as well as the light cavalry in the shape of the noble Lord,

623
Lord Turnberg—light cavalry is a formidable weapon when it is used effectively. Let us not forget that it can even undo heavy cavalry.
Both noble Lords perhaps suffered from the disadvantage of not having read every word of the proceedings at earlier stages of the Bill, although I would not wish to sentence either of them to that, as it comes under the heading of cruel and unjust punishment. I have never maintained that there is a single test of sex. In this amendment, I propose a triple test. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, said that that is not satisfactory. I am terribly tempted to ask him—particularly as I know that under the rules of the House he cannot speak again—exactly how he would set about defining sex. I acknowledge that he said that it is extremely difficult.
It is a wonder to me that the human race has got on quite well for so long without the benefit of all this doubt about the matter. We have had marriage for centuries, for thousands of years, and we have always had an understanding—initially informally but gradually more formally and eventually legislatively—that marriage is possible only between people of opposite sexes. Now the noble Lord, Lord Winston, tells us that it is almost impossible to distinguish whether people are of opposite sexes. It would seem to indicate that we have been making a massive mistake of some kind for thousands of years. I do not accept that that is so. He is over-elaborate in his cautions. We may be in danger of damaging society, and the institution of marriage, because of these doubts that spring from our better understanding of the fact that no simple theory of the structure of life is adequate.
There is a legal requirement to differentiate between the sexes. We should not throw aside all common sense and experience, and rest everything upon the judgment of a couple of medical practitioners and, even worse, registered psychologists, particularly when in recent weeks we have seen just how fallible expert opinion may be. We all revere expert opinion. We all revered the opinion of the medical expert on whose expert evidence many women were unjustly sentenced to gaol for murder. We would be wise to ask whether we should uncritically accept expert advice or whether we should accept common sense advice. If we had accepted the common sense view, those women would not have been sentenced to gaol. They were sentenced to gaol by a medical expert. In future we shall rest our conclusion upon whether a couple may marry upon just such expert opinion. I would rather rest upon common sense. It is something that we have done in this country for a very long time. It is why we have juries. It is why we do not always trust judges, who are very expert, to come to the right conclusion unless they are assisted by juries.
The choice here is between what some people think and what all of us can see. We should choose what all of us can see.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he explain to me a point that is probably clear to others? He has said that we should not rely
624
upon expert witnesses, but who, except an expert witness can tell us whether a particular person answers to one or other of the descriptions in his amendment?
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the descriptions are not terribly difficult. Two-thirds of them would be obvious if the marriage ceremony were to take place in a nudist encampment. The other one, the definition of the chromosomes, is not terribly expert. It ought to be within the ability and experience of an A-level student in biology, although with the degradation in standards in schools and universities it would probably now take a master's degree.
I wish to test the opinion of the House.
7.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 86) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ashcroft, L.

Mancroft, L.

Attlee, E.

Marlesford, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montrose, D.

Byford, B.

Northesk, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

O'Cathain, B. [Teller]

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Palmer, L.

Dixon, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Erroll, E.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller]

Rotherwick, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Geddes, L.

Seccombe, B.

Glentoran, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Home, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hooper, B.

Southwell, Bp.

Jopling, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kimball, L.

Strange, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Swinfen, L.

Lindsay, E.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Tebbit, L.

Luke, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lyell, L.

Ullswater, V.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Vinson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Addington, L.

Carter, L.

Alli, L.

Chandos, V.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Clark of Windermere, L.

Andrews, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Barker, B.

Crawley, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

David, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Bhatia, L.

Desai, L.

Billingham, B.

Dubs, L.

Borrie, L.

Eatwell, L.

Bragg, L.

Elder, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brookman, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Burlison, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Filkin, L.

625

Freyberg, L.

Nicol, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Gale, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Golding, B.

Parekh, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Patel, L.

Goodhart, L.

Pendry, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grabiner, L.

Radice, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grantchester, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hamwee, B.

Roper, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Harrison, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hayman, B.

Sawyer, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon V.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Jones, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Layard, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Thornton, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Tope, L.

Lockwood. B.

Tordoff, L.

Lucas, L.

Triesman, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Turnberg, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Walpole, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Warner, L.

Maddock, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Whitaker, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Whitty, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Wigoder, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Winston, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Worcester, Bp.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 26, line 5, leave out from beginning to first "gender" in line 6 and insert "A clergyman is not obliged to solemnise the marriage of a person if the clergyman reasonably believes that the person's"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I seek to be relatively crisp because this is not the first time that the Government have moved an amendment having sought to listen and respond to points made at earlier stages of a Bill.
Ministers of the Church of England and the Church in Wales are legally obliged to solemnise the marriages of parishioners. The Bill therefore provides a conscience clause so that ministers are freed from their legal obligation if one of the parties to the marriage has been recognised in the acquired gender. Although the relevant minister may not wish to solemnise the marriage, there are plenty of other opportunities for a person to get married and not be debarred of their legal rights.
There is wide support for the principle of a conscience clause, including from the transsexual community. Similar provision exists, for example, in relation to a person who seeks to remarry after having been divorced.
There was considerable discussion on this issue in Grand Committee. I accept the difficulty posed by the present version of the provision. If the person seeking to marry does not, or refuses to, tell the minister, a minister will not be in a position to know that a person has changed gender. Information about a person's change of gender is, for good reason, protected under the Bill.
We have listened to the arguments and consider that it is sensible to amend the schedule so that it provides protection for the conscience of a minister both where he or she knows that a person wishing to be married has been recognised in the acquired gender and where he or she has a reasonable belief that this is the case.
Were the noble Lord, Lord Chan, present, I would speak to his amendment in a little more detail. However, the succinct response regarding why we consider his amendment is inappropriate is that it is perfectly possible for an unreasonable belief to be held sincerely by a person. The noble Lord's amendment would therefore, if accepted, open up an injustice.
As I have said, we are open to addressing the concerns of the clergy regarding being able to act on their consciences on the matter. I have met with representatives of the Church of England and my officials have worked with them to formulate an acceptable form of words. I understand that the Church in Wales has examined the new wording of the schedule and is content with it.
This is the first opportunity to pay tribute to someone else who has been a redoubtable adversary of the Government on this Bill. If I am being polite, that means that I have not agreed with every word that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has said. However, I recognise the passion and sincerity with which she has argued her case. Therefore, it is fitting to recognise that today is her birthday. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I have not been able to participate in earlier discussions on the Bill. However, I consider that it is important to place one reflection on record. In doing so I pay tribute to both Ministers and staff in the relevant departments who have engaged in very careful and thorough discussions with staff of the Church of England and with bishops about this matter. I do not wish my remarks to be pressed to the point of a vote on the amendment, but I wish to place on record that I and many others feel considerable discomfort at those regrettably frequent occasions when we come to the House as agents of the country's religious communities and ask for our consciences to be protected from a proposed law.
We need to recognise that the clause, which is an attempt to balance some difficult matters, makes it possible for a person who will have been through a nightmarish life experience to endure the suspicion and then rejection of their request to marry. Some of the stories that have come our way and some of the people I know, who are the subjects of the Bill, are asking no more than that they should be protected from being suspected, inquired into and perhaps gossiped about. The clause, for all its right protection

627
of the consciences of some clergy, actually troubles the consciences of many others of us by what it puts certain people through in their request to be married.
I am not pressing the matter to a vote and I respect the attempts that the Government have made to produce a form of words which is acceptable. I also accept that if there is no conscience clause in the Bill there will be far stronger opposition to it than would otherwise be the case. However, I would not feel that I have done my job in the Chamber if I did not place on record the discomfort of a considerable number of people, when religious communities ask for their consciences to be protected from what society's conscience has come to think is right.
[Amendment No. 88, as an amendment to Amendment No. 87, not moved.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 26. leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert —
(2) A clerk in Holy Orders of the Church in Wales is not obliged to permit the marriage of a person to be solemnised in the church or chapel of which the clerk is the minister if the clerk reasonably believes that the person's gender has become the acquired gender under that Act.""
[Amendments Nos. 91 and 91 A, as amendments to Amendment No. 90, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 90 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Benefits and pensions]:
[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]
Lord Carlile of Berriew Lord Carlile of Berriew moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 29, line 20.. at end insert—
"(2A) But sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who was born not less than 50 years before the appointed day and who is a woman immediately before the certificate is issued, and the rights of that person to a Category A retirement pension are to be decided as if the certificate had not been issued."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Goodhart and I and all other noble Lords who have discussed the matter are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She has been at great pains to try to explain to me and to others that the amendment is unnecessary. I think—and when I say "I think" it is my fault, not hers—that she has pointed out to me that no female to male transsexual will be disadvantaged in terms of his pension as a result of obtaining a gender recognition certificate; or, at least they will not be disadvantaged financially if they fall within a certain age group. That is the subject of the amendment.
The issue was drawn to my attention by Mark Rees, a female to male transsexual who is well known because he brought one of the cases that went to the European Court and because he wrote an excellent autobiography about his experiences as a person who has had to endure the whole process and live with it for many years. He wrote to me to point out that people of his age—that is, people who are now at the age
628
when, had they remained of female legal status, they would have retired or would have been about to retire and receive their pension—find themselves potentially disadvantaged. It is a simple point. The Bill helpfully gives them the status of the gender which they have acquired once they obtain the certificate. A female to male transsexual, therefore, receives a pension at 65. A male to female transsexual receives a pension at 60. In legal terms that is as it should be. But there is an anomaly.
A person like Mr Rees will have gone through the process of law, which included going to the European Court of Human Rights; of lobbying, including a Private Member's Bill, which I presented in another place with the assistance of Mr Rees many years ago; and various other experiences that led him to the conclusion that he was never going to acquire the legal status of a man, which he is pleased to see that the Bill will give him. Of course he openly welcomes the Bill, almost without reservation. But it took a long time to reach the present position and successive governments made it clear to him that he was not going to reach it. So, he was entitled to assume that he would receive a pension at 60. There are possibly a dozen people who fall into that anomalous group. I suggest to your Lordships that we need to be sure that those people will not be disadvantaged in any way. We need to be sure that, even if they do not make themselves available for work because of their reasonable expectation of what was going to happen to them regarding their pensions, they will not find themselves disadvantaged.
Amendment No. 96, for which I do not claim anything except simplicity, is an attempt to put that issue in simple terms and to find a solution for it. I strongly suspect that the comments we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in response to this short debate will be a little more complex than the amendment. When she responds I should be grateful if she would make it absolutely clear—since it may become a Pepper v Hart point—that there is no risk of the people to whom I refer being disadvantaged in any way. If there is a risk, surely the way to deal with it is by an amendment such as this, which would remove all doubt. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, when we debated the Bill last week the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, made it clear that once an individual changed sex or acquired a different gender—however one puts it—they would henceforth be entitled to all the advantages and disadvantages, fiscal or otherwise, associated with that newly acquired gender. The amendment would allow a woman who has legally become a man to have his cake and eat it to some extent.
I thought from what the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said last week that that was contrary to the Government's purpose, but the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, suggests otherwise. He suggests that his amendment sets out in clearer form what the Government intended all along. That totally puzzles me because it seems inconsistent with what the Government have said. If someone who

629
has become a man draws his state pension at 60, he is not being treated the same as all other men who have been men all the time.
Moreover, the right of women to receive the state pension five years earlier than men is an unjustifiable anomaly, as I believe all political parties now agree. I stand open to correction, but I believe the anomaly is being phased out over a period of years and not before time. In a sense, therefore, the amendment is retrograde.
If I am mistaken and that is what the Government intended all along, there is little I can do about it, but I should be grateful for an explanation from the Government Front Bench.
8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the amendment focuses on the state pension provision. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, proposes that some individuals who gain a gender recognition certificate should receive their state pension according to their acquired gender but that others should be given special status and receive their state pension according to their birth gender. Like the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I believe that that runs entirely counter to the principle of the Bill.
Last Thursday, your Lordships' House decided that the marriage will end if one partner changes gender and wants to obtain a full gender recognition certificate. The amendment could not fit in with that decision. The marriage comes to an end and the consequence is that each partner must now be treated as an individual in his or her respective gender.
Let me focus on the fundamental difficulties which I believe are raised by the amendment, which is to allow category A pension provisions—the basic £77 state pension—for female to male transsexual people over the age of 50. The noble Lords feel that because such people have made financial preparations for retirement based on the expectation that they would be retiring at the age appropriate for women, we should respect and honour that by virtue of the amendment.
I want to make four brief points because the noble Lord, Lord Monson, anticipated most of my argument. First, if female to male transsexual people over 50 who gain legal recognition of their acquired gender retain entitlement to the category A pension— the basic £77 state pension—as though they were still women, that clearly discriminates against those legal males who have not changed gender but would like the same right. We would be creating a special group of men who would be treated differently because of the fact they were once women, despite the fact that they want to be recognised as men. That is unfair and could, I am led to believe, be open to legal challenge. Obviously, I would defer to the weight of legal opinion on the Bench.
Secondly, if female to male transsexual people over 50 are to be treated for state pension purposes as remaining in their birth gender, it would be legally difficult not to
630
treat the opposite group of transsexuals—in fact the majority; those who are male to female—in their birth gender for pension purposes also. They, too, presumably on the noble Lord's argument, have been planning their financial retirement as though they were going to retire at 65 while in their new gender they would be entitled to claim their basic state pension at 60. I emphasise that 80 per cent—three-quarters or more—of transsexual people move from male to female. In other words, if we are to be fair across the category of transsexual people, three-quarters would be disadvantaged for the one-quarter who might on this account gain. Obviously, one cannot distinguish only female to male; I would argue that one would have to distinguish similarly male to female. I do not believe that that would be reasonable.
The third point, in practical terms, is the financial situation mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Whether someone is male or female between the ages of 60, his or her financial situation can be virtually identical. Anyone over the age of 60—male or female—subject to income, is entitled to an income-related benefit which is pension credit. It used to be called MIG. That is important. It is worth £102 to the individual however much towards that £102 he or she brings in the form of basic state pension. In other words, if as a female she has a basic state pension in her own right of £50, £60, £70 or £77, MIG—pension credit—would top it up to £102. But if as a male by either birth or by acquired gender he does not yet have an entitlement to the basic state pension, he none the less, subject to income, can also get pension credit of £102. Therefore, in practice a female to male transsexual, a male to female transsexual, a birth male and a birth female will all receive the same sum of money between the ages of 60 to 65. subject to income, of £102 a week, whether there had been a change of gender or not.
Finally, from 2010 we begin to equalise the retirement basic state pension age for both men and women alike. Not only will we be reducing financial difference in terms of eligibility for basic state pension between men and women, we will be reducing legal entitlement too,
I have made four points. First, that it is not fair to men in their birth gender if some men in their new acquired gender have a different entitlement. Secondly, in all logic one would have to extend the same principle to male to female transsexuals and therefore the majority of transsexuals could lose financially in this package if one takes the argument of the noble Lord. Thirdly, eligibility for income-related benefits is the same irrespective of gender acquired or at birth between the ages of 60 and 65. Finally, we are equalising gender state retirement ages. I hope that with those four brief points, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. Had we achieved equalisation of pension ages—a laudable aim which I and my party support—I would not be moving the amendment. I recognise the validity of that point—we just have not got there yet.

631
The points on discrimination and legitimate expectation illustrate the dilemma we are in. We have a conflict between two concepts. On the one hand, we have the legitimate expectation in the example I gave of Mr Rees who was led by the Government, particularly by their hostility until recently into recognising he was a man, to expect that he would receive his pension not subject to income measurement at the age of 60. On the other hand, others might conceivably claim that they were discriminated against for the reasons the noble Baroness gave.
I do not accept for one moment that what has been said is a satisfactory answer for that very small number of people because a non-income-related benefit will be replaced by an income-related benefit in some cases. Among that small group, there will be people who have occupational pensions who will without doubt be losers. I find that unsatisfactory.
Having said that, in recent days I have spoken to and corresponded with people who are in this position. We all recognise that the Bill is a significant step forward in the law. It would be inappropriate to divide the House over the issue, but it is appropriate to register disappointment at the outcome of this short debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Sex discrimination]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 34, line 30, at end insert—
"1A In section 2A (discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment)—

(a) for paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (I) substitute "any provision of Parts 2 or 3"; and

(b) in subsection (1), insert at the end "or intends to acquire or has acquired a gender recognition certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999 introduced a number of new sections into the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Their purpose was to extend the protection of the 1975 Act to transsexual people undergoing gender reassignment or who had undergone or intended to undergo it. The new sections did not extend the protection of transsexuals to the full width of the Act.
Section 2A, introduced by the 1999 regulations, extended the Sex Discrimination Act to cover transsexual people in relation to discrimination over employment under Part II of the Act, but did not extend protection against discrimination to the provision of goods and services under Part III.
Amendment No. 97 serves two purposes. First, it extends the rights of people undergoing or having undergone gender reassignment by forbidding discrimination in the provision of goods and services. Secondly, it recognises that male and female transsexual people will be entitled to the protection of the Sex Discrimination Act in their legal status as women. But discrimination may be specifically against male-to-female transsexuals and not against women generally; so there is a lacuna.
We see no adequate reason why the anti-discrimination legislation should be limited to discrimination in employment under Part II of the 1975 Act and not to discrimination in the provisions of goods and services under Part III of the Act.
The amendment's second purpose is to extend the protection expressly to transsexual people who have acquired, or intend to acquire, a gender recognition certificate. Gender reassignment, as defined in subsection (3) of Section 2A of the 1975 Act, involves medical treatment. That can, of course, be surgery, but it could also be hormone treatment without surgery. The majority of people who seek or obtain a gender recognition certificate will, as part of the process, undergo medical treatment of some kind, but it is not in fact a requirement of the Gender Recognilion Bill that they should do so.
It seems pointless for a person who has obtained a gender recognition certificate to have to produce evidence of medical treatment to be able to bring a complaint about discrimination when the very existence of the certificate shows that they are people who are intended to be protected. The absence of any specific reference to people who have received gender recognition certificates may cause particular difficulties where the applicant has changed gender under the law of an approved foreign country and evidence of medical treatment would have to be obtained from abroad, which might present difficulties and perhaps involve the translation of documents.
Not only should the existing protection be extended to include Part III as well as Part II of the 1975 Act, but it should also involve a specific reference in Section 2A to those who have obtained gender recognition certificates, as well as to those who have undergone or may intend to undergo gender reassignment. 1 beg to move.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as will be apparent from the exposition of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhead —
Lord Goodhart: Goodhart.
Lord Filkin: I am so sorry.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: He has a good head as well.
Lord Filkin: He does indeed. These issues are complicated. The thrust of our response is not that there are no issues worthy of study here, but that because of their complexity this is not the best place or time to do so and there will be another opportunity relatively shortly. I shall speak on that in a little more detail.
As the House knows, once gender recognition had been granted, an individual would be able to claim all the rights appropriate to that gender. The person would therefore have protection in the acquired gender under existing sex discrimination law. However, fundamentally, this Bill is about legal recognition in the acquired gender and not about the totality of anti-discrimination law.

633
Anti-discrimination protection for transsexual people as transsexuals already exists in the areas of employment and vocational training. That has been set out in the Sex Discrimination Act since 1999. Protection is provided on the basis of intending to undergo, undergoing or having undergone gender reassignment. There are a number of exceptions relating to genuine occupational qualifications where the circumstances are specified in which discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment is not unlawful.
Some of the exceptions apply only to a person who intends to undergo or is undergoing gender reassignment and not to a person who has undergone gender reassignment. However, the Act does not contain a definition of the point at which a person is to be regarded as having undergone gender reassignment. Therefore, the creation of a new legal status in this Bill gives us the opportunity to provide such a definition.
First, the Bill amends the Sex Discrimination Act so that the genuine occupational qualifications allowing discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment will not apply in the case of people who have been legally recognised in their acquired gender. The effect would be that, while there would be occasions when it was legitimate to discriminate against a transsexual man or woman on the grounds of his or her acquired gender, it would no longer be permissible to discriminate against them in employment matters on the grounds that they were previously of another gender, unless the separate exception for organised religions under Section 19 is applicable.
However, a further extension of the protection against discrimination into the realm of goods and services would require an evaluation by the Government of the nature and extent of the problems faced by transsexual people in those areas. We would need to consider the implications and practicalities of extending the law, including the nature of new burdens on service providers in all sectors, including education, to which the amendment extends, and the necessity for exceptions in any particular circumstances. And, as has been the case in relation to this Bill, we would also want to have proper consultation with stakeholders and those affected.
We firmly believe that if that is to be done—we have heard the arguments that have been made today—it should be done only once a recognition system is in place and once the impact of recognition in the acquired gender has been evaluated. That would provide better evidence of the nature of the problems. For the reasons that I have touched on, we do not think it right suddenly to do so as part of this Bill.
However, I do not believe that that is an argument for unreasonable delay. On 5 November 2003, the European Commission published a draft directive on sex discrimination in the field of goods and services. Negotiations on that directive will provide a suitable forum in which discussions can take place with our European partners and the Commission. Those discussions will provide a far broader, European-wide discussion of the issue, including the possible need for exemptions and legal protection against discrimination.
634
Taking action in this Bill would risk the possibility of having to revisit the same area of anti-discrimination law once the directive was finalised. It would be unhelpful if we were to legislate now in haste and then find, as I believe would almost inevitably be the case, in a relatively few years' time that we had to legislate again because a significant number of burdens were placed on service providers to bring themselves into compliance as a consequence. If they were required to do so twice, I believe that that would be unreasonable.
Having said all that, we hear the arguments surrounding the issues most clearly. They will be issues for ongoing study within government and will inform our discussions with the European Commission and the relevant parts of the Council of Ministers on these matters. We shall look to amass evidence and experience as part of that process.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, naturally, I am somewhat disappointed by that reply, particularly in relation to the part of the amendment which proposes that there should be a specific reference in subsection (3) of Section 2A not only to those who have undergone or are undergoing gender reassignment but also to those who have obtained a gender recognition certificate. That seems to me to short-circuit some of the evidence that it would be necessary to produce without in any way taking decisions about the extension of the coverage of the anti-discrimination laws.
However, there is obviously a considerable degree of comfort in the knowledge that the Government are planning to consider this matter in the wider context of the proposed European directive. In those circumstances, it would obviously be inappropriate for us to push this issue to a Division. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 35, line 9, at end insert—
"(5) A person—

(a) whose gender has become the acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, or

(b) who will not consent to the disclosure of any entry relating to him contained in the Gender Recognition Register,

is to be regarded as a person who is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment for the purposes of subsections (3) and (4).""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 101 in my name. They are identical except that Amendment No. 98 refers to Great Britain and the other to Northern Ireland.
The purpose of these amendments is to allow a Church to refuse employment to a person who will not consent to the disclosure of an entry relating to them on the gender recognition register. Any employer will say that getting the right person for the job is essential.

