Sitting of 4 February 2004

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

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]. (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question,
  That the promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
  That in the present session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it passed in the last Session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
  That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Question again proposed,
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed on Wednesday 11 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—
  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Local Government Finance (Elderly People)
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on the formula funding settlement component for elderly people. [152479]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): A new formula for older people's social services was introduced this year, 2003–04, following research and wide discussions with interested parties. The new combined older people's formula is a better reflection of the way in which social services are delivered to the elderly.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for that answer. His formula provides Isle of Wight council with £82 a head
    744
    for old folks' deprivation and Hackney with £568 a head. Before he top-sliced the funding, the objective calculation for those councils, on the new formula to which he referred, was £544 and £1,031 respectively. Why has top-slicing cost old people in Hackney 45 per cent. of their entitlement but those on the Isle of Wight 85 per cent.?
    Phil Hope: One criticism from authorities such as Isle of Wight council about the previous residential formula for older people was that it did not take account of the number of people that the authority was supporting in care homes. The new combined formula uses a new population measure calculated to include the number of over-65s resident in households plus the number of residents supported by the local authority. The new formula also includes a series of age and deprivation indicators, such as the numbers of elderly receiving income support or attendance allowance, the number of pensioners in rented accommodation and the number of elderly people with limiting long-term illnesses. That is a very different way of providing resources for local councils such as Isle of Wight, and it drives up council services. I might add that Isle of Wight has received a 7 per cent. increase in next year's grant.
    Mr. Tom Harris: Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether any of the formula funding settlement is used to pay for safety features such as sprinklers or smoke detectors in care homes? After the terrible events in Uddingston at the weekend, will his Department propose new measures to improve safety in care homes?
    Phil Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. First, may I say that our thoughts are with the families and friends affected by the terrible tragedy at Rosepark nursing home? I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), who visited the home recently, and to the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament, and I made a written statement on the fire this morning. It is too early to speculate on its cause or on whether a sprinkler system would have prevented any loss of life. However, we will study closely the findings of the investigation now under way, and consider the implications for England and Wales.
    I might add that we were already actively investigating the effectiveness of sprinkler systems in tackling fires in residential properties. A report of that work, which is being undertaken by the Building Research Establishment, will be published later this month. Sprinklers may well have a role to play in protecting homes for vulnerable groups such as children, elderly people and people with disabilities.

    Balance of Funding Review
    Ms Meg Munn: What progress has been made with the balance of funding review. [152480]
    The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The balance of funding review is making good progress, and is now looking at a number of proposals, suggested in the

    745
    public consultation, for reforming current local authority funding arrangements. The review will report in summer 2004.
    Ms Munn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I understand that one option being considered is local income tax, which is particularly favoured by the Liberal Democrats. I urge him to ensure that the administrative difficulties of such an arrangement are fully explored, including what it would entail and its likely cost. I am sure that he would not want to repeat any of the problems of the poll tax.
    Mr. Raynsford: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we are considering a range of options proposed during the consultation, including the suggestion of a local income tax. However, although we are ready to look at options that will take greater account of people's income, unlike the Liberal Democrat party, we are not seduced by back-of-the-envelope calculations and unrealistic assumptions about administrative costs. The Lib Dem proposals for a local income tax would not only create huge administrative complexities and costs but open serious loopholes, enabling large numbers of people, including some of the wealthiest in the country, to evade any contribution to the cost of local services. That is not a sensible way forward.
    Mr. David Curry: It is nice to see that the Minister had prepared such a good impromptu response to that question. Does the review include an examination of capping powers? Does he intend to cap every council and preceptor, with the exception of combined fire authorities, that seeks an increase in council tax revenue of more than 5 per cent?
    Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the balance of funding review is looking at the long-term issues relating to the balance of funding between central and local government sources. The specific issue of capping is topical, for obvious reasons. The Government have made it clear that we expect all authorities, including fire and police authorities, to budget prudently. We have also made it clear that we expect local authorities to look for council tax increases in low single figures, and I have already written to some 54 authorities that have indicated that they were considering unreasonably large increases. We take our responsibilities seriously, and we are determined to ensure that the levels of council tax are brought down so that people are not confronted with unreasonably high tax demands.
    Mr. Curry: That is an interesting choice of words. The Minister is now talking about budgeting prudently. A few weeks ago, he was waving a big stick at anyone who proposed an increase of more than "low single figures"—that was the expression that he used over and over again. He has sent out letters to some councils that are proposing increases of barely more than 5 per cent. and to others proposing increases in the teens. However, some councils that propose increases in the teens have not received a letter. Who is going to get all these billets-doux? Should not the Minister employ a better cuttings service, so that he can find out more about what is
    746
    happening? When is he going to send a billet-doux across the river to the new Labour candidate for the mayoralty of London?
    Mr. Raynsford: It is appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about getting a better cuttings service, given the Conservatives' record in power of cutting services. [Interruption.] That was not a rehearsed answer, either. We have written to 54 authorities about which we have had indications that they might be considering increases in excess of 5 per cent. That is not necessarily an indication of the level at which we will cap, but it is right that authorities should be aware that the Government attach great importance to achieving increases in low single figures. That is the basis on which I have written to those authorities, and if there are others considering large council tax increases to whom I have not already written, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will help to supply that information in respect of Tory authorities—which are among those proposing the highest increases—and I will be very happy to write to them.
    Andrew Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend consider placing in the Library the working documents for the balance of funding review? Will he also make it clear that we shall continue to have a problem with local government finance until someone can come up with a practical, buoyant and progressive system of local taxation?
    Mr. Raynsford: All the working papers for the balance of funding review are already on our website, and I shall have no difficulty in meeting my hon. Friend's request for copies to be placed in the Library. As I said in response to an earlier question, we are looking at a range of options, including those that would allow greater consideration to be given to income, but I would not want him to underestimate the complexities involved in the Liberal Democrat proposal to substitute a local income tax for the current council tax. The whole field of local government finance is littered with examples of over-optimistic and ill-thought-out proposals for change that have produced perverse and unsatisfactory consequences. The Conservatives were responsible for the poll tax; the Liberal Democrats seem to be rushing into a rather similar proposal. We will look at the matter prudently and take decisions based on a sensible appraisal of realistic options.
    Mr. Edward Davey: I am glad that the Minister is looking at our proposals so carefully. If he wants to work with me, I would be happy to take him to those countries that have a local income tax system that is cheaply administered, fair and effective. Will he comment on a document on his Department's own website, produced by the New Policy Institute, which talks about the effects of council tax band revaluation in 2007? In particular, will he comment on the finding that council tax bills for Londoners in band C properties will increase by an average of 15 per cent. because of revaluation alone, while bills for those in band H properties will remain the

    747
    same? Does he think that that is fair? If not, why do not the Government save the £200 million cost of the revaluation and scrap this unfair tax?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has looked at the evidence on the website relating to the items discussed at our last balance of funding review. Perhaps he would like to go further and consider the detailed analysis of the New Policy Institute, which suggested various amendments to the current banding system to address exactly the problem that he has identified. It is because we are looking seriously and intelligently at problems, and seeking ways of finding effective solutions, that we will come up with sensible suggestions, rather than the half-baked proposals that the hon. Gentleman's party comes up with.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend reject as completely unfair and unprogressive any system of taxation that allowed millionaires to live in mansions and pay no council contributions at all, while hard-working families with modest means would pay thousands of pounds more?
    Mr. Raynsford: I can give my hon. Friend a very simple answer: yes.

    Council Houses
    Bob Russell: How many council houses have been built since May 1997. [152482]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): Since 1997, 105,228 new social homes have been built. Of these, 1,343 were built by local authorities.
    Over the same period, we have brought 1 million social homes up to decent standards, and over the next three years we shall be investing £2.8 billion to further improve council homes—three times what it was in 1997.
    Bob Russell: Mr. Speaker, you will be aware that my question was about how many council houses have been built. That is a lamentably low figure, even by the Deputy Prime Minister's standards. Is he aware that hundreds of thousands of children are living in overcrowded accommodation, and that even the Thatcher Government managed to build 360,000 council houses in their first six years? Why cannot new Labour try to match what the Thatcher Government did?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the priority that we set when we came in was to do something about the houses that had gone into massive disrepair through disinvestment to the tune of £19 billion. We have given priority to improving the housing conditions of people in local authority houses, and have improved almost a million. That is quite opposite to the right-to-buy policy that dominated in the previous Administration, and we have doubled the resources going into housing.
    Lynne Jones: It is good that the Government have increased investment in housing, but it is still only up to the 1992 level in real terms. In my constituency, only those applicants for council housing or housing association housing who are homeless or are clearance cases are receiving offers. Even those living in extremely overcrowded conditions, or with urgent medical needs, cannot get an offer. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that unless there is a substantial increase in the number of affordable homes for rent—and council housing is the most efficient way of providing this—many areas are approaching a housing crisis not seen since the post-war era?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend says. That is why we gave priority to improving housing, particularly in her area, by providing the resources to improve the housing stock. Much of that help was associated with very difficult housing conditions. That was our priority. But I agree that we need to put more money into housing. We have done that. It is double the level that it was in 1997, and it will increase even further in the next round of public expenditure.
    Mr. John Hayes: Further to the hon. Lady's question, the Deputy Prime Minister will know that in 2002–03 the number of social houses built by registered social landlords and local authorities was 19,174, the lowest annual total for more than 10 years. The Government are building fewer houses in this sector than the previous Conservative Government did. Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that honestly and straightforwardly, and tell the House why?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are doing that primarily because his Government refused to put the money into improving housing conditions. Over £7 billion from selling houses was being held in accounts that the previous Government would not allow local authorities to use to improve their housing stock. Our first priority was to make sure that the money secured from selling houses was used to improve the housing stocks, and that was a proper priority. It was our choice, and I am delighted to defend it.
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Is it not about time we made our first social housing priority the building of council housing and repair of existing stock? Should we not also reverse the policy of transferring council houses from the ownership of democratically elected councils to that of unaccountable housing associations?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I recognise the difficulty caused by the £19 billion disinvestment that we inherited. We had to obtain extra resources as well as the public money that was being invested, so we offered the transfer facility. Some 790,000 homes have been transferred, producing £8 billion in additional private investment. I think that, in the circumstances, that was the right priority. As for democratic accountability, the residents had to vote for this, and they did, in large numbers.

    Mobile Phone Masts
    Andrew Rosindell: If he will make a statement on the siting of mobile phone network transmitters. [152483]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): Current planning guidance on telecommunications is set out in the revised planning policy guidance note 8. The policy takes account of the conclusions of the Stewart report, as well as the need to facilitate the growth of telecommunications systems while protecting the environment.
    Mr. Rosindell: Is the Minister aware that her Department recently sanctioned the installation of a mobile telephone mast directly opposite Gidea Park college in my constituency, which is inhabited by a large number of young people? Does she not think that an inappropriate site for such a mast? Will she and the Department call the matter in to ensure that it does not arise again, and will they put the safety of those pupils first?
    Yvette Cooper: Obviously I cannot comment on the details of the case, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the Stewart report considered issues relating to mobile phones and health in some depth. A recent update said:
    "Exposure levels from living near to mobile phone base stations are extremely low and the overall evidence indicates they are unlikely to pose a risk to health."
    We have increased consultation and introduced an audit to ensure that masts operate within international guidelines. All masts that have been audited have been shown to be hundreds of times below the guideline limit. If the hon. Gentleman wants the site that he has mentioned to be audited, he should contact the Radiocommunications Agency.
    Phil Sawford: Is my hon. Friend aware that the current records for such sites are hopelessly inadequate and inaccurate? Map references suggest that sites in the south of England are in northern France, and that equipment on Blackpool tower is in the middle of the Irish sea. Will she make every effort to ensure that the records are updated, and that new technology is used to make them as accurate as possible?
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. Of course the information needs to be as accurate as possible. An independent audit of the work done by operating companies has found that they have not been keeping adequate information; we have raised the issue with them, and they have said that they will improve it. Meanwhile, the Radiocommunications Agency is producing a full list of all sites in the country. I will raise the issues that my hon. Friend has mentioned with the agency.
    Mr. Roger Gale: Since the installation of radiocommunications masts on the water tower at Herne bay, there has been a cluster of cancer cases. The findings of the Stewart report will be of small comfort to those living in the area, who are genuinely
    750
    concerned. Is it not time that we empowered the local authority to listen to local people and make decisions on the basis of local interests?
    Yvette Cooper: Local voices do have to be heard as part of the planning process. The Stewart report, along with more recent work, has produced a serious analysis, and has said that further research is needed—for instance, a major epidemiological survey. I think it right for us to take account of the best scientific and health evidence and advice available, and act accordingly. That is what we have done by accepting the Stewart report's recommendations, and that is the approach that we must continue to take.

    Allotments
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on allotment provision. [152484]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister actively supports the development of green spaces, including allotments, parks, city farms and playgrounds. We have introduced tighter restrictions on the disposal of allotments and distributed guidance on allotment management.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that allotment usage has been in long-term decline and that sites continue to be under threat, sometimes from developers, but often from vandals? Yet they provide a healthy leisure activity and are an excellent source of food. Should not the Government do more for allotments and the many people who use them and make greater efforts to sustain and promote them?
    Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is well known for championing the cause of allotments and he is right to do so. The decline in the number of allotments between 1978 and 1996—during the years of the Conservative Government—was appalling. It dropped from 479,000 to 296,000—a cut of 62 per cent. in the Tory years. I saw at first hand in Nottingham at the launch of our sustainable communities report the benefits that allotments can bring, which my hon. Friend described. I can tell him that the Government recognise that allotments are a key element of good liveability in our local communities and will continue to be promoted as part of our wider policies on support for green spaces.
    Mr. Robert Key: I share the Minister's enthusiasm for allotments, which are very important to the life of Salisbury and south Wiltshire villages. Will he consider representations from Durrington parish council in my constituency, which wants more allotments in the village? The Ministry of Defence is so strapped for cash that it is selling off fields, including those wanted by the parish council for allotments, in favour of building on greenfield sites.
    Phil Hope: I cannot speak about the specific example that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but as a former allotment holder myself, I can tell him that I value and recognise the benefits that allotments can bring,

    751
    particularly for pensioners and the unemployed. More women are also taking up allotment holding nowadays—and a very good thing it is, too.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, in former coalmining areas such as North Durham, many allotments go unused? Will he join me in supporting some communities, such as Sacriston parish council, that want to find alternative uses such as house building on those unused allotments? Will the Minister give some consideration to alternative uses? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. The House must come to order.
    Phil Hope: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is the local authority's duty to provide allotments where there is a demand and it is supported by policy planning guidance note 17—a comprehensive statement on how local authorities should operate in this area when deciding whether to promote allotments or develop them for other uses. It is a matter for the local council rather than the central Government, but we have issued planning guidance to ensure that, when allotments are wanted, people can have them.

    Council Tax
    Angela Watkinson: If he will make a statement on council tax increases in England. [152485]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): We are investing an extra £3.7 billion in grants in 2004–05. In total, we have increased grants to councils by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1997. Despite that significant extra investment, some local authorities have said that they are going to impose large council tax increases. Under those circumstances, it appears inevitable that I shall have to use my capping powers this year—and I will do so.
    Angela Watkinson: Last year, the London borough of Havering had the lowest grant increase in the whole of Greater London. This year, it is second only to Kensington and Chelsea. I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister has a particular grudge against Havering, but will he join me in congratulating the Conservative administration in Havering, which, over those same two years, has improved public services, cut waste and controlled the runaway council tax? This year it is bringing in a council tax increase of only 6.5 per cent.—the lowest increase in nine years.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will be aware that the borough of Havering received a grant increase of more than 4.4 per cent. last year, while council tax rose by 14.9 per cent. That grant increase was above inflation, as it will be for every local authority this year. Every local authority must make a judgment in this matter, but we do not want there to be high council tax increases. Given that Havering has a
    752
    Conservative majority, perhaps she should get together with the 17 resident councillors on that council and produce a reasonable tax increase.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: Warwick district council seems minded to impose a council tax increase of 20 per cent. Will my right hon. Friend give them some advice?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My best advice is that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire will be writing to the council. That will happen when any local authority raises council tax unreasonably. I will take that into account when I exercise my sophisticated view about implementing capping.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Peter Viggers:: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4th February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Viggers: Plans to build an accommodation centre at the Daedelus site in Lee-on-the-Solent for 400 young men who are political asylum seekers have been abandoned. Does the Prime Minister recognise that that shows that his asylum and immigration policies are unworkable?
    The Prime Minister: We were asked to consult on those proposals, and we did so. The hon. Gentleman's question shows that we have listened to the consultation. People have asked us to take action on the issue of asylum, and we have done so, having just about halved the number of asylum applications from the level that existed some time ago. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is no use in people asking us to take such action if we are not prepared to back it up with the measures necessary to make it effective.
    Kali Mountford: May I tell my right hon. Friend about the experience of a constituent of mine? She was a victim of domestic violence, but when the offender was released early, she found that the present system offered little or no support. Does he agree that it is very important that the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill currently going through the other place should provide that the system gives proper and full support when prisoners are released early, and that their victims should expect to be safe? I also want to state that I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East

    753
    (Mr. Goggins), who has listened carefully to my constituent's case. I hope that that will inform the progress of the Bill.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We know that a large proportion of violent crime is now, effectively, domestic violence. That is why we have decided to legislate on the matter. As my hon. Friend says, that legislation is long overdue. I only hope that it manages to pass through the House with the support of all parties.
    Mr. Michael Howard: On 1 May, 10 countries—including Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic—will join the EU. We welcome that. However, Britain, unlike almost every other EU country, has imposed no transitional controls on the free movement of citizens from the accession countries of eastern Europe. Will the Prime Minister explain why?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises a justified point. It is important that we recognise that there is a risk that people from the accession countries will come into the country. It is precisely for that reason that we are looking at the concessions that we gave. If closing off those concessions means that we can deal with the problem, we will do so.
    Mr. Howard: Almost all the other EU Governments have imposed the controls already. All this Government have done is to screen advertisements on Slovak television, asking people not to come to Britain. Is not the imposition of controls likely to be rather more effective than an advertising campaign?
    The Prime Minister: May I point out that the legislation on this matter that passed through the House was supported by the Opposition, as well as by Labour Members? However, I cannot say fairer than that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised a matter that the Government are looking into already. We will take whatever measures are necessary to make sure that the pull factor that might draw people here is closed off.
    Mr. Howard: But the treaty that was incorporated in the legislation that we supported gave member states, including the UK, the right to impose the controls. If other countries have controls and we do not, will not people from the accession countries be much more likely to come to Britain? Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Finland and most other EU countries have imposed controls already. Why have the British Government not done so?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that we are examining doing that now. The reason why doing it in the right way is important is that if we decide to withdraw that concession, it has to be done in a way that will be fully effective. In addition, we have to look frankly at whether people's eligibility for benefits in this country is too generous under the existing regime. That is why we are looking at both issues. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is raising points on which the Government are already acting.
    Mr. Tom Harris: The Prime Minister will be aware that a number of drug dealers are using the recent reclassification of cannabis as an opportunity to open cannabis cafés in various parts of the country. I understand that one is planned for Glasgow, but does my right hon. Friend agree that what Glasgow needs is more jobs, not more drugs, and will he commit the Government to using all their resources to ensure that those cannabis cafés do not proliferate?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, which is why we have taken action against such cafés. It is important that we continue to do so. I point out once again that the possession of cannabis remains a criminal offence. The purpose of what we have done recently, however, is to ensure that the police, where they need to do so, can target their main resources and activity on dealing with hard drugs. It is important to deal with all those things.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given the two conversations that I held with the Prime Minister the night before last and the words repeated by the Foreign Secretary in his statement yesterday, will the Prime Minister confirm that, as they pointed out, the Government are not prepared to subcontract any investigation of their political judgment over the war in Iraq, and that it would indeed be undemocratic to do so, in their view? If that is the Government's position, will the Prime Minister confirm, beyond any remaining doubt whatever, that this new inquiry is not intended to address the central political public question to which people want to get an answer?
    The Prime Minister: The inquiry is certainly not going to address the issue of whether it was right to go to war or not. That is a question for the Government first, then for Parliament and then, ultimately, for the people to decide. Yes, of course, it is important that the inquiry look at the use of the intelligence and the gathering and evaluation of it—all of that can be done. What it should not do, however—one cannot put this to a committee—is decide whether we took the right decision or not. That decision ultimately has to be taken by the Government and by Parliament. Of course there will continue to be an entirely legitimate debate about whether it was right or wrong to go to war in Iraq, but that in the end has to be conducted by me and by him—not by a committee.
    Mr. Kennedy: Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said that this new inquiry will follow the precedents set by the Franks inquiry into the Falklands. May I remind the Prime Minister of the remit of the Franks inquiry? It was specifically charged to
    "review the way in which the responsibilities of Government…were discharged…taking account of all such factors…as are relevant".
    That is precisely what the Government are excluding from the remit they set the inquiry. It is not following the precedent of the Franks inquiry at all.
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that is right. I shall look carefully at the terms of the Franks inquiry, but my recollection is that it was about the discharge of Government responsibilities up to the invasion of the

    755
    Falklands by the Argentine Government. That is a quite different thing from deciding whether war was justified or not, which is in the end, I am afraid, a decision that we have to take as politicians. All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have said to him on many, many occasions, is that the debate on whether the war was justified will carry on—we shall be debating the matter later today. I take one view, he takes another; that is democracy and we do not need a committee to tell us that. But what is sensible is to go into the intelligence—how it was used, gathered and evaluated—so that we can learn the lessons from that. In my view, that is a sensible inquiry, but to attempt, as I put it myself, to subcontract to some committee the issue of whether it was right or wrong to go to war is not merely wrong: ultimately it is profoundly undemocratic.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the Prime Minister seen the film "Groundhog Day"? In that film, they keep repeating over and over again the same series of incidents. I rather suspect that if we have this second inquiry—or is it the fourth?—there will be people on the Opposition Benches, in the rest of Britain and in the media, who will demand another inquiry and another inquiry. The truth is that only the removal of the whole Government would satisfy those tinpot Liberals. Some of us voted against the war, some people voted for it. That is a political decision. I stand by it and they will have to do the same. It will be a matter for the judgment of the British people.
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    The Prime Minister: I could not have put it better myself. Indeed, I did not put it better myself.
    Mr. George Osborne: Given what the Prime Minister says about the importance of the independence of the BBC, was it appropriate for the Prime Minister's official spokesman to say that Greg Dyke's initial statement and apology did not go far enough?
    The Prime Minister: I made it clear, as have other members of the Government, that we fully respect the independence of the BBC and the freedom of the press, but it is not an interference with the freedom of the press or the BBC to say that, if an allegation is made that is totally false, it should be withdrawn.
    Mr. Martin Salter: Did the Prime Minister have an opportunity to read the plaudits and praise heaped upon the head of Lord Hutton prior to his inquiry by sections of the national media, many of whom described his inquiry as a model for others to follow? Does he share my surprise at how quickly their tune has changed? Does he agree that, if a week is a long time in politics, 48 hours is an eternity in Fleet street?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says—other than that I cannot say that I was surprised.
    Mr. Michael Howard: In his 2002 party conference speech, the Prime Minister announced that
    756
    "anti-social tenants…who make money out of abusing housing benefit, while making life hell for the community, should lose their right to it."
    Can he tell us how he is getting on with that initiative?
    The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for reminding me of my conference speech of a couple of years ago, but I can tell him that, through the Housing Bill that has gone through Parliament, it is the case both that landlords who are abusing the system can have the machinery and the administration for their receipts of benefits withdrawn and that the tenants can now be subject not just to antisocial behaviour orders in the normal way but to interim orders, too.
    Mr. Howard: That was not the question that I put to the Prime Minister. Why does he not just tell us in plain English that he dropped that initiative? That was announced in a written answer on the very day of the tuition fee vote last week. He does not seem to know that it was dropped. He does not seem to know about it. It was quite a good day to bury bad news. Well, let me now ask him what is happening to his initiative to give top-performing schools earned autonomy. Can he tell us how many schools have been given that much trumpeted autonomy?
    The Prime Minister: Actually, I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the specialist schools have far greater freedom. [Interruption.] Well, they are top-performing schools—in case the Opposition have misread the results. And the city academies have far greater freedom than any of the existing schools, and what is more, under the legislation that we pass, there will be greater freedom, in fact, for all schools in relation to the hiring of teachers, the curriculum and the way they organise their schools. So it is the case that top-performing schools are getting more autonomy.
    Mr. Howard: This was a specific initiative, which was the centrepiece of the Government's Education Act 2002, and it has been dropped—along with initiatives on night courts, withdrawing child benefits when children play truant, on-the-spot cash point fines, record tokens to encourage youngsters to behave and a whole host of others. Is there not a clear pattern: a gimmick dreamed up, a headline grabbed, an initiative dumped, and the Prime Minister's reverse gear in full working order?
    The Prime Minister: Well, unfortunately, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong in every particular. The top-performing schools are indeed being given more autonomy, which is precisely why the city academy programme and specialist school programme are under way. In respect of child benefit and truants, the parents of those who play truant can be fined under the new antisocial behaviour legislation. On-the-spot fines are precisely what we legislated for in the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003. Has he forgotten fixed penalty notices? He actually voted for them, but he shakes his head.
    The police now have the power to give on-the-spot fixed penalty notice fines for antisocial behaviour. That is precisely what we are doing. All that he is drawing

    757
    attention to is the fact that we are legislating against antisocial behaviour and in favour of schools, and he supported most of it.
    Jim Knight: I was told yesterday by the Post Office that Tesco, following its acquisition of a chain of convenience stores, is going to close 80 to 100 post offices across the country. It has not consulted the Post Office, the Government or the communities affected. Given the concern across the whole House about post office closures, will the Prime Minister look into this as a matter of some urgency?
    The Prime Minister: I can look into it for my hon. Friend, although, obviously, it is ultimately a commercial decision for Tesco. It did give us the assurance, however, that when reviewing those stores with post offices, it would work closely with Post Office Ltd. Obviously, we will look closely at that to make sure that that assurance and undertaking were implemented. I point out yet again that under this Government hundreds of millions of pounds worth of support is going to post offices up and down the country. I am afraid that that does not mean that all post offices will remain open. It is incumbent on those who say that every single post office will remain open, however, to say how they would fund such a commitment.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Can the Prime Minister say, with the benefit of hindsight, and looking back to the run-up to the war with Iraq, whether there is anything at all that he said or did at the time of which he is now personally ashamed or embarrassed?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I am not ashamed of having taken the decision to go to war. It was the right decision. I recall that the majority of Conservative Members supported that decision. There is nothing quite so appalling as the sight of people who used to support the war now trying to make political capital out of anything that they can dredge up in order to cast doubt on that decision. I am not ashamed of the fact that we went to war. We did the right thing, the world is a safer place as a result, we are better able to tackle weapons of mass destruction world wide as a result, and this country and its armed forces should be proud of what we achieved.
    Helen Jones: The Prime Minister will know that many of my constituents work in call centres and have been very concerned about recent closures, particularly when, as in the case of Abbey National in Warrington, the aim is to transfer jobs abroad. Does he therefore join me in welcoming the recent decision by Carphone Warehouse to open a new call centre at Birchwood in my constituency? Will he do all that he can to encourage other firms to follow this example and invest in British workers, especially those excellent people who happen to live in Warrington, North?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously, I welcome the new jobs in Warrington. My hon. Friend will understand that it is not possible to protect all jobs in the British economy. There will be a turnover in jobs: some jobs will
    758
    come and some will go. Overall, however, the strength of the British economy means that employment is now at its highest ever level, unemployment is at its lowest for more than 25 years, youth unemployment has dropped dramatically, and long-term youth unemployment has gone down to just a few thousand people country wide. We remember the debates that used to be had in the 1980s and 1990s about unemployment, and the fact that we have such a strongly functioning economy and programmes such as the new deal gives people greater hope on jobs in this country than we have seen for a generation.
    Patrick Mercer: The Prime Minister will be aware that last week Private Jonathan Kitulagoda was killed by a British suicide bomber while he was on patrol in Kabul in Afghanistan. He was travelling at the time in an unarmoured Land Rover. If he had been in an armoured vehicle, he might well be alive today. Can the Prime Minister tell us how many more of our soldiers will die before they get the equipment that they need?
    The Prime Minister: It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to put his question in that way. I do not know the precise circumstances in which this individual soldier died. I am deeply sorry for him and his family. I do not know about the decisions as to what vehicle he was travelling in. I suspect that those decisions will be taken by people on the ground. Of course, we will look into all these matters. but it is wrong to put the question in that way. It is unfair to people, and it does absolutely nothing for the grief of anyone concerned.
    Mr. Chris Mole: Does the Prime Minister agree that following the successful progress of the Higher Education Bill into Committee, he should work with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor to deliver, through the comprehensive spending review 2004, the public service agreement commitment to give 50 per cent. of young people the opportunity of a university place? Does he further agree that those additional places will form the foundation on which to give economies and towns such as Ipswich, Swindon, Doncaster and Cumbria the chance of a university of their own?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A young person who gets the grades and is able to go to university should be able to do so; no arbitrary limit should be put on them. Our aim of getting half our young people into university puts us at the forefront of international competition, as is right. Given that many of the degrees that people take at university will be two-year foundation course degrees in technical or vocational subjects, the policy is extremely important not only for academic, but for vocational study. That is why I wholly deplore the policy of the Conservative party, which is to cut the number of people who are able to go to university.
    Matthew Green: Can the Prime Minister explain the impact of his Government's policy of rural proofing?
    The Prime Minister: It means, for example, that on the common agricultural policy we have been able to

    759
    consider whether modulation and diversification in the farming industry are a better way of proceeding than simply continuing farmer support. Rural proofing is about ensuring that our policies do well for rural areas.
    I shall give the hon. Gentleman a second example—the money that we have put into rural buses. Because we know that many people in rural areas cannot travel about if they do not have decent bus services, we put an extra £20 million into them.
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: May I ask the Prime Minister what the Government's policy is on the return of the Elgin marbles to Greece, and if there has been any progress in the negotiations with the Greek Government?
    The Prime Minister: In the end, I am afraid that it is a matter for the trustees of the museum; the British Government's position remains unchanged.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I take the Prime Minister's mind back to the statement on student support that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills made on 8 January this year? During the debate, Lord Butler of Brockwell was quoted as having said:
    "'the general view among universities appears to be that the Government should get its top-up fees legislation through as a first step. There will certainly…be further steps'".—[Official Report, 8 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 439.]
    Does the Prime Minister agree with that, or does he agree with the Secretary of State, who said that Lord Butler did not know what he was talking about?
    The Prime Minister: There should be no assumption that there are to be further changes. As we have made clear, if there is any desire for such changes, they will have to go through this House. It is important to recognise that all universities need more resources, which come from the taxpayer or from a balance between the taxpayer and the student after graduation. Most people, when they look at that policy, think that it is a fairer way of proceeding. It is a far better policy than that which the hon. Gentleman apparently supports—that 100,000 fewer initially, then up to 250,000 fewer young people should be able to go to university.
    Joan Ruddock: A new inquest has just opened into the New Cross fire, which occurred in my constituency 23 years ago and took the lives of 14 young black people. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the fortitude of the families, led by George Francis; to the support of Ministers and of Lewisham council; and particularly to the painstaking reinvestigation by the Metropolitan police, which has led to the inquest and to the hope that justice will at last be realised, so that closure can be placed on this terrible tragedy?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that, as my hon. Friend says, it is the 23rd anniversary of the fire in New Cross that claimed the lives of 14 people. I offer my sympathy to the families and friends of those who died. I also pay tribute to the hard work of my hon. Friend on this matter. The Government would like to see a conclusive resolution to a particularly difficult and
    760
    appalling case. The High Court ordered a second inquest on the matter, which, as my hon. Friend says, started this week; that must now take its course.
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Will the Prime Minister investigate with Dorset county council ways of avoiding its proposed closure of Leeson house, an excellent residential outdoor educational centre that is used by children from my constituency? Will he reaffirm his belief that the experiences offered by such facilities should be available to all children?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Lady is right in what she says about the facility, but in the end, these are obviously decisions that have to be made locally. We are increasing substantially the money that is available to councils in respect of such facilities, but ultimately the decisions must be made locally.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the appalling cuts in social services that are being made by the Conservatives who run the London borough of Barnet? After their £10 million overspend, they are now making the most vulnerable in our society pay for their mistakes by cutting Springwood day centre, Flightways day centre and the Age Concern budget. Will he look into this matter and see whether anything can be done to stop the appalling cuts that are affecting my community?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those issues, on which I know that he has campaigned long and hard. Of course, he is right to say that there has been a substantial increase in the amount of funding, but it is important that it be used to preserve local services, because those services provide a vital means of support for the local community.
    Mr. Alan Reid: The Ministry of Defence has issued a press release to the Campbeltown Courier saying that the Machrihanish base in Kintyre is being considered as a possible site for dumping radioactive waste from submarines. In the recent consultation process, Machrihanish was not included on the list of possible sites. Why is it being considered now, after the consultation is over? There is no radioactive waste at Machrihanish at the moment, and the site is clearly unsuitable. Will the Prime Minister alleviate the concerns of local people by ensuring that Machrihanish is ruled out as quickly as possible as a possible site?
    The Prime Minister: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I am not aware of the particular issue to which he refers. Of course, in respect of any radioactive waste, very strict procedures and rules must be adhered to, and I am sure that they would have been in this case.
    Jonathan Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are now 60 million rats in the United Kingdom—and the numbers are growing? Does he agree with the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, which has strongly criticised water companies for their failure to bait sewers

    761
    effectively? Is it not time that they faced up to their responsibility? Finally, will he remember that at any one time, every person in the United Kingdom is no more than 9 m away from the nearest rat?
    The Prime Minister: First, I did not know that there were 60 million rats in the UK; in fact, I am not sure that I wanted to know that. I am told that the control of rats and mice is mainly the responsibility of local authorities under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949, with which I am sure the House is familiar. However, I can also tell my hon. Friend that the Local Government Association and the water industry published a joint protocol in 1999 setting out arrangements for closer working between sewerage undertakers and local authorities in respect of rodent infestation in sewers. I hope that, just as I am now enlightened, he is too.
    Lembit Öpik: Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke resigned from the BBC because they acted in good faith in defending bad information from their subordinates. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether the same principle applies to his Government?
    The Prime Minister: It is important that the Government take responsibility for any information that is put out to people. That is precisely why we held the Hutton inquiry into the allegation that we had falsified the information that we put out to people. I
    762
    remind him—I am sorry that this is difficult for those who wanted the Hutton inquiry to reach a different point of view—that Lord Hutton took the view, absolutely conclusively on the evidence, that that charge was unjustified.
    Ms Meg Munn: Over the last year, many children in my constituency have had the opportunity to attend either newly built schools or refurbished schools, and more such schools are planned. However, far too many children still go to school in old buildings that cannot cope with the demands of the 21st century. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government are committed to continuing to fund schools so that all children can attend schools fit for the 21st century?
    The Prime Minister: We are committed to what my hon. Friend said. There are 21,500 schools repaired or refurbished, and 650 are being completely replaced or completely modernised. Over the next couple of years, £2 billion will be available under the "building schools for the future" programme. My hon. Friend will know that in Sheffield alone investment has risen fivefold with, in addition, private finance initiatives worth more than £140 million. Every penny piece of that investment will create a better future for our children. It is essential that we maintain it. It is not, as is sometimes said by the Conservative party, money wasted. It is money that is a vital investment in the future prosperity of this country.

Point of Order
12.30 pm
Llew Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the time of the Scott inquiry the House was given a commitment that that inquiry would not preclude Back Benchers from asking questions relating to the subject of that inquiry. Very soon after that, that rule was broken and Members such as myself were prevented from asking questions, even though in answer to a letter from me, Lord Justice Scott said that he had no objections.
The Butler inquiry is not a judicial inquiry so the problem is not whether questions would be sub judice. However, we need protection from the Chair to ensure that we can continue to ask the sort of questions that are necessary while the Butler inquiry continues.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. The setting up of the inquiry under the chairmanship of the Lord Butler of Brockwell will not affect the admissibility of questions to Ministers on matters covered by the inquiry. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

European Communities (Deregulation)
12.31 pm
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in respect of the effect on persons and businesses of regulations made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
It is a recurrent complaint by members of the United Kingdom business community that the burden of compliance with regulations of all kinds has worsened in recent years, and that that acts as a major impediment to profitability and competitiveness, especially for smaller businesses. The Bill is intended to introduce a new procedure in relation to regulations introduced pursuant to European directives.
In presenting the Bill I acknowledge the sterling work previously carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) in presenting a similar Bill last year and the work that has been done by Sir Paul Judge. This has long been an issue on which he has campaigned.
It has to be said that not all regulation affecting business is down to Europe. Examples of recent UK-inspired legislation affecting business in a significant way include the climate change levy and the aggregates tax. Those are very much creatures of our Government's devising. However, excessive European legislation has become a growing political issue in the UK, where the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Corporation of London, to name but a few, have all been heavily critical of the way in which rules are being applied, particularly without due regard to the cost of their implementation.
The shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pointed out in his recent comments on the Employment Relations Bill that under this Government as many major EU directives have been implemented in the UK as during the preceding quarter of a century of our EU membership. However, no matter where those regulations are coming from—whether Europe or Britain—what matters is the significant impact that they are having on business.
A Huntingdon constituent of mine who owns a business recently received a letter from a solicitor. In the letter, the solicitor explained the recent legislation introduced by the Government but emanating from the European social chapter, to give employees more rights in relation to parental leave and flexible working. The solicitor explained how this meant more work, more bureaucracy and greater costs for the employer. He went on to paint an alarming picture, saying that if my constituent did not follow the new rules, she would be in breach of the law and may be taken to a tribunal by her employees. Unsurprisingly the solicitor concluded the letter by offering her his advice.
It can be seen from that example that we are creating a new industry for lawyers and a feeling of being oppressed and victimised for employers. Although in piecemeal terms these regulations may look attractive to employees, those same employees need to realise that we are losing our hard-won competitive advantages, at the cost of seeing our factories move to China and our call centres and settlement businesses move to India. The figures clearly show that it is not just a question of British business moving abroad; foreign business is also choosing not to invest in this country.

765
It is estimated that the Government introduce some 3,000 new regulations a year. The British Chambers of Commerce, in its ongoing quantitative assessment of the burden of regulation, suggested that the total cost of regulations imposed on business since 1998 is now more than £20 billion. The Government's own Better Regulation Task Force estimates that European legislation now accounts for more than 40 per cent. of significant new regulatory proposals in Britain.
The Economist, in an article of 15 November last year, said that company bosses are increasingly condemning the flood of European directives, which are made even more stringent when turned into British law and regulations, and then applied relentlessly. Business also points out that this is not the case in all other competing EU countries. One source quoted in The Economist article contrasted the stern safety regime in a now-closed midlands tractor plant with the way in which workers wandered over a moving assembly line in a sister plant in France.
In September 2003, the Better Regulation Task Force blamed cultural inertia among Whitehall civil servants for frustrating attempts to reduce red tape. An expression that Members will be very familiar with in this context is "gold-plating". This seems to be a phenomenon particularly associated with the UK, illustrating the fact that eager civil servants, in their attempt to codify standards laid down by European directives, go far beyond the minimum standards required by European legislation. Indeed, that frequently happens even when such standards do not have to be separately implemented by British legislation, as they originate from EU regulations that are legally binding in this country in any event.
The British Chambers of Commerce has set out the recommended key action points to which the Government need to commit in order to stem the tide of regulation. They include using regulation only as a last resort in business-related policy, providing greater transparency in respect of the cumulative burden of regulation on business, introducing sunset clauses into all new regulations, and investigating fully and regularly the operation of existing laws.
The current Government have announced at various times that they will look into regulation, but never to much avail. It is important to realise that on its own, a deregulatory approach cannot reduce, or is very unlikely to reduce, the net amount of regulation, because regulations are continually being produced at a faster rate than they are being reviewed.
766
The Bill that I am proposing today is designed to close this gap by introducing the right for businesses, individuals and public bodies alike to seek a declaration by the courts that UK regulations enacted under section 2 of the 1972 Act are ineffective, to the extent that their provisions go beyond the basic minimum required by Community law, first, where UK regulations contain burdensome regulations that are not required by Community law; secondly, where other member states have not implemented certain provisions of European law; or thirdly, where other member states have implemented such provisions in a less burdensome way. Such a declaration could be applied for by affected individuals or businesses in the administrative courts, as well as in any civil or criminal proceedings through which a person is prosecuted or sued for breach of such a regulation.
These proposals would force policy-makers and civil servants to monitor closely what is going on in other member states and their laws. They would also encourage Members to take a somewhat greater interest than I have often found to be the case in what is going on in Brussels legislation. This increased review and co-ordination would, in turn, avoid the current nonsensical situation whereby the UK almost always adopts the lowest common denominator in its interpretation of European law. Any legislative provisions going beyond the minimum required by European directives should be implemented using the usual parliamentary legislation procedures, rather than their being shuffled in through the back door, in the form of statutory instruments, under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act.
For all those reasons, this new legislation would be an important step towards relieving UK business of the burgeoning morass of European red tape by providing for an effective procedure through which businesses and people could challenge uneconomic over-regulation that is unfairly imposed on them. In allowing this, the Bill will go some way towards revitalising the confidence of the British people in the powers of this House, and accordingly in the democratic integrity of our nation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Djanogly, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Mr. James Arbuthnot, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Michael Fabricant, Mr. Peter Atkinson and Mr. Mark Field.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEREGULATION)
Mr. Djanogly accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in respect of the effect on persons and businesses of regulations made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 197: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 March, and to be printed [Bill 48].

Lord Hutton's Report
[Relevant document: The Intelligence and Security Committee's Report, Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction—Intelligence and Assessments, Cm 5972.]
Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that there is an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. That makes it clear that a large number of hon. Members want to speak in the debate. It will not be appreciated for them to come down to find out where they are on the list, by either myself or the Deputy Speakers.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]
12.41 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This is a debate on the Hutton report, but I know that the House will want to range wider than the report itself. I intend to cover four issues: the report itself and its findings; the inquiry into the issue of intelligence announced yesterday; the threat of weapons of mass destruction more generally; and the current situation in Iraq. I shall try to take as many interventions as possible, to allow questions on those issues.
The Hutton report did not, of course, consider whether the intelligence that the Government received prior to the war in Iraq was right, but it did examine exhaustively and in painstaking detail two issues: whether Downing street or the Government acted improperly in respect of the September 2002 dossier, and in particular whether the BBC story in respect of it was correct; and whether I or anyone else acted duplicitously or in an underhand manner in respect of the naming of Dr. Kelly.
The Hutton report found conclusively that on both counts the answer was no. It did find that the Ministry of Defence was at fault in not telling Dr. Kelly clearly and immediately that his name would be confirmed if a journalist suggested it. Again, as I said last week, we accept those findings, and I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in paying tribute to the dignity with which Mrs. Kelly and her family have conducted themselves during this extremely difficult period.
The report itself—clear, forensic and utterly comprehensive in its analysis of the evidence—is the best defence to the charges of Government whitewash, often from the same people who just over a week ago were describing Lord Hutton as a model of impartiality, wisdom and insight. I simply make two points to those who cannot accept that Lord Hutton could acquit the Government of dishonesty. On the principal point, Lord Hutton confirmed the conclusion that the Intelligence and Security Committee had found before him, and the Foreign Affairs Committee before it, and the Government published responses to their reports yesterday. It would have been impossible from the evidence, frankly, to find otherwise.
I read that there are some who still say that the broadcast by Mr. Gilligan was 90 per cent. right. Actually, it was 100 per cent. wrong. The claim by Mr. Gilligan was that, a) the intelligence about Saddam using some weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to do so was inserted into the dossier
768
not by the Joint Intelligence Committee, as I told Parliament, but by Downing street; b) that this was done against the express wishes of the intelligence community; c) that it was done by Downing street,
"probably knowing that it was wrong";
and, furthermore, d) that the source of this unprecedented charge was
"a senior official in charge of drawing up the dossier".
In fact, every single one of those claims was wrong—not a little wrong, 100 per cent. wrong. The reason why Lord Hutton found as much was that not a single shred of evidence was presented to his inquiry that would have justified an alternative finding. The same is true for the Intelligence and Security Committee and for the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is the Prime Minister able to say whether all the correspondence that passed between the BBC, its chairman and director general was made available in its entirety to Lord Hutton?
The Prime Minister: Everything that was relevant to the inquiry was made available to Lord Hutton, and I understand that he has already indicated that he believes he has all the relevant material. I do not believe that there is anything that we concealed from that inquiry. Indeed, I do not think that there has ever been a case in which a Government have disclosed so much information in such a way.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Prime Minister has had some notice of this question, because I asked it two minutes before Lord Hutton began the presentation of his report a week ago. The evidence before Lord Hutton includes a copy of an e-mail about the dossier from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, which asks:
"what will be the headline in the Standard on day of publication? What do we want it to be?"
The headline turned out to be, "45 Minutes From Attack". Does the Prime Minister agree that that headline was wholly misleading? Why did not the Government take steps to make it clear that it was misleading?
The Prime Minister: All of that was covered in the inquiry—[Interruption.] It was, actually. I will not go into the detail of the explanation, except to say that if I could ensure that every Evening Standard headline read as I wished it to, 1 would be a happier man.
Gregory Barker: In the famous 24 September dossier, the Prime Minister stated in the foreword:
"I am in no doubt that the threat is serious, and current; that he has made progress on WMD, and that he has to be stopped."
In light of the inquiry that the Prime Minister has announced, when did he cease to believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD?
The Prime Minister: Again, I answered questions on that point at the Liaison Committee yesterday. As I said in my statement to the House last September, I could not say that the threat would materialise that day, the next

769
day, the next week or even the next year, but I could say that to allow Saddam Hussein to continue developing programmes for weapons of mass destruction was a serious threat to the world. What I said yesterday, and I shall come to this point later in my speech, is that we obviously have to take account of what Dr. David Kay has said, as the head of the Iraq survey group. I hope that I will be able to convince the hon. Gentleman, after I go through the whole of what Dr. Kay actually said, that in fact we were fully justified in the decision that we took.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister said in the Chamber that the question of his official spokesman, Tom Kelly, describing Dr. Kelly as a "'Walter Mitty' character" before his body had even been buried was a matter for Lord Hutton. Lord Hutton has concluded that that comment was "wholly improper", though he noted that Tom Kelly had apologised for it. Given that Jo Moore apologised for her outrageous comment, but still had to go, when will the Prime Minister dispense with the services of his official spokesman?
The Prime Minister: I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman implies. Tom Kelly made an immediate and very full apology at the time, and he repeated it to the inquiry. Indeed, Lord Hutton deals with that in his report.
Donald Anderson: Is it not also relevant that the late Dr. Kelly said, in the broadcast that was shown posthumously, that WMD could be deployed within days or weeks? Is not the real problem for the press and the Opposition their disappointment and frustration that they do not have the heads of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence on a platter?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is probably right.
I sympathise with the confusion in the public mind about how the Hutton report has been received. The reason is simple. There is a world of difference between the evidence given to the inquiry and some—although I stress by no means all—of the reporting of it at the time. I shall give one example, which is relevant to some of what is in the newspapers today. The concerns by people within Defence Intelligence Staff about the way in which the 45-minute intelligence was phrased in the dossier, which was after all possibly the grain of truth that led to the mountain of untruth in Mr. Gilligan's broadcast, was reported the next day as leaving the credibility of the dossier in tatters, and the Government's case shot to pieces. One would have thought that the entirety of the Government's case in the dossier had been destroyed after listening to or reading some accounts of the evidence. In fact, one of those who gave evidence to the Hutton inquiry said that overall the dossier was
"a reasonable and accurate picture of the intelligence."
It was also revealed to the inquiry that Dr. Kelly himself said that it was "good".
Mr. A. J. Beith: Bearing in mind what the Prime Minister has just said, and the Government's response to the Intelligence and Security Committee that it was important to preserve the line-management authority of Joint Intelligence Committee members in judging what should be brought to the attention of the chairman of that committee from their departments, could the Prime Minister say whether it is more important that any serious reservations felt by experts in defence intelligence should be made known to those who make the decisions, or that the authority of line management should be preserved? Surely we were trying to get the evidence to the right point, not managing a bus company.
The Prime Minister: Of course that is right, but the whole point about the evidence—and I shall deal with other aspects in a moment—is that the concerns expressed by Dr. Jones were considered by the head of defence intelligence. In the end, he concluded that the way in which the dossier expressed the evidence was right. Incidentally, those concerns—again, I shall come back to them in a moment—never came to the full Joint Intelligence Committee, let alone to Downing street. I have no doubt that questions will be asked about whether that was the right way to proceed. Personally, I think that people should be allowed to manage their own departments properly. What cannot be said is that Downing street had anything to do with those concerns. They never came before the JIC, let alone Downing street. I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman that issues may arise about procedures within departments, but those are a million miles away from the allegation that was broadcast—and I think that he would accept that.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: The Prime Minister referred to the response to the ISC. That Committee produced a balanced report: some of its comments were supportive of the Government's actions and some were less so. The Government's response picked out four key judgments, all of which happened to support their actions. On reflection, does the Prime Minister regret that selective use of material? [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister: For obvious reasons, I missed the last part of what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Arbuthnot: In picking out key judgments of the ISC, do the Government regret choosing those that supported the Government and not choosing those that were less supportive?
The Prime Minister: I think that overall we gave a balanced picture to people. Those who have looked into the whole question of whether the dossier was altered in any improper way have found that we did not do so. I will come to what was being said in September 2002, not only by myself, but by everyone else. Issues arise now, because of the evidence that has been given by David Kay, who headed the Iraq survey group. The whole reason for the inquiry that was announced yesterday is that we accept that some things may have been got wrong. We cannot have a situation—[Interruption.] I somehow feel that I am not being entirely persuasive in

771
certain quarters. We cannot have a situation in which we end up translating what we know today back into the context of what was known and thought in September 2002, and then reaching a judgment. I shall come to that point in a moment.
I wish to deal with the story in The Independent today. Dr. Jones is an expert in his field and is highly respected. However, the newspapers today suggest that there is missing intelligence on the 45-minute issue. There is no missing intelligence on that issue. As far as I am aware, Dr. Jones saw all the intelligence that there was to see on it. So did Lord Hutton. The intelligence referred to the article that he—[Interruption.] Perhaps people could concentrate on this point—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker directed that the Public Galleries be cleared owing to instances of misconduct on the part of Strangers.
12.54 pm
Sitting suspended.
On resuming—
1.6 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been necessary to have a suspension, which has lost about 15 minutes from today's business. You will be aware of the large number of Members on both sides of the House who wish to speak in the debate. Could Sou make inquiries, perhaps with the usual channels, to see whether it would be possible to extend the sitting by 15 minutes and allow two more people to speak?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I feel that I have enough problems today, without worrying about that one.
The Prime Minister: I was dealing with the issue of today's story about Dr. Jones, and I was saying that there are really two issues. One is whether there was some missing intelligence that was not seen, and the other is obviously about the evidence of Dr. Jones himself. I was saying, and I repeat, that Dr. Jones is an expert in this field and is highly respected. But on the 45 minutes there is no missing intelligence. Dr. Jones saw all the intelligence there was to see on it. So, incidentally, did Lord Hutton. The intelligence referred to in the article which he did not see was, I am told, about the production of chemical and biological warfare agents. He did not see it, because the Secret Intelligence Service put it out on a very restricted basis owing to source sensitivity. His superiors, however, were briefed on the intelligence. It does not bear on the 45-minute point at all, and the ISC itself saw this CW intelligence and was satisfied with it.
Mr. Alex Salmond: In his article this morning, Dr. Jones says that he formalised complaints about the September dossier because he did not wish to see himself and other experts scapegoated for the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. Will the Prime Minister make it clear that he would not want to subcontract any such responsibility, but would accept it, as Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister: I have made it clear throughout that not merely do I take full responsibility for the
772
decision to go to war, but that our security services—I shall come to this later—do a magnificent job for this country. I hope that nobody in the House doubts their worth to the security of our people, or that they are immensely dedicated public servants.
Richard Ottaway: The Prime Minister says that all the intelligence about the 45 minutes was made available. As he will be well aware, it has subsequently emerged that this related to battlefield weapons or small-calibre weaponry. In the eyes of many, if that information had been available, those weapons might not have been described as weapons of mass destruction threatening the region and the stability of the world. When did the Prime Minister know that information? In particular, did he know it when the House divided on 18 March?
The Prime Minister: No. I have already indicated exactly when this came to my attention. It was not before the debate on 18 March last year. The hon. Gentleman says that a battlefield weapon would not be a weapon of mass destruction, but if there were chemical, biological or nuclear battlefield weapons, they most certainly would be weapons of mass destruction. The idea that their use would not threaten the region's stability I find somewhat eccentric.
Lynne Jones: Brian Jones suggests that the particular intelligence information was made available only to a limited number of people. He suggests that it was confined to the chief of defence intelligence, and not even shown to his deputy. He also suggests that those to whom that intelligence was made available were not sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to assess its importance. Can my right hon. Friend comment on those suggestions?
The Prime Minister: I can comment on them, and it is helpful that my hon. Friend intervenes in that way. First, the particular intelligence that she is talking about is not intelligence on the 45 minutes; it was intelligence on the different issue to do with chemical and biological weapons. The ISC considered this in its report. It was not seen by everyone within DIS. The procedures of SIS are that where there is a very sensitive source it will go on a restricted access to people, but they were briefed on the details. However, people on the Joint Intelligence Committee were able to know exactly what the provenance of that intelligence was and exactly what its significance was. But the point that I was making was that it does not relate to the 45 minutes. What has happened—it is perfectly understandable, because this gets extremely complicated over time—is that people have conflated a different piece of intelligence with assuming that there was some secret bit of 45-minute intelligence that was not seen. Lord Hutton saw all that there was to see on the 45 minutes.
Jim Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who are quoting Dr. Jones should also look closely at the evidence given by Dr. Kay to the Armed Services Committee on 28 January? He said, for example:

773
"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."
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall come in a moment to what Dr. Kay said.
I should like to say exactly what the point is that Dr. Jones was making in the course of his evidence. The whole issue was gone into in minute detail by Lord Hutton. It is true that Dr. Jones was expressing concern about the strength of the language used to describe the 45-minute claim. But it is important also to contextualise that. In his evidence, to be found at page 120 of the Hutton report, he makes it clear in an answer to Lord Hutton that
"The important point is that we at no stage argued that this intelligence should not be included in the dossier … We thought it was important intelligence."
In other words, he was not even saying that it should not be in the dossier. He then said that he thought that the references in the foreword
"were too strong"
and that what he believed was that instead of saying that the intelligence "shows" this it should be that the intelligence "indicates" this.
I agree that there is a difference between the two. But let us be quite clear. It is hardly of earth-shattering significance in terms of how the whole dossier would be perceived. In any event, I do not pass judgment on whether it was right to say "indicates" or right to say "shows". That judgment was made by the Joint Intelligence Committee. It never reached this difference within the DIS. In the Joint Intelligence Committee as a committee it did not reach the chairman of the committee, let alone Downing street.
Therefore, when people ask why the judge concluded that Downing street had not interfered improperly with the dossier, it was because even on that small issue, which is the only issue that has allowed Mr. Gilligan's claim to have any provenance at all, it never came anywhere near Downing Street.
Mr. Boris Johnson: When Alastair Campbell requested and was granted a change in the language about the 45-minute claim, so as to drop the word "may", was that because he had some superior knowledge about the state of readiness of weapons in Iraq, or was it, rather, that he was seeking to embellish or, as Gilligan put it, to "sex up" the dossier?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman simply will not accept the verdict of the Hutton inquiry. He is entitled to do that, but I disagree with him. The fact is that, whatever suggestions were made, it was the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee who cleared the entirety of the dossier. That dossier, as Lord
774
Hutton finds, was not improperly interfered with. That was the finding also of the Intelligence and Security Committee and of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Clare Short rose—
The Prime Minister: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend, and then I must make progress.
Clare Short: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Surely the crucial point for the world here is that the dossier exaggerated how immediate the threat was, and that was the justification to rush to war by a preordained date, which divided the world, divided the United Nations and has caused a bitter and dangerous situation in Iraq and the Middle East. That exaggeration was the great fault, and it has led to dreadful consequences.
The Prime Minister: First, I do not accept my right hon. Friend's point about the exaggeration, for the reasons given by Lord Hutton and by the Intelligence and Security Committee before him. Secondly—I shall say more about this in a moment—the reason we went to war was that we believed there was a failure by Saddam Hussein to abide by the terms of United Nations resolution 1441. In a moment I shall come to what that failure was.
Thirdly, my right hon. Friend says that there is a bitter situation in Iraq today. There was a bitter situation in Iraq for a long time, and it was caused by a ruthless tyrant who killed literally hundreds of thousands of his people. I know that whatever disagreement my right hon. Friend has with me over the war, she would accept that Iraq is a better place without him.
Before I leave the subject of the Hutton report itself, let me make one final observation. Having produced his findings, Lord Hutton has been accused in certain quarters—we heard that earlier during Prime Minister's Question Time—of putting at risk the freedom of the press or the independence of the BBC. In fairness to him, we should be clear about what Lord Hutton is saying. What Lord Hutton says is that if an allegation of gross impropriety or dishonesty is made against someone it should be checked out first, or if it is made and turns out to be false, it should be withdrawn. That is not to curtail a free press; it is actually to ensure a free society.
Mr. George Osborne: I think the Prime Minister was referring to my question to him. What I asked about was the Government's reaction to the Hutton report—particularly the statement by the Prime Minister's official spokesman, who said that Greg Dyke's initial response did not go far enough, and the behaviour of Alastair Campbell. who over two or three days after the reaction to the Hutton report was parading around the media beating the BBC. The Prime Minister cannot claim that Alastair Campbell was simply operating as a private individual during those days.
The Prime Minister: Surely the key question for everyone—the hon. Gentleman and me, and everyone

775
concerned with this—is whether we accept the findings of the Hutton inquiry. I assume that he does accept those findings.
Mr. Osborne: Yes
The Prime Minister: In that case, we can no doubt have a debate about what happened subsequent to their publication. But let us be quite clear: the allegation that was being made—not just against me but against Alastair Campbell and to an extent, in a sense, against the security services themselves—was that we had done something improper or wrong, in effectively falsifying the intelligence that I presented to Parliament. That allegation never had a shred of evidence to it. It could never be supported. I am glad it has now been withdrawn, and I think it should have been withdrawn in the first place.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
The Prime Minister: Yes, but then I must try to move on, or others will not have a chance to intervene.
Mr. Kaufman: Has my right hon. Friend seen the article by the editor of the Financial Times that was published at the weekend? The editor said:
"The Hutton report is about a story that was wrong, defended against furious government complaints by a BBC management that had not bothered to check it, even weeks after it was broadcast, and backed by a board of governors determined to resist external pressure at the expense of obscuring the truth."
The Prime Minister: I did read that article. I think there is a debate that can be held—in, I hope. in a reasonably calm and reflective atmosphere—about the relationship between politics and the media. Who knows, that might benefit not just Labour Members but those in all parts of the House.
David Winnick rose—
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown rose—
The Prime Minister: I will give way to my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman, but then I must move on.
David Winnick: The BBC obviously made very bad mistakes, and—at least as far as I am concerned—no
one would wish to justify them. Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the integrity of the BBC is absolutely essential? Why should we not admit that despite all those mistakes, which undoubtedly and understandably caused the Government much dismay, the BBC is probably the finest broadcasting organisation in the world? Let us say so, and be proud of it.
The Prime Minister: I think we all say how much pride we have in the BBC as an institution, but the important thing —and, as I have said, I hope that a calm and effective assessment of Lord Hutton's report will do this—is to make people understand the best way in which the BBC can preserve its place as an institution in which we can all have pride: if it does launch an
776
accusation of impropriety that turns out to be false, it should withdraw it. That would actually help the BBC rather than harming it.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: In paragraph 435 of his report, Lord Hutton says that Dr. Kelly had a right to feel
"badly let down by his employer".
Once the Prime Minister had condoned the strategy of naming Dr. Kelly, he received a lamentable lack of support from the Government. What changes of procedure will the Prime Minister make to ensure that no other employee—let alone someone as eminent as Dr. Kelly—ever feels so badly let down by the Government again?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is eliding two separate things. Lord Hutton found that there was no underhand or duplicitous treatment in respect of the naming of Dr. Kelly. He did find that within the Ministry of Defence Dr. Kelly should have been informed that his name was going to come out. I have already indicated—I indicated last week—that we fully accepted those findings and that we will do our best to act on them, but that is an entirely different matter from the allegation that was made against us. Of course, where there have been failings in respect of Dr. Kelly we must take account of them. I also said, however—and I would like to repeat it—that some of those officials in the Ministry of Defence, who are good and dedicated public servants, have had the most appalling and difficult time themselves over the past few months. I think we should bear that in mind as well.
Let me now turn to whether the intelligence on which we relied, in part, to go to war was correct. Originally, as the House knows, I wanted to wait until the Iraq survey group had reported fully before any investigation occurred. Last Tuesday, however, David Kay, the outgoing head of the ISG, gave evidence to the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington which, frankly, cannot be ignored. More important still, it is now clear that the ISG itself, under its new chairman, will not make its full report any time soon. President Bush has announced a commission in the United States, and yesterday we announced one here.
I want to make clear, incidentally, that I personally would have been happy for the Intelligence and Security Committee to conduct this inquiry. That was within its statutory remit, and it does an excellent job. But I was pressed hard for a committee of the type headed by Lord Franks after the Falklands conflict, and I agreed to that. I might add that I have now looked at the terms of reference for the Franks committee. It is not correct that the committee passed judgment on whether or not the Falklands war was right. It did not do so.
As I said, I was pressed hard for a committee of that type, and I agreed. The committee will be able to examine the whole issue to do with intelligence and weapons of mass destruction, the difficulties associated with that across the piece, and of course, on Iraq specifically, any discrepancies between the intelligence gathered, evaluated and used by the Government and what the ISG found.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: In one moment.

777
The committee will subsequently be able to make recommendations on the way such intelligence is handled in the future. I am grateful to Lord Butler and the other members of the committee for their participation.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: How can the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) be a fit appointee to the committee, when she herself was sent a copy of the September dossier for comment before its publication?
The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to make those remarks. My right hon. Friend is the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and has done a superb job in that role. She is someone who had the interests of this country at heart.
Mr. Robert Jackson: Does the Prime Minister agree that neither the Government nor the media nor the public should look to the intelligence services for cast-iron certainties? Their business is the assessment of possibilities, probabilities and risks. Does the Prime Minister also agree that it is uniquely the responsibility of a Government to make decisions, which they must obviously do on the basis of the best available evidence, however imperfect it may be?
The Prime Minister: I do agree, and that is the only sensible basis on which either the security services or Government can proceed.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the inquiry also look at the political decisions made in the run-up to the war, in particular the Prime Minister's discussions with the President of the United States in April 2002, and when he thinks the United States made its decision to deploy troops as the start of the build-up to war?
The Prime Minister: I know perfectly well what the discussions were between myself and the President. I want to make this clear, because it was clear throughout. The reason why, after the dossier, we went back to the United Nations in November 2002 was that we wanted an opportunity to resolve this peacefully. It was made clear by both myself and the President at the time that if Saddam Hussein complied with resolution 1441, however much we might think it a good idea to get rid of him, the fact was that he would remain. He did not comply, for reasons that I will come to in a moment.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: I will give way one last time, but then I must make progress.
Dr. Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the fundamental difficulties of inquiries is that they are good at establishing facts, but not so good at changing opinions? Is not the difficulty of having an inquiry to assess whether it was right to remove Saddam Hussein the fact that it would not change a single mind?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
778
I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats felt that they could not participate in the committee, but I cannot accept that the issue of whether the political judgment that led to war was right should be given to a committee. We are the elected politicians; we make the judgment; it is for us to choose, and ultimately for the people to decide. However, I enter one word of caution. It has already been said—and it surprises me not at all—that this report will not do either. For some people, it will not. Some who opposed the war will not rest until one inquiry succeeds another, until a final inquiry concludes that it was all a mistake or, even better, a conspiracy. I have given up trying to satisfy that audience.
I also have a word of caution for others who rightly want to know whether the intelligence was correct. That word of caution surrounds the evidence of Dr. Kay and what the Iraq survey group has found so far. I accept that it has not found what many others, including Dr. Kay, and I confidently expected they would—actual weapons ready for immediate use. Let others accept that what it has found are laboratories, technology, diagrams, documents and teams of scientists told to conceal their work on biological, nuclear and chemical weapons capability, which, in sum, amount to breaches of UN resolutions many times over.
If we ever want an example of the impossibility of having a balanced debate on the issues, it is the way in which Dr. Kay's comments have been treated. I asked Senator Warner of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the United States and he agreed that we could place in the Library of the House of Commons the full transcript of Dr. Kay's remarks. I simply ask hon. Members to read it in full.
I shall read one or two items from it. First, Dr. Kay says on the subject of breaches of resolution 1441:
"In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group …Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441… We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities prohibited under"
the UN resolutions.
In replying to Senator Warner, he went on to say:
"I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought. I think when we have the complete record you're going to discover that after 1998 it 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".
Asked specifically by one Senator whether it would have been better to have allowed the UN inspectors to remain there, Dr. Kay says:
"All I can say is that among an extensive body of the U.N.—of Iraqi scientists who were talking to us, they have said: 'The U.N. interviewed us. We did not tell them the truth. We did not show them this equipment. We did not talk about these programmes. We couldn't do it as long as Saddam was in power."
Dr. Kay goes on:
"I suspect regardless of how long they had stayed, that attitude would have been the same."
He goes on to detail information about restarting the nuclear weapons programme, which is even worse than we thought. He continues to talk about mass

779
destruction-related programme activities and goes on to detail how they were attempting to develop VX and anthrax of a more potent sort than we had anticipated. He goes on to give evidence of an unmanned aerial vehicle with a range of 500 km—way beyond 150 km—ready to be fitted with exactly the type of sprays used for WMD.
Dr. Kay goes on to say that, in addition to all those things, the group discovered even more evidence about a ballistic missile technology that Iraq was trying to develop to produce ballistic missiles of up to 1,000 km.
Annabelle Ewing rose—
Mr. William Cash rose—
The Prime Minister: Before I give way, let me say what is absolutely clear. I fully accept that what I have referred to is not the same as the intelligence that we were told about actual weapons, but it is fully consistent with the determination to pursue WMD programmes and it indicates a total, unrepentant and malignant intent on the part of Saddam, which is, in the multiple breaches of UN resolutions, a justification for conflict. I cannot accept one part of Dr. Kay's comments and leave the other part to one side—but neither can others.
Annabelle Ewing: If the Prime Minister truly believed in March last year that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, why did he send the Black Watch into battle without adequate protective nuclear, biological and chemical equipment?
The Prime Minister: That is simply not right. Where we needed protective clothing, we issued it to people. I honestly think that if the hon. Lady spoke to people in the Black Watch Regiment, she would find that they were immensely proud of what they did in Iraq.
Mr. Cash: I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question that I put to the Foreign Secretary yesterday about the Attorney-General's opinion, which we had in truncated form immediately before the important debate that took place in March. Will the Prime Minister confirm that all the information that the Attorney-General would have needed in respect of the matters to which the Prime Minister has just referred does, in fact, and will continue to, marry up with the conclusions? In other words, there will be no discrepancy, and furthermore, the new committee to be established will have full access to the full opinion.
The Prime Minister: The Committee can have access to whatever it wants to have access to. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the whole point of reading what Dr. Kay said is that if the UN inspectors at that time had returned and laid before us effectively what Dr. Kay is now saying, the legal justification would not have been in doubt. There would have been absolutely no doubt about it at all, because it indicates multiple breaches of the UN resolution. It was expressly stated in the resolution put before the House on 18 March—which was the first time that a Government have laid a
780
resolution before the House of Commons before going into conflict—that the legal basis was the material breach of resolution 1441.
Mr. Mike Hancock rose—
The Prime Minister: I shall give way one more time, but then I shall have to get on.
Mr. Hancock: The Prime Minister makes a compelling and convincing case that he knew, and that the intelligence that he had established confirmed, that the Iraqis had those weapons. He also alluded more than once to the fact that he knew where they were—500 sites were identified. Does not the Prime Minister regret the fact that he did not pass all that information on to the inspectors so that they could carry out their job properly?
The Prime Minister: We did pass a great deal of information on to the UN inspectors. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that they were gravely inhibited in one respect. The single most important thing is to be able to interview the people concerned with the weapons programme. That is why in Libya today we are getting co-operation from the Libyan authorities and we are able to make real progress. Incidentally, I believe that, when we are able to talk about it, people will be surprised at the extent of that progress.
What Saddam was doing, however, was effectively refusing to allow the scientists to be interviewed properly. If scientists came to interviews, there would be a tape recorder there, or they were obliged to bring a "friend" to the interview. The fact is, as Dr. Kay said, that Iraqi scientists are on record as saying to him that when Saddam was in power, they did not dare give the information. I am afraid that we are left with the situation where, if people are reasonable, they will have to accept that Saddam retained the full intention of developing the programmes. In the end—Dr. Kelly himself once made this remark—Saddam was never going to change. Ultimately, even though we went through the UN and through the business of putting inspectors back into Iraq, he was never going to change unless he was removed from power.
Let me make one further comment. Suppose we had accepted Saddam's assurances and left him to get on with it, or suppose the inspections that he had no intention of co-operating with had wound their weary way to nowhere until the world's attention turned away. Do we think that in the chaos and corruption in Iraq that Dr. Kay described and that in the inevitable licence that Saddam would have gained in the face of the world's weakness, the world would be a safer place? Does anyone really believe that? Even if the Iraq survey group finds no more than it has found so far—incidentally, it still has 26 million pages of documents to read, as well as innumerable sites to visit and scientists to interview—we would have been irresponsible in the highest degree if we had not acted against Saddam and removed him and his loathsome regime from power.

781
However, I never based the case for war on Iraq alone. Iraq was also an essential test of whether the world was prepared to confront the new security threat that we face—the nexus between unstable, repressive
states that develop WMD and terrorists who seek unlimited destruction in pursuit of fanatical goals. I shall not rehearse every aspect of that argument today, but I repeat my conviction that that nexus between terrorism and WMD is the security threat of the early 21st century.
After Afghanistan, and now after Iraq, the world knows that we will fight back. It knows that, wherever the terrorists are, we will get after them, and that we will press hard on states that sponsor terrorism. The pressure that we exert may well be diplomatic pressure, but such states now know that we have the military means at our disposal, and the willingness to use to it if necessary.
When states that used to harbour ambitions for WMD reach out to us in friendship, we will reach out to them and offer a way out. That is why I welcome the six-nation talks involving North Korea that have begun. It is why I am pleased that Iran has recommenced negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Authority, and why President Bush and I are prepared to seek a new relationship with Libya. Does anyone seriously believe that we would be better placed in any of those endeavours if we had shied away from confronting Saddam?
Also, in respect of each of the nations to which I have just referred, we have acted in part on intelligence. I cannot say—this bears directly on the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson)—that all that intelligence is right in every respect. It may even be that we have underestimated the WMD threat in certain quarters. Intelligence never pretends to be an exact science. However, we are very lucky to have our intelligence capability, and we should be proud of the work that our intelligence services do, and of the people who work in them.
Therefore, if any part of the intelligence turns out to be wrong—and we know that much of it was right—or if the threat from Saddam turns out to be different or to have changed from what we thought, I will accept that, as I should. However, others should accept that ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein has made the world not just better, but safer. It has hugely strengthened us in our fight against the proliferation of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Although the responsibility for going to war is mine, as it should be, it would also have been my responsibility if, having received the intelligence, I had refused to act on it. I know which course lies more easily on my conscience.
One very clear reason for that is what is happening in Iraq today—and I come now to my final point. Yes, the terrorists and the rump of Saddam sympathisers wreak their deathly havoc. Yes, there are still a myriad problems to overcome. But 17,000 construction projects are now under way in Iraq; the oil is flowing, and its wealth is being put back into the hands of Iraqis; the
782
schools and hospitals are open; a new currency is in circulation; a new police force is taking shape, and newspapers and radio stations abound.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Prime Minister give way?
Mr. Ernie Ross: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
The Prime Minister: In a moment. Democracy is on its way in Iraq. The people are free, and Iraq—a nation of immense history and deepest culture—is no longer a pariah, with its people enslaved. It is now a country with some hope for the future in its heart. That is a gain worth having.
Mr. Dalyell: The Prime Minister is a lawyer. Some very wicked people, among them Hermann Goering and others, were at least brought to trial at Nuremburg. Does he think that we ought to do something to arrange a trial for Tariq Aziz and others, and even for Saddam himself? Would not bringing forward the trial procedure allow the west to set an example, however unpalatable the people involved might have been?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that we must make sure that the procedure that we use is fair and justified. In the end, though, it is important that the matter is determined by the new Iraqi Government. We are working closely with the Iraqis to ensure that Saddam Hussein and the other leaders of his regime get a fair trial. That is something that he denied to thousands of people when he was in power.
Mr. Ross: If we are to get an Iraq that is free, fair and democratic, will my right hon. Friend emphasise to President Bush at their next meeting that the people of Iraq have the need—and the right—to organise? People who organise a trade union or a committee in a mosque, for example, should not be suspected of being members of al-Qaeda, or of having links with that group. Will my right hon. Friend stress the need to allow and encourage the formation of such organisations, perhaps by suggesting that British companies that win contracts in Iraq should welcome the involvement of a free trade union movement?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Obviously. it is important that we give free organisation in Iraq every chance to express itself. There will be difficulties, as we go through the transition period. For obvious reasons, the coalition forces will sometimes be worried by one organisation or another. However, I agree that the forces must exercise their authority with discretion.
Dr. Evan Harris: Will the Prime Minister give way?
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: No, as I am conscious of the time, and of the fact that other hon. Members wish to speak.

783
We must recognise that the process that has begun in Iraq will give the Iraqi people, for the first time ever, the chance to run their own affairs in a democratic way. I remember that before the conflict, many people, both here and abroad, said that we did not understand what Iraq was like, and that countries such as Iraq preferred hard-line military dictators who were able to keep order. However, people in Iraq now rejoice at the possibility of democracy.
That brings me to my final point, which I think is important. Sometimes, the values that we are trying to help Iraqis to achieve are talked about as though they were solely western values. A sort of self-loathing comes upon us when we talk about them in that way, but those values are not only western in origin. They are the values of the human spirit. People support them wherever they can get them. We should be proud that, in Iraq today, we have a process under way that will allow the Iraqi people to achieve the freedom, democracy and the rule of the law that we take for granted.
Yes, we will get protests, as we saw earlier today. However, we in this House of Commons are very lucky: we can say what we want about the policy issues of the day, and we can debate them properly and come to decisions about them. In the end, the people of this country elect their Government. That is a fantastic thing, and it is an opportunity that is available for people in Iraq today.
I know that people—some of them Labour Members—are worried about our alliance with the United States of America. However, I think that America now understands and believes that the best and ultimate guarantee of its security is the spread of the values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. If America no longer takes an isolationist view of the world but considers that part of its job is to spread those values around the world, I for one am proud to be its friend and ally.
The values that I have described are important: they are, ultimately, the best guarantee of security. We can have everything that we want in terms of security services and military action, but the best guarantee of our security is that people everywhere in the world are allowed to live their lives in decency and freedom. They must be able to know that the knock on the door does not come from the secret police. They must be able to hold their Governments to account, and to do the same for anyone who transgresses their rights, in courts that are properly run. In the end, that is the freedom that people in Iraq and everywhere else want. It is the freedom that we should be giving to them.
1.43 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: At the outset, may I say that I very much agree with the Prime Minister's concluding remarks? I agree with what he said about the United States, and about present conditions in Iraq. I agree, too, with what he said about the threats that we face in this dangerous world, and about the necessity to take action to deal with those threats. On all those vitally important matters, there is complete agreement between us.
I also welcome the Prime Minister's decision, announced yesterday, to set up an inquiry into the matters to which he has referred. I believe that the war
784
in Iraq was a just war. My party has been consistent in offering support to the Government and our armed forces—[Interruption.] I remind Labour Members that, if it had not been for our support, the Government would not have had the House's authority to proceed. That is something that should be remembered. We have been equally consistent in calling, since last June, for an inquiry to be held into the intelligence surrounding the war. It is becoming increasingly clear that there was a discrepancy between the intelligence assessment of the weapons of mass destruction which it was believed Saddam Hussein possessed and the reality on the ground. David Kay, whom the Prime Minister quoted frequently in his speech, has said that he does not believe that weapons of mass destruction exist, or existed, in Iraq. He said a number of other things, too—the Prime Minister is quite right—and I shall come to some of them.
Let me make one thing clear: it is possible both to support the war and to want to get at the truth. That is the position of David Kay; it was the position of the late David Kelly; and it is my position, too. The purpose of the inquiry that the Prime Minister announced yesterday should not be to find scapegoats in the intelligence service—I agree with what the Prime Minister said about the enormous contribution that the intelligence services make to our security—nor should it be to rerun the arguments for war. As David Kay said— I think the Prime Minister has quoted these words —
"the world is a far safer place with the disappearance and removal of Saddam Hussein"
and Iraq
"was even more dangerous than we thought."
It is precisely because we live in such a dangerous world, where many threats may be even graver than we currently think, that it is so important that we have the best intelligence possible and the best guarantee that it will be acted on wisely.
If it is the case that intelligence overestimated Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, it is also true that, in the past, intelligence has underestimated threats, not least from Libya and Iraq in the 1990s. Underestimating the dangers we face should be at least as big a concern as overestimating them. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) that there can never be total certainty on these matters, but if the Government are to safeguard the national interest and people's lives, we need to be as certain as we can be of the hazards Britain faces, so that the correct action can be taken by our Government and their allies.
It is also vitally important that any future Government, before they discharge their most solemn duty—the dispatch of our forces abroad—must be able to convince the House and the British people of the necessity for action. I have little doubt that such a solemn duty will be required of a future Prime Minister and, given the fact that many of the threats we face from rogue states, weapons of mass destruction and terrorists are incubated in secrecy, we must have sound intelligence before we can make a convincing case for necessary action. The inquiry, for which we have long argued, is thus clearly in the nation's interest as a means of rebuilding public confidence and strengthening our capacity to defend ourselves and make the world a safer place. Those are serious issues, which the inquiry must address.

785
The inquiry may show that no one is to blame; after all, no one should underestimate the difficulties of obtaining accurate intelligence on countries such as Iraq. However, there must be lessons to be learned and it is essential that we learn them.
Angela Eagle: In the light of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said about the inquiry, does he agree that the attack made earlier by the Plaid Cymru Member, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), on my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) for her good public service in joining the inquiry, and which might also be made against the Conservative Member who is serving on the inquiry and on Lord Butler, who will head the inquiry, needs to be deplored now, so that a foundation is not laid for attacking people who agree to serve on inquiries on such difficult issues, and who take on an onerous public duty in doing so?
Mr. Howard: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been accused of many things in my time, but never before have I been held responsible for the observations of Plaid Cymru.
Angela Eagle: I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he agreed that the attack was deplorable.
Mr. Howard: I was about to tell the hon. Lady that I entirely dissociate myself from the remarks that were made.
Mr. Llwyd: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. I have an email that proves exactly what I said: a pre-publication copy was given to the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) for her comments and the draft was subsequently published. The right hon. Lady was the only Back Bencher to receive a copy and now she will be sitting in judgment on it.
Mr. Howard: I am happy to offer my mediation in this dispute if that is what the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) want; otherwise I think he will have to take the matter up directly with the right hon. Lady.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that there is a difference between a draft and a pre-publication copy?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend, as ever, makes his point to perfection.
I mentioned the consistency of the Conservative position on the inquiry. Although I am reluctant at this stage to introduce this small note of controversy, that is a contrast with the lack of consistency on the issue that we have seen from others. For many months, the Prime Minister has been in denial about the need for an inquiry. Indeed, it must be said that he was the last person to change his mind. When I asked him about it
786
last week, he replied that we should wait for the Iraq survey group to complete its work, yet now he says that an inquiry is the right approach because the Iraq survey group probably will not report in the very near term. What did he discover between last Wednesday and yesterday that led him to that conclusion?
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary say that it is now right to hold an inquiry because of what David Kay said, but David Kay's remarks were the very comments that I put to the Prime Minister last week. What a pity no one told the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House that the Prime Minister was changing his mind. Only this Sunday, the Leader of the House was still saying,
"let's wait for the survey group to finish".
When the Lord Chancellor was asked—also on Sunday—whether there should now be an inquiry on weapons of mass destruction, he replied:
"No, I don't think there should".
So what has happened? Why did the Government perform such an extraordinary volte-face in the space of two days?
I would really like to think that my renewed calls for an inquiry over the weekend may have had something to do with that decision, but in fact I am realistic and I know perfectly well that it had nothing to do with me. The thing that changed between Sunday, when an inquiry was apparently quite out of the question. and Monday, when it was not, was the statement from President Bush. It is the President who deserves all the credit—I am happy to give it to him—for changing the Prime Minister's mind on this issue. Where the President led, the Prime Minister followed, so we should all be grateful to the President. At least we have an inquiry, and as I say, I am grateful for that.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Turning to the Hutton inquiry, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman share with Lord Howe of Aberavon unqualified relief that the Prime Minister has been acquitted of dishonesty, and will he now be prepared to apologise for his own remarks, when he called the Prime Minister a liar and a stranger to the truth?
Mr. Howard: I said last week that I accepted the conclusions of the Hutton report and I do not in any way resile from that. As to the other part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am glad that he asked it; I hope that he has done his research and not merely taken a handout from the Whips, because I want to deal very comprehensively with his suggestion. I made three claims, none of which I resile from today.
First, I referred to the dodgy dossier. Even the Prime Minister said that he apologised for the dossier, and the Foreign Secretary described it as a complete Horlicks.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Howard: I am responding to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
Even the hon. Member for Brent, North could not argue with my first point.

787
It then became increasingly clear—I commented on it—that people were misled about the 45-minute claim. If the hon. Gentleman has not read Dr. Jones's article in The Independent today, I suggest that he do so.
Thirdly, I asked the Prime Minister about his denial, on the aeroplane to Hong Kong, that he authorised the naming of David Kelly. The Government have now completely changed their tune on that. Before the Hutton report, they denied that they had anything to do with the naming of David Kelly, because they were afraid that they would be found by Lord Hutton to have done so dishonestly, duplicitously and in an underhand way.
Mr. James Plaskitt: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howard: No, I am dealing with the intervention made by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). The hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself.
That allegation was indeed made. It was not made by me—I have never said any of those things—and Lord Hutton rejected that allegation. Ever since Lord Hutton rejected that allegation, the Government, including the Prime Minister, have been happy to claim the credit for naming David Kelly. Indeed, the Prime Minister said last week that he was under a duty to do so. Now, the Prime Minister could have said all that on the plane, but he did not; he said something very different. The Prime Minister can have what he said on the plane, or he can have what he said last week—he cannot have them both.
I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) if she still wishes to intervene, and then to any other hon. Member who wants to deal with this issue, so that we can get it out of the way once and for all.
Mrs. Browning: My right hon. and learned Friend says that the Prime Minister has apologised for the dodgy dossier. I have exchanged correspondence with the Prime Minister. I wrote to him in June, and he replied to me ultimately in November last year. When I asked him to apologise for the dodgy dossier, he replied that the Foreign Secretary had apologised for it—he had nothing to add.
Mr. Howard: I have not seen that correspondence, but the debate has been conducted thus far in a spirit of generosity, which was perhaps why I said what I did about the Prime Minister.
Kali Mountford: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for being gracious in giving way. In one breath he says he accepts in full the findings of the Hutton report; then he goes on to equivocate about what he agrees with. How can we be confident that the outcome of the WMD inquiry will have his full support; or will he continue to equivocate?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady is entirely wrong. First, I accepted the conclusions of the Hutton report: that is perfectly true. Lord Hutton did not deal with the issues that I have just raised. In particular, he did not deal with
788
the question of what the Prime Minister said. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] Lord Hutton said that what was said on the plane cast no light on the controversy in which I have been engaging the hon. Lady, so she is quite wrong.
Mr. Plaskitt: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way on the subject of the naming of Dr. Kelly. On 11 January this year, the right hon. and learned Gentleman accused the Government thus:
"the deliberate disclosure of confidential information … that's exactly what the Government were about."
On that, Lord Hutton concluded:
"there was no strategy …devised by the Prime Minister and his officials to leak Dr. Kelly's name."
Given that the right hon. and learned Gentleman now says that he accepts the Hutton report, does he also accept that he was wrong on 11 January?
Mr. Howard: Not at all. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is very confused about this. Let me remind him that the Prime Minister said last week that the Government had a duty to disclose the name of David Kelly. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Leader of the Opposition is replying to a question that was put to him; the House should hear the answer.
Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister is now saying something about this issue that is completely different from what he said on the plane. That is a fact; it is on the record; and everyone can test it. That is the position. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman is unhappy about that, but there it is.
Mr. George Foulkes rose—
Mr. Howard: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, and then I shall make progress.
Mr. Foulkes: I think that I can be helpful. Has the Leader of the Opposition read The Observer of 11 January, which says:
"On 10 December Spectator magazine held a Save Andrew Gilligan dinner at Luigi's restaurant in Covent Garden. As you would expect, many of the guests who wanted to save Gilligan were Conservatives."
Among those present was
"David Davis… Davis was canvassing advice on how best to attack Tony Blair after the release of Lord Hutton's report."
Is it not true that, if there is any conspiracy, that is where it was?
Mr. Howard: I must confess that I am mortified that I was not invited to that occasion. It was obviously a most convivial affair. I am sure that I would have greatly enjoyed it, and I shall take up with my hon. Friend the

789
Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), the editor of The Spectator, why it was that he never extended an invitation to me to attend that happy occasion.
Mr. Boris Johnson rose—
Hon. Members: Give way!
Mr. Howard: I want to make progress.
Mr. Boris Johnson: If my right hon. and learned Friend will briefly allow me, perhaps for the avoidance of doubt, I should say that I was not at that dinner myself either.
Mr. Howard: I am not sure whether that is a wholly convincing excuse. I would have been happy to go even if my hon. Friend had not been there, but there it is—we cannot all win on these things.
I want to make some progress and to deal with some of the discussion that has taken place about the inquiry's terms of reference. I was not happy with the wording that the Prime Minister originally proposed to me. I wanted it to be clear that the committee can and should consider the way in which the Government used the intelligence with which they had been provided. That is now included fairly and squarely in the terms of reference that have been agreed. Indeed, that is why I agreed to them.
There are some things that can and should be done in relation to these issues, however, that do not need the report of that inquiry. Some things could be done now. Writing in The Independent today, Dr. Brian Jones has made a specific request to the Prime Minister to publish now the intelligence which he was not shown at the time, but which he says lay behind the Government's key claims that Iraq was actively producing chemical weapons and could launch an attack within 45 minutes of an order to do so. The Prime Minister has referred to that intelligence today in his speech. It clearly exists. Dr. Jones says that it should now be released. Given that Saddam Hussein has been overthrown, even if that intelligence came from a source that was sensitive when Saddam still ruled Iraq, Dr. Jones clearly believes that it is no longer sensitive now, although he went on to say that, if there is a reason of sensitivity, the Prime Minister should state it clearly. It seems to me that the request made by Dr. Jones is entirely reasonable. I hope the Prime Minister will respond to it. If he chooses not to, I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will deal with it in his winding-up speech.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he would be happy for sources of intelligence to be paraded in the media around the world? Would that not put our intelligence people at risk?
Mr. Howard: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read what Dr. Jones said in his article today. What Dr. Jones said is that he thinks that the intelligence should be published. He doubts whether there is any reason of sensitivity for not publishing it. [Interruption.] If the
790
hon. Gentleman will wait just a moment, I shall carry on telling him what Dr. Jones said. Dr. Jones said that, if there is a reason of such sensitivity for not publishing the intelligence, the Prime Minister should say so clearly. Presumably, Dr. Jones would be happy with that, and so would I.
We must always remember that the Hutton inquiry was first and foremost about a tragedy: the tragic loss of a gifted and honourable scientist. I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the dignity with which Dr. Kelly's family have behaved during the months that have passed since his death. Lord Hutton has completed his report. I accepted its conclusions last week. Lord Hutton sets out in some detail what happened regarding the events surrounding the David Kelly's death, but he provided no recommendations. So it is up to the House and the Government to consider the lessons of those tragic events. There are lessons about the use of intelligence, about the way in which Select Committees should operate in future, about treatment of staff, about the way in which the Government do their business and about the Government's relationship with the media.
In the use of intelligence, a new precedent has now been set through the publication of intelligence dossiers. Everyone is clear about the February dossier—the dodgy dossier, to which I have already referred. The process that led to the publication of that document must never happen again.
The September dossier was the first document, so far as I am aware, prepared by the Joint Intelligence Committee and published by the Government. That decision gives rise to very serious questions. Will it be possible in future to go to war without publishing dossiers of that kind, including material from intelligence? If they are to be published, can the process of publication be better managed than it was on that occasion? For example, should not the Government have gone to greater lengths to avoid the kind of false interpretation that was placed on the 45 minutes claim? When, for example, newspapers published headlines such as "45 minutes from attack", on the day of the September dossier, and "Brits 45 minutes from doom", the day after, should not the Government have made it clear that the claim in the dossier referred to battlefield weapons? The Intelligence and Security Committee said:
"the context of the intelligence on the 45 minutes claim should have been explained, in particular the fact that it was assessed to refer to battlefield chemical and biological munitions and their movement on the battlefield, not to any other form of chemical or biological attack, should have been highlighted in the dossier. The omission of this context and assessment allowed speculation as to its exact meaning".
That was the finding of the Committee. The Government response failed to respond to that specific point, which was the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) in his intervention. The Defence Secretary was asked at the Hutton inquiry,
"why was no corrective statement issued for the benefit of the public in relation to those media reports?"
He replied. "I do not know". Perhaps the Prime Minister can provide an assurance that lessons from that episode have been learned.
There may also he lessons to be learned about how the operation of Select Committees can be improved. In the previous Parliament, my noble Friend Lord Norton of

791
Louth chaired a commission of distinguished parliamentarians and constitutional experts, and proposed ways to strengthen democratic control of the Executive. Many of its recommendations relate to Select Committees, including strengthening their research support. Our party's pledge at the last election was to make sure that Select Committees are independent of party managers, which also followed the work of the Norton commission.
Then there is the Government. There are specific criticisms of the Ministry of Defence in the Hutton report, focusing on the way in which it treated Dr. Kelly in relation to the naming process. Paragraph 432 of the report states:
"The principal fault lay in the failure of the MoD to inform Dr Kelly that the press office was going to confirm his name if a journalist suggested it."
I trust that across Government attention will be paid in future to ensuring that their employees are given the care and respect that they deserve.
Mr. Clive Soley: Is not an issue being missed, which is profoundly important. in relation to the way in which Mr. Gilligan used a member of the Select Committee and the media to make Dr. Kelly's position more untenable? Is not one of the issues to which we are not paying enough attention the problem of the relationship between politics and the media, which in this case was incredibly destructive for Dr. Kelly?
Mr. Howard: There is considerable force in the important point made by the hon. Gentleman.
Ms Gisela Stuart: I was interested in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the operation of Select Committees. Would he support a move for the Intelligence and Security Committee to be made a Committee of the House rather than one appointed by the Prime Minister and reporting to the Prime Minister?
Mr. Howard: That is an interesting and important question. I was a member of the Government who set up the Intelligence and Security Committee, and who did so on the basis on which it currently exists. I do not want to rush into any judgment on the important question raised by the hon. Lady: it is an important question that has many implications, but it requires mature consideration.
There are also lessons in the Hutton report about the process of government. There is a lack of documentary evidence of the conclusions of crucial meetings, on which Lord Hutton commented in the course of the inquiry. Two weeks ago, the House debated the issue of a civil service Act. Once again, the Government said that they were in favour of such an Act do principle. Once again, they failed to give any indication that they were about to turn that theory into practice. They need to do so. The independence and impartiality of the civil service need to be given statutory reinforcement.
The most serious and far-reaching repercussions of the Hutton report in the last week have been for the BBC. I want to start by paying tribute to Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke. Notwithstanding the criticisms
792
contained in the Hutton report, to which I will refer in a minute, they both made a very significant contribution to the BBC. Clearly, however, the BBC did make mistakes in the handling of this issue. Indeed, Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke have acknowledged as much themselves. I believe that some institutional changes are required, too. Conservatives have long argued that the governors cannot properly both run and regulate the BBC and that, particularly in relation to complaints procedures, there should be a role for Ofcom. Ofcom already has some jurisdiction over the BBC, so it is difficult to see how there can be any objection in principle to extending its remit in this way. At the last election, we specifically argued that Ofcom should have jurisdiction over complaints. If that had been in place, the most important of the complaints made by the Government would have been dealt with by Ofcom. That might have had a significant effect on the whole tragic train of events that led to the death of David Kelly.
When all is said and done, however, the Hutton report must not be used to undermine the independence of the BBC. On this issue, many people have concerns about the Government's reaction. Within minutes of the Hutton report, Alastair Campbell was touring the studios demanding multiple resignations. Officials made it clear that the Prime Minister was not satisfied with the resignation of Gavyn Davies. Even after Greg Dyke's initial apology, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said that the BBC response was not good enough. Then, after seeing the reaction of the public, the Prime Minister said that all he ever wanted was an apology.
There is an essential point of principle here. No one should underestimate the vital role that a free media plays in sustaining a vigorous and healthy democracy.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howard: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already.
As Lord Hutton himself says:
"The communication by the media of information (including information obtained by investigative reporters) on matters of public interest and importance is a vital part of life in a democratic society".
And as I said last week, it is vital that the media are not cowed, and that they carry out their responsibilities fairly but rigorously. That includes challenging politicians. Sometimes, however occasionally, that process of holding us all to account can include making allegations about integrity. When that is appropriate, the media should not feel intimidated into not doing so. It is rather ironic that those who are now screaming for such challenges to become out of bounds were in the forefront of making them until they assumed office.
David Winnick: Respecting the integrity of the BBC, is it not right that in the 1980s Lord Tebbit in particular baited and tried to undermine the BBC because he considered that its broadcasting of the bombing attack on Libya was wrong, and that on many occasions Bernard Ingham taunted the BBC because he disliked, on behalf of the Tory Government, what was being

793
done? Let us not be hypocritical: the BBC has come under attack from successive Governments and not least from the previous one.
Mr. Howard: Of course, all Governments make representations to the BBC. That is perfectly true. I do not believe, however—and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman could point to one—that any accusation against a member of the previous Government is at all comparable with Greg Dyke's allegation of bullying against the present Government. That is something that the hon. Gentleman will have to live with.
The last seven days have demonstrated yet again that a week is a long time in politics—
Gregory:Barker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that there is a world of difference between confronting or contradicting the BBC, and seeking to crush the spirit of the journalists and editorial staff who work for it?
Mr. Howard: They are my hon. Friend's words, and he has made his point.
Mr. Tony McWalter: I am listening carefully to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. As he knows, I am very interested in the role of rationality in politics, to which he has made a contribution today, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He will be aware, however, that the issue that has particularly vexed Labour Members is that he seems to have personally associated himself with attacks on the integrity of the Prime Minister. Will he be consistent with the rational tone of his speech by explicitly denying that he intended to do that at any stage?
Mr. Howard: I have dealt with that matter, but since the hon. Gentleman raises it, let me deal with it again. Last week, the Prime Minister referred to what I said about him in a television broadcast that I made last August, when I made allegations—[HON. MEMBERS: "In this House?"] No, it was in a television broadcast. In that broadcast, I made some allegations about the Prime Minister. In doing so, I quoted—verbatim, I think—from something that had been said on that very day by someone else in an article in The Independent on Sunday. That someone else—[Interruption.] I think that hon. Members should listen for a moment. That someone else was the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who is widely respected in all quarters of this House. In that article, describing the Government's spin, he said:
"This is spin of a different order to the kind which was around for many years. That sort of spin was an attempt to put the best gloss on government policy and action. It was not a consistent and concerted effort at evasiveness and duplicity which has become the hallmark of government in the perception of so many."
On that day, I associated myself with the words of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, and I make absolutely no apology for doing so.
Mr. Tony Clarke: The right hon. and learned Gentleman wriggles away from
794
an apology. Seven days ago, prior to his wanting an inquiry into WMDs, the chairman of his party wanted an inquiry into the leaking of the Hutton report to The Sun. If he does not have the decency to apologise to the Prime Minister for his own comments, would he at least have the decency to apologise for the comments of the chairman of his party, who accused the Government of leaking the report to the media?
Mr. Howard: We shall have to see what happens when the report on that is concluded—that will be the time to consider it. In relation to his other question, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have said.
Tony Wright: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves the issue of lessons to be learned, will he reflect for a moment on whether there is any lesson to be learned by the Leader of the Opposition? Despite his loyally wriggling, the fact is that we have sat for week after week listening to him effectively calling the Prime Minister a liar. It would help our proceedings immensely if he now had the grace to withdraw that charge.
Mr. Howard: What I did in this House, as opposed to what I did in the television studio, was to put a series of questions to the Prime Minister; and it is a matter of great and abiding regret that he was so reluctant to answer them. If he had answered them immediately and straightforwardly, there would have been no difficulty at all. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that if he were to look back at the answers that the Prime Minister gave to those questions, he would regret his accusation of "loyally wriggling'. He needs to look at what the Prime Minister said.
Dr. Palmer rose—
Mr. Howard: I shall give way once more, then I really must make progress.
Dr. Palmer: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously expect the House to accept that if he puts questions suggesting lying, that is not the same as suggesting lying? If I were to put a question suggesting to him that he might be guilty of paedophilia or some other crime, would he accept that merely as a question, or would he feel that it called for a withdrawal?
Mr. Howard: I am afraid that that is a million miles away from the questions that I put to the Prime Minister. I asked the Prime Minister to stand by certain things that he had said before, and what we heard in response could be described only as loyally wriggling.
Huw Irranca-Davies rose—
Mr. Howard: I will not give way again, because I have done so very generously.
In the past seven days, events outside this House have moved fast, as have comment and opinion. The Hutton report has been subjected to intense comment, some of it questioning, some of it critical, and some of it more

795
than a little incredulous. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, the initial opinion of his colleagues last Wednesday does not seem to be reflected in the more settled opinion of the public. In the past, people would sometimes warn me of the dangers of winning an argument in this House, but not in the country. In a spirit of good will, perhaps I can offer the Prime Minister that same piece of advice.
There are clearly very important lessons to be learned from the Hutton report about how Governments of different parties run their business. There are lessons that the Prime Minister needs to address and lessons that leaders of any party need to address. That is why I have dealt with some of the general questions arising from the report and how they might be addressed in the absence of recommendations from Lord Hutton; why I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has accepted the need for a wider inquiry on the relation between intelligence and Government; and why it is essential that Governments of all political persuasions are extremely sensitive to the independence of the media, particularly the BBC, in the way in which they conduct themselves.
These are not easy decisions for any Government, and they require a great deal of restraint. I do not pretend that that was always present when my party was in power, and it is clear from the Hutton report that it has not been present in recent times. There are lessons to be learned from the events that led to the Hutton inquiry, and I hope that they will be learned.
2.21 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: As I said to the Prime Minister last week when he delivered his original statement on the Hutton report, we welcome and accept the conclusions arrived at by Lord Hutton, and pay tribute to the thoroughness of his work and that of his colleagues on the inquiry. Whatever our disagreements and differences, whether this week or during the war, on the issues and principles at stake, once the Hutton inquiry was established, we did not, as the Prime Minister was reasonable enough to acknowledge to me publicly across the Floor of the House last week, seek at any point to impugn his integrity or to reach premature judgments on the report. That distinction has not been lost on people inside and outside the House.
We accept the fundamental conclusion reached in the report—namely, that the Government did not insert intelligence information that they knew to be wrong into the dossier. There is no doubt whatsoever that mistakes were made by the BBC. There used to be an old saying at the BBC that whenever there was an inquiry, deputy heads would roll. This occasion has been the exception to the rule, because although two senior heads have rolled, as well as the junior head—Gilligan—deputy heads of management have remained unscathed. Some of us looking at the BBC from the outside in find that a bit puzzling, given the management shortcomings that the report clearly reveals.
I make this plea regarding the BBC. Last week, a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber said that the report would become a weapon with which to beat the BBC and to undermine its integrity and independence in relation to function and funding. Now that the licence renewal process is under way and the
796
charter is up for discussion, I hope, given the pledge that the Prime Minister made last week in his response to the resignations that took place, that the Government will ensure that the BBC's independence and integrity remain inviolate. Whatever mistakes were made in this case—and they were serious mistakes that led to serious consequences for all those involved and contributed to the particularly tragic consequence on which the report is centred—it is in all our long-term interests to have a viable, questioning, independent BBC. That is important not only for our national public life in Britain, but for the reputation of our country around the world.
It is clear that, as the Government and the Prime Minister have acknowledged, significant criticisms are made in the Hutton report. As the Prime Minister knows, our reservations about Hutton are based on similar grounds to those of the reservations that we expressed in our conversations earlier this week with regard to the next inquiry that is now coming on stream. The concern is that the tightness of the remit does not adequately enable the inquiries to address the fundamental question that the public want addressed—the political judgments that were taken at the top of the Government in committing this country to war.
Jim Sheridan: The right hon. Gentleman has consistently questioned the integrity of the Government as to whether there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Is he equally consistent and concerned about the possibility, extreme though it may be, of weapons of mass destruction in the seas and oceans around this island? I represent a constituency that sits in the nuclear basin of the Clyde, like his hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid). This is a perfect opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to question the intelligence services through the Butler inquiry about exactly that issue, rather than to carry on grandstanding from the sidelines.
Mr. Kennedy: I have questioned the narrowness of the remit, but even I would have to acknowledge that the subject that the hon. Gentleman raises would be a rather broad remit for any further inquiry. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might well call me to order if I were to pursue that issue. None the less, the hon. Gentleman may want to make those representations as and when the next inquiry gets under way.
Mr. George Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the political decisions taken in the Government that led to the war. Was not the political decision ultimately taken by this House in March in a vote, after a very important debate? Surely, that decision cannot now be subcontracted to a committee of inquiry. Are not such matters what we are sent here by our electorates to decide upon?
Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly fair question that gets to the heart of the matter. The parliamentary decision was indeed taken in the context and on the night to which he refers. However, the outstanding concern of many people, including many senior figures in his party—it has been expressed over the past few days—is clear. Will a further inquiry be

797
able—clearly, it will not—to address the legitimate question that many have raised persistently: was the political decision to execute the war taken quite some considerable time before the decision was put in front of Parliament? Was it essentially arrived at in Washington, after which the Prime Minister reached his own private conclusion that war was inevitable, so it was only at a much later date that the House of Commons had the opportunity to speak as it did?
Ms Stuart: It is a political decision that has to be made at the time and on the basis of the best available evidence. This House was given, for the first time, the opportunity to have a substantive vote. What the right hon. Gentleman is questioning—this is what is puzzling me—is what is said even by intelligence sources such as David Kay, who said:
"I will just say if—I am convinced myself. If I had been there, presented with what I have seen as the record of the intelligence estimates, I probably would have come to the"—
he then corrects himself, and continues—
"not probably—I would have come to the same conclusion that the political leaders did."
Given that that is the case, and that this House makes the political decision, I am still at a loss as to what the right hon. Gentleman would have wanted the new inquiry to achieve, other than giving the political decision to someone else.
Mr. Kennedy: If the hon. Lady was in the Chamber earlier to hear Prime Minister's questions, she will have heard the exchanges between the Prime Minister and me about the Franks committee. That committee's remit enables an analysis of the sort of questions to which she is drawing attention, but which we do not accept that Lord Hutton, as he explicitly makes clear, had a remit to inquire into in respect of certain fundamental issues. We are also concerned that the next forthcoming inquiry will be similar hidebound in terms of the remit that has been set.
Donald Anderson rose—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Kennedy: I must give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Donald Anderson: Surely, if a decision has been made—it was made in March by this House on the best evidence then available—and fresh evidence subsequently arises, as it may in respect of the Iraq survey group, the court of appeal will not be some committee, but rather this House as well?
Mr. Kennedy: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) has just to remarked to me, if this House is the ultimate court of appeal, why have all the committees been set up in the first place? That seems a rather strange way for the Government to go about
798
conducting the process, while denying that they are going to subcontract their own decisions to somebody else.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he is quoting the Franks report without ever having read it? In paragraph 13 of his introductory chapter, Lord Franks states:
"We have sought to judge on each important issue whether the views expressed by Ministers and the action taken by those concerned were reasonable in the light of the information available to them and the circumstances prevailing at the time, and not to substitute our judgment of what we might have done in those circumstances."
Yet that is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking for in respect of the Butler inquiry.
Mr. Kennedy: The question is very straightforward and we have enunciated it consistently throughout: were the big political decisions that were in front of Ministers—we can agree or disagree with the conclusions that were reached—taken in an adequate and satisfactory way, given the information that was available?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Kennedy: I apologise, but I must make some progress.
As Lord Hutton makes clear, it is important in the operations of government that the duty of care that was extended to Dr. Kelly was clearly not sustainable. That is not to forgive or overlook the fact that Dr. Kelly had overstepped his remit in terms of his governmental position. None the less, given the seniority and quality of the input that he had provided for the interests of this country over so many decades, it seems that the criticisms are very telling. First, there was the grotesquely bizarre strategy that was arrived at to somehow get out Dr. Kelly's name under "Any Questions?" style inquiries through the press officers in the Government. Secondly, given the torrent of interest that was going to descend upon his head, he was not given adequate press support or indeed private security when that strategy erupted and he found himself in the public domain. It is important that that issue be borne in mind.
On the dossier itself, as the Prime Minister said, the whole matter of public presentation is significant, not least in terms of the vital 45-minute issue. Yesterday, the Government said in paragraph 15 of their response to the Intelligence and Security Committee:
"The Government understands the reasoning behind the Committee's view (paragraph 112) that the presentation of the 45 minutes issue in the dossier, which was compiled for the public and not for experienced readers of intelligence material, allowed speculation as to its exact meaning."
When the Prime Minister says, "I am not responsible for headlines in the London Standard or anywhere else", it is worth bearing in mind the colossal public build-up and the sense of anticipation that surrounded the document. In the huge public relations activity that the Government entered into, they made every conceivable effort on public presentation in terms of the interpretation of the document—presentation that was

799
clearly designed decisively to move people in one direction, and one direction only. However, as the Prime Minister acknowledged some time ago in the House, they did not do a very good job, as public opinion remained largely unmoved.
The Prime Minister: I cannot forbear quoting to the right hon. Gentleman what he said about the dossier two days after its publication. He said that it contained "no killer fact" and was
"more a confirmation of what we already knew."
Mr. Kennedy: That is the very point that I have just made. Despite the most strenuous efforts beginning at the top of the Government, public opinion remained substantially unmoved. That was the case despite all the propaganda efforts that were engaged upon by the Prime Minister, Alastair Campbell and everybody else. That is why so many of these questions remained outstanding then, and remain outstanding to this day.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kennedy: No. I must make progress.
A further point arises in all this. Senior figures—indeed, those who themselves have occupied the position of chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee—have reflected on the in fitter. There is a sense—perhaps the further inquiry will have more to say on it in due course—that the intelligence that was sifted, assessed, brought together and put in front of Ministers had at times, or on this occasion, become too embroiled with the policy presentation of the Government. There are two distinct components, and if they are allowed to become conflated—this is an observation that has come from people who have occupied senior positions—it is something that the Government should reflect upon extremely seriously with regard to future activities of this sort.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kennedy: No. I am not going to give way.
There is the independent inquiry. Lord Hutton made his position clear at the outset on pages 2 and 3 of his report. He stated:
"However, I concluded that a question of such wide import"—
that is, to what extent Saddam Hussein posed an immediate danger to the direct interests of Britain—
"…is not one which falls within my terms of reference."
He continued:
"The issue whether, if approved by the Joint Intelligence Committee and believed by the Government to he reliable, the intelligence contained in the dossier was nevertheless unreliable is a separate issue which I consider does not fall within my terms of reference."
The position was made clear. That disclaimer was made at the outset.
My worry is that we will not resolve those issues with the forthcoming inquiry, given the terms and the remit that have been set out again. The longer this situation continues, the longer public confidence remains dissatisfied. This life-and-death issue, specifically relating to one individual in the Hutton report but, with
800
the war and its aftermath, to many more individuals, will continue to bedevil British politics and bedevil the world stage. We remain of the view, given the situation at the time and for the reasons that were given, that it was the wrong war, prosecuted at the wrong time for quite the wrong reasons.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that the eight-minute limit on Back-Bench Members' speeches applies. I am sure that shorter speeches would be welcome on both sides of the House.
2.37 pm
Ann Taylor: The opening speeches have been quite wide ranging. For reasons that I trust my colleagues will understand, I wish to concentrate on some specific aspects that are covered in the Intelligence and Security Committee's Report, "Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction—Intelligence and Assessments", which is helpfully described in the Order Paper as relevant to the debate.
I say at the beginning that in respect of Dr. David Kelly, from whom the Intelligence and Security Committee took evidence the day before his death, I agree with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who said last week that his death was a great personal tragedy but not a great public scandal. I think that that is the right way of putting it. As someone who gave evidence to the Hutton inquiry, and followed it carefully, I stand by what I said at the beginning of the inquiry, which was that we must all accept it and accept the totality of the outcome in all respects.
I shall take the House back to a time a little before the Hutton inquiry. In the annual report of the ISC, which we wrote in May 2003, we said:
"It is impossible at the present moment to make any definitive statements about the role of intelligence in the situation in Iraq…We intend to examine in more detail the intelligence and assessments available and their use."
In July last year the House voted for the following motion:
"That…the Intelligence and Security Committee, established by Parliament, by statute, is the appropriate body to consider intelligence relating to Iraq; and notes that it has already begun its work."
During last summer, the ISC worked incredibly hard to deliver the report that we produced to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 9 September. It was published in full, despite speculation to the contrary, by my right hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the members of that Committee. Much of that work was done during the summer recess, and most of our meetings are attended in full by all of the members. I thank our staff, who worked extremely hard, and the agencies that provided the information that we requested.
The ISC produced a unanimous report, even though we are a multi-party Committee with members who took very different views on the war: we are a Committee of nine members, five of whom voted for action against Iraq. However, our conclusions are unanimous, and I hope that they are all the stronger for that. I am obviously pleased that Lord Hutton, who covered some of the same areas, agreed with many of our conclusions and quoted them.