635
In any business if the right person is employed it goes brilliantly, but if the wrong person is employed it becomes a disaster. It can have a very negative effect on the whole organisation if someone is employed who does not share the basic values, or what we term in business "the ethos of the business".
If that is true in a secular organisation how much more true it is in a religious organisation. In a religious group the staff are bound together by very strong beliefs on fundamental issues and shared values. These are beliefs not about mundane matters such as management style or marketing techniques, but about human nature, right and wrong and the nature of truth.
Churches teaches us that our sex is decided by God. They also teach that your sex is a matter of absolute truth, not personal choice. I ask, how could a Church employ a transsexual who effectively believes that God got his sex wrong? How can they employ a person who, in their eyes, lives a lie by impersonating the opposite sex?
The Government know that it is wrong to force this on religious groups. In 1999 they enshrined the right of religious bodies to refuse to employ transsexuals. This is found in Section 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act. Yet only five years later we are severely limiting the ability of Churches to exercise that right by taking away their right to know the birth sex of the candidate for employment. If a job applicant conceals his or her transsexualism religious employers will have no way of knowing it.
At present they can resolve any doubts they may have by requesting sight of the birth certificate. Either the person will supply it, in which case it will declare their true sex, or they will decline it in which case they can be turned down on the basis of bad faith.
But this Bill takes that option away. It would be pointless to ask for a birth certificate to verify their sex because it will simply confirm the applicant's version as to his or her sex. As a way of establishing a person's true biological sex, birth certificates will in effect become useless.
Of course, the Church can ask a direction question: have you changed sex? Some transsexuals will be honest and answer truthfully, but some will not. They may have a deep-seated urge to conceal their true sex. They may have no compunction at all about saying, "No, I have not changed sex. I have always been what I am now". The Church may then feel that it has no choice but to believe them. It might not emerge that they have been deceived until months or years later.
Why do the Government not seem to care about this possibility? Why do they recognise that it is changing the nature of the relationship between the Church and its potential employees?
I ask the Minister three questions. First, does he understand the dilemma that Churches face through not knowing the true sex of job applicants? Secondly, what is a Church supposed to do about it? Thirdly, does the Minister agree that it would be offensive to
636
Churches, mosques or temples or other religious bodies who are employers, to discover that they had unwittingly employed a transsexual?
The human rights barrister, Paul Diamond, issued a legal opinion about this Bill on 26 January. He believes that the Bill may breach the freedom of religion under Article 9 of the European Convention. He put it like this:
"It is rather like saying to a Muslim school: 'We don't know if the food given to your children has pork in it. Further, you are not allowed to inquire, or check whether this is the case". Thus the choice for the Muslim is not to eat. Or to say to a Jewish person, that you should become a vegetarian as you cannot secure Kosher meat. The very posing of the question illuminates the clear violation of religious rights".
If we say that we respect people's religious opinions we must take steps to avoid this scenario. This Bill must be amended to protect the existing rights of Church employers. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the amendments seek to ensure that a person who has acquired a new gender under the Bill or who will not consent to disclosure of their entry in the gender recognition register is covered by the exemptions in Section 19(3) and (4) of the Sex Discrimination Act. Those subsections allow discrimination against those who are undergoing or have undergone gender reassignment in relation to employment, authorisation or qualification for the purposes of an organised religion, provided that this is done to comply with a religious doctrine or to avoid offence to the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of the religion's followers.
I am happy to be able to reassure the noble Baroness and the House that no addition to Section 19 is needed, as the existing provisions already do all that is needed.
Where a person is refused employment, or an authorisation, or qualification, this is unlawful under Section 2A of the Sex Discrimination Act only if it is done,
"on the ground that the person intends to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment".
Whether or not that is the case is a question of fact for the tribunal, were one to be engaged to decide on the case. What is important to note is that wherever it is found that an organised religion has discriminated on this ground they are entitled in principle to seek to claim the benefit of the exemption in Section 19.
I shall deal with the concerns which underlie this part of the amendments. The amendments suppose that a person who has acquired a new gender under the Bill applies for employment or ordination for the purposes of an organised religion but refuses to consent to the register being consulted. In this situation, if the Church refuses employment or ordination, it is very likely that the discrimination would be held to have been on the ground that the person has undergone gender reassignment. The Church will therefore be entitled to seek to rely on the relevant part of Section 19.
The Church will succeed under Section 19 only if it can show that the restrictions imposed satisfy the tests laid down in Section 19. In other words, the Church will have to show that the restrictions were imposed to

637
comply with a religious doctrine or to avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of the religion's followers, which is, I think, the thrust of the noble Baroness's amendment. The fact that the Church had not seen the gender recognition register would not prevent it from seeking to rely on this examination.
Amendment No. 99 seeks to insert into the Bill an exemption covering ordination and appointment. We have already said in Grand Committee that the question of whether the Church may discriminate against transsexual people in these respects is one that must be answered in the context of our EU obligations and specifically the Equal Treatment Directive that must be implemented by October 2005. We have clearly also signalled that we would be happy to continue discussions with the Church about that issue.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way, but we are not talking about Amendment No. 99, which is the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and is not grouped with my amendments. Unfortunately, the right reverend Prelate is not present.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I apologise. I will say no more on that. Amendments Nos. 100 and 102 would add a new Section 33—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am sorry to do this to the noble Lord especially when he has been so gracious as to wish me a happy birthday, for which I thank him. The actual amendments I am speaking to are Amendments Nos. 98 and 101. They are very narrow ones and are identical. Amendment No. 98 applies to Great Britain and Amendment No. 101 applies to Northern Ireland.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her help. I shall seek to find any relationship to Amendment No. 101 in my notes.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, perhaps I can help the Minister. I do not think it matters because both amendments refer to the same point. Amendment No. 98 applies to Great Britain and Amendment No. 101 to Northern Ireland, but the wording is identical.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, yet again the noble Baroness has fooled me. Clearly, I have answered the point and I shall say no more.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the Minister, in particular for his gracious handling of the amendment. He said that my amendment is unnecessary because Section 19 already allows the Church to refuse to employ any transsexual whether or not they have a gender recognition certificate.
638
The point is that Section 19 should cover all transsexuals. That needs to be made explicit on the face of the Bill to avoid Churches having to foot the bill for litigation on this point. We also need to avoid rogue court rulings. Schedule 6 states that a person with a gender recognition certificate is not a transsexual for the purposes of Section 7A of the Sex Discrimination Act. We do not want an employment tribunal reading that across and saying that the same applies to Section 19. That is the purpose of my amendment. Although I would love to say that the Minister has given me great comfort, I fear that he thinks that Section 19 would be adequate; I fear that it will not be.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may say that I shall study yet again what she has said to see if there is any further engagement we can have on this before Third Reading to identify whether there is a significant difference between us on policy or law, or whether we have not been clear enough about the nature of the issues.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Certainly, I shall take him up on his offer. Therefore, I have great pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell The Lord Bishop of Southwell moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 35, line 9, at end insert—
"In section 19 (ministers of religion etc), insert at the end—
"(5) Without prejudice to subsections (3) and (4) above, in relation to discrimination falling within section 2A. this Part does not apply to any thing done for the purpose of an organised religion in relation to—

(a) the provision of training for ministry or service;

(b) the conferring of any such authorisation or qualification as is referred to in section 13(1) in relation to carrying on ministry or service;

(c) the appointment to any office or post involving ministryor service;

in the context of that religion if it satisfied the requirements of subsection (6). (6) The requirements specified in subsection (5)(c) are that the thing in question was done—

(a) on the grounds of the doctrines of the religion or strongly held religious convictions held by a significant number of the religion's followers; or

(b) in compliance with the normal rules or practices of the religion applying generally to persons seeking training, an authorisation or qualification to minister or serve in that religion;

or that, in view of the doctrines, religious convictions or other rules or practices referred to in paragraph (a), the person concerned failed to satisfy a requirement for the relevant matter referred to in subsection (5) or the person doing the thing in question was not satisfied, and in the circumstances it was reasonable for him not to be satisfied, that that person met the requirement. (7) In subsections (5) and (6) above, any reference to the doing of any thing includes a reference to declining or omitting to do any thing.""

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, I rise to move Amendment No. 99 standing in his name. In substance it is identical to the amendment he moved in Grand Committee and reflects concerns which he raised at Second Reading.
The amendment is intended to safeguard members of churches and other faith communities against the risk of liability under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 when they act on the basis of doctrines of their religion or the strongly held convictions of a significant number of the followers of their religion in relation to selection and training for ordained or recognised, authorised work or service.
I emphasise that the amendment does not seek a blanket exemption to discriminate in matters of employment, let alone membership. We shall come to those issues later where, indeed, the Church of England seeks no such exemption. Our concern is with public representative office, which ordination—and perhaps a limited number of other roles—conveys, and where we believe a genuine and determining occupational requirement could be demonstrated.
On a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill, reference has been made to the need to balance the proper rights of transsexual people with the proper rights of other parties. Section 13 of the Human Rights Act requires courts involved in determining human rights to have particular regard to the exercise by the religious organisation of the convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
As we move into a more overtly multicultural and multiracial Britain, the need to recognise and respect the reasonable rights of minorities will become progressively more evident in a whole range of issues. The case for appropriate safeguards in this matter was recognised by the Minister when he spoke in Grand Committee. He acknowledged that as well as providing rights for transsexual people, the Bill protects the rights and freedoms of others where appropriate. The Minister went on to say that these protections would be best provided not in the Bill itself but in the regulations that will need to be introduced to give effect to the equal treatment directive, which must be implemented by the United Kingdom by October 2005.
I can see the case for dealing with all these matters together in the round, in the totality of the situation, as the Minister put it in Committee. Will the Minister confirm that the Government recognise the potential rights of religious communities and minorities in relation to the appointment of transsexual people to representative public office or equivalent roles? Whether this is dealt with in the Bill, as the amendment proposes, or in regulations is of secondary concern.
We would prefer it to be in the Bill, both as a guarantee of this recognition, but also because, as things stand, there is likely to be a gap between the passing into law of the Bill—the Minister mentioned April 2005—and the new regulations, which must come in by October 2005. As I understand it, there will
640
be no legal protection for Churches and religious groups in that gap, which is a cause of considerable concern. If the matter is to be dealt with by regulations, can the Minister assure the House that the gap between the enactment of the Bill and the regulations will be kept to a minimum? Might it even be the case that the equal treatment directive could be implemented in two stages, the first dealing with transsexual and other areas relating to sexual discrimination legislation? Perhaps that might be considered.
Let me be clear. This amendment has a limited, but vital scope. I seek the Minister's assurance that the strictly limited concerns that are outlined here are shared by the Government and will be recognised by appropriate action without any avoidable delay. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, noble Lords will be relieved that I will not speak at great length on this, but not because the issues are not important. We have already signalled our position. Amendment No. 99 seeks to insert into the Bill an exemption covering ordination appointments. We have already said at Grand Committee that the question of whether the Church may discriminate against transsexual people in these respects is one that must be answered in the context of our EU obligations, specifically the equal treatment directive, which must be implemented by October 2005.
I hope, and I have some confidence, that it has been pretty clear from how we have handled this Bill so far that where it is possible to accommodate the profoundly held beliefs of religious organisations, without infringing the human rights of transsexuals, we have been open to discussions and efforts to do so. I make that clear, with that caveat, without that being a total blank cheque, that we will continue those discussions in the nature of the equal treatment directive.
In so far as the present position in law is concerned, office holders are not covered under the existing employment protection that is accorded to transsexual people. This will change with the implementation of the equal treatment directive, but this Bill will itself make no change to the existing position. That is why we have said before, and we say again today, that the discussions that have taken place with the Church will continue in preparation for that implementation. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel minded to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 35, line 9, at end insert—
"After section 33 (exception for political parties), insert—
"33A EXCEPTION FOR RELIGIOUS BODIES

(1) This section applies to a body which—

(a) exists for the purposes of organised religion, or

(b) has as its main object the promotion of religion.

641

(2) Sections 29(1) and 30 shall not be construed as rendering unlawful—

(a) the restriction of membership of any such body to persons who do not fall within subsection (3) (disregarding any minor exceptions), or

(b) the provision of benefits, facilities or services only to persons who do not fall within subsection (3) (disregarding any minor exceptions),

if the limitation is imposed tocomply with the doctrines of the religion or avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of its followers.

(3) This subsection applies to persons—

(a) whose gender has become the acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, or

(b) who will not consent to the disclosure of any entry relating to them contained in the Gender Recognition Register.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 100, 102 and 108. Again, we have a situation like the last two amendments that I moved. Amendments Nos. 100 and 102 are identical: Amendment No. 100 applies to Great Britain and Amendment No. 102 to Northern Ireland.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 100 and 102 is to prevent litigation under the Sex Discrimination Act, which forces religious bodies to allow those with gender recognition certificates into membership or to use the facilities provided. The purpose of Amendment No. 108 is to query why the Government are willing to give wide exemptions to sporting bodies, but are reluctant to make concessions for religious groups. The grouping is a bit crazy, but I hope that it will be all right.
Amendments Nos. 100 and 102 deal with what one might call the "Bill Parry scenario". Mr Parry has been mentioned several times, at Second Reading, in Grand Committee and on the first day of Report. He was a Congregationalist minister, a husband and the father of three. A few years ago, he decided to change sex. He started attending the Maesteg Christian Centre. The Church believed that it was morally wrong to try to change sex, but, for two years, he attended none the less.
Mr Parry would not accept the Church's teaching on transsexualism, and matters came to a head when the Church refused to allow him to attend the ladies' prayer meeting and would not let him use the ladies' toilet. Mr Parry is an activist and has used the law more than once against people who would not treat him as a woman. In July 2000, he won a £6,000 out-of-court settlement with a college. He claimed that it had discriminated against him, as he was on its beauty therapy course. Three months later, he forced the Welsh equivalent of the Women's Institute to change its membership policy. So, it was no surprise when, in 2002, he sued Maesteg Christian Centre over access to the ladies' fellowship and use of the ladies' toilet.
The Church engaged a barrister and successfully resisted Mr Parry's legal action, but the judge expressed strong sympathy with Mr Parry and criticised the Church. Even though the Church won the action, the judge ordered it to pay some of its legal
642
costs. Sadly, if the Bill had been in force, the judge might have found a way of giving Mr Parry what he wanted. There is plenty of scope for that in the Bill. The Bill says that a man who holds a gender recognition certificate is to be treated in law as a woman. Clause 9 says that he is a woman for all purposes. That means that he is entitled to sue for discrimination as a woman under the Sex Discrimination Act.
The Government are creating a new legal landscape, in which the sort of action pursued by Mr Parry could succeed. After all, what legal justification could a Church have for refusing to allow a woman to use the women's toilets? Even if a legal action failed, Churches would have to put up with the distress and might even have to foot the bill. We must put protections against that into the Bill.
Amendment No. 108 simply gives me the opportunity to point out the inconsistency between the Government's treatment of sports bodies and their treatment of religious bodies. I feel sure that the Minister will have had a sense déjà vu, when he saw the wording of Amendment No. 108. As noble Lords will have noticed, it mirrors closely the wording of government Amendment No. 107, exempting sporting bodies.
The Government are willing to make broad, far-reaching exemptions for sports bodies. I support that, and I think that it is brilliant. However, they have not yet brought forth anything similar for religious bodies. The Minister will say that Churches can already discriminate and that there is no need for the amendment. I would nearly bet on that. However, in Grand Committee on 14 January, he said that there was no need for amendments to protect sport; then, he changed his mind. I ask him gently to change his mind about protecting religious bodies. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I feel obliged to reiterate more strongly the point that I made earlier today. As we debate the matters, a picture is being built up in which organised religion always takes one view of the question. What will be the situation of the Government in the discussions, when they are faced with people who purport to represent the views of a religious body but actually represent only part of that body, in which there are others who hold the opposite point of view with equal force?
I do not know whether it is known in the House, but when the House of Bishops of the Church of England discussed this subject, it was clear that we had to acknowledge the existence in the Church of England of two equally strongly held doctrinal positions on the matter. I shudder at the thought of government having to adjudicate on the doctrinal position of an organised religion. I recognise that the words, "religious susceptibilities of a significant number of its followers", are already enshrined in statute. But they are highly dangerous. When I hold a religious sensibility, to me a significant number is one. I do not think that that is true of other people's religious convictions, but I notice that other people behave in similar ways.

643
For the Government to confer on religious bodies the right to create membership qualifications that go against the convictions of the society in which those religions function, and to be protected when they do so, is a dangerous precedent. I urge the Minister to bear in mind in the conversations that will proceed in the coming months that, like gender, organised religion is a complex matter. The convictions and doctrines of organised religion are also complex. I am well aware of a significant number of members of the Church of England who find the collection of exemptions along these lines deeply offensive.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I shall listen to the Minister's reply with great interest, and shall do so in part in the light of what the right reverend Prelate has just said. What my noble friend has proposed is permissive, not obligatory. It is available for that section of any belief that holds her view without compelling any section that does not hold her view. To that extent, I feel that the objection of the right reverend Prelate is without much force.
I want to return to something that the right reverend Prelate said earlier when he expressed his discomfort in general—not in particular terms—at the position taken by my noble friend. Had it been expressed in particular terms, I would have been less concerned by it. He said that he was very concerned when the Church asked for shelter from the consequences of disagreeing with something with which the majority of society had come to a conclusion. I always thought that it was the function of Churches to do exactly that—to stand firm when the majority of society got things wrong. I am not saying that society got it wrong in this respect, as I see the right reverend Prelate quivering on the edge of intervening. I am referring to the general principle. I am thinking of the Church in Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s, and indeed, of our Churches during the civil war. It is plainly the duty of a religious body—especially a Church, and my own Church, in particular—to stand by principles when the majority of society has got them wrong, as they now have in many respects. I am not speaking about the Bill when I say that.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. It might help if I say what my intervention would have been, rather than what he thought it might have been.
My concern is not that the Church should comply with everything that society says. It cannot be said that I advocate that position. My concern is that the Church should not seek protection from the costs of its obedience.
Lord Elton: My Lords, that is a much more honourable and enlightened position, but as to my first question, I shall leave it to the Minister.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for that challenge. It almost feels too late to go into full detail on all these issues. However. I am
644
grateful for being exposed to an alternative set of pressures from the ones to which I am usually exposed on this Bill. That is healthy and it is a reminder to Government of how one has to be cautious in trying to uphold two sets of rights. Clearly, in part, much of these discussions has concerned trying, if possible, to provide the proper rights to transsexual people that we clearly believe should be provided in a civilised society, and to do so in a way that does not, at the same time, infringe the right to freedom of religion and to freedom of religious expression. We are debating on that cusp.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, gave me plenty of fervour and examination questions to take away with me. I shall not respond to them all tonight, but I shall look at them. For now, 1 shall make a few comments on the record.
Amendments Nos. 100, 102 and 108 would add a new Section 33A to the Sex Discrimination Act and Article 34A to the equivalent Northern Ireland order. The provisions will provide religious bodies with the freedom to restrict membership or the provision of benefits, facilities or services in such a way as to exclude a person who is recognised in the acquired gender or who will not consent to the disclosure of any entry relating to them in the gender recognition register. Amendment No. 108 has the same purpose.
On the face of it, that is a wide-ranging exemption. However, it would have no effect, as neither the Sex Discrimination Act nor the Northern Ireland order at present extends protection to transsexual people in terms of membership of religious organisations or the provision of benefits, facilities or services. As I have already explained, we do not consider it appropriate in this Bill to extend protection against gender reassignment discrimination to the area of goods, facilities and services, not as a point of principle, but as a point of practice. There is a better forum for engaging in those issues.
The Bill is concerned with providing transsexual people with access to a means of acquiring legal recognition; it is not an anti-discrimination Bill per se. The only changes that it makes to anti-discrimination law are consequential changes:providing access to legal recognition in the applied gender. We have had, and no doubt will continue to have, discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and representatives of Evangelical Alliance, for whom I hasten to say she does not speak. I was not seeking to ally her with a Christian institution.
On the outcome of Mr Parry's case, 1 do not want to comment on a particular case. The Bill does not open up a new class of discrimination claims. As I have already said, we are not using the Bill to extend discrimination on the ground of gender reassignment.
On sporting bodies, one is damned if one does and damned if one does not. We have been willing to provide an exemption for sporting bodies, but the Bill is not about discrimination. The exemption for sport is of a different character. It does not permit a sporting body to restrict the participation of all transsexual people; it allows a restriction only where that is necessary to secure fair competition or safety of other

645
competitors. An exemption for religion, at least under the terms proposed, would apply to all transsexual people.
I shall say no more about access to lavatories or other such issues. On a general point, I recollect, either tonight or previously, a question being asked about the Women's Institute. The present law would not prevent an organisation like the Women's Institute discriminating against a transsexual person if it wished to do so, as the Women's Institute could not be considered to be exercising a public function in considering applications for membership and, therefore, it would not be a public body. But I hope that it would not discriminate.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the Minister again. I see the Bill as opening up the prospect of litigation against the Churches, which concerns me. I know that between now and Third Reading there will be discussions so I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Peerages etc.]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 6, line 22, at end insert—
"( ) Nothing in this section shall prevent the holders of any peerage or dignity or title of honour who are in receipt of a gender recognition certificate from styling themselves as if they had inherited the peerage or dignity or title of honour in their acquired gender, and the persons concerned shall have the right to require any organisation or body of which they are a member to address them by the style appropriate to their acquired gender.
( ) A person who is the holder of an order of chivalry which is limited to one sex shall after receipt of a gender recognition certificate have the right to petition for conferment of the equivalent degree of the order of chivalry appropriate to their acquired gender."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 103 I return to a debate that we had in Grand Committee about peerages. Noble Lords will recall that Clause 16 states:
"The fact that a person's gender has become the acquired gender under this Act … does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour".
In a sense, the clause provides for an exceptional treatment for peerages, in the way that Clause 15 provides for a different treatment for succession. In Grand Committee, we expressed our concern that if, for example, a male baron were to become a female, that male would not then be able to call himself a baroness. Similarly, an earl could not become a countess. Amendment No. 103 illustrates to the Government just one of our concerns about a number of anomalies in the Bill relating to how individuals should be treated in particular circumstances.
Noble Lords will note that my noble friend Lord Ferrers has tabled an amendment about peerages. I defer to him for he knows much more about peerages than do I. Indeed, I suspect that he knows much more about succession than do I.
The Government conceded in Grand Committee that there were "issues to consider", not only about how title is officially recognised, but also about how other matters flow from the holding of a title. The Minister has since courteously written to me about those further considerations. It seems that a possible solution has been found. However, I would prefer to wait to hear the Minister's response to my noble friend Lord Ferrers about that solution. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as my amendment has been grouped with this one, I shall make some observations. My noble friend Lady Buscombe kindly said that I knew more about peerages and succession than does she. I do not know whether that is true, but I certainly do not know more than does she about changing gender. I have been lost in admiration at your Lordships' ability to understand the complexity of the Bill, in particular that of Ministers, who have fought bravely to defend it and all its complications.
I have a number of questions to ask. I suppose that I should declare an interest in so far as I am a hereditary Peer and the clause relates to hereditary peerages. I assure your Lordships that any interest 1 declare is not personal, but arises merely because I am a hereditary Peer.
In Grand Committee, I thought it extraordinary that the Government wanted to help hereditary Peers, because normally they do not. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is shaking her head. Before she shakes it, perhaps she should hear what I say. It was extraordinary that they should help hereditary Peers by inserting a special clause for their benefit. I felt that either the Bill is so good that it should apply to everyone or that it is so bad that the Government cannot find a way of getting round the issue without making an exception for hereditary Peers. I shall quote what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, said in Grand Committee. He can sit in his place and be frightened. He said:
"I said that it raised a number of very interesting and important issues that the Government must consider. I said that we would go away and consider the points raised and return before Report with amendments".—[Official Report,.14/1/04; col. GC 105.]
I became very excited. I thought that the Government had at last taken note of something that I had said. However, when I looked at the list of amendments, the Government had not put one down to address this problem. So I tabled an amendment to leave out Clause 16 to find out exactly what it means because, quite frankly, I do not understand it.
Clause 16 says that the fact that a person's gender has become the acquired gender under this Act,
"does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour".
I can understand that. However, Clause 16(b) says that it,
"does not affect the devolution of any property limited (expressly or not) by a will or other instrument to devolve (as nearly as the law permits) along with any peerage or dignity or title of honour unless an intention that it should do so is expressed in the will or other instrument".

647
I am not a lawyer; the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew is, and he no doubt understands that perfectly. However, I do not understand what it means and I would be grateful if the Minister would explain what it means.
I would like some explanations to some serious points, and I hope the Minister will answer them. What happens if an earl has a sex change? In order to make certain that there is no duplicity, we will call him Earl Dodger and his son Viscount Chump. If Earl Dodger has a sex change, does he become a countess, in which case there will then be two Countess Dodgers? Or does he remain as an earl although he masquerades as a woman?
As the earl has changed from being a male to a female, what happens to the title? Does Viscount Chump suddenly inherit the earldom and become an earl as the earldom is apparently vacant? That does not seem right because you would then have two earls. What happens if Countess Dodger, on the other hand, changes sex and becomes a man? What does she become? Does she become Earl Dodger, so that there are two earls? She cannot, because she was not appointed. What does she do?
Let us suppose that Earl Dodger has a son and a daughter. Let us suppose that the daughter is older and that she has a sex change and becomes a man. Does she then become Viscount Chump instead of her younger brother who, up till now, was Viscount Chump? If she does become Viscount Chump, does she inherit everything else? Does she inherit the title of earl instead of the proper Viscount Chump, and all the cash, if there is any? In my experience, earls do not have much cash nowadays, but they used to in the good old days. What happens to the proper Viscount Chump? There may be a trust fund under which it all goes to the holder of the earldom. Does the lady get that and, if so, will she remain friends with her brother?
Clause 16(a) states that the Bill does not affect the descent of any peerage or title of honour. Of course it does—it goes to someone to whom it was not supposed to go.
I have read Clause 16(b) six times and I cannot understand it. It says that the fact that a person's gender has become the acquired gender does not affect the devolution of any property unless an intention that it should do so is expressed in a will. In years gone by, quite a lot of these properties were expressed in wills by grandfathers and great-grandfathers who did not have the curiosities that exist nowadays.
If it is intended that the land owned by an earl should pass on to the next earl, and if Earl Dodger becomes a woman and vacates the earldom, does he have to pass his land on to Viscount Dodger, who presumably becomes the earl? Of course, he cannot become the earl, because the earl is still alive. It does not seem very fair, and it happens to nobody else in the country. I hate to put it like this, but the Government are discriminating against hereditary Peers. They have always hated hereditary Peers but I think hereditary Peers are jolly good folk. It is a pity to see the
648
Government discriminate in this way by suddenly saying that the Bill is wonderful, but the change must not appear to be part of the peerage.
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, made an interesting remark in a letter to my noble friend Baroness Buscombe:
"The hereditary principle is hence untouched. However, this does mean that a person recognised in law as a woman may inherit a 'male title'. Clearly, a person in this position may wish to seek a change to the form of address".
He said that the whole purpose of the Bill is to allow a woman to inherit a male title. Yet, earlier on, it said that there would be no change. In his letter, the noble Lord goes on to say that:
"Subsequent to these discussions",
that he had with Garter Principal King of Arms,
"it is clear that a person in this position would be free to petition Her Majesty for a change in the form of address. Therefore, rather than making the detailed provision in the Bill to deal with every possibility, we believe that this issue should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and that this discretion should rest with Her Majesty".
Do the Government mean to say that they have introduced a Bill that is so complicated, and has made such a mess of every thing, including the peerage, that the only way out is to get Her Majesty to resolve it? I find that quite extraordinary.
I shall remind your Lordships of what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said in Committee. He asked what happens if a female priest changes sex and becomes a man and said:
"It [is] an infringement of her rights that Crockford's"—
or, as the right reverend Prelate also mentioned, Who's Who, Dehrett's or Dod's—
"continued to contain details of the early stages of her ministry".—[Official Report, 14/1/04; col. GC 105.]
If one removes the first part of a person's career from a professional directory, where does the editor stand in terms of the Trade Descriptions Act? I thought that that was a very trenchant point by the right reverend Prelate. The Government did not have an answer to that.
What happens if, as one does, one has a medical directory? Suppose there is a person who becomes a doctor, goes through the training, becomes a surgeon and decides to become a woman? Is the directory to cut all that out of a person's previous career? Would not anyone employing that person as a surgeon want to know where that person was educated, what medical school he or she went to and what happened in her career? That must all be cut out because she has changed sex and it must not be referred to.
One could say that if one looked in Dod's, or in a similar directory, and saw that a person was educated, for instance, at Winchester and Magdalene College, Cambridge, even though she was a woman, one could discover that she was probably a man because those places usually educate men not women. No attempt has been made to answer these points.
The Minister who will respond to this amendment— I am not certain who it will be, but I have a good idea that it will be the noble Lord, Lord Evans-may say

649
that when people are in positions of importance, such as bishops, priests, surgeons, Peers, and anyone in public life, everyone will know that they have changed sex and they do not have to worry about it. It is only people lower down the echelons who the Government are worrying about. That is no way to produce a Bill. If the Bill is so good that it has to refer to these 5,000 who, regrettably, for reasons with which we all sympathise, have to change sex, it must refer to everyone; a group cannot be excluded.
The real answer is that the Bill is so bad because it is based on a deception. The whole idea is a deception. My noble friend Lord Tebbit, who regrettably is not here, has said this all along. It is based on a deception whereby you say, "Here is a person who was born a female," and then you say, "We have decided 40 years later that he was born a male". That is a deception. It turns nature topsy-turvy. I hope that the noble Lord who replies to the amendment will provide perfectly clear and not complicated answers to these questions as the measure has turned nature upside down and we should like to know what the position is.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is an extremely hard act to follow when talking about matters of this kind. I shall not even try to emulate his tour de force. However, there are a couple of points that even he did not cover in his splendid peroration.
If I have interpreted the noble Baroness's speech correctly, which I hope that I have, I am relieved to learn that Amendment No. 103 is in effect tongue-in-cheek. I hope that I am right about that because, if it is not, we must consider some of the consequences. Clause 16 as it stands talks only about descent but Amendment No. 103 refers to actual titles. If a baronet were to change his sex, presumably he would become either a lady or possibly a dame, I am not sure which. However, if the amendment is tongue-in-cheek, that does not really matter.
The other curious aspect of the amendment is that it would give someone the right to require an organisation or body to address them by the style appropriate to their acquired gender. How can they do that? No criminal penalties are set out in the amendment or in the Bill. Would the people in question be able to take civil action against the organisation in question to force it to address them in a certain style? I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on the matter.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I rise to speak in an attempt to match the extraordinarily funny and interesting contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
The Government do not hate hereditary Peers. I am a Member of the Government. My closest friend, who does not sit in this House, is a hereditary Peer. Without wishing to pre-empt anything that may happen later in the Session, it may be hereditary Peers sitting in the
650
House of Lords who present the problem. However, we regard them as an endangered minority who have to be looked after and nurtured.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the whole of this Report stage has been worthwhile just to hear the noble Lord say that.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for that. He challenged me to answer all the questions that he raised. I shall not do so this evening as we hope to finish by 10 or 10.30 p.m. However, the week-long holiday will soon arrive and I should be very happy to spend that week with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, talking about the extraordinary family he has constructed in which everyone seems to have changed sex.
I must apologise to the noble Earl for saying in Committee that I was so overwhelmed by his arguments that the Government would bring forward amendments on this matter. However, we have not done so. We have not done so because after very careful reflection—but I am afraid that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will need a great deal of persuading on this—we consider that Clause 16 is necessary and that it ought to remain in the Bill. I shall tell the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, why that is so in rather a dull way, I am afraid, which does not match his style and humour. However, it is important that this is put on the record.
Clause 16 states that the issue of a gender recognition certificate does not affect the descent of peerages. It has been included so as to exclude the possibility of a person changing gender—I refer to an elder daughter changing gender in these circumstances—in order to leap-frog a sibling and in that way obtain a peerage, dignity or title of honour. If that could occur it would defeat the expectations of the person to whom the peerage would have otherwise descended. Peerages are also unique because they descend to the eldest son, according to birth. That is another reason why birth gender should continue to count. The adoption and children act of 1992 makes a similar exception, about which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, may have waxed eloquently 13 years ago. The exception is there so that the adopted children may not inherit a peerage, even if they qualify—as, for example, the eldest son.
I can see from the expression on the face of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that he does not think that my argument is impressive. But it is our argument and we have considered his comments in Committee. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Filkin and I can have a meeting with the noble Earl so that we can sit down and avoid—if we wish to avoid—a brilliant performance from him at the next stage or perhaps we should just wait and enjoy his comments when we discuss the matter again. I can see out the back of my head the expression on the face of my noble friend Lord Filkin. Seriously, the noble Earl made some interesting points and we would like to discuss them with him over the next week or so—even if I have to do that myself.
9.15 p.m
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for half a moment? I am amazed that he could see what his noble friend Lord Filkin was saying and thinking, since he was sitting behind him. He must have eyes in the back of his head, like a chameleon. My real concern is that he said I had waxed eloquent over a matter some 13 years ago. I do not wax eloquent over many issues, but I do over some. There are so many matters, that I cannot remember my actual comments 13 years ago. I am deeply impressed that the noble Lord did.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I was imagining what the noble Earl may have said—I have not read Hansard to see whether he did contribute. I shall do that first thing in the morning. I am taking the matter extremely seriously. Before I move away from the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, I wish to say that although his comments were amusing, he made some serious points and I would like to make a valiant attempt to convince him that the clause should stay in the Bill.
Amendment No. 103, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raises the issue of forms of address. The noble Baroness also raised the issue in Committee. It was never the intention that a Knight Commander who became a woman in the eyes of the law should continue to style herself as "Sir". But the noble Baroness has raised a valid point—and I hope that I am not upsetting the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, by acknowledging that—about whether a Peer or the holder of another title can legitimately swap it when his or her gender changes in law.
In fact, all of us are in the gift of Her Majesty. She, alone, can confer a title and she, alone, can alter the form of address that a holder uses. However, that does not mean that an amendment to the Bill is necessary. The Government have, since Committee, consulted the Palace and the Garter Principal King of Arms. We are in agreement that the best way to proceed in such rare cases—I underline "rare"—would be for the holder of the title to petition Her Majesty to ask that she change the form of address. There is a wide range of circumstances under which an individual may wish to adopt a different form of address as a result of the Bill. In addition to transsexual people themselves, the former or future spouse of a transsexual person may have a claim on a courtesy title.
Legislating for this multitude of circumstances would seem disproportionate given the very low frequency with which the situation would arise. It would also reduce Her Majesty's prerogative powers in this area. Accordingly, the Government are satisfied that the right to petition Her Majesty, which already exists and will continue to do so, is a sufficient and proportionate method of dealing with the matter.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, this has been an extremely illuminating debate and I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for, as I suspected, illustrating the fact that he knows more about peerages
652
than I do. It is a knotty problem and one which I am glad we have raised. The Government need to resolve it.
I join my noble friend in regretting that there is no clear amendment to the Bill to deal with the problem. However, I recall that during Grand Committee I looked to the officials with considerable sympathy, given their task of coming up with a solution in time for the Report stage. I take my hat off to them and to the Minister for turning to Garter Principal King of Arms and the Palace for their support in their search for the solution.
While the Minister's proposal seems convoluted, it is fair to say that for those who will have to go through the difficult and lengthy process of gender recognition, this final phase for a tiny number of individuals will not be viewed as particularly arduous. It surprised me that the Bill would necessitate involving Her Majesty. I wonder whether that is why it was not even mentioned in the gracious Speech. Perhaps if it had, it might have caused some disturbance at that stage. It seems an enormous length to go to in turning to Her Majesty to change a form of address.
That said, I suspect that this is the best and most practical solution that could be found. Like all noble Lords, I accept that we are talking about a tiny number of individuals in the years to come—perhaps none at all, who knows? I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Ferrers, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrershad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 104:
Leave out Clause 16.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for the answers he gave. Unfortunately, during the Committee stage he said that the Government would have to think about these things and I had hoped that he would come up with some answers. I believe that the proper thing would be to have a Division in order to discover what people really feel. We would then know where we were.
However, I would not wish to disturb the noble Lord, Lord Evans, too much and I think that he had better go away and think about it. Perhaps he could consider the questions I asked and give me some answers. I would not want him to do that first thing tomorrow morning because that would be most disturbing. He has plenty of time to think during the forthcoming Recess. I do not want him to go to any great trouble nor, particularly, to chat me up about it because he might persuade me. But if he would give me the answer on apiece of paper I should be very grateful. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 104 not moved]
Clause 17 [Trustees and personal representatives]:
[Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 not moved.]
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 107:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
"SPORT

(1) A body responsible for regulating the participation of persons as competitors in an event or events involving a gender-affected sport may, if subsection (2) is satisfied, prohibit or restrict the participation as competitors in the event or events of persons whose gender has become the acquired gender under this Act.

(2) This subsection is satisfied if the prohibition or restriction is necessary to secure—

(a) fair competition, or

(b) the safety of competitors,

at the event or events.

(3) "Sport" means a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature.

(4) A sport is a gender-affected sport if the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one gender would put them at a disadvantage to average persons of the other gender as competitors in events involving the sport.

(5) This section does not affect—

(a) Section 44 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65)(exception from Parts 2 to 4 of that Act for acts related to sport), or

(b) Article 45 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/1042 (N.I. 15)) (corresponding provision for Northern Ireland)."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question of sport pre-occupied us for some time in Committee. The Government have introduced an amendment which we hope will solve the legitimate problems raised at that time.
We said in Grand Committee that the Gender Recognition Bill must not lead to a situation in which competition, or the safety of other competitors, is compromised.
We have been of the view that the existing legal framework of the Sex Discrimination Act and Human Rights Act combined provides sporting bodies with the necessary flexibility to deal with the issues raised by transsexual competitors. However, during the debate in Grand Committee I said that we would consider the issue further. Since then, the issue has been discussed between my department—the Department for Constitutional Affairs—the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and UK Sport.
This is a complex area of law. The Government believe that by making express provision in the Bill, sporting bodies will be placed in a better position to formulate clear and lasting frameworks for dealing with the issues raised by transsexual sports people. As your Lordships may know, the International Olympic Committee is also presently looking at the issues raised by transsexual competitors. I understand that it is due to issue guidelines shortly. We will need to ensure that the provisions for sport in the Gender Recognition Bill do not pose a problem for sporting bodies that wish to use the IOC guidelines in the future. The provisions may therefore need to be revisited once the guidelines have been issued. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, as I understand the Minister is aware, my noble friend Lord Moynihan is
654
in Norway today meeting officials from the Norwegian sports anti-doping agency. From these Benches we would like to express our support for the Government's conversion to our case—a case that my noble friend put forcefully both at Second Reading and in Grand Committee—to exempt competitive sport in the Bill. It now takes a privileged place alongside the monarchy and hereditary Peers.
As it stands, the amendment recognises the strength of argument made by my noble friend and supported in principle by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in Grand Committee to allow governing bodies of sport to continue to determine their criteria for classification, thus preserving fair competition and protecting the safety of competitors, particularly in contact sports. In so doing, the Government are joining us in responding to the representations made to that effect by the Central Council for Physical Recreation, the Sports Council and many governing bodies of sport.
We also support the Government's intention to keep open the possibility of a further amendment during the Bill's proceedings in another place. At the end of this month the International Olympic Committee will be meeting, inter alia, to consider the issue of gender classification. It is possible that its findings may allow Parliament to improve on the wording suggested this evening.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan and I appreciate the sensitivity with which this important issue for sport has been approached by the Minister and his officials since the subject was extensively debated during Second Reading and again in Grand Committee. We thank the Government for listening and are pleased to lend our support to the proposed amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we welcome the amendment. It follows the solution for which I expressed a preference when speaking in Grand Committee. We think it is a sensible step for the Government to have taken; it deals with a serious and important problem. We are happy to support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]>
Clause 19 [Scottish gender-specific offences]:
[Amendments No. 109 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 7, line 25, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
"(2) The following are relevant gender-specific offences for the purpose of subsection (1) above—

(a) section 5 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland)Act 1995 (c.th39) (intercourse with a girl under 16);

(b) section 11 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (trading in prostitution and brothel keeping);

(c) section 13 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation)(Scotland) Act 1995 (homosexual offences);

(d) section 311 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 13) (non-consensual sexual acts);

655

(e) section 313 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (persons providing care services: sexual offences);

(f) any offence under section 294 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 46) (attempt at crime);

(g) rape;

(h) sodomy;

(i) clandestine injury to a woman;

(j) abduction of a woman or girl with intent to rape;

(k) assault with intent to rape or ravish;

(l) attempting to commit any of the offences set out in the above paragraphs.

(3) The Scottish Ministers may by order make provision for modifying the terms of subsection (2)."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, here is something simpler. Amendments Nos. 110 and 126 have been inspired by the Law Society of Scotland in a further attempt to ensure that the Scottish gender-specific legislation is identified in the Bill. This matter remains as relevant as it was in Grand Committee. The Minister rejected a similar amendment in the fear that at present the list might not be all-inclusive and that future legislation might be needed to add to the list. I remain sufficiently unconvinced to have tabled this amendment. Clarity is an important attribute in legislation.
The Minister is bringing forward an amendment to apply the concept of gender-specific offences to all three legal jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I look forward to hearing from the Minister the implications of his amendment for Clause 19.1 beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support these amendments. Noble Lords may recall that I proposed similar amendments in Grand Committee, although I sought to amend the wording slightly in the sense that I felt that the list was not entirely adequate. However, I see no harm in having some such list with some expression on the face of the Bill that the list is not exclusive. I believe that having some form of clarity is a good idea.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, Amendment No. 110 seeks to insert a list of gender-specific offences into Clause 19 in place of the general definition of gender-specific sex offences that the clause contains at present. The amendment and Clause 19 as presently drafted have the same purpose. The disagreement here is about means and not ends. The problem with using a list—the means proposed by the amendment—is that, if further offences were created or if the definition of existing offences were changed to include or exclude a gender-specific element, the list would require amendment. Although the amendment, taken together with Amendment No. 126, provides for changes in the list, the virtue of using a definition of gender-specific sex offences is still that the need for future amendments is avoided.
Government Amendment No. 131 also relates to Clause 19. At present, Clause 19 extends only to Scotland. However, the law on sex offences in Northern
656
Ireland remains, to a large extent and in the same way as Scots law, gender specific. As a consequence, the Gender Recognition Bill as drafted will have a disabling impact on the law on sex offences in Northern Ireland—particularly on rape—unless it is amended in a similar fashion to that in Scotland.
It was originally felt that a temporary lacuna in the law in Northern Ireland might be acceptable, given that a review of Northern Ireland law was in progress and that subsequent legislation would be expected to remove gender-specific crimes from the body of law on sex offences. However, given the straightforward nature of the amendment that will plug the gap in Northern Ireland in the interim period before the new law on sex offences is ready, the Government believe that it is appropriate to take action.
Therefore, I am proposing Amendment No. 131 to adjust the extent of Clause 19 so that it applies throughout the United Kingdom. Although the Sexual Offences Act applying to England and Wales uses gender-neutral terms, this amendment will ensure that no residual problem arises in England and Wales. The Sewe1 Motion in the Scottish Parliament will take place this Thursday, 5 February.
I have set out the Government's views on Amendments Nos. 110 and 126. In any case, if the House accepts Amendment No. 131, the list in Amendment No. 110 will be out of date. I would argue that the extent of Clause 19 should be expanded as proposed. In addition, especially in the light of the fact that any list in Clause 19 would have to cover all the criminal jurisdictions in the UK, I would argue that the present definition in Clause 19 provides the better legislative solution.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, there is no doubt that the Minister has got one over me at present. That often happens in these proceedings. I should like in the long run for the Scottish gender-specific offences to be at least listed in a schedule. That may come about. In any legislation to which the future Gender Recognition Act was relevant there would be a clause which amended it taking into account the new legislation. However, I shall read Hansard with regard to the implications of the noble Lord's amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Foreign gender change and marriage]:
[Amendment Nos. 111 and 112 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Prohibition on disclosure of information]:
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 9, line 8, at end insert—

"( ) the disclosure is made for the purposes of section 4A (marriages involving person of acquired gender) of the Marriage Act 1949 (c. 76),

( ) the disclosure is made for the purposes of section 2A (marriages involving person of acquired gender) of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 (c. 15).

( ) the disclosure is made for the purposes of Article I 8A of the Family Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) 'Northern Ireland) Order 1984,

657

( ) the disclosure is made for the purposes of section 19 (ministers of religion etc) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65)

( ) the disclosure is made for the purposes of Article 21 (ministers of religion etc) of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/1042 (N.I. 15))

( ) the disclosure is made for the purposes of Section 33A (exceptions for religious bodies) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65

( ) the disclosure is made for the purposes of Article 34A (exceptions for religious bodies) of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/1042 (N.I. 15)."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments refer to Clause 21. Amendment No. 113 deals with disclosure in furtherance of the exceptions which are listed in the amendment. Amendment No. 116 deals with the penalties.
Clause 21 is one of the most heavy-handed parts of this Bill. It creates a criminal offence affecting anyone who learns of a person's sex change in an official capacity. If they disclose this information they can be prosecuted and fined up to £5,000.
What is most surprising is that the offence is not limited to civil servants such as people working in the Registrar General's office. It extends to all private employers and, more surprisingly still, to voluntary bodies. If the principal of a Bible college gives a job reference for a former employee, which mentions his change of sex, he is committing a criminal offence. If a church minister tells a church official that a member of the congregation has changed sex, he is also committing a criminal offence. That is really ludicrous.
The fact that a person has had a sex change is, as I have said before, of religious importance. It is a serious ethical issue on a par with lying or adultery. If the church is giving a job reference to another church, it may believe that it is vitally important that the other church knows the truth.
Even if they do not set out to disclose the sex change, they may feel that it is impossible honestly to answer a request for a reference without mentioning it. If the person used to be the woman in charge of ladies' ministries, how would they explain to the new employer how the job was done by a man? Clause 21 compels them to say in the letter that "she" is a "he". It will be a criminal offence to do otherwise.
Many churches, particularly the reformed churches, still operate the practice of requiring a reference from a previous church before accepting someone into membership of that church, not into a job situation, but actual membership on the parochial roll. This too may result in a prosecution. Indeed, it may be that someone will say, "Don't you dare declare it or I will sue". It seems that it would even be an offence to warn a bridegroom if he did not know that his bride-to-be was really a man.
Do the Government see that these are issues of conscience? Do they really want to fine church ministers for refusing to say that a woman is a man?
658
Do they not believe that it is wrong to prosecute churchmen for actions which most people would consider perfectly respectable?
In many places of worship several officials will be involved in decisions about employment or membership. Perhaps only one of them knows that the person has changed sex. If the others favoured the application, he would probably feel compelled by conscience to let them know yet he could be prosecuted for so doing. I ask the Minister this question. If half-a-dozen church elders did discuss the change of sex, would they all be prosecuted or only the one who made the original disclosure? Will there be six fines or just one?
Amendment No. 113 shows that it is possible to create narrow exceptions to protect religious conscience. We are not talking about protecting gossip here, but disclosure of a serious breach of religious ethics on a need-to-know basis. The same thing happens in politics. If a Government Minister told the Chief Whip that he was secretly donating funds to the Liberal Democrats, the Chief Whip would rightly discuss it with other senior party officials. Why should religious leaders not have a similar liberty of conscience?
I have another question for the Minister. What if a transsexual applies for a job in any organisation—not necessarily a Church organisation—and is asked for a job history, that is, a cv. The recruiting company wishes to check references and refers to one of the companies on the cv. Large organisations have large human resource directorates, and the people working in those would be aware of the law. But what if you have a small accountancy firm in a small market town, where the person who is the administration manager is the person who deals with job applications, or anything to do with a personnel function? Suppose they have an application from somebody called Janet Jones to join this firm. The cv shows where Janet Jones had worked. One of the organisations is rung up, but the person at the other end of the phone in another small accountancy firm in another town says, "We did not have a Janet Jones working here; we had a James Jones during that period— 1989 to 1995." "Are you sure that is James Jones? That must be a mistake. Surely it was Janet Jones."
Then what? Who is fined? What happens? This is the law of unintended consequences as part of this Bill.
I have put down Amendment No. 116 to show how harsh the penalty is in Clause 21. Not only would people who disclose this information get a criminal conviction, they could be fined up to £5,000. This is on a par with Section 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It stipulates the same maximum fine for the offence of having sex in a public toilet. This is clearly out of all proportion. I beg to move.
Baroness Mollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall be as brief as I can without intending any discourtesy to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. If she feels there are points that I have not answered I will be happy to follow them up in writing, but the hour is late.
Amendment No. 113 deals with marriage. The Bill contains in Schedule 4 a conscience clause which is intended to provide for the situation of ministers of the

659
Church of England or the Church in Wales who have a profound difficulty in marrying a person who has been recognised in the acquired gender. The government amendment on this issue has already been presented. Ministers of other religious bodies, as we discussed on the previous day on Report, are not obliged to solemnise marriages.
With regard to the remainder of the amendment from the noble Baroness, this also seeks to provide exemption from the prohibition on disclosure but this time in order to provide religious bodies with the knowledge needed to restrict employment, or membership, or the provision of benefit facilities or services, in such a way as to exclude a person who is recognised in the acquired gender, or who will not consent to the disclosure of any entry relating to him or her contained in the gender recognition register.
There is no need for a further exemption to the disclosure clause for these purposes, when, as we explained in Grand Committee, there are other ways for a religious minister or religious organisation to find out if a person is or is not a transsexual. We are talking about co-believers here. A religious organisation can simply ask the individual concerned, and I find it hard that a co-believer would knowingly lie to a member of the faith on which presumably their life is constructed.
If that notion of "good faith, bad faith" is passably manipulated, none the less it is possible for the religious organisation to acquire this information in a way that prevents even that potentially awkward question and answer session. A Church could, for example, ask to see the person's baptismal certificate. Given that the vast majority of people are baptised before the age of 18, and that no person can change gender before the age of 18, the baptismal certificate would reveal whether a person was transsexual. As I have said, a co-believer should be happy to share this information with a religious organisation that thinks it is important. There are other ways in which such sharing of information could occur discreetly.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, also raised a question about the level of penalties provided for breach of Clause 21. The effect of her amendment would be that the maximum penalty for breach of Clause 21 would be a £200 fine as opposed to the present maximum of £5,000, which is the upper limit. The precise sentence is for a judge to determine. The amendment would provide that even in a case where disclosure was made maliciously with intent to harm a transsexual person, the maximum penalty would be £200. That hardly seems a sufficient sanction for an act that could cause considerable harm, considerable distress and could become the cause for further acts of discrimination, harassment and abuse.
If the noble Baroness is concerned about the position of people who make a prohibited disclosure inadvertently, clearly that is a matter which the judge would be expected to take into account as part of the deliberations on sentence. Although the harm to the transsexual person would be no less it would be surprising if in those circumstances a judge was to impose a maximum penalty.
660
If, instead, the noble Baroness is concerned about disclosures that were made for a legitimate reason, we do not think this is the way to address that concern. Clause 21 already provides for a range of exceptions that seek to describe what counts as legitimate reasons for disclosure. Protected information and worries about criminality are obvious examples. Clause 21 also contains an order-making power for providing further exceptions to be used as and when a need to provide further exceptions is identified in future.
I am not sure whether I have persuaded the noble Baroness, but I have done my best to answer the questions she raised. I hope that as a result she feels able to withdraw her amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. As always, she has been gracious and helpful. I do not disagree with all that she says. A couple of points she made were valid.
The noble Baroness said that this clause concerns marriage. That is right, but I am hooking more issues on to that, as can be seen from the wording of the amendment, to cover other situations. We return to the point in Grand Committee when the noble Baroness referred to good faith, bad faith and co-believers. However, she made a suggestion tonight which I had not thought of and which is very valid; that is, the baptism certificate. I shall take that away and consider it. I am grateful to her for that suggestion.
The Minister also said that the sentence is for the judge to determine. That did not fill me with a great deal of confidence. Unfortunately, if someone inadvertently discloses information, as in my example of the administration manager of the small market town accountancy firm, that would still result in a criminal offence. I am very concerned that someone should inadvertently find themselves in that situation. It is up to the judge to decide whether or not there is a valid case to answer but that could result in a criminal offence. That worries me. The kind of situation I described could not occur frequently. After all, we are told that there are only 5,000 transsexuals or thereabouts and the chances of them applying for jobs in such accountancy firms are probably remote. However, it could occur and it would be dreadful if the Bill put people in those situations.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Baroness to Clause 21(4)(c) which provides that where the person does not know, no offence has been committed.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, in the complexity of the Bill, that escaped me. I suppose I got carried away. I shall also take up the offer of discussions between now and Third Reading. The Minister is shaking his head. I will read what the noble Baroness said, and in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Southwell The Lord Bishop of Southwell moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 9, line 12, at end insert ", or
(k) the disclosure is in relation to any matter referred to in section 19(4) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65) (ministers of religion etc.) as amended by Schedule 6 to this Act"
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I move this amendment which stands in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. The amendment relates to the sensitive issue of disclosure of the fact that a person has undergone the gender recognition process under the Bill. When I moved Amendment No. 99, I spoke about appointments, training for ministry or ordination or some other form of authorisation for ministers in Churches or faith communities. That is linked to this amendment.
However, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester also explained in some detail at Committee Stage that the present amendment was needed to ensure that members of religious bodies who are responsible for decisions on those matters can be told in confidence the relevant facts, without the risk of someone committing a criminal offence. Providing safeguards on this is a vital part of safeguarding the Church's right to exercise freedom of conscience in reaching such decisions. That is why this amendment is before your Lordships again today.
We recognise that there are issues of human rights here. Nevertheless, the Minister will appreciate how essential it is to strike a proper balance between the rights of all those concerned. That includes the Churches and faith communities who number transgender persons with deep religious convictions among their members. We ought to be sensitive to their vulnerability.
At Committee Stage, the Minister indicated that if any provision was needed it should be made by regulations. The Church of England would not be opposed, in principle, to taking that approach, if it proved to be the most satisfactory one. Although I cannot speak for other Churches and faith communities, one would expect the same to apply to them. I stress that we are concerned with the need to address some problem areas that present real practical difficulties, as well as issues in principle. So far, the suggestions for overcoming them without legislation seem at best to provide only a partial answer.
That is why before abandoning the possibility of an amendment to the Bill, we need at least some reassurance from the Minister that the Government recognise that there are genuine problems. The discussions between officials, which are already in progress, could continue in their present, constructive spirit, against that background. It is in search of such reassurance that I speak to this amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, most of these issues have already been explored, but I hope that I can address the right reverend Prelate's concerns. We are discussing the position with the
662
Church of England. We would be interested to hear the views of other religious organisations. If it is demonstrated that an exemption is necessary, we will provide for that in secondary legislation.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 117:
Leave out Clause 21.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I seek, in moving this amendment, to remove Clause 21 to make this a much better Bill. A number of amendments have been moved that have touched on Clause 21. I have not spoken, except for very briefly, on this Bill before, but I have attended Second Reading, Grand Committee, and Report stage. I have great sympathy for those suffering from gender dysphoria. It is entirely reasonable that those who seek to change or redefine their gender should, after a proper review of their cases, be given official recognition of this fact.
It would have been better for this to have been done through changing administrative procedures, as I understand is done in certain other countries, rather than bringing in a whole Bill for it. It would be a simple procedure to issue a certificate stating that a gender change had been completed. The issuing of a second birth certificate, which would have the same date as the original certificate, would, at the least, be a rather confusing use of government documentation, although the Government will not say that. I was glad to hear on the first day of Report that the original certificate is retained and is available to those who ask for it. The second certificate could be seen as something of a fake.
There are, of course, documents that must be re-issued when they expire—a passport is an obvious example—but those are successor documents that, in no way, purport to be the first and original document issued. I object to the attempt to keep secret the fact that the gender change has been recognised. I use the word "secret" advisedly because Clause 21 makes it a criminal offence to disclose the information. That takes us far beyond the normal considerations of privacy. I am one of those who believe that the civil right to privacy in many situations should be extended.
I recognise that, in cases involving national security, governments must issue false documents to protect intelligence agents and others and, sometimes, police officers. It is also sometimes necessary to create false identities for reasons of witness protection. However, we should hesitate to create fresh criminal offences, with all the attendant implications. We should be sure that they are absolutely necessary. We should remember that the police must enforce such legislation, and they have enough to do already. I am sure that the Minister will say that she anticipates that little police time will be needed, but I would have thought that, as we are not in the business of extending the police further with this Bill, it would be undesirable