801
Yesterday, the Government published their response to the Committee's report. In that response they chose, as has been mentioned, to highlight some of our conclusions—only some. Nevertheless, they are valid. We said that the September dossier was endorsed by the whole JIC. The September document was founded on the intelligence assessments then available. It was not sexed up. Perhaps most important of all, the JIC was not subject to political pressures. Its independence and impartiality were not compromised in any way.
I know that those issues are not central in the minds of many people now because the arguments have moved on, but at the time they were the original charges that were put to the Government. They have now been rejected not only by Lord Hutton and not only by the ISC but by the Foreign Affairs Committee.
I turn to some sections of the Committee's report that make significant points that the Government have not highlighted because they do not always agree with them. First, we believe and we say that there was a casual attitude to the 45-minute issue. We are not blaming Ministers; we are not criticising Ministers. Instead we are saying that the issue was badly handled by intelligence professionals, not least because they were not thinking of the audience who would be reading the document. Similarly, there is the issue of battlefield weapons.
We made significant comments that the Government have partly taken on board about reporting differences of opinion to the JIC within different agencies, Departments or organisations. This is specific to Brian Jones. It is a question of principle how differing views within any organisation or service can be fed to the JIC chairman when necessary.
There is much more that I would like to say about the problems of terminology and about issues that were left out of the dossier that could have been in to help people understand the nature of weapons of mass destruction and that terminology and wording. In the Prime Minister's original draft of his introduction there was reference to the fact that he was not talking about an attack on London. There was not time to go into all of those details. However, one important point relates to the basic problem of the JIC assessment on which the September dossier was based. It is covered in paragraphs 64 to 67 of our report. The JIC minute of the meeting of 4 September 2002 stated that the then draft of what became the JIC's assessment of 9 September
"needed to make clearer which of its judgments were based on firm intelligence, which were based more on informed assessment or interpretation, and where the major intelligence gaps in the UK's knowledge and understanding of Iraq's capabilities remained."
The ISC believes that the final JIC assessment issued before the September dossier was a balanced assessment of the scenario. However, I quote the ISC's report and its verdict on the JIC's assessment:
"it did not highlight the key judgements, the uncertainties and the gaps in the UK's knowledge about the Iraqi biological and chemical weapons."
That meant that the JIC assessment, which was written for Ministers, did not highlight those, and consequently they were not highlighted in the dossier. We believe that that omission is the cause of much of the discussion and many of the difficulties that have arisen about the dossier.
802
There is much more that I would like to say. I want to mention the continuing work of the ISC and, in particular, the work that we have flagged up in our report on the agencies' relationship with the media, which is a very important area that we want to look at.
I wish that this debate were longer, but I hope that those who were making accusations against the Government about the September dossier will acknowledge the weight of the evidence presented by Lord Hutton and the ISC.
2.45 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackay: I want to make two points, but before I do so I take up the last point made by the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, who rightly said that it is a great pity that the debate is not going on longer. Many of us called, first, for the debate to continue until 10 o'clock, or, secondly, for it to be a two-day debate. The Leader of the House ignored us, but I believe that today we are fully vindicated. I am very pleased that the right hon. Lady, an ex-Government Chief Whip and Chairman of the appropriate Committee, entirely agrees; her point was well made.
My first point, which I put to the Secretary of State for Defence—I should have liked to put it also to the Prime Minister—is that sometimes there are wrongs that are so serious that an apology is not sufficient, and a resignation or sacking is required. I refer specifically to what Lord Hutton said in paragraph 463 of his report, when he said that it was "wholly improper" for Mr. Tom Kelly to have said before the funeral that Dr. David Kelly, who had only just died, was a Walter Mitty figure. I need hardly say to the Secretary of State that that not only caused great hurt to Dr. Kelly's family and friends but was patently untrue, as was shown by all the tributes made to Dr. Kelly, perhaps most powerfully by the Prime Minister himself. I cannot understand how the Prime Minister can allow Mr. Tom Kelly to remain one of his most senior advisers in Downing street and to deal with the press.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Mackay: No, sadly, much as I would like to give way to my hon. Friend, who earlier made a very useful intervention on the Prime Minister on this very point, time is short.
As the House will he aware, I have had some interest in Northern Ireland, both as Tom King's Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was Secretary of State there in the 1980s and, in the last Parliament, as the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I therefore have some recollection of how Mr. Tom Kelly arrived on the scene, and it was a bad, sad occasion. The then Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam, in collusion with Alastair Campbell, removed an excellent civil servant, Andy Wood. He had been a distinguished chief press officer in that Department for a long time, and he was hugely well regarded. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there was a purge of civil servants in the press departments of different Departments, with certain

803
Secretaries of State more willing than others to dance to Mr. Campbell's tune, and so from the BBC came Mr. Tom Kelly—
Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member of this House to make a sustained personal attack on a civil servant who is unable to defend himself?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) is referring specifically to something in the Hutton report, which is before the House today. What he says about names is, then, a matter for his judgment.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but what the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) is talking about does not feature in the Hutton report at all; he is talking about a perfectly routine change of civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office some years ago, which bears absolutely no resemblance or relationship to anything in the Hutton report.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. The right hon. Member for Bracknell has to be responsible for what he says in the House, and that becomes a matter of debate. I am sure that he will measure his words.
Mr. Mackay: I am delighted by the point of order from the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who made my case extremely well. He will know that there was a purge of distinguished civil servants who were not prepared to dance to the tune of the chief press secretary, Alastair Campbell. Such was Mr. Kelly's devotion that he was then moved to Downing street to be Mr. Campbell's No. 2. I go back to the point that I made earlier, which is that Mr. Kelly's position should be considered.
Mr. Mandelson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that it is a discourtesy to the House, as well as to you, that after you have guided the right hon. Gentleman he should persist in referring to matters that are not the subject of this debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) must not bring the Chair into the debate. As I understand it, nothing out of order has been said in the line of argument that the right hon. Member for Bracknell is taking on the report. I said that that was not out of order. I also said that I was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would measure his words.
Mr. Mackay: I now move on to my second point. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and certainly Labour Members such as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), whose intervention yesterday was, as so often on this subject, remarkable and correct, would have voted for action in Iraq and supported the Government whether or not there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction. As the hon. Lady said yesterday, there were other good reasons, not least genocide and the way in which Saddam Hussein's regime was destabilising the middle east, for the action to be taken.
804
It is absolutely clear, however, that a significant number of Members—some on this side of the House, but many more of them Labour Members—finally decided in that fateful vote at the end of the debate last May to vote with the Government only because of the evidence that had been given from the Dispatch Box about weapons of mass destruction. If that evidence had not been forthcoming, the Government would probably either have lost that vote or won it in a way that hopelessly split the parliamentary Labour party. That would inevitably have been a pressure on Ministers.
Peter Bradley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mackay: I cannot because I have only two minutes left.
I recall from my day as Government deputy Chief Whip the pressures when there was a rebellion and a tight vote. I am not for one moment suggesting to the Secretary of State for Defence that those pressures would have been succumbed to, but what is absolutely essential for this inquiry is that those conducting it satisfy themselves that at no point did Ministers in any way over-emphasise the evidence of weapons of mass destruction with the clear knowledge in the back of their mind that they would need to have that evidence to persuade so many of their right hon. and hon. Friends. That is a perfectly legitimate concern for the House, and it is essential that the inquiry reach a conclusion on that very specific point.
2.54 pm
Joyce Quin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I do so as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, but also as someone who did not support the Government in going to war in Iraq, and who would maintain that view today. However, let me say at the outset that my difficulty in supporting the Government at that time was not because I felt that they had behaved improperly over intelligence matters or exercised improper influence over the intelligence agencies, but because I disagreed with the political judgments that they took after receiving the intelligence, and because of other issues, not intelligence-related, which were part of the open and public political debate at the time.
I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) said about the Intelligence and Security Committee. She rightly refuted the claim that members of the ISC, because they are appointed by the Prime Minister, are there to do the Prime Minister's bidding. The fact that he appoints us is in any case, in my view, far more significant in theory than in practice, as in practice consultations take place between the parties and the Whips, and, furthermore, I believe that we take our duties as parliamentarians seriously and reject the idea that the job of a Committee member is to be a cipher for anyone, the Prime Minister included.
The ISC report contained criticisms of the Government, as well as recognising areas where they should definitely not be blamed. The Committee was able to agree the report unanimously, on the basis of the detailed investigations that it carried out, but the point

805
needs to be stressed that intelligence, and the conclusions drawn from it, are only one part of the overall situation, forming only a part of the basis on which a political judgment on whether to go to war is made.
The other elements are familiar to all of us, yet, frustratingly, in all the furore over intelligence, get overlooked. Those include issues such as whether it was advisable to give the inspectors more time, given that they had begun to have successes, and issues such as achieving a wider and bigger coalition of countries willing to take action, or whether the importance of our alliance with the United States should take precedence, to which the Prime Minister and the Government obviously attached great priority.
Other issues include whether the United Nations should have had a wider and more direct role, and questions about the international legality of the proposed action. In my view, many of those wider issues militated against the Government going to war when they did, but other wider issues motivated people to take a different view—in particular, the flouting by Iraq over many years of United Nations resolutions, and its appalling treatment of its own citizens. One of the issues that made me hesitate at the time of the vote was the powerful testimony from my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), and the testimonies that she ensured were heard of the families of Saddam Hussein's victims.
To say that the decision to go to war was completely intelligence-driven is inaccurate, and I regret the fact that Ministers sometimes give that impression. To blame intelligence for the decision to go to war is entirely unwarranted.
Let me turn to the report of Lord Hutton and its aftermath. When Lord Hutton was appointed, the press were full of praise for his integrity and the respect in which he was held by colleagues throughout the judiciary and more widely. I do not believe that he has undergone a personality or character change in the past few months, so I find it depressing that he is now being portrayed in some sections of the press as a biased and even dishonourable Government stooge. After the initial stunned reaction by the press to the report, we have seen a media fightback over the weekend, seemingly fuelled by disappointed rage that the report did not lambast the Government, as had been so fervently hoped.
Some of the media coverage has been, frankly, vicious and shocking. I could give many examples, but to give just one. The Sunday Times ran the screaming headline "Campbell crows", continuing on the next page, "as widow grieves". That seems to me to be a completely unacceptable way of reporting anything. It is offensive both to Alastair Campbell, who was exonerated in the Hutton report, and to Dr. Kelly's widow and family, on whom it piles further distress and intrusion.
Mr. Roger Gale: Does the right hon. Lady think that, even for charity, it was
806
appropriate, the day after the publication of what was effectively Dr. Kelly's obituary, for Mr. Campbell to sell signed copies of the report?
Joyce Quin: I am not commenting on any of the reactions of people who were mentioned in the report. I am referring only to some of the disgraceful headlines in the press, which do not do their writers any credit.
A number of surveys have concluded that people do not believe the findings of the Hutton report, but I believe that it is dishonest and unacceptable to conduct instant surveys, when the respondents are unlikely even to have seen a copy of the report, and would not have had time to read it. Indeed, how many of us can claim to have read and fully digested every word? Conducting surveys in such circumstances is another vivid example of how superficial and wild the response to the report has been.
Like other hon. Members, I strongly defend a free press and believe in fearless investigative journalism, but such journalism should be accurate, and not based on unchecked and unsubstantiated information. On the BBC, I regret the fact that Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke resigned, and I am far less interested in resignations than in efforts to improve the accuracy of reporting. Improved journalistic standards, rather than finding scapegoats, would be the ideal consequence of the Hutton report.
On the new inquiry that the Government announced yesterday, I was pleased that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister said that their preference would have been for the all-party Intelligence and Security Committee to undertake further work. I regret strongly the fact that neither the Conservative party nor the Liberal Democrats have sufficient faith in their own parliamentary colleagues, and that the Conservatives in particular pressed for a committee that is already being perceived in the press as more pro-establishment in its composition than a cross-party Committee of parliamentarians.
I am also not convinced that we needed to follow the example of the inquiry announced by President Bush. The situation in the United States is different, and in particular, unlike the ISC, the US congressional intelligence committees have failed to achieve a common view and have split on party lines. Indeed, electoral considerations have played a huge and unhelpful part in the deliberations in the United States.
The committee that we have set up will have some real issues to consider, arising both from earlier reports and from the findings of the Iraq survey group. I wish it well, but, whatever its findings, it cannot change the reality that the decision to go to war was based on a political judgment—openly debated, and about which there will always be controversy—just as the decision to take military action on numerous other occasions has been.
3.2 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I shall not reopen the issue of whether the House was right to decide to take this country to war—a decision that I completely support, for the reasons that the Prime Minister outlined earlier today—nor question the conclusions of Lord Hutton's inquiry, as far as they go, within its limited remit, but that does not preclude any

807
Member of Parliament questioning the veracity of the intelligence presented to the Government and the way in which that intelligence was used.
I welcome the inquiry that has been set up. It needs to get to the truth about what intelligence we had and whether it was accurate. It needs to restore public confidence both in the intelligence services, which I personally have great faith in and to which I pay tribute, and in the way in which politicians use that intelligence in order to make a case for a particular course of action.
This is where I differ from the Government, because I do not believe that the Hutton inquiry has exonerated or acquitted them on some of the issues that arise concerning the interface between the intelligence service and the politicians. Paragraph 467(1)(viii) of the inquiry conclusions says:
"'sexed-up' is a slang expression—It is capable of two different meanings."
I fully accept that the Government have been acquitted of the charge of using intelligence dishonestly, but on the alternative definition of "sexed up" Lord Hutton states that
"it could be said that the Government 'sexed-up' the dossier".
David Cairns: Read on.
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman wants me to say that Mr. Gilligan's allegations were not proved, which I accept, but it is incumbent on the hon. Gentleman to accept that there is an issue. A new situation arose with the publication of the dossier. Never before has a decision of such importance been based on published evidence from the security services. The relationship between politicians and the intelligence services will form an important part of the inquiry that has just been established and must fall within its remit.
I attended some of the evidence sessions of the Hutton inquiry. I watched John Scarlett give his presentation and suffer cross-examination by Mr. Dingemans and Lord Hutton. I have no reason to question John Scarlett's integrity or ability, but it was clear to me from the evidence that he presented and the evidence with which he was confronted that at the time when the dossier was produced he was under intense pressure and subject to many competing claims on his attention and judgment, and I shall give two examples of that.
First, there were competing memorandums—some from Alastair Campbell and some from the defence intelligence services. Some of them said "take out 'maybe' and put 'certainly'"; others said "take out 'certainly' and put 'maybe". The idea that the defence intelligence services were giving substantive advice about the content of the document but Alastair Campbell was simply helping to present the information is a distinction that became blurred. It cannot possibly be said that under those circumstance it was easy for John Scarlett to make the judgment that he had to make. That is why the matter must be studied by the inquiry.
Secondly, I shall go further and give the House completely new information. Two weeks before the dossier was published, the International Institute for Strategic Studies produced a dossier about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. As shadow Secretary of State for Defence, I attended a private
808
briefing with the IISS at which I learned that it had been summoned to No. 10 to give a presentation about its document. It had been told that there was concern that its document had stolen the thunder from the forthcoming publication of the Government document.
The evidence presented to the Hutton inquiry included information on the frantic search for any new information. The Joint Intelligence Committee was being put under pressure to come up with something new and sensational—my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) referred to the headline that Alastair Campbell wanted so badly to make the case for war. The relationship and procedures between the intelligence services and politicians must be reviewed by the inquiry. I am pleased to say that the inquiry undoubtedly covers that relationship because my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has amended its terms of reference to include discrepancies between the intelligence gathered, evaluated and used by the Government before the conflict.
I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Defence, who has been through a difficult time and must have had some sleepless nights questioning whether he did everything right under the circumstances. I am pleased that he has been acquitted by the Hutton inquiry of any wrongdoing. That is a good thing for politics and a good thing for politicians in general. In turn, I hope that he will have the generosity to acknowledge that public confidence in the relationship between politicians and the intelligence services is a real issue. If we want the public to believe that published intelligence information is intelligence and not propaganda, we must be able to answer the question, "At what stage does intelligence become propaganda when it is in the hands of the spin doctors and politicians?"
3.10 pm
Andrew Mackinlay: I issued a statement when Dr. Kelly died, and I shall repeat it to the House:
"I deeply regret Dr. Kelly's death. I'm sorry for any of the stress that, albeit unintentionally, I may have caused him during his questioning before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. I wish to express my sincere condolences to his wife and family."
Immediately after Dr. Kelly's death, a Sunday paper reprinted that statement and added, "And then Mackinlay went into hiding". I did not go into hiding, but I did not want to talk to the Sunday papers because I took the view, which was manifestly obvious out of courtesy and common sense, "The less said the better, let Lord Hutton fulfil and discharge his duties, and let us have regard to a grieving family." On the Saturday when we learned about Dr. Kelly's death, my wife and I were appalled that a Sunday paper approached us to offer me money to comment. We have kept our counsel about that, but it was the case. I want to place on record how disgusted I was by that approach.
What was the Foreign Affairs Committee doing last summer? We were trying to discharge our duty to Parliament to examine whether the Government exaggerated the case that they presented to Parliament and the people for going to war. We tried to discharge that duty as best we could, but our report to House states that we felt that we were frustrated in fulfilling that duty—that is not only my view, but that of the Committee.

809
I hope that the Prime Minister will reflect on the point that Lord Hutton cross-examined John Scarlett in public, but the Foreign Affairs Committee was refused access to him. When we requested the drafts of the September dossier, we were refused them; Lord Hutton has put them on the worldwide web. If the Prime Minister had said, "You can have John Scarlett in secret," we would have compromised. If he had said, "The documents will be written on rice paper and you must eat them afterwards," we would have compromised, too. There is a lesson about the capacity of the Government to respond to reasonable requests from parliamentary Committees, and I hope that that will be picked up as a serious point, despite the levity with which I introduced it.
There is an obsession with secrecy in this country. One thing that irritates me—the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) touched on this—is the interface between journalists and the security and intelligence services. In submission to Lord Hutton, I said that the security and intelligence services speak to journalists all the time. The people they will not speak to are politicians. That situation is surely unacceptable. I do not mind the security and intelligence services speaking to journalists, but I expect them to have a public interface with politicians, and particularly with Committees of this House.
I shall illustrate the point about the obsession with secrecy. On 17 July, I asked the Foreign Secretary this question:
"when the head of MI6 met Mr. John Humphrys of the BBC since 1 May…and for what purpose each meeting was held".—[Official Report, 17 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 586W.]
The answer was the equivalent of saying, "I'm not going to tell you; it's a secret." That is not sustainable and we cannot tolerate it. Is it really a matter of national security whether any such meeting took place? In any event, we are entitled to know.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence winds up, perhaps he can tell us the latest position of the investigation into the fact that Andrew Gilligan told the Foreign Affairs Committee that he had had access to a top-secret document. I told Lord Hutton that the source would not be discovered, because it was obviously from someone in a high echelon, so the Government dare not find out who it was. I repeat the point that people in the security and intelligence community talk to journalists all the time. If it was someone at the level of Sarah Tisdall, he or she would be found out in five minutes, but people at the top are not discovered, and I really do not like that.
With the greatest respect to my good colleagues on the Intelligence and Security Committee, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury and for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) and the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates)—who will shortly become a Privy Councillor, although some of us are nature's Privy Councillors and do not need recognition from the Queen—there is no parliamentary oversight of the security and intelligence services in this country. I do not accept that it is a distinction without a difference that the ISC is appointed by the Prime Minister, meets in secret and
810
reports to him. The evidence given by Dr. David Kay last week to the US Congress would have been given in secret in this country. We cannot tolerate that.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) that the ISC's status must be reviewed. However, that review must be genuine, and not just a matter of passing a resolution that says that it is now a parliamentary Committee. As inadequate as our selection processes are, it should be for this Parliament to choose the Chairman and membership of the Committee that provides parliamentary oversight.
The Leader of the Opposition made an interesting speech. As he said, we must all reflect on what lessons are to be learned, and I shall do so. I know that the Liaison Committee and others are considering this issue, but witnesses who appear before our Committees need to be cautioned about our expectations. It is reasonable for us to expect candour and full disclosure. Witnesses should not be leaned on by other parties outside the hearings. We pass a motion to that effect in the Sessional Orders after every Queen's Speech. I appeal to Members who will review those orders not to do away with them, but to reinforce them and to see that they are brought to the attention of witnesses before they appear before Committees. That is in the interests of the witnesses and of fairness, because there appears to be a prevailing culture that it is legitimate to give away as little information to parliamentary Committees as one can get away with. I have seen that attitude in several Committees, from private and public sector witnesses, as well as Ministers. That has to be stopped; otherwise we will diminish our capacity to scrutinise, rather than expand it.
Every Select Committee has the chance to decide the subject of its inquiries. The danger is that Committees will be tempted to take the soft options, instead of adopting the issues that challenge the Government, and to which Governments find it difficult to respond. It is our duty not to buckle under pressure. We want Members of Parliament who are prepared to ignore signs that say "No Trespassers" or "Do Not Enter". We should enter doors marked with such signs, and I give my commitment to the House that I shall do so—regardless of what has happened in the past, which I deeply regret. Otherwise, failing that, Parliament will be diminished.
3.17 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: With regard to the inquiry on which I shall not serve and my party's decision about its terms of reference, the phrase used by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay)—"No Trespassers"—is relevant. The Government have fenced off a no man's land in the terms of reference, which lies between the charge of improper conduct, which was rejected by the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Hutton report, and the quality of intelligence. The first was covered by Hutton and the second will be covered by the new inquiry, but the no man's land involves Government decision making and the interaction of Ministers with officials from the intelligence services. It involves the extent to which intelligence was selected,

811
perhaps unconsciously, to find support for a policy that had already been decided. That is a legitimate area for consideration.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way at the moment. I shall keep in mind his wish to intervene, but I want to ensure that I cover two points about the ISC report and one about the BBC.
Paragraph 116 of the ISC report refers to the Defence Intelligence Staff, and I mentioned it in exchanges with the Prime Minister, today and yesterday. The Committee recommended that if individuals in the intelligence community wrote formally to their line managers with concerns about JIC assessments, the concerns should be brought to the attention of the JIC chairman. That recommendation has not been accepted by the Government, who have taken the view that the importance of the authority of line managers might be undermined if it were possible for some one such as Dr. Brian Jones to insist that the chairman of the JIC knew of his reservations about the way in which information was expressed in an assessment or—even worse—in a public dossier. That is why I posed my question to the Prime Minister. There is a tension between the remit of line management and the need to ensure that expert opinion is brought to the fore on matters on which it is necessary. The JIC itself did not have the technical competence to judge on those issues—which the ISC implied in what it said—and did not have before it some of the reservations that had been made.
Mr. Grieve: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's anxieties over matters that the committee that has been set up might not be able to examine. But once the phrase "use of the intelligence" has been introduced to the committee's remit, which we have insisted on, is that not precisely what it will be able to comment on? In those circumstances, I am bound to say how much I regret that the committee will be deprived of the right hon. Gentleman's services, as the wording meets the very point that is causing him anxiety.
Mr. Beith: I am not satisfied with that wording, partly because I have heard the Prime Minister, both yesterday and today, assert how strongly he wishes to protect the field of political judgment. Political judgment is intertwined with decisions being made about intelligence, which is why I believe there is still a no man's land. I hope that the inquiry will trespass into that no man's land, and I am not happy with terms of reference that exclude it.
I turn to the report's points on terrorism. In paragraph 126, the ISC refers to the JIC assessment that
"al-Qaida and associated groups…represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq."
That was one of a number of factors to be considered, but it was not one to which Ministers alluded. The impression that they sought to give was often very different, as they suggested that the greatest threat from terrorism would be from the continuance of the Saddam Hussein regime—evil though it was. The Prime
812
Minister currently takes refuge in a phrase that refers to the "nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction"—a vague and imprecise concept that I do not remember ever seeing in any intelligence assessment, and which does not address the question of that particular threat—that holder of weapons of mass destruction, that terrorist group, and the possibility of a link between the two. If Members had known more about the available intelligence on the dangers that would arise with regime collapse, they would have wanted to take that into account. I am not saying that it would necessarily have changed their judgment, but that intelligence factor was omitted.
Mr. Michael Mates: I want to add to the point that the right hon. Gentleman made some moments ago. In turning down our recommendation, the Government gave the impression that the concerns to which he referred should be left to line management, rather than being brought to the attention of the chairman of the JIC. That belies that fact—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that this is right—that only about twice in the past seven to 10 years has an official felt strongly enough to put his reservations about intelligence in writing. That reinforces the point that the JIC chairman should at least be aware of such concerns.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct, and I am grateful to him for adding to my argument.
I want to refer to the BBC and, like others today, emphasise that the mistakes that its management made, which have been paid for in resignations, should not lead to any undermining of its independence or to the exercise of any leverage in negotiations over the charter or the licence fee. An independent BBC is very important to us.
I shall take the greatest of all possible political risks and comment on the "Today" programme, which plays a significant part in many of our lives. The resignations and top management changes—of heads rather than deputy heads—have perhaps led us to miss a point about the pressures that programmes are currently under in reporting such matters. The "Today" programme has come under pressure, from past editors, I suspect, to concentrate on getting the story first, rather than getting the story right. The frequent use of expressions such as, "This programme has learned," and "The BBC has been told," suggest that the programme is engaged in a ratings war with the newspapers. We look to a programme like that, for which we all have great affection, to get a story right, and we frankly do not care if its story appears later than a story in some newspaper that is speculative and wrong. I am sure that many of those who make the programme are trying to abide by that principle, but they should have it reinforced in the processes that follow the Hutton report.
Another feature that I want to mention is not peculiar to the "Today" programme but applies to news bulletins as well—I believe that that is a factor in some of these problems. It is the interview format adopted when correspondents explain a matter. This used to be done by a correspondent appearing in front of camera and

813
saying some rather carefully prepared words. Having a journalist interviewed at 7 minutes past 6 in the morning from his home is likely to lead to words not being carefully chosen at all. I do not believe that that was the only factor in the Gilligan error—indeed, the Gilligan falsehood, as Hutton rightly rules it—but presentational pressure to make the statement of a well informed correspondent appear like an interview or a casual conversation between him and the presenter does not contribute to ensuring that the story is right. Those of us who value the BBC highly look to it to get the story right—we do not care whether it gets it first—and presentation is not the most important issue.
Having concluded with those comments, I think I have made sure that I shall not appear on the "Today" programme for quite some time. That will make my mornings more comfortable.
3.26 pm
Donald Anderson: I adopt everything that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has said.
Seven days is a long time in politics. A week ago, I criticised the Leader of the Opposition for what I deemed an unworthy response to the Prime Minister. Today, I commend him for his highly constructive contribution to the debate.
Lord Hutton published his report last week. He is a distinguished judge, whose appointment was greeted with acclamation. He is a man of undoubted integrity and independence. The conduct of his inquiry was also praised. I appeared before him for almost two hours, and therefore have some idea of the care that he took. He agonised long over the conclusions that he reached. That was also the general impression conveyed by the press at the time. Lord Hutton was hailed as
"a Judge not afraid to stand up to the Establishment".
He was commended for his "fearless independence", for being
"very much his own man",
and for being "shrewd and astute". One journalist identified in him
"a sharpness of mind and efficiency that stunned witnesses and journalists".
Suddenly, however, when the report was published, Lord Hutton was blamed for his "naïveté", and for his "unbalanced document". The charge of "whitewash" was common currency, even on the front pages of the newspapers. There was widespread disappointment and frustration that Lord Hutton did not take the scalps of any senior politicians, including that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who I am delighted to say was wholly absolved by the report.
This tells us much about the state of British democracy. Of course the press is the bulwark of our freedom. Its ability to question, using investigative journalism, is absolutely vital, but this should be coupled with responsibility. There is a danger of the press subverting our democracy by creating a climate of mistrust and malice towards those in public life, cynically hunting in packs for its next victim. There must
814
surely be a middle way between deference and malicious point scoring, and between questioning scepticism and corroding cynicism.
Lord Hutton clearly interpreted his remit as requiring something broader than an inquest but narrower than an inquiry into the causes of war. In that, he was right. The quality of the intelligence involved must now be investigated. David Kay told the Senate committee last week that we were all wrong. Of course, we learn of intelligence failures—indeed, Libya was another failure in terms of its nuclear capacity—but not of the successes. Some failures might have been due to Saddam Hussein having been deceived by his generals, or having sought to be duplicitous to others. Human intelligence might have been weak, or have relied too much on exiles. There could have been a "group think" among the experts because of the serial liar who was in charge of Iraq. There was of course a failure to record dissent within the security establishment. All these are important questions which the committee needs to address. But I agree with the broad conclusion of Lord Hutton, which of course the leader of the Opposition accepted, too. The BBC was at fault. Ultimately it made a full apology. There was sloppy journalism, and there was no, or insufficient, rigorous questioning along the route.
Is it just old-fashioned of me, and perhaps the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, to say that the BBC's reputation was based on its practice in the past of reporting the news objectively, rather than seeking to make the news—a point made excellently by the editor of the Financial Times in last Saturday's edition?
I should also like to say that Mark Byford is well known to the Foreign Affairs Committee. I believe that he is a good choice in the interim, and hopefully beyond, to manage the BBC.
I hope also that the inquiry will not divert attention from the real challenges of peace in Iraq and of reconstructing that country.
I turn to the role of Select Committees, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) mentioned. He addressed the question of access to information, individuals and documents. The Committees of the House have powers to send for persons, papers and records—PPR, in the jargon. In practice, however, the power is unenforceable against Ministers, because of the Government's parliamentary majority.
In the course of our inquiry, the Foreign Affairs Committee reached conclusions that, save in one particular, were accepted by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which had access to all the intelligence that we asked for. We asked for Alastair Campbell to appear before us; we also asked for Scarlett, Omand, Dearlove and others. All this was refused to us, except, at the second time of trying, Alastair Campbell Yet all gave evidence to an inquiry that lacked any power to compel their attendance.
Similarly, the Foreign Affairs Committee asked for drafts of the weapons of mass destruction dossier and other papers, so that we could look at the route it took step by step. Again, all those papers were denied to a Committee of Parliament, even in confidence, but are now all published for people to read on the Hutton inquiry website. Surely that is wrong. If the House is to

815
do its job, and its expert Committees are to do their job on behalf of the House and the public, we must be given the tools.
I made the point to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday in the Liaison Committee, and I made it to him this morning. I hope that this issue will not go away, and that the House will learn that as one of the key lessons of Hutton. Of course, as parliamentarians we are envious of the access of Hutton's inquiry to witnesses and information. The Government must take Parliament and its Committees more seriously.
As I have said, that is one of the key lessons to be learnt. The other is the light that the human tragedy of a good and distinguished public servant, Dr. Kelly, throws on the current climate of mistrust and cynicism fostered by the press with regard to those in public life, and the presumption that those in public life are at best to be mistrusted and at worst dishonest.
I trust that as a House we shall learn the lessons from this tragic episode and try to move forward in a spirit of greater humility, respect and indeed trust.
3.33 pm
Mr. Boris Johnson: I suppose I should begin by declaring an interest of sorts, in that I edit a magazine which received Andrew Gilligan's reports throughout the Gulf war—and very proud we were of those reports, none of which was remotely anti-war.
I shall now do a very unfashionable thing, which is to stick up for Andrew Gilligan. We heard from the Labour benches about how people have been pilloried and vilified. No one has been more pilloried and vilified than that journalist. I propose to try to vindicate what he said.
This debate takes place after the Prime Minister has announced an inquiry into the Government's extraordinary failure to give an accurate picture of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction before the war. I hope that Lord Butler will somehow in his findings pay tribute to the work of Andrew Gilligan in exposing the way in which Downing Street revised raw intelligence material in the hope of making it sound more alarming and making the threat sound more imminent.
To understand what I think happened—and I am paid to say what I think—one must remember the origins of Alastair Campbell as a tabloid journalist. He was political editor of the Daily Mirror, and went to Downing street as editor-in-chief of the propaganda campaign, in particular the propaganda campaign to convince the public—and especially Labour Members, whose votes were very important—that Saddam was a clear and present threat to this country. In his office in Downing street, Alastair Campbell chaired a series of very important meetings. Very senior civil servants were there, among them John Scarlett, chairman of the JIC. Alastair Campbell told John Scarlett
"I will chair a team that will go through the document from a presentational point of view, and make recommendations to you."
Everyone who has worked on a newspaper, tabloid or broadsheet—as I have—will know that newspapers are basically monarchical in structure. If the editor is known to be partial to a certain story or a certain subject—pheasants, say—loyal underlings will provide the editor
816
with pheasants. Or a story about topless models, or whatever it happens to be. That is how it works. He is the Sun King, and they are sunflowers who turn their faces towards him.
Andrew Mackinlay: Their faces?
Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman clearly has a keen understanding of these matters.
As Lord Hutton himself observed, this may be subconsciously—he said "subconsciously"—corrupting. But I think that in the case of the influence of Downing street on the intelligence services it was clearly more than subconsciously corrupting, for there was a whole series of overt and explicit memos. In the spring and summer of 2002, the intelligence services had produced a fairly cautious document about the state of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. It may be remembered that the original document, which was not published because it was too feeble, said that there was a chemical and biological weapons capability, but made no mention of actual weapons. It said that Iraq was at least five years away from producing a nuclear weapon. That, of course, was not exactly what the editorial staff in Downing street wanted to hear.
Phil Bassett, himself a former journalist and a member of the Downing street press office, sent a memo saying,
"We're in a lot of trouble as it stands now."
Another memo went out from Downing street saying,
"No 10 through the Chairman wants the document to be as strong as possible within the bounds of the available"
evidence.
"Therefore this is a last (!) call for elements that agencies think can and should be included."
In due course, naturally, Scarlett obliged. He produced a dossier in which some of the language had been strengthened. But Campbell, the editor-in-chief, still was not happy. There was a sentence that read
"The Iraq military may be able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so".
Mr. Campbell pointed out that that was weaker than the wording of the summary, and requested that it be changed. That request was granted, along with requests for a dozen other material changes designed to beef up the language.
Some analysts on the Defence Intelligence Staff were uneasy about the 45-minute claim. Dr. Brian Jones whose intimate involvement with the whole business was discussed earlier by the Prime Minister—said:
"The way the intelligence was reported did not give us any confidence that the primary source knew very much about the subject."
He went to see Dr. Kelly, who himself expressed some doubts about, for instance, the biological weapons claim, but when they passed their concerns up to their superiors those concerns were ignored. Jones said he felt that
"the shutters were coming down".
An unnamed official was so alarmed by the draft that he wrote a highly unusual memo of protest:
The 20th September draft still includes a number of statements which are not supported by the evidence available to me…What I wish to record is that based on the intelligence available to me, it has NOT been established beyond doubt that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons."

817
As for the notorious 45-minute claim, he said
"This is based on a single source. It is not clear what is meant by 'weapons are deployable within 45 minutes'. The judgment is too strong considering the evidence on which it is based".
Yet four days later the Prime Minister was at the Dispatch Box waving a dossier and making that claim no fewer than four times. He made it in his own foreword. He said:
"The threat of Saddam and weapons of mass destruction is not American or British propaganda. The history and present threat are real".
A couple of hours beforehand Jonathan Powell had sent a memo to Alastair Campbell—someone mentioned this earlier—saying:
"Alastair, what will the headline be in the Standard"
after they had published this thing?
"What do we want it to be?"
We do not have Campbell's answer, but I think we can guess, because the Evening Standard duly obliged the Government's propaganda machine and said "45 minutes from attack".
The Sun said, "He's got 'em…Let's get him." It was nonsense, of course. It was an inverted pyramid of piffle. To make matters worse, the Government allowed the tabloids to misconstrue the 45-minute reference to mean ground or air-launched missiles rather than battlefield weapons. In other words, a claim that was rubbish had been embellished at the Government's behest and at the specific request of Alastair Campbell.
Let us go back to the fateful change and the psychology of the parties involved. The intelligence services are already straining to oblige their political masters and they have beefed up the language as far as they dare, but Campbell comes back to Scarlett and wants him to ratchet it up one notch higher. He wants to move the claim from the conditional to the indicative mood, as the grammarians would say. Why does Scarlett accede to that? Because he is in the position of a foreign correspondent who has before him a campaigning editor, but the story is not quite hot or strong enough, so he agrees to hype it up. He takes a risk because he thinks he can get away with it because the facts may well turn out to support his editor's desire and he wants a quiet life and to be obliging.
That is, in essence, what Andrew Gilligan reported. He said that the Government probably knew that the figure was wrong. They and Campbell certainly did not know that the figure was right, yet they put it before the public and before Parliament as an incontrovertible fact. Gilligan said that his source was involved in the production of the dossier, which was certainly true. He said that there was anxiety in the intelligence services about the dossier, which has been amply confirmed.
I ask Labour Members who deride Gilligan whether they are happy that those facts were brought into the public domain. I also ask them in their triumphalism to reflect on whether it is possible that the Government made mistakes in the production of the dossier—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up. I call Dr. Gavin Strang.
3.41 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: The time limit makes it difficult for me to respond to the interesting remarks of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson). I will focus my brief remarks on three areas: the publication of intelligence, the future of the BBC and the intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
First, on the publication of intelligence, the Intelligence and Security Committee's report on Iraqi WMD says that we intended to examine the agencies' relationship with the media and the use of intelligence-derived material by the Government to brief the public. The dossier published in September 2002 was the first of its kind, and we can learn much from the experiment. Lord Hutton has shown us that the rules were not broken in the drafting of the dossier, and I am pleased that the Government have been cleared in that way.
The rules were not broken, but the question we must ask ourselves now is whether we have the right rules. My view is that we do not—not yet. I believe that the Government should operate with a presumption of openness. Intelligence, however, is obviously inherently different. For good reason, the intelligence agencies work in secret and much of their findings is kept secret. If, however, intelligence on issues of great national importance can be made public without jeopardising the work of the agencies, a case can be made for publishing it. In theory, that should enable the public to have a more informed debate on the subject in question. The question is: who should publish that work and on what terms?
Let me be clear: I do not condemn the decision of my right hon. Friends to publish the dossier in September 2002. The House may recall that the Intelligence and Security Committee supported that decision in our annual report last year. But we have to learn the lessons of this whole affair, and my conclusion is that Governments should not, in future, be involved in the publication of intelligence-based documents.
Intelligence does not readily lend itself to publication. It is rarely cut and dried. The intelligence received is a stream of often conflicting or inconclusive data, from which people have to make judgments. It is for the Government to take decisions based on those judgments.
My view is that, by their very nature, Governments will be selective in their use of intelligence. A Government will tend to cite intelligence publicly only when trying to persuade the public on a difficult point. Sometimes a Government may take a decision that is in conflict with the balance of the available intelligence, but it is difficult to imagine such a Government choosing to publish a dossier full of that intelligence.
An alternative approach could be for the intelligence agencies alone to draft any intelligence-related documents to be published. Ministers would not be answerable for them, but the documents could be debated. One advantage of such an approach would be that there could then be no suspicion—however unfounded—of Government pressure or interference; and no possibility that any members of the Joint Intelligence Committee might be "sub-consciously influenced", as Lord Hutton put it, to use wording stronger than would otherwise be used. The hon. Member for Henley made a lot of that.

819
A further advantage of that approach is that authorship of such reports would be clear. That is an important point for members of the public looking at the statements made at the time of the dossier's publication. Its authorship is not clear. Was it written by the intelligence services, or the Government?
In that context, one option would be for the intelligence agencies to publish annually a report of their assessment of security issues. My view, based on what has happened in the past couple of years, is that, as a general rule, intelligence material should not be published. Instead, the Government should set out their judgments in the normal way, in a statement to the House or in an official Government document. In the case of Iraq, the Government would have published their own document, setting out their considered view of the nature of the threat.
I turn now to the future of the BBC. It is important that we do not overreact. Clearly, Andrew Gilligan made a mistake in his broadcast, which was compounded by the way that it was dealt with in the BBC chains of command. However, we must not respond in a way that would damage the BBC, which is a truly great British institution.
I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister assured my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), my colleague on the Intelligence and Security Committee, that Lord Hutton's strictures against the BBC will not bias the Government in their consideration of the future of the charter and the licence fee.
Much of what the BBC currently does is policed by Ofcom, but I believe that regulation of the BBC should not be transferred entirely to that body. The BBC is different from other broadcasters: it is a public service, paid for and owned by everyone. The BBC exists to set standards for others and to play a vital role in our democracy. One only has to look at what is served up in news bulletins in other countries to begin to recognise what an asset we have in the BBC.
Finally, important though the questions surrounding Andrew Gilligan's broadcasts were, and tragic though the death of Dr Kelly was, at some point we must leave these discussions behind us. The real question is, why did we go to war?
For the UK, the central case was Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. There is the separate question of regime change, but the stated basis of the British Government's decision to go to war was Iraq's WMD.
The past is the past. Whether or not there actually were WMD in Iraq, I believed that the UN weapons inspectors should have been given more time to do their job. The Government disagreed. I do not doubt that they acted in good faith, on the basis of the intelligence that they had. However, statements were made—about 45 minutes, the thousands of tonnes of WMD agent, and so on—that I do not believe that anyone here would make now.
As I have said, I do not doubt that the Government acted in good faith. We therefore have to ask ourselves whether the intelligence was wrong We have all heard the statements by David Kay, the outgoing leader of the Iraq survey group. He put the matter starkly when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee last Wednesday,
820
"We were all wrong, probably, in my judgment, and that is most disturbing."
I am not saying that there is nothing there. David Kay himself spoke of a programme to develop a weapon using ricin that was active until the war, and the Iraq survey group has not finished its work. However, it is looking less and less likely that Iraq possessed great stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, or that there was large-scale production of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq.
Lord Hutton did not address that matter, and it is wrong to criticise him for not doing so, as that was not in his remit. Instead, he was judging whether the intelligence was properly presented, but the time has come to take stock of the intelligence itself. The fundamental questions now have to do with whether it was right to go to war in the first place and, given the present situation in Iraq, with the proper role of Britain and its armed forces.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) noted, intelligence material is only one of a number of factors that the Government had to weigh in the balance in taking the momentous decision to go to war. There is a feeling among the public that the intelligence may have been flawed. If the further inquiry that the Foreign Secretary announced yesterday is able to cast some light on that, then it will be doing the country a service.
3.48 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I rather suspect that Lord Hutton, if he pays any attention to such matters, will have been amused at the way in which the press lionised him at first and then turned against him when he did not produce the desired results. He may even share my amusement at the especially fatuous comment that his report lacked balance. The sentiment seems to have been that his criticism of the BBC meant that he should have criticised the Government as well.
That comment betrays a complete misconception of Lord Hutton's function. He is a judge who was asked to examine certain issues. He took evidence, saw and evaluated witnesses, and made what he considered to be findings of fact. Having looked at his report, I find it difficult to see any basis for differing from his findings on the facts, but of course whether those facts fit into someone's notion of balance is entirely another matter.
Some of the comments—especially some of the commentary—were silly. The right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) referred to a particular newspaper; I want to refer to a particular commentary, although I shall reveal neither the organ nor the author. Two thirds of the way through my example—a splendid denunciation of Lord Hutton—was a little sentence saying that the author had not had time to study the report in detail, which being translated meant that he had not read it.
I turn from that commentary in an outlet that has a high opinion of itself to the refreshingly different point of view of a former editor of The Sun—Mr. Yelland, writing in The Times on Friday. He said:
"I can truly say that when I was Editor of The Sun that story would not have passed muster. I would have asked so many questions it would not have seen the light of day.