663
to bring in a new criminal offence. As far as I am aware, Clause 21 is not required by the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights.
Clause 21 goes absurdly wide and is riddled with contradictions, some of which my noble friend Lady O'Cathain referred to. In many ways, it could be unenforceable. In the Explanatory Notes, the paragraph relating to Clause 21 states that,
"the prohibition extends only to information acquired in 'an official capacity' and so does not cover information acquired purely in a private capacity".
The implication is that civil servants should not be allowed to pass on information that they have acquired in an official policy. Obviously, that is right. It is normal practice and would probably still be covered by the Official Secrets Act 1989 and by the remaining sections of the Official Secrets Act 1911. However, Clause 21 goes far wider than the Explanatory Notes suggest. It covers anyone involved as an employer or prospective employer and anyone involved in "the conduct of business".
The definition of protected information is information that,
"concerns the person's gender before it becomes the acquired gender".
As my noble friend pointed out, that could cause tremendous complications for any employer who has a CV for somebody who presents themselves as a prospective employee and wants to check back. It creates questions about the legitimacy of the check. My noble friend Lord Ferrers also gave examples of questions about the extent to which inquiries can be made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, said several times last week that information on individuals— an original birth certificate, for example—would normally be available only to close relations. Frankly, society is much wider than that.
We have been told throughout our discussions that some 5,000 people will be affected by the Bill. How many will mind people knowing that they have changed gender? I suspect that many will be so relieved to have received the official recognition that they desire, and which most of us support that they should have, that they will be inclined, to use the recent words of the Home Secretary, to open a bottle and invite their friends round. There are many other medical conditions, such as venereal diseases and psychological conditions, especially those relating to sexual dysfunction or aberration when there are far stronger arguments for secrecy, yet the general acceptance of the right of privacy provides adequate attention.
In most cases, changed gender will already be well known to friends and neighbours. I cannot see many unconnected private people seeking out information to abuse privacy. In any case, I do not believe that Clause 21, as drafted, will guard against that. I emphasise that the danger of discrimination against people for gender change will be well covered by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
In summary, I would argue that Clause 21 is unnecessary, unenforceable and undesirable, and the Bill would be better without it. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I wonder whether I might tweak the Minister's tail just a little again.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but the Companion tells us that visual aids are not allowed in the Chamber. It is very emphatic on that. I apologise if I have spoilt the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, with every respect to the noble Lord, if we were to go down that path, Ministers could not read their briefs. I do not accept that his is a rightful interpretation of the Companion, and I shall proceed as I intended regardless.
The visual aid which I have, which is rather akin to the visual aids used by Ministers, is nothing more nor less than my birth certificate. I am sorry if the noble Lord does not like birth certificates to be produced in the House, but I shall continue to produce mine.
I notice on the right hand side, it says:
"Insert in this margin any notes which appear in the original entry".
If anyone were to seek a copy of my birth certificate, it would be incumbent on the registrar to insert in the margin notes that appeared in the original entry. If I decided that I should change sex and got the approval of the gender recognition panel for a change of gender, a certificate would be issued in which it would be forbidden to insert the notes in the margin. As I said earlier, to which the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, did not allude in his reply, it cautions any person who falsifies any of the particulars on the certificate, or who uses it as true knowing it to be false, and he would be liable to prosecution under the Forgery Act or the Perjury Act.
The Government should sort out the implications of that before resisting the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Marlesford to delete Clause 21. Plainly they have not thought the matter through. If the Bill is enacted and a new birth certificate is copied, it would not have on it what was on the original. It would therefore be false. It would not be adequate according to the birth certificate which I have, and it would constitute either fraud or perjury. The Government need to think their way through that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first, I shall comment on the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, before turning to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, hung an issue on an available amendment which essentially is that he believes that any re-registration in the new gender, by virtue of a new birth certificate, is in some way fraudulent and makes one a liar. I believe that is where he comes from. I suspect that there will be absolutely no meeting of minds on this matter.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am saying that in my case the original birth certificate would state that I was

665
born a boy. If I had a change of gender and acquired the appropriate certificate, a new birth would state that I was born a girl. Quite clearly, those two certificates would be in conflict.
Baroness Mollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is because the noble Lord thinks that the second birth certificate would, in some sense, be a lie because it differed from the first birth certificate. The point is that the second certificate would be a new certificate and not a copy of the original. Therefore, it would be as valid a document as the original birth certificate. That is the position of the Government. I know that the noble Lord does not accept that and that other noble Lords also may not accept it, but that is the whole point of having a new birth certificate.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall defer to the wishes of the House. We can spar, but I am mindful that the House will want, if possible, to complete Report stage tonight. However, if the noble Earl insists on speaking, of course I shall give way.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to trouble the noble Baroness any more.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his courtesy. I return to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Changing gender is a difficult process. It is difficult in terms of the person's own identity and in terms of his or her relationship with other people. I believe that we would all accept that respect for a person's private life means that we must alleviate some of the dangers of humiliation, embarrassment and harassment.
As we have discussed, it is a medical condition whereby a person feels driven to live in the opposite gender. I do not think that being reminded of the original gender, being confronted by it regularly, having others knowing that you suffer from the medical condition and knowing that they might be talking about it, is conducive to feeling secure. I believe that that makes it difficult to live in the acquired gender in dignity.
That is why the Bill contains protections for the privacy of transsexual people, a privacy that is in accord with ECHR, despite the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. We have checked on that. These protections prevent harm to the transsexual person and to his or her family and friends. In turn, do they cause harm to others?
In Clause 21, as your Lordships have already discussed, there are references to exclusions, crime detection and hearings before courts and tribunals where information of the original birth gender may be properly disclosed. Clause 21 also has another important limit. Not only does it enumerate a list of exceptions that allow disclosure where it is justified in terms of public policy, but it extends only to information that is acquired in an official capacity, as
666
the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, recognises. It does not intrude into the private sphere; it is not for the state to determine what friends may or may not say to each other about another friend or what family members may talk about. The law has limits beyond which ethics alone must suffice. With those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, it is late and uncharacteristically the noble Baroness has given a self-contradictory reply. She started off by talking about the importance of Clause 21 which is to ensure that people do not chat or gossip about the situation, so making people feel uncomfortable with having had a gender change. Then she went on to point out that the limitations of Clause 21 would not make the slightest difference to that because it does not involve private people next door to each other who do not come under the limits drawn by Clause 21. Therefore, I go back to my point. Recognising the need for privacy and recognising that there is already provision for privacy under general practices, I found the Minister's answer unconvincing. It is an important issue. The Bill would be greatly improved without the clause, precisely because it meets a danger that is not there and does not meet a danger that the Minister suggested was avoided by it.
However, it is perhaps a little late in the evening to test the opinion of the House, so, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [Power to modify statutory instruments]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 10, line 3, at end insert—
"( ) Before an order is made under this section, appropriate consultation must be undertaken with persons likely to be affected by it."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 119 to 121:
Page 10, line 5, after "State," insert "the Chancellor of the Exchequer,"
Page 10, line 9, after "State" insert ", the Chancellor of the Exchequer"
Page 10, line 12, at end insert—

"( ) No order may be made under section 2 or paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 10, line 14, leave out "2" and insert "7"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 10, line 17, after "section" insert "21 or"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 126 to 128 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Commencement]:
On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, when we debated in Grand Committee whether Clause 25 should stand part of the Bill, I expressed my belief that the Bill should not come into force until the civil partnership Bill is enacted. We should have had an opportunity to debate that Bill first, particularly given the difficulty that many noble Lords, including myself, have had with coming to terms with a Bill that requires, in the event of an individual wishing to acquire full gender recognition, that he or she must, if married, go through the process of a divorce or annulment. If the civil partnership Bill does not reach the statute book, those who have divorced in order to acquire full gender recognition will be left in a terrible limbo.
I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester is not in his place because I wanted to take this opportunity to confirm that I do not believe that marriage and civil partnership are the same. Noble Lords may remember from our debate in Grand Committee that the right reverend Prelate was concerned at the suggestion that one could move seamlessly from marriage to a civil partnership arrangement. I would wish to see the process and time frame of moving from one state, marriage, to another, civil partnership, being made as smooth and straightforward as possible. That does not mean that the status of being in a civil partnership is equal to that of marriage.
I fear that by debating this Bill prior to the publication of a civil partnership Bill we are able only to hope that the latter will be enacted and will contain provisions to allow couples to enjoy some of the legal—I stress, legal—obligations proposed, for example, in the Private Member's Bill that was introduced in 2002 by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Heme Hill.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, we spoke briefly on these issues last week during the first day of Report. I then put on record that it was the Government's intent to introduce the civil partnership Bill into this House by the end of March. I think that that is the first time that that had been referred to publicly. The consequence of that if, as we hope, it makes sensible progress—I note with gratitude the expression of support from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to that effect—is that this Bill should go live in April 2005 and the civil partnership Bill would go live in about October 2005, some six months later.
In short, a transsexual person who was married and wished to have their acquired gender recognised in law would be able, if they wished, to move ahead forthwith. Alternatively, if they wished to avail themselves of the very simple transition that we believe we have identified—from the married status through divorce to civil partnership, the final stages of which
668
we believe could be done in one day—they could wait until then. Therefore, they are in control of whether they move ahead forthwith or stay in their position.
That is a decent choice, but it is not a good reason for not proceeding with allowing transsexual people who are married and do not wish to wait until the civil partnership provision is in place to avail themselves of the legal opportunity as soon as possible or, indeed, the vast majority of transsexual people who are single.
I am with the noble Baroness in terms of intent—we want this process to be as quick as possible. If the gap is only six months, that is excellent. We have made the transition process as short and simple as possible—it can be as short as one day. People are in control of what they do. We feel this is the best possible situation, recognising that the two pieces of legislation cannot be synchronised exactly. I hope, with that explanation on the record, the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not want to detain the House tonight, but I believe the Government should accept that it is wrong in principle to introduce one Bill, encourage noble Lords to support it and see it through to the statute book, before a Bill such as the civil partnership measure, which is of great importance to this Bill, is passed.
The provisions of the civil partnership Bill will, as we understand it, enable those who have to go through this really difficult process of divorce to be able to move to another form of legal status such as a civil partnership. However, I believe the Government have got it wrong; they have introduced the wrong Bill at the wrong time. The Government should have introduced the civil partnership Bill, seen it through and then, assuming that it makes it on to the statute book, introduce this very difficult Gender Recognition Bill that requires noble Lords to accept the notion that there must be a divorce or annulment if an individual wants to have full gender recognition when that individual is married and is changing gender.
As I have said, I do not want to detain noble Lords tonight, but I believe this is a matter of principle. However, I will not press the Question.
Clause 26 [Applications within six months of commencement]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 11, line 7, leave out from "applies" to end of line 15 and insert "where applications are made under section 1(1)(a) during the period of two years beginning with the appointed day ("the initial period").

(1A) Section 2(1)(a) has effect as if there were inserted at the end "or has undergone surgical treatment for the purpose of modifying sexual characteristics,"

(1B) In the case of an application which—

(a) is made during the first six months of the initial period, or

(b) is made during the rest of the initial period and is based on the applicant having undergone surgical treatment for the purpose of modifying sexual characteristics,

669
section 2(1)(b) has effect as if for "two" there were substituted "six".
(2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply in the case of an application to which subsection (1B) applies and in the case of an application—

(a) made during the rest of the initial period,

(b) based on the applicant having or having had gender dysphoria, and

(c) including a statutory declaration by the applicant that the applicant has lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of six years ending with the date on which the application is made."

The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, expressed the view in Committee that six months might be too short a time, taking into account the fact that some transsexual people may not become aware of the simplified procedure or that there might be extraneous circumstances outside their control which prevent them applying within the period.
In considering the noble Lord's arguments, I also considered a situation in which a married transsexual person who will have to end the marriage before he or she acquires full recognition may wish to wait for civil partnership legislation to come into effect so the relationship can be put back on a legal footing almost immediately. I am therefore proposing that the simplified procedure should be available for the first two years of the operation of the gender recognition panels. That should provide sufficient time for a transsexual person to find out about the process, prepare an application and make all the necessary arrangements, especially where a spouse or children of the family are involved.
The simplified procedure will be exclusive for the first six months. It is only fair that applications from those transsexual people who have lived in the acquired gender for a long time have their applications dealt with first. For a further 18 months the simplified procedure will run alongside the standard application procedure.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Carlile of Berriew, Amendment No. 130, seeks to make the provisions in
670
Clause 26 available to any person who is able to satisfy the panel that he or she was entitled to apply on those provisions in the first two years of the operation of the panels but has a reasonable explanation for not doing so. I am concerned as to how the panel would be expected to exercise the discretion that is proposed. The amendment provides no guidance on what would constitute a reasonable explanation. The amendment would add discretionary aspects to the panel's deliberations and would decrease the simplicity and clarity of the panel's work. I also wonder whether the amendment would make the panel unduly vulnerable to challenge when exercising its discretion in this matter.
I am convinced that the government amendment that I have outlined is an uncomplicated solution that addresses the concerns raised in Committee and those of the noble Lords whose amendment is before us today. It is unclear what further advantage their amendment would bring. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I put forward two amendments in Committee. One was to extend the fast-track period from six months to 12 months; the second was to allow discretionary applications to be made after the end of the 12-month period. The Government now propose to extend the fast-track period to not one year but two years. I regard that as adequate and I shall therefore not seek to move the amendment calling for a further discretionary extension.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Extent]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 11, line 41, leave out paragraph (a).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Energy Bill [H.L.]
  (Fifth Day)
  Tuesday, 3 February 2004.
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): Before starting, may I remind Members that the usual procedures in Grand Committee apply? There are not normally Divisions on amendments; they are not normally moved; and if a Division should be called in the Chamber I shall adjourn the Grand Committee for approximately 10 minutes in order that Members may vote if they so wish.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty) moved Amendment No. 103A:
  After Clause 73, insert the following new clause—
  APPLICATION OF THE 1965 ACT TO NORTHERN IRELAND

  (1) Sections 3(1A) and (6A), 4(3A) and 5(1A) of the 1965 Act (which require certain consultations in relation to nuclear site licences) shall extend to Northern Ireland.

  (2) Section 27 of that Act (application of that Act to Northern Ireland) is amended as follows.

  (3) For subsection (1) substitute—

  "(1) In the application of this Act to Northern Ireland—

  (a) a reference to the Minister shall be construed as a reference to the Secretary of State;

  (b) sections 3(1A) and (6A), 4(3A) and 5(1 A) shall have effect as if—

  (i) for 'appropriate Agency', wherever occurring, there were substituted 'Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland';

  (ii) for 'Great Britain', wherever occurring, there were substituted 'Northern Ireland';

  (iii) for 'Health and Safety Executive', wherever occurring, there were substituted 'Minister';

  (c) section 3(3) shall have effect as if for paragraphs (b) and (c) there were substituted—

  '(ca) the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland; and'."

  (4) Subsections (2) and (3) shall cease to have effect.

  (5) In subsection (5), for paragraphs (a) to (c) substitute—

  "(a) by the Minister; or

  (b) by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland."

  (6) Subsection (6) shall cease to have effect."

  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 103A seeks to correct some anomalies in Northern Ireland legislation. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides that nuclear energy and installations are excepted matters. The Act made no consequential amendments to the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 and, as a result, there are provisions in the 1965 Act which are now inconsistent with the Northern Ireland Act. Consequently, the purpose of this group of amendments is to amend such provisions in the 1965 Act to reflect the devolution settlement in the 1998 Act.
  The amendments to Sections 3(1A) and (6A), 4(3A) and 5(1A) of the 1965 Act extend the consultation requirements in respect of a nuclear site licence to Northern Ireland in the event that a licence is granted there. At present, these consultation requirements apply only in respect of a nuclear site licence in Great Britain.
  Section 27 of the 1965 Act deals with the application of certain provisions to Northern Ireland. The effect of this section is to substitute references with a UK meaning with references within the context of Northern Ireland—for example, the substitution of "Minister" with "Minister of Commerce for Northern Ireland" and so on. However, in light of the 1998 Act, most of the provisions in Section 27 are now otiose. Consequently the amendment repeals those provisions in Section 27 and updates the provisions that are still required to reflect the devolution settlement.
  In preparing the amendments we consulted with the relevant Northern Ireland authorities and they have been agreed. I hope the Committee will accept them. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I wish to ask the Minister only one question. It may very well be that my question will show that I am ignorant of the whole situation in regard to Northern Ireland. The Minister said that this is to reflect the devolution settlement, which we understand needs to be done. Can he tell us for the record what effect the present constitutional hiatus—which has been caused by the suspension of the legislative assembly and devolved government— will have on the amendment, given that the situation is rather fluid at the moment?
  Lord Whitty: The Ministers currently operating in Northern Ireland during the suspension of the Assembly are appointed by the UK Government but are working under Northern Ireland legislation. It is therefore the later Northern Ireland legislation that determines their scope for action, and it is that which is inconsistent with the earlier Act.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 74 [Expenditure on nuclear related matters]:
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 104:
  Page 58, line 2, at end insert "; or
  (c) compliance with his duties under section (Maintenance of nuclear expertise)"
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 104, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 105. Amendment No. 104 simply seeks to add a subsection to the expenditure clause of the Bill; Amendment No. 105 is the substantive amendment.
  There has been a widespread recognition both inside and outside the House that the steady fall in the number of undergraduate and postgraduate students studying nuclear related courses—in particular full time courses for nuclear science and nuclear engineering—will, if it is not reversed, create serious difficulty for the NDA, its regulators and other agencies. In particular, if it is not speedily reversed, the credibility of the Government's aim to keep open the nuclear option will be further eroded.
  Although the building of new nuclear stations and power stations will require the services primarily of civil, mechanical and electrical engineers, those who design and commission such stations will need the services of many skilled specialist nuclear scientists and engineers. It has been remarked in many quarters that the professional workforce of the present operators is ageing, with most professional grade staff already over the age of 40.
  When I raised this matter in the House the other day I referred to the number of constituencies—around about 80—which have nuclear installations in them, and to the number of full-time staff working in those various installations, about 60,000.
  I contrasted that with the fact that there are now no full-time undergraduate courses at our universities for nuclear scientists or engineers, and only one full-time postgraduate course, which is at Birmingham University. The reaction in the House was quite stark. To many noble Lords, that seemed a startling state of affairs that justified giving rise to anxiety.
  Last June, I tabled a Written Question on the availability of courses. I received a Written Answer— as reported at col. WA 42 of Hansard for 26 June 2003—from the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, at the education department. She gave a long list of places with postgraduate courses, but had to admit that at that time no universities were offering undergraduate courses specifically in nuclear science and engineering.
  It quickly became clear to me that, even as regards the postgraduate courses, that was a very misleading Answer. I asked the noble Baroness's office where I could pursue the issue of those courses. From where did her department obtain the information? It came from the Health and Safety Executive, under which the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate now operates.
  My inquiries made it clear that the vast majority of postgraduate courses are very part-time modules; some are for perhaps only a few hours a week for one term. I am happy to pay tribute to Dr Peter Storey, head of the research and radiation unit at the HSE, based in Bootle, for giving me much of the information that I shall convey to the Grand Committee.
  I also tabled further Written Questions in July and received Written Answers—reported in Hansard at col. WA 94 on 1 July and at cols. WA 110 and WA 111 on 2 July. I merely refer to those and do not quote them. They do not give any more information than Dr Storey has been kind enough to give me. I refer to them simply as evidence that I have been pursuing the issue for some time.
  Dr Storey sent me various reports. I said that the reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, was misleading. It was also considerably out of date, being based on information that went back to 2001. Dr Storey was, first, able to give me an update on nuclear education at British universities dated December 2003. Apparently that information will shortly appear on the relevant website.
  The list Dr Storey gave was quite interesting. I imagine that the universities are in no particular order. New teaching within the nuclear area at the University of Cambridge has been introduced in the form of a module on electricity and the environment within the MPhil in technology policy. The nuclear content of that degree is about 3 per cent. The City University does rather better. The MSc in energy and environmental technology and economics now has two new nuclear elements. The noble lord, Lord Whitty, will be pleased to hear that one is decommissioning—50 per cent nuclear and 50 per cent offshore—and the other is risk analysis for management. Companies such as British Energy, BNFL, UKAEA and the NII provide lecturers for the course.
  UHI, which will become the University of Highlands and Islands when it achieves university status in 2007, will collaborate with universities abroad—in particular, the Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble and the National Institute for Nuclear Sciences and Technology in France, the CEA's training and education arm—in an initiative to establish common standards for a vocational and academic training in decommissioning. In Imperial College, the radiochemistry laboratory, which dates back to 1971, has now been completely refurbished. However, the counting equipment, which dates from the 1980s, still awaits updating.
  I shall not go through the whole list. The Victoria University of Manchester is developing a proposed MSc in nuclear engineering and continues in line to offer the course from September 2004. Project Dalton involves the university, the North-West Development Agency and BNFL in establishing a new institution at Manchester focused on nuclear science and engineering. The report states:
  "Although primarily linked to nuclear decommissioning and clean up, Dalton will also create links with other areas, such as fusion and nuclear medicine".
  I pause to remind the Committee that when we discussed research, it was remarked that there was currently no research under way in nuclear fission and all the Government's effort was going into fusion, which may be some decades off.
  Other institutions are mentioned in an update of the Answers of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland. We also briefly discussed the question of collaboration in Europe. The European Nuclear Engineering Network is a fifth framework initiative involving 22 universities from 17 EU or candidate countries that aims to harmonise nuclear curricula in Europe and develop a European postgraduate masters course in nuclear engineering. Unsurprisingly, Britain is represented by Birmingham University, which, as I said, runs the only postgraduate course in nuclear engineering. So there are things going on, and we should say so and acknowledge what is happening.
  A short while ago, I mentioned Imperial College. At a recent conference I met Professor Hewitt of Imperial College, who told me something about and sent me details of the introduction to nuclear technology that is a third or fourth-year option course offered by the college. As one might have suspected, it turns out to be an afternoons-only course for one day a week— Tuesday afternoons from 20 January through to 3 March—covering an interesting list of subjects but, as Professor Hewitt states in his covering note to me:
  "Our course is a modest effort compared to what is needed at, say, MSc level to give an in-depth training".
  He continues—the Minister will welcome this point—
  "but the response [to] higher level courses has been insufficient to allow them to continue".
  There is some evidence that the publication of the Government's White Paper on decommissioning has sparked some interest in students thinking there might be a good opportunity for future employment, but it is still very small. Professor Hewitt is saying that, as a result of what has been said by the Government— indeed, one might say as a result of what is in the Bill, and certainly in the White Paper—to the vast majority of students, many of whom will study chemistry or engineering at undergraduate level, the nuclear industry appears to be a dying industry. Is it surprising that a young man or woman looking for a career with long-term potential might turn away from it?
  I find all that very worrying. Dr Storey gave me a very interesting report about what had gone on in the past. It is quite clear that despite the apparent disincentives and the lack of interest on the part of Ministers, certainly until quite recently, other government agencies that need the services of trained graduate and postgraduate nuclear scientists and engineers have become increasingly concerned. Many have taken steps to do something about the problem. In February 2001, there was a nuclear education forum, of which I have been sent details, but I do not need to weary the Committee with those details. Its detailed proceedings are available to anyone who wants to pursue them.
  There was an OECD report in 2000, to which I referred briefly at Second Reading, entitled Nuclear Education and Training—Causes for Concern?, which was based on an extensive survey of 16 OECD member states including the UK. For the UK it states that,
  GC 288
  unless action is taken, the prospects of maintaining a nuclear education capability for the future are not good. A brief summary of the report states that:
  "The possible implications of a decline in nuclear education and teaching arise because the future safe operation of the nuclear facilities in the UK is in part dependent on the continued availability of appropriate skills and expertise".
  That was the central point of the passage to which I referred at Second Reading. We cannot expect to be able to operate safely and effectively unless we have the trained staff to be able to do that. It is extremely worrying that there seems to be so much doubt about the continued attractiveness and availability of such courses.
  I said a few moments ago that there is some evidence that, although the publication of the White Paper about decommissioning has stimulated some increased interest to most young people contemplating where their career ambitions lie, the nuclear industry is not seen to have a future. The industry is doing what it can. BNFL, a leading firm in the industry, has established a centre of excellence at Manchester University, but it tells me that without more government encouragement it is proving an uphill task. I could go on, but I have said enough on the problems that the country faces as we move into this century, and the tasks that need to be done if we are to be able to deal with the matter sensibly.
  Only this morning, I was able to lay my hands on a copy of the DTI's Consultation paper on proposals for intermediate level radioactive waste substitution. The consultants happen to be an American firm, but I make no quarrel about that, as there was a perfectly good competitive tendering process. In the very long report they recommended almost exactly what the Science and Technology Committee of this House, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, who knows more about the subject than all of us put together, recommended—that the Government should get ahead with substitution, and that it is a question of what you import, what you must re-export and so on. The consultants gave a very clear endorsement of what we said. Without attribution, that is how such things go. It could not possibly be done if one did not have the trained manpower who could understand the complicated nuclear science involved in judging whether it is right to take in more intermediate-level waste and instead to export high-level waste back to the countries where it is generated, or to stay where we are. I mention that in passing.
  Perhaps there is a glimmer on the horizon. I have been given to understand that the Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is leading a study of the problem. One has read almost nothing about that—at least I have not, although I try to follow the subject fairly closely—so I have a series of questions to put to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Who is taking part in this study? Will it produce a report, and when? Will the report be published? Is this area of nuclear education on the agenda of the sustainable energy policy network (SEPN), which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, in two Written Answers to me on

  GC 289
  12 January 2004? The noble Lord said that all the departments concerned may be involved in the work of the SEPN.
  Is that body looking at the question of nuclear education and training, particularly at higher education level? I am told that some 18 government departments and agencies make up the SEPN. How many people attend SEPN meetings? Perhaps I should submit a Question on the matter, but it has been suggested that it may be 120 people. It is not a decision-making body; it is a sort of Parliament. Is that the way to carry forward such a highly technical subject, or is it delegated to smaller groups? I hope that the Minister can tell us more of the SEPN's role. In particular, I hope that he can throw more light on the study being undertaken by the Chief Scientific Adviser. Knowing Sir David King well, I have considerable faith in his ability and seriousness; after all, he is one of the most outspoken government officials, who has made no secret of his view that there will have to be a new nuclear build. He deserves credit for that.
  Amendment No. 105 would require the Government to,
  "establish and maintain a register of nuclear scientists, engineers and technicians currently working … and of those being trained and graduating … in relevant courses in British universities or elsewhere in the United Kingdom".
  That puts the responsibility for that important subject firmly on the shoulders of the Government. They need to satisfy the country that they are taking the necessary action about a situation that threatens our nuclear future.
  The second part of the amendment requires the Government to maintain and publish a comprehensive programme of research, with particular reference to designs of new nuclear power stations and technology right across the world. We dealt with the subject of research on an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain earlier in the proceedings of the Grand Committee, and I certainly do not intend to return to that at any length. However, I must say that we still await a clear statement on the further measures that Mr Stephen Timms—the Minister who counts energy as one of his many responsibilities—told the energy choices committee in December were to be expected, with £5 million widely regarded as quite inadequate.
  Amendment No. 105 is intended entirely seriously. The Government have to recognise their responsibilities in terms of both trained scientific and engineering manpower for the future, and making sure that the country keeps properly up to date and able to deal with new nuclear designs and technology as it becomes available. I hope that we shall get a rather stronger answer than we have had from Ministers so far on the subject, because it is one of huge importance. I beg to move.
  4 p.m.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: As a complete amateur on this subject, I would like not only to support the
  GC 290
  amendment, but to say that I think that we are discussing the nub of the whole Bill. The Government, for understandable reasons up to a point, have been so taken over by their public relations that they are in fact failing the nation in a number of ways at present on quite serious and important fronts. Some of that is being discussed in the Chamber at the moment, but we are talking about energy.
  It is quite clear from the statistics and the discussions so far at Second Reading and in Committee—it will become clearer as we go through the next part of the Bill—that the importance of wind and wave power is completely subsidiary to what my noble friend has talked about. The public relations of the Government are causing them to get us all diverted on to discussing wind power ad nauseam. People are very interested in it, of course, because it comes near their homes and so on. However, the truth is that there is an urgent need to begin to get new nuclear power off the ground in this country. We need nuclear build, to develop the technologies for the safest possible nuclear build, and we need the people to do it.
  My noble friend made a rather long speech, and people may have thought it a bit long. I do not believe that it was a bit too long. In fact, he identified in rather a shocking way the level of effort going into the training of nuclear scientists, engineers and technicians at present. It is rather small. People will not want to embark on a career if they do not think that there will be jobs at the end, and they cannot tell whether there are. All they know about is decommissioning, windmills, sea power and so on. They cannot be certain about nuclear power, and yet it is inevitable—we all know that in our heart of hearts. All we do is talk about keeping the nuclear option open. If we do not look out, we will still be doing that when the lights go out. So what my noble friend said is important. I do not know whether including an amendment such as this in the Bill is the right way to proceed; the important thing is that the Government should be responsible for ensuring that our academic institutions have the confidence to set up courses and that people have the confidence to apply to go on them. The amendment is very important. I hope that the Government are not just going to talk to us about keeping the nuclear option open, because that is becoming a joke.
  Lord Ezra: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has raised an important issue of energy policy. I shall concentrate more specifically on expertise in decommissioning, with which the Bill specifically deals, and ask the Minister whether he considers that Clause 7(1)(d), which refers to,
  "educating and training persons about those matters"—
  namely, decommissioning—gives adequate emphasis to the important task that lies ahead in that area. That does not cover the whole range of nuclear activity to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred, but it is specifically relevant to the Bill. I should like to know

  GC 291
  whether that rather loose wording is adequate for the important task of training in decommissioning involved.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My noble friend Lady Carnegy was right when she said that the amendment gets to the nub of the matter. The Government continually tell us that they are keeping the nuclear option open, and I restrict my words in that manner, so I do not go as far as my noble friend. If the Government are serious about keeping the nuclear option open, it is clear that people must be studying and achieving in that field to do all those jobs.
  I totally agree with my noble friend when she said that she did not think that the speech of my noble friend Lord Jenkin was one word too long. In fact, as I listened to the research that he has performed over many years and the depths to which he has gone to find out about all the courses—how some are just part time or one day a week, and so on—and putting the matter into context, I thought that no one sitting in Committee could fail to have been impressed, but also worried about the lack of facilities that he discussed.
  The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to Clause 7, which restricts the matter that my noble friend discussed to what the NDA can do in research, education and so on. He referred to Clause (7)(l)(d), which mentions,
  "educating and training persons about those matters".
  That wording is loose and it will be interesting to hear what the Minister says about that. I am looking in two directions because I am not sure which Minister will reply.
  Paragraph (a) of that subsection states:
  "carrying out research into matters relating to the decommissioning of nuclear installations, the cleaning-up of nuclear sites and the other activities in relation to which it has functions".
  I am interested to know what are those other activities. Does the Minister think that Amendment No. 105, which mentions courses, would provide sufficient training for people to perform all the tasks that are duties of the NDA? I am now talking in a narrower sense than the larger one to which my noble friend Lady Carnegy referred.
  Lord Tombs: I think that this amendment goes to the heart of maintaining the nuclear option. For that reason it is crucial.
  I should like to make two detailed points. First, subsection (1) of Amendment No. 105 says that the Secretary of State will,
  "maintain a register of nuclear scientists, engineers and technicians currently working in the field of nuclear power".
  In practice, most of the work done in nuclear power—whether it be building, operating, decommissioning nuclear power stations or providing for long-term or intermediate-term storage—is done by civil, mechanical, electrical and control engineers with a nuclear knowledge; not by narrowly trained nuclear engineers. That of course does not negate the need for a nuclear facility in the higher education system. However, I think that the provision would be
  GC 292
  greatly improved if the word "nuclear" were removed from the second line of subsection (1), so that it read, "a register of scientists, engineers and technicians currently working in the field of nuclear power".
  My second detailed point concerns the second line of subsection (3) of Amendment No. 105, where there is a reference to,
  "a comprehensive programme of research to identify designs of new nuclear power stations".
  There is no need to identify it; everyone who has developed one is publicising it for all they are worth. What is needed is scientific research to appraise them, to look at them critically and to look at their advantages and disadvantages. That would be a very fruitful and a very necessary field, which was certainly part of the process in the bad old days before privatisation.
  Quite apart from the points that the proposed new clause makes about a shrinking specialist force of manpower to maintain the declared option, it is necessary also to concentrate Ministers' minds in an area to which I think they have so far given scant attention.
  Lord Whitty: I think that we are in a little difficulty. First, it is difficult to see how the amendment fits into the structure of the Bill; it goes well beyond the structure outlined at the beginning. Secondly, it is difficult to try to disentangle many noble Lords' desire for a significant new nuclear component of energy provision from the Government's position of keeping open the nuclear option. Much of what has been said—the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, was particularly explicit about this—has been in support of a bigger nuclear programme. That clearly would require all sorts of significant skills and significant research, most of which would be funded, one assumes in today's circumstances, by the commercial providers of such power. Keeping the nuclear option open requires us to keep a reasonable level of expertise— both nuclear engineers in the proper sense and expertise in the other required skills—to ensure that we have sufficient technical advice to mobilise should a situation arise where we need new nuclear build.
  The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, raised a number of questions. Perhaps I should start with the strategic one of who takes decisions on all of this. He asked about the sustainable energy policy network. I think that the Committee should recognise that a whole structure was established as a result of the energy White Paper. The decision-making body is the ministerial group, established under the joint chairmanship of Patricia Hewitt and Margaret Beckett, which covers all government departments. That is the decision-making body and is supported by a sustainable energy policy board that also includes experts.
  There is also a wider network which is mobilised to feed in to that advice. The whole network meets roughly quarterly and has about 50 participants. That is not the decision-making body and was never intended to be. However, it does cover issues such as what skills are required to deliver the energy policy as a whole. There are training and research requirements

  GC 293
  in fields other than nuclear power, including renewables, energy efficiency and the delivery of other streams of the energy policy and so forth.
  As regards nuclear power itself, the amendments deal with the issues of both training and research. Let me concentrate first on the issue of training. It remains the case—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, may believe that some of the expertise is a little on the elderly side— that a significant part of energy expertise in this country is still nuclear based and that there is a high level of the nuclear engineers and other support engineers required. In terms of the amount of expertise around, nuclear power is not short of expertise.
  It is important that we maintain that expertise. Two years ago, the Government conducted a wide-ranging nuclear and radiological skills report, which was finalised in December 2002. That report indicated that we have an established stock of expertise and that there was no immediate problem, but that action was needed to avoid a future decline. It was in response to that report that the Government have assisted in the establishment of sector skills councils to represent the needs of the nuclear industry and that level. The Cogent Sector Skills Council, which is expected to be licensed shortly, will take a strategic view of the nuclear sector to ensure that the education and training base can meet the nuclear employers' current and future needs. As the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, indicated, that is not only in terms of the nuclear engineers required, but also in terms of chemical, electrical and other engineers.
  That, of course, does not immediately translate into undergraduate courses. It is unlikely that we will have many undergraduate courses in nuclear engineering as such. Therefore the modular approach, about which the noble Lord was at times disparaging, must be part of the approach to training at both undergraduate and postgraduate level.
  The Cogent Sector Skills Council currently represents the chemical, oil and gas sectors. There are many synergies in the various engineering and scientific skills and the nuclear sector. Once licensed, it will operate through a mix of sector skills development agencies and other industrial funding.
  As to the nuclear skills group, to which the noble Lord referred, the prospect of the NDA being established has already in the decommissioning area spurred other skills initiatives by a number of authorities, as the noble Lord acknowledged. Cogent has been actively engaged in this. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and others referred to some examples. The North West Development Agency is funding a nuclear skills project to support the siting of the NDA in the North West. Its main thrust is to develop a national nuclear academy, linking schools, vocational training centres and higher education institutions. While the focus will be on decommissioning skills, later stages of the project will enable all aspects of the nuclear sector to be considered.
  The noble Lord referred to Project Dalton, which concerns the merger of Victoria Manchester University and the Manchester Institute of
  GC 294
  Technology. This has led to a project funded by BNFL to forge collaboration among higher education institutes. Energy Foresight is working to develop educational material to support radiation related modules in the revisions to the 2005 schools curriculum. Some of the funding for that is provided by the North West Development Agency.
  The noble Lord also referred to the University of Highlands and Islands and the UKAEA, which have signed up to a more international development with the French Nuclear Energy Agency and the University of Grenoble to collaborate on nuclear skills. At European level there is the establishment of the nuclear fission research consortia.
  So education and skills development is being substantially backed by the Government in order to enable us to engage in both the decommissioning clean-up and the management of nuclear waste. We are also keeping open the option of a further nuclear contingent in future energy plans should the present strategy prove that we could not manage without new nuclear build. But even without new nuclear build, based on all projections, nuclear energy will continue to play a significant part in the delivery of electricity in this country well into the next two or three decades— certainly into the 2030s. We will therefore need to continue to develop those skills. The management of nuclear waste will take place well beyond that period.
  Therefore, we accept the need to ensure that a level of skills is available. However, the amendment requires the establishment of a register of such skills, a unique proposal that relates narrowly to nuclear scientists rather than all the skilled people that will be required. To some extent, it could represent an unnecessary level of bureaucracy and possibly even a restraint on people with a mix of skills who are not on the register from entering the industry. Companies involved in the industry may not necessarily welcome such a register.
  The amendment also deals with a funding issue that would not be appropriate for inclusion in this legislation. The noble Lord and others have said that £5 million—the research council's component of nuclear research—is insufficient, but it would be unusual for the Bill to determine the level or structure of expenditure on research. It is true that the level of nuclear research over the past years has reduced significantly. It is not a particularly recent development; it certainly does not relate to the energy White Paper or to this Government. The main drop in nuclear research followed the assessment made in the early 1990s and the statement made by Tim Eggar when he was Energy Minister. Effectively, he said that the bulk of research ought to be financed by the industry itself.
  This Government have also taken that position, while recognising their responsibilities to provide higher education and to keep an element of research going through the research councils and elsewhere. However, both the publicly and privately owned components of the nuclear energy industry must be the main funders of research, rather than central

  GC 295
  government funds. That is why in Clause 7 we have placed a responsibility for both research and training on the NDA, and existing responsibilities and activities are conducted by BNFL, UKAEA and the private sector in the field.
  As I have emphasised several times, the nuclear provisions of the Bill deal with the establishment of the NDA. That is why the NDA's functions are highlighted in the clause to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, drew attention. It does not cover the totality of research or training that would be required from the nuclear sector. It is a function of the new body established by the legislation, and it seems to give that agency adequate powers to carry out the research and training necessary to sustain the level of expertise needed.
  I recognise Members' concerns, and the fact that, along with the private sector and the public authorities in the nuclear sector, the Government have some responsibility to help maintain a level of expertise and research. Some of the research requirements proposed in the amendment are not really necessary. I think that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, rightly say that if anyone is thinking of nuclear build in the next 10 years, the designs and technologies available are pretty well known; we do not need additional research on that. If we were to carry out research in that period, we would already know what kind of designs were available and the benefits or otherwise and costs of nuclear power stations. If we reverted to a larger nuclear component, the need for wider research may become apparent. Keeping the nuclear option open requires a certain level of skills and research, but it does not require a sledgehammer to crack it; nor does it require the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, or the register proposed in Amendment No. 105.
  I am not inclined, even on the narrow issue of keeping the nuclear option open, to agree with the noble Lord's amendment. On the wider issue, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, may be right: the nub of the difficulty between many Members of the Committee and the Government's position is that we do not at present see a significant role for nuclear energy; we are not closing the door on it, but it is not government policy. Therefore, one would hardly expect the Government to seize on skills and research requirements that flow from an alternative policy and include them in the Bill.
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I think that the Minister said that the Government see no need for more nuclear power at present. That cannot be a very long-term point of view, or the lights will go out; the Minister knows that. That is a political stance that we all understand. The point is that to be able to proceed in future, we need the personnel. The Minister took the rather narrow view of the amendment that the Government must consider their immediate responsibility for funding training and research. I accept what he said about that and about the research councils.
  GC 296
  The Minister said that the main funding and initiative will always have to come from the industry. Of course it will, but how can the industry move ahead with training and educating people, collecting the research information and making plans unless it knows that more nuclear power generators will be needed? Industry does not proceed on the basis that an option is open. Again, I speak as an amateur, but that is only common sense. We must not be taken in by all this talk about the limited needs at present and forget the future. I am sorry that the Minister replied in that way; the Government are getting themselves into a difficult position. Should they win the next election, I wonder what they will do.
  Baroness Byford: Perhaps I can add a few comments on the amendment. The Minister said clearly that he does not like the amendment as drafted. To an extent, having listened to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, I understand that we can nitpick any amendment. The main thrust is that we ask the Government how they will keep the nuclear option open if the decline described by my noble friend Lady Carnegy continues. There is a current run-down of nuclear power. Off the top of my head, I think that by 2020 there may be only one nuclear plant left. How is industry to train people for the future if the industry has no future? Does not the Government's responsibility kick in before we lose the very skills that we need?
  The Minister also said that the Government were trying to keep the nuclear skills option open. How? We have heard this afternoon that he places responsibility on the industry; he highlighted the NDA's responsibility; but who will provide the money? If the nuclear industry is being wound down to the extent that it is, it will surely not invest in the future when it does not think that it has a future.
  The Minister mentioned linking up with companies—I think he mentioned one in France. That will mean that many of our current UK skills will become international skills and the situation described so clearly by my noble friend will become a thing of the past. Is not the Minister anxious about the Government's approach to this important issue? We have not called for new nuclear build—my noble friend Lady Miller has not, and I have not so far—but we cannot hide from the fact that the nuclear industry is being run down. How will we attract people in future?
  I cannot speak for my noble friend, but I am not entirely satisfied by the Minister's response. What money are the Government putting in? He talked about the skills programme and the group that meets on a regular basis—quarterly, if I have it right. But what is it doing? What has come out of its meetings? Does it see a way forward?
  A series of questions follow from this important debate that the Minister has skated round. That may be because there is no government policy. If so, I should much rather he say that there is not, so that we all know where we are. I support my noble friend's amendment, although he may want to return on

  GC 297
  Report with a different wording. The Government have not answered the questions that have been put to them.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: As the Minister is not replying to my noble friends, perhaps I can briefly sum up the debate. I do not for one moment regret that we will have spent nearly one hour on this vitally important subject. I cannot comment on all the points, except to say that perhaps if the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, had amended my amendment in the way he suggested, I probably would have been very happy to accept his amendment.
  In my opening remarks, I made reference to the fact that civil, mechanical and electrical engineers will have an enormously important part to play. That raises the whole argument about why young people now find no incentives for going into these very important professions. I can take some comfort from what the Minister said towards the end of his remarks—namely, that the Government accept the need to ensure that the necessary skills for the industry are available. Of course, they would not be doing it all themselves. I entirely understand that. There will be other players such as the remains of the private sector.
  I have two points regarding the Minister's comments. He said that a new programme to implement the nuclear option would require a significant additional expertise. The anxiety on this side of the Committee—I speak for my noble friends— is that when the Government decide, as they may, that this will be necessary, they may not have the people with that expertise. That is the anxiety. It is closing one's eyes to the dangers that lurk if one accepts the need to maintain an option without accepting that trained and experienced manpower is part of the reality.
  Of course there will be a need for other people as well. But the point was made by many who spoke at Second Reading—I remember a short but eloquent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—that, as the Bill stands, it is not an energy Bill but a miscellaneous provisions Bill. Those of us who have sought to table amendments want to give it some reality as an energy Bill.
  As I said at Second Reading, this is the first major Bill from the Government since they published what they regard as a hugely important policy White Paper—the energy White Paper. It is distressing that one is fobbed off with the answer that this, that or the other cannot be inserted into the Bill because it is not to do with decommissioning when the title of the Bill is the Energy Bill.
  I agree with my noble friend Lady Miller that Clause 7(1)(d) does not answer the problem that I have sought to identify. All it does is give the NDA a function to educate and train persons about such matters. It focuses only on the particular problem. With respect, that is not the answer.
  The noble Lord said that we shall have nuclear energy for a long time, mentioning the year 2030. By then only one power station will be left: Sizewell B. All
  GC 298
  the others will have gone; that is, all the Magnox stations and the AGRs. If we are going to keep the lights on and deal with our environmental objectives, it is inconceivable that we shall not have had to have a series of replacements by then. It is against that background that we are looking at these matters.
  The noble Lord referred, as I did, to the sustainable energy policy network. I draw no inference from the fact that in the heading of the press release about it, while "Sustainable, Energy and Network" take capital letters, the word "policy" has a little "p". I took it off the Internet as it is. However, it goes extremely wide:
  "The work streams are: Climate Change, Reducing UK Emissions, Energy Efficiency, CHP"—
  It is good that that is now being considered—
  "Social including Fuel Poverty, International Energy Relations, Innovation, Education, Skills and Research. Transport, Security of Supply and Delivery Partnerships".
  That is a huge agenda and I seriously question whether a body of this size with that kind of agenda is really going to be able to focus on the very serious problem which I sought to outline at the beginning of my remarks.
  I have spoken for long enough. We shall certainly want to find a way to return to the matter and to put into this Energy Bill the fact that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that it is dealt with. I claim no particular expertise over the drafting of the amendment. I shall study what the Minister said and return to it on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 74 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 106:
  Before Clause 75. insert the following new clause—
  "PART 2
  ENVIRONMENTAL COST OF ELECTRICITY
  ENVIRONMENTAL COST OF ELECTRICITY
  Within six months after the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall complete and publish the results of his consideration of the European Commission's published report on the external costs of generating electricity by different technologies."
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 106, I am reminded of that marvellous scene in Homer's Iliad where the Greeks are arguing over whether they should launch an expedition to Troy to take back the princess who had been captured by the Trojans. This great conclave took place at Pilos in south-west Greece. Homer records how the argument went this way and that over many hours until finally only one voice could be heard: that of old Thersites, who went on arguing. I suspect that, aside from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I may be the oldest Member of the Committee, and I hope that I shall not be tarred with the brush of old Thersites.
  I can move this amendment rather more briefly. As Ministers will know, the European Union has conducted a 10-year study which shows that if the

  GC 299
  external costs of energy—damage to the environment, damage to human health and a number of other factors—were taken into account, the cost of electricity derived from coal or oil would double from its present level. The cost of electricity from gas, which is another fossil fuel, would increase by 30 per cent. Under our present system, those external costs are not met by the generators. They have to be covered by society at large and are not reflected in consumers' electricity bills.
  The findings of the study are important and significant. Wind and hydro energy involve the lowest external costs, which is hardly surprising. In this country, I think we have pretty much exhausted our capacity for hydro energy, but I am prepared to be corrected. We are now embarking on more hazardous wind power generation. But what may be surprising to some Members of the Committee is that the report states that nuclear power also involves relatively low external costs—much lower than those of coal, oil and gas and lower even than electricity from biomass.
  I shall quote from the September 2003 edition of the Nuclear Issues news-sheet:
  "The results show that nuclear power involves relatively low external costs due to its low influence on global warming and its low probability of accidents in the EU power plants".
  I ask noble Lords to remember those words because I shall come back to them:
  "Wind and hydro energy present the lowest external costs".
  The report goes on to give figures for the different member states of the Union:
  "For the UK … (in ascending order) the external costs of electricity generation in EUR-cent per kWh as: wind 0.15, nuclear 0.25, biomass 1, Gas 1–2, oil 3–5, coal 4–7".
  The figures cause one to ask questions. If those are the real costs of energy, taking into account environmental damage and harm to human health, why are the Government aiming to rely so heavily on imported gas? Why are they also aiming to increase the burning of biomass, when both are more damaging to health and the environment than nuclear energy?
  The European Commission has urged energy producers to pursue environmentally friendly options to help reduce these external costs. The EU guidelines on state aid for environmental protection published in February 2001 allow member states to grant operating aid to new plants producing renewable energy that will be calculated on the basis of external costs avoided up to 6 EUR-cents per kilowatt hour.
  I have already referred to the Nuclear Issues news-sheet, which had this to say:
  "This raises the obvious point that such aid"—
  referring to aid for the burning of biomass, which is heavily subsidised by the present Government—
  "should similarly be available to support nuclear power generation—a more environmentally friendly source of electricity than any other but wind—rather than rely to an ever-increasing extent on gas-fired plant when the external costs for gas are 4–8 times greater than the nuclear option. It is also contrary to commonsense that the UK Government should be supporting the burning of biomass fuels to generate electricity under the Renewables Obligation and encouraging the planting of energy crops for this purpose when the Externe figures show that the
  GC 300
  damage to the environment and human health from burning biomass (although less than for gas-firing) is up to four times greater than from a nuclear plant".
  That is a rather striking finding. Accordingly, I tabled a Question for Written Answer on 23 October. The response came from the noble Lord. Lord Sainsbury of Turville, when he was still answering Questions on Energy issues. He has since handed the brief to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. Among other things, he said this:
  "The department is considering the report and has not yet drawn any conclusions from it".—[Official Report, 23/10, 03: col. WA 192.]
  The Answer goes on to refer to an analysis published with the energy White Paper. Unfortunately, however, the analysis does not address the central issue exposed in the EU report of the very different external costs of energy. The Defra paper dated October 2002 and entitled The Ancillary Effects of Green House Gas Mitigation—that will relieve the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—contains a very interesting table which is all about the ancillary effects of greenhouse gas mitigation for different mitigation policies and affected sectors. It may be tangentially relevant to the EU study, but it addresses the entirely separate problem of the sometimes different effects of reducing other even more toxic gases such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide.
  The interesting thing about table 1 in the report referred to in the Written Answer which I mentioned a moment ago is that, after considering "Energy Efficiency" and "Ancillary Effects", it considers "Reduction of demand for energy" and, below that,
  "Fuel Switching … Moving from oil and coal to low or no emissions sources … petrol to diesel … to energy from waste",
  and then "to nuclear".
  Next to that, under "Ancillary Effects", it states that "Disposal of waste" is a "welfare loss", and also lists "Risk of accidents and proliferation". However, the EU study stated that nuclear energy came out near the bottom of the scale of external costs because it is in fact an extremely safe form of energy. The number of serious accidents and deaths at work in coal mines and the offshore oil and gas industry simply does not bear comparison with the number of accidents and deaths in the nuclear industry.
  However, what do those comments in the paper say about Defra's attitude to nuclear energy? One of the reasons why it does not count in this study of the advantages of getting rid of CO2—after all, that is the assumption written into the paper—is in fact the risk of accidents and proliferation. That says it all.
  I should say that, at that stage, Mr Michael Meacher was still the Minister in the department dealing with the matter. As I said, Defra is now a Meacher-free zone. I hope that perhaps the present generation of Ministers will be prepared to take a more realistic view on it.
  The Answer that I was given said that the Government are studying the EU report. My amendment calls on the Government to complete and publish the results of their study of the EU report