821
And if it did get in the paper and Campbell had called me, I would have gone through the reporter's notes and, in this case, I would have fired him."
The claim further on in the paper that the tabloid press still retains some of the values of reporters of fact, whereas so much of the quality press is now dominated by commentators who wish to make an impact and a political point is a good one. Although, as a balance to those comments, Andreas Whittam Smith, in The Independent, made the good point that the BBC needs a strong editorial function.
I do not have time to go into details, but the e-mails sent by Kevin Marsh of the "Today" programme are reproduced on page 195 of the Hutton report. He listed eight points that should be introduced to ensure a proper editorial regime over the matters that Mr. Gilligan would deal with in future on the programme. Mention of those points concedes that such editorial control did not exist before that.
I was struck by the comments on the Marsh memorandum included elsewhere in the report. Mr. Dyke said that it had not been brought to his attention and when that was queried, he replied:
"This is further down the chain, quite a long way down the chain".
Similar comments made by Mr. Sambrook and Mr. Davies indicate that persons in the upper echelons of the BBC did not regard the comments of the editor of their flagship current affairs radio programme as something worthy of their attention, or that should even have been brought to their attention. A decent editorial structure in the BBC would be quite different from that, and I hope that the BBC will address that problem, as well as looking into the culture that has developed of making news rather than providing decent analysis of it.
Reference has been made to maintaining the independence of the BBC. That is important, but we need integrity at the BBC, too. I am sorry to have to tell the House that, where I come from, that integrity has sometimes not existed. A journalist who now writes for a left-wing newspaper but who, at the time, was the security correspondent for BBC Northern Ireland gave me one such example. When Garda Gerry McCabe was murdered in the Irish Republic, that BBC security correspondent received, from three separate sources, confirmation that the murder was committed by the IRA and the names of the four persons who are currently serving prison terms, but was told, "Oh no, you can't report that, because it's based on supposition". BBC Northern Ireland then broadcast an interview with a Sinn Fein luvvie, who said, "Oh no, it was the Irish National Liberation Army". I connect that misrepresentation with the circumstance that someone at a senior level in BBC Northern Ireland was arrested in the early 1960s trying to set fire to an Army recruitment office. The case was hushed up because that youngster was then, as now, very well connected. These are questions of integrity. We need to return to a proper sense of public service broadcasting.
A new, fresh inquiry has been announced, and I welcome that. Although I realise that it is in no way connected with the comments that I made in the House a week ago about the need for such an inquiry, I am
822
glad, for other reasons, that it has been set up. It is good that the inquiry will be able to look into the gathering, evaluation and use of intelligence, but it is important that that be done in as cool a way as possible. It is curious, too, to read the comments of Dr. Jones today, in which he is clearly concerned about the overstatement of intelligence. As has been said, intelligence is a matter of judgment; it is uncertain. Dr. Jones is concerned that his superiors in the intelligence world were overstating things that he thought should still be qualified. Again, where I come from, there is a strong belief among people who deal with intelligence matters on the ground in Northern Ireland that the chief function of the JIC over the years has been to tone down and take out of the intelligence presented to the Government any awkward or inconvenient fact. There is good reason to believe that that is, in fact, what the JIC has tended to do over the past few years, and I wish that the Government would probe a little bit more deeply into those matters as well.
I wish the fresh inquiry well. It is important that we look back to see what mistakes have been made if only to ensure that performance is better in the future, but I do not think that those inquiries—whether those conducted by Lord Hutton or by the fresh inquiry—change the basic political decision that the House took in March last year. Indeed, what we have heard today from Mr. Kay reinforces that. However, independently of that, I am quite satisfied that the decision that we took then was right and, as the Prime Minister said towards the end of his contribution, the middle east—indeed, perhaps the world—is a better place as a result.
3.56 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Following what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, part of the difficulty is that the JIC has often geared itself to what it thinks its masters want to hear, so should there not be a distinction between analysis and advocacy? I raised that issue in some detail in the debate in the House on 3 July, at column 601. I have a letter dated 16 July from the Prime Minister asserting:
"I have also made it clear that the Chairman of the JIC was responsible for the executive summary and the body of the text. At no time during the process did anyone attempt to override the intelligence judgements of the Chairman of the JIC and his Committee.
The foreword was put to the Chairman of the JIC who confirmed at the time that there was nothing which conflicted with the contents of the dossier."
I have a constructive suggestion to make: there should be a directive to the JIC and, through it, to the entire intelligence community that there should always be a distinction between analysis and advocacy. That might be helpful to the intelligence community because, like many others, I am very uneasy about those in the intelligence community having to shoulder a blame that they do not deserve.
As time is short, I shall be as brief as possible, but I have one other matter that I should like to raise with those on the Front Bench. Towards the end of his speech, the Prime Minister chose to raise the question of the present situation in Iraq. May I repeat that there is increasing need for the west to show an example in at least bringing to trial people who may have done dreadful things, just as people who did dreadful things

823
between 1939 and 1945—indeed, before that—were brought to trial at Nuremburg? If we are to going to dampen an increasingly dangerous situation, in which our forces are seen, rightly or wrongly, as an occupying army, it is a matter of absolute urgency that those trials be set in motion.
I have a final question. Is it true, as is coming from certain sources in Washington, that Saddam Hussein is being held at the biggest base outside the continental United States, at Diego Garcia, which is, after all, a British Indian ocean territory? I put that question because of the information coming from Washington.
Mr. Jenkin: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Butler inquiry's terms of reference will allow it to study the difference to which he alludes between analysis and advocacy?
Mr. Dalyell: The answer to that is that I hope so. What I am uneasy about, as are some of my hon. Friends, is whether the Butler terms of reference will carry over into questions about which many of our fellow citizens want to know: the justification for the war in the first place.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman may agree that one slight anxiety, given that I am confident that the wording is sufficient to allow such examination of the use of the material in terms of the persuasion of the public, is that when the Foreign Secretary was asked about that yesterday, he shied away from giving the assurance that that was his interpretation. Would it not be extremely desirable for the Government to acknowledge publicly that the plain use of the language in the terms of reference must allow that to happen?
Mr. Dalyell: The answer to that is that it must have been heard by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. If I may have his attention, I ask him to bring that serious question to the attention of the Foreign Secretary, who will wind up the debate, because it deserves an answer that I am in no position to give.
4.1 pm
Sir John Stanley: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I want to start on the point with which he opened his speech.
One of the unique features of the present Government's operation of the machinery of government has been to produce a wholly unprecedented interleaving of the machinery of intelligence with the machinery of presentation. Until the Foreign Affairs Committee made its report, "The Decision to go to War in Iraq", the extent to which that had taken place was unknown, both inside the House and among the wider public. It certainly came as a significant surprise to members of the Committee. The Committee, to quote just one of our recommendations, recommendation 12, was in absolutely no doubt that it was dangerous and unacceptable:
"We conclude that it was wrong for Alistair Campbell or any Special Adviser to have chaired a meeting on an intelligence matter, and we recommend that this practice cease."
824
As we know, what the Foreign Affairs Committee uncovered was just the tip of the iceberg. When the Hutton inquiry got under way, and we saw the flood of e-mails that were being exchanged within the Government, to some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) has referred, it became clear that there was an absolutely unprecedented interleaving of those responsible for the Government's presentation, particularly in No. 10, with the intelligence agencies. That is a very serious issue for Government to address. As long as in this House, and just as importantly among the wider public, there is a general perception that intelligence material is subject to a degree of presentational input before it comes into the public domain, doubt will be cast on the independence, and indeed the integrity and professionalism, of the intelligence services.
A more significant matter for the longer term, which should worry the Secretary of State for Defence, if he is paying attention, is that if at a later date the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or he comes to the House and says, "We have found new intelligence of evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and we now need to take some form of military action to deal with that", the Government will be seriously at risk of running into a gale of scepticism and doubt, which perhaps should not be there. This is a very serious issue for the Government; I ask them seriously to consider reverting to the practice of all previous Governments by clearly separating the intelligence machinery from the presentational machinery.
The second issue that I want to raise is that of weapons of mass destruction. Another unique feature of the situation that arose in connection with the decision to go to war in Iraq is that, unlike the decision on any previous conflict, it was taken on the basis not of indisputable factual evidence of an invasion, a terrible terrorist attack or an impending massive humanitarian disaster, but of an assessed intelligence threat to British interests and those elsewhere. I acknowledge that that presented Ministers with a very significant difficulty, but it also presented them with a very serious obligation—namely, to scrutinise, question and evaluate the intelligence assessment most closely.
At the moment, we lack any evidence—certainly, the Hutton inquiry is wholly silent on this—that senior Ministers, especially the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, subjected the intelligence assessments to the degree of scrutiny and evaluation that should have taken place before they took the key decision to take this country to war. What questions were asked? The House and the wider public would wish to know the answer to that. For example, did the Prime Minister ever ask why, if the 45-minute claim was seen to be reliable as far as British intelligence was concerned, it was so clearly seen to be unreliable by the US Administration that they never used it?
Another question, which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) asked today, is: did the Prime Minister ask to which weapons of mass destruction supposedly possessed by Saddam Hussein the 45-minute claim related? The Prime Minister's answer was absolutely extraordinary. He said that when he came to this House on 18 March last year to ask for

825
its approval to go to war, he did not know to which weapons of mass destruction the 45-minute claim related. That is an extraordinary admission.
My next question relates to chemical and biological weapons. Did the Prime Minister and his fellow Ministers ever ask, before repeating in the September dossier and at the Dispatch Box figures indicating very large tonnages of chemical weapons and chemical precursors, to what extent they had degraded, possibly beyond use? That information was widely available in the International Institute for Strategic Studies and in the working document produced by UNMOVIC—the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: One of the weapons inspectors—an American, Scott Ritter—referred to the degradation of some of the weapons widely, publicly and on many occasions, but was completely written off as somebody who had gone anti-war.
Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I have not got time to go into detail now, but I could make comparisons between what the Prime Minister said about certain chemicals on 18 March and parts of the UNMOVIC report stating that it was almost certain, or most unlikely, that they were militarily usable.
The last question that I suggest that the Prime Minister should have asked—we asked it in the Foreign Affairs Committee—is: how great was the degree of unanimity in the top echelons of the British intelligence community about the September dossier, weapons of mass destruction and the 45-minute claim? We now know about that, not least from appendix 18 to the Hutton report, which quotes the letter from the person who describes himself as
"probably the most senior and experienced intelligence community official working on 'WMD'"—
[Interruption.] I shall continue if I may. He said:
"I was so concerned about the manner in which intelligence assessments for which I had some responsibility were being presented in the dossier of 24 September 2002, that I was moved to write formally to your predecessor, Tony Cragg, recording and explaining my reservations."
I say to the House, and most particularly to those on the Government Front Bench, that if the House and the wider public are to be satisfied that there was proper scrutiny and evaluation of the intelligence assessments, it is crucial that this area—the degree of questioning and evaluation by Ministers, including the Prime Minister—be addressed by Lord Butler's committee.
4.10 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: In nothing that I have said in the House or outside it about Iraq have I ever questioned the good faith with which the Prime Minister believed in his case. I therefore welcome unreservedly the clear conclusion of Lord Hutton that the Prime Minister did not lie. Indeed, if I may say so to my colleagues, my frustration in those last few months before the war was not any suspicion that my right hon. Friend was acting duplicitously, but the sheer
826
impossibility of shaking his open and passionate conviction that he was correct in his view that military confrontation was the right course.
We should of course remember that, at that time, those on the Opposition Front Bench fully shared the same passionate conviction. I sat beside my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the Front Bench during a number of the exchanges, and frankly, the only challenge that he got from the then Conservative leader was a competition to see who could be more enthusiastic about a war. It does not compensate for the failure of the Opposition to scrutinise these matters at the time to have demanded over the past couple of months an inquiry into how the country ended up in a war that they fully supported. Personally, I gave up demanding an inquiry at about the same time as they started calling for one, partly because I was convinced that enough evidence was now in the public domain to make it plain that Saddam Hussein had not been a threat. Having sat through yesterday's exchange on the announcement of the inquiry, I feel that I was wise in not calling for it.
All that I would suggest to my hon. Friends about that inquiry is a piece of helpful advice. I suggest that they should stop trying to pretend that our decision to call an inquiry has nothing to do with the decision to call an inquiry over in Washington. Until Saturday, the Government were resisting the call for an inquiry. By Monday, they were organising one. Plainly, the only thing that had changed in between was that President Bush had announced that he wanted the facts. It speaks volumes about the extent of our culture of dependency on the Bush Administration that as soon as they decide to have an inquiry, we too decide that it is a good thing.
That goes to the heart of the origins of the war. The truth is that the Bush Administration were convinced of the case for war long before they ever looked at any intelligence. We have Paul O'Neill's observation that, at the very first meeting of the National Security Council, the invasion of Iraq was topic A, and President Bush's approach was to say, "Get me a way of doing it." The reality is that intelligence was not the origin of the war; intelligence was used as the justification for a decision that had been taken for other reasons.
I welcome what the Prime Minister said today in praise of the intelligence agencies. For four years I was the Cabinet Minister with responsibility for the Secret Intelligence Service. I was always impressed by the service's detachment, and its meticulous qualification of what it offered. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that I never once knew the intelligence services to advocate a particular course of action. Indeed, the intelligence assessments were always so carefully balanced and full of alternative interpretations that I frequently rose from them more confused than when I had sat down in the first place. What went wrong in this case is that intelligence was used as propaganda to lobby for a war that had been decided on for reasons other than intelligence.
I read with great unease the article in today's edition of The Independent by Dr. Brian Jones. I do not wish to spend time discussing whether his comments were properly handled by his line manager. For me, the bottom line is that I find it extraordinary that neither the Cabinet nor Parliament were told that all the experts in the Defence Intelligence Staff had reservations about the September dossier

827
There is one question that I have for the Butler inquiry to consider. I think that it falls within its remit, however narrow that may be. I have never doubted that Ministers believed all the information in the September dossier when that dossier was presented to Parliament, but I would be surprised if they believed all of it by the time the House was asked in March to vote for war. I say that because in between those two points we had two months of inspections by Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. We had given those inspectors, perfectly properly and correctly, our intelligence to guide them where to look, and they found nothing. Hans Blix has observed, "My God, if this was their best intelligence, what was the rest like?"
Those blank results were fed back to our intelligence agencies by the weapons inspectors. I would like the Butler inquiry to consider whether that knowledge that our intelligence had proved faulty changed any of the evaluation by the intelligence agencies of the threat from Saddam. If so, why did Ministers not tell the House before we went to war?
I shall pick up on the exchange between the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon. If I heard it correctly—I may have misheard it—the hon. Gentleman asked my right hon. Friend whether he was aware by March that we were considering battlefield weapons rather than wider long-range weapons of mass destruction.
If I heard him correctly, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said no. I am bound to say that I was surprised by that answer. The House will recall that in my resignation speech I made the very point that we were considering battlefield weapons and that Saddam probably had no real weapons of mass destruction. I invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who will reply to the debate, to consider with his advisers whether it might not be wise to qualify the Prime Minister's answer when he replies. I find it difficult to reconcile with what I knew, and what I am sure my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister knew when we had the vote in March.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could go further in his questioning. Just after the September dossier was published, the Evening Standard and The Sun took up the 45-minute claim, and interpreted it as referring to long-range weapons. That coming out in a newspaper article was clearly wrong. Should not the right hon. Gentleman's question also encompass whether the Government, having known that that was wrong, were not bound to correct it?
Mr. Cook: I am obviously more relaxed about whether the Government corrects the record in The Sun, but I am very anxious that they should correct the record in the House before it is invited to make a decision.
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to quote from the interesting response that was published yesterday by the Government to the Intelligence and Security Committee, in the course of which the Government say:
"In March 2003"—
828
It is obvious from the context that this was before the vote in the House—
"the Joint Intelligence Committee stated that intelligence on the timing of when Iraq might use the CBW was inconsistent and that the intelligence on deployment was sparse. Intelligence indicating that chemical weapons remained disassembled and that Saddam had not yet ordered their assembly, and that was highlighted."
That is light years away from what the House was told in September. If the Government had had such an assessment in March, they should have shared it with the House before we voted.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister properly took credit for the fact that the Government allowed the House to vote before British troops were committed to action. I offer personal credit to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who was always a robust advocate of the right of the House to vote on action before it took place. But if we are to take credit for the House having the right to decide, it becomes very important that the House had accurate information on which to make the decision. At the very least, the majority in the House would have been much reduced if we had known that there were no weapons of mass destruction.
It may well be, as the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) said, that there are Members who would have chosen to continue with invasion even if they had known that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and they are entitled to that view. But the situation then becomes a choice, not a necessity. We now know that we did have the time to let Hans Blix finish the inspections, and had we done so we would have found out that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and there was no threat from Saddam.
It has become fashionable to talk about the judgment of history. I do not know what history will say about our decision to choose to go to war, but we already know enough to conclude that history will judge that we did not need to go to war.
4.20 pm
Mr. Peter Lilley: We have just heard two distinguished contributions from the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), but I hope that they will forgive me if I refer back to an earlier contribution by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) who was much maligned and vilified for his questioning on the Foreign Affairs Committee at the time. I am poles apart from him politically, but I want to place on record the fact that I greatly respect what he did then, and does every day, as a parliamentarian. He deserves our respect, and he should know that he has support across the House.
I want to focus on key questions that were left unanswered by Hutton and which I hope will be answered by the next inquiry—and if not, by the Government. First, however, I shall put on record the fact that I voted for war on 18 March despite the fact that after carefully reading the dossier and the Blix report, I had come to the conclusion that there almost certainly were no weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein, and certainly none that constituted a current and serious threat to this country.

829
Close reading of those documents also made it clear to me that Saddam had in the past possessed and used those weapons, he had the current intention to possess them, and if we withdrew and sanctions collapsed, he would in future, in all likelihood, get them and become a danger. So I voted, knowing that there were no weapons but believing that it was possible to justify war to change the regime and pre-empt a future threat. I think that the Prime Minister was doing the right thing hut giving the wrong reason, and it is important that we hold him to account for the reasons that he gave, lest a Government in future feel free to do whatever they like for the wrong reason.
The first question that we ought to ask is why the Government placed such enormous reliance on the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction. It is clear that the decision to go to war did not follow from a study of the evidence of the existence of those weapons. The right hon. Member for Livingston said that it was the other way round: the decision came first and then the evidence was assembled to justify it. We know that because the key piece of evidence on which the Government relied so much that they put it in the dossier four times—the 45-minute claim—was not available to them when the decision was made but only at the last minute after they decided to produce the dossier.
The reason why the Government based the case for war on Saddam's supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction was, as so often with this Government, presentational. They chose the argument that they believed would maximise support, particularly among their Back Benchers and in the United Nations. They chose it not because they believed it to be true but because it would maximise support. They thought that war to disarm Saddam of weapons of mass destruction would play well with the many Labour Members who have belonged to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and could be expected to support disarmament of all kinds. We know that that did not work: so many of those Members opposed their Government's decision that if this party had not joined the Government in the Lobby they would have been defeated and would have fallen.
The second question that we have to ask is whether, if the Government had known or been willing to accept at the time that there were no weapons of mass destruction available to Saddam, the war would have been legal. I made it clear that I voted for it as a war of regime change and pre-emptive action—a contentious position. Some argue that any war to change a regime is forbidden by international law. That seems a rather odd argument, given that we had already changed the regime of one third of the country. When we did that in Kurdistan and the Marsh Arab areas by military action and overflying, no one seemed to challenge it. If it was right to do that in a third of the country, I cannot see why it should be wrong in the other two thirds.
Others argued that one could not take military action to pre-empt a future threat, as if we should sit here and wait until Tel Aviv had been nuked or Portsmouth poisoned. If we have the power and can take preemptive action, there may be occasions when it is justified. The issues need to be established clearly,
830
because the same arguments may be deployed again with respect to other rogue states in apparent possession of, or threatening to possess, weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Calum MacDonald: When we discussed authorising the war in March, I cannot recollect anything being said about regime change or pre-emptive action The motion simply said that Iraq was in repeated breach of UN resolutions, notably 1441, and Dr. Kay's assessment of the work of the survey group was:
"In my judgement, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group…Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of resolution 1441."
That was the whole legal and moral basis of the war.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, which concerns the role of the Law Officers, who I suspect played an important part. We have seen their truncated conclusion, but we have never seen the full opinion or the submission on which it was based, and we do not know the extent to which they relied on that submission. That information should be available to the new inquiry, to establish whether the existence of weapons of mass destruction was relied on in their analysis.
We have to question the accountability of the Law Officers. They are very powerful, and once they have opined, a Cabinet is bound by that opinion. No Cabinet could afford to go against such an opinion for fear that it would be found to have done something that its own Law Officers said In as illegal. In many cases that is all right, but international law is highly fluid, uncertain and subjective. In asking for an opinion, one is effectively making the Law Officers' subjective assessment binding on Government. We have to ask whether that is the right way to reach conclusions in such uncertain areas.
We need to ask whether Ministers or the intelligence services were to blame if intelligence was wrong. Ministers are responsible even for the advice that they take, so they have a duty to probe, question and evaluate that advice and get it right, as the right hon. Member for Livingston did—and even I, in my humble way, outside, could reach the same correct conclusion. In my experience, the worst decisions in Government are made when Ministers fail to question things because they are as enthusiastic as the officials, and officials fail to draw their attention to the problems, because they perhaps have an interest in heightening the appreciation of a certain risk or threat.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of his view of the proper limits of ministerial responsibility? Does he judge, in fact, that Ministers are responsible for operational decisions?
Mr. Lilley: That is probably a trick question, and does not strike me as terribly worthy. It depends on the Ministry—I took decisions that affected the operations of my Department, which would not have been appropriate in other Departments.
We need to ask whether the intelligence was as much at fault as everyone has assumed. I believe that it was far less at fault than most people suppose. It was presented

831
in a very sexed-up fashion, not so much in the preparation of the document as in its presentation to the House and the public. The document said:
"The JIC concluded that Iraq had sufficient expertise, equipment and materials to produce biological warfare agents within weeks using its legitimate biotechnology facilities."
In the case of chemicals, the document said that Iraq could
"produce significant quantities of mustard gas within weeks, and of nerve agents within months"
and that the JIC concluded that
"these chemical and biological capabilities represented the most immediate threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction."
In other words, it was not that Iraq possessed such weapons but that it had the ability to produce them within weeks or months.
The 45-minute claim was used so frequently not because it could be linked to the threat of missiles reaching here but because it was the only information in the document that implied that Iraq must already have the weapons, because it could get them to an unstated location 45 minutes later. That was the only evidence, and it contradicted the actual conclusions of the JIC, which is why so much was made of that claim.
The new inquiry should not start from the presumption that its task is to attach blame to the intelligence services. It should question how Ministers assessed the intelligence and presented it to the country. It should also ask whether the actual justification—a pre-emptive regime change—was justified in law, and whether we should be bound by the subjective opinion of the Law Officers.
4.31 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Lord Hutton judged the BBC to be culpable. As a consequence, Gavyn Davies has gone, rightly and with dignity, and Greg Dyke has gone, unwillingly and behaving like a buffoon. However, it is clear that those directly implicated in the Gilligan story, which Lord Hutton judged to be unfounded, remain active in the BBC.
On 6 July last year, the BBC governors issued a statement endorsing the Gilligan story. The statement said that the story was in the public interest and that BBC journalists had good contacts in the security services. Four weeks after the Gilligan report, Richard Sambrook, the director of news, said in an interview on the "Today" programme:
"we have nothing to apologise for2026;we had one senior and credible source in the intelligence services".
He continued deceptively to imply that the Gilligan story was based on a security or intelligence source. What is more, having learned that the source was not an intelligence official, he deliberately withheld that information from the board of governors, leading it to claim that there was an intelligence source. On that basis, the governors negligently and culpably endorsed the story and did not do their job.
Richard Sambrook was involved not only in that but, along with Kevin Marsh, in Gilligan's suborning of members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. That is demonstrated by an e-mail—oh that mine enemy should
832
send an e-mail—that Gilligan sent to Mark Damazer, Richard Sambrook and Kevin Marsh in which, among other things, he said:
"Spoke to Ottaway again and he's happy".
He also discussed briefing members of the Foreign Affairs Committee and suggested more briefing and suborning of members of that Committee—that is all in the Hutton evidence.
The situation is worse than that. Downing street concentrated on The Mail on Sunday article of 1 June written by Gilligan, but he wrote two articles for the paper, the second one of which was published on 8 June. It said, among other things, that the Prime Minister
"is charged with exaggeration, distortion, over-emphasis."
Kevin Marsh cleared that article. He read it, endorsed it and said, "It seems fine." That was the editor of the "Today" programme endorsing a contentious political article in a newspaper, and not seeing anything wrong in doing so. Indeed, far from it; the day after the Gilligan report on the "Today" programme that started this whole train of events, Marsh e-mailed Gilligan to say:
"Great week; great stories, well handled and well told."
Those two, Sambrook and Marsh, are clinging to their jobs when it is clear that any sort of BBC journalistic probity demands that they go. A leading article in The Economist at the weekend said that the Gilligan report
"was typical of much of modern British journalism: twisting or falsifying the supposed news to fit a journalist's opinion".
It went on to say that this action had been committed by
"a public-service broadcaster, whose reputation for reliability and authority gave the report its very credibility."
Yet those people are still there. We do not simply have those executives; we also have a situation in which a publicly funded, public service broadcasting organisation has revealed its governance to be unacceptable. That was said in relation to this issue by Lord Hutton.
I had a long correspondence with Gavyn Davies, which began long before the Gilligan affair, in which he insisted that the BBC's
"system of governance is a critical protection for the BBC's editorial independence from politicians".
As a member of the National Union of Journalists for 49 years, I am strongly in favour of the BBC and, indeed, the printed press, being totally independent of any interference by politicians. However, if that is to happen. there has to be a converse. The converse is that the BBC, above all, has a duty to behave with responsibility and with a great respect for truth.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to continue for a moment.
I champion the right of the printed press to be irresponsible, inaccurate, biased and politically motivated. It finances itself; it does not ask every household in the country to finance it. That is the burden of a free press. The BBC is different. It needs to be totally independent of all Governments.

833
Governments must not interfere with the BBC's content, but if that is to be so, the BBC's governance must be changed. As many hon. Members know, I said this long before the Gilligan affair or the Iraq war.
The BBC is governed and run as it was 77 years ago. It is time that we had a public sector, public service broadcasting organisation that was independent of the Government but, nevertheless, run like a business in this cut-throat world of the media. In my view, that involves an executive chairman, a board of directors and a chief executive. In this episode, the members of the BBC's board of governors did not simply allow a wrong to continue; they let themselves down. They betrayed themselves and the BBC. I do not believe that that system of governance can be allowed to continue when the charter review takes place
4.39 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Given the time available, I shall obviously have to choose carefully what I talk about.
Who took the decision to name Dr. Kelly, and why? Alastair Campbell's diaries reveal that he and the Defence Secretary were keen to reveal the source, in order to strike back at Gilligan—to "****" him, to use the communication chief's own word. Dr. Kelly remained anonymous after the Prime Minister expressed concern about the plan. However, Sir Kevin Tebbit, the MOD's most senior civil servant, told the inquiry that the Prime Minister agreed with the strategy that led to the eventual outing of Dr. Kelly, in order, I think, to put him before parliamentary Committees.
We know of the discussion on the plane from Shanghai to Hong Kong, where the Prime Minister emphatically denied that he had had anything to do with it. On the other hand, on 13 October Sir Kevin Tebbit said:
"A policy decision on the handling of this matter had not been taken until the Prime Minister's meeting on Tuesday [8 July]. And it was only after that that any of the press people had an authoritative basis on which to proceed."
So obviously there is a doubt there.
On the question whether the dossier was embellished, sexed up or whatever, it seems plain to anyone who has read the evidence that that must be the case. Lord Hutton may have concluded in another manner. That is fine. I am not impugning his impartiality, but I am calling into question the way in which he arrived at the decision. I am supported in that by several prominent lawyers, many of them Labour-supporting, such as Geoffrey Bindman. It is extraordinary that Lord Hutton should ignore the inconsistencies in coming to his conclusions.
What I am concerned about is that in the run-up to the debate and the vote we were not given evidence that could be relied upon. I am not all that upset about it, because I did not vote for the war, but I take issue over the Prime Minister's having said, in the foreword to the dossier,
"I am in no doubt that the threat is serious and current"
834
and so on, and then in September that the threat of the weapons of mass destruction programme was
"active, detailed and growing…It is up and running".
John Scarlett, on the other hand, said when the document was launched:
"We will need to make it clear in launching the document that we do not claim that we have evidence that he is an imminent threat."
That was the week before the Prime Minister said that the programme was up and running and that it was active, detailed and growing. There are evident inconsistencies here as well.
In today's edition of The Independent Dr. Brian Jones wrote:
"the expert intelligence analysts of the DIS were overruled in the preparation of the dossier in September 2002 resulting in a presentation that way misleading about Iraq's capabilities."
I will not dwell on the 45 minutes claim. Suffice it to say that enough has been said about that today. I am far from clear as to what the truth is in that part of the report as well.
A letter from Martin Howard, deputy chief of defence intelligence, to the Secretary of State for Defence attempted to brief the right hon. Gentleman about DIS dissent before he gave evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I do not think that that took us anywhere. It is astonishing that the Government chose not to take the advice of these people, who were very concerned about embellishments and very concerned about the way in which the evidence was presented.
At page 133 of the report we have Alastair Campbell's minute to Scarlett of 17 September:
"Please find below a number of drafting points. As I was writing this, the Prime Minister had a read of the draft you gave me this morning, and he too inside a number of points."
So it goes on.
Earlier today I referred to the appointment of the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) to the forthcoming inquiry. I think that it is inappropriate that she should serve on it. I shall read out verbatim an e-mail from Matthew Rycroft, dated 19 September 2002:
"Ann Taylor read the draft dossier this morning and passed on some detailed comments to John Scarlett. She has just rung me to underline the following points. The dossier should more explicitly refer back to the end of the Gulf war, the cessation of hostilities agreement and the demands of Iraq arising from the UNCR then. This is a baseline that people will understand. The dossier itself needs to come across as an impartial professional assessment of the threat. The political policy questions of the response to the threat need to be separate. The PM's statement to the House should make this distinction. The hardest questions in the debate, not fully answered by the dossier, remain why now and why Saddam. The PM should take these on in his statement to undercut critics."
The strongest defence of what I said about the right hon. Member for Dewsbury came from the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), who has been appointed to the committee. I do not hold out much hope for the committee. As I have said, many lawyers who have looked at the conclusions of the first inquiry believe it is flawed.
Adam Price: My hon. Friend mentioned an e-mail from Matthew Rycroft, a Foreign Office adviser. Another e-mail from

835
him, produced in evidence to the Hutton inquiry, reveals that the right hon. Lady was the only person outside Government to be shown a draft of the document and asked to comment on it. That was at the specific request of the Prime Minister. Two further drafts were produced, no doubt using some of the "helpful comments"—in the words of John Scarlett—of the right hon. Lady.
Mr. Llwyd: I note what my hon. Friend says. At the heart of the process, however, is the fact that one person was given a draft to add to or amend. That is part of the remit of the forthcoming inquiry. The right hon. Lady must, in all conscience, feel that she is compromised in this matter.
Ms Stuart: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be appropriate to check whether the hon. Gentleman gave notice of the criticisms he was going to make of a fellow Member, to ensure that she would be in the Chamber?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that is a valid question. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can answer it.
Mr. Llwyd: I did not write to the right hon. Lady, but she was well aware of my feelings about this. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I hear the hon. Gentleman's reply?
Mr. Llwyd: The right hon. Lady was well aware of my feelings when I intervened on the Prime Minister earlier.
Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I have a ruling? The right hon. Lady was in the Chamber when the matter was discussed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I was not present at that point, but I accept that the right hon. Lady has been in the Chamber for some considerable time this afternoon. That was not the question that was asked of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Liwyd).
Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a strict convention of the House that when a Member plans in advance—as the hon. Gentleman clearly did on this occasion—to refer to another, the former informs the latter, also in advance. That has been a convention of the House throughout the 34 years for which I have been an MP, and I do not believe it can be relaxed for the misbehaviour of that hon. Member. In fact, may I withdraw the word "honourable"?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I will take a point of order from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) first. I presume that it is on the same topic.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I do not have a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).
Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon.
836
Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will confirm that the convention is to allow a Member to be present in the Chamber in these circumstances. That is the purpose, and that is the convention.
Richard Ottaway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton is correct, should he not have given me notice when he referred to me in his speech?
Mr. Kaufman: I did, several weeks ago.
Mr. Garnier: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Dewsbury was in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Liwyd) intervened on the Prime Minister. She did not seek to intervene on the Prime Minister to correct any misapprehension that we might have gained. I rather suspect that the complaint is entirely bogus, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to continue his speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Llwyd.
Mr. Llwyd: I am obliged, Madam Deputy Speaker.
At the heart of the process is a mysterious lack of logic. Lord Hutton spent weeks listening to evidence about the preparation of the Government's case against Saddam in the September dossier, but when it came to writing his report he rejected the need to address the issue of the dossier's truth, saying
"A question of such wide import…is not one which falls within my terms of reference."
Two points therefore need to be made. First, if Lord Hutton was not going to rule on that matter, why go into the facts at such length? Secondly, the truth of the dossier's contents is the essence of the circumstances of Dr. Kelly's death, because that was what propelled the BBC and Alastair Campbell to escalate their running battle into open war.
Huw Irranca-Davies rose—
Mr. Llwyd: I have referred to several lawyers—Michael Mansfield, Richard Parkes QC, and Anthony Scrivener—but I also mention the Labour supporter, Geoffrey Bindman, who said that he found Lord Hutton's version incredible. He believed that the argument for saying that the dossier was not sexed up runs contrary to the evidence—and so he goes on.
Several references have been made to the importance of restoring confidence in the Government. The imminent inquiry has the wrong remit and the wrong personnel. It has been described as being on the Franks model, but the Franks inquiry into the Falklands conflict exonerated the Government and severely criticised the intelligence service. Am I the only one to have a sense of déjà vu? For "dodgy dossier", read "dodgy inquiry".
4.50 pm
Mr. Nigel Beard: I doubt whether my constituents, along with most people in this country, begin to understand the press and media reaction to Lord Hutton's report in the last week. For

837
weeks they had been told that Lord Hutton's findings would be the nemesis of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence. They were told Andrew Gilligan's story—that the September 2002 dossier had been changed not by intelligence experts, but by the Government, to include a claim that Iraq's chemical and biological weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes. Furthermore, they were told that the Government knew that claim to be false, but included it to persuade people to support an invasion of Iraq.
Except for a charge of war crimes, it is difficult to imagine a more serious charge against a Government. The charge had added weight by being broadcast by the BBC with its worldwide reputation for accuracy and independence. Now we have Lord Hutton's report, based on evidence presented in public and closely argued, which says that the whole of that allegation was false and that the Government did not falsify the September 2002 dossier.
Collective media judgment on the issue was woefully wrong. Rather than admit that, however, there has been a week of unsupported denunciation of the Hutton report in a press tantrum of petulance, malice, and self-indulgent irrationality. One aspect of the smokescreen is to pretend that Lord Hutton is a creature of the establishment who was bound to come down in favour of the Government—a sneering assertion, again unsupported by any evidence.
Lord Hutton has a record of judicial independence of which he and this country can be justly proud. In 1992, a republican prisoner, Patrick Nash, was accused of attempting to murder four of Lord Hutton's fellow judges in Northern Ireland. Lord Hutton acquitted him, making it clear he did not believe the police evidence against the prisoner. That is the man who has explicitly and by innuendo been dubbed an establishment stooge during the past week. No doubt the detractors would have discovered a man of entirely different character if he had come to the conclusion that they wanted.
Another distraction, attempted by Jeremy Paxman on "Newsnight", has been to say, "But we haven't discovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Lord Hutton has said nothing about the reason for our going to war". Neither issue lay within the terms of the inquiry; neither related to the charge of falsification by the Government, nor to Dr. Kelly's death.
Both the chairman and the director-general of the BBC have justified themselves by saying that they were defending the independence of BBC reporting. I do not know what pressure was put on them during the Iraq war, but that was never the issue. The case was that a reporter walked in with a story from a single source, which defamed and was capable of wrecking the British Government and nobody bothered to check it before or after it was broadcast.
Knowing the significance of the controversy, the BBC governors did not examine any primary evidence. They reproduced the bunker mentality of the chairman and director-general in deciding that their prime responsibility was to defend the independence of the BBC, even at the risk of rallying round an odious lie. It is the BBC's corporate judgment that is at issue, not its right of independence from the Government.
838
Sadly, I believe that the reaction to Lord Hutton's inquiry, both before and after publication of his report, reflects a malaise in British journalism, and in the media generally. That malaise is the origin of the BBC's performance in this affair. It says that facts and evidence should not get in the way of a good story, and that it is perfectly all right to impugn the integrity of anyone—the Prime Minister, Lord Hutton, or people dragged into the tabloid limelight—if that promotes a good story.
The same malaise is also evident in the attitude of many journalists with ambitions to be the next Woodward or Bernstein. They are ready to expose the corruption and dishonesty that is assumed to prevail among politicians and officials in both national Government and local government. If lying and corruption are assumed to be endemic, there is no need to be too meticulous about evidence or fairness. The end exposure justifies the means.
Mr. Robert Jackson: The hon. Gentleman referred to Woodward and Bernstein. Does he recall that the Washington Post had—and still has—a strict rule that no story should be based on a single source?
Mr. Beard: Indeed.
As has already been mentioned, the problem prevails in many serious newspapers, where all attempt at objectivity is abandoned and the opinion of the reporter is allowed to slant the news presented. In addition, every television report now seems obliged to end with a knowing quip that implies a judgment superior to anything said by the soldier, business man, policeman or politician who has just been interviewed.
A good illustration of that is the interview given by Mr. Rod Liddle immediately after publication of the Hutton report. The interview was held so soon after publication that Mr. Liddle could not have read and reflected on it, but he felt able to denounce it as
"a whitewash, like all reports by Law Lords, which are bound to come down on the side of the Government."
There was no concern for evidence, or the reasoning that arose from it. Like a drunk in a bar at closing time, he was ready to denounce all that he disapproved of as an establishment conspiracy.
Ms Stuart: My hon. Friend mentions the time for reflection that Rod Liddle allows before he comments on a matter. After the private session in which the Foreign Affairs Committee took evidence from Andrew Gilligan—for which the minutes were not published—he saw fit to write an article in which he described me as a Teutonic harridan for the way in which I asked my questions. He had no facts to base that on.
Mr. Foulkes: Certainly not.
Mr. Beard: Opinion was the main emphasis of that remark. However, Mr. Liddle is not a drunk in a bar at midnight. He is the former editor of the "Today" programme who hired Andrew Gilligan as part of a policy of actively making the news rather than reporting it. He has certainly done that now.
Last week brought no distinction to British journalism generally, but mention has been made already of the article by Andrew Gowers, the editor of

839
the Financial Times. It appeared in Saturday's edition of the newspaper, and is a noble exception for its objectivity and concern. I echo his cry:
"Let this dreadful misadventure then serve as a wake-up call for all journalists."
The lifeblood of our democracy is accurate and objective information, from which people can draw their own conclusions. Yes, opinions should be presented in the media to aid debate, but it should be clear that that is what they are. To have false information posing as truth, and opinion masquerading as fact, ultimately corrodes confidence in democracy itself.
The Hutton report is not just a warning to the BBC; it also warns of a culture and style that permeate most of journalism, and the media. To protect democracy, there must be a better code of ethics, and a framework of principles within which journalism and the media operate. If we can learn that lesson from this affair, good will come of it, and the BBC can return to being the standard bearer of truth and independence, quickly and unassailably.
4.59 pm
Mr. John Gummer: I shall have to revise entirely my view of the meaning of the word "harridan".
These matters are more serious than merely thinking about the past; we need to learn the lessons of the past. The first of those lessons comes from the information given to the House and which decided it that we were willing to go to war. I voted against that, but I did so on the important evidence that I was given. I hope that in the investigation we shall discover answers to three questions that are important for the way that this Government, or any Government, work.
First, why did no one ask about the nature of the weapons of mass destruction? Why did no one ask whether they were battlefield weapons? From my ministerial experience, I cannot understand why that interlocution did not apparently take place until so much later on.
Secondly, why did the Prime Minister not ask about the nature of the chemical weapons that had been talked about'? How far had they already degenerated?
The third question is perhaps the most important. In a Government who are known constantly to urge the press and the BBC to correct their mistakes, why did no one press the newspapers to correct what they knew to be untrue—the headlines that suggested that the 45 minute claim referred to the sort of weapons that most of us thought threatened immediately and directly the great capitals of, at least, the middle east and, many thought, even of Europe?
For many of us from a particular tradition, the WMD issue is so important because, whatever the legalities, we believe that only it could have made the war a just one. It was because I did not believe in the existence of WMD that I could not support the war; I do not believe that the definition of a just war allows a pre-emptive strike unless there is an immediate and direct threat. I ask the Government to be clear about that, because the House needs that information if it is to make a judgment on an issue that is, in this case, also a moral one, on which the
840
Prime Minister's moral judgment is opposed by every major leader of moral thought. That is a matter of importance and the Prime Minister failed to give the House the information we needed.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the logic of his position is that, had his view prevailed on 18 March last year, Saddam would still be in power, with all that that implies?
Mr. Gummer: That is the logic of my view. We would not be threatened and there would not have been an unjust war.
The Government must take seriously the real question that needs to be asked: why did that entirely untruthful allegation about them—the hateful lie to which the Prime Minister referred—immediately take legs? Why did people believe it so widely? There are two points for the Government to answer.
First, they must recognise that there was, by then, a widespread view that they were not always as careful with truth as they ought to be. They were warned about that much earlier on, in an article of considerable depth written by Matthew Parris—a columnist normally known for his humour. In The Spectator of 30 October 1999, he said:
"There will come a point in any prime minister's career when he needs to be able to say 'trust me' in circumstances where he can offer no better reason to do so than our own confidence in his trustworthiness. It is that belief in the minds of the press…which is being quietly shot to pieces as Mr. Blair's apparently untroubled progress continues."
I submit that Bernie Ecclestone, Mr. Mittal, the Walmart meeting, the Sudanese aspirin factory, the Hindujas, the Berlusconi phone call, the Queen Mother's funeral and that first dodgy dossier gave credence to that untruthful allegation.
The second thing of which the Government have to remind themselves is that they have adopted towards all the broadcast media, as well as the written media, a harassing attitude, whereby every day, very often every hour, someone from No. 10 Downing street is pressing for a change in what the broadcast media are saying. I believe that it is true to say that a senior member of the BBC staff spent almost 50 per cent. of his time dealing with the Government's regular complaints about this or that portrayal. It is not therefore surprising that a proper judgment was not made about the importance of the attack in relation to Gilligan. It was one in a series of regular, daily attacks, but that does not justify the BBC.
I have been more critical of the BBC than most, but I will not take it from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). When I was able to show that the BBC had produced a film in which it had spliced in other material on more than a dozen occasions to make a wholly wrong, wholly fallacious attack, which it had to withdraw in the end, but only at the gates of the court, one of the people who refused to support that battle, who was most offensive and in whom the milk of human kindness was least to be found was the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. His attacks on the BBC almost always occur when it is at variance with his own views, rather than with those of others. If the right hon. Gentleman is not here now, it is not my fault. He was here earlier and might have expected that comment because he asked for it.

841
I want to turn very quickly to the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is here. He became extremely angry when anyone suggested that there might have been some change in press officers because of their political inability to take their masters' orders. Well, I cannot prove any such change, but I believe that 18 took place in a very short period. There is no doubt that there is not a press officer in the world who does not believe that those changes were not entirely unconnected with a desire by an incoming Government to use the government mechanism to propagandise rather than inform. That does not excuse anything that the BBC did; it does not excuse anyone who now upholds an assertion that the Prime Minister lied, but it reminds us that people believed that lie because the Government have been dodgy about the truth for far too long and so people thought it likely.
The reason why the BBC failed to investigate properly is not acceptable or excusable—no one should excuse it—but the reason lies more in the way that the Government have treated the BBC, harassed its journalists and tried to ensure that the news that is put over to the people is the news as they would like it, with the headlines that they desire. It is that which made the difference, and it is that which the Prime Minister should think about.
5.8 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I do not want to take my full time because so many colleagues want to speak in the debate. I voted against the war in Iraq because I did not believe, as the Prime Minister invited us all to believe, that there was a serious and current threat. I wanted Hans Blix to get back in there and finish the inspections. Let us remember that he said that the inspections would take months, not years.
Going to war is the most serious decision that a Government can take, and it must be taken in full knowledge of all the facts. It is as plain as a pikestaff that we did not have all the relevant facts before us when we voted on 18 March. The key thing for those Labour Members who reluctantly voted with the Government was not resolution 1441, but the supposed existence of weapons of mass destruction that could be fired within 45 minutes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) told me earlier that he did not know those colleagues. I can tell him and others that there were colleagues who voted with the Government reluctantly, because they believed that those weapons of mass destruction were primed and ready to be fired in 45 minutes.
Peter Bradley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Prentice: I would rather not.
The September document showed concentric circles taking in not just the middle east but Europe, including the British base in Akrotiri in Cyprus. Any reasonable person reading it would say that there was a threat, if not to us in Britain but to our troops in Cyprus.
I believe that the policy of containment worked. What has been the result of military action? Yes, we are in Iraq, but 10,000 Iraqis have been killed, 500 American
842
servicemen have been killed, and British soldiers have been killed. I do not believe that Saddam was a threat. We heard today, as several Members have noted, that the Prime Minister did not know on 18 March whether the weapons of mass destruction were strategic or battlefield. That is an astonishing admission. I hope that the Butler inquiry will shed light on that.
A number of positive things came out of Hutton. It showed for the first time the internal wiring of the Government—who was in the loop, and who was not. I find it astonishing that when so many of the key decisions were taken, the Secretary of State for Defence was not copied in to critical correspondence. It is astonishing that the head of the civil service, the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull, became involved only on the clay after Dr. Kelly's body was found. The top civil servant, who is supposed to advise the Prime Minister, did not know about it—he was out playing golf or something—until after Dr. Kelly died.
It is unprecedented that all this information is posted on the internet, and yet we heard from my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that the Committee was denied access to information and told that it could not see John Scarlett even in camera. Lord Hutton comes along, however, gets that information and posts it on the world wide web. What conclusion do we draw from that? A fundamental review of the Osmotherly rules is needed to give Select Committees access to information that inquiries can ask for and get as a matter of routine.
The other thing that needs to be looked at is No. 10 and how it works. It is the classic paperless office—no notes of meetings were taken. It is astonishing that, over a two-week period, three written records were taken for up to 17 meetings a day. Phone calls and key decisions made over the phone were not recorded. Permanent secretaries, the top civil servants—belatedly doing now what they should have done then—are apparently insisting that key meetings, at which key decisions are taken, are properly minuted. Lord Hutton could follow the paper trail as far as the BBC was concerned, but there was no paper trail to follow in respect of what happened in No. 10—it all emerged from the evidence that was given during the Hutton inquiry.
Hutton also brought out other facts that would have been buried. I refer my colleagues to an article by Lord Alexander, the chairman of Justice—the British section of the International Commission of Jurists—that appeared in Monday's Financial Times, which chronologises and charts dossier changes, including key phrases that were taken out of the dossier in order to influence public opinion.
I am pleased that the Prime Minister, I think, told the House today that the new committee of inquiry will have sight of the whole, unexpurgated version of the legal advice that gave the legal basis for the Government to go to war. That is marvellous.
There are less satisfactory aspects of Hutton, of course, although I do not have time to go into them. Primarily, the focus was too narrow. When people give evidence to an inquiry that takes the judge outside his terms of reference, surely, in the interests of truth and justice, he should add a little footnote saying, "This is

843
something that should be followed up." Yet Lord Hutton said that it was unnecessary for him to resolve the differences between the evidence that was given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and Alastair Campbell, without inviting anyone else to pursue such matters.
I want to finish on the question of the BBC. I sit, sometimes biting my lip, behind my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is always dripping venom about the BBC, and cannot consider it objectively. He did so again today. The BBC has a programme complaints unit, and it is a great mystery to me why Alastair Campbell did not take that route. His complaint would have gone to Greg Dyke and the BBC governors. [Interruption.] I invite my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley not to heckle me, because this is an important issue that goes to the heart of what we do—it is about truth and how people outside this place perceive us. If we take on the BBC, we will be the losers, because those people believe the BBC much more than they would ever believe the Government or Parliament.
5.16 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: It is an honour to follow such a colourful speech by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).
I want to place on record my belief that Lord Hutton is an independent, noble Lord of great experience who showed fine courage during his time in Northern Ireland, when he was under daily threat of death from paramilitaries. He should also take great credit for the innovative way in which he conducted the inquiry, including making evidence available on the internet within a few hours, or certainly within a day or so, of its being given.
As he formed his views from looking at that evidence, I formed mine from looking at the same evidence. I believe that the September 2002 dossier was sexed up, and that Lord Hutton got that wrong. Dr. Kelly's death took place in the context of his involvement in Andrew Gilligan's allegation that the Government selectively used intelligence to present a better case for war in Iraq, especially in terms of weapons of mass destruction. The evidence illustrates that the basis of those allegations, for which Andrew Gilligan used Dr, Kelly, was correct. After 10 months of searching, no weapons of mass destruction have been found. As I said four months ago, it is still possible that silo doors may finally slide open, or a cave may be opened up, and shiny missiles will be rolled out to prove what we were told, and pleaded with to believe, last March, which was patently incorrect.
I want to echo what the hon. Member for Pendle said about innocent deaths in Iraq. It is too rarely mentioned in this House that to date more than 500 coalition troops have died, more than 8,500 innocent civilians have died, and more than 23,000 have been horribly maimed in a needless war. When I say that about 8,000 innocent civilians have died, that is the equivalent of killing 160 coachloads of men, women and children. To illustrate the point further, during the war I read the story of Mrs. Awaid, who lost most of her family as a result of allied bombing. I remember the photograph of her daughter, Sarah Awaid, a little girl of six; she was about the same
844
age as my son at the time. She was dressed in a little tee-shirt on which there were 101 Dalmatians, but those black and white dogs were stained deep red because her body had been cut to ribbons by shrapnel. That is what war is about. I know that this House obtained through the great alliance of the Government and the Conservatives the vote that was needed to endorse the action, but it is clear that the decision was originally taken in Washington, in the White House, and that the Prime Minister slavishly followed the President at the very time when he should have stood up to him.
That is what war is about. When we stack that up against what happened and what Lord Hutton found, we see that there is no comparison. We are talking about one broadcast at 6.7 in the morning on 29 May in which Andrew Gilligan clearly made mistakes, embellished his comments and said over and above what he should have said on two counts—his suggestions that the Government probably knew that the 45-minute figure was wrong and that the reason the original draft had been changed in respect of weapons of mass destruction was that it came from one source. Yes, he was wrong, but he says that he was quoting what he believed his source was telling him. Do not get me wrong: I still think in the light of what followed that he deserved to be sacked. The way in which he influenced the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and kept two records on his personal organiser meant that his position was untenable.
Mr. Eric Joyce: The hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech—and I am pretty much quoting—that Andrew Gilligan was quite right to use Dr. Kelly as he did. He has now said that he thinks that Andrew Gilligan should have been sacked. Which view does he take, or is it both?
Mr. Marsden: The fact is that a journalist is fully entitled to investigate and quote sources to substantiate a very important point—in this case, the suggestion that this country had been misled and that Parliament had arguably been misled by a dossier that had been sexed up, as Andrew Gilligan called it, and embellished, embroidered and so on.
In reading the evidence, I have looked at what else Andrew Gilligan said on the fateful broadcast of 29 May:
"The draft prepared for Mr. Blair by the intelligence agencies, actually didn't say very much more than was public knowledge already and Downing Street our source says. ordered a week before publication, it to be sexed up to be made more exciting and ordered more facts to be discovered."
He went on to say:
"Our source says that the dossier as it was finally published made the intelligence services unhappy."
He was fundamentally right. When we look at the evidence on those two claims, we see that there is no disputing it. For example, let us consider the argument that the Joint Intelligence Committee approved everything that the Government did. Let us accept that the JIC came up with a draft on 11 September 2002 and approved it, and it does have the experts who would have gathered all the evidence together. Surely it defies logic to suggest that when that document was challenged and Downing street officials requested that the wording be amended and subtly changed to help the

845
case for war, it should then be changed into a second draft for 16 September, and changed again on 19 September.
If the JIC was in total control of the document, why was it amending it at the behest of politicians and officials in No. 10 Downing street? Let me give an example. The executive summary was changed so that, instead of saying that weapons of mass destruction could be deployed within 45 minutes of the order for their use being given, it said that they were deployable within 45 minutes. That is clearly a substantial change. Alastair Campbell had to admit in his evidence that he had suggested 16 changes. Dr. Brian Jones, who should know about these matters as the head of the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons section in the MOD's defence intelligence and analysis staff, today simply reconfirmed what he has said previously. I quote from The Independent:
"In my view, the expert intelligence analyses of the DIS were overruled in the preparation of the dossier back in September 2002, resulting in a presentation that was misleading about Iraq's capabilities."
So Andrew Gilligan was right. The intelligence services were unhappy. The Prime Minister has claimed that that information was not passed on to his desk, although we will never know, as I doubt whether the Butler inquiry will be able to get to the bottom of the matter. That is why I fully endorse what has been said about the reasons why the Liberal Democrats would not support the Butler inquiry. I have a quote. It reads:
"The Liberal Democrats are absolutely right to have nothing to do with this charade. The pity is that the Tories haven't taken the same robust view."
Those are not my words. They appear in today's editorial in the Daily Mail. That demonstrates the simple fact that most people have doubts about what will come out of such a private inquiry. Tony Cragg, the former deputy chief of defence intelligence, has undermined the Government's case that there was nothing that made the intelligence services unhappy. Of course they were desperately unhappy, as the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said.
I find all the Beeb bashing this afternoon despicable. We have the finest public service broadcaster in the world. We need it more than ever to hold to account a Government who have utterly failed the British people.
5.26 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Weapons of mass destruction are haunting the Government. I do not believe that the issue will be brought to rest until the big political questions are answered. There is little to suggest that Lord Butler will succeed in exorcising the phantom where three other inquiries have failed. Whatever is said in the House, the majority of the public believe that Lord Hutton forfeited his credibility by trying to lay all the blame on the BBC and none on the Government.
I do not know how the Butler inquiry can command greater confidence when the Prime Minister has already told us that the Government decision to go to war is out of bounds. He has put a man in charge of the inquiry
846
whose background will equally incline him to exonerate the Government. Even the Intelligence and Security Committee, which backed the Government when it reported on September, was critical of the Government's assessment of weapons of mass destruction. I will remind the House of what the Committee said in its report. Referring to the September dossier, it said:
"The use of the phrase 'continued to produce chemical and biological weapons' in ate foreword and the absence of detail…could give the impression that Saddam was actively producing both chemical and biological weapons and significant amounts of agents. However, the JIC did not know what had been produced and in what quantities".
Secondly, the first draft of the Prime Minister's foreword shows that the Government recognised that the nature of the threat that Saddam posed was not directly to mainland UK. It was unfortunate that this point was removed from the published version and not highlighted elsewhere.
The Committee went on to say that the dossier was for public consumption and not for experienced readers of intelligence material. The 45-minute claim, which was included four times, was assessed to refer to battlefield chemical and biological munitions, which should have been highlighted. The omission was unhelpful to an understanding of this issue.
The Committee concluded:
"We regard the initial failure by the MoD to disclose that some staff had put their concerns in writing to their line managers as unhelpful and potentially misleading."
One of these was Brian Jones, who made a formal complaint about it. Writing in today's edition of The Independent he traces in what I believe is convincing detail how he and his colleagues were overruled.
The public still want to know, and the House should demand that they be told, why the Government took this country into an illegal and unjustified war. Why was the Prime Minister so sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the weight of evidence did not merit such certainty? How can we be sure that the same pretext will not be used in future to take us to war again against Iraq, Korea or Syria?
The public think—rightly, in my view—that the Government are ducking and diving. That is hardly unreasonable in the circumstances. For months, and against all comers, the Prime Minister has been insisting that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Then, the day after George Bush decides that there will be an American inquiry, the Prime Minister calls for one in Britain. I have to say that it sent shivers down my spine when I heard the Prime Minister tell the Liaison Committee yesterday that whatever the outcome of the debate about weapons of mass destruction, he did not accept that it was wrong to remove Saddam Hussein. That is the beginning of an admission that weapons of mass destruction were a pretext, and the window-dressing for regime change. I believe that the new committee has already been judged in the court of public opinion, and only a full-scale inquiry, like the Scott inquiry into a previous Government's role in breaking the arms embargo, will satisfy public opinion. With that new committee, the Government are storing up problems for the future.

847
The decision to go to war was taken at a very high cost. Thousands of Iraqis lost their lives and many more were injured—and many continue to die and to be injured today. The Anglo-American occupation is almost universally unpopular, and now we see the Iraqis protesting at not being allowed to vote for their own Government. That is a far cry from what the Prime Minister said today, when he assured us that the face of post-war Iraq looked much better. I wish that we, as an occupying force, would start counting the number of dead Iraqis, including civilians, and the number of children who are injured or killed by cluster bombs. The Prime Minister may have decided that he has given up on those of us who opposed the war, but every time I close my eyes I am determined to carry on opposing this illegal war, because I get a picture of little Ali, without any arms and without any family, and of thousands more children who have suffered. I certainly will not give up arguing that this was a bad war; we might stop the same happening somewhere else.
The Carnegie Endowment report "WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications", which was published a few weeks ago and may have contributed to President Bush's decision to set up an inquiry, concluded that the war on Iraq was not the best or the only option. It made wide-ranging recommendations about American policy and practice. For example, it revised the US's national security strategy to eliminate unilateral preventive war—that is, the Bush doctrine of going to war in the absence of an imminent threat.
The report proposed international action and said that the UN Secretary-General should commission a high-level analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the weapons of mass destruction inspection process. I mentioned earlier a former UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, who is coming to a conference that I am organising in March. He was quoted today in the Daily Mirror and gave many examples of how false information was systematically spread in Britain.
If we are to learn anything from the WMD debacle, it should be, first, that a full-scale independent inquiry is the proper and only way to redeem the reputation of my Government and the Labour party, and we should have one before it is too late. Secondly, the task of overseeing weapons inspections should be returned to the UN, with Kofi Annan in charge of overhauling those procedures, so that in future we do not go to war on false pretences. Unlike the Prime Minister, I believe that the world is a far less safe place because we took this country into an illegal war.
5.33 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: Nobody could question the sincerity of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). She has held to her view throughout, she believes it with passionate sincerity, and she speaks with personal conviction. I happen to believe that she is wrong.
I voted on 18 March that this country should go to war. I did not do so joyfully, and I do not suppose that any Member of this House did, but I believed that it was the lesser of two evils and that it was the right decision. My view was swayed not by any dossier but rather by the certain knowledge of a repressive and bestial regime that had for decades subjugated its own people with torture,
848
murder and rapine of Hitlerian proportions. That is why I voted without any qualms to support the Prime Minister. He made on that day a speech of surpassing elegance and conviction, which will go down as one of the great speeches of the last 10 or 20 years in this House. I believed then, and I believe now, that he spoke in good faith, and because he believed that what he was saying was right.
I can pick many quarrels with the Prime Minister. On many things, he is profoundly wrong. His treatment of our constitution has been cavalier in the extreme, but that is not what we are debating today and it is not the point. I was very glad that both he and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition made such very good and persuasive speeches this afternoon, and I thought it right that the official Opposition supported the Government in their decision last year.
I am saddened by the fact that there has been a little flaking off. Of course, I am not referring to those such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) or my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who have always been against the war, as has the hon. Member for Halifax. But the point is that whatever inquiry we have, whatever committee we set up and however we approach this issue, they are not going to be satisfied. We had a democratic vote in the most democratic assembly in the world, and we voted by a large majority to take such action and to support the Government.
Of course, intelligence is an inexact science, as has been said many times in recent weeks. But it was appalling that the BBC should have allowed such stories to be peddled without checking their veracity. I am delighted that Lord Hutton reported as he did. I came to, and aspired to come to, this place—many Members on both sides of the House doubtless felt the same—because I believed in the essential integrity of British public life, and In the central place of the House of Commons within it. To me, the Hutton report is a vindication of both those beliefs. There are many things about the culture of spin that I do not like, and to some degree the Government are the architects of their own misfortunes, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said. But the essential point is whether the Prime Minister acted in good faith last year, and the unequivocal answer in Hutton is yes.
People say that this report is a whitewash merely because it has not come out with what they call a balanced judgment. But as my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, Lord Hutton is a judge of great eminence. Indeed, he was spoken of as being perhaps the best judge of all, and certainly the best person to conduct this inquiry. He reached an emphatic verdict: he said that certain people were guilty of certain things, and that others were innocent of the charges made against them. Reference was not made to degrees of guilt or degrees of innocence. On the essential issues, the Government—I am delighted that the Secretary of State was exonerated, too—were not guilty.
Mr. Garnier: I hope that my hon. Friend does not think this an impertinent intervention, but is he suggesting that Lord Hutton is infallible?
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am not suggesting that anybody is infallible—even my hon. and learned

849
Friend—but I am saying that Lord Hutton's being lauded as perhaps the best person to conduct this inquiry, until he reported, and his then being castigated in certain quarters because the prejudices of certain people had not been fulfilled, was really rather strange. Of course Lord Hutton is not infallible. No man or woman alive is infallible—except to those Roman Catholics who subscribe absolutely to the doctrine of papal infallibility.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I did some research into the number of Members who, before Hutton had reported, had objected on the Floor of the House to his style and his professional integrity. To my surprise, I found that none had, yet today many seem to be questioning if not his personal integrity, then certainly the way in which he conducted the report's final stages.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes, and they were the very people who, until 12 noon on Wednesday last, were saying, "This man has done it thoroughly and brilliantly; it is going to be a marvellous report." But once they realised that he was taking a certain line, they took a different one themselves. [Interruption.] As one of my colleagues mutters from a sedentary position, "They would, wouldn't they?"
We have a great deal to be thankful for in this country. We can be thankful that we have this Parliament, where we can have debates with honest differences of opinion and can refer to our own Committees. I believe that the Prime Minister was right. I have argued against special inquiries before. My colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee know that I had real misgivings about the inquiry, and made my position plain both in the Committee and on the Floor of the House. I thought that the Intelligence and Security Committee was the right body to deal with this, and I wish it had done, but because that was clearly not acceptable to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, for perfectly honourable reasons, the Prime Minister has gone down a different road. One person who was unrelievedly pleased about this was of course my newly right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), whom we all congratulate and wish success.
Although I have faith in those five people, I am sorry that there is not a Liberal Democrat representative, and the party has not covered itself in glory in this respect. When the Butler committee reports, let us read its findings extremely carefully. Let us not prejudge. We must accept that it would be wrong for it to express a view on whether it was right or wrong to go to war. That is not within its terms of reference, nor should it be.
This morning I was talking to a Russian-speaking friend, who told me about a programme on Iraq that was apparently screened on Russian television last night. The verdict was that if "we"—that is, the Russians—had said that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there would have been. We have a great deal to be thankful for: the openness, honesty and transparency of both the British and American Governments, who have not sought to hide the facts from us. The Prime Minister believed genuinely, as many of us believed, that the weapons would be there.
850
We all know that they were there in the past and we saw the destruction that was wrought with them, but even if they are not there now, that does not in my view undermine the essential validity of the case against Iraq. I believe that both that and the Hutton report should allow us to draw a line under the fractiousness that has rather spoiled the cross-party accord, and now move on and look forward to the Butler committee's report.
5.42 pm
Mr. Peter Mandelson: The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) spoke with great thoughtfulness and wisdom, and I suspect that his views command considerable support across the House.
I want to speak chiefly about the BBC, not because I am a Beeb-basher, but because I am a long-standing supporter of the BBC who once worked for it. I stress at the outset that we can all celebrate the fact that the Hutton report did not reveal rotten politics or wicked politicians, and did not produce any political scalps. Thank goodness we still live in a country where these matters are determined on the basis of facts, evidence and judgments reached by learned people such as Lord Hutton, rather than on the basis of media show trials and kangaroo courts. If it were otherwise, it would be like living in a reverse police state, presided over by a clutch of newspaper editors.
I am very pleased indeed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence survived the scalp hunting. It was entirely right that he should do so. However, just because the Government were not criticised by Lord Hutton, it does not mean that they are above criticism or above at least some reflection about certain aspects of what happened. I thought that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) made an important point in the early part of his speech about the presentational tensions and issues that arise when intelligence is put into the public domain. As the phenomenon of terrorism grows, the pressure will grow from the public and the media to put more, not less, classified information and intelligence into the public domain. The Government must carefully consider their relationship with the Joint Intelligence Committee.
Dr. Kelly's unauthorised media contact led to his unwelcome exposure, but it is worth bearing in mind that he had previously been employed routinely to brief journalists when it suited his line managers for him to do so. He probably mistook the type and quality of journalist with whom he was dealing when he met Andrew Gilligan, and he subsequently over-spoke, but the far worse crime was not what Dr. Kelly said but what Andrew Gilligan misrepresented him as saying— what some have described since as the "detail of the story". Rod Liddle, not only the last man left in the bar at midnight but the editor of the "Today" programme who employed Andrew Gilligan, said:
"Andrew gets great stories and some of them are even true".
That brings me to the BBC. I want to take up the points made by the right hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) about the "Today" programme. Andrew Gilligan may well have been at fault and may even have been dishonest, but his words were not the only ones, or

851
even the main ones, to mislead listeners on that day. At 7.32 am, John Humphrys introduced another two-way by saying,
"our defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan has found evidence that the Government's dossier on Iraq that was produced last September was cobbled together at the last minute with some unconfirmed material that had not been approved by the security services".
I do not know whether John Humphrys's remarks were scripted and what editorial controls he is subject to, but his statement contains five errors of fact. Either the editorial system in that programme is faulty or the judgment of the people operating it is faulty. Either way, something or somebody should be put right.
Peter Bottomley rose—
Jeremy Corbyn rose—
Mr. Mandelson: I shall continue, if I may. For me, the greater culpability than the original story—by the way, the subject was legitimate—was the failure to correct it. It is true that by that time the BBC had found itself in a power struggle, and no doubt that helped to scramble its collective mind. However, the BBC management defended what they knew to be absolutely indefensible.
Greg Dyke has rightly left the BBC because he was at the centre of its mishandling the muter. Mr. Dyke was clearly an inspiring and popular leader who got some big decisions right during his time at the corporation. He was popular because he adopted an "I believe in you" empowering style of leadership. The downside of "I believe in you" was a reluctance to investigate complaints. He devolved power in a way we would like to see matched in many other public sector organisations; the trouble is that he devolved his judgment as well, with the sorry consequences spelled out by Lord Hutton.
The big question is: where does the BBC go from here? I suggest, first, that the distinction be made between independence from the Government, which is of course sacred, and mindless oppositionism to the Government, which is best left to the press. I do not only mean this Government: I mean all Governments. I would like to see the BBC showing greater self-confidence in separating itself from the herd of the press.
Secondly, the BBC can comfort itself with the knowledge that it remains the world's premier public service broadcasting organisation, and that can and should be strengthened by charter review.
Thirdly, I would like to see the BBC set a different standard in the reporting of politics, rather than getting into the sandpit with the rest. We are witnessing not only a souring but a poisoning of the relationship between the media and politics, which did not start in this Government's time. It behoves us all—BBC, other media and politicians—to do what we can to put that right.
5.50 pm
Richard Ottaway: There is a conspiracy in British public life. Politics needs the media as much as the media needs politics. They feed each
852
other in an alliance that shapes the governance of this country, and has done so for decades. Occasionally, the innocent, such as Dr. Kelly, get caught in the crossfire. Nothing prepared us for the drama that stole the summer of 2003. Stories that Britain had gone to war on a false prospectus had been circulating for months. None had produced any response from the Government, until the Gilligan piece of 29 May.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) that the main thrust of Gilligan's story has to a large extent been found to be true. It was a scoop in true journalistic style, marred by a single sentence that could not be corroborated. But the suggestion that lit the fuse was the assertion that Campbell had sexed up the September dossier. It produced a nuclear reaction. As the Prime Minister's press officer bulldozed his way through the Committee Corridors and television studios, Dr. David Kelly watched and owned up. Three weeks later, he was dead. Seven months later, the chairman and director general of the BBC have resigned. Messrs. Campbell, Powell, Hoon and Blair are found to be humble servants of the people, just doing their every day job. The scale of the Government's triumph was compounded by the smugness of Mr. Campbell giving a press conference of vindication. His aim to have a
"win, not a messy draw"
was fulfilled.
I have read the same evidence as Lord Hutton, and how he reached the conclusions he did, only he knows. To remove phrases from the September dossier that suggested that Saddam would only use WMD if attacked looks like sexing it up to me, whichever of Lord Hutton's definitions is used. The unanswered questions remain, but they are all outside the new inquiry's brief. The premise on which this Parliament voted for war was flawed, exaggerated and deceptive.
We went to war because the Government argued that Saddam posed a "current and serious" threat to the middle east and the stability of the world. The Government said that uranium had been sought from Africa, implying development of nuclear weapons. Not even the CIA thinks that that is true. The Prime Minister said that weapons of mass destruction would be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. We now find that that referred to
"battlefield mortar shells or small calibre weaponry".
Those are not weapons that threatened the region or the stability of the world.
The four 45 minute assertions were downright inaccurate and rash statements that misled everyone who read the September 2002 dossier. In his diaries, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who was a member of the Cabinet at the time, said that not even the Prime Minister believed the assertion by the time of the debate and vote on 18 March. After my intervention in the Prime Minister's speech today, we know that he did not even know what weapons that

853
claim referred to. Interestingly, the right hon. Member for Livingston suggested that the Prime Minister should check his records.
Mr. Joyce: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that battlefield weapons with chemical, nuclear or biological capability would represent some scope for instability in the region?
Richard Ottaway: I do not accept that. I do not accept that mortar shells or small calibre weaponry would pose a threat to the region, the middle east or the stability of the world.
So why did the Government push their false prospectus? The reason is manifest. Had they come to this House and said that the United States had every intention of invading Iraq and finishing off the business of the 1991 Gulf war, the real question to consider would have been whether we were with or against them. The issue would have been clear, with the lessons of Suez learned and Britain's interests being seen to lie with the United States. The Government would not, or could not, deploy that argument for the simple reason that they knew that they could not carry their own Back Benchers with them. That is why they had to exaggerate and spin to get their arguments through the House. They would have got away with that, had it not been for a conversation between Dr. Kelly and Mr. Gilligan of the BBC.
The damage has been immense. Never before has this country gone to war on the strength of intelligence reports alone, and I suspect that it never will again. It was critical that the intelligence services got it right. The subconscious pressures on them were immense, but the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee accepted responsibility for the September dossier, and he must explain what went wrong and justify it to the Butler committee. What on earth was Mr. Scarlett doing drafting the famous press release at No. 10 on the day that Dr. Kelly was named? The intelligence services were subverted for political purposes.
Then there is the dodgy dossier, the cut-and-paste job. It was presented to Parliament as further intelligence underpinned by the integrity of our intelligence services. What breathtaking hypocrisy. It turned out to be nothing more than Government propaganda. Why is it that the Prime Minister gets away with that story with a casual "sorry" from his press office, when the carnage caused to the BBC by one sentence from a reporter—which, ironically, may yet prove to have more than a grain of truth—brings Britain's most popular public institution to its knees? But what else would one expect from a Government who act as if they were in an episode of "The West Wing", making instant decisions in corridors without any minutes being taken?
Whatever side of the political spectrum we are on, we know that the public must have trust in the Government as an institution. The alternative is cynicism and anarchy. This affair boils down to integrity and honesty. In the dark days of the second world war, when Britain faced a genuine "current and serious threat", the country turned to Churchill. He knew that if the people of Britain were to trust him, he had to be nothing but honest with them. He stood at that Dispatch Box and said:
854
"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."—[Official Report, 13 May 1940; Vol. 360, c. 1502.]
All we have had from this Government during the past six months has been nervous perspiration, crocodile tears and someone else's blood. Yet when the Leader of the Opposition rose to speak here in the mother of Parliaments—famed for its defence of freedom and free speech—they booed, hissed and shouted him down. I do not think they realised what an ugly sight that was, with their laughing, braying faces flushed with seven years of an overwhelming majority. They might think that this affair does not matter, but it is the people of Britain who will pass judgment, not Lord Hutton.
5.58 pm
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: In the past week, the Government, quite understandably, must have felt as though all their Christmases had come at once. They had a report from Lord Hutton that seemed to exceed their wildest dreams, but the cautionary note is that that does not seem to resonate with the British people, at least not yet. All the polls suggest that more people still, rightly or wrongly, believe the BBC than believe the Government.
We should remember that the whole business surrounding the Hutton inquiry was a diversion born of a diversion. When Alastair Campbell went into the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, it was considering the events that led up to the declaration of war on Iraq. In my view, he quit e deliberately and successfully set out to divert that Committee, which ended up with the sad loss of Dr. Kelly and all the events that have stemmed from that. Campbell succeeded in avoiding, at least up to a point, the central issue of why we went to war in the first place.
Something came to my mind earlier when I was listening to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). I once came across a little town in the south-west of the United States called Truth or Consequences. That sounds like a board game, and I have often wondered what the town did to deserve that name, but the phrase "truth or consequences" is very pregnant. Out of the truth, consequences are born for the Government.
I would like to contextualise. in accord with what the Prime Minister said this afternoon, a debate that is ostensibly on Lord Hutton's report. When we have truth, we build up a trust. The corollary of that is that, when we have less than the full truth, it can lead to disbelief and cynicism, and often to total distrust. A great problem faces the Government on this issue. This reminds me of the lament of the psalmist who wrote:
"O put not your trust in princes, nor in any child of man: for there is no help in them."
There is no help to he had in satisfying the misgivings of people in this country by reading or listening to the debate on the Hutton report.
I mentioned contextualising. I would just like to flag up a few of the confusions that arose before Lord Hutton's deliberations, and which I assume will go on into the next round, the Butler committee. People do not have to mislead consciously or deliberately to create a totally false impression of reality. We were told in recent days, for example. that everyone believed that Saddam

855
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. There is a point to be made here about the definition of "weapons of mass destruction". My recollection of the definition—I think that this is true—is that the term related mainly to nuclear weaponry and not, initially, to biological or chemical weaponry. That is certainly the case. There was a transposition over time to suit political objectives, both in the United States and here, in terms of the usage of that phrase.
The idea that all the intelligence services have hitherto miraculously believed in the existence of weapons of mass destruction is simply not the case. An example involves the much maligned French. The director of the DST, one of the French security services, Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, wrote openly in Le Monde on 26 July. He was asked certain questions and they were quite open. The Americans are also very open; George Tenet is open, for example. I do not think that we get such chances to ask such open questions. As we heard today, the committee could not ask John Scarlett such questions. In France, those questions get into the newspapers.
Pierre de Bousquet de Florian was asked whether the DST shared the analysis of the American and British services on the links between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda. He said no, and gave his reasons. He was then asked whether the same disagreement applied to the question of weapons of mass destruction, and was given the example of the affair involving uranium in Niger. His answer was no, and again he gave his reasons. When asked whether such weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes, as the British assessment claimed, he gave what we might think was a typically French response:
"Well! Saddam Hussein being engaged in carrying out chemical, biological and nuclear programmes, that's a different matter. Here and there you will no doubt find initial attempts at carrying them out. But we have never had any indications of completed programmes that are ready to be used."
Uranium from Niger is an example.
Mr. Robert Walter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kilfoyle: No, I do not have much time.
We can go through issue after issue. We have already disposed of weapons of mass destruction. I think that everybody, perhaps with the notable exception of the Prime Minister, is now convinced that they do not exist. Did Kamal Hussein tell the truth when he came across? Hon. Members might recall that he was Saddam Hussein's nephew. He did tell the truth to the intelligence services of this country and others. Presumably that is partly why Saddam Hussein had him murdered when he returned to Iraq. We did not get a full account of what he said, however. Apart from talking about the existence of the programmes in the 1980s and through to the beginning of the 1990s, he also said that he had been personally instrumental in instructing the Iraqi forces to destroy whatever stockpiles they had left after the 1991 war. Hon. Members might say, "Well, he would say that, and he died for it." But the reality is that he said it, yet we have heard only a partial account.
Another claim that is often made is that the UN inspectors were forced out. I have no better source to refer to on this than my right hon. Friend the Member
856
for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who told the Foreign Affairs Committee that the coalition bombing forced them out, not the Iraqis. That was a deliberate policy move. We could go on to examine the September dossier, the links with al-Qaeda, or the allegations that President Chirac was about to veto whatever came forward when we were battling over the second resolution. All of that is demonstrably untrue.
My contention is that we had a partial context, in which people formed opinions often on the basis of half-truth and omission, as much as anything that was positively said which people would take exception to.
We end up now with yet another committee coming up. It will be chaired by Lord Butler. How he views responding in such an inquiry is quoted in early day motion No. 540, as follows:
"You have to be selective about the facts",
he told the Scott inquiry. He went on:
"The purpose … was to give an answer which itself was true. It did not give the full picture. It was half an answer".
I am mindful of past exercises by senior civil servants and the sophistry that they employ on behalf of their political masters. I do not know whether it is something that is imbued in them from birth or that is transplanted once they reach the heady heights of the First Division. All I know is that it does not lead the British public to feel more confident about arriving at the ultimate truth to the ultimate question.
But truth is where we came in, and truth, like every other object in this world, has its season and its time. The time for truth is now. The Government should not constrain the truth. They will rue the day that they have done so. I believe that a case is still maintained by Government that the truth cannot come out fully.
6.6 pm
Mr. Robert Jackson: As Mrs. Janice Kelly's Member of Parliament, I have naturally been in touch with her several times since the tragic event of last July. I have had no specific requests from her, but on her behalf and in the light of Lord Hutton's findings, I should like to press the Secretary of State for some answers.
Specifically, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to spell out, as fully as he can, what action the Government—and especially the Ministry of Defence—will take to ensure that, in Mrs Kelly's words, no other public servants will in future be unjustifiably be exposed to the ordeal through which her husband passed. There may need to be, for example, further codification of the confidentiality rights of officials. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
Lord Hutton's findings raised questions for all of us. We have had a wide-ranging debate, and I think that there has been an admirable spirit of self-criticism, particularly on the part of the governing party. But Lord Hutton's findings are really about the BBC and the media. That is what I want to say a few words about, following in the footsteps of the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) and the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard), who spoke very well on this point.
Two camps have emerged in the media since Hutton reported. On the one hand, there are the BBC, its allies and its clients, who have been seeking to portray the

857
Hutton report as an attack on not only the BBC, but also the freedom of the press in general. On the other, there are what I would describe as the honest journalists, who recognise that something serious has gone wrong, not only with the BBC, but also with British journalism in general.
With regard to the BBC camp, I will pass over the commentary of such luminaries as Sir Simon Jenkins, who thinks that it is no big deal to say that the Prime Minister is a liar, and Lord Rees-Mogg, who does not think that the BBC has any obligation to provide balanced reporting. I refer only to the thoroughly discredited figure of Mr. Greg Dyke, who has still not realised that if the editorial processes for which he was responsible had been working properly, my distinguished constituent, Dr. David Kelly, would still be alive.
It is typical of the mendacity with which the BBC conducted its defence after the death of Dr. Kelly that Mr Dyke should now be claiming that Lord Hutton's conclusions will prevent whistleblowers from being reported, unless it can be demonstrated that what they are saying is true. Lord Hutton's report in fact says no such thing, as was pointed out by the distinguished former provincial editor, Sir Richard Storey, in a letter in Monday's edition of The Times, in which he said:
"some dubiety is being cast"—
here he is referring to the egregious Mr. Dyke—
"on Lord Hutton's opinion that, in cases where there is serious contention over the accuracy of a journalist's report, there is a duty on the senior manager personally to check the alleged transgressor's interview notes."
On this, he says,
"Lord Hutton is correct in both theory and practice."
No one, says Sir Richard, is
"too superior, grand or aloof to be personally involved in assessing the accuracy of journalistic copy and the validity of its subsequent publication."
So much for Mr. Dyke, who notoriously did not even look at the transcript for a month.
Sir Richard Storey is a representative figure in what I have described as the camp of the honest journalists who are worried about what Lord Hutton has revealed about the state of British journalism. Another such is Sir Harold Evans, who in Tuesday's edition of The Times called for a royal commission to consider
"the practices, assumptions, and ethical standards prevailing in journalism/ broadcasting and government-press relations alike".
But the doyen of the honest journalists—he has been quoted several times, but I am going to quote him again—must surely be the editor of the Financial Times, in my view our most distinguished newspaper. Andrew Gowers wrote under his own name, in his newspaper, on Saturday. His article was headed "The BBC's failings are a warning to all journalists". If this were the legislature of ancient Athens, I might move a decree that his words be cast in tablets of bronze and compulsorily erected in every media office in the land.
Let me summarise his main points. He observes, correctly, that this episode
"exposed poor editing, deteriorating journalistic values and sloppy management at all levels of Britain's public service broadcaster".
858
At the same time, he says, it
"holds up a mirror to British journalism as a whole, exposing its foibles and faults".
Mr Gowers goes on to say that what has happened must serve
"as a wake-up call for journalists"
against
"reflexive distrust of every government action or pronouncement",
against
"the easy, superficial certainties of party pris opinion",
and must remind them of
"the virtues of accuracy, context, and verification".
I say amen to that.
Let me finally turn to the man whose report has precipitated this long overdue crisis of self-criticism in British journalism, Lord Hutton. Here I emphatically disagree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway). In the life of a great nation there are many contrasts, and one of the most interesting is always that between the occasional glimpse of bedrock and the froth and foam that usually prevent us from seeing it. We all know that experience from times when the country is at war and our television screens are briefly filled with unfamiliar figures in uniform, whose courage, objectivity and professionalism make us all feel somewhat tawdry and a bit beside the point. Well, watching Lord Hutton reading the findings on television last week, without even looking at the cameras, I had rather the same sensation. Here is a man rooted in his Province, rooted in his profession, rooted in such old-fashioned ideas as the idea of truth corresponding to fact. I salute him.
6.12 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: Like other Members on both sides of the House who have spoken today, I certainly believe that throughout this episode the Prime Minister has always acted and spoken in good faith:; but I also believe that in the aftermath of war Parliament has a right and, indeed, a duty to examine the Government's case for military action. In this case, it clearly rests on four main counts, each of which I believe needs to be examined not so much in terms of what we may know now as in terms of what information was available to the Government on each point before the war. I want to ask what I hope are some pertinent questions on that score.
First, there is the 45-minute claim, which we know from Alastair Campbell's evidence to the Hutton inquiry was included as a result of a request to the Prime Minister. Several Members have asked a question to which we need an answer. Why did the dossier not make it clear that the claim applied to battlefield weapons with a short range of only 20 to 40 km, and not to missiles that could strike Cyprus, let alone Britain?
There has been some discussion in the debate about whether the Prime Minister was aware of that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in a diary entry on 5 March last year, recorded a conversation to that effect that he had had with the Prime Minister that day. It would seem to suggest that perhaps the Prime Minister did know. I think that we are entitled to ask: when the September dossier was

859
published and the 45-minute claim was widely reported as applying to weapons of mass destruction—thus greatly exaggerating the threat from Saddam—why did the Government not make more effort to correct the misreporting, despite believing it to be wrong?
Secondly, the dossier claimed that Iraq was seeking to buy 500 tonnes of uranium yellow cake from Niger for nuclear weapons programmes. Britain allegedly received that intelligence from the Italians and passed it on immediately to Washington at the beginning of 2002. The CIA immediately dispatched a former US ambassador, Joseph Wilson, who went to Niger and rapidly confirmed in March 2002 that the claims were wholly bogus. We also know that the CIA later advised Britain for that reason to omit the Niger allegations from the September dossier, so we are entitled to ask why they were still included, even though it had been shown that they were false.
Thirdly, on the detailed lists in the dossier of the chemical and biological weapons that Saddam was alleged to have, all the UN inspectors had found was that such weapons were "unaccounted for". That was the relevant phrase, but the dossier clearly implies that the weapons actually existed. The point has been made, particularly by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), that many of Iraq's chemical and biological agents produced before the Gulf war would, if they had not already been destroyed, be so degraded more than a decade later as to be ineffective as warfare agents.
More particularly, Dr. Brian Jones said in his evidence to the Hutton inquiry that his leading chemical weapons expert was concerned that he could not point to any solid evidence of the production of such weapons by Iraq, yet the Prime Minister's foreword to the September dossier said:
"What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons."
Given that the defence intelligence so strongly and widely took the opposite view, how is such a breakdown—it may have been said in good faith—in political access to the relevant intelligence to be explained?
Fourthly, on the claim that Iraq had produced 4 tonnes of VX nerve agents—a claim made and supported by Colin Powell—the Prime Minister told the House on 25 February last year, a month before the war:
"It was only four years later"—
in 1995—
"after the defection of Saddam's son-in-law to Jordan, that the offensive biological weapons and the full extent of the nuclear programme were discovered."—[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 123.]
It so happened that, a week later, Newsweek obtained details of Hussein Kamal's actual International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM debriefing interview. It revealed that he apparently said the reverse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) has already mentioned. After setting out the evidence in great detail—embarrassingly so, as one official said—Kamal concluded that
"all weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed."
860
I believe that that deserves some explanation, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence can throw some light on that and other discrepancies when he winds up the debate.
We look to the Butler committee to explain why, in particular, we were told in the September dossier that Saddam's WMD programme was "active, detailed and growing" and that the intelligence that that judgment was based on was "extensive, detailed and authoritative", when, in fact, Saddam had no WMD at all. That must be central to the new inquiry.
There are two other key issues for the new Privy Councillor committee to throw some light on. The Intelligence and Security Committee report revealed that on 10 February, five weeks before the war, the Prime Minister received an intelligence assessment of the impact on international terrorism of taking military action against Iraq. It judged that al-Qaeda represented—and no one would dispute it—by far the greatest terrorist threat to western interests and that the threat was heightened, not reduced, by military action against Iraq. Why was that rather crucial assessment not given to Parliament before the 18 March vote on military action? It could have had a significant effect on opinion in this House.
My second point returns to the central question. How is it that we were taken to war in Iraq on the grounds that Saddam had WMD, when in fact he did not? Hutton says that the politicians did not manipulate the data, and I accept that. Did the intelligence services get the matter drastically wrong, or did they simply cherry-pick the data to provide the conclusions that they believed their political masters wanted?
The latter was clearly implied by Dr. Brian Jones. He has pointed out forcefully how widespread was the disgruntlement among defence intelligence staff at the way officials at the top of the intelligence hierarchy were consorting too closely—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had his time. I call Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.
6.20 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: One of the strengths of English criminal law is the jury system. That is true not just for the reasons that are normally presented but because—just occasionally—a jury ignores the judge's careful explanation of the law and delivers a legally quixotic verdict. In such instances, a jury seems to be saying, "You want us to deliver a verdict on the basis of the law, but we are going to deliver one on the basis of justice."
I accept that Lord Hutton is an honourable and very able man, but, unsurprisingly, he thinks like a lawyer. He sat without the benefit of a jury or even lay assessors. He determined the terms of reference and the scope of his inquiry. In each of the judgments that he arrived at, he decided that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the Government. He may well have been right in law to find that, if a matter could not be proven, then the Government—as the defendant—had to be judged innocent. I am less sure that his judgment was balanced or just.

861
We know that Alastair Campbell is celebrated for his forceful personality and his ability to persuade reluctant officials to bend to his masters' will, and also that the language in the September dossier implied greater certainty than the intelligence services had originally proposed. We have seen—too often—that the Prime Minister, although not departing from the truth, sometimes leaves an impression that is erroneous. The reference to 45 minutes in the September dossier was taken by many to refer to long-range weapons. Other respected commentators expressed doubts that were similar to those voiced, over-trenchantly, by Mr. Gilligan.
As far back as 19 September 2002, the dossier's impact was being stiffened up. The Prime Minister's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, e-mailed John Scarlett to say that the statement on page 19 of the draft dossier regarding Saddam's possible use of biological and chemical weapons was
"a bit of a problem. It backs up the…argument that there is no chemical and biological weapons threat and will only create one if we attack him. I think you should redraft the para."
John Scarlett stated in his evidence to the Hutton inquiry that he responded to this e-mail, altering the wording and, I suggest, embellishing the imminence of the risk that Saddam Hussein posed. So the substance of Gilligan's reporting did not lack foundation.
Mr. Richard Bacon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to listen to my hon. Friend, but should not those on the Government Front Bench show respect to the House and listen to him too?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. We are now wasting time.
Mr. Sayeed: I believe in public service broadcasting, and that a public service broadcaster has a duty to inform and explain. I do not believe that such broadcasting should be a forum for arrogant commentators to parade their egos, vent their prejudices or ignore normal reporting safeguards or balance.
In its wish to embarrass the Government over the war, the BBC disregarded proper journalistic propriety. Although the essence of what Andrew Gilligan said was correct, he was guilty of "sexing up" his dossier.
The Prime Minister told us first that the need for war was because Saddam Hussein supported al-Qaeda. He then told us that it was because we were threatened by weapons of mass destruction and, finally, on 12 February he justified his stance by introducing the concept of a moral war.
Lord Hutton's self-denying ordinance stopped him investigating the twists and turns of the Prime Minister's reasoning. I regret to say that Lord Hutton's exoneration of the Government was always possible, given the lack of absolute evidence to the contrary and his self-imposed terms of inquiry.
I end on that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I have run out of time.
Peter Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the second sitting day of the last six
862
during which I have spent a total of 13 hours in the Chamber in the vain hope that I might be called to speak. My grievance is not that I have not been called—I do not suggest that I should have been preferred to any other Member—but I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers to review the ordinance that Members may not approach the Chair to ascertain whether they are likely to be called in debate. Surely we are grown-up adults and we should be entitled—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and I take on board the point that he is making. We are now wasting even more time.
6.25 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: This has without doubt been a very good debate. I do not know whether that was, in part, due to the short interruption of our proceedings or whether it would have happened of itself, but there seems to be no doubt that this afternoon we have highlighted the absolute necessity of conducting debate in a rational and courteous manner. As a result, the contributions of every Member seem to have matched the seriousness of the matters that we have to consider. Indeed, listening to what was said has made me happy and proud to be a Member of the House.
The debate has concentrated principally on the issue of weapons of mass destruction. I shall deal with those contributions first, and I then hope to be able to deal further with some of the points that, curiously, have not been touched on, even though they are important in the context of the report, especially to the Kelly family.
The most startling piece of information about weapons of mass destruction to emerge during the debate was that the Prime Minister indicated, in response to a question, that he was not aware that WMD referred to battlefield weapons before the debate on 18 March last year. That is an extremely important comment. By removing the taint of mendacity from Ministers, Lord Hutton has done the House the great service of enabling us to concentrate on issues of competence—a central area that the House may want to consider this evening, and one that will doubtless be the subject of the inquiry's scrutiny.
At this stage, however, I have a question for the Secretary of State for Defence. If that was indeed the Prime Minister's position on 18 March, it is obviously in conflict with position enunciated by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who made his opinions crystal clear. He said:
"Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term—namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.—[Official Report, 17 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 727.]
In addition, the Prime Minister's position is contrary to what the Secretary of State for Defence said to the Hutton inquiry. When the right hon. Gentleman was being questioned by Mr. Gompertz, counsel for the Kelly family, he was asked on two occasions:
"Was there any other suggestion that they were not battlefield munitions but strategic munitions?"

863
He answered:
"I recall asking what kind of weapons would be deployable within 45 minutes; and the answer is the answer that I have just given to you."
Mr. Gompertz said:
"Which was shells, battlefield mortars, tactical weapons of that kind?"
Mr. Hoon replied: "Yes".
When the Secretary of State winds up, will he explain the discrepancy between his position and that of the Prime Minister? Could it be that in fact the Secretary of State knew on 18 March that the reference was only to battlefield weapons, but that he had not told the Prime Minister? If that is the case, it seems to me that the House is entitled to know how that divergence of view came about. I hope that that will be the first thing that the Secretary of State for Defence addresses when he rises at the Dispatch Box to reply to the debate.
In addition, we heard many contributions relating to the wider WMD issues. I apologise for the fact that I cannot do justice to all of them in the time available. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) asked about the Law Officers' advice. I am perfectly aware of the convention that Law Officers' advice is not normally made public, but I ask whether that could be reviewed in this case. Frankly, if it comes out in dribs and drabs during the committee's inquiry, it would be much better if the Government were up front about it, even if they have to carry out some redaction of any part of it that might raise intelligence issues. In the Hutton report, the redacted pages are so poorly done that people can read what is said underneath anyway, which does not suggest that the material was of the highest confidentiality.
In addition, we heard all the doubts expressed about the dossier, and there is no doubt that that will be an important area to consider. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made an extremely powerful contribution on that point, as did my hon. Friends the Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for Henley (Mr. Johnson). The absolutely central issue remains that the Government have got to provide reassurance that the terms of reference that they have set out for the committee's inquiry are fully understood and accepted across the House.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition insisted on changes to the text specifically to include reference to the use made by the Government of intelligence before the conflict and the difference between that intelligence and what has been discovered by the Iraq survey group. I have to tell the Secretary of State for Defence that I was alarmed yesterday that the Foreign Secretary appeared to try to slip away from the clear implications of that text, which must be that the use made by the Government of the intelligence in persuading the British people that it was right to go to war must be a subject of examination. I very much hope that he, or the Prime Minister, will provide that reassurance before this afternoon's debate is out; otherwise it will be suggested that those of us who wish to co-operate to uphold the integrity of the Government are signing up to a false prospectus. We are entitled to a reply to that during the debate.
Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman speaks of signing up to a false prospectus,
864
but he just expressed satisfaction that, through the Hutton report, the taint of mendacity, as he put it, had been removed from the Government. Will he acknowledge that ever since the last general election, the leadership of the Conservative party has systematically sought to taint my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with mendacity? Does he recall the mantra of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) that people cannot believe a word that my right hon. Friend says? Will he accept that unless we have better standards from the Conservative party, it is not much use to ask for better standards from the media?
Mr. Grieve: I tell the right hon. Gentleman, whom I would call a friend in any context outside the House, that I will come to that point before I finish my comments and give the Secretary of State for Defence the opportunity to reply.
For those purposes, the text that sets up the committee is fine, but it would be nice to know that the Government's interpretation of that text, which is crystal clear in itself, accepts the fact that the committee can consider the use made by the Government of that intelligence material. We are entitled to an answer.
In the time available, I wish to turn away from the subject of WMD, which has been the main issue in the debate, to another matter that causes me considerable problems. Lord Hutton's report dealt with the BBC's role, and I have absolutely no difficulty with his findings on the lack of editorial control. I was particularly struck by the Prime Minister's comment in defining what he thought proper journalism was, when he told the House that it is a question of proper scrutiny of what is said, and the willingness to retract if something wrong has been said. I agree with him entirely on that.
I am bound to say, however, that it seems to me that the BBC has a point when it raises its anxieties about paragraph 282 of the report, in which a rather bald statement is made that the difference between reporting a source or reporting directly is
"not a distinction recognised by the law in relation to actions for defamation."
Higher up the page, reference is made to the case of Reynolds v. Times Newspapers—which, I must say to the Foreign Secretary, in his sedentary position, says exactly the opposite. Not much turns on that, because Lord Hutton makes it clear in his conclusions that his criticism is about what the BBC did, and in the context of this case I have no difficulty at all in accepting that that distinction is valueless in view of the surrounding circumstances, particularly in view of Mr. Gilligan's misquotation of what Dr. Kelly told him.
I hope for some reassurance, however, that that quote will not be used to go behind the clear judgment in the Reynolds case, because the judgment is clear that under the Human Rights Act 1998, and the principle of freedom of expression, a latitude is given to journalists to enable them to report sources if they believe them to be credible. That is an important protection, and some of the powerful contributions to this afternoon's debate on the subject of the BBC seem to me to go straight to that issue.
Mr. Garnier: Surely the discussion that we need to have is not about the interesting points of qualified

865
privilege under common law, but whether this Government have a general bad reputation for twisting. That is why the public do not accept the findings of the Hutton inquiry—they find that the Government's behaviour in the past has rendered them incredible.
Mr. Grieve: My hon. and learned Friend is right, and I shall move on to that swiftly. On the employment law issues—
Ms Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Grieve: I am sorry, I cannot. I must allow enough time for the Defence Secretary.
I now turn to the issue that was raised by the leader of the Liberal Democrats. He said that Dr. Kennedy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Kelly."] He said that Dr. Kelly should have been better treated because of his senior position. Surely, that entirely misses the point. Dr. Kelly was entitled to the ordinary protection given to employees. I must say to the Secretary of State that what shines through the Hutton report is not that the decision at the end of the day to disclose Dr. Kelly's name was wrong—I fully understand that when the checks and balances had been worked out, that had to happen. In fact, however, the report discloses that there was zero system whatever for evaluating his rights as an employee. Strictly, under the Data Protection Act 1998, his name should not even have been given by the Ministry of Defence to the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister's office without an evaluation of his data protection rights. The Government pass laws to apply to everybody else, but my complaint is not about the law itself but about the fact that they do not adhere to it themselves.
If I may say so to the Defence Secretary, I do not accuse him of perfidy in this matter. In the early 1990s, I spent my time representing Government Departments, and I can assure him that on every employment matter in which I was involved, it was clear that they were unable to adhere to their own procedures and systems. It is all very well saying that Dr. Kelly was properly treated, but the evidence at the end of the day is that there was no such evaluation. When it came to the crunch, the people who took the decisions that related to his status as an employee were not MOD officials at all but members of the Prime Minister's communications department. I hope very much that the Defence Secretary will deal with those points when he comes to wind up. Plainly, one of the grievances of the Kelly family is the sense that Dr. Kelly was ill used. Had the procedures been properly followed, the Defence Secretary would have been in a much better position to say that Dr. Kelly had not been ill used than he is now.
The point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and others relates to the Government's reputation for truthfulness or otherwise. It is a pertinent issue, because the one thing that shines through this afternoon's debate is that although there have been some attacks and some discussions about whether Mr. Gilligan might be a scoundrel, it is certainly not suggested that Mr. Dyke or Mr. Davies is. Indeed, the evidence relating to Dr. Kelly does not suggest that he was acting maliciously either. Yet, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell
866
(Mr. Mackay) said. every one of those individuals got themselves into a situation whereby they came to distrust the Government so much that they were drawn into conflict with them or adopted positions from which they could not back down.
Three weeks after I was elected in 1997, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and I, among others, were taken out by representatives of the BBC, who, we were told, had concluded that their style of reporting was too confrontational and that they would endeavour in future to be more understanding of politicians' difficulties. What happened in the intervening period to create a situation whereby the director-general and the chairman—both of whom have been donors to the Labour party and must therefore, one assumes, be favourable towards it—felt that their relations with the Government had so broken down?
My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) praised the Prime Minister for his eloquence—indeed, we heard plenty of that in the debate on the war with Iraq. However, the problem is that while eloquence, sincerity and powers of communication may do much good for our country—I say that, although I disagree with Government policies—an entirely different attitude is taken by the weasels in the background, from Jo Moore trying to bury bad news on 11 September to Mr. Campbell deciding, as is recorded in his diary, that the key issue in relation to Dr. Kelly was a plea bargain. I am extremely pleased that Mr. Campbell has left the service of the Government and is no longer being funded by the taxpayer.
I say this to the Defence Secretary: unless the Government can learn the lesson that their spin, developed over seven years, has led to such a monumental growth of distrust that they are no longer believed even when they are telling the truth, we will continue to have a problem. Indicative of that problem is the fact that when the Prime Minister was first asked on the plane whether he had been involved in the naming of Dr. Kelly, he felt so frightened and constrained—because at that stage nobody had pointed out that he was entitled to name him—that he had to give an obfuscatory reply. As long as that continues, this country is in serious difficulty, and the Government will be judged on their record in putting that right in future.
6.42 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): This has been an excellent and lively debate, with 32 speeches from Members of most parties reflecting most points of view. My only observation is that many of those speeches anticipated the report of the next inquiry instead of dealing with the report of the inquiry that has just taken place. That is exemplified by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—although, as the excellent lawyer that I know him to be, he will not want to waste a good speech, so he will be able to use large parts of it on the next occasion.
I join right hon. and hon. Members in thanking the noble and learned Lord Hutton for producing such a detailed and comprehensive report. I am sure that I speak for all those involved in stating that we are grateful for the efficiency and dispatch with which he completed what was always likely to be a difficult task.

867
I also join right hon. and hon. Members in deprecating the attacks on the noble and learned Lord Hutton. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) made that point with his usual eloquence. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr Llwyd) criticised Lord Hutton's report, because I recall him saying last year:
"However, I, like others, am impressed by the way that the Hutton inquiry was set up and is proceeding. That could well be a model."—[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 704.]
Lord Hutton's task was difficult, not least because it began with a personal tragedy and involved a detailed assessment of the reactions and judgments of a series of individuals, each of whom was subjected to a far greater degree of scrutiny than would otherwise ever have been the case. For some, it may well have been their first experience of the particular kind of public scrutiny that the British media bring to bear. That necessarily affected their families and their friends.
But it is important to start with David Kelly. In his report, Lord Hutton quoted the citation recommending Dr. Kelly for the award of the CMG. It commended Dr. Kelly's pioneering work as an arms inspector in the former Soviet Union and in Iraq and stated:
"he has pursued this work tirelessly and with good humour, despite the significant hardship, hostility and personal risk encountered during extended periods of service in both countries."
That says much about the man. At the heart of this debate is the tragedy that such a dedicated man took his own life. It is a particular tragedy for Mrs. Kelly and her family. When I met them last summer, I was touched by their courage, kindness and dignity. The publication of Lord Hutton's findings has once again made the cause of their private grief the subject of public debate. That is a heavy burden for any family to bear, and our thoughts are certainly with them.
On the detail of the report itself in so far as it affects the Ministry of Defence, and in terms of learning lessons, as suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), Lord Hutton decided that the major charges levelled against the Ministry of Defence were unfounded. In particular, he found that there was no dishonourable, underhand or duplicitous Government strategy covertly to leak Dr. Kelly's name to the media.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Like many hon. Members, I have sat through virtually every minute of today's debate, which has been very constructive and rational. However—I say this in a genuine spirit of raising the perception of this House among the public outside—is not the one great service that the Leader of the Opposition could do to make a categorical statement that he does not doubt the honesty and integrity of this Government and the Prime Minister? That would be a great service to himself and to this House.
Mr. Hoon: I shall certainly give way to the Leader of the Opposition if he wants to make such a statement. Apparently, he does not wish to do so—for the moment, at any rate.
The Ministry of Defence was criticised, and I entirely accept that criticism. Lord Hutton concluded that the Ministry of Defence was at fault for not informing
868
Dr. Kelly that the press office would confirm his name if a journalist suggested it. He also said that the Ministry of Defence was at fault in not having set up a procedure to inform Dr. Kelly immediately when his name had been confirmed to the press.
I acknowledge that it would have been better if we had told Dr. Kelly explicitly that his name would be confirmed if a journalist suggested it and if there had been a procedure to inform him immediately when he had been identified by the press. Lord Hutton was satisfied, however, that Dr. Kelly had been told by the Ministry of Defence that his name would probably come out and that he realised this himself. With the benefit of hindsight, I accept that we probably placed too much reliance on this fact.
Lord Hutton has recognised, however, that the circumstances leading to Dr. Kelly's death were, to use his words, "wholly exceptional". Moreover, he acknowledged that there were mitigating circumstances: first, Dr Kelly's exposure to press attention, which was inevitable in any event, was only one of the factors placing him under stress; secondly, MOD officials did give consideration to Dr. Kelly's welfare and did take steps to help him; and thirdly, Dr. Kelly was not an easy man to help. This is not a criticism. He seems to have reacted in the way in which many essentially private people would react to public exposure—he wanted to keep himself to himself.
Adam Price: On the issue of accuracy, would the Secretary of State care to comment on the assertion made in the question and answer briefing approved by the permanent secretary on 8 July in response to the specific question as to what No. 10's involvement in the announcement had been? The assertion made in that briefing, which was approved by the permanent secretary, is that the decision to issue the statement was made by the MOD. Was that assertion correct?
Mr. Hoon: Lord Hutton's report deals with the issue in detail. I know that the hon. Gentleman has written to me, and I will provide him with a reply setting out clearly what is said in the report. I do not think that it helps the debate to make such points at this stage.
Mr. Grieve: Coming back to the employment points, it would be helpful and reassuring to learn that the Ministry of Defence has taken on board the apparent lack of a documented system for dealing with an employee who has a problem. It worries me that that point clearly arises in the Hutton report, and I hope that we can be given some reassurance on it.
Mr. Hoon: I shall come to that point in a moment, and I hope that I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I need to make progress.
Dr. Kelly's subsequent exposure to press attention and intrusion was not in any way brought about by the delay in advising him that his name had been confirmed—and neither has it been suggested that this delay in any way contributed to his decision to take his

869
own life. It is important that I note on behalf of the Ministry of Defence that there was no criticism of any individual in relation to the support provided to Dr. Kelly.
I am nevertheless determined that the Ministry of Defence should reflect on what has happened. Officials have been giving a great deal of thought to a range of personnel issues that were highlighted by, even if they were not strictly relevant to, the case of Dr. Kelly. Various procedures will be improved. Some of them will be in areas that were not addressed in the report. We shall look at terms of employment, where some aspects relating to secondments from the Ministry of Defence or between the Ministry of Defence and other public or private organisations will be clarified. Disciplinary and related procedures, including arrangements for raising issues of conscience or professional disquiet, will also be considered. I hope that that will meet the point raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). This will cover the entire Ministry, including, of course, the Defence Intelligence Staff.
We shall examine also the assistance given to civil servants who are at risk of media attention. Nowadays there is a risk of intrusion that would not have occurred even a few years ago. As for guidance on dealing with the media, the principle will remain unchanged that no one should speak to the media on or off the record without express approval. I hope that that addresses at least some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) in what I thought was an excellent speech.
Mr. Soley: There is an important point for anyone who is told by a journalist—this is what journalists need to take on board—that he or she will protect their sources. In this case, one of the tragedies was that the information was passed on to two Members, who then used it in the Foreign Affairs Committee. Clearly that had a pretty devastating effect on Dr. Kelly.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point.
The welfare service of the Ministry of Defence has been in close contact with Dr. Kelly's family at the relevant times. It has been available to provide whatever support the family requested. Mrs. Kelly's solicitor has been told that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I are both available to talk to Mrs. Kelly if she would like us to do so. I was grateful to her for agreeing to see me last summer. I repeat that in the course of a long conversation I was profoundly impressed both by her compassion and by her understanding.
Such understanding must now be extended to others caught up in these events. Many were involved simply because they held particular posts at the relevant time. They were carrying out their professional responsibilities in a way that was required by virtue of their employment—responsibilities that had never previously thrown them into the media spotlight and which will almost certainly never again involve them in such attention.
Lord Hutton was asked by the Government to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. Kelly. He was not asked to make a wider inquiry. I
870
think that that is the answer to a number of criticisms of the scope of the inquiry, including those from my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). Normally an unexplained death is investigated by a coroner. In this case it would have been difficult for an inquest adequately to investigate the intense controversy that raged in this country and elsewhere following the broadcast by Andrew Gilligan on "Today" on 29 May 2003.
Mr. Grieve: Now that we are on the subject of controversy, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity—it is important—to clear up the apparent discrepancy between his state of knowledge on 18 March and that of the Prime Minister? Perhaps he can shed light on why he knew that the reference was to battlefield weapons only, whereas the Prime Minister did not.
Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will speak for himself. I make it clear that inevitably—[Interruption.] The Leader of the Opposition, who is speaking from a sedentary position, knows full well that in the details of Government activity the responsibilities that I carry out will inevitably provide me with a great deal more detailed information than is necessarily available at all times.
Mr. Howard: Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting that he had this information but that he did not pass it on to the Prime Minister? Is that what he is telling the House this evening? The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) had it, the Secretary of State had it but apparently the Prime Minister did not.
Mr. Hoon: Rather than getting excited at this stage, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should reflect calmly and carefully that the issue of the delivery system was not an issue at the time. There was not a debate in September about the nature of the delivery process. I asked the question out of curiosity. I did not expect—[Interruption]. That is because it was not an issue. I would be very pleased if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is again getting excited about these matters, would indicate when this became a political issue as far as he was concerned. It was not in September 2003.
I and other witnesses indicated in evidence to Lord Hutton that the media reporting that followed the broadcast questioned the Government's integrity in just about the most fundamental way imaginable. Above all, it challenged the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It suggested that he and I were prepared to commit Britain's armed forces, and to risk and lose their lives, on the basis of information that we apparently knew to be false. In such circumstances, nothing but a public inquiry could have established the facts and helped to restore public confidence.
A public inquiry is rightly a rigorous process for those who appear before it. I have no doubt that everyone who gave evidence would agree with me at least on that. Each individual's thoughts, actions and decisions were subjected to minute scrutiny by an array of legal minds. That is not a comfortable experience for anyone—nor, given the questions involved, should it be.
Richard Ottaway: Just a second ago the right hon. Gentleman said that in the September dossier the

871
delivery systems were not under review. Can he explain the page in the dossier that has concentric rings showing the range of missiles from Iraq? How could he possibly say that that is not a delivery system?
Mr. Hoon: The key issue that was considered by United Nations inspectors and subject to a UN resolution was the distance capable of being covered by the missiles being developed by Iraq. If we really want to have a proper inquiry into this matter, the hon. Gentleman will reflect on what Dr. Kay recently discussed. The fact is that Iraq was in clear breach of its obligations as regards the development of missiles with a longer range than it was entitled to, and that map is a perfectly proper explanation.
Mr. Sayeed: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hoon: No, I am sorry, but I have given way a number of times.
For some, the inquiry became all the more uncomfortable because of the way in which its proceedings were reported. Some parts of the media were so determined to attack the Government, whatever the evidence, that it was sometimes difficult to reconcile what had taken place inside the inquiry with the following day's reports. There were even stories that were no more than fabrication, apparently printed solely to discredit officials who appeared as witnesses.
No one can object to fair and balanced criticism, but people—and particularly civil servants who are not allowed to answer back—should not have to suffer deliberate denigration of that sort. Civil servants in this country are hard-working, dedicated public servants; they are not party political and they serve Governments of all parties. I am sure that all parties in the House would want to see their professional independence maintained and safeguarded.[Interruption.] I hear the comments from the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), who I thought made a disgraceful attack on a serving civil servant—a civil servant who had apologised and who had made a mistake which he accepted. I doubt whether when the right hon. Gentleman served as a Minister he would have tolerated that kind of public attack on a civil servant trying conscientiously to do his job.
I believe that the House should again consider in particular Lord Hutton's observations in paragraph 280 of his report. This is an important restatement of the basic principles governing the relationship between the media and individuals working in government. A number of Members dealt with those issues, including
872
my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), and my right hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who all made revealing and important comments on that relationship.
Lord Hutton's report has itself been the subject of some strong criticism, as has the learned and noble Lord. The report has been described as "a curiously unbalanced document". It has been said that
"Lord Hutton leaves himself open to accusations of having cherry picked the evidence",
and that he
"blithely ignores or is ignorant of the context in which this sordid and unedifying saga unfolded".
That criticism has related both to the specific findings on the facts and, in more general terms, to the fact that Lord Hutton's conclusions could in some way limit the freedom of expression. There has been wide reporting of Greg Dyke's view that the implications for journalism are grave and that there will be a legal sea change that silences whistleblowers.
Given the gravity of such criticism, it is worth examining what Lord Hutton set out. I apologise for quoting him in full. He states in paragraph 280:
"Counsel for the BBC and for Mr Gilligan were right to state that the communication by the media of information (including information obtained by investigative reporters) on matters of public interest and importance is a vital part of life in a democratic society. However the right to communicate such information is subject to the qualification (which itself exists for the benefit of a democratic society) that false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others, including politicians, should not be made by the media. Where a reporter is intending to broadcast or publish information impugning the integrity of others the management of his broadcasting company or newspaper should ensure that a system is in place whereby his editor or editors give careful consideration to the wording of the report and to whether it is right in all the circumstances to broadcast or publish it."
This reflects precisely the Press Complaints Commission's code of practice, which all our national newspapers are supposed to uphold. On accuracy, it states:
"Newspapers and periodicals must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted material including pictures."
I emphasise the phrase:
"take care not to publish inaccurate…material".
In concluding this debate, let me repeat that the Government accept the report—
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Laser Eye Surgery
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]
7 pm
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting me this debate. My own interest in the safety of laser eye surgery began about a year ago, when I read some reports in national newspapers on the matter. Since then, I have followed the subject with great interest; in fact, I even tabled some questions in the House on it. Recent advances in laser technology mean that both long-sightedness and short-sightedness can be treated, and in many cases corrected, through laser eye surgery. Seventy-seven corrective laser eye surgery establishments are currently registered with the National Care Standards Commission. According to aHealth Which? report of February last year, some 100,000 people a year in the UK undergo laser eye surgery.
I want to comment on the history and popularity of laser eye surgery, and then to highlight my three main concerns about the safety and reliability of this service. First, on customer care, there is a need for development and extension of the consumer protection regime, and for the provision of detailed information about the potential risks and complications of surgery. Secondly, in terms of the qualifications of practitioners, there is a need for standardised training requirements for surgeons performing laser eye surgery procedures. My third concern relates to clinical audit and best practice, and the need for regulatory bodies to identify best practice, and to create standard regulations for the entire industry, including minimum standards of pre-care and post-care.
Laser eye surgery was developed by the ophthalmologist Dr. Steven Trokel in 1987, and first used on a patient in Germany in 1988. The first laser eye treatment clinic using Dr. Trokel's laser was founded by US-based investors in Toronto in 1989. Following the success of the US operation, the first UK clinic was opened at Clatterbridge hospital, in Wirral, in January 1991. It grew into a string of clinics now known as Ultralase, one of Britain's foremost laser eye treatment providers. Ultralase and other, smaller companies—along with Boots, Optimax and Maxivision—are believed to perform some 100,000 treatments a year in the UK.
The declining cost of laser eye surgery reflects increased demand and competition within the sector, and demonstrates its popularity. But that is matched by increasing concern among patients and clinicians alike about the resulting side effects and vision damage. Laser eye surgery, a relatively new form of elective surgery, is seen by many as a cosmetic procedure, but the changes made during it are irreversible and can lead to side effects ranging from dry eyes to worsened vision. Nevertheless, an increasing number of people, rather than wear glasses or contact lenses for the rest of their lives, are opting to spend money on a one-off surgical procedure that, in the majority of cases, eliminates the need for glasses or lenses.
There are those for whom refractive surgery is a godsend, freeing them from a lifetime's myopia with one quick, fairly pain-free and relatively cheap procedure,
874
but my concern is that there is currently no adequate means of assessing the quality of the treatment available. If it is true that you get what you pay for, we may note that the range of fees payable for the surgery varies from £495 per eye for Lasek treatment at Optimax, through to £1,650 per eye for Wavefront LASIK at Laservision. In fact, the cost can be as much as £2,000 per eye, as reported by the Discovery Health channel last year when it investigated this topic. That is quite a range.
What exactly is it that people are paying for? What are the basic requirements, and what are the added extras? It is worth mentioning that there are vast differences in the regulations for cosmetic surgery and for laser eye surgery. Since April 2002, minimum standards for cosmetic surgery have been applied by the N CSC, which also vets cosmetic surgeons who generate regular complaints. In May 2002, the Department of Health provided additional reassurance by announcing proposals to require cosmetic surgeons to be medically qualified and to have attended a postgraduate course before being allowed to operate.
Where does that leave laser eye surgery? Surprisingly, the regulations covering the sector do not appear to be as stringent as those covering more traditional cosmetic procedures. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on why t hat is.
Negligence claims involving laser eye surgery against doctors belonging to the Medical Defence Union have more than doubled in the past six years. The Medical Defence Union is the largest insurer for UK doctors. It believes that, while some of the claims were for faulty surgery, many more centred on patients' unrealistic expectations about what could be achieved. Recent figures released by the union show that claims over laser eye surgery have increased by 166 per cent. in six years and now account for a third of all ophthalmology claims. The MDI. T has increased its subscription rates for laser eye surgeons and advised them on how to minimise the risk of a claim.
Dr. Christine Tompkins of the MDU is on the record as saying:
"Patients need to understand what the risks are. And they need to think about whether or not the benefits they think they will get from the procedure actually outweigh the risks, in order to decide whether they want to go ahead with it."
In very rare case complications can lead to corneal ectasia, where fluid pressure builds up on the eye, and patients can need a corneal transplant to correct the condition. Other complications, although deemed "minor" by clinics, occur "relatively frequently", according to a recent review by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Patients can experience dry eyes or night vision problems that can affect the ability to drive or work in the evening or in dim light.
My first concern is about customer care and access to information. The guidelines make it clear that there should be information available about the possible negative effects of laser eye surgery, but it is for the clinic to determine whether this means blinding the patient with science through a list of technical outcomes or, alternatively, reassuring them that mishaps are so rare that they do not need to worry.