  GC 301
  within six months of the passing of the Bill into law. I think it is a very moderate amendment and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
  Lord Ezra: This is another amendment moved with much vigour and erudition by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who always does very thorough reading before he puts forward any amendment. However, I have also had a look at this report, and there is a problem as far as I am concerned. The table to which he referred deals with existing technologies, but there are in fact also new technologies. Nuclear, after all, is an established technology. My old industry, coal, for example, has new technologies waiting for rather more government support than it is currently receiving to develop clean coal technology with carbon extraction. That is not mentioned in this table.
  The impact of CHP and micro-CHP and all the other emerging technologies is more difficult to identify because this document deals with basic energies. None the less, I think we have to be a little cautious about the document as it stands because it deals with existing technologies. If it is to be examined with reference to the Bill, then due note should be taken of the potential of new technologies.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on the range of his contribution. He did not tell us whether Thersites ended up for or against the war. I remember the war having a rather satisfactory outcome for the Greeks. Presumably, the noble Lord was quoting him as one of the late conversions to the cause. As I recall, the war was not about weapons of mass destruction, but about the challenge to civilisation.
  As regards the more general issues that he raised—
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I think that the wooden horse was a weapon of very mass destruction.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: Certainly, the wooden horse destroyed a city. I considered whether to describe it as a weapon of mass destruction before I made my remarks, but I shall not challenge the noble Lord on his erudition because I certainly would be outclassed. However, I appreciate the skill with which he deployed yet another facet of the nuclear industry case. Of course, he is right in certain parts of his analysis of and reflection on the report. I shall not contend that position at all; that would be exceedingly foolish of me.
  In this amendment, the noble Lord provides an extremely useful peg on which to deploy a particular case. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested that it might have wider, fuller and further-reaching perspectives on the development of new technologies than it seemed in the way in which it was defined. Of course, what is being asked for is that this be an amendment to the Bill, which would require the Secretary of State to publish within six months of the passing of the Act an assessment of the European Commission's report.
  GC 302
  Perhaps I may emphasise to the Committee that this is an important report, but it is not unique. It is part of a series of reports starting in the early 1990s looking at the external costs of various forms of energy. It is an extremely useful and significant document; the noble Lord identified some very salient points in it. But we all recognise that the report is not definitive. It is a contribution to an area where we all know that a huge amount of continuing work is necessary, not least in relation to new developments and new technology, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Ongoing work is required. There are many gaps in our knowledge and many uncertainties remain about those very difficult issues regarding energy generation.
  The obvious point is that there is no need to require in legislation that this report should be considered. Indeed, it would be a very strange use of an Act of Parliament to have enshrined in it a commitment to a particular report that must have a published response within a limited period of time. After all, this clause presumably would fail. After that obligation had been met within a few months, this amendment to the clause would have no relevance to the longer-term future because it would refer to a report that had already been considered and dealt with.
  The noble Lord indicated that he had tabled a Question on this matter to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, who gave him an open, clear and frank Answer, as is his wont. He indicated that we regarded the report as a significant contribution to knowledge, but that we do not believe we need to publish a formal assessment of its conclusions. We neither endorse nor reject its findings. We take that as part of the important contribution to a difficult area of debate.
  Of course, we all appreciate the extent to which the noble Lord has drawn interesting and salient points from the report. But surely it would not be right for us to enshrine in legislation—which is what his amendment proposes—a requirement on the part of the Government to publish a report, which would have to be done within a matter of months. Subsequently, everyone would wonder what on earth this was doing in an Act of Parliament that we all recognise has got considerable significance for the future of our energy industry for many years to come. On that basis, perhaps the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I cannot say that I was surprised by the noble Lord's reply. I am sure he will recognise, because he has been in opposition in his time, that amendments to Bills are one of the ways in which Parliament can raise matters of concern which may be more or less tangential to the main thrust of the Bill. That has always been done. I have no doubt that when the Government are in opposition again, the noble Lord and his noble friends will do exactly the same. It is a well known tactic.
  I am sorry that the noble Lord was not able to be a little more forthcoming. He recognises that if I had asked a Written Question on this, there is no way that

  GC 303
  I would have put in a supplementary question anything like the amount of information that I was able to convey in my brief opening speech on the amendment. However, I shall seek other avenues with which to pursue the matter.
  I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that this is a moving target. There are constantly improving technologies in the nuclear field as well as everywhere else which need to be kept constantly under review. We need to find a way in which, if the Government really are studying these matters, we can oblige them to take the public into their confidence as to the conclusions they are coming to in regard to these matters. That may be done through an interim report—as I said, matters are constantly moving—but it should not lurk within departments.
  The EU has published its very important 10-year study, to which the Government should respond and indicate the applicability of its findings to the UK situation. I shall consider how best we can pursue that issue. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 106ZZA:
  Insert the following new Clause—
  "STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF OFF-SHORE GENERATION

  (1) The Secretary of State shall, within two years of the passing of this Act, present to both Houses of Parliament a report on off-shore renewable technologies that—

  (a) identifies the areas most suitable for offshore generation of electricity, and

  (b) includes an assessment of the environmental benefits and risks of developing generation in these areas.

  (2) The report mentioned in subsection (1) shall include, but not be limited to, assessments for generation by means of wind power, wave power and tidal power."

  The noble Baroness said: It will be a considerable relief—at least to me and one or two other members of the Committee—to move on to what I consider to be the second, forward looking, part of the Bill. Modern technologies can offer a great deal for the future. Constantly looking backwards to what nuclear power appeared to offer in the middle of the 20th century perhaps is not the best way to move forward.
  Part 2 deals with the development of potential for offshore generation. The amendment seeks that the Government should develop within two years of the passing of the Act a strategic environmental assessment of offshore generation. In effect, that means a green tape measure with which we can calculate, through a process of appraisal, the kind of environmental protection and sustainable development factors that need to be taken into account when decisions are taken, either nationally or locally, in regard to the development of offshore technology.
  The amendment is particularly needed because, at the moment, we have no marine spatial planning framework. I know that in the paper Safeguarding Our Seas the Government expressed an interest in developing legislation to cover marine areas, but that
  GC 304
  has not been forthcoming. It will not be introduced in this Session of Parliament and possibly not the next. So the marine environment is not covered by any kind of planning framework. There is nothing against which to judge what is proposed for development in marine areas.
  That should worry us. When generating plants have been developed on land there has been a planning framework against which to judge them and which takes all kinds of issues into account. We do not have that kind of planning framework for our marine areas. Therefore a strategic environmental assessment is of particular importance.
  Our Government signed-up to these assessments when a European Parliament directive was issued in 2001. The stated aim of the directive that enabled the strategic environmental assessment is to provide a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development. They are different from environmental impact assessments, which are used when considering one focused project. Strategic environmental assessments are intended to cover a much wider area. They would be particularly suitable for inclusion in the Bill because we are looking at the whole marine environment for many purposes, some of which are as yet undefined. We do not know what wind, wave and tidal power will mean for technology, even over the lifetime of the Bill. Technologies are developing fast. Against that background we need some way of measuring the likely impact on the environment. I beg to move.
  Lord Ezra: In supporting the amendment, I wish to take a leaf out of the book of the noble Lord. Lord Jenkin, and say that this seems to be another occasion on which a wider issue can be raised. As the noble Lord mentioned at Second Reading, some of us felt that the scope of the Bill was too narrow. Therefore, we must take advantage of the relevant parts of the Bill to introduce issues of more general policy. My noble friend has raised an environmental issue of great importance. The Bill could gain substantially from having an introduction of the kind that she has proposed for Part 2 of the Bill on renewable energy sources.
  Baroness Camegy of Lour: I support the amendment. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord make a very important point. Perhaps the Government could tell the Grand Committee two things. First, is any of the current information on oil rigs at sea and their environmental impact applicable to offshore wind farms? Some environmental problems that have been experienced and sometimes answered in respect of oil rigs may be relevant. Have the Government any information on that?
  Secondly, in assessing the environmental effects of offshore wind farms, is account also taken of the back-up necessary for wind farms? What will be their environmental effect? Last summer, when for three

  GC 305
  months the wind hardly blew at all, we all realised that, excellent though the idea of wind power is, there would not have been much for three months and there would have been a need for back-up additional to any other generation. In assessing the environmental impact, is it possible to take account of back-up?
  I am making a point rather than asking a question that is easy to answer. I hope that the Minister, who is so very knowledgeable on these points, may be able to help me.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.59 to 5.8 p.m.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): The business before the Committee is Amendment No. 106ZZA.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I wish to return to a theme that I was advancing on the Floor of the House in my Question this afternoon. The problem of low-frequency sound is a very recent discovery, and I have certainly not been able to find anyone who has done any research into its impact in the marine environment. It is necessary to bear in mind that water is an extremely efficient transmitter for sound.
  The means by which a wind generator is installed in the seabed is very simple and basic; that is one reason why it is such an attractive economic proposition. A very large ship is sent out with a very large pile driver. The coverage on my local television station in Essex was full of such a scene only a few weeks ago, showing an offshore plant just off Yarmouth. A very large steel pipe is driven into the seabed until it can be driven no further. The pipe must be of the appropriate length so that the top is above the water. It has a mounting plate on it, and the pylon, generator and vanes are mounted on that, and that is it. The whole structure is such that it is a remarkably efficient transmitter of sound. It will not transmit only the high-level sound that will come from the generator, but the low-frequency sound generated by the vanes. It will put those low-frequency waves into the water.
  I have been able to see nothing that suggests that research has been done into the possible impact. We know from other walks of life that the likes of submarines have had bad reports, because of the low-frequency sound effects that upset whales' navigation. There is a potential problem. All right; we may not have many whales floating around in British waters, and the issue may not be considered very great. However, any whale hugger would certainly consider it very important. The same applies to porpoises. The point is that we do not know the impact on other fish species.
  My purpose in asking a Question earlier today was not to prevent the installation of wind farms, but to make sure that research was done before we got any further down the road so that, if larger buffer zones are required round them on land, we have them before we have wind farms right up to the edges of every town and village in the country. In that way, we can affect what is happening. The research needs to be done
  GC 306
  quickly. The same argument applies in the marine environment. We do not know what the effects of wind farms will be on the marine environment, and until we know we would be wise to be a little cautious.
  I put the matter no higher than that, but I support the amendment for that very reason. I hope that the Minister will not say in response, "This is going to be another one of those reports. The clause will be dead once the report is presented, so there is no point putting it in the Bill". Although the argument is valid, there is some purpose here and the amendment deserves a better answer than that, as did the previous one.
  5.15 p.m.
  Earl Attlee: I welcome the amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that we need to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the Bill. That follows the arguments of my noble friend Lord Jenkin. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has taken the wind right out of my sails and covered one of the points that I was going to make. Of course, he did it much better than I could ever hope to do.
  The amendment would benefit from providing that the report also covered economic considerations. As an example, during a debate on a recent Unstarred Question, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, talked about the economics claimed for tidal lagoons. I hope that the report would cover such issues.
  When considering offshore energy, it is important that the Government set the course and ensure that we remain on it. The report would be helpful in that regard.
  Baroness Byford: I also support the amendment. if the Minister cannot accept it word for word, I hope that the principle behind it will be accepted. I do not know whether the Government have paid any regard as yet to the EFRA meeting of 12 November, as it is very important that they should. At that stage, that committee was interviewing people with regard to marine conservation. The wildlife trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, the Marine Conservation Society, WWF-UK and Wildlife and Countryside Link were among the groups represented that day, to name a few.
  I took the 35-page brief and sat just outside Sizewell and read it last weekend. What comes through very clearly is that the groups feel that there is no vision for marine environment development. They were asked direct questions on what they thought about matters and what might be done. At one stage, they questioned whether there ought to be a particular Minister responsible, as wind farms come under the auspices of the DTI, the ODPM and Defra. I may be wrong and have missed a department out, but I think that those are the three relevant departments. It has been suggested that each department has a green Minister. That is wonderful, but what have the green Ministers

  GC 307
  done? There is the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, but I would expect him to be a green Minister in his department.
  What has happened since that meeting? I understand that the ODPM is the department that gives planning permission for offshore wind farms. There seemed to be great gaps in provision for looking forward, and there was no framework for accountability, reflection or any of the matters raised in the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.
  There are simple matters involved. For example, what happens if a wind turbine has an effect on sea ducks or other birds? Is there a risk? Has a risk assessment been done? If so, where is it? That is not in the Bill; if we are talking about developing offshore wind turbine farms, I would have thought that it should be. Visually, it is said that wind farms should not be erected in sensitive areas. What sort of risk assessment has been done? What thought has come forward on that?
  On 7 January, the committee met again. This time it interviewed Elliot Morley, who referred to John Randall's Private Member's Bill, which raised the whole question of protection and enforcement. My second question concerns enforcement; I have tabled some amendments to cover that later. It is no use having wonderful ideas if nothing is written into the Bill to protect the very things that we are trying to protect.
  In answering another question, the Minister said that Defra has put £10 million into research. What research has been completed, and are the responses to that research in the public domain? I gather from other departments and sources that another £30 million may be made available. What resources are there, where is it going, what is the time-scale, and what "commercial interests"—referred to in the Defra committee meeting—are being protected? How much can be put into the public domain?
  I would have raised these issues later when speaking to my amendments but I am glad to be able to do so now. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has raised a very important issue. Reading through the minutes of both committee meetings, I was struck by the fact that there are huge gaps. Some departments are doing bits of the necessary work but no one seems to be pulling it together. It has been suggested that a marine Act may be needed. The evidence seems to indicate that that was felt to be unnecessary because powers are available in existing legislation. However, who will pull it all together? Who is the number one person in charge? I was not able to find those answers in the report. I therefore hope that the Minister will touch on the broader issue. It is germane to the amendment before us, which I have great pleasure in supporting.
  Viscount Ullswater: I, too, support Amendment No. 106ZZA. This chapter of the Bill deals with the rights of the United Kingdom to establish an exclusive economic zone within which it has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting the zone for
  GC 308
  the production of energy from the water, currents and winds. However, there is great concern among many about the extent of the effect that the Government's target for wind power will have on different regions of the UK and, for that matter, in our coastal waters even further out to sea.
  The new PPS22 suggests:
  "Offshore renewable generation projects … should be identified as a separate regional target from land-based renewable energy projects",
  and that,
  "the potential to generate substantial amounts of renewable energy from offshore projects should not be used to set lower targets for onshore projects".
  In view of that, should not the Government set targets for individual renewable energy zones and incorporate a report of that nature into the assessment of offshore generation proposed by Amendment No. 106ZZA, perhaps under subsection (2)? This amendment and the publication of targets for each renewable energy zone would go a long way towards allaying fears or concentrating the mind more clearly on what is proposed for each zone.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall detain the Committee for only a few moments. It has become quite clear from the words of three of my noble friends who speak from our Front Bench on three different subjects that we support the amendment. As I said at the beginning, although this is a DTI Bill, the Minister is from Defra. We have covered many issues today, especially those raised by my noble friend Lady Byford, who covers Defra issues and is working with me on this Bill. It is most interesting that my noble friends have all the required skills to explain why the amendment is necessary. I think the Minister will understand that we feel this provision is very important.
  I say that in the light of today's topical Unstarred Question—which, when mentioned by my noble friend, quite took the wind out of my other noble friend. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, when dealing with comments about an article on the dangers, indicated that other articles suggest differently. I think that the issue needs to be examined. It is most important and should be in the public domain.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I hope to convince the Committee that I am giving a positive response to the theme of the amendment and the contributions in support of it in the hope that, having heard me, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it on the basis of my assurances.
  I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, had the wind taken out of his sails, but that was the burden of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy: what happens when the wind is taken out of sails. I reassure her that we will take into account what she referred to as the necessary support and back-up for energy generated by wind turbines. We recognise that over the course of a year, generation from wind turbines will not follow an even production platform

  GC 309
  because of wind variations. We must therefore take into account what will provide a supplement and back-up as part of our general evaluation.
  The main burden of my response—although I shall try to deal also with some of the detailed points raised—is to say that we strongly sympathise with the thought behind the amendment. I assure the Committee that we are already doing what it seeks and intend to meet most of the requirements mentioned in representations—certainly in terms of the general propositions about what the Government need to do to evaluate those effects. At the same time, I shall do my best to deal with the detailed points and will take steps to add in writing anything that I leave out.
  We have already commissioned a study to identify the geographic distribution of the UK's offshore renewable energy resource that will achieve the requirement in proposed new paragraph (a). That study, called Atlas, is due to be completed in summer 2004 and will certainly be made available to Parliament, as requested.
  Proposed new paragraph (b) requires,
  "an assessment of the environmental benefits and risks of developing generation",
  in potentially suitable areas. The noble Baroness will appreciate that to perform that thoroughly will take longer than the two years stipulated in the amendment. It will be a major programme of work requiring the collection and analysis of a great deal of field data. We are undertaking that work, but on a phased basis. Separate environmental reports will be produced that can certainly be made available to both Houses, but it is unrealistic to imagine that that work can be completed within the two years specified in the amendment.
  The final proposed requirement is that:
  "The report … shall include, but not be limited to",
  generation from wind, wave and tidal power. The renewable energy sources that can be exploited within renewable energy zones include wind and water. A study of the potential available offshore renewable energy sources will therefore extend to all technologies. We are going as wide as we possibly can; I assure the noble Baroness of that.
  On the question of the Government's general obligations, we must meet the requirements of the European directive, so we are under obligations to produce some of that work. That partly conditions the extent to which that work is in progress. We will adopt the same strategic approach to arrangements for future site leasing competitions for wind farms.
  I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, says about what might be the impact on marine life. The wind farms we are considering are not expected to be in deep waters: the limit is about 30 metres. I do not suggest that that does not raise some of the issues he mentioned for marine life; but it is unlikely to affect some of the categories he identified as problems.
  I want to comment on one or two other specific points that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about enforcement. I hope that
  GC 310
  she will forgive me if I do not go into detail at this point because that is a matter for later in the Bill. However, I recognise that her representation was made to strengthen the general view of the Committee that some reassurance is needed that this work is going on. I can give that reassurance.
  The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about tidal lagoons. I do not have any specific briefing on that point, but I shall take it on board, as I will the matter introduced into our discussion by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. Those were specific points addressing the need effectively to cover all the issues in this area.
  I say to the Committee that we recognise the force of the amendment. It has given us an opportunity to make what I hope the Committee will regard as a positive response, but I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that the amendment has some defects, not least the timescale within which we would have to produce this work. The schedule is too tight for the immense programme that we shall need.
  However, if we have overlooked any details, they have certainly been drawn to our attention today, which may serve to increase the workload rather than reduce it. I give way to the noble Lord.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister will be pleased to hear that I am somewhat encouraged by what he said. However, the problem we must face is that the installation of some of these establishments is already taking place—before the assessment work has been done. It is that which concerns us.
  Although the eternal optimist in me says that the chance of anything going wrong is pretty minor, the reality is that if we have wind farms dotted around our coasts before we have the results of this research and there are adverse consequences, we shall have caused long-standing damage that our children and our children's children will regret long after we are gone. That is not a responsible way to behave. We must impress on the Government the urgency of getting this work done. With due deference, I do not think that the Minister has answered that point.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: We are proceeding with some caution on wind farms at sea and undertaking a complete assessment of the work. I am not suggesting that it will be years before an assessment is available, but many points have been made in the Committee across the whole field of the issues. A substantial amount of work has to be done and it is unrealistic to expect to produce a comprehensive report within two years.
  Having mentioned the requirements of the European directive, I also want to reassure the noble Lord that, far from wind farms being developed at sea with gay abandon and without the slightest regard to the consequences, careful evaluation is being undertaken. However, until some of the turbines are installed, we shall not be able to carry out a full evaluation. It is a classic chicken-and-egg situation.

  GC 311
  I ask Members of the Committee to forgive me if I have not answered all the detailed points, but I can give a reassurance that we recognise the broad thrust of this amendment and we intend to meet its objectives.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Before I decide what to do with my amendment—within the confines of what can be done in Grand Committee— is the Minister saying that if I had not specified a two-year time limit, it would have been more acceptable to the Government?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am not here to advise the noble Baroness on how to draft amendments. Rather I have identified what is probably the most salient point of the amendment and which means that we think it should be withdrawn. If such a provision were in the Bill, it would present the Government with an impossible target. However, we are not saying that we do not agree with the broad thrust here. We are trying to meet those obligations and we have a full programme of work in place to meet the objectives. However, the element of timing is what is most difficult for us to accept.
  Baroness Byford: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, responds, I hope that the Minister will clarify some points that he has skated around. In his opening comments, he said, "We are already doing it". What are they already doing?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: We have in place a programme to evaluate the impact of the development of wind farms at sea. I emphasise the crucial point that we are not involved in the reckless spread of wind farms without carrying out a concomitant programme of evaluation.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for clarifying that. Furthermore, how many evaluations have been done; to whom do they report; is it in the public domain; and what is the effect on wildlife, which I mentioned earlier, and the environmental concerns expressed by groups outside this Chamber? I think that I am right in quoting the Minister as having said that, on the whole, wind farms would not be built in waters more than 13 metres deep.
  Lord Triesman: Thirty metres.
  Baroness Byford: I realise that that limits the zone to much closer inshore than offshore. Is research being done on the "nearest inshore-offshore", if the Committee understands what I mean, rather than the wider limit? The zone possibly extends to 12 miles and then up to the 200-mile limit. Obviously, there is a huge range of options within that. I would be grateful if the Minister would address the point that three departments are supposedly doing different bits at different times. Who has the lead role; who is pulling it together; and what is happening? None of those questions has been answered. I would be grateful for an answer.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: More than one department has an interest in the work, but the DTI has the lead
  GC 312
  role. It takes responsibility for answering questions on the matter and co-ordinating the work. On the range of the assessment of wind farms at sea, we are doing that as they are commissioned, licences obtained and the wind farms built. The noble Baroness will recognise that we are in relatively early days on that matter.
  The noble Baroness asked me about an area on which we are not in early days: what we are doing at present. We are not in early days on the oil and gas position, which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, raised. We carry out a full environmental assessment of the impact of those developments. They help to inform other work at sea.
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Lord, but he speaks as if we are the first country to build wind farms. There are immense wind farms all over the Netherlands and elsewhere. Surely those countries have made assessments. Are they not being taken into account?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: They are, but I thought that the thrust of the amendment and the tenor of the approach taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was to ask what the Government are doing. I was trying to phrase my response—a narrow one, I admit—to our current activity. The noble Lord is absolutely right; other countries are more advanced in certain areas of this technology. Of course we seek to benefit as best we can from the lessons that they have learned.
  Viscount Ullswater: The Minister has helped the Grand Committee by saying that a map of coastal waters which are most suitable for wind farms is currently being produced and that they will be let out or disposed of in the same way as oil in its early days. Will that assessment take into account both the capacity of each individual area—that is, the amount of generation expected from it—and the hook-up to the grid, including the cost of the hook-up, the availability of the grid and whether or not other assessments are needed before it is brought into the National Grid?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I can reassure the noble Viscount on that point. He will recognise that the ecology of different sites at sea varies enormously, as do the economic challenges of making them effective enough to link up to the National Grid. I can assure the noble Viscount that when the map is designed it will take such factors into account, although he will also recognise that it is not a straightforward task.
  Baroness Byford: If, before Report stage, the Minister could point me in the direction of the information that I asked for earlier, I should be very grateful.
  In the discussions on the Defra report it was fell that there was no accountability and that organisations would be pushed from one department to another. I should like this important issue addressed. We are not saying that there should not be any wind farms—the

  GC 313
  Minister should not run away with that idea—but we are concerned that they may be built in areas where they will disrupt our most sensitive marine life.
  We have the opportunity today to debate this enormously important issue. I seek extra guidance, but if the Minister cannot give it today I should be grateful if he would write to me. We shall, no doubt, be lobbied by outside groups. They will say, "You referred to the comments that we made when giving evidence to the Select Committee, but where do we go from here?".
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am happy to give the assurance that the information requested will be given. We can see from the discussions in Committee that information has been requested. Where it has not been given, we shall obviously take steps to provide it.
  The Duke of Montrose: The Committee will forgive me if I have not quite kept up with the arguments, but surely anyone building offshore power stations will be asked to carry out an environmental impact study. If this covers areas which are under investigation or research at this point, what will be the Government's attitude to the application for construction? Will everything be put on hold until after the Government have finished their inquiries? What kind of environmental impact studies will they ask for?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: The answer to that question is that the people who are taking-up such a licence will be well aware of the obligations placed upon them in terms of the criteria they have to meet. The Government of course are concerned with the overall position across the whole of the nation—certainly in regard to the economic benefits. That ties in with the crucial point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, in regard to the link up with the National Grid.
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken so helpfully in the debate. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked whether we should include economic issues in the amendment. They are worth considering but they should not be included in the amendment. The previous amendment perhaps touched more on them. So, although they are critically important issues—as the noble Earl said, the debate on tidal power in your Lordships' House a few weeks ago underlined how much we need to consider the economic issues—I should like to concentrate on the remarks made by noble Lords in regard to the amendment and its environmental aspect.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is correct to say that we have a vision for marine development. That is exactly how I regard the amendment. When the Minister came to reply, the message I got from him was perhaps delivered in a gentler and nicer way than normal—the word "environment" seems to produce that in people—but he still said, "No, the Government are not interested in accepting the amendment". That seems to be for two reasons. First, the Government think that they are doing it already, and secondly, it
  GC 314
  would make life too difficult. I do not think either reason really worthy of overriding so critical an issue. Although I accept that the Government are doing a lot of work already, it is not joined up. They themselves recognise that by their very promise to bring forward a marine Act. They know that the situation is unsatisfactory.
  If I thought that the Government believed that the situation was satisfactory, I would probably not feel so strongly about the amendment. However, by their own admission they say time and again—it is documented, with Mrs Beckett's quotations in Safeguarding Our Seas—that a marine Act is important. That leads me to think that, in the absence of that Act, the amendment to the Bill is essential.
  The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, raised an interesting point about whether individual licence holders would, for example, have to conduct environmental impact studies. They probably should have to, but they should be able to do it within the framework of an overall national framework. That is what is lacking. It is not really very fair to expect individual licence holders to conduct their application without a national framework developed by the Government. How would individual people approach planning permissions on land if they had to do so in a complete vacuum? The situation is very similar, except that it happens to be at sea.
  Therefore, I cannot see that the Government's position is in any way logical. I underline the fact that I certainly do not want the amendment to be a brake on offshore renewable energy development. I see the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, looking slightly doubtful about that, but he can be assured that my commitment and that of the Liberal Democrats to developing renewable technology is very deep. At the same time, it has to be against a background of knowing what we are doing and what we are putting in place. If we are developing offshore technologies as we should as a matter of urgency, it is a matter of urgency that we put the framework in place.
  I will certainly return to the issue on Report. I hope to have discussions with the Minister before then about the length of time that the Government think might be reasonable. If they think that two years is unreasonable, I might accept that. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 75 [Exploitation of areas outside the territorial sea for energy production]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 106ZA:
  Page 58, line 16, after "from" insert "renewable sources such as, but not limited to,"
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment is small and probing. It aims to explore whether the Bill is limited to the renewable sources that it cites, which are wind and water power. It is hard to envisage that there could be much else of importance in a marine environment, but what if, for example, there were some form of floating solar capture in future? Would the Bill be unable to cover that? Both the amendment