875
The Health Which? Report last February catalogued a range of complaints from those who have experienced negative effects following laser eye surgery. Some were temporary, but in other cases long-term effects were cited. The report said:
"Patients shouldn't be taken in by the claims about the safety and success rates of laser eye surgery. Whilst most do benefit from laser eye surgery, nobody knows the real number who have disastrous or disappointing results although we do know that litigation is increasing. Complication and success rates vary from clinic to clinic and surgeon to surgeon".
He continued:
"Patients need more honesty about so-called minor complications and the fact that many who have surgery still need glasses or lenses."
He concluded:
"We'd also like all companies to publish their complication rates and results and have them independently audited so that patients can make an informed choice."
My second concern is the qualification of practitioners. Early last year, I tabled I written question about the qualifications required for laser eye surgery practitioners and the clinical assessment and audit of such procedures, and I received an answer on 28 April 2003. The then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), informed me that such establishments must register with the National Care Standards Commission and are required to comply with the private and voluntary health care regulations. He stated:
"Regulation 42(1) requires that the registered person has in place a professional protocol drawn up by a trained and experienced medical practitioner or dentist from the relevant discipline in which treatment is to be provided…The vast majority of laser eye surgery takes place in private practice. The Department of Health does not collect information about such procedures by individual surgeons."—[Official Report, 28 April 2003; Vol. 404, c. 275W.]
That answer is worrying on two counts. First, as the regulations stand at the moment, they require not the person conducting the procedure but the clinical director for the registered clinic to be qualified in, in this case, refractive eye surgery, which means that in practice the patient, who might naturally assume that the person responsible for changing the shape and size of their cornea using pulses of high-frequency light is qualified, may be operated on by a general practitioner or similar. Indeed, after speaking to the Royal College of Ophthalmology and the NCSC, it is unclear what standards of qualification exist for laser eye surgeons and what constitutes a competent and experienced surgeon.
Dr. Sherry Williams of the Medical Protection Society told me that because refractive surgery is not conducted in the NHS, no training is available through the NHS. It is therefore left to the industry to determine that each individual clinic sets its own standards, and that is not immediately apparent to patients seeking service in the industry.
There are no specific regulations in refractive surgery, and the only legal requirement for doctors performing laser surgery is that they are registered with the General Medical Council. Any doctor currently employed by a refractive surgery chain can operate after a laser surgery course of just a few days. I find the suggestion that surgeons operating in the private sector should not be
876
bound by the same degree of clinical assessment and audit as those within the NHS worrying, and in that I am not alone.
The public minutes of the NCSC board meeting last June state:
"The issue of laser eye surgery was raised, following increased public concern and recent press reports, and it was suggested that the regulation of these should be highlighted to the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection."
I know that CHAI will become responsible for the sector in April this year, but I am still unaware of any efforts to address my specific concerns. Having researched the issue, there is general agreement among interested parties, which include NCSC inspectors, the RCO and the laser eye industry, that more detailed basic regulation would be welcome, as long as it is not too prohibitive or prescriptive. This agreement is particularly true in the light of the decreasing cost and increasing popularity of refractive eye surgery procedures.
One inspector told me that in the inspectors' opinion the regulations and guidelines that they were required to use during their inspection of laser eye surgery clinics were
"loose, woolly and open to interpretation."
Given that all inspectors for the NCSC are clinicians of one sort or another, to my mind that is not a statement to be ignored.
I come to best practice. I do not want to be seen as too critical of a new and innovative area of medical practice that is a great credit to those who developed it. I admire the spirit of innovation in laser eye surgery.
While researching the subject, I have become aware that there are those who exemplify the best practice, which I feel needs to be rolled out across the sector. Ultralase—whose chairman, Christopher Neave, is also chief executive of the relatively new industry body, the Eye Laser Association—is one of the larger independent health care providers in the laser eye surgery sector. It does not simply operate within company standards, which appear to be more severe than those required at the statutory level at present. Indeed, during a recent meeting I was most impressed to note that certain changes that I recommended are to be added to its guidance as a direct result of our meeting.
The NCSC, the RCO and the laser eye surgery industry have all expressed, to differing degrees, interest in creating a set of standards for the benefit of patient safety.
In conclusion, I should like to say that as patients' knowledge of their rights grows, so do their expectations and demands. After recent high-profile debates about the competence and clinical auditing of surgeons and other health care professionals in the public sector, I believe that it is important that we extend our gaze to the private sector as well.
I do not want to unduly criticise private health practitioners. In fact, the Eye Laser Association agrees with me that there are distinct benefits in recognising the best practice of some practitioners and requiring others to bring themselves up to scratch. Just one example is that of pre-care assessment. Ultralase reports that about 25 per cent. of people are ineligible for laser eye surgery due to certain medical conditions, and recommends that

877
any clinic operating should not have a turn away rate significantly lower than 25 per cent. It also refuses to conduct surgery on the same day as a patient is assessed. I am led to believe that the RCO is drafting guidelines requiring a cooling-off period between assessment and treatment of patients, but this is not currently mandatory.
Similarly, different clinics offer different after-care advice and treatment. As long as the consumer has no indication what the recommended minimum information and treatment are, and as long as the industry has no requirement to provide that minimum, but simply to provide some, it will continue to be the consumer, if anyone, who suffers.
I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend what steps are being taken to address my three concerns. I ask her to use the powers available to her under section 130(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 to direct the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection to investigate the need for closer scrutiny of the laser eye sector.
7.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on securing today's debate. He has already demonstrated his interest in this important subject, and I emphasise that the Government share that interest.
My hon. Friend will know that the NHS does not routinely provide laser eye surgery to correct refractive errors. The Government's view is that spectacles or contact lenses can usually correct refractory errors in a safe and cost-effective way.
The majority of laser eye surgery, therefore, takes place in private hospitals, and there appears to be a growth in the number of occasions on which this procedure is undertaken.It is, of course, important that service standards are clear and that those standards provide patients who choose to have laser eye surgery with the necessary assurance that the procedure is being carried out safely and appropriately.
I am aware of information received from the Eye Laser Association that states that more than 100,000 laser eye procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom each year. Indeed, it informs us that laser eye surgery is the single most performed surgical procedure world-wide and that the number of procedures undertaken has run into millions.
Patient safety and quality assurance are the cornerstones of the new regulatory system for independent health care. Nevertheless, the Government are aware that people have concerns about laser eye surgery. That has been clear in Parliament, from questions from Members and early-day motions, as well as from news items that the media have carried. One of the concerns has been that the practice is not properly regulated. I hope to reassure my hon. Friend on that.
The debate gives me an opportunity to speak more widely about what the Government have done to improve the regulation of care provided by health
878
establishments in the independent sector overall. As my hon. Friend said, the Care Standards Act 2000 established the National Care Standards Commission as an independent regulator and sector watchdog for social and independent health care services in England. The commission began operating in April 2002. The aim of the Act was to modernise the regulatory system and to protect vulnerable people in society by introducing, for the first time. consistent national minimum standards for providers of social and independent health care in England. The commission's main aim is to drive up the quality of services and improve the level of protection for vulnerable people.
The commission registers, inspects and regulates health and social care providers against regulations and national minimum standards set by the Government. In applying the standards, the commission looks for evidence that the facilities, resources, policies, work force, services and activities offered by providers lead to positive outcomes and experience for service users. The regulations and standards to which providers of services are required to adhere are stringent and service user-oriented. Providers are subject to annual inspections by the commission, which requires providers of laser eye surgery to keep records of each surgical procedure undertaken, including accidents or adverse incidents. It also requires independent hospitals where laser eye surgery takes place to submit annual figures to it showing the number of complaints made and the action taken in response to them.The NCSC currently has 77 corrective laser eve surgery establishments registered, with a further 18 applications pending. It has had to take no enforcement action on clinical issues against any of those establishments.
There are two types of national minimum standard: core standards, which cover general issues that apply to all independent health care providers, and service-specific standards Core standards require a registered establishment to ensure that before an appointment any qualifications relevant to the post are verified, and that the relevant regulatory or licensing body is asked to confirm that the applicant is appropriately registered. Core standards also require employers to make arrangements for staff training and continuing professional development.
Service-specific standards are those developed for a particular sector and a particular service user group. They do not imply that all providers must offer a uniform level of service; instead, they set out a minimum level of service that will guarantee a basic level of care for service users. Of course some establishments already exceed many of the standards, and in doing so have developed excellent levels of service provision. They provide a very high standard of care. The commission is determined to promote innovative good practice where and when it finds it.
The type of laser used in laser eye surgery is a class 4 laser. Its use is regulated by the NCSC, and, as I have said, providers of laser eye surgery are required to he registered with the commission as a licence to trade. The commission maintains specific service standards in respect of the use of class 4 lasers.
The service standards that are specific to class 4 state that all staff using lasers and intense pulsed lights are to have regular, recorded update training, both planned and in reaction to relevant technological and medical

879
developments; and that they use the lasers and intense pulsed light only for treatments for which they have been trained and, where appropriate, hold qualifications. The standards also stipulate that an expert medical practitioner must produce a protocol. That protocol has to be followed and will set out the necessary pre-treatment checks and tests, the manner in which the procedure is to be applied, the acceptable variations in the settings used, and when to abort a treatment. A further standard deals with the protection of people in the controlled area around working lasers.
The standards provide a tool for the commission and providers jointly to improve the quality of services and they are used in conjunction with the Private and Voluntary Health Care (England) Regulations 2001—the legal instrument that governs how independent providers operate. The regulations state that registered providers should ensure that they employ an appropriate level of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced persons and that they should ensure that each person receives appropriate training, supervision and appraisal, and that staff are enabled to obtain further qualifications, where available, appropriate to the work that they perform.
The NCSC board has in the past highlighted the issue of laser eye surgery and recommended that the procedures and practices around it be reviewed in greater depth in the future. Inspections and reviews undertaken by the commission have also discovered that some establishments have fallen short of the required standards; those establishments now have a legal obligation to improve.
As my hon. Friend said, there are no specific qualifications in refractive surgery. A doctor undertaking laser eye surgery must be registered with the General Medical Council. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists recommends that only qualified ophthalmologists should be able to undertake the procedure and that they should have undertaken appropriate additional specialist training. However, all doctors must work within the principles of "good medical practice"—the standards that a doctor must keep to ensure continued registration with the GMC. Those standards state that
"in providing care you must recognise and work within the limits of your professional competence and be competent when making diagnoses and when giving or arranging treatment".
880
On present evidence, we believe that the current safeguards are adequate to ensure the safety and well-being of service users, but as evidence on complication rates is gathered and considered we expect—in conjunction with the wider medical profession—to take a view on the continuation of laser eye surgery by those who are not ophthalmologists.
I am also aware that there has been some concern over a reported rise in complaints, which my hon. Friend highlighted, but that is not borne out by the figures—certainly not by the NCSC figures. Since the implementation of the Care Standards Act 2000 in April 2002, the NCSC has received only two official complaints relating to laser eye surgery. One has been resolved to the patient's satisfaction and one is still ongoing and is being reviewed by the commission.
It is right that, in order to minimise risks to service users, the commission continues to keep the position surrounding laser eye surgery under continuous review. If there is a need for the Government to act, we will do so. Nevertheless, as I stated earlier, the NCSC has not felt it necessary to take enforcement action on clinical issues against any such establishments. It is worth pointing out that if a complaint were made against a doctor, the GMC would have to take into account any advice from the Royal College of Ophthalmologists about who should be undertaking the surgery.
On the power of the NCSC, the legislation that it is charged with applying gives far-reaching powers to act in the interest of users and to champion their rights. The commission will use those powers wisely and with discretion to assist service providers to comply with standards wherever possible. It will nevertheless take swift and vigorous action if it finds that the health, safety and well-being of service users are being compromised.
It remains for me to say that the arrangements will continue under the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, and I am confident that the success of the present arrangements will be continued as the NCSC transfers its responsibilities to CHAI in April this year.
I hope that I have been able to allay some of my hon. Friend's concerns over the provision of laser eye surgery in England. I understand that he is due to meet representatives of the National Care Standards Commission shortly, and I hope that they will be able to allay his concerns still further.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Standard Life (FSA Regulation)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
9.30 am
Mr. Alex Salmond: I want to raise a number of issues this morning, but I shall be wary of the time because other hon. Members want to speak.
I have no interest to declare in Standard Life. I have no Standard Life policies, and I have no brief for Standard Life in the sense that, when I was preparing for the debate, the company—perhaps understandably—did not want to talk to me but merely sent its press releases. My concern and interest were initially raised by an article in The Guardian on 8 January 2004, which I shall deal with later, and it was maintained by subsequent press comment about the Financial Services Authority and Standard Life. I was concerned about some of the things that had been written, and I wanted the opportunity to explore them in greater depth, because they touch on several very important issues and the matter is very much in the public interest.
First, I want to talk about some of the publicity surrounding discussions between Standard Life and the FSA. I want to look at some of the comments suggesting that that publicity emerged almost as part of the negotiations, to examine whether that is true. I am making absolutely no allegations; I am simply raising questions that seem to be of legitimate concern.
Secondly, I want to look at the essence of mutuality as a concept of ownership in the financial sector, and I want to explore with the Financial Secretary the Government's attitude to it. Nominally, the Government and the Financial Services Authority—as the FSA said recently in a letter to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)—are fully committed to diversity of ownership in the financial sector; they think that it is a good thing. However, in the conduct of financial regulation, the proof of the pudding is in what the regulations actually are, and I want to examine whether things are being done, in terms of assumptions and ratios in the financial sector, that make it very difficult perhaps for a very large company to be in mutual ownership.
Thirdly, I want to look at the Scottish dimension to these matters and the importance of Standard Life not just as Europe's largest mutual assurance society but as a major bulwark of the Scottish financial sector, which is hugely important in terms of employment, funds under management and the diversity and range of its activities.
I shall look at the publicity that has surrounded the dramatic events and issues of the last month or so. I first learned of this issue from an article in The Guardian on 8 January. In the first four paragraphs alone, the reporter managed to get in the words "urgent," "Equitable Life", "run on the institution", "panicked" and "devastating",
244WH
but leaving to one side the hyperbole and colourful language, the report seems to be a fairly blow by blow account of discussions between the Financial Services Authority and Standard Life. As I think about the origins of that report, it could hardly have been in the interests of Standard Life to provide any of that information, and suggestions arose in the press that it had effectively been leaked or briefings given or matters talked about as part of the negotiations, as a sort of macho attempt to bring Standard Life to heel. I do not know whether that is true, and I should say in all fairness that the FSA explicitly and robustly denied any such suggestion; indeed, the chief executive, John Tiner, sent me a letter yesterday, referring to what I thought was a fairly innocuous question that I asked the Financial Secretary last week in the Chamber. I will read it in full. It is headed, "Standard Life and the FSA". "During questions to the Treasury last week in the House of Commons, you asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if there was 'any credence at all to be given to suggestions that information about those discussions [between the FSA and Standard Life] was briefed to the press by sources within the FSA'.
"On 14 January the Daily Telegraph implied that we had leaked information to the press on these discussions. The following day the paper made it clear that: 'the FSA points out that there is no evidence that the leak came from its side, contrary to the implication here yesterday'. No credence should therefore be given to such claims."
That seems pretty comprehensive, but I had not actually seen the report in The Daily Telegraph. In fact, the first I heard of it was when I received that letter yesterday, and I went back to have a look at what had been said. I was actually referring to a range of other reports that had made the same point.
I shall read one of those reports because it encapsulates the unease of many financial commentators and others. It is part of an article in the Sunday Herald of 18 January:
"But these explosive events do raise issues that need to be carefully considered. On first reading, it appears that Standard Life had been squeezed into a corner by a regulator keen to flex its muscles ahead of the results of the Penrose inquiry into the debacle at Equitable Life. If that were shown to be the case, it would be a grim day indeed. Have we really seen such damage to one of our biggest companies and the savings and investments of so many—including a vast number of Scots—because the Financial Services Authority wants to get its defence in first?
The manner in which it has taken place also raises questions about the FSA 's approach. If the news of the questions over solvency was deliberately leaked, that would make the opprobrium that the regulator deserves all the greater."
Several articles made the same point.
My unease stems from this: it is a very serious matter if a feeling is abroad, as it were, in the press in general—not just The Daily Telegraph, which incidentally is not my paper of choice—that there has been an attempt to create a macho atmosphere or to brief in the run-up to the publication of the Penrose inquiry report, which could be very embarrassing for the Government and the FSA. The Financial Secretary screws up her face a bit at that, but while we wait for the report to be published—perhaps she will tell us when it will be published—a feeling of unease has certainly developed from that type of coverage. I make no accusations—I am not in a position to do so—but there is concern, which I share, that such things should be suggested and thought possible. Clearly, briefing and spinning to the press can

245WH
be no part of financial regulation. The financial regulator has a difficult, challenging job but absolute trust between the regulator and those who are regulated is part and parcel of successful financial regulation.
I even read in one report the suggestion, which I initially thought ludicrous, that the FSA was imposing a rash of fines in the run up to the publication of the Penrose report. I discounted that as daft and silly until I examined the FSA's record over the last year and saw that, lo and behold, after 10 months in which seven financial companies were fined, there were six such fines in the last two months. Maybe it is simply the case that financial companies are fined in the run-up to Christmas these days, but there does seem to have been a sudden rash of fines on some of the leading companies in the sector. I agree that when companies deserve to be fined, they deserve to be fined, but it is interesting that there seems to be such a rash of fines in the run-up to the publication of the Penrose report.
I want to give the Financial Secretary the opportunity to deal with those points, and to make it clear that briefing the press can be no part of financial regulation. We do not know whether that happened—it is explicitly denied by the FSA—but the original report in The Guardian obviously came from somewhere, given the detail that it contained, and it would help if we could calm the atmosphere of speculation that has surrounded reporting and the issue of financial regulations.
The second question that I want to raise is the underlying question of the negotiations and discussions that have been going on between the FSA and Standard Life. It is interesting that, in this fevered atmosphere, it is possible for even the most sensible newspapers and the most sensible people to be dragged in in a rather alarmist way. An article in The Sunday Times of 18 January discussed the recent hearings of the Select Committee on Treasury, which were designed to boost consumer confidence in pensions. It says:
"The notoriously aggressive panel, chaired by the Dumbarton MP John McFall, is thought to be concerned about the viability of the 178-year-old Scottish insurer… McFall is expected to be well briefed, because Ned Cazalet, the insurance analyst who is Standard's arch-critic, is an adviser to the select committee."
I believe that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is far too wise a person to be concerned about the "viability" of Standard Life. He and the Treasury Committee, the Financial Secretary and the FSA may well be concerned about aspects of guarantees and commitments made across the financial sector by life companies, and they may be seriously looking at the ratios of Standard Life, but they would not, I think, argue that there was a question about the "viability" of Standard Life. That report gives an idea of the feeding frenzy that can develop when issues like this emerge— and are debated—in the way that they have over the last month. Discussion is legitimate and proper; given some of the circumstances in the financial sector and given the range of issues in the pensions market at present, people are understandably concerned, but there is great potential for damage to institutions, and to people's jobs and pensions, if a snowball effect affects confidence in the financial sector or particular institutions.
At the heart of discussions between Standard Life and the FSA was, first, the question of the new "realistic balance sheet" that the FSA is applying across the
246WH
financial sector and how that affects ratios. Standard Life was first up for those discussions because of the timing of its accounting year, which was several months ahead of other companies', and no doubt other companies may soon go through the same bruising process. I hope that it is not a bruising process, but Standard Life led the way in that sense.
Secondly, there was the question of the FSA wanting the company fully to commit and reserve for what Standard Life has been presenting as a mutuality bonus—that is to say, the addition that policyholders could expect from with profits policies as a result of the company's being in mutual ownership and therefore not paying back a percentage on shareholders' capital.
Now the FSA says that such things should be fully capitally accounted for, or fully reserved in terms of access to capital, and I do not think that anyone would dispute the idea that if people are offering what is presented as a guarantee, such a guarantee would have to be reserved. On the other hand, if people are presenting an argument that being in mutual ownership means by definition that policyholders effectively have equity in the company and are therefore entitled to the return on capital that would go to shareholders in a plc, that argument seems to be at the very heart of mutual ownership. If a mutual company cannot argue that, it is very difficult to see what the marketing advantage of being a mutual company actually is. A plc has advantages in the financial market over a mutual company. For example, it finds it easier to raise capital; a plc has many ways and areas of raising capital that are not open in the same way to a mutual company. So a mutual company, in its marketing, has to make the most of its advantage over plcs.
I am not sure that everyone fully understands the full extent of the new ratios and realistic balances, because a series of very complicated mathematical models is now being applied to work out the new realistic balance sheet, but I think we can have a sensible discussion about whether requiring a fully capital-backed application to the claim of mutual ownership in itself militates against mutual ownership in the financial sector.
Mr. Michael Weir: Does my hon. Friend agree that although plcs have many more routes, it is a fact that Standard Life is stronger than many of the former mutuals that have gone down the plc road, both in its own finances and in pay-outs to policyholders under their policies? Many of those who have gone down the plc route have ended up being swallowed up and have cut their bonuses significantly.
Mr. Salmond: Yes indeed. I shall come to that. As I said, I have no interest in Standard Life; but I do have an interest in a demutualised life assurance company. I have several endowment policies, and I can say openly to hon. Members that I wish they had been with Standard Life, because they would have been worth a great deal more over the last 20 years than they are with the demutualised company that they are with. For the sake of that company, it will remain nameless.
Returns from Standard Life speak for themselves when compared with those of other life assurance companies, with figures for with profits policies, and

247WH
with figures for the range of mutual companies. I saw a performance list in a newspaper, which showed that 17 of the top 20 performers for TESSAs were mutual building societies; that struck me as a very interesting statistic indeed. So there is a great deal of evidence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) said, that performance in terms of investors' returns is very healthy in the mutual sector. Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence not only that Standard Life is a solid company in terms of its overall ratios and any commonsense application of them, but that it has, by comparison with other companies in the sector, achieved good returns from its policies.
My hon. Friend spoke about the fate of other Scottish mutual companies that have demutualised. That is the final aspect that I want to discuss. The situation was summed up very well by one of Scotland's most experienced financial commentators, Bill Jamieson. In The Scotsman on 16 January, he wrote:
"I have lost count of those who have told me in the past week that Standard Life would be better off by demutualising. I wish I could be so sure. For I have not lost count of all those other great Scottish life offices that have survived as independent"
countries—that was a Freudian slip, but we shall keep it on the record, I think. I meant
"companies after demutualisation. That number is easy to count. It is even easier to remember. For it is a nice round number. It is wholly and precisely zero.
"Economists have a term for this: the law of unintended consequence. And it could be about to destroy Scotland's last big player in life assurance. A groundless worry of no import? Consider what has happened to all the others, those names we once proudly recited as enduring treasures in the pantheon of Scottish finance. Scottish Amicable, swallowed by the Prudential… Scottish Mutual, bought by the Abbey group… Abbey National Fund Management is itself transferring £28 billion of funds under management out of Glasgow to London… Demutualisation is no magic wand. The danger for Standard Life is that of predatory attack, and from companies not at all interested in preserving the business in Edinburgh, or even the brand name. Are we really sure this is a dose of financial Viagra for our financial sector? Let's be sure before we bite that it's not a cyanide pill."
That commentary neatly explains some of my own concerns. Standard Life is very much a pillar of the Scottish financial sector. It has been in mutual ownership since the 1920s. It has been a hugely successful company. The track record of other demutualised life offices does not give us any confidence that huge benefits will result from conversion to a plc, certainly in terms of the Scottish financial sector. It lays companies, even those as large and substantial as Standard Life, open to predatory attack.
Standard Life is hugely important for its policyholders—the people who have put faith and trust in it—and that faith and trust has been well rewarded and well established over very many years. It employs 12,000 people. It is part and parcel of the Scottish financial sector, and serves a worldwide customer base of policyholders.
It could be argued that being a plc confers advantages, even after a commitment to mutual ownership for many years—indeed, only a few years ago, carpetbagger attempts to demutualise the company were fought off. However, if the company were chased into conversion from mutuality by the unintended consequences, as Bill Jamieson put it, of certain aspects
248WH
of financial regulation, I am sure that that outcome would not be wanted by the Government or, indeed, the financial regulator.
I am aware of the time available, and know that a number of Members want to contribute to our debate. Let me summarise my concerns. First, I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary made it crystal clear that any briefing, even pub gossip, in the financial sector cannot possibly be used as a means of negotiating when companies are in discussion with the FSA. The FSA, of course, denies that that has happened, but the Financial Secretary must accept that a range of reports, not just in The Daily Telegraph, have raised it as the motive in a number of discussions. The fact that such a feeling is abroad and shared by many journalists is a matter of concern, because the financial regulator depends on complete confidence in the financial sector. To maintain that, people must have full confidence in the financial regulator.
Secondly, there is a substantial point to be made about mutual ownership. Is the Financial Secretary concerned that some of the new ratios and applications of guarantees may create an inadvertent prejudice against mutual ownership and make it more difficult for large companies to remain in such ownership? That would be an unintended consequence—I certainly hope that it would be unintended—of the new system of regulation and capital adequacy.
Thirdly, does the Financial Secretary acknowledge Standard Life not just as a mutual company but as an important pillar of the Scottish financial sector? It would be unfortunate if a company were effectively chased out of mutual ownership, as that would create difficulties for the company's future independence.
I wish to make it quite clear that our debate should not add heat to the fevered atmosphere of the past month. On the contrary, it should cool things down and elicit sensible responses to reasonable questions. It certainly has the best interests of the financial sector and the companies that operate within it, particularly Standard Life, at heart. I hope that the Financial Secretary's reply will reassure policyholders, customers and companies in the sector.
9.53 am
Mr. Andrew Love: I join the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in acknowledging the complexity of the subject. I have tried to understand the negotiations between the FSA and Standard Life and grapple with the issues, but I have been baffled. The press release issued by Standard Life came as a shock, as it spoke about the need to
"review the application of risk modelling techniques to long-dated products such as those offered by the life insurance industry in consultation with the industry, particularly with regard to the appropriateness of economic scenarios used in such modelling."
I have no idea what that means, so I cannot make a contribution to our debate about such issues. However. I was struck by the discussion with chairman Sir Brian Stewart on the Standard Life website. In answer to a question, he said:
"The resolution was that we are going to take out of our projections for policyholders the benefits of mutuality."
That pinpoints my interest in our debate, and I hope that the Minister can provide reassurances.

249WH
Many background issues may or may not be pertinent to this debate, such as Equitable Life, the Penrose report, for which we are still waiting, and the Serious Fraud Office, which has been referred to. I accept the importance of all those issues but do not believe that they are directly relevant. They are, however, indirectly relevant to Standard Life, as I shall discuss later. Some people say that it was too exposed to stocks and shares when the stock market was adjusting, and that that is the cause of its problems. If that is so, it is a relevant consideration for Standard Life, but it is not relevant to the debate about whether or not it should be a mutual company.
Standard Life itself says quite a lot of its business is in relatively high-risk areas, so there may be question about whether those risks should be borne by policyholders or whether there is a role for shareholders. However, it has been grappling with that issue for some years, so I accept that it may want to make decisions.
I should like to focus on risk as it relates to the FSA. Equitable Life is relevant, because there are pressures on the regulator to come to terms with the difficulties and problems that have arisen since it assumed responsibility for financial regulation. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan touched on the change from a statutory basis of accounting to what the FSA characterised as a more realistic basis. I am not an accountant and shall not try to describe that change, but a number of issues arise. We can assume that a realistic basis is intended to give a more realistic view of a mutual insurer's accounts. I suspect that most hon. Members in the Chamber would accept that if that achieves more transparency for investors, policyholders or, indeed the industry generally, it is a good thing and should be welcomed.
I should like to touch on three changes resulting from the way in which insurers now have to publish accounts on a realistic basis. First, they have to quantify future discretionary benefits, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said, including the level of discretionary bonuses and terminal bonuses. They have to account more than they did in the past for the level of those benefits. Secondly, they have to give a more explicit statement of their liabilities so that they have adequate capital to cover them. That includes a requirement for greater transparency so that people know that their money is not at particular risk should the mutual get into difficulty. Thirdly—I suspect that the Equitable Life saga is relevant here—options and contracts, such as guaranteed rates for annuities, must be quantified in value and included in the liabilities. The FSA requires insurers to hold capital to meet increased risks that are made apparent by accounts on the new realistic basis. The FSA wants explicitly, says one publication, to reduce the pressure
"to sell shares when the stock markets fall."
That highlights an issue that has been very much to the fore in the FSA's discussions with the insurance industry about its difficulties.
I am interested in the way in which those three issues impact on Standard Life as a mutual body. For example, when we take into account the benefits of mutuality, will that make a pertinent and significant
250WH
difference to the accounts that are produced at the end of the year? I do not know the answer, so hope that the Minister can deal with that. However, if discretionary benefits are increased and bonuses, such as the terminal bonus, are improved by the benefits of mutuality, would that inevitably mean that the accounting had to include a greater capital requirement to meet that increased risk? Similarly, would increased liabilities have an impact on accounting?
My personal view is that if annuity rates are guaranteed, there is no particular difference between contracts offered by a mutual or a non-mutual company, provided that they both include guarantees. Mutuals may believe that they can offer such guarantees more often because of the benefits of mutuality, and they know what they are doing. Although a problem arose with Equitable Life, the issue is relevant to the whole industry, rather than just the mutual sector.
Are we putting the mutual sector at a disadvantage because of the new realistic basis of accounting? Standard Life, for example, has announced that it can no longer take into account the benefits of mutuality. As a result, mutuals must reconsider whether there is any point in being a mutual.
That brings me finally to diversity, an issue raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan at the beginning of his speech. When we discussed the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, I made a speech on Second Reading in which I called for a change in the objectives of the FSA to include diversity. The mutual sector in financial services is relatively small. It may not require protection because, as has been said, it produces better returns—people who save with a mutual get a better return than they would in other parts of the sector—but the special circumstances of mutuals need to be recognised.
That may be the root of the present problem. The Financial Services and Markets Act is under review, and I believe that there is a need to consider whether diversity needs to be taken into account so that we can be sure that the mutual sector and its benefits for the marketplace are protected. We can then ensure not only that Standard Life, the largest mutual insurer in Europe, but all the other mutual organisations are aware that we think that mutuality is a good thing.
10.3 am
John Barrett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on securing this debate. He set out clearly the problems facing Standard Life, and referred to the feeding frenzy in the press, which has created a distorted view of the FSA's involvement with Standard Life, and information available to the public.
Whether we are interested in the economy, employment, pensions or personal finance, it is safe to say that the issues facing the financial services industry are important to many hon. Members. Our postbags on Equitable Life alone would surely be testament to that—mine certainly was. As a minor policyholder in Standard Life, I declare an interest in this debate. After being elected to Parliament, I entered into correspondence with Standard Life to transfer that small policy to a parliamentary pension fund. A year later, it still has not managed to make that transfer, so I remain a policyholder with Standard Life.

251WH
I have, however, a much wider interest in the relationship between Standard Life, the FSA and my constituency. The company is by any measure of primary importance to the city of Edinburgh, part of which I have the honour to represent. Apart from the thousands of my constituents who have policies with Standard Life, the company employs 8,000 staff in Edinburgh as a whole, making a huge contribution not just to the financial industry in the city but to the Edinburgh economy as a whole. Although the future of Standard Life is an issue that rightly concerns the whole UK, the future of the company is of particular importance to Edinburgh and many of my constituents.
I confess that I was a fan of Standard Life. Not very long ago, in this very Chamber, I referred to the company in a debate on the outsourcing of financial services jobs, and paid tribute to its attitude on that issue. Its managing director of human resources had a firm commitment to keeping jobs in the city at a time when many of its competitors were moving customer service roles overseas. However, Standard Life has made mistakes, and continues to do so, both of presentation and of substance. Some say that the problems are of Standard Life's own making. Its reliance on equities at a time of stock market decline had a major negative impact on the company's capital reserves. That decision, combined with other circumstances, has left Standard Life in its current position.
At the same, however, it is vital that we deal with the issue constructively. It would be easy, in the wake of the Equitable Life scandal, to respond to Standard Life's difficulties with alarm and horror, as has happened in some press reports. Such an attitude is misguided, because Standard Life is not going the same way as Equitable Life and is not as short of capital as Equitable was. However, we must wait for its new balance sheet following the new FSA rules in March. Much has been made of demutalisation and the extent to which that could solve Standard Life's problems. Even contemplating such a process would be a massive U-turn by Standard Life, and shows the depth of the challenge facing the company. Indeed, such a consideration makes the protestations by the chairman of Standard Life that there is not a problem even more unbelievable.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) secured a fair amount of coverage for the grilling that he and his Select Committee gave Standard Life management two weeks ago, but the interrogation was justified. We, as our constituents' representatives, must ask difficult questions to which our constituents want answers. Extraordinarily, in addition to the evidence given to the Treasury Committee, the Standard Life website features a special question and answer page with its chairman in which he says that
"it is not a difficult time for Standard Life."
That is spin worthy of Alastair Campbell, and bears little resemblance to what people in the industry, the staff, policyholders, the FSA and others have seen. There is no shame in the challenges that face the company. It goes without saying that Standard Life must he honest and open. The UK financial services world changed after Equitable Life, and people rightly expect nothing less than complete honesty from those who handle their financial affairs. I hope that the
252WH
decision to give an indication of what has been agreed between Standard Life and the FSA when the annual results are published on 18 February will mark a new period of openness, but that depends on exactly how forthcoming the company is in that report.
Demutualisation, of course, offers no short-term remedy for the company. People in the industry believe that a full-scale conversion could take up to two years because of the requirement to get permission from policyholders, an independent actuary, the Financial Services Authority and the courts. The process is not cheap, and Standard Life spent £6 million on administration during the 2000 campaign against demutualisation. There are other options, which I hope can be considered in the current review. For example, the company could either cut new business to protect the interests of current policyholders or cut equity exposure. I am not a financial adviser, and do not pretend to offer advice on those matters, but I believe that Standard Life should consider its options carefully. The Government, the FSA and others should make every effort to offer assistance.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has a huge constituency interest in the matter, so will he say something about the point that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and I tried to explore? There is concern that there might well be—perhaps inadvertently—something in the regulation that the FSA is looking for that would militate against major companies staying in mutual ownership. If that is the case, it puts some of his comments in a different context.
John Barrett: I absolutely agree. Standard Life has long promoted the benefits of being a mutual company. It should be made clear if the rules are changing, and the FSA's involvement is queering the pitch for Standard Life. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the matter, because there is a genuine concern for the company's future and its employees and policyholders.
Policyholders have to be realistic, too. Demutualisation would certainly not bring the windfalls that it would have brought when it was first mooted back in 2000. and any windfall now would in no way make up for the cuts in bonuses that were announced last week.
Hon. Members have, quite rightly, fought to preserve the interests of the millions of people who have policies with Standard Life and whose policy bonuses are falling—I strongly agree with those comments. However, the current uncertainty also means that behind Standard Life's impressive buildings on Lothian road, Conference square and George street, 8,000 staff remain in an equally uncertain position. As I said, the hon. Member for Dumbarton was absolutely right to be critical of Standard Life's management for, at best, their lack of information and, at worst, misleading some people over the position of the company. Similarly, I fear that the management are equally secretive with Standard Life's staff. The company's six-month review has effectively left many employees in a state of limbo. In fact, from what I know from those who have contacted me, I do not think that it is too much to say that some in the company are quite depressed. Promotions are being postponed and long-term goals

253WH
are being amended. Many within the company who, even a few months ago, would not have contemplated changing jobs now feel that they must reassess their situation. However, as one of my constituents told me, it is not as if she has pages of job ads to wade through. This is a sad situation. We must remember that the staff worked hard over many years to build Standard Life into the world-class business that it is today. For example, the work to resist demutualisation four years ago was a credit to all involved.
I am conscious that other hon. Members may wish to speak, so I shall not go on too long. On the positive side, the scrutiny under which Standard Life appears to be is a sign that lessons have been learned from past mistakes and that foundations are being laid to ensure that the previous situation does not happen again. This is a difficult time, not just for those in the financial services sector, and difficult decisions will have to be taken in the months ahead. It is in all our interests to ensure that Standard Life continues to be a leading player in the financial services field. A resolution must be found for the company and its staff and policyholders, so I would welcome any reassurances that the Minister can give to those policyholders and employees.
10.13 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on securing the debate, which is highly topical and of concern to many of our constituents. The Standard Life problem is nothing like as extreme as that of Equitable Life, but many of our constituents who are policyholders are none the less anxious, so the debate is timely and helpful. The hon. Gentleman rightly emphasised the role of the institution in the Scottish economy, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett). I shall dwell on two more general issues that overlap: first, mutuality in the insurance sector: and, secondly, the implications of what is happening to with profits policies and their regulation, which has been touched on rather less. The two matters are linked, but I shall separate them.
The management of Standard Life argue on the basis of their track record that mutual ownership gives real benefits to its policyholders because it can produce a return that is 0.75 percentage points higher than the industry average over a long time. I do not think that that is simple self-promotion because there has been a lot of academic analysis on the point. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) is a considerable authority on such matters, so he will know that a lot of work has been done at the university of Loughborough by Professor Llewellyn, among others, to demonstrate that mutual insurers produce a higher return for their policyholders than public limited companies do over the long term. That happens for the simple reason that such insurers do not use equity capital, which is a more expensive form of finance.
By the same token, however, mutual insurers have disadvantages. The fact that they have difficulty raising capital in a hurry has been touched on. Their other problem is that by having equities on the asset side of their balance sheet rather than the liabilities side, they
254WH
are potentially unbalanced because their risks are not properly offset, which was the underlying problem with Equitable Life.
The future of with profits policies overlaps with mutuality. Many of us remember that during the great days of the bull market in shares, everyone wanted a with profits policy. As someone who had a Standard Life policy that matured at just the right time, I have rosy memories of with profits policies and Standard Life. Since that time, however, the market has turned down and such policies are considerably less fashionable. Several years after the horse bolted, the FSA is busily erecting a stable door in the form of reserves and provisioning to ensure that the horse does not escape—that is understandable given the current situation.
There is a public policy issue that we want the Minister to address. We want it to be absolutely clear that, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan put it, there is no unwitting bias against mutual ownership in the system of regulation. I am not saying that as an ideologue promoting mutual ownership—it has benefits and disbenefits. However, we want to ensure that there is a genuine level playing field and that there is real diversity in the market with mutual and non-mutual institutions. The Government have a creditable record in the field. The Financial Secretary will remember from her role on building societies in the previous Parliament that the Government took a strong position to ensure that the building society movement was not effectively wiped out by activities such as carpetbagging. They introduced new regulations to that effect, although some of us criticised them for not enacting primary legislation. None the less, the mechanisms that they implemented have stabilised mutual ownership in the building society sector. Nationwide, which was considered to be the most vulnerable building society, is apparently stable.
A different pattern is emerging in the insurance sector, and it appears that mutual insurance might be heading toward extinction. Although I do not think that the unfortunate history of Equitable Life's problems was intrinsically caused by mutuality, it was compounded by it. Standard Life is coming under pressure to demutualise. The only remaining significant mutual insurer is the Liverpool Victoria, which is really a friendly society with several characteristics of an insurance company. It is possible to envisage that mutual insurance will effectively disappear in a couple of years unless action is taken to stabilise the situation.
Although that is a general problem, there is a specific question about the role that the FSA is playing. A charge has been made in some quarters that the FSA might be deliberately—that is probably not the case—pushing Standard Life toward demutualisation. I wrote to Mr. Tiner last week because of that concern. He replied yesterday and published his reply on the internet—I think that it has been widely picked up.
Several specific points about whether the FSA is pushing Standard Life toward demutualisation need separating out. First, does the FSA have any general bias? Mr. Tiner makes it clear in his letter that it does not. His strong statement says:
"On mutuality more generally, we have no view one way or the other about the merits of a mutual structure"

255WH
and says that that is a matter for members. I completely accept that and do not allege any sort of conspiracy or ideological bias.
Several hon. Members have touched on a more complex matter: the illustration of the benefits of mutuality. Consultation paper No. 195 is currently in circulation—[Interruption.] It is being waved by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). It is a weighty document, but if I may try to summarise its significance and the essence of the problem in one line, I understand that it will prevent mutual insurers from illustrating the benefits of mutuality, such as extra returns, in a context in which they must maintain higher provisions. Standard Life's worry is that if it will be no longer allowed to illustrate benefits, its credibility as a competitor in the market will be undermined. Indeed, there is already evidence of that from the response of the rating agencies, Standard and Poor's and Moody's, in downgrading Standard Life on the market when it became clear that it might not be able to illustrate the benefits of mutuality.
If I have understood the problem correctly, I hope that the Minister will say that the Government will respond to the consultation paper and make it clear that public limited companies' lobbying to stop the mutuals from illustrating their benefits will be countered so that mutuals will be able to compete in the market by publicly declaring what they think that the benefits of mutual ownership will be. The Government might be able to intervene, although I accept that the situation is confusing. Mr. Tiner's letter says:
"You express concern about the benefits of mutuality no longer being included in illustrations of future returns. This is a matter for Standard Life."
However, Standard Life does not believe that—it believes that it will come under pressure not to do that—so perhaps the Minister will clarify the situation.
One fundamental problem for mutuals is that they cannot go to the equity market, so they have to go to the bond market. They believe that they are at a disadvantage by having to do that because of the conditions set by the FSA as a regulator. I would welcome feedback from the Minister about whether she recognises that that is a problem—the mutual insurers certainly believe that there is a problem and that the FSA's requirements are too onerous.
I conclude with a point about which I am not terribly clear; perhaps the Minister will clear it up. People who are worried about the rush to demutualisation express concerns that it would not only not be in the long-term interests of policyholders, but it would not solve Standard Life's problems. Standard Life is under great pressure to raise cash to meet the new regulatory requirements, but if it demutualises, it will probably take between 18 months and two years to bring additional capital into the company, so it may be pushed into demutualisation for the wrong reasons at the wrong time, despite the fact that that might not solve the problem with which it is confronted.
I accept that the matter is largely one for the company, its members and the FSA, which, properly, has devolved powers so that it is at arm's length from Ministers. However, we want the Financial Secretary to give us a clear picture of how she sees the mutual sector in insurance. Do the Government have a proactive view,
256WH
as they did with building societies and, if so, how will she manifest their concern? Does she accept the analysis that the FSA, in subtle ways through its interventions, makes it more difficult for the mutual sector to survive? Does she propose to respond publicly to the consultation paper in a way that would express several of those concerns?
10.24 am
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: We have heard a little about the importance and size of Standard Life. It is a crucial major employer in Scotland, which is at least part of the reason why we are holding the debate. The point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) about the leak in The Guardian is pertinent. Regulatory discussions cannot be conducted in the newspapers. It appears that someone has put something in the public domain as complicated negotiations were taking place behind the scenes, which I regret. I tabled a written question about the leak, but it was ruled out of order by the Table Office. I wonder in passing whether we need to examine our rules to find how we could introduce more flexibility to the way in which we table written questions, given that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will make it much quicker and more sensible from 2005 to put a letter in the public domain that would require an answer.
The immediate reasons why we are having the debate are the discussions on demutualisation and rumours that jobs might be lost in Scotland. That is worrying, and I raise a question in passing, although I do not expect the Minister or anyone else to answer it. Whenever demutualisation is discussed, why does it so often seem to mean "large savings in employment costs"? I am a supporter of the mutual principle, but the discipline that shareholders could bring to mutual companies could gives scope for cost-cutting that would bring greater benefits to policyholders or shareholders.
As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and other hon. Members said, the heart of the debate on demutualisation is the question of access to capital, because a demutualised company can borrow more easily and find resources to expand its business, which is especially important in the fast-changing business environment in which we live. I noticed 18 months ago that, Legal and General raised about £800 million in the capital markets, which would have been more difficult and time consuming if it had remained a mutual.
Set against that benefit is the cost of the long-run yield that shareholders obtain that should accrue to policyholders, which can be measured, in theory. The hon. Member for Twickenham referred to research about which I am aware showing that part, but not all, of that benefit ends up with policyholders, although a number of assumptions that are built into the calculations make it difficult for us to be sure that they are correct.
Standard Life and other firms have historically argued that they have sufficient financial strength to do most of the things that a limited company can do while giving extra benefits to their policyholders, which is the nub of the argument for mutual status. Most of those benefits go to with profits policyholders. The FSA's proposals on with profits policies lie behind the uncertainty surrounding Standard Life. The FSA has

257WH
proposed a tightening of the regulation of with profits policies, but even if we were to stand back and suppose that the FSA had taken no steps to tighten regulation, we would still be debating the industry. The underlying reasons for uncertainty in the industry go far deeper than the FSA's intervention, and I shall cite three or four reasons why.
First, the deep bear market in equities put the size of inherited estates in life companies under a great deal of pressure. The amplitude of the business cycle in the 1980s and 1990s put enormous pressure on the policy of smoothing returns to policyholders, which is the practice of handing out only a proportion of the return during the upswing and giving part of it, but not all, back during a downswing. If the cycle is very big, that policy comes under great strain, particularly if it is much bigger than had been assumed by the actuaries when the policy was put together.
A second reason why the debate would be taking place anyway, or a contributory reason, is that lower inflation and interest rates have increased the value of guarantees that the firms have written, creating much larger liabilities in the balance sheet. That was bound to bring pressure on the industry. Added to that are the facts that forecast life expectancy is greater than anticipated and surpluses on non-profits business are lower than expected. The expenses cap on stakeholder pensions has not helped in that respect, and the Government have something to answer for there.
Finally, and most important of all, there is the effect of the Equitable Life scandal and collapse. It sent a shudder through the whole market when one of the flagships came crashing on to the rocks. Now is not the time to discuss why. I hope that we will soon have an opportunity to discuss why that happened, with the publication of the Penrose report, which the Minister has already read and which I hope we will shortly be able to see in full.
It is important not to draw simplistic parallels between Equitable Life and Standard Life, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) also said a moment ago. Equitable Life operated on a unique business model. It had virtually no reserving and very high terminal bonusing. Inevitably, that created greater risk for policyholders. Whether regulators should have permitted that business model to survive and continue is a subject to which we shall return, but that is not the model on which Standard Life has been operating. It is therefore important that the wider public, including policyholders, do not draw any simplistic conclusions about any putative threat to Standard Life from what happened to Equitable.
In response to the factors that I have listed which put great pressure on the industry—the last of which was the collapse of Equitable, which brought with it a great deal of publicity—the Financial Services Authority launched a review of the entire industry. Several key elements of the review are worth mentioning, as the hon. Member for Twickenham and other speakers did. I have a list of the major changes in the regulatory tax and accounting framework for life companies that have been pushed through in the past couple of years or are coming through in the next couple of years. There are 21 major changes. I will not read them all out—I will not read any
258WH
of them out, but they can be found on the actuarial profession life office taxation working party website. Even from reading the titles, one gets a sense that this is an industry undergoing fundamental change as a consequence of a reform of the regulatory framework.
We must keep reminding ourselves that the customer is paying for all this regulatory work. It is putting bills up and reducing terminal bonuses and returns to shareholders and policyholders. As we said in our deliberations on the Financial Services and Markets Bill, it is crucial that there is a balance between the costs and benefits of regulation. I support what is going on, as far as I can tell—I do not have the benefit of a detailed knowledge. However, we must bear it in mind that it does not come cost free. The FSA will ultimately be judged on whether it has got the balance of costs and benefits right. It is far too early to tell.
Among those 21 changes, there have been six major consultation documents from the FSA. I have two of them, just to give Members an idea of the volume of paper that the industry is expected to cope with. I shall refer briefly to them, as they are the most important.
CP 207 is about treating with profits policyholders fairly. The purpose is good. It is designed to open up the black box that has been at the heart of life assurance for a very long time.
How should an asset share be calculated? That is an extremely complicated question. Firms vary their practice enormously on how they do those calculations. Is it right that they should continue to have that degree of flexibility? How should a smoothing reserve be managed? I mentioned that earlier. Should firms be allowed to vary the amount by which they smooth in percentage terms? When is a guarantee a guarantee? That question is not understood even now by many people who read the literature. We heard a moment ago about the marketing literature.
I do not have answers to these questions. Reading CP 207 is enough to make one wonder whether more than two or three people in the world at any one time will ever fully understand the answers, but the questions should be asked. I am fairly convinced that it was wrong that directors of life companies should have had—and continue to have, although it is being reduced—such enormous discretion to vary their policy on these matters. Not all life companies agree with that. Standard Life recently put out a document stating:
"There are risks … that excessive limitation of companies' discretion may impair the performance of with profits products, and that excessive disclosure may make the smoothing of returns to reduce volatility more difficulty to achieve."
I am not sure who has the better of that argument and I shall not try to adjudicate, but it goes to the heart of whether mutuality should survive and thrive.
I have two questions for the Minister on the consultative document, which I touched on earlier. First, is it the intention of the regulators to bring greater homogeneity to asset share calculations, or is it merely the intention of the regulators to create transparency, so that people can see the differences? Secondly, CP 207 did not discuss the implications of the Sandler report for with profits business, and there are a number of issues involved, on which I shall not elaborate now. I should like to know the Government's view. Of course, it is consistent with Sandler, but can the Minister go beyond that and say what that consistency amounts to?