  GC 315
  and Amendment No. 109G, which is to do with definitions, are to explore the issue. Floating solar capture is my best example. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Let me add one comment to muddy the waters, although only very slightly. It is useful to do so because wind and water are fine, but one could envisage sources of heat below the sea bed that could well be picked up by heat transfer and made use of. Technically, under the Bill, that procedure is excluded. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention so, although I would not necessarily expect them to say instinctively that the amendment was great, they might be prepared to take it away and look at the question.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: We are not. The reason is that we are constrained by international law in what we can do beyond 12 nautical miles. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), referred to in Clause 75, gives us the right to produce energy from the water and winds in what we are calling renewable energy zones. To include other renewable sources, such as that mentioned by the noble Lord, within the scope of Clause 75 would be to breach the convention, so we cannot accept the amendment.
  Viscount Ullswater: The Government produced useful Explanatory Notes to accompany the Bill. I refer the Minister to paragraph 214, which states:
  "UNCLOS also gives coastal States the exclusive right to construct and authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of artificial islands, installations and structures for the purposes outlined above and other economic purposes".
  The Minister appeared to rule that out. Can he clear up that matter for the Committee?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I was citing the basis on which we drafted Clause 75 against the requirements of the UN convention. I cannot comment in detail about other areas in which different activity may be possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, if heat is under the sea bed, it may be captured under the Continental Shelf Act 1964 and be a resource of the soil, not a resource of the sea, and fall under a different framework. But as I understand it, the position advanced by the noble Baroness had more to do with solar issues, and so on, and I merely suggested that our concept of the renewable energy zone is restricted within the law of the sea to the product of wind and water.
  Lord Skelmersdale: Reading the Bill, the clause applies only to areas of the sea outside the territorial sea. Therefore, for the first time today, I agree with the Minister.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his explanation and those who contributed to this short but interesting debate. In the light of his explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 106A:
  Page 58, line 16, at end insert "in a manner which maintains the natural environment"
  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 106B and 106G, which are grouped. Turning to Amendment No. 106A, there are national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and special landscape areas. There are sites of special scientific interest; there is common land and open access land; there are bridleways and footpaths All of those have legislation attached to them, some of which protects them from those who would damage and exploit them. There is little comparable in the marine environment, yet a steady flow of discovery implies that the sea bed is a wonderful place. More importantly, it appears also to be a vulnerable place. We need think only of the black coral reef off Scotland to realise that there is much about which we do not know, some of which may turn out to be exceedingly valuable.
  The use of the word "exploitation" worried me, because it carries connotations of ruthlessness. Undoubtedly that is not what is intended, but it may well be how people interpret it. Indeed, the subsidiary definition of the word in Chambers is, "the act of using for selfish purposes".
  I ask the Minister why that particular phraseology has been used and I hope that, having listened to my explanation of my suggested wording, he will be willing to take it on board.
  I turn to Amendment No. 106B. We are told that certain types of fishing cause damage to the sea bed and that some areas are now beyond repair. Only recently we had another Select Committee report looking at the Common Fisheries Policy. We have been fishing since Moses was a boy and yet still have not managed to perfect methods that conserve the marine environment. How much more damage is likely to be caused by those charged with examining the deep sea to determine how it may be used to provide energy.
  We should bear in mind that many of those undertaking this work may not be seafarers. They will be people who have done the same kind of work on dry land and who inevitably will try first to apply the lessons learnt there. Can the Minister tell us about the department's thinking on how this subsection was developed? Were there any feelings about how such exploitation would be controlled, whether by order or through guidance? Perhaps government bodies such as the Environment Agency are to be used, or will they rely on organisations like Greenpeace? It is important to note that the use of wind turbines is not considered by everyone to be always a good thing. Grave concerns have been expressed that the installation of these structures will, in some cases, outweigh the energy consumption and carbon production their use might save.
  In that connection the latest issue of the AONB Association newsletter contains an article by Richard Bull suggesting that wind power is a viable proposition only in the short to medium term. If he is right, it is

  GC 317
  imperative that the exploration of possible sites does not add to the negative side of the equation. This, I think, is an important point.
  I have tabled Amendment No. 106G to give Members of the Committee the opportunity to debate an issue which is of major relevance to any extension of wind farms on the scale seemingly being proposed by the Government. It is a paradox that the renewable energy said to be needed in order to prevent atmospheric pollution can be delivered only at the cost of visual pollution on a truly massive scale. So we have to ask ourselves how to resolve this problem, especially if we are not to consider using clean nuclear power energy supplies, which we discussed earlier. How are we to save from destruction some of the great desolate places and grand sea vistas of our country by the advance of armies of whirling propellers that have caused much dismay in some of our most beautiful and rugged mountain countryside?
  No one these days thinks it respectable to cause pollution at sea by depositing rubbish in our waters. Thank goodness that we have moved on from those times. Will it be too late before we realise the damage we may cause by spreading visual pollution to our coastal waters? The Government have a duty to spell out in advance the extent of the installations that they intend to create offshore and what criteria governing their impact on our natural environment they will include in any planning decisions. Surely our people must have a say in this through the planning system.
  One thinks of the low, flat East Anglian coast, from which I have just returned, or the wild salt marshes and the sweep of the Wash, flanked by noble churches. Here I declare an interest in and love for both counties. Those great low skies so beloved by generations of painters, walkers and photographers will never be the same again if wind farms march towards the shores like Martians out of the War of the Worlds. What of our great coasts and natural parks; the North Yorkshire moors; the Cornish coastal paths. Those desolate places will never look the same again.
  What protection, if any, do the Government propose for these views, which are part of our national heritage? Where is the special protection for national parks? Perhaps there is some, but I have not come across it. Will any consideration be given to areas of outstanding natural beauty or to our coastal paths? Without the complement of the open sea in all its moods, none of these places will be exactly the same.
  This is a probing amendment but it relates to a serious issue. Perhaps I may advance a few ideas which I hope the Minister will carefully consider. Surely our environmental bodies must have a voice enshrined in the planning system before the Government can make zoning orders. Is it too much to ask that the powers in last year's Local Government Act, which allow local polls, might be used to allow the populations affected to express views and, where relevant, to come forward with a veto?
  GC 318
  I hope the Government will enter the debate in all seriousness. It will be nothing short of a tragedy if we were to lose some of our finest coastal vistas through a lack of proper planning and protection for them.
  I referred to planning during the debate on an earlier amendment. Although it is the responsibility of the ODPM, all departments need to consider this issue. The debates in the Select Committee revealed that there is a great worry about the future of marine development. That is why I have brought forward these amendments. I beg to move.
  6 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I support the spirit of the first two amendments. I would feel more comfortable if the wording of the first one stated "in a manner which respects the natural environment". I am worried that the maintenance of a natural feature—for example, a tidal lagoon—in its exact state would not be possible.
  As regards Amendment No. 106B, again, the concept of irreversible damage is very important. But we would need to consider what the timescale of "irreversible" should be. I have not had an answer to that so I merely raise the query with the noble Baroness.
  The issue of renewable energy zones off national parks is very important. I know best Exmoor National Park, the coastal part of which is, for me and a number of visitors, the most exciting. However, I would hesitate to give local people the veto over what should happen. This is because national parks are national assets and what takes place in them or just offshore of them affects us all.
  There is a further difficulty. As with the building of nuclear power stations and onshore wind turbines, a planning process has to be gone through. As soon as a project is proposed, it is very easy for people to rally a great deal of opposition. If too much of a veto mentality is brought in, we would never be able to develop anything anywhere, even if it was in our interest. I would urge caution about that.
  That brings me to the point that there is a planning process to deal with these issues on land, but none to deal with them in a marine environment.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I ought to know this, but can the Minister tell me whether local planning committees have any say about the seascape between the coast and the horizon, as it were; that is, what one can see from the land. I am not sure whether they do and it would be interesting to know.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: As I listened to my noble friend talk about Amendment No. 106G, I envisaged that we could all be walking around those national parks. I wondered why so many of us were sitting here, just listening to how we could protect them. She spoke with a great deal of emotion and obviously feels strongly about the issue, as we all do. Everyone is concerned about the countryside.

  GC 319
  Earlier we discussed new technologies. In a sense, given the scale on which we envisage this technology, it is new. Therefore, it is important that we consider all the exploitation—I did not mean to use that word; I meant to say, "advantages and disadvantages"—that it could bring to the countryside. I used the word "exploitation" in error, as that one word caught my eye in Amendment No. 106A.
  [The Sitting was suspended/or a Division in the House from 6.6 to 6.15 p.m.]
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am not 100 per cent sure where I was when, all of a sudden, the Bell went. So I will simply say that the words,
  "in a manner which maintains the natural environment",
  are gentle words that balance the word "exploitation", which my noble friend mentioned. She gave an interpretation of what "exploitation" could mean. It is interesting that my dictionary—I, too, looked it up because it is a harsh word—defines it as:
  "to use or develop for one's own ends or to take advantage of".
  That interpretation is not as nice, but if we add the words,
  "in a manner which maintains the natural environment",
  that would counterbalance the wording. I cannot imagine that those eight words would make such an enormous difference to the Bill.
  Lord Triesman: Like every other Member of the Committee, I was impressed and moved by the defence of our wonderful countryside and coastline mounted by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I share her passion for walking on coastal paths and elsewhere in the countryside. As a consequence, I have no hesitation in agreeing with what I take to be the motivation behind this group of amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller of Hendon, which is to ensure that renewable energy zones are developed in an environmentally responsible way.
  My noble friend Lord Whitty was kindly and, I am sure, accurately, described as being a green person. I do not know whether the Committee will feel that I am green enough by the end of this debate, rather than grey enough, which is what I am usually accused of, but I want to give a number of assurances.
  Having established my intention to claim some green credentials, I note that the word "exploitation", which is in many senses not a happy word and does not inspire a warm glow, none the less follows exactly the word used in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. We are simply reproducing that terminology. We certainly do not want to imply by it any suggestion of ruthless exploitation in the manner of either of the dictionary definitions that we have been offered.
  Let me state categorically what will happen. The key points to bear in mind are these. First, we must address the big picture of climate change. Offshore renewables will play an important role in doing so. It would be foolish to claim that we will try to deal with climate change while suggesting that there will be no impact on anything else. That would be unrealistic and not
  GC 320
  sensible. There is a potential impact, and it is a matter of getting the balance right, for all the reasons mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.
  Secondly, I turn to the first possible impact, the visual impact, of development within the renewable energy zone. Zones will be limited to areas 22 kilometres offshore. I cannot speak for the quality of other people's eyesight, but I strongly suspect that I will not be able to detect a great deal 22 metres offshore.
  Noble Lords: Kilometres.
  Lord Triesman: Did I say metres? I apologise. I could manage 22 metres; that is more or less the length of a cricket pitch—plus a little bit—and I have usually been able to see between the two sets of stumps. I mean 22 kilometres, which is a fair distance. Even with some wind generators being 150 metres high to the tip of the top blade when at its highest position, in almost no case will that present a visual eyesore from almost anywhere from which one might view the sea. It might be difficult to work out who should be polled on whether such a generator is suitable, because of the distance offshore.
  I turn to my third point. Establishing the renewable energy zone is only an enabling provision; no decisions about how it will be developed will be made at this point. It does not pre-empt any decisions; its purpose is only as a legal step to facilitate consideration of whether developments are appropriate.
  The fourth main point to bear in mind is that there are robust safeguards in place—the SEA and EIA—to ensure that the environmental impact of strategic environmental assessment of any proposed development is taken into account.
  I now draw attention to how planning decisions are made. We certainly intend there to be a change in the role of the local authority in the consultation process to become a statutory consultee following the Bill's enactment. The position is clarified in the Bill. Local authorities will not be responsible for forcing a public inquiry, but they will certainly take part in them. That will be included by providing for it in secondary legislation rather than in the Bill. No attempt will be made to stop anyone with anything to say from making his objections known.
  I am rather at a loss as to how to deal with the fifth point. I am unfamiliar with the history of fishing nets, although, standing in the Moses Room, I recognise that it draws their entire history to our attention. Plainly, it will be important to ensure for fish and other marine animals that all relevant considerations are taken fully into account.
  The amendments would not achieve their objective, as they propose introducing environmental considerations too early in the process, when the REZ is established. They also run the risk of introducing such restrictive conditions that they might prevent any offshore renewable development from taking place. At that point, we lose the big picture by concentrating on a much smaller one.

  GC 321
  As I said, the renewable energy needed to address climate change cannot be said to be 100 per cent impact-free. However, I ask the Grand Committee to bear in mind why we are establishing the renewable energy zones. We want to be able to take advantage of the country's very considerable natural resources offshore—the wind, waves and tidal currents—to produce electricity in a truly sustainable way and without pumping carbon into the atmosphere. As the Committee will know, the Government have a goal of cutting CO2 emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. Offshore renewable energy technologies have an absolutely vital role to play in helping us to achieve that goal.
  We have taken on the challenge of reducing carbon emissions in order to address the very real and serious environmental consequences and threats of climate change. The important issue is to get the balances right. We must balance the impact that developing offshore renewable energy may have on local marine environments against the potential climate change from fossil fuel generation if we do not develop the offshore renewables. The impact of wind farms, for example, will be managed and limited, because our assessment processes ensure that they are consented to only if that is so.
  In that light, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment—not because the issues in it are not of the gravest importance; I fully accept that they are. However, the provisions available should make it possible to achieve all the objectives mentioned.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I want to make two very small points. Amendment No. 106A suggests,
  "at end insert 'in a manner which maintains the natural environment'".
  I can quite understand the words of the Minister about not wanting to make anything too prescriptive and prevent the proper actions that need to be taken to deal with climate change. Some alteration may be needed. However, the provision that Amendment No. 106B would affect states that,
  "'exploration' includes the doing of anything".
  All Amendment No. 106B would do is insert after that,
  "which does not cause irreversible damage to the marine environment".
  The Minister must think it all right for the Bill to state "anything". The amendment does not say, "which does not cause damage"—that would be a different matter. But it would be dreadful if irreversible damage happened to the marine environment. I cannot see why the Minister cannot accept that amendment anyway.
  Viscount Ullswater: The Minister helpfully said that the renewable energy zones are no closer to the shore than 22 kilometres, and that they would therefore not be able to be seen from the shore. Could he envisage a situation in which there may be contiguous developments of wind farms, both in and outside territorial waters—that is, on both sides of the line of the 22 kilometres? My noble friend Lady Byford has
  GC 322
  been saying that something may be visible from the shore. The Committee has demonstrated uncertainty about who is responsible for the planning of offshore wind farms, whether inside or outside territorial waters—I hope that I have the terminology correct. That issue is eluding Members of the Committee.
  The Duke of Montrose: The Minister was helpful in beginning to describe the renewable energy zones and the fact that they have to be more than 22 kilometres offshore. I wonder what the Government envisage with the zones. Will they be vast areas, perhaps hundreds of kilometres wide, or pockets in which the Government might encourage renewable energy development?
  The point made by my noble friend Lord Ullswater was about visibility, and the Minister suggested that something may not be noticed too much. However, I know that I have to go only 100 yards behind my house to see the chimney of Inverkip power station, which is not 150 metres high. Such things are noticeable.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The other problem with what the Minister said—I am sorry to have to trip him on this— is that the coastline is not flat. There are plenty of places where the cliffs are 100 feet high, or even 200 or 300 feet high. Depending on where one was, one could see vastly further out to sea than if one were standing on one of the bleak east coast shores, which might be only a couple of feet above sea level.
  Lord Triesman: I shall try to deal with the variety of points made. We are not dealing with the wind farms that would be closer to shore. I entirely accept that the ones far closer to shore—I have seen some myself— will certainly be visible. That is not the issue with which we are dealing in relation to the REZs. It is important to be as realistic as possible about the impact that the REZs may have.
  I do not think that the zones will be vast areas of turbines, if that was the point of the question. They are areas in which it will be possible to site turbines. It would be unlikely and impractical, particularly given the engineering issues about bedding them firmly in a relatively shallow area of water, to envisage very large areas of that kind. An REZ can be from 12 miles out— that is the 22-kilometre point—to 200 miles out. It is simply a definition of an area in which wind farms can be located. The appropriate way to deal with concerns about where the zones are located and what the impact of any one of them might be is the consent process, rather than the designation of the REZ itself, which is about an area in which they might possibly be.
  I probably ought to have said earlier—I apologise for not doing so—that, when views are sought on any of the projects, everyone will have an opportunity to comment and make their views clear through planning consents, which are provided under Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act. That remains an absolutely firm commitment.
  I entirely take the point that the coastline is not flat. I suppose that that is one reason why I enjoy walking on it. It is very high in some places. However, although

  GC 323
  from very high points it is possible to see a considerable distance, one has to get quite high and we are talking about quite a considerable distance. We are not talking about something that will be an ever-present eyesore in most circumstances.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am sorry, but I could take the noble Lord to a place in France where we would have to be only 90 feet above the sea to see the island of Corsica, which is more than 90 miles away.
  Lord Triesman: That is an offer too good to turn down. I am fond of both France and Corsica, and shall make my diary available after this sitting of the Grand Committee. I do not say that in certain atmospheric conditions it is not impossible to see quite long distances. However, having walked most coastal paths in England and a good few in Scotland, I can confirm that, generally, unless the atmospheric conditions are unusually good, it is not often that one can see very considerable distances. The great pleasure in the walking is, of course, what one can see, and the walk itself. None the less, I hope that the noble Lord will make good his offer when I approach him about it later to make the arrangements.
  I shall now respond to Amendment No. 106B, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, commented. Clause 75(7) merely seeks to define what is meant by "exploration" in Clause 75(2). Wind farms cost many millions of pounds to construct. Before committing themselves to investing those large sums of money, developers must ensure that their planned site is viable. They will want, for example, to understand the character of the sea bed into which the wind turbines will be placed, and to measure wind speed. Those exploration activities are not likely to have a lasting effect.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for giving way when in full flow of his explanation. He said that Clause 75 merely deals with the exploration of areas. It does not; it refers to the exploitation of areas. Its heading uses the word "exploitation". That is the particular word that we did not like.
  Lord Triesman: I ask the noble Baroness to forgive me. I stand corrected, but I do not think that it will alter the theme of the answer. Despite the fact that I do not much like the word either, although it is the word currently used in the circumstances, my point was as follows. The exploitation activities are unlikely to have a lasting effect on the marine environment. The early phases, in which people seek to establish whether the site is viable at all, will certainly not do so. If a structure such as a wind-speed measuring device is placed in the water, the developer must first obtain a licence under the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985, which has been mentioned previously. Again, the necessary safeguards to protect the marine environment are already in place and most certainly should be used to do that.
  Baroness Byford: I am very grateful to the Minister for the courteous way in which he has responded to the amendments, and to all Members of the Committee
  GC 324
  who have commented on them. I understand the Minister's explanation about the use of the word "exploitation"; in fact, I have not asked for it to be removed. I am not breaching the UN convention, as it would still be there, but I seek merely to make a softer interpretation of what is a fairly barbaric word at present.
  I hope that the Ministers will consider the matter before Report, because I do not think it would change their objective. It would merely pull people up short and tell them that exploitation must be carried out in a manner that maintains the natural environment. I do not think that the Minister, who is nodding, would disagree with that. I hope that the Government will return with a provision that accepts the thrust behind the amendment. I have not asked for the word to be removed; I have merely softened it. I shall leave the matter standing.
  The Minister rightly said that at present renewable energy zones are not in being, but may be established. That makes me even more worried—the Minister will get used to me after a while—because I tend to like to have provisions written in the Bill. I get very worried when there are inferences or words such as "may". I call them Henry VIIIs, which is not technically correct, but I am always apprehensive when something is not as clear as I would like it to be on the face of the Bill.
  The Minister said that local authorities will now be consultees on planning. Is he saying that that provision will be added, or is it already in the Bill without my having seen it? I did not pick up that the Bill defines that. Perhaps it relates to a previous Bill. Will the Minister respond on that? Is the provision not already in the Electricity Act 1989? It may well be, in which case he will clarify that for me. He will learn also that I do not like a provision being made through regulations if it can possibly be included in the Bill.
  In passing, the noble Lord mentioned fishing nets. Last autumn, there was grave concern about 100 dolphins that had been washed up in Cornwall. Some of the Bill overlaps with the question of fishing, which we shall come to in greater detail later. I accept that there is a huge role to be played in enlarging the holes in fishing nets so that certain fish will not be caught in them. I shall look very carefully at the Minister's response.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, did not like the use of the words "irreversible damage" in Amendment No. 102B. Perhaps we can think about that. But I do not like either the wording on page 58, line 35:
  "'exploration' includes the doing of anything".
  My noble friend raised the point that the "doing of anything" is completely open-ended. I urge the Minister to give that issue serious thought.
  As regards my Amendment No. 106G, I do not say that there should be no development because development there will be. I disagree with the Government's estimate of the amount of energy wind farms will produce and the amount of pollution they will reduce. Other methods were referred to in the debate on earlier amendments. I am being lobbied very