259WH
The second paper that I shall briefly discuss on this remorselessly complicated subject is CP 195, which has already been mentioned. Again, it is a huge document—hundreds of pages of tiny print, part of which I have tried to read in the past few days before the debate. It is entitled "Enhanced Capital Requirements and Individual Capital Assessments for Life Insurers." It introduces the notion of realistic solvency assessments and realistic balance sheets. When I was reading it, I wondered whether that means that up to now we have all been working on unrealistic balance sheets and unrealistic solvency assessments. I hope that is not the case, but the mere fact that that word can be used in this context without people finding it curious tells a story. Balance sheets have not been transparent enough in the past.
Part of the difficulty has been that the balance sheets of life companies have in the past shown the full value of any fall in markets on the assets side of the balance sheet, but not the full likely effect of that fall in the markets on the liabilities side. That is one of the major issues behind the construction of realistic balance sheets. As I was reading the document yesterday, it struck me that a great deal of discretion is still left to directors of firms to decide how to describe their liabilities.
I have a couple more questions to ask the Minister. The creation of realistic balance sheets was used a few months ago as a justification for using waivers to minimum reserving requirements. Those minimum reserving requirements were in turn triggering the forced sell-off of equities. Was the Treasury consulted by the FSA before such waivers were used? The long-run implications of the use of those waivers are quite profound. An issue of great concern was that if the forced sell-off of equities continued, there would be a massive overshoot in equity prices, with a massive downturn.
I have a more general question that will open another black box that exists in the area of public finance regulation. Very few people know of the existence of the tripartite committee, which consists of the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority. I know very little about it. Can the Minister tell us whether that committee, which meets monthly, has ever discussed the systemic implications of all the radical changes that are being pushed through in the insurance market?
The regulatory modernisation that is taking place, of which those two documents are just a small part, is sharply changing the shape of the industry. It is partly a result of the colossal failure of Equitable Life. I support what the FSA is trying to achieve, but I return to the point I made a moment ago about the costs and benefits of regulation in the long run. We must not lose sight of that. We are left with a number of quite deep questions, which the hon. Member for Twickenham alluded to, although he phrased them rather differently.
How much are risks spread in with profits policies? I am still not clear about that, and it is a question of which the regulators should be mindful. Can businesses in the 21st century thrive without access to capital that is afforded with limited liability? That is at the heart of the question on mutuality. Can we continue to have a major industry with a massive actuarial black box at its heart, in an age of greater transparency in which consumers
260WH
are demanding far more knowledge about products, and shareholders are far more active in demanding higher returns? I am a supporter of mutuality, but these are difficult questions for the industry and they are the very questions that the Financial Services Authority is opening up in its review. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about them.
10.42 am
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): A relatively short time remains to me, but I shall try to answer as many as possible of the questions that have been raised.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for securing this timely debate. I entirely concur with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who said that this is an issue of great concern to constituents in Scotland and throughout the country for varying reasons, including the financial sector in Scotland and the employment impact, and the fact that there are Standard Life policyholders across the country. Hon. Members will understand that it is not for me to comment on the ongoing details concerning the regulation of Standard Life or any other life company. However, I welcome the opportunity to lay some concerns to rest.
There is no conspiracy against Standard Life, mutuals in general or Scottish financial services. In my written answer to the House of 13 January, I noted that the Financial Services Authority had kept me informed of the matter under the terms of the tripartite memorandum of understanding. I also noted that the FSA has responsibility for regulatory decisions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and that it had informed me that it had, under section 166 of that Act, commissioned a review by independent experts into the origins and implications of the significant divergence in the calculation of Standard Life's liabilities. The FSA will continue to keep me informed of the matter under the terms of that memorandum, and I will keep the House informed of developments, as appropriate.
I cannot comment on the substance beyond that statement and those made by the FSA and Standard Life on the day. There are, however, a few things I can say of interest to Members in the Chamber about the handling of the issue and about mutuality generally. First, Standard Life is in no way being singled out by the FSA in respect of realistic reporting. The vast majority of the industry is currently in discussion with the FSA regarding the move to reporting on a realistic basis. Secondly, that move is part of the FSA's much needed programme of modernising the regulation and capital requirements of life insurers, be they mutual or quoted companies. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) was right to say that companies are undergoing a programme of fundamental change.
Thirdly—this is of particular interest to hon. Members present—the Government recognise the contribution of all forms of mutual financial service provider to offering choice and diversity in the sector. The recent proposals to update life insurance regulation are categorically not part of a demutualisation campaign by the FSA or the Government. I know of the long-standing interest of my hon. Friend the Member

261WH
for Edmonton (Mr. Love) in these matters. He and others will recognise the contribution of the Treasury to the development of the mutual sector over the past few years, not least, as the hon. Member for Twickenham noted, in supporting the building societies' movement against carpetbagging, and in my own support of two private Members' Bills on industrial and provident societies, taking forward the issues raised by the mutual sector and trying to further that cause.
Mr. Salmond: Standard Life is the last of the great mutual life insurers. We have been trying to explore whether forcing a mutual to be fully reserved undermines its claim of mutuality and the well documented advantages of mutuality. We are not suggesting a conspiracy. We are asking the Minister to address that fundamental point.
Ruth Kelly: I will. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman noted, I said that I would deal first with the handling of the issue, and then with the substance of the issue of mutuality. If he will be patient, I shall come to his point in a moment.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about briefing to the press, I can categorically assure him that to the best of my knowledge there is absolutely no information to suggest that the Treasury or the Financial Services Authority was the source for any story that appeared in the papers. A story in The Guardian was followed up by other newspapers. I have no information that would suggest that the Treasury or the FSA was responsible.
With reference to concerns about realistic reporting and its impact on the life insurance sector and on mutuality, the FSA has been extremely active in pushing through a massive programme of reform for the regulation of financial services as a whole. Nowhere is that more concentrated than for insurance regulation. The programme of reform that the FSA is delivering has focused both on the prudential regime—that is, the amount of capital that firms are required to hold to match their business mix—and on the conduct of business rules, which relates to the way in which firms treat their customers.
For the purpose of today's debate, I shall focus on the reform of prudential regulation for life insurance firms. Shortcomings of the current statutory valuation methods for life insurers, which were so exposed, as the hon. Member for Chichester said, during the recent bear market in equities, are widely recognised in the UK and abroad. In August 2003, the FSA published its latest proposals to address these shortcomings on a more formal basis that will require firms to make a realistic assessment of their with profits liabilities to determine whether they need additional capital, on top of mathematical reserves to cover expected discretionary bonus payments. In particular, this realistic assessment is to include a requirement to value the guarantees and options embedded in some with profits business through more modern techniques that have been prevalent in the industry thus far. The shift to realistic reporting is to be welcomed, as it will result in more risk-sensitive and accurate reporting of firms' liabilities.
The FSA is currently considering responses to its proposals and finalising some of the more technical details with industry representatives. Almost without
262WH
exception, proposals for a realistic assessment of with profits business have been positively received, with the vast majority of respondents considering the proposed approach to be more risk-responsive and transparent. I should emphasise that the proposals have been welcomed throughout the industry by both mutuals and non-mutuals. Indeed, Standard Life has welcomed the move to realistic reporting. The FSA intends to implement the new approach to prudential regulation by the end of the year. However, in the meantime, many firms will include realistic reports in their year-end returns, which are due by the end of March.
The FSA's updating of insurance regulation is much needed; the industry has long recognised that and widely welcomes it. For example, Peter Vipond of the Association of British Insurers described the realistic regime as
"a big move in the right direction. We are bound to get a bit of bumping and scraping as the FSA tries to push this through and firms come back to them with practical problems".
Standard and Poor's commented:
"Realistic reporting is long overdue, and should form a fundamental part of an insurer's wider risk management process."
The move to realistic reporting and new capital requirements is not intended to force the industry as a whole to raise more capital. However, the FSA has acknowledged that it will probably result in the need for a proportion of firms in the industry to assign more capital to reflect the more realistic valuation of the risks that with profits companies face, given the policies that they write. That may entail simply reassigning capital that already exists in a group to the with profits fund rather than having to raise additional capital from the financial markets. Alternatively, companies, including mutuals, have the option of resorting to the capital markets. I note that Standard Life has announced its intention to raise £750 million of subordinated debt. The FSA's reformed capital requirements are slanted neither to favour mutual companies operating in the industry nor against them.
I want to deal directly with the point about the benefits of mutuality and the way in which they are shown in policyholder illustrations. How companies illustrate their projections is a matter for them. Standard Life has had a choice, as have other mutuals in the industry. The FSA's anxiety is first, that they fulfil the accounting requirements and secondly, that they treat customers fairly. The measures that the companies take, if they feel that they need to raise capital, and their proposals to fulfil the requirements, are completely up to them. It is up to the FSA to evaluate those measures in the light of the proposals.
Mr. Salmond: That is a little disingenuous. It is all very well for the FSA and the Financial Secretary to say that it is up to the company, but if regulation forces it to reserve fully for any claim of the benefits of mutuality, it renders the claim impossible to make. Standard Life has said that it will no longer make that claim in the policy. It is therefore disingenuous to create a system that renders it impossible for a mutual to make that claim without fully reserving. That removes the advantage that the company is claiming. The Financial Secretary owes us a wee bit more on that.
Ruth Kelly: I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that companies will make

263WH
different policies, but if the hon. Member for Twickenham does not mind, it is probably apt to refer to the letter that the FSA published last night on Standard Life. It especially notes:
"The background to the current position is that, in the course of developing the realistic reporting of its financial position, the company identified a significant divergence in the calculation of its liabilities. This accelerated the need for it to consider what benefits previously illustrated to policyholders should be treated as a liability under the FSA's forthcoming realistic solvency tests."
That issue is specific to the company and perhaps does not have a wider application.
Mr. Tyrie: What is meant by
"significant divergence in the calculation of its liabilities"?
Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman knows, not least from my written answer, that the FSA has commissioned a report under section 166 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to examine the significant divergence and to understand how it arose. We do not therefore have the information with which to answer that question fully. However, I stress that companies will remain free to illustrate projections as long as they treat customers fairly. It is the FSA's duty to ensure that they do that.
The hon. Member for Chichester made some points about the FSA's review of with profit companies and referred especially to CP 207. He is right to suggest that the FSA is undergoing a thorough review of the with profits industry. He made some interesting points. As always, he is right to draw attention to the necessity of a cost-benefit analysis. Indeed, that is embedded in the FSA's responsibilities and the principles under which it operates. It has to consult the industry and draw up a cost-benefit analysis on each change.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the FSA intended to require greater homogeneity for asset-share calculations, or simply greater transparency. The overriding objective is for transparency to be as complete as possible so that policyholders are fully informed. He also asked about waivers and whether the Treasury was consulted when the FSA used waivers on, for example, the realistic regime. The Treasury would not be consulted in such circumstances. As I have already made clear, the FSA has full operational responsibility for regulatory decisions. Unless it felt it necessary to inform the Treasury under the memorandum of understanding between the FSA and the Treasury, we would not even know about the individual agreements between the FSA and the relevant companies.
264WH
The hon. Gentleman asked about the operation of the tripartite committee, which comprises the FSA, the Treasury and the Bank of England and considers financial stability matters, and whether it had examined the changes to life insurance regulations and with profit companies in general. He understands that it would be completely inappropriate for me to disclose any conversations about financial stability. It is essential to the effective operation of the committee that discussions are not disclosed publicly. Nevertheless, he makes an interesting point.
Let us consider the mutual sector and the Government's view of mutuality. The Government believe that financial mutuals have specific, distinct advantages since they do not have shareholders to whom they have to pay dividends. They can therefore deliver greater value to their members, either through higher returns to investors or lower interest rates to borrowers or both. The additional competitive pressures that diversity of ownership creates in the marketplace can deliver benefits to investors in mutuals and non-mutuals. We also value the strong links between many mutuals and their local communities, some of which have their roots in the co-operative self-organisation of working communities in the 19th century. Today, credit unions play a key role in promoting financial inclusion in local communities and the Government are keen to encourage that valuable work.
The Government and the mutual movement have a shared interest in an inclusive society in which all have equal access to the means to participate to the best of their ability. We also have an interest in markets as social institutions that confer rights and obligations in equal measure on the participants, and the exercise of individual liberty with the acknowledgement of individual responsibility. The Government are committed to ensuring that mutuals continue to serve the best interests of their members and wider society.
As I said earlier, we have taken many steps to promote mutuality and encourage mutuals to develop in future. I hope that I can make more progress on the development of the mutual sector in the coming months and years. We are committed to the mutual sector and to proper and realistic financial accounting to ensure that firms recognise the true value of their liabilities and that they treat customers fairly. I hope that I have also shown hon. Members that the FSA has no indirect or covert agenda to disadvantage the mutual sector. The Government and the FSA value diversity in promoting competition and ensuring that consumer needs are fully met.

Advocate-General
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): I advise the Chamber that several hon. Members have sought the consent of the Advocate-General and the Chair to contribute, but they must bear in mind the fact that their contributions cannot impinge disadvantageously on the time that the Government require to reply.
10.59 am
Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to have secured the debate. I am sure that the Advocate-General will confirm that it constitutes our first opportunity to discuss her role and work at greater length than is allowed in the five-minute interlude of monthly questions to her. I therefore welcome her to her place this morning.
I declare an interest in that I am an advocate, albeit non-practising. I was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in June 1982. I yield to no woman or man in my admiration and respect for the Advocate-General's knowledge of the law and the excellent legal practice that she continues to utilise in her current capacity at the Scottish Bar.
Exploring her role and work provides an opportunity for the Advocate-General to show how she spends her day and organises her week and the monthly cycle outside the times when we have contact with her in the five-minute interlude. I hope that I have allowed enough time for a couple of hon. Members to make some remarks, although the highlight will obviously be the Advocate-General's reply. I hope that we will respect that.
The reference to the role of the Advocate-General for Scotland on page 10 of the House booklet on Ministers' roles and responsibilities is remarkably brief. It states that the hon. and learned Lady
"Is a Law Officer of the Crown and is the Government's constitutional and legal adviser on Scottish affairs; and has a particular statutory role in relation to devolution issues raised under the Scotland Act 1998."
Page 60 contains an even briefer reference:
"Please note the post of Advocate General for Scotland now sits in the Department for Constitutional Affairs."
Let us compare that with references to other Law Officers, notably in the Law Officers' Department, which encompasses the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. Entries about them on page 45 are much lengthier. I do not wish to belittle the hon. and learned Lady's position, but it is important to acknowledge that if the role of Advocate-General is an important constitutional one, hon. Members should know much more about it.
The Scotland Office website is helpful. It states:
"The Advocate General is principal legal adviser to the Government on Scots law … As a UK Law Officer, the Advocate General provides legal opinions and advice to the UK Government. On matters of common interest to the UK such as European law and Human Rights, she advises jointly with the other UK Law Officers."
It also states that her statutory functions under the Scotland Act 1998 specifically include
"the power to refer Bills of the Scottish Parliament to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for decisions on their competence, and for this purpose"
266WH
she
"considers such Bills as they progress, in consultation with interested Departments."
She also plays a role in the Privy Council. She
"receives notice of devolution issues raised in Scottish Courts under the Scotland Act, which to date have usually related to Human Rights. The Advocate General may take part as a party to such proceedings, so far as they related to a devolution issue."
She
"has appeared as a party in Privy Council cases on devolution issues and has personally represented the Government in a number of different proceedings."
I have copies of some of them.
The Scotland Office website refers to the hon. and learned Lady's private office and her legal secretariat. I pay tribute to their work and legal brilliance. I know some of them and I have the highest regard for them. It would be interesting to learn from her this morning—or subsequently in writing—the total number of people at her disposal in the Scotland Office.
The website provides a fuller picture of the role and work of the Advocate-General. As she knows, that stimulated my interest sufficiently to try to probe her role and work and to participate in the monthly Question Time. On 4 February 2003, she referred to the human rights issues that she had considered. All related to criminal matters. She said:
"They dealt with a wide variety of topics, including undue delay in criminal proceedings; refusal to release prisoners on life licence; the definition of the offences of shameless indecency and false accusation; the availability of essential witnesses for trial; and the use of CCTV evidence." —[Official Report, 4 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 135.]
On another occasion, the hon. and learned Lady said that the devolution issues that she had considered covered a wide variety of topics, including challenges by life prisoners to fixing the punishment, life licence hearings, the criminal liability of corporate bodies, pretrial delay and whether requirements on the defence to disclose that it planned to use sexual history evidence breached the accused's rights to a fair trial. I also have copies of Question Time for the previous three months. Several weighty and interesting topics were raised.
When we have the opportunity to question the Solicitor-General on her work, and as the Attorney-General's representative in this House, it appears that she can provide more information, especially about court cases that have caught her attention or in which she has been involved. Could we have more flesh on the bones of the answers that the Advocate-General provides, albeit in the shorter time available for her Question Time? As she knows, I would personally prefer the Question Time to be extended to 20 minutes or half an hour to do her work and that of her Department greater justice. To whom should I speak about the possibility of extending her Question Time?
The hon. and learned Lady has been involved in an impressive number of cases. In one, she was regrettably referred to as "Mr. Clark QC". I am sure that her office would like to correct that oversight in the law reports. I want especially to query her conclusions in the Trevor Adams case against herself and Scottish Ministers in 2002. The Advocate-General advanced a preliminary submission to the effect that she was not the appropriate

267WH
respondent to any legal challenge to the validity of an Act of the Scottish Parliament or Scottish Executive. On 31 July 2002, Lord Nimmo Smith held:
"It was clear from the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 that the Advocate General was allowed to intervene at various stages of legal proceedings in which a devolution issue was raised. It was a matter within her discretion whether, and if so at what stage, to appear in such proceedings. Therefore, she had not been wrongly called as a respondent. However, the petitioners were not correct to say that she should nevertheless have participated in these proceedings."
That appears to be the only case that throws any light on the Advocate-General's advisory work. Will she therefore outline the reasons for her conclusions?
I follow her work and that of her Department with great interest and I welcome the debate and the opportunity to query more closely her role and work, especially her constitutional role and legal advisory work. I await her response with bated breath.
11.10 am
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate. It is clearly the subject of significant demand, so I hope that the next time it comes up, we are allowed 90 minutes in Westminster Hall.
I am on the record as having said that I do not take the view that the role of the Advocate-General for Scotland is necessarily a full-time one, or that it should attract the level of public payment and the substantial number of staff that are attached to it. However, we are where we are, and I do think that there is some opportunity to develop the role of the Advocate-General in a way that is generally helpful to the preservation of the distinctiveness of Scots law, especially post-devolution.
One of the aspects of the business of the House in which I have made it my business to play an active role is the work of Standing Committees. I have been a member of no fewer than nine since becoming an MP, six on fairly substantial Bills. The frequent treatment in UK legislation these days of Scotland as a bolt-on or afterthought causes me increasing concern, and I wonder why the Office of the Advocate-General does not take a more active role in Scot-proofing Bills before the House considers them. One example that springs to mind is clause 185 of the Bill that became the Enterprise Act 2002, which provided that warrants would be provided in Scotland and England by "the High Court". In England, what that is is pretty clear, but apparently in Scotland warrants were to be granted by a senator of the College of Justice—an incredible notion that leapt off the page the first time I read it. How did such a provision get as far as it did? Eventually, the Government were persuaded to amend the legislation so that an application from the procurator fiscal to the sheriff would ultimately result in the granting of a warrant.
Another example plucked from the air is the Bill that became the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003; I also served on the Standing Committee that considered that legislation. On Report, we had an interesting discussion about legal privilege. The Law Society of Scotland had made submissions to the Scotland Office, but somehow those submissions had
268WH
got no further—certainly not to the Home Office Minister responsible for the Bill. That is precisely the sort of job that the Advocate-General should be doing, and I am concerned that she does not appear to be doing it.
Now that a supreme court for the United Kingdom—whatever it is called and wherever it is sited—is to be developed, Scots law has great opportunities and faces considerable threats. I feel that the Advocate-General could play a greater role in that debate, but I have seen no evidence of her involvement: she certainly was not present during my Adjournment debate on the subject in Westminster Hall on 19 December last year.
With those brief remarks, I hope that I have made a few helpful and constructive suggestions about the way in which the role of the Advocate-General might be developed.
11.13 am
Annabelle Ewing: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing this timely debate, and I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution.
I have concerns about cases involving the vires of Scottish Ministers' actions, a recent example of which is hepatitis C compensation. As long ago as January 2003, the decision was made in Scotland to award compensation payments, but the vires of Scottish Ministers to take such action was challenged by Westminster, and the action was delayed. In late August last year, it was decided the action was, in fact, within the powers of the Scottish Parliament—but why on earth did it take so long to reach that decision, and what role did the Advocate-General have, or not have, in that process? A cynic might suggest that the matter had to be resolved south of the border—that is, a decision had to be made to pay compensation south of the border—before it could be confirmed that the Scottish Parliament could indeed proceed to do the right thing by the people concerned.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) touched on the Advocate-General's advisory role. I, too, am dismayed by what I see happening in this House. Let us leave Sewel motions to one side—I am not terribly keen on the way in which they are being used. Time and again in this place, we see a plethora of important amendments being made on Report to legislation on reserved matters to accommodate the particularities of Scots law. That is no way to ensure that legislation is meaningful and takes full account of the Scottish position. I sometimes wonder what the Advocate-General is doing in relation to such legislation. Surely it would be in everyone's interests if the process were conducted at the outset of the legislation on reserved matters, not at the eleventh hour.
Finally, I echo the comments the hon. Gentleman made about the creation of a supreme court. That issue is vital to Scots law, so I, too, regret the fact that the Advocate-General has seen fit to play almost no part—at least, not publicly— in the process. In the most recent session of oral questions, I raised the subject with the hon. and learned Lady and suggested that, in view of the fact that her colleagues in the Faculty of Advocates had already clearly stated their position, some sort of statement from her might be opportune. I look forward to hearing her reply to this debate.
11.16 am
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate, which I genuinely welcome. I hope that my explanation in greater detail of my role will give some satisfaction to the hon. Members present.
As a fellow member of the Faculty of Advocates, the hon. Lady has always been interested in the new constitutional arrangements, and she has a longstanding interest in and knowledge of Scots law. I am especially grateful to her for her kind comments, which I am sure were over-generous. In the Scots Law Times, I recently came across an early case in which I believe the hon. Lady appeared in the High Court of Justiciary. I do not know whether she recalls the case—HM Advocate v. Brown—but she appeared successfully to assist the Crown.
First, let me set my role in context. Hon. Members may recollect that prior to devolution and during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998 there was some debate on the future of the Law Officers. The legislative solution was to transfer from the UK the posts of Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland: the Act provided that they became Law Officers for the devolved Administration. The Act also provided for the creation of a new office of state: Advocate-General for Scotland. The Advocate-General took over the former advisory role of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland to advise the UK Government, particularly in relation to all Scots law matters, both devolved and reserved. In addition, new statutory functions relating to the operation of devolution in Scotland were created.
The Conservatives were opposed in principle to moving the Lord Advocate to the devolved Administration—I understand that their solution was to split the Scottish Law Officers and retain the Lord Advocate as a UK Law Officer, but that solution did not find sufficient support in Parliament—so I am especially grateful to the hon. Lady for having supported and taken an interest in my office since its inception. The solution that did succeed, with some cross-party support, notably from the Liberal Democrats, was to create the post of Advocate-General. The then hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that Advocate-General would be
"an important post, because large areas of responsibility affecting Scotland will remain with the House of Commons".— [Official Report, 10 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 180.]
The current hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has flown the kite of a part-time post for some time, but I find that a strange suggestion, bearing in mind the fact that, as he well knows, legal problems arise all the time—at weekends, during the day or in the evening. As I hope to demonstrate, my work involves a wide range of issues, and making my post a part-time one would be wholly impractical.
Miss McIntosh: Will the hon. and learned Lady consider a case that has been suggested by several hon. Members, including me? Parts of some pieces of legislation deal with devolved matters. There will be
270WH
legal implications if, for example, the Traffic Management Bill that is currently going through Parliament does not apply in Scotland, but a road accident occurs on the Al just on the Scottish side of the border. At what stage does she envisage herself and her office becoming involved to advise of such potential difficulties? Do we have to wait for a court action to be started before we address difficulties flowing directly from legislation made in this place?
The Advocate-General for Scotland: I shall discuss later the fact that I sometimes advise on purely English matters because there may be a cross-reference to Scotland.
I am grateful for the interest shown in my office. Perhaps my role is difficult to understand because mine is different from other offices: the Office of the Advocate-General is an office with legal functions only; it is not a policy office. In answer to the point made by the hon. Lady about my fellow Law Officers, I can say that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General have policy functions in addition to their legal role, whereas my functions—both the advisory work and the new statutory functions that I was given under the Scotland Act—are entirely legal. In addition to my normal work, I attend legal consultations, and like policy Ministers I take part in a variety of Cabinet Committees and other committees and perform some work that normal policy Ministers perform.
Mr. Carmichael: I am intrigued by the Advocate-General's line of argument. She says she has to deal only with legal matters, not policy matters, but simultaneously insists that hers is necessarily a full-time job. Is she saying that her work load as a Minister is of the same order as that of the UK Solicitor-General or of that other very distinguished female Scottish jurist, Elish Angiolini, the Solicitor-General for Scotland?
The Advocate-General for Scotland: The work is different and the work load is different. I am involved in cases in court, which is not necessarily part of my colleagues' daily work load. It is important to recognise that, because my work is essentially legal work, it comes under the long-standing convention regarding the confidentiality of the content or existence of Law Officers' advice. That means, for example, that I am simply not free to answer some of the parliamentary questions put to me. Questions about hepatitis—the subject raised by the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) —fall into that category. The hon. Lady asked whether I have given advice and what I did, but under the convention I am not able to say whether or not I have advised, let alone disclose to her what advice I give.
Annabelle Ewing: I hear what the Advocate-General is saying, and I have heard it many times before, but she can understand why, to a Back-Bench MP, such a response is unsatisfactory? However, on that issue and in that context, can she say whether she is constitutionally required to put the interests of the UK Government ahead of the interests of the Scottish Parliament?
The Advocate-General for Scotland: What I am required to do is give the UK the best independent legal

271WH
advice that I am able to give, and that is what I do. I shall take no more interventions; otherwise, I shall not be able to finish my speech.
I make it clear when I answer parliamentary questions that I do not regard it as sensible or as one of my functions to respond in Parliament to hypothetical questions about complex legal matters that I have not researched in circumstances in which no notice has been given. In my general role, it is important to understand that I advise not only on matters relating to Scots law, but on other matters that might impact on Scotland. For example, a question about the drafting of a Bill extending to England alone which deals with issues of European law or human rights may involve advice from the Advocate-General, because those areas of law apply to Scotland, although the legislation would be different. In practice, any question about the interpretation or application of laws that apply north and south of the border, or about the Scotland Act, may involve me. That requires close liaison with the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General for England and Wales with the assistance of my legal secretariat. Each issue involves detailed research and consideration. Unlike policy Ministers, I spend a lot of time reading general legal literature to try to stay abreast of legal developments across a very wide range of subjects.
In respect of court proceedings, more than 2,000 devolution issues have arisen since 1999, although they take only a part of my time. I have appeared personally in six cases involving devolution issues, including appearances before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Inner House of the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary. That litigation has settled various important questions of law relating to human rights under the European convention. I remind the House that to appear in those courts personally takes a great deal of time and research.
In the case of Anderson, Reid and Docherty, the first Act of the Scottish Parliament—the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999—was challenged. I supported the argument, agreed by the Privy Council, that the right to liberty under the convention was not absolute and that the protection of the public was a legitimate aim that justified the continued detention of mentally ill offenders. In the case of McIntosh, I successfully argued against a challenge to the proceeds of crime regime. On the subject of discussion of cases in which I have been involved, if the case has been completed, I am more than happy to discuss the legal principles—although a little notice would help me to be properly prepared.
I also appear personally in non-devolution issue cases to represent Whitehall Departments—at their request, of course. For example, I acted for the Ministry of Defence before the House of Lords in the case of McDonald, in which I successfully argued that the word "sex" in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 did not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation. That issue has now been properly addressed in recent legislation. It was important to have a well considered legislative solution and not have the matter dealt with by the courts under legislation that was not designed to deal with the point.
In another case—that of Mann—the argument was made in the Employment Appeal Tribunal that it should be possible to stand for election to the Scottish
272WH
Parliament as a job-sharing MSP. At first, Ms Mann was successful in getting the tribunal to accept that it had jurisdiction to hear a case on such an issue, but later I was able to convince the tribunal that it did not. I regarded that as an interesting and important case, and I was pleased to be able to appear in it. There was no further appeal in that case.
More recently, in three immigration cases before the Inner House of the Court of Session, I appeared to argue on behalf of the Home Office about matters relating to the jurisdiction of that court to review decisions of the immigration appeal tribunal, which currently sits only in England. The court has not yet issued a decision in that case.
From time to time I have had to deal with exceptional matters: for example, the first case in which I appeared as Advocate-General was before the Committee for Privileges in another place to defend the constitutionality of the Government's reforms in the Bill that later became the House of Lords Act 1999. The case was complex: in summary, the question was whether that Bill, if enacted, would be in breach of the treaty or Acts of Union. The Committee agreed with my argument that there would be no such breach. In another example, I am currently in charge of an investigation under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 into the sinking of the fishing boat Trident. I have appeared personally in that case, which is ongoing.
In addition to court work, the Office of the Solicitor to the Advocate-General for Scotland provides legal advice to UK Departments, from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Department for Transport. The office ensures that every Bill going through the UK Parliament that applies to Scotland is consistent with Scots law—at least, it attempts to ensure that. These matters are rather complex. The solicitor's office also instructs Scotland-only Bills. The range of work and subject matter is broad and is not restricted to reserved areas of law. UK Departments in Scotland still require advice on all areas of Scots law, as well as on what is reserved and devolved under the Scotland Act. Most of that work is not public, but it is essential.
In some cases, issues may arise on which formal Law Officers' advice is sought. It is important to remember that I do not personally advise on every single legal issue that arises: Departments seek Law Officers' advice, and there are certain circumstances in which they are recommended to do so. Departments remain responsible for their own instructions and decision making, although they are assisted as best we can through my office. Therefore, the policy Departments seek legal advice, use my office and remain in charge of the policy. That explains to some extent why I do not generally appear on Standing Committees: policy Ministers are there to deal with policy issues, although I might occasionally appear before a Committee to give advice in certain circumstances.
Apart from the work that my solicitor's office does on behalf of other Departments, it assists me in the exercise of my functions under section 33 of the Scotland Act. Those are additional to my advisory role as a Law Officer—
11.30 am
Sitting suspended till Two o'clock.

Somaliland
2 pm
Tony Worthington: The Select Committee on International Development has just returned from a visit to Somaliland. Our visit prompted questions in us all about British policy there and, indeed, in the whole of Somalia—questions about the Government's aid policy and about international recognition, which deeply affects the assistance that we give to Somaliland. Our foreign service hang-ups about recognition are getting in the way of us fulfilling our duty to pursue the millennium development goals for the poor people of Somaliland, and we are failing to build adequately on the efforts of the Government of Somaliland to create a modern, democratic state. In effect, we are putting the interests of the warmongers in the south ahead of those of the peace-builders in the north.
This was my third visit to Somaliland, but my first in more than 10 years. I think that no British Member of Parliament had visited the country since I was last there, which shows how isolated Somaliland has been and how let down it must feel given that it was formerly British Somaliland. That said, we were astonished by the warmth of the reception that we received. For more than 80 years, British Somaliland was either a British protectorate or colony, and there has always been the most astonishing loyalty and affection for this country. To take just one example, the Somaliland Scouts regiment played a valiant part in the second world war.
The reception that we received included the honour of addressing both Houses of Parliament. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the Somalis feel badly let down because Britain has failed to respond to their needs. It is a matter not only of their wish to be internationally recognised but of access to long-term development aid from this country, the European Union, United Nations organisations and international finance institutions. That is the central subject of the debate.
Let me give some background. Somaliland entered an ill-starred union with the former Italian Somalia in 1960 in response to the dreams of Somali patriots who wished to unite the lands in which Somalis lived. Over time, the people of the former British Somaliland became so hostile to the way in which the nation was being administered, with the allocation of resources being skewed in favour of the south and the capital, Mogadishu, that they started an insurrection and eventually declared independence.
I first visited Somaliland's capital, Hargeysa, in 1992, at the time of Somalia's great famine, and I have never seen such devastation. We travelled for mile after mile through Somaliland without seeing a building with a roof on it. The devastation was caused by the country's ruler, Siad Barre. In 1988, we had the extraordinary situation in which Barre's aircraft would take off from Hargeysa airport, bomb and strafe the city, load up again at the airport and carry on. They continued until there were 50,000 dead in Hargeysa and hundreds of thousands dead in the rest of Somaliland. Those people are now buried in mass graves, and the rest of the population fled. That was the most extreme attempt at genocide against the dominant Isaq clan, but the world ignored it. In fact, the developed world largely gave up on all Somalia after 18 US rangers were murdered in 1994.
274WH
The withdrawal from Somalia had profound consequences elsewhere in Africa and was one reason for the world's appalling lack of action in Rwanda. Liberia was also left to rot. The creditable exception was Britain's successful intervention in Sierra Leone. The world regarded Somalia as a basket-case, but Somaliland is not a basket-case, and it deserves better. However, since the declaration of independence, which no country in the world has accepted, Somaliland has rebuilt its country and the city of Hargeysa in the most inspiring way. It has created most of the institutions of a modern state. It has acted totally on democratic lines, and the demand for independence was supported in a referendum by more than 90 per cent. of the population. The level of stability is impressive; and the rule of law exists, with a proper police force and a properly constituted national army —as against warlords elsewhere in Somalia. Guns are genuinely not allowed on the streets.
Presidential elections were held relatively recently. The president won by only 280 votes out of a population of 3.5 million, but the election passed off peacefully. I met Ministers there, and I was far more impressed with their plans than those of several other African countries that I have visited—countries that we recognise and support. Somaliland is doing nearly everything right, but it is being ignored.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the achievement has been the contribution of the far-flung diaspora of Somalis to rebuilding Somaliland. The website for the Somaliland front organisation shows a long list of projects that are being funded with the assistance of the diaspora. For example, they support the university of Somaliland trust fund, they organise donations to the Farah Omar secondary school and to the malaria treatment and prevention programme. They also contribute to the campaign for the recognition of Somaliland, to the campaign to lift the ban on Somaliland livestock and to the rebuilding of Burco hospital—it is not named in honour of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who speaks for the Conservative party on these matters—and the Hargeysa psychiatric hospital.
The leading names among those who organise those campaigns live in north America and in the United Kingdom. One of the positive aspects of our visit was that we called a meeting of British Somali residents in Hargeysa. It was the first time that they had met. Out of that meeting, a British Somaliland society was formed. I hope that it will lead to future positive links between Somalilanders in Britain and in Somaliland.
Remittances have made a major contribution to the economy of Somaliland. However, remittances tend to go to individuals and families, rather than to rebuilding the infrastructure of Somaliland. That job is one for the Department for International Development, the European Union, United Nations organisations and international finance institutions; we need them to assist with long-term development aid. It is a job also for the private sector, including British firms such as DNOS, which brought itself to our attention. It contacted us about developing the country's high-value minerals and hydrocarbon deposits, and the rich fishing fields off Somaliland. However, the lack of recognition and the uncertain legal position of Somaliland institutions inhibit such firms.

275WH
Somalilanders are caught in a vicious Catch-22 position. They are being told, "Destroy your nation by joining the destroyers in the south, and we will recognise you. Stay outside, with stability and democracy, and we will ignore you."
There is an understandable paranoia about changing old colonial boundaries in Africa, because of the fear that the habit may spread to other countries. Somaliland is a rare example, however; it wants to return to its old colonial boundaries at the time of independence. The rest of Somalia is hostile. That is the only thing that unites the warlords. However, the people of Somaliland are unequivocal in not wanting to join peace talks and being sucked in to the fratricidal squabble that is southern Somalia.
When I have visited Somaliland in the past dozen years, I have met absolutely no one who believes that an enduring state will emerge from the peace talks. I shall give one illustration. When I first visited the country in 1992, the capital Mogadishu was divided in two—between the fiefdoms of Ali Mahdi and General Aideed. The capital city was divided by a war front. The world was appalled, because Somalia was literally starving, but we had to negotiate with and pay those people to get food to starving children. Those thugs regarded the famine as an opportunity for a nice little earner.
On our recent visit, I was told that Mogadishu is now divided not into two zones but into 10, each under the influence of a warlord. They are not interested in setting up a stable state, but rather in continuing their protection rackets in a way that resembles the Chicago gangs of the 1920s, but without the law and order that the Mafia bring to these matters. [Interruption.] I do not want to be mealy-mouthed about this. There is not the slightest chance of a democratic Somalia emerging from Somaliland and the rest of Somalia. There is little chance of a stable regime emerging in the rest of Somalia alone. The Somalis, with their nomadic way of life and strong clan-based system, have great difficulty in accommodating the requirements of a modern state.
I note that there have recently been some promising signs indicating an agreement emerging from Nairobi from the 48 clans or warlords gathered there for talks. There is said to be agreement on a Parliament, but I have no faith in this—we have been here before. The peace talks have been going on since 2000, first in Djibouti and then in Kenya, and there were other efforts before then. The alleged progress is more likely to be the result of threats from the host powers to withdraw hotel and other facilities from the negotiators.
Even if there were progress, that would not be the end of it. The move to unite British and Italian Somalia was seen by people at the time as but the first stage in uniting all the lands where Somalis dwelt—not just British and Italian Somalia but also French Somalia, which is now known as Djibouti. There are also extensive Somali links in the Ogaden, in Ethiopia and in Kenya. Periodically the Somalis are seen as fomenting trouble in those areas.
Kenya has borne a heavy burden in refugees from Somalia, and we have a very high number of requests for asylum from that area. The few traditional areas of Somali settlement in this country have been very heavily increased—I am thinking, for example, of the
276WH
constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and Sheffield, areas in which Somalis have traditionally settled.
The international tactic of waiting for Somalis to come together is simply not working. There are costs and risks associated with simply waiting, with inordinate patience, for progress. We risk driving Somaliland backwards as, despite the progress being made, it is a very poor country. More than 73 per cent. of the Somaliland population live in poverty, and 43 per cent. in extreme poverty. The GDP per head is $226 a head per year. There are appalling rates of maternal and infant mortality. Adult literacy is 22 per cent.;life expectancy is 47; and the lack of long-term education and health services penalises children particularly. Female genital mutilation is endemic, and there is a distressing subjugation of women. However, the millennium development goals have to be met in Somaliland as well as everywhere else in the world. We are simply not giving it our best shot in Somaliland for diplomatic reasons, and I ask what is being gained by the present stance on non-recognition. Certainly a lot is being lost.
The longer the world ignores the achievement of Somaliland in creating stability and democratic institutions, the greater the risk that wilder elements will take over, and the longer Somaliland is left to fend for itself without resources for schools, for example, the more willing will radical elements be to step in. Although the country has been governed by a moderate form of Islam since it declared independence, there is always the possibility that it will give way to a form of Islam that plays into the hands of those trying to stimulate terrorism, and there is tension in the country as a result. Investors wanting to develop the mineral resources of Somaliland are unwilling to do so when the status of the country and its legal system are so uncertain.
My belief is that we should stop waiting as we have done for about 14 years for the Somalis to come together and love each other. This is not going to happen. We should build on the one source of strength in the area—Somaliland. We should reward good behaviour, rather than neglect the area as we do at the moment. If recognising Somaliland is a step too far, we should at the very least pay substantial attention to the needs of Somalilanders in areas such as education, health, livestock, water and the infrastructure. Somaliland has ministries with plans and aspirations with which we could work. There is no DFID presence in the area at the moment, although British non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam and ActionAid undertake work such as providing safe water.
Recognition may not be the risky step that it seems to be. I believe that if we were to give a lead, many other countries would quickly fall into line. There can be no doubt that we would have to give that lead.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman may be about to cover this point, but does he recall that we were told that the Ethiopian Government said that they would be the second Government to recognise Somaliland as soon as someone else did?
Tony Worthington:: I was there at the time, but my discretion about private conversations led to me leave

277WH
that bit out. However, I confirm that the hon. Gentleman heard what I heard. That belief exists, but it would obviously provoke people in the rest of Somalia who have not achieved a stable state in their area. However, I sense that attitudes to the recognition of Somaliland have become less hostile over the years. The relationship with Djibouti has improved considerably, and the Government of South Africa have been saying supportive things. The new Government in Kenya have been much more positive than their predecessor, and have been very critical over the dispute between Somaliland and Puntland—the neighbouring part of Somalia. Puntland's leader is said to be backed by Ethiopia, but he is probably trying to flex his muscles to gain brownie points with other Somalis.
It is crucial to bring in support to bolster the formidable self-help activities of the Somalilanders. During my visit, I thought that United Nations organisations such as the World Health Organisation and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees responded much more warmly to the needs of Somaliland than did bilateral donors such as the United Kingdom. The WHO has a base in Somaliland and, during our visit, the UNHCR came to Hargeysa just to stress the needs of Somalilanders.
In recent years, more than 600,000 refugees, out of a population of about 3.5 million, have returned to Somaliland. We had the opportunity to see the refugee camp in the grounds of the former state house in Hargeysa. The conditions were appalling. Another reason for increasing our support is that if we are going compulsorily to return Somalis who seek asylum in this country, we should ensure that they return to better conditions than those that we saw. It is irrational to complain about the large number of Somalilanders claiming asylum because of conditions in their country and then denying their country the long-term development aid that would slow down the stream of applicants to the UK.
The antagonism towards Somalia also inhibits its main trade in animals such as camels, sheep and cows to the Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Egypt—activities that form about 65 per cent. of Somaliland's export earnings. We must overcome this paralysis, but I am sure that the antipathy towards Somaliland as an independent nation is lessening as the exasperation with the rest of Somalia grows.
A local newspaper, The Horn Tribune, is one of the thriving free local papers. It recently said that
"we are still treated as pariahs by the world, despite the flourishing, fledgling, thriving and booming peace, tranquillity and development."
I realise that issues such as recognition are matters for the Foreign Office, and that it must take into account issues and countries other than Somaliland. However, the reason that I secured this debate is to say to DFID that we need to move beyond a holding pattern for Somaliland. I believe that my colleagues agree. Failure to move to another stage of development assistance would mean that we, and Somaliland, risk losing what
278WH
has been created. I look forward to the Secretary of State's response and a continued dialogue on this matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. I remind hon. Members that it is customary to begin the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the end of the debate. Currently, I see four hon. Members seeking to catch my eye, not all of whom have written in. I will do my best to accommodate them all, provided that they remember the time constraints when making their contributions, and when accepting or responding to interventions.
2.21 pm
Tony Baldry: We are a disciplined group, Mr. Cook, and I think that we will manage to divide the time equally.
It is a great pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington), because he is a distinguished member of the International Development Committee, having served on it for two Parliaments. He is also the chairman of the all-party group on overseas development. I have checked the records of the House and I can find only one instance of Somaliland having been raised since it gained independence in 1960—in a debate initiated by him in April 1994. Modestly, he did not tell us that he was kidnapped in Somaliland, prior to that debate taking place, so he knows a lot about this topic.
On 9 February 1959, in Hargeysa, during a constitutional conference on the Somaliland protectorate, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies said that
"whatever the eventual destiny of the Protectorate, Her Majesty's Government will continue to take an interest in the welfare of its inhabitants, and will in the light of the circumstances prevailing from time to time, be prepared to give sympathetic consideration to the continuation of financial assistance within the limits of the amount of aid at present being provided to the Protectorate."
That statement was reiterated in a Colonial Office report, which was submitted to Parliament on independence, on 4 May 1960. The Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, told the House:
"I should like to say, however, that it is Her Majesty's Government's hope that whatever may be the constitutional future of the Protectorate, the friendship which has been built up between its people and those of the United Kingdom for so many years will continue and indeed flourish."—[Offcial Report, 11 April 1960; Vol. 621, c. 104W.]
If ever there was a need for the United Kingdom to give friendship and financial assistance to Somaliland, it is now.
Few of us knew much about Somaliland prior to our visit, which was a very humbling experience. In Hargeysa, we met Dennis McNamara, the inspector general of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who was visiting to assess the situation. At a public meeting, he said that practically everyone in Hargeysa was once a refugee or an internally displaced person. The return of the refugees and IDPs and the reconstruction of Hargeysa followed its devastation in 1991. The Somalis in the south had completely destroyed Hargeysa—every house and hospital had

279WH
been bombed and destroyed by MiGs, tanks and other equipment. How on earth one can expect there to be a reunion of those peoples is beyond credibility.
We saw mass graves, in which thousands of Somalilanders had been murdered in cold blood with their hands and feet tied together. Bodies were piled up and crammed into ditches, and bones were scattered all over the area—we could still see them. Among our guides were many people who had lost fathers, brothers, mothers and other loved ones to the genocides.
Dennis McNamara explained that Somaliland is one of Africa's untold success stories. Nearly 250,000 people have been returned there by the UNHCR, and a further 400,000 have returned under their own steam. That is a humanitarian success story. He said that what is needed now is a shift to longer-term development assistance.
There is a gap between the fulfilment of humanitarian needs and the provision of development assistance. Such a gap means that the achievement of millennium development goals in Somaliland remains out of sight. Somaliland and its friends in the international community face two challenges: recognition and—the focus of this debate—longer-term development assistance. Mr. McNamara also made the point that many returnees live in conditions worse than those that they endured in refugee camps. He explained that UNHCR and other UN partners were ready to roll with an inter-agency, multi-sectoral programme of development and assistance, but were waiting for donor support.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that the effort to tackle poverty—one of the millennium development goals—should be blind to boundary disputes. Somaliland is not a conflict area; it is a settled area where the people have enormously improved their lot practically without assistance from the international community.
There is a desperate need for health assistance. We visited the Hargeysa group hospital, which was built in 1953—coronation year. Much good work was being done by non-governmental organisations, such as Kings College hospital and the Tropical Health and Education Trust, but the pharmacist there was running a pharmacy lacking the most basic drugs. We visited a facility run by the Red Crescent to help people with artificial limbs and those who have been injured by land mines, but everything was being done on a wing and a prayer. We were told by Save the Children UK that 80 per cent. of children in Somaliland are not in school. Somaliland is falling behind according to practically every indicator.
I hope that the Secretary of State will give the simple pledge that, having considered the matter in the light of today's discussion, he will think about establishing a small DFID office in Hargeysa to explore how DFID could provide long-term development assistance. There is a much larger devolved DFID office in Addis Ababa, which is good news, but I see no reason why we cannot establish an exploratory team in Hargeysa, managed by the Addis Ababa office. There is no justification for holding Somalilanders to ransom or for treating them, as The Horn Tribune put it, "as pariahs".
The people of Somaliland have worked extremely hard to rebuild their country and community, and they deserve our help and support. Somaliland supported this country during the second world war. It is worth
280WH
recalling that 91,000 Italian troops, together with 200,000 local troops raised by the Italians, confronted 9,000 soldiers, mainly from the Somaliland Scouts and the Somaliland Camel Corps. The BBC documentary, "The Second World War", reported that the Italians
"were held at bay for four days"
and that our troops had
"inflicted over 2,000 casualties at a cost of around 250 men."
The documentary concluded:
"Furthermore, the impression that their defence left on the Italians would greatly influence future actions."
The people of Somaliland stood shoulder to shoulder with us in the past and, as the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said, they have done everything asked of them. They have had free and fair presidential and municipal elections. When we addressed both their Houses of Parliament and said that they would need parliamentary elections, there was no dissent. They said that they had to address some issues to achieve that, but that they want to do so. If ever a community deserved long-term development assistance, it is the people of Somaliland. I hope the Secretary of State takes steps today to achieve that.
2.29 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: I will take your advice, Mr. Cook, and speak briefly to enable colleagues to contribute to this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington). When he spoke to both Houses of Parliament in Hargeysa, I, like others, was surprised to hear of his previous experiences. There was almost a sense of redemption that he had come back to fulfil his wish to see and deliver change.
Today's debate is about delivering change for the people of Somaliland. As Members who were in Hargeysa know, our visit was extraordinary as I met many of my constituents on the roads of Hargeysa, and I am very proud of that. I deal with concerns expressed in my surgery in Roehampton library or Southfields library and see the results in circumstances such as the rebuilding of Somaliland. I am proud to see that many people wish to go back to rebuild the country.
I pay particular tribute, as others have, to the leader of the Kulmiye party, Mr. Silanyo, who lost the presidential election by 280 votes. He met us to describe how he wanted to continue to take part in future presidential and parliamentary elections. He may live in Putney heath, but his heart is in Hargeysa, and I know that he spends a great deal of time there. The chair of the electoral commission was from Southfields and went back to Somaliland to supervise the elections. That is part of the rebuilding process and the attack on poverty in Somaliland.
Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the links between Britain and Somaliland. Is he aware that there is also a long-standing Somali community in Cardiff? Many of the citizens who would like to see an independent and recognised Somaliland live in Cardiff. The antecedents of the community go back to the seamanship of those people in the century before last.
Mr. Colman: I was not aware of that. However, if my hon. Friend would like to suggest that his constituents