  GC 325
  heavily by a company which is using waste to produce energy. When we have vast amounts of waste produced on a daily basis, surely it should be a high priority to use it for energy production and conservation. A great number of possibilities are being explored—the Minister touched on some of them earlier—of which wind farms are but one.
  I am not saying that there should no wind farms. What I am seeking to do with my amendments is to draw attention to the fact that serious consideration should be given as to where they are sited. That is most important. Obviously there are not national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty all over the country. Some areas are less sensitive than others. The amendments seek a greater degree of clarity.
  I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate on the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 106AZA:
  Page 58, line 24, at end insert—
  "( ) The Renewable Energy Zone shall only be the area necessary for efficient energy generation taking into account environmental impacts which shall have the provisions in this Bill applied to it."
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment addresses an issue touched on earlier by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. It seeks an answer from the Minister as to how big a renewable energy zone could be. There is nothing in the Bill to define the size of a zone. The amendment suggests that it should be only the area necessary for efficient energy generation.
  I accept that the wording of the amendment probably leaves something to be desired. I found difficulty in expressing how the zone should be limited within the context of the Bill. But if zones are not limited, we could end up with a renewable energy zone around the UK that takes in all the waters between the 12-mile and the 200-mile limits.
  If that is what the Government have in mind, we should know it; and, if there are to be little pockets of water, as the noble Duke put it, we should know that too. I have absolutely no idea what the Government have in mind. It is for that reason I have tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Triesman: In my previous response I gave a slightly better indication. I said that the REZs will be from 12 miles to 200 miles out. I understand the point made by the noble Baroness that one can envisage a ring around the United Kingdom which encompasses all waters between those two limits.
  Again in earlier exchanges we noted that engineering realities dictated the siting of wind farms in areas where the sea is no more than 30 metres deep. It would not be an engineering practicality otherwise. For a very large part of the United Kingdom the shelving away from our coast is fairly abrupt. Scotland is a good example of this. There are very few areas that fall into the kind of category suitable for wind farms.
  GC 326
  Although we do not have the benefit of a map today, I suggest that the mix of relatively shallow waters and those which are much more steeply shelved would indicate that the risk of there being a kind of Polo-mint effect around the country is not realistic.
  Amendment No. 106AZA seeks to restrict the renewable energy zone to the area necessary for efficient renewable energy generation. The creation of the R.EZ does not in itself indicate anything about where or how much development should take place within it. Clause 75 relates to the establishment of the renewable energy zone. Perhaps I may stress what I said in my response a few moments ago: the establishment of the REZ will not pre-empt any decisions about the appropriate scale or location of renewable energy development that may be considered within it. It is purely a legal step that needs to be taken to ensure the proper consideration of renewable energy projects beyond the limit of territorial waters at 12 nautical miles. I should add that nautical miles are rather longer than ordinary miles. It is not a stage at which plans are made for developing the zone so it is not a point at which any decisions are taken about environmental impact.
  The areas within the renewable energy zone identified for offshore renewable energy development will be established after an assessment has been made of the geographical location of the potential resource. Safeguards are already in place to make sure that appropriate consideration will be given to the impact on the environment of proposed renewable developments both before these regions of the sea are offered to developers to apply for site leases and then once developers have worked up their specific proposals and have applied for development consent so that we can see exactly what is involved in any proposal.
  I hope that this provides an adequate reassurance to noble Lords that the proposed amendment to limit the size of the renewable energy zone is unnecessary. I shall not make the point at greater length because I believe that we have already been over a number of the key issues of definition during our previous discussion. However, the point I seek to make is that this is not the point at which the whole consent system would be at its most effective.
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. It is still not entirely clear whether the zones will in effect be limited or unlimited in size. I shall read his response carefully. When people want to check on a map what areas the Minister has designated as renewable energy zones, I hope that they will be able to see them. The question of the limit to a zone and whether that will be defined anywhere, such as on a map, or whether it will remain something in the Minister's mind, is a matter to which, in the light of his reply, I shall probably have to return on Report. In the mean-time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 106AA:
  Page 58, line 28, leave out "An Order in Council under this section is" and insert "Orders in Council under this section, and orders under subsection (5), are".
  The noble Lord said: This amendment has been tabled to correct an oversight. Clause 75(5) provides an order-making power so that the Secretary of State can delineate that part of a renewable energy zone around the UK in which Scottish Ministers are to have functions; for example, in relation to the application of civil and criminal law under Clauses 76 and 78, or consultation in respect of decommissioning in Clauses 92 and 98. In drafting the Bill we omitted to provide a parliamentary procedure for such orders. We propose that these orders should be subject to the negative resolution procedure. This is in line with the procedure for Orders in Council under Clause 75(4) which designate the renewable energy zone. The Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform has seen the amendment and is satisfied with it. I beg to move.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I wish to question the Minister on a matter about which I warned him that I was not absolutely clear. Exactly how will Scots Ministers be enabled to do that? I understand that they will be consulted by the Secretary of State, but is the Order in Council laid by the Secretary of State at Westminster? I take it that the Scots Parliament will not lay an Order in Council. As a subsidiary Parliament, can it not do that? I am interested in how it works, so I wanted to be clear.
  Lord Whitty: This issue may arise later. In this context we are talking about the United Kingdom power of delineation and designation of the zones and indicating in which of those zones that part of the responsibilities would thereafter fall to Scottish Ministers. This clause covers only the UK power of delineation, which is through an Order in Council in the Westminster Parliament. Thereafter, issues of enforcement under the Scottish laws can arise, but this clause concerns solely a UK power. It might be better if I elaborate on how the Scottish Parliament can also use an Order in Council when we come later to a slightly more complicated set of amendments.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the noble Lord very much for that. I am sorry if I was confused, but it is important that we understand the matter. It is only recently, since devolution, that those issues have occurred. In this case the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will lay an Order in Council, having consulted Scots Ministers.
  The Duke of Montrose: This is a fascinating concept as regards the question of devolution. At present, there is a clear line of delineation between which territorial waters out to 12 miles are Scottish and which belong to the UK. At present, waters beyond the 12-mile limit are reckoned to be UK territory. Is the Minister saying that Scotland will be given a slice of the waters beyond the 12-mile limit to look after? Will the Scottish hegemony be extended over a wider area?
  Lord Whitty: I would not encourage the noble Duke or the Scottish Parliament to extend the Scottish
  GC 328
  hegemony over any wider an area than it already has. The point is that the designation of the areas is a UK responsibility because the waters beyond that area belong to the UK. But the enforcement of certain aspects of environmental protection, for example, will fall to Scottish Ministers and agencies. This clause deals only with the delineation, which is clearly a UK power.
  The Duke of Montrose: Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but I thought that these areas would be outwith the 12-mile limit and therefore not in Scottish waters at all. I do not see why Scottish law is required.
  Lord Whitty: There are already law-at-sea arrangements whereby Scottish law rather than English law applies in certain marine circumstances. Those would apply in this situation also. It is not a new concept in that respect.
  Lord Skelmersdale: As a subjunct to the point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, I am confused. Subsection (5) talks about orders made by the Secretary of State, while subsection (4) provides for Orders in Council. Clearly an order made by the Secretary of State is a lesser beast than one made by Her Majesty in Council. However, given devolution and the situation in Scotland, why can the Secretary of State, off his own bat, produce an order for Scotland whereas any other must come from Her Majesty in Council?
  Lord Whitty: Subsection (4) relates to designation which is provided by an Order in Council, while subsection (5) indicates which of those designations would have administrative functions for the Scottish Executive. The original Order in Council is then subject to the negative procedure in the Bill as drafted. We are also making the other part of this subject to the negative procedure so that there is a consistency of process throughout the clause.
  Lord Skelmersdale: I certainly understand what the amendment will do. I am asking what the Bill does, and why.
  Lord Whitty: The Order in Council will provide the designation. The implications of the designation, which are a lesser issue, are that Scottish Ministers will have jurisdiction in relation to devolved matters within those zones. So the international waters element is dealt with by Order in Council, while the Secretary of State is then responsible for the administrative arrangements. However, they would both be subject to the same parliamentary process if the amendment is accepted.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 106AB:
  Page 58, line 29, at end insert—
  "( ) The Crown Estates Act 1961 (c. 55) shall not have effect for the purposes of this section."
  The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to explore the effect of the Energy Bill on the responsibilities of the Crown Estate as laid down in the Crown Estates Act 1961. It asks whether this Bill will need to amend those powers.
  I have tabled the amendment because, under the terms of the Bill, the Crown Estate will be able to license areas of the sea bed in the renewable energy zones for the purpose of exploring and exploiting— that word again—the UK's wind, wave and tidal resources for the production of energy. However, the Crown Estates Act 1961 requires the Crown Estate Commissioners to maintain and enhance the estate's value and the returns obtained from it. In other words, the commissioners will have to operate a strict policy of maximising financial gain, regardless of community interests.
  It is in particular regard to community interests in the northern isles and perhaps elsewhere in Britain, as they have been explained to me, that I have tabled the amendment. The fact that the Crown Estate Commissioners have to secure the best returns possible from rental of the sea bed is likely to mean that there will be a bias in favour of the much larger generators proposed for very extensive wind farms. Based on economies of scale, they will be able to generate much larger returns and more significant profits from which the Crown Estate Commissioners can derive greater charges.
  This issue was first raised in Scotland, but it may have an impact in several areas. Local communities are interested in deriving benefits from wind, tidal and wave energy sources. Given that, it would be very unfortunate if the Crown Estates Act 1961 meant that those communities did not benefit as much as they should from the development of these resources in their waters. That will be the case if the Crown Estate Commissioners raise money from the estate. Any income derived will become a cash cow for the Treasury rather than feeding back into local communities. I beg to move.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Triesman: Amendment No. 106AB would exclude the Crown Estate from playing a role in the development of renewable energy zones. I consider that such a move would be short-sighted and we wish to resist this amendment. It might be helpful if I remind Members of the Committee of the role that the Crown Estate plays now in the process of developing offshore renewable energy.
  The Crown Estate owns the sea bed out to the 12-mile limit of the territorial sea. Perhaps I may put it this way: it acts as the landowner for the sea bed. Developers who wish to construct, say, a wind farm must enter into an agreement with the Crown Estate for the lease of the area of the sea bed where the structure will be placed. Naturally, developers are charged a rental for the use of the sea bed in the same way that any landowner would also make a charge for
  GC 330
  use of his property. That, together with other Crown Estate revenues, is paid to the Consolidated Fund at the end of each financial year.
  The Crown Estate and the DTI are working closely together in developing the framework for expansion of the offshore wind energy industry. Members of the Committee may know that as late as last July the Trade Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, invited the Crown Estate to hold a tender for sites for offshore wind farms in three strategic areas—that is, the Greater Wash, the Thames Estuary and the area broadly from the north Wales coast to the Solway Firth.
  Those areas were selected by the DTI as offering the best prospects for wind development based on factors such as the prevailing wind resource, water depth and the capacity for grid connections. Just before Christmas, the Crown Estate offered leases for 15 sites to successful applicants. In due course those developers will apply to government departments, including the DTI, for the consents necessary for the projects to be built.
  This co-operative arrangement is working very well and we see no reason to change it. The Government set the energy policy framework and regulate individual projects, while the Crown Estate manages the sea bed and gives the site leases. It makes very good sense for those arrangements to be adopted for the renewable energy zone beyond the territorial waters.
  It is very important that there is a common regime in the territorial waters and for the renewable energy zone. We want to create a single level playing field for development no matter where projects are located. The effect of the amendment would be to have some differential arrangement in the renewable energy zone, although, from the way in which the amendment was spoken to, it is not clear that that is what the amendment proposes.
  I think that I must correct the notion that there would be a conflict of interest in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has described. The Crown Estate's rent must be the best consideration—I emphasise this—reasonably obtainable in all the circumstances as set out in the Crown Estate Act 1961. It must exclude any element of monopoly value attribution to the extent of the Crown's ownership of comparable land. But, critically, it must be the best consideration reasonably obtainable in all the circumstances. Plainly, that includes overall considerations about whether it is a proper site or whether the site would be developed in a way that would cause considerable difficulty or offence to people who live locally—for example, by the installation of over-large machines.
  In the three areas that I mentioned, there was tremendous interest from developers in the round 2 tender for offshore wind farms. Many more developers applied for leases than it was possible to grant. There is strong evidence that the rental is not acting as a barrier to development, nor is it being exploited in a way that is likely to act as a barrier. Those who are serious in wanting to put up a wind farm will not be deterred by extortionate rental levels.

  GC 331
  The Crown Estate has given an undertaking that it will monitor and review the effect of the rental payments on the development of the wind industry. Should any kind of evidence emerge suggesting that the viability of future development is being impeded by the rental level, or that some unreasonable arrangement is being made of the kind suggested as a possibility by the noble Baroness, the Crown Estate will consider whether revision of the rental would be justified.
  I hope that those are reasonable assurances that sensible people are co-operating in this, and that there are provisions in legislation which would stop the exploitation—to use that word again—of these resources in a way that would cause offence.
  Lord Higgins: I was listening carefully to what the noble Lord said, but I have some difficulty in understanding it. Are we to understand that there are competitive tenders for any given tranche? If so, how is the concept of excessive charges or excessive rental levels to be established? I should have thought that if there were a competitive tender, that would be the appropriate amount. Is it a market process? Or are the Government, in some way, imposing a limit, saying that they will not charge the full amount that they could obtain in order to ensure that some development takes place?
  Lord Triesman: No, my Lords. I hope that I have not given that impression at all, but if I have, I apologise. It is a tendering process, but it is also a process where the development must receive various kinds of planning consent. Those are unquestionably considerations that would have to be taken into account in the construct of considerations reasonably obtainable in the circumstances. There is a balance.
  I am not sure whether that analogy is 100 per cent accurate, but I am trying to give the best illustration that I can in response to the noble Lord's question. It is probably like a proposal to develop a piece of land. A development might be proposed that would produce very high commercial returns but would be unacceptable on that piece of land. If it is unacceptable, of course that development cannot take place and those returns cannot be achieved.
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I had better read exactly what he has said. But, if, on environmental grounds, a limit is imposed on the amount that can be charged, several people may wish to have the asset at that price.
  Lord Triesman: My point is that the environmental considerations are free-standing, not that there is a limit to what can be charged by virtue of the environmental considerations. The environmental considerations will determine the merits of whether to proceed with a particular development. That might have an impact on the amount that reasonably can be realised by people tendering. They will have to take into account those environmental factors in framing what they bid in the tender. The tender process is not
  GC 332
  about bidding by developers for the site. The rental fee is set out, and bidders can compete on the basis of the quality of their proposals within that framework.
  Baroness Byford: Perhaps I may follow my noble friend a little further on that line. I am getting more mystified. Am I right in saying that the Minister said that 15 approvals have been given already? If I can put it in simple language, more people want to take on the projects than there are places available. Further to my noble friend's comments, I wish to know whether the base of rental was put too low. Who decided the rate? Or have I missed the point altogether? That is where I am getting more mystified.
  For example, when mobile telephones were introduced, the amounts charged for the masts were absolutely huge. Ultimately, it was realised that they were not a commercial viability and, if I remember correctly, many businesses went bust. In fact, the reverse is happening here. More people want to do business than there are places available. As regards the very good amendment raised by the noble Baroness, how was the process devised in the first place? Can we have clarification on that?
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may help my noble friend. My understanding of the Crown Estate is that it is like any other landlord. It is an extremely good landlord and extremely sensitive to environmental issues. That is why there are so few complaints about what the Crown Estate does. My understanding is that, in this case, there would be competitive tendering within the constraints of the planning requirements and the highest bids would win, providing they were adequate. So of course there were more bids; everyone wants to develop wind farms. That is the Crown Estate's point of view. If I am wrong about that, perhaps the Minister will tell the Committee. I feel strongly about this issue. The Crown Estate is like any other landlord.
  Lord Higgins: Perhaps I can explain to the Minister why we are confused. He seems to be saying, "We will set a price and then see which of the people who want to accept at that price produce the best environmental outcome". If that is what he is saying—it appeared to be what he read out—that is a strange concept. If you impose a limit on a price, you may well get more than one person who wants to buy the asset at that price.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I understand that the Crown Estate is a good landlord. It has done an immense amount to clean up beaches, for instance, by promoting the blue flag scheme and so on. So I do not intend by my amendment to question its credentials in that area.
  Perhaps I may use the Minister's analogy of a piece of land because that is easier to imagine. As I understand it, under the 1961 Act, the Crown Estate is bound to get the best possible price for a piece of land, for whatever use. If there are two private bidders, the highest one gets it. But supposing that the community also wants to build a school on it; is the Crown Estate

  GC 333
  able to sell it to the community for a lower price? That is my question. If the community in some isolated place wants to build their own renewable energy source, can the Crown Estate let them have that bit of the sea bed at a lower price?
  Lord Triesman: I hope that I can carve my way through the various issues that have been raised. My initial response was to the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who suggested that there could be a conflict between the Crown Estate as landlord and its obligation under the law to do its best in commercial terms. I pointed out that there are other considerations in legislation concerning what the Crown Estate can and cannot do that go beyond the simple principle of getting the highest possible amount of money for the property. That may have inadvertently led to an exploration of the subject that goes onto different terrain. It is important to clear that up.
  I certainly share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, of how the Crown Estate operates. Incidentally, I do not think that a case could realistically be presented by a local community that it wanted to build wind farms 22 kilometres off the coast. We are not here dealing with alternatives; we are dealing with the most appropriate way for large commercial providers to deal with the problem. With great respect, I shall focus on that because that is the most realistic prospect.
  Let me set out how the Crown Estate has proceeded. I may be able to answer most, if not all, of the questions posed. First, the Crown Estate arrived at a fixed fee per square kilometre for rental. It worked on and decided what should be the fixed fee per kilometre. The rental was set by the Crown Estate as the appropriate value for the site compared with alternative uses. I do not today, as the Committee will understand, have greater detail about the entire process it went through to make those comparisons but, knowing its quality as a landlord, I have no doubt it was done with the usual thoroughness.
  The site allocation was then—
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord. He is putting forward a normal opportunity-cost argument, but this particular site does not have any alternative use.
  Lord Triesman: I was trying to be candid in saying that I do not have in front of me the entire set of criteria which I have no doubt the Crown Estate worked through in making an opportunity-cost analysis of the alternatives. I cannot rule out that there may not be other alternatives; I cannot speculate what they might be either.
  Lord Higgins: Fish farming.
  Lord Triesman: Fish farms do come to mind. Aggregate extraction is also a possibility.
  GC 334
  We are told that the Crown Estate set the appropriate value for the sites by comparing the alternative uses and coming to a conclusion. I hope that the Committee will recognise the two examples I have given.
  The site allocation—this is where we come to the nub of some of the questions that have been asked— was then made on the basis of the quality of the project and the environmental impact. Those are the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said were often in the forefront of the Crown Estate's mind when it takes decisions. The overall allocation is limited by the strategic environmental assessment, not by how much is paid. I have made the point that the amount paid per square kilometre was set by the use of criteria as to appropriate or viable alternative uses. After that it was decided among those who made bids on the basis of the quality of the project and the environmental impact, limited by the strategic environmental assessment.
  That is broadly where I started. I feel that I have come full cycle in the argument.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and the Minister for his reply, which I shall read carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 106B not moved.]
  Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I should advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 106BA is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 106C and 106D because of pre-emption.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 106BA:
  Page 59, line 44, leave out subsections (9) and (10).
  The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the purpose of Clauses 76 and 78 and is intended to clarify a position relating to Scottish powers. The clauses apply criminal and civil law to offshore renewable energy installations and, in the case of civil law, to cabling. Both clauses provide for an Order in Council procedure to give flexibility to the process so that properly considered decisions can be taken about which aspects of the criminal or civil law it is necessary or appropriate to apply. Clause 76 also provides for the extension of police powers and privileges, again by an Order in Council procedure.
  Both clauses apply to renewable energy installations wholly or partly in offshore waters, including the Scottish part of the renewable energy zone. An Order in Council could potentially cover civil or criminal law matters that are wholly reserved under the Scotland Act 1998, wholly devolved or a mix of both. We are legislating for devolved matters with the agreement of Scottish Ministers, and a Motion under the Sewel Convention is being considered by the Scottish Parliament.

  GC 335
  We need to provide for an appropriate procedure in all three circumstances: where an Order in Council covers reserved matters; where it covers devolved matters; and where it involves both. We now recognise that the Bill as drafted is deficient in that respect, so we propose by way of these amendments to remove the existing provisions and to introduce a new clause covering Orders in Council for both criminal and civil law. The clause sets out the parliamentary procedure to be followed depending on the subject matter. In the case of wholly reserved matters the Order in Council would be subject to the negative resolution procedure in the Westminster Parliament, as we discussed earlier. Where the Order in Council deals with wholly devolved matters it would be subject to annulment of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament. Where the content of the Order in Council includes both reserved and devolved matters it would need to be subject to the procedures of both the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments. The new clause clarifies the position as compared with the original draft and makes a flexible provision that covers all three circumstances. Each of the three circumstances will require different procedures or combinations of procedures.
  I have referred the amendments to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and it has no problem with them. I beg to move.
  Baroness Byford: I ask the Deputy Chairman whether I am allowed at this stage to speak to my amendment. No? I am told that I am not.
  Earl Attlee: My noble friend wants to speak to this group of amendments that the Minister has approved. She understands that later on she will not be able to move her amendment and get the Committee to agree to it, but she can speak to the group.
  Lord Whitty: As I understand the Deputy Chairman's ruling, the amendments are grouped together, so the noble Baroness is entitled to speak to her amendments. If my amendments were agreed before the noble Baroness's were voted upon, there would be pre-emption. But certainly she should be able to speak to them now.
  Baroness Byford: My goodness. Perhaps I could ask all Members of the Committee and particularly the Government whether it is possible to move away from this terrible system of having amendments entitled "BA", "ZX" and so forth. It is a nightmare, and we are having a torrid time.
  I shall speak to my two amendments and comment on the government amendments. The Minister knows very well that my amendments were tabled well in advance of the government amendments—I do not think that there is anything between us in that regard. If, anyone can table amendments with the result that another amendment cannot be taken as was intended, it obviously does not pay to table amendments until the last minute. I do not think that either the Government or the department would want that, but I urge that a little thought be given to those of us who have done our work in advance but suddenly find
  GC 336
  themselves overtaken by events. That might happen on Report, but it is extraordinary that it should happen in Committee.
  In Committee, we normally table amendments at a point when the Government have not put down many of their own. They listen to the discussions in Committee and then come back on Report with new or altered amendments. However, that has not happened at all in this Bill. It is extremely difficult. I see that the Minister is shaking his head. I have never known so many. It is nearly like saying that the Government are altering their Bill before we have actually had a chance to debate it.
  At Second Reading the general, overall thrust of what the Bill is about was outlined; the Committee stage gives us a chance to table amendments, to hang hats on pegs and to debate the issues that we need to raise. I have never seen so many government amendments walloped-in at the Committee stage.
  Lord Whitty: I do not recognise the noble Baroness's description of other Bills. On almost every Bill— particularly Bills that start in the House of Lords— there are government amendments very early in the proceedings. This is because we recognise early on that there is a deficiency in drafting. It is for the convenience of the House—and of Grand Committees at this stage—that the Government put that right at the earliest possible opportunity. There is no serious policy issue here. The problem is the procedural issue that arises through the interaction of Scottish and UK procedures.
  As to the issue of pre-emption, I am afraid that: the Government are always in the same position as others in the House—pre-emption is never absolutely clear until it is enunciated from the Chair. That applies to any Bill at any stage. I do not believe that we are in new territory here.
  Baroness Byford: I accept that quiet rebuke and take it in the spirit in which it was offered. I have not participated in many Bills that have started at this end and so I may not have come across the problem quite so much. The noble Lord is much more experienced than I am and no doubt has.
  I turn now to speak to Amendments Nos. 106C and 106D. The Minister has spoken to his amendments. I am grateful to him because obviously one of them does exactly what I seek to do with Amendment No. 106C. Can the Minister confirm that his amendments will ensure that the application of criminal law will be the same in all UK territorial waters? It is quite amazing that the Bill as published can make the definition of criminal activity in Scottish waters subject, in effect, to a veto from Scottish Ministers. It is even more amazing that the Bill lays down that the Secretary of State has only to "consult" Scottish Ministers if he wishes the NDA to work on a Scottish site. That provision can be found on page 6, in Clause 6(3). By the time this issue arises in the House we will have dealt with the Minister's amendments, which we are still debating. I therefore do not need to further enlarge on that issue.

  GC 337
  Moving on to Amendment No. 106D, although the Minister's amendments would remove subsection (10) altogether I hope that he can clarify something for me. The point of my amendment is merely to raise again the situation where what is acceptable in English and Welsh law is not necessarily acceptable in Scottish law. Its effect is to create a renewable energy policy which is not a devolved matter, but which contains contiguous matters that are. In Clause 76, the contiguous matter is the definition of criminal activity in, on, over or under the territorial sea in the region of an offshore wind turbine installation.
  The nonsense is that it would be possible for there to be a wind turbine installation that covered an area partly adjacent to England and partly adjacent to Scotland. It would then be possible to make an Order in Council which classified—this is a very silly example—throwing stones as a criminal activity. if Scottish Ministers did not agree, that activity would not be criminal in that part of the installation which was in Scottish waters.
  Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me as to whether pursuit of an offender from English to Scottish waters would be allowed—or is that something else that, having been devolved, Scottish Ministers can prevent?
  The Duke of Montrose: I have a question on the drafting. I have been trying to understand the Government's amendment, which states:
  "An Order in Council under section 76 or 78 that makes provision falling within subsection (3)".
  I can understand it falling within subsection (3) of Clause 76, but does it apply also to subsection (3) of Clause 78? The wording seems to include both.
  7.30 p.m.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I realise that the Government have been discussing this whole matter with the Scots Parliament, and doubtless with the Lord Advocate, and that that is how they came to the conclusion that the Bill is wrong. I could not understand it originally and I am sorry to say that I do not quite understand now. Who lays the Order in Council which is wholly related to the Scots Parliament? Can the Scots Parliament lay an Order in Council direct to the Privy Council and Her Majesty? That was my concern. I think that that is a very interesting legal point. Otherwise, subject to what my noble friend the Duke of Montrose has advised, I am satisfied that they have found an answer.
  I am sorry that my noble friend has had such an annoying time working out what was wrong with the Bill and has found that the Government have found the answer after she tabled her amendments. That is very annoying for her and I can understand her being rather irritated. However, I am very grateful if the Government have found the answer. This is a very interesting devolution issue where you have three different sorts of circumstances that involve both
  GC 338
  Parliaments in different ways. So I should simply like to know who lays an Order in Council that is concerned only with the Scots Parliament.
  Lord Whitty: Where it is a purely devolved matter the Scottish Parliament would consider a resolution on an Order in Council and that would be subject to annulment if the Parliament did not agree. Bringing forward that Order in Council would be a procedure solely for the Scottish Parliament. The parliamentary procedure is slightly different from ours but it has the same effect in that the Scottish Ministers will propose a resolution to put to Parliament and Parliament can accept or reject it.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Does the Order in Council laid by the Scots Parliament go straight to Her Majesty or does it have to come through Westminster?
  Lord Whitty: It goes to the council. It does not come through the Westminster Parliament.
  On the question of different laws applying, the criminal law in Scotland has been different from the criminal law in England since the Act of Union or before. We are not in new territory here at all. A criminal offence involving a boat that puts in to Peterhead will be handled under Scottish law, but if the boat travels south and lands at Newcastle it will be dealt with under English law. It is clear that the noble Baroness's amendment would have dealt with the criminal law aspect but not with the civil law aspect. Although she would have dealt with part of the matter, she would not have dealt with all of it.
  We have dealt with it by deletion and by replacement with the new clause in Amendment No. 106EB. That replaces the whole procedure for both clauses—to answer the noble Duke's question—in one place. I think that that is probably a tidier way of doing it—albeit that this is a complex area.
  The situation about which the noble Baroness expresses horror—that the Scottish criminal courts and Scottish civil courts would do things slightly differently from English courts—is not a result of devolution but has always prevailed. As for areas that are subject to both, the British have a geographical issue which will have to be dealt with in the same way as is the ship. Usually, however, we would deal with it in an Order in Council that perhaps dealt partly with a devolved matter and partly with a UK matter.
  Therefore, the devolved matter would be a Scottish matter and the UK matter would be a UK matter and dealt with accordingly. A purely criminal law issue would be dealt with by Scotland and a purely civil law issue would be dealt with by Scotland in areas in Scottish territorial waters or the Scottish part of a renewable energy zone. I hope that that greatly clarifies the position.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: This is a most interesting Grand Committee because we seem to be having a lesson: we are asking questions and we are getting answers; some points are clarified and others are not. I have one simple question on Amendment No. 106DA, which is in this group. I am not sure how this

  GC 339
  amendment fits in. It raises a slightly different issue from the one we have been discussing. The amendment states:
  "Page 60, line 12, at end insert', and
  '"subordinate legislation' includes an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament".
  However Clause 76(11) states:
  "In this section 'director' in relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, means a member of the body corporate".
  The amendment would then add:
  '"subordinate legislation' includes an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament".
  I understand that governments bring back amendments. I have a bit more experience than my noble friend with regard to DTI Bills; sometimes whole chapters are left out and we rewrite the Bill. Fortunately my noble friend has not had that pleasure. I shall be very brief as there seems to be a Division in
  GC 340
  the House. All I am saying is that I cannot imagine how one can propose such a provision but ignore the whole issue of important subordinate legislation.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 106C and 106D not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 106DA:
  Page 60, line 12, at end insert ", and
  "subordinate legislation" includes an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Triesman: This may be a convenient moment to adjourn until tomorrow at 3.30 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until tomorrow.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eight o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Ageism in the Workplace
  Northern Ireland: Ageism in the Workplace
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Smoking
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Smoking
  Northern Ireland: Racist Incidents
  Northern Ireland: Racist Incidents
  Northern Ireland: Armagh City Shooting, 11 January 2004
  Northern Ireland: Armagh City Shooting, 11 January 2004
  Northern Ireland: District Councillors' Expenses
  Northern Ireland: District Councillors' Expenses
  Prison Service: Treatment of Juvenile Offenders
  Prison Service: Treatment of Juvenile Offenders
  Prisons: Self-inflicted Deaths and Self-harm
  Prisons: Self-inflicted Deaths and Self-harm
  Local Government Funding: Council Tax
  Local Government Funding: Council Tax
  Planning Reform: Disabled People
  Planning Reform: Disabled People
  Sustainable Development: Social Inclusion
  Sustainable Development: Social Inclusion
  All-postal Ballots: Local Council By-elections
  All-postal Ballots: Local Council By-elections
  Company Directors: Diversity
  Company Directors: Diversity
  Correspondence from MPs and Peers: Government's Performance Standards
  Correspondence from MPs and Peers: Government's Performance Standards
  Public Bodies
  Public Bodies
  West Coast Main Line
  West Coast Main Line
  Judicial Evidence: Still Photographs taken by Coloscopy
  Judicial Evidence: Still Photographs taken by Coloscopy