281WH
contact me, I will put them in contact with the new British Somaliland Society, which is based in Putney; I say that out of pride.
Other Members have mentioned whether there is a need to take account of events in Nairobi. It is important to put on the record that the hon. Members for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and I met 30 warlords and members of civil society who have been meeting in Nairobi; I think that it was the 17th meeting of the parties to take place. I pay tribute to the staff of the British high commission in Nairobi, who have put an enormous amount of effort into bringing the matter if not to a successful conclusion, certainly to a successful temporary conclusion: there is now agreement on the essence of how to work together. We will see how that agreement goes forward. I also pay tribute to the Kenyan Government, who took part in those discussions. We could obviously have a separate debate on that.
I want to express solidarity with the speakers so far who have made it clear that those discussions are going on in parallel. They should not undermine the need for international development aid to Somaliland. We should ensure that Somaliland is not held back by the discussions. All those who took part in the visit were concerned about that. When it comes to the issue of recognition, in July 2003, the Home Office signed a memorandum of understanding with the Somaliland Government for the return of failed asylum seekers from this country. Denmark is the only other country to have done so. It is one of those strange fictions that we can have a memorandum of understanding to return failed asylum seekers to a country that we do not recognise. The reality is that a Government and a country are there, but that there is not sufficient support in-country for the asylum seekers who have returned. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie about the appalling conditions in which asylum seekers were living in the grounds of the old state house.
There is a long shopping list of international development aid items that DFID could help with. Our last meeting was at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with the redoubtable Foreign Minister Edna Adan Ismail, who I hope will soon be able to come to Westminster to address the House. There is an excellent planned strategy for economic recovery and poverty reduction, which I am happy to pass on to the Secretary of State.
We are not groping in the dark: the Somalilanders have a clear vision of where they wish to go forward in terms of poverty reduction. I am glad to say that that vision is shared by the Norwegian Red Cross, which is working with the Somaliland Red Crescent Society and the limbs prosthesis centre, which we visited. We met aid workers from the Netherlands, who were supported by the Dutch Government. Although this point has already been made, it was good to see the work of the Africa Educational Trust and to meet Dr. Michael Brophy, and the excellent work being done by the surgeons, doctors and nurses of King's college who were working to rebuild the hospitals in Hargeysa.
282WH
Returning to the need for development aid and to achieve the millennium development goals, we are told that 73 per cent. or more of Somalilanders live in poverty, and that some 43 per cent. live in extreme poverty. GDP per head is $226 a year. If that figure is divided by 365 days, one can clearly see that people are living on below $1 a day. There is 45 per cent. unemployment, only 17 per cent. primary school enrolment, and the enrolment of girls is way below that. Life expectancy is only 47 years.
I felt that our visit was an example of how we, as parliamentarians, could make a difference. This debate is to hold our Government to ransom for money and development aid for Somaliland, and to ensure that they join us in delivering that to the people of Somaliland.
2.35 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: How nice it is to have cross-party consensus; we should all agree on that. I am particularly delighted to welcome the Secretary of State to the debate as it is not normal to have a Secretary of State in Westminster Hall. Although I know that he has been here before, it shows how seriously he takes both the subject and the debate. It is a matter of huge consequence to the millions of people living in Somalia and Somaliland. I know that he is going to Addis Ababa soon, but perhaps he will take the opportunity to tell his diary secretary and his other officials—he could take Foreign and Commonwealth Office advice—to go elsewhere. He might take a short trip to Somaliland; he would find it illustrative, as we did.
I do not want to cover the old ground that has been covered extremely well by the three hon. Members who have already spoken. However, it was touching, to say the least, to be greeted on our visit by posters saying, "The Queen: our mother". As an old-style Conservative, whose family served the empire—I would certainly have served the empire if I had had the opportunity—it reminded me of the great white mother of the seas. It was touching and showed the feeling that people in Somaliland have for the United Kingdom.
If I can paint the picture a little more, there is no alcohol in Somaliland. We almost survived for the 24 hours that we were there, but that is how they want it and there is very little disturbance: it is safe on the streets. The police are not armed, and that is extraordinary in that part of the world. If anyone can tell me where to go in that part of the world where the police are not armed, I should be astonished. It is my wont to go up to people and say, "What's the truth? What's going on here?" rather than just listening to Government spokesmen, and I wrote down a particular quote at the time. I was told, "We are absolutely free." That is quite something in that part of the world.
I hope that I have painted a picture of freedom in a grindingly poor country, where 43 per cent.—nearly half the population—live in extreme poverty. As we have the Secretary of State here —I reiterate that I am thrilled to see him—I should like to cover some issues that have not been covered by my hon. Members that pertain to him. The first is the ghastly issue of female genital mutilation. There is a prevalence of that in Somaliland of perhaps 85 or 95 per cent. It is illegal in this country, because of two private Member's Bills. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made it

283WH
illegal last year with her private Member's Bill on the sending of children out of the country, and that is marvellous. The Secretary of State will understand that female genital mutilation is a means of keeping women in subjugation. It also constitutes grievous bodily harm against defenceless children.
I will send the Secretary of State a paper, which contains perhaps the most moving comment on this. It is written by Mrs. Edna Adan Ismail, the Foreign Secretary of Somaliland. She is the former wife of the first Prime Minister of Somalia who subsequently became the first president of Somaliland. I hope that the Secretary of State will read it because a prominent politician—the Foreign Secretary of this small, fledgling republic—is trying to lead a campaign. With DFID's help, she might be able to do some good for the people of Somaliland, for young girls and for future generations. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is the way that international development should work. It should do good and be seen to do good. I could raise with him the issue of direct budgetary support in Ethiopia, but I will not do so at the moment because it is outside the scope of the debate.
I turn now to mine clearance. The Secretary of State will know that I am the chairman of the trustees of the HALO trust. I visited the trust in Somaliland where it is the biggest private employer, employing some 300-odd Somali workers at $150 a month, which is much more than most people in the country earn. As well as clearing mines along the border with Ethiopia, it is also clearing an enormous Soviet ammunition depot about half an hour's drive from Hargeysa, which I visited. It is clearing it, at the Government's request, because children, who are so poor that they go there to get the scrap metal from the ammunition, keep getting blown up. Again, I repeat the invitation to the Secretary of State to visit that site, because it is very interesting.
Another important point has wider ramifications. We have already referred to Islamist extremists. In the rest of Somalia, people will dig up mines and sell them, typically to the Yemen or Saudi Arabia where they are then passed on, perhaps to al-Qaeda. Atrocities are then committed with these mines. That does not happen in Somaliland because the Government have stopped it. If someone is storing mines in their house, they will be arrested. That is an important point for the whole world, let alone this debate.
The next issue that I would like to raise is small arms and light weapons destruction, and I know that the Secretary of State is aware of that. It is a joint responsibility between the Ministry of Defence, the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I had a meeting with a DFID consultant yesterday, and I understand that £19.5 million of Government money has been put aside for the three years up to the end of this March for the small arms and light weapons destruction programme. I was told yesterday that part of that money is being spent in Somalia. I find that hard to credit. It seems to me that it is a lawless society where, I suspect, it is difficult to spend money sensibly, particularly in clearing weapons. Perhaps the Secretary of State might like to look at that matter later and find out where the money is being spent, what it is being spent on and whether any small arms or light weapons are being destroyed.
284WH
The Secretary of State knows that a few years back the Select Committee produced a report on conflict. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) rightly pointed out, there was no conflict in the Government of Somaliland itself. However, there is a conflict in Sool down in the south-east where the warlord of Puntland, which is the northern bit of Somalia, has moved into the province and taken the town of—I hope that I pronounce this properly—Las Anod.
Tony Baldry: Say it again.
Mr. Robathan: Las Anod.
The conflict is a huge dilemma for the fledgling republic. If it goes to war with Puntland, everybody will say that it is another typically lawless society fighting among itself. Here again, we can offer help, perhaps through the United Nations, to support the Government there to find a way out of the conflict whatever that way may be. I do not know enough about the dispute, but I know that it is about clans, clan territories and so on. The conflict could destroy the republic of Somaliland, and I am sure that we would not wish that to happen.
That brings me to my last point, which is about what the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) referred to as the genocide of 1998. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury talked about the bits of cloth with bones sticking out of them in the mass graves outside Hargeysa. Responsibility for those war crimes—there is no other way to describe them—is a matter for the courts. However, it is generally accepted that General Morgan, who was in Siad Barre's Government at the time, was responsible for the shooting of a large part of the male population. People were tied up, sometimes with barbed wire, shot and buried in rather ineffective mass graves—as the water comes down it washes away the sand, leaving bodies literally sticking up, which is pretty disgusting. The crimes should be investigated, even though they happened in a country a long way away of which we know little.
Where is General Morgan, the person who is alleged to be responsible? We met him last Monday. He is the guest of the British taxpayer, which I, as a representative of taxpayers, resent. We are paying for him to stay in the Safari Park hotel outside Nairobi, as part of the conference on the future of Somalia, about which we have heard already. My view is that General Morgan should be in jail, but he should nevertheless be tried for whatever crimes he has committed. I understand that there is even a warrant for his arrest for the murder of a British subject, who was one of the victims. I am investigating that claim. Is it true? The Secretary of State is a pursuer of justice, so I am sure that he would like to speak to the Home Secretary about that.
Having seen the meeting in Nairobi. I think that little good will come out of the conference on the future of Somali, but I suppose that it is worth the effort. Surely none of us wishes to see a culture of impunity in which war criminals and mass murderers are allowed not only to escape, but to become guests of the British Government and the British taxpayer.
Mr. John Bercow: I am intrigued by what my hon. Friend is saying. Did he tell General

285WH
Morgan at his meeting last week much the same as he is rightly relaying to us today? If so, what was the response?
Mr. Robathan:My hon. Friend raises a good point. As it happens, I did not think that a room filled with 20-odd Somali warlords was the place to raise war crimes. However, if I had had General Morgan on his own, I would have been happy to raise such issues.
Colonel Yusuf is the self-styled leader of Puntland who lost an election, but decided that he would stay on. His family is in the UK and I understand that he may be wanted for crimes as well. Again, perhaps the Secretary of State could have his officials look at that case.
In the name of justice, General Morgan, Colonel Yusuf and others must provide answers about the crimes that they might have committed. Every hon. Member in the Chamber would agree that justice should override the culture of impunity that happens to prevail. There is obviously a culture of impunity in Nairobi, and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) can bear that out, because he took a photograph of me with the alleged war criminal in question.
I shall pursue this subject because it is important. A peace process for Somalia as a whole cannot be built with war criminals. I hope that the Secretary of State will also pursue the matter. I wish him well on his coming visit to Addis Ababa. I hope that he goes further and will, either now or later, answer some of the points that I have raised.
2.49 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) on securing this important debate. I agree very much with what he said. I should also like to echo my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and say how much we appreciate the fact that the Secretary of State is spending time listening to the debate personally. I trust that he will not be disappointed by what he hears, because the Chamber infrequently experiences an apparent cross-party consensus among MPs who have no party political, personal—that may not apply in—Putney—or, in many cases, constituency interest in pursuing a subject. I think we are all here because we feel the need to testify to what we saw a couple of weeks ago.
The visit to Somaliland was a complete revelation for me. I expected to see a country that was unstable, insecure and chaotic, where the atmosphere was volatile—perhaps rather menacing—and where there was considerable destitution and a general sense of breakdown. However, although all those epithets apply, I think, to neighbouring Somalia, none of them applies to the Somaliland that we saw. There is poverty and life is austere, although we saw no signs of malnutrition. As several hon. Members said, however, we saw some pretty grim refugee camps. That is inevitable because of the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who have come back from Ethiopia and Djibouti to nothing—to find their homes destroyed and their cattle killed long ago. All they get is one month's handout from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
286WH
There is an enormous burden on the Somalilanders who are there and who have been able to rebuild their city. The rebuilding has been extraordinary. Again, only 12 years or so after the destruction of Hargeysa, I expected that there would be considerable signs of that destruction and that the rebuilding would be very incomplete, but that is not the case. Of course, there are signs of the fighting, including in the former state house or governor's house, but that has deliberately been left in that condition. In any case, no one is likely to want to live in such pomp and circumstance in the present conditions. The town shows no sign of having been razed to the ground only a short time ago.
It is remarkable that such a poor country has been able to put itself together again. The atmosphere, far from being menacing in any way, was relaxed and friendly. It is clear that the Administration are thoroughly in control of events and operating extremely effectively. We gathered that the total budget, at the market rate of exchange, for the police service, army and everything else for a country of about 3.5 million people is $14 million a year. Perhaps it is a good thing that the state apparatus in Somaliland is so light that it cannot develop the conditions of bureaucracy, corruption and so on that in many poor countries often make the Government more of a problem than part of the solution.
We met quite a lot of officials and representatives of the Government, and we were impressed by their competence and motivation. We also saw a vigorous parliamentary life, which, again, it was encouraging to see in a country that is emerging from such a grim period over the past 20 or 30 years.
I think that there is complete agreement in our minds about what needs to be done: we in this country should support people who show such courage and determination in rebuilding their country and such commitment to the principles of democracy. One impressive group that we saw involved a number of Somali ex-patriots from this country who had returned, including a number with professional qualifications. We met doctors and accountants—people whose standard of living would be vastly higher in this country, but who, for patriotic reasons, had returned and want to contribute to the emergence of a successful new Somaliland. In some cases, they have set up businesses and made personal investments there. That is all splendid.
I completely endorse the point that has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber—there is no division between us on these matters—that DFID should establish an office there. It is right that the Somalilanders should get whatever help they can from bilateral and multilateral aid agencies. They thoroughly deserve that and will make good use of it—of that, I have little doubt. However, the issue of recognition cannot be avoided.
Although I recognise the fact that the Secretary of State for International Development does not have this responsibility, I hope that he will have a word with the Foreign Secretary. Although the Government should spend taxpayers' money on contributing to the development of Somaliland, it would be perverse and crazy to do so while by political action or deliberate political inaction—a refusal to recognise—they are cutting Somaliland off from a considerable amount of

287WH
private sector money that otherwise would flow there. For oil companies that want to prospect, those amounts of money are obviously a considerable multiple of what could reasonably be found in a DFID budget.
It is crazy that we do not recognise Somaliland when it has the basis for attracting substantial investment flows and has people who are already trained—many in this country—and others who are extremely eager to learn the requisite skills to support that investment. The situation is impossible. Like me, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) has some experience of international business and he knows that if one went to a board with a proposal to invest in a country that no one recognises, one would be laughed out of court. One simply cannot make such an investment. Recognition is key, and not just a political issue or a sideline. It is fundamental if there is to be any progress in the economic development of Somaliland or any rationality in setting up a DFID office, which we hope will happen.
Somaliland is a fascinating example of how it is worth our taking the time and trouble—and using taxpayers' money—to visit other countries, because none of us could have imagined the situation on the basis of some desk research, however thoroughly it may have been conducted. I hope that it will be registered that several hon. Members, from different party political perspectives, have been able to reach the same conclusions. My hope is that the Secretary of State, having shown the courtesy to Parliament of attending the debate, will not feel that he has given his time in vain.
2.57 pm
John Barrett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) and all other speakers, who have made positive contributions in showing that Somaliland has something that can be built on. There are opportunities and there is definitely hope for the future.
It is right that the debate has concentrated on development aid because although recognition is a key to Somaliland's future, we must not let the political process get in the way of the real and urgent needs of the people who live there today. As has already been mentioned, some images will stick in the mind for ever: mass graves, the bombed maternity hospital and even the paper that was given to us by the Foreign Secretary on female genital mutilation. The images generated by that paper will stick in the mind for a long time. I recommend that the Secretary of State should read that paper, because we must take action to protect children from what is nothing other than assault.
Somaliland is a country with needs that must be addressed urgently. The situation is more complicated because of its recent history. As we have beard, it has problems with health, education, food insecurity, water supply, HIV/AIDS and infrastructure. Much of that relates to the possible recognition of Somaliland. We have heard about its recent history, that it was a British protectorate for 80 years and that, five days after independence, it joined with Italian Somaliland. We must now look to its future. Whether the UK decides to recognise Somaliland at some time in the future, we should realise that action must be taken now to help those in great need.
288WH
The suffering continues in a land that is relatively peaceful and stable compared with the chaos in the south, where the fear remains that aid delivered to an area under the control of warring factions will result only in that aid being diverted to the same factions, which will use it to strengthen their grip in their own areas of control. It was with some amusement, after the 14th meeting in Nairobi, that some positive results emerged from the warlords meeting. I must put that down to the hon. Members for Banbury (Tony Baldry), for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and for Putney (Mr. Colman) who attended.
Problems may arise from recognition of Somaliland, such as the UK being accused of reverting to colonial days, and the hope must be that an African nation leads the way so that others might follow. The Somalilanders hold the UK in high regard. I found something unusual in the amount of Union jacks and photographs of the young Queen Elizabeth being displayed in a country that describes itself as an African republic. All they are asking for is the right to self-determination within boundaries that are long established. If the majority of the people of Scotland or Northern Ireland wished for that same right, would it be denied? If the recognition problem is holding up aid, the Secretary of State should try to separate the delivery of aid and recognition, so that the aid can carry on.
Delivery of aid to an area of conflict is a real problem. There are dangers to aid agencies and to everyone involved. The situation in Somaliland is one of relative stability and ease of access; there are flight connections, a port capable of receiving aid and road links to the regions most in need. Somaliland is also in desperate need, having suffered from terrible droughts, the worst in decades, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of animals; 200,000 people were left vulnerable. There is much that could be done with the basic provision of boreholes and water harvesting, to make the most of a scarce resource when the rains do come. Dried out riverbeds and no provision for storing water where so many people do not have access to a basic drinking water supply must not be tolerated in this day and age. I hope the Secretary of State will think about what can be done to provide clean drinking water supplies, particularly to those in urban areas.
An assessment must also be made of the lack of food security and to consider the earliest suggestions about whether DFID could open up a base in Hargeysa to establish what is possible and what the UK Government could be doing on the ground. This could be linked to the DFID office in Addis, but kept separate from the political discussions, which could be dealt with elsewhere. That might avoid the process stopping aid, and I hope the Secretary of State will consider that option.
With so little support from the outside world, what has already been achieved in Somaliland is impressive. The rebuilding of Hargeysa has started and, although there is much to do and the Government have a relatively tiny budget—$15 million to $20 million to spend—there is little scope for lavish spending or waste. Most of this money seems to go on civil service salaries, so it is possible that some expenditure in priority areas is being held back.

289WH
This sum is dwarfed by remittances from the diaspora. The total is between an estimated $300 million and $500 million a year. This proves there are many outside the country who want to send money to their homeland, but it also shows that probably many more people could be organised to increase this figure. A 10 per cent. increase in the Government's budget would be less than a 1 per cent. increase in remittances. One problem with remittances is the easy flow of money back to many developing countries. Will the Secretary of State say what can be done, at a low cost to the sender—that can make a massive difference to the recipients—to ease the flow of remittances?
Not only money from abroad but also those with skills are currently required back in Somaliland, which is encouraging them to return. If we encourage people to go back to Somaliland—they benefit by getting back to their homeland—we have to accept responsibility for the fact that what they go back to is in no way comparable with life over here. We must take a direct interest in the standard of life over there. Her Majesty's Government are trying to reduce the numbers fleeing from terror. It is a stable country. I could understand people from Mogadishu saying that they were in real danger, and I have a fairly small number of Somalis in my constituency. If someone came from the south of the country I would understand the danger they were in, but I would have to say that Somaliland looked like a very peaceful and stable nation.
Somaliland also has oil and mineral resources, which could help in the drive towards prosperity. But until contracts can be signed, these resources cannot be exploited. It may not be within the Secretary of State's power to move this issue along, but it is a tragedy that wealth could be just below ground level while there is so much poverty just above it.
Real progress could be made with assistance to clear up confusion around the truth with Rift Valley fever. For many years, the export of sheep, goats and camels to Saudi Arabia was the region's main export, but that has now stopped because of Rift Valley fever. Some people maintain that the disease does not exist, while others maintain that it will return during the wet season. Whatever the problem, will the Secretary of State use DFID's expertise to end the confusion and restore what was the country's main income source for many years?
Health care has been mentioned, and was available to some. The ever-present scourge of AIDS cuts through every aspect of life in Africa, and Somaliland is no exception. Money is available for the war against AIDS, but political problems should not be allowed to get in the way of making resources available, particularly to deal with mother-to-child transmission. Land mine clearance, which was mentioned earlier, has been a success, and I, too, pay tribute to the HALO trust.
Children are particularly at risk in Somaliland. UNICEF is doing good work, but there are an estimated 10,000 street children and 20,000 underage workers in that relatively small country. We must not let that situation continue, and access must be given to agencies that have the capacity to improve the lot of those children and orphans.
290WH
We should not forget the other group that was mentioned earlier and which is at the opposite end of the range: the dwindling band of old soldiers who fought with us during the last world war. In a country where the average life expectancy is below 50, it is no surprise that there are few old soldiers left. While visiting a centre that produced artificial limbs, we met a few of those gentlemen. They asked about their pensions and hoped that the British Government would consider their plight given that they had fought on our side, just like those who were buried in the war cemetery in Hargeysa. They added, however, that they would happily give up the thought of a pension if their country could be recognised. It was a real contrast to see old soldiers next to limbs that were being made for children.
The country has many scars from war, but it is rebuilding itself. It suffers from drought, but when the rains do come, mass graves are exposed. An estimated 9,000 people are buried in 160 mass graves. None the less, democracy is stable and peaceful in the part of Somalia that is Somaliland, and I hope that the Secretary of State will do all he can to ensure that aid gets through.
3.7 pm
Mr. John Bercow: I join colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) on securing the debate and on his contribution to it. He has vast experience of the area and spoke with knowledge, sincerity and passion. He was followed by the distinguished Chairman of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who spoke in a similar vein, and then by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), my hon. Friends the Members for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett).
In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie set out the historical background, which is the cause of many of the problems that are endemic in the area today and which the international community must address. Specifically, he pithily characterised the unhappy merging of Somaliland into the united republic of Somalia, and Somaliland's subsequent, understandable wish to secede or—I use my language carefully—withdraw from it. All sorts of problems have been spawned by the historical background.
Mention has been made of the large and enduring refugee phenomenon, which was created by the civil war. As Somaliland became relatively safe, there is no doubt that those refugees thought it reasonable and timely to return to their homes. However, the emergency and humanitarian aid that is trickling into Somaliland is meagre compared with what the rest of Somalia and other countries in the horn of Africa receive. With zero or negligible help from the international community, Somaliland inevitably continues to absorb, although with the greatest difficulty and strain, tens of thousands of refugees from Ethiopia's refugee camps.
The country's social problems have been compounded by the return of those hundreds of thousands of refugees through the UNHCR's assisted

291WH
repatriation programme during the past six or so years. That has placed stress on the still relatively fragile and war-torn infrastructure, and the lack of development assistance has inevitably limited and constrained the already weak capacity of the Government, who are seeking proper and effective reintegration of refugees into society.
There is, of course, the second, dramatic problem of a severe drought—the worst experienced by Somaliland in some three decades—leaving 200,000 people vulnerable to starvation. That matter is specifically within the purview of the Secretary of State, whom I warmly welcome to the debate. I know that he will want to say something about it, and I shall return to it briefly.
Where do we stand on the critical issue of recognition? As Somaliland lingers in a sort of diplomatic no-man's land, there is a practical consequence for the nation, as well as a stain on the independence and integrity of the country. The practical consequence is that Somaliland cannot enter into formal trade agreements with other nations and has understandable difficulty in seeking, and certainly securing, any sort of assistance from world financial institutions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) mentioned.
The late President Egal remarked that the most disabling thing was the lack of communication with the international community. "We have no ambassadors," he said, "we have only international agencies." Attracting foreign investment is difficult, as there are no proper banks and although Somaliland is believed to have large oil deposits in the coastal region, there is a lack of interest due to insufficient insurance for equipment and personnel. President Egal endorsed a liberal economic regime, resulting in a potentially thriving private sector. However, it is handicapped—I return to the problem yet again—by a lack of recognition. We are in danger of going round in circles in our attempt to resolve, or at least minimise, the burdens of that proud but beleaguered country. Unless it receives recognition, so much else that could flow by way of economic potential and political reconstruction will not be possible.
There is relative stability, and there is also significant economic progress, but that is not as great as it could be. The debate has already focused on the economic statistics. The World Bank survey illustrates the immense poverty that exists. It is important to be accurate; one wants to celebrate the country's successes under duress, but also to recognise that those successes are modest and that they are not indefinitely sustainable. If more than 73 per cent. of the population lives in general poverty and 43 per cent. in extreme poverty, we cannot turn a blind eye. If GDP is only $223 per head, we cannot turn a blind eye; if 45 per cent. of the population is unemployed, we, in our comparative extreme wealth and political good fortune, cannot turn a blind eye. If primary school enrolment stands at only 17 per cent.—that is, non-enrolment is over 83 per cent.—and maternal mortality stands at 1,600 per 100,000 births and infant mortality at 224, almost one quarter, per 1,000 live births, we, in our comfort, cannot stand by, self-satisfied. If adult literacy stands at only 22 per cent. and life expectancy is only 47 years, we cannot stand by.
292WH
In reality, for all the country's stability, the lack of recognition by the international community is a serious impediment to the proper entitlement of what should be a sovereign state to grow and to flourish.
Like other Members, I want to hear what the Secretary of State has to say, so I shall try to exercise a self-denying ordinance and conclude with a series of polite but probing questions. How much humanitarian aid is being given to Somaliland to cater for the problems resulting from the drought? What form does it take, and what mechanism of assessment of its efficacy is in place? Of the total aid given to Somalia, what proportion comes from the UK and what proportion goes directly to the Somaliland Government? As several hon. Members have rightly inquired, can a base be established? What have the Government done or what do they propose to do to promote UK business investment in Somaliland, particularly considering the potential for exploration of the oil field capacity?
What assistance have the Government given to Somaliland to cope with the influx of refugees, and how do they intend to monitor and improve on it? What moves has the Secretary of State made to establish a British diplomatic presence in Somaliland? What efforts have the Government made to encourage a successful outcome from the peace talks? Alternatively, if the Secretary of State shares the pessimism of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, is he inclined to reconsider recognition and have a huddled serious conversation with the Foreign Secretary? What is his attitude to recognition, and will he elaborate on it?
This is an important debate that has been characterised by serious contributions. I have tried to pose some pertinent questions, and I look forward to the Secretary of State's answers, preferably today but, if not, as soon as possible in writing.
3.17 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) on securing this debate and, from what I have learned, the history of his involvement. I was aware of the kidnapping episode, but I was not aware that all the debates in the past 40 years on Somaliland have been generated by him. He has undoubtedly flown the flag and put the rest of us to shame.
What has come across powerfully in the contributions, which have been outstanding, is that members of the International Development Committee and other hon. Members have used their experience in this debate. As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said, the Committee members have used what they saw and heard to bear witness to the situation in the Somaliland as they found it during their visit. We are all grateful for that, not least me, and later in my remarks I shall tell the Chamber about the steps that I propose to take as a result of this debate. The debate has been all the more powerful for the fact that we have heard current witness—Committee members visited only very recently—and it is an excellent example of hon. Members doing their job. That is precisely what we are in this House to do.
We have heard about the history, and I do not need to go back over how Somaliland is a former British protectorate that sees itself as an independent country.

293WH
We have heard powerful evidence about the extent of poverty in Somaliland. However, because of the progress that it is making, in contrast with other parts of Somalia, it has placed fewer demands on the international community for emergency humanitarian assistance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie outlined, one reason for that is the extent of the support that a sizable diaspora provide to Somalilanders. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) talked about the range of estimates of the size of remittances. The figure that I have is in the middle of that range; about $425 million a year. That is a significant commitment of resources and demonstrates the great interest shown in Somaliland by those for whom Somaliland has been their home or to which they are returning.
I concur completely with what we have heard today about governance and the progress that Somaliland has made. Indeed, it provides some important lessons, and in some respects acts as a beacon to other parts of Africa because of the relative stability that it has enjoyed for 10 years. It has held democratic elections—municipal and presidential—and aims to hold parliamentary elections in, we all hope, the not too distant future. It has a traditional bicameral Parliament, and it was interesting to hear hon. Members talk about speaking in it, because hon. Members of this House do not often have the chance to address other Parliaments, especially both Houses. It has a police force, a defence force, its own currency and a relatively free and lively press. Undoubtedly, in contrast to the rest of Somalia, it has achieved an enormous amount for its people.
As hon. Members will know, reconciliation has been fraught with difficulty. Puntland has made some progress since 1998, and we are encouraging its efforts to achieve greater stability, but people in the rest of southern Somalia have suffered enormously. We have not talked a great deal about those people, and I want to talk briefly about their situation. We have heard powerful testimony about the impact of the slaughter in Hargeysa, and the picture that I will take away with me from the Chamber is the description of the bodies literally returning from history as they rise from the sands.
No one can be sure of the exact figure, but an estimated 500,000 people—about 7 or 8 per cent. of the population—lost their lives in this conflict. My maths is not very good, but if we think about the impact on a country of our size, that is the equivalent of about 4 million people in the UK losing their lives in a conflict. We have to pause only for a second to take in that figure to realise the scale of the loss.
It is encouraging—I use that word deliberately—to hear the news that emerged from the discussions, negotiations and breakthrough on 29 January. I entirely understand the caution expressed particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, but the people in the rest of Somalia have just as much need of peace and stability, and just as much of a right to a better life, as the people of Somaliland. There should be no conflict between the two, and no competition. Bitter experience teaches us the need to be cautious, but it is right and proper that we should be doing all that we can to support that peace process. The
294WH
benefits that will flow to the people in the rest of Somalia will be considerable if peace can be achieved, which is why we have been offering support.
Mr. Robathan:I am not the only one who is ignorant about the breakthrough on 29 January. Will the Secretary of State briefly talk about it?
Hilary Benn:I will gladly do so. In those talks, the faction leaders agreed to proceed to the selection of a transitional federal Parliament with 275 Members who would elect a President to head a new five-year transitional federal Government. That process is likely to take between four to six weeks, after which the parties would be ready to return to Somalia. If the agreement is reached, and if it sticks—I understand the caution—it is the international community's responsibility to support that process. Somaliland has not, of course, been part of the process, but if the process is to be successful, there will need to be some form of reconciliation for peace to be established throughout Somalia. I entirely understand the strength of feeling in Somaliland because of the history of the region. This difficult issue needs to be confronted.
It has been very encouraging to see the very strong lead taken by Somalia's African neighbours in supporting the peace talks. As Members will know, these talks were sponsored by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development with the active support of the Kenyan Government. IGAD is now considering how best to build on the success of the talks, including trying to secure agreement to a comprehensive ceasefire. We played a modest part in those talks, and—linking to the point raised by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) concerning the financial assistance we have given to those negotiations, alongside contributions from Sweden and the European Union—dedicated a member of staff from our high commission in Nairobi to help mediate between the factions. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the role that he and others have played.
On recognition, when my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) was talking about the extensive links between his own constituency and Somaliland, I thought for one moment he was going to suggest that UK Government recognition should be extended to parts of his constituency in view of the very large diaspora.
I understand entirely why hon. Members have so forcefully raised the question of recognition for Somaliland, because it is a subject about which the people of that country feel extremely strongly. We encourage Somaliland's progress towards democracy, and we should do all we can to reinforce their efforts. As Members have kindly indicated, this is not directly a matter for me. But we should be careful about doing anything that undermined the prospects for success in those talks and the reconciliation elsewhere in Somalia. I advance the argument for the simple reason that the people of the rest of Somalia deserve the same right to be able to live in stability and security. We also have to acknowledge that the question of recognition is the subject of some controversy, not least among neighbouring African countries. Having said that, it is my view that the issue of recognition—a point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West—should not get in the way of development and assistance.

295WH
Our priority now should be to increase the support that we provide. In the current financial year we anticipate that our total support for Somalia as a whole will amount to some £3.5 million. That figure includes help for health through Médecins sans Frontières, education projects through the UN, support on governance, peace building and the issue about which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) particularly asked, humanitarian relief. This last includes the drought relief to which we have contributed £1 million through UNICEF by way of humanitarian assistance.
In addition we contribute 19 per cent. of the funding for the EU programme; that is $9 million out of the $50 million in total. It is rather difficult to disaggregate from within this total amount the specific spending in Somaliland because most projects cover the whole of Somalia. The best estimate that I am advised of is that about 40 per cent. of all international aid, which is about $170 million a year, is spent in Somaliland. I hope that is helpful, and I will happily undertake to write to the hon. Member for Buckingham with further information about how that figure breaks down. I shall add to his list of needs, which he read out so powerfully. In Somalia, there is less than half a doctor and two nurses per hundred thousand population. We have also provided support to the electoral process in Somaliland, specifically providing £160,000 to help secure these elections.
On the subject of female genital mutilation, I agree entirely. We should do all we can; indeed the Government supported the Bill that was referred to. I will find out the answer to the question on small arms.
Finally, I want to respond to the plea from the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). We are in the process of drafting our country engagement plan. We do not normally consult on such plans, but I make this commitment to the Members who have spoken today: I propose to do differently in this case, and to consult the Select Committee formally or informally in whatever way they decide. When we have had a chance to reflect on this debate, they will have a chance to see what we propose to do in response to their plea to me today. I look forward to hearing their views on that offer, and I hope that it is acceptable to the House.

School Meals and Children's Diets
3.30 pm
Helen Jones: Over the past few months, there has been a great deal of public discussion about children's diets. We hear a lot about the large amounts of fat and sugar that they consume in fizzy drinks and snacks; quite rightly about the effect of advertising upon children; and about the likely health problems that will occur in the future.
However, we do not hear enough about the one area that the Government can directly influence, which is the provision of school meals. The decisions that the Government take now, and the regulations that they decide to adopt, have potential to improve the diets of our young people—particularly the poorest among them—and to set a pattern of healthy eating that we hope would continue. The money that is spent now on school meals could save us a great deal of human suffering, and cost to the health service, in future years.
Yet, as a country, we have failed to give this issue enough attention. We know what the facts are. The recent Food Standards Agency report on children's diets showed that mean energy intakes were lower than the average requirement in almost every age group from four to 18. It noted that diets were high in fat, salt and sugar but very low in fruit and vegetables. Sadly, none of that is new. The then Education and Employment Select Committee's report on school meals in 1999 quoted the Acheson report on the need to improve children's diets. It also quoted evidence from the National Heart Forum that showed that the propensity to develop diseases was set in early life, thus making intervention in children's diets essential. In addition, it cited evidence to show that cognitive functions, which are impaired by poor diet, can be put right by simple interventions, such as providing breakfast.
That is a truism; the importance of the issue has been known about since the 19th century, when charitable people started to provide school meals for children. We knew so much about it that in this country we enshrined it in statute in the Education Act 1944, which made local authorities provide a meal that was suitable in all respects as the main meal of the day.
We are now dealing with what happened as a result of the Education Act 1980, which was introduced by the then Conservative Government. That broke the consensus on the importance of school meals and ended almost all central control on the issue. The result of that was disastrous: staff were de-skilled and heated up pre-prepared foods; school kitchens closed down; and, in some cases, only sandwiches were available for children who were entitled to free school meals. There were fewer and fewer of those children as the social security regulations were tightened up. It was a prime example of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, for which many young people still pay the price.
The result of that was that when this Government first came into office in 1997, they faced an appalling situation with regard to school meals at a time when the whole education system required massive amounts of public spending. I commend what the Government have done since then. There are schools—Beamont junior school in my constituency is a very good example—that

297WH
received great new dining facilities. The national school fruit scheme, which provides fruit for young children in school, is very popular in my constituency. The healthy schools initiative encourages schools to examine healthy living and healthy eating in the round. Those are commendable first steps, but they are only first steps. There is still a lot of work to do.
Mr. Kerry Pollard: Does my hon. Friend accept that other agencies have an equal responsibility in this; for example, television advertising, which force-feeds young children the desire to have some of this rubbishy food, and supermarkets and food manufacturers, who stuff food with the three S's, salt, sugar and saturated fat? The issue is much wider than just school meals, although I accept my hon. Friend's point that that is a starting point.
Helen Jones:My hon. Friend is entirely right. Because of those problems, we need to focus on what we can influence and control: school meals.
There is no use lecturing our young people about healthy eating if we do not provide them with good meals. Part of the problem with school meals, as the recent report from the Soil Association showed, is that we value our young people's diet so little that we do not spend much on it. Average spend on the ingredients of a primary school meal provided by local authority caterers is 35p. For those provided by private contractors, the spend can he as low as 31p. That leads to our young people being fed a diet of highly process food, mechanically recovered meat and lots of additives.
One does not have to be a devotee of organic eating—I freely confess that I am not—to be worried about some of the ingredients that are highlighted in the report. For example, there was a so-called fish product that contained only 35 per cent. fish; the rest was breadcrumbs, rusk, raising agents and water. A cheese product contained only 30 per cent. cheese, and again was filled up with breadcrumbs, additives and so on. Under current regulations, those two items counted as fish and cheese and as the protein part of a meal. That is a particular problem because so many of our young people are not eating adequately outside school.
I asked a group of young people at a secondary school in my constituency to keep food diaries for a week. I have them with me, and I hope that the Minister will look at them later because the results are horrifying. I commend the young people for their honesty and bravery because it would be easy for them to be singled out; lest anyone try to do that, I do not think that their diets are any better or worse than those of most youngsters in my constituency.
The results were startling. Many of the young people went to school without breakfast, although some got breakfast or a mid-morning snack in school because the school provided it. However, the mid-morning snacks were usually nothing that we would recognise as nutritionally adequate. It was what the young people ate for lunch, however, that was the most worrying. I shall give some examples; chips and gravy, pie and chips and cheese pizza, often accompanied by a fizzy drink. They ate lots of snacks, crisps and chocolate, but very little
298WH
fruit or vegetables in school. Although many parents provided both breakfast and a hot meal at night, there were still examples, in the 21st century, of children who went through the whole day without a proper meal; they were merely snacking on bits. That is an indictment of our society.
When I discussed that with the head teacher, what was most worrying was that it was often the children from the poorest families who were eating the most inadequate school lunches. Although the diaries were a snapshot and not a scientific survey, they reflect what we know from other national surveys. The Acheson report highlighted the difference in nutrition between different socio-economic groups, and clearly showed that poorer people have a lower intake of fruit and vegetables and, hence, dietary fibre. I know that there are complex reasons for that, but I return to the idea that it is our duty to influence that part of the food chain that we are able to, which is school meals.
There are some examples of what can be done even under current regulations. I visited St. Paul of the Cross primary school in my constituency, where Jane Gallagher, who is the cook there, and her assistant, Sylvia Thomas, talked to me about how they cooked fresh food for the children and encouraged them to try new dishes. I am grateful to the primary school children who told me bluntly, in the way that children will, what they liked and what they did not. They liked things such as baked potatoes, pasta and fruit. That gives the lie to what people often tell us, which is that children will only eat highly processed food. All parents know that the truth is that children will eat what they are used to, and that it is our jobs as adults to get them used to eating decent meals.
I accept that things are much more difficult in secondary schools. There are two problems that we need to tackle there. First, too many schools are still using vending machines as a source of revenue, and they are usually stuffed with unhealthy products. We must give much firmer guidance on that to head teachers and governors. Secondly, pricing policies in school canteens make it almost impossible for those on lower incomes to eat healthily. All of us who have teenage children know that they are always hungry. For those on a limited budget, there is a temptation to eat things that fill them up quickly and seem to offer a lot for the money, whether or not they are healthy. That is particularly true of children who are entitled to free school meals.
The guidelines of the Department for Education and Skills state that a free school dinner ticket should buy a two-course meal and a drink. I know of very few secondary school canteens where that could be achieved. The value of a school meal ticket varies considerably between local authorities; in some cases, it can be as low as 90p. Government research on improving the take-up of free school meals showed that, and I congratulate the Department on commissioning the research. In every school surveyed, the average spend was higher than the value of a free school meal ticket. Even in the school with the highest-value meal ticket—£1.65, I think—the set meal of the day when the research team visited was fish and chips, which cost £1.75. That could not be afforded, even without vegetables or a drink. Therefore, it is no wonder that many children who are entitled to free school meals end up eating sandwiches and snacks. In another canteen the

299WH
set meal of the day was sausage roll, gravy and chips with a drink. What price healthy eating in those circumstances?
We need to start turning that around by providing better meals for our children. That would fit in with the Government's overall policies because it would improve provision for everyone while having a particular benefit for the poorest children. It would benefit working parents, who would know that their children were getting a decent hot meal at lunchtime, so they do not have to rush home to cook one at night. It would also radically improve the diets of the poorest.
A number of things must be addressed. First, the quality of the meals that we provide could be radically improved were we to move away from the current food-based standards for school meals, which allow the serving of highly processed products that count as meat, fish and so forth. We should adopt the nutrient-based standards that were recommended in the 1999 Select Committee report and which are still recommended by many experts. That would, with one step, improve quality.
Secondly, the value of free school meals must be addressed. It is untenable that a national benefit, the entitlement to which is decided on national criteria, should vary so widely from one local authority to another. We must at least set a minimum standard of entitlement to free school meals that is sufficient to buy a two-course meal and a drink.
We also need to grasp the nettle with regard to hot meals. We must accept that many schools are still not serving hot meals. Some local authorities still only serve sandwiches, and we must decide whether that is acceptable for our children. I suggest that no other European country would accept it; we need to start to end that. It can only be done gradually. For example, we all recognise that school kitchens have to be reintroduced. If we are going to defuse the health time bomb that faces us, we have to think seriously as to whether we value our children enough to re-introduce kitchens.
I also suggest to the Minister that we need to remove the disincentives in the system for schools to encourage the take-up of free school meals. As a school's budget for free meals can be delegated by the local education authority at the beginning of the year, increasing the take-up of meals means that the school ends up funding the deficit itself. That is clearly nonsense. I do not believe that the finest minds in the DFES cannot find a way round that.
I also suggest to the Minister that when people claim any other benefits—such as income-based jobseeker's allowance or income support—that might entitle them to free meals, we need some joined-up government so that they can make sure that they apply for meals there and then. As well as that, we need to remove the stigma that is often attached to children receiving free school meals. We need to give schools much stricter guidelines on that. As the evidence shows, many parents abandon free school meals, even after they have applied for them. Evidence also shows that many who are entitled to do so do not apply in the first place; many abandon them after they have applied, either because their children are singled out or because the quality of the food that they can purchase is so poor that they would rather try to
300WH
provide something themselves. We must seriously try to ensure that heads and governors appreciate that it is part of their duty to consider school meals, which are vital not just for children's health, but for their educational attainment.
As I said, we need to do something about the proliferation of vending machines in schools. It is time for a bit of central direction on that, because local decision making is clearly not solving the problem. The truth is that we cannot keep blaming the children and we cannot keep blaming their preferences. We are the adults and we have to steer our children in the right direction. I hope that in the future we face up to that as a country and face up to our obligation to start providing decent school meals for all our children.
3.47 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): Ministers usually start licking their lips when an hon. Friend starts talking about the need for centralisation, but I thought that that would be an inappropriate response. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), not just on securing this debate, but on her continuing campaign to ensure that the Government are held properly to account and make best use of advice and ideas from as far and wide as possible to get this serious issue right. I applaud the work that she has done on the issue and applaud also the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard). As members of the Education and Skills Committee, my two hon. Friends are a formidable duo. I fear that if we do not give them full answers today, we may find the Education and Skills Committee turning its fire on us.
I agree 100 per cent. with what my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North says about the value of high quality school meals, the necessity of meals for youngsters to develop properly in education, and the fact that that matters twice over in our poorest communities and for our poorest youngsters. That must surely be right. She spoke with all the passion of a mother and a former teacher in putting that case and I concur wholly with what she said.
I want to use my remarks to address both the supply side of the issue, what we are doing to raise the quality of meals provided, and the demand side, what we are doing to shape children's choices about what they eat. In the process, I hope to show that all is not bleak. I hope that I will be able to give some examples of outstanding provision, not in my hon. Friend's constituency but elsewhere. We should not neglect the fantastic work that is done by many cooks in communities and at local education authority level throughout the country.
The context for this is consistent evidence that children are growing not just taller but heavier; that many are consuming too much fat and eating too much sugar; that a significant number do not get the right amount of vitamins and essential minerals; that, like some parts of the adult population, significant numbers of children are getting fatter; and that those four items are especially the case in poorer communities. I was not referring to my hon. Friends. They are certainly not evidence of the burgeoning girth of the adult population, but significant numbers of children do suffer from that.

301WH
By way of introduction, my hon. Friend raised some interesting points about the take-up and in-year registration of free school meals, which sounds like an issue that we should consider. She may be interested to learn that the Department for Education and Skills, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Work and Pensions, which is key to getting things right, are working to develop a new one-stop application process at Department for Work and Pensions offices. That will ensure that all parents are aware of the free school meal entitlement as soon as they register for the benefits that she described, and that they are not deterred by the plethora of forms that must sometimes be completed, but are fast-tracked through the process. We will ensure that my hon. Friend is informed as soon as we know of any results on take-up from that initiative. At the moment local education authorities have quite a lot of discretion in administering the free school meals package. Different authorities do that in ways that either maximise or fail to maximise the take-up. We do not want to venture into greater central direction of such matters because of the need to maintain stability and predictability in funding, but we shall keep the situation under review.
My hon. Friend did not dwell at length on the new nutritional standards for school lunches that have been in place since April 2001. I am sure that she would agree that those standards, which were the first for more than 20 years, were a big step forward. There was a wide debate in the run-up to their introduction. The consensus among a range of local education authorities and health and food groups was that, to be effective, the standards should be based on the familiar balance of good health diagram, which sets out the right types and proportions of foods, rather than nutrients, that make up a balanced diet. That was designed to ensure that the standards were more practical to implement and that children—the ultimate consumers—would understand them.
We are also honour bound to monitor the implementation of that commitment. An exercise is being conducted between the Department for Education and Skills and the Food Standards Agency, which is obviously an important body, to ensure that the standards are adhered to. Through that study we shall be able to gather a multitude of contextual information that was not previously available, such as the purchasing power of a free school meal ticket. The study that is under way will enable us to consider that in rather more detail than before and will help to put in place the most effective systems throughout the country.
We are also looking for information about the different catering contracts around the country, the visibility of certain types of food and the impact of other lunchtime activities. There is obviously a need to hold youngsters in the school—some people think it would be simpler to shut the gates and keep them in, as is done in some schools. My hon. Friend mentioned the quality of the dining rooms and the need to ensure that facilities are adequate, which is important. She mentioned the co-operation of the pupils from William Beamont high school in Warrington in work on children's food diaries, which I look forward to reading carefully. I hope that learning what is popular will inspire me as well as horrify
302WH
me. We are also keen to ensure that the environmental aspects that my hon. Friend mentioned—sustainability and organic issues—are properly considered in that context.
Positive provision exists around the country. There are downsides to a decentralised system of 150 local education authorities, but there are also some upsides, which are embodied by the experience of Icknield high school in Luton. I can only describe the chef who has been employed to provide meals there as the Jamie Oliver of the free school meal world. He was trained as a chef at the Savoy hotel. Pupils at Icknield can look forward to boeuf bourguignon, mussels and pheasant, chicken teriyaki, seafood paella and fresh bread baked daily on the premises. Before hon. Members start running to Luton for their lunches, he also offers tasters of unfamiliar foods to encourage people to try something different. There are downsides to relying on this sort of inspired leadership at local levels, but it does show what is possible under the current rules, and it might be an inspiration to others who are providing similar services. Maybe we can do a better job of making the experience of Icknield high school more widely understood.
That relates to the supply side, but the demand side is also important. My hon. Friend referred to the frustration of seeing a range of foods on offer, but only those that fall into her cheese pizza and chips or sausage roll and chips category being chosen. I want to run through a few relevant aspects of Government intervention in this area. First, the national curriculum itself is important in this area. Food education in both primary and secondary schools teaches children about the importance of healthy eating and an active lifestyle. They also learn how to prepare meals. In the science curriculum in primary and secondary schools children study basic nutrition and receive information on the range and type of foods available, their nutritional composition, the function of different nutrients in contributing to health and well-being, digestion and human dietary and nutritional needs. This puts a particular onus on science teachers, but also teachers in other subjects such as personal, social and health education, which is important in this area.
Secondly, my hon. Friend mentioned in passing the growing schools initiative, which encourages teachers to use the outdoor classroom as a valuable, regular and integrated part of pupils' day-to-day learning, growing food in a school's own grounds.
A third aspect is the national healthy school standard, to which a significant sum of money is now attached—nearly £6 million has been spent every year since 2000. The standard was launched in 1999 and offers an opportunity to ensure that healthy eating is firmly embedded in a school's ethos. I do not have with me the details of how many schools have now signed up to the standard—as with Investors in People, it would be interesting to see how widespread it is—but I will write to my hon. Friend with details of numbers and of what we are doing to publicise this whole school approach to healthy eating.
Fourthly, there are design and technology issues, because that part of the curriculum allows pupils to learn about food and nutrition, and this is a central part of the food technology strand of design and technology at GCSE and beyond. I was struck by the fact that food

303WH
technology is now taken by 100,000 14 to 16 year-olds a year. Ofsted reports that excellent work is to be found in these classes throughout England. My hon. Friend referred to the particular challenges for secondary-age pupils—I do not think it was only her son who was a challenge in this regard. The popularity of food technology, a subject that was not available when I was at school, is encouraging.
Fifthly, the food in schools initiative was developed in conjunction with the British Nutrition Foundation and the Design and Technology Association to produce practical guidance on how schools can develop their activities in this area. The guide "Establishing a Whole School Food Policy" links what is taught across the curriculum with the food provided for children to eat at school to ensure that consistent messages about healthy food choices run throughout all aspects of school life.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans mentioned the importance of working with other partners in the wider community, notably in industry. The development of food education in the national curriculum is an ongoing process. A couple of examples sprang to mind when reading the briefing. The Waitrose
304WH
focus on food bus and the Sainsbury's taste of success food awards scheme are part of this wider engagement with the community. Over 1,100 teachers are registered on the taste of success scheme, and over 115.000 pupils have been awarded certificates for excellence since the scheme began in 2000.
The issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North go far and wide. They have a direct impact on youngsters' educational achievement, and they touch on difficult issues regarding the relationship between central and local government that is at the heart of our constitutional settlement, but is also a restraint on the centralising tendencies—dare I say Stalinist approaches—that my hon. Friend might like to see us adopt in ensuring that the entitlement and the requirement for every youngster to learn not just intellectually and emotionally, but about their physical development, is seen through. That links closely to sport, which I know she has talked about before. I hope that we can use this debate as a basis for moving forward and improving provision.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Four o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq Survey Group
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Prime Minister, whether(a) he and (b) his Ministers have visited the members of the Iraq Survey Group in Basra; and what assessment he has made of their personal safety as they carry out their task. [152508]

  The Prime Minister
  Neither I, nor my Ministers have visited the Iraq Survey Group in Basra. I and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence have visited the headquarters of the United Kingdom Brigade in Basra.

  The assessment of the personal safety of Iraq Survey Group personnel must be made by the local commander who can judge the security situation on the ground. The safety of personnel is the over-riding concern during the planning of Iraq Survey Group activities. If necessary, added Force Protection can be provided to the Iraq Survey Group while they conduct missions within the UK Area of Operations.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Minimum Wage
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people(a) in the UK and (b) in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East have benefited from the minimum wage; and what measures are in place to ensure that employers are paying the statutory hourly minimum wage. [148401]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Based on the Office for National Statistics' low pay data released in 2003, the DTI estimates that around 1.2 million people in the UK should have benefited from the introduction of the minimum wage in April 1999. We also estimate that between one million and 1.2 million people in the UK should have benefited from the increase in the minimum wage rates in October 2003.

  It is not possible to provide estimates specifically for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East. However, the DTI estimates that around 80,000 people in the North East should have benefited from the introduction of the minimum wage in April 1999 and that between 80,000 and 90,000 people in the North East should have benefited from the increase in the minimum wage rates in October 2003.

  The Inland Revenue enforce the minimum wage on behalf on the DTI. If a worker believes they are not
  876W
  receiving the minimum wage they should contact the minimum wage helpline (0845 6000678). All complaints about underpayment, including those from third parties, will be investigated. The Revenue also make use of their own data, including tax credits information, to make proactive visits to employers whom they suspect may not be paying the minimum wage. In 2002–03 the Revenue completed over 6,200 investigations and identified £3.6 million of minimum wage arrears.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the request from the hon. Member for Leicester, East for a meeting on the way the Insolvency Service has dealt with BCCI. [149267]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 13 January 2004.

  Bribery
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what written guidelines her Department has produced for staff(a) in her Department and (b) in Trade Partners on how they should respond to allegations of overseas bribery and corruption; on what date these guidelines were published; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [151513]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Guidance on these issues issued in January 2002, February 2002 and March 2003 to relevant staff in both the DTI and what is now UK Trade and Investment, as well as other relevant government departments. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House. Background guidance including an information leaflet on bribery and corruption (a copy of which was deposited in the Libraries of the House on 15 October 2003,Official Report, column 265W) is also included on the UKTI website www.uktradejnvest.gov.uk. The guidance complements that provided to all Crown Servants in the "Giving Evidence or Information about Suspected Crimes—A guide for Crown Servants". This report was placed in the Libraries of the House on 20 March 1997 under reference dep/3/4876. It can also be accessed at website http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/../..central/2001/crownser.pdf.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many allegations of overseas bribery and corruption her Department has received since 1997; on what dates the allegations were received; and what action her Department took. [151517]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To provide the information requested would involve a manual search of files which would incur disproportionate costs. Furthermore, we cannot comment on individual reports received in order not to prejudice possible criminal investigations.

  Business Start-ups
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the change in the number of successful high growth business start-ups in each year since 1997. [152054]
  877W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The estimated number was as follows:

  Number

  1997

  12,200

  1998

  12,200

  1999 (provisional)

  12,900

  These estimates are based on the following definition of HGSU:
  High growth firms are defined as those with 10 or more employees and/or £1 million or more turnover by the further year of trading. There is an inherent four-year lag in the measurement of this target. Further information on progress can be found in the 2003 DTI Autumn Performance Report.

  Community Interest Companies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the likely level of demand for community interest companies over the next five years. [151714]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 January 2004]: The Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill, published by the Department in December 2003, used a working assumption that initially between 100 and 300 new community interest companies might register each year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 22 January 2004,Official Report, column 1446W, when she will write to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North. [152390]

  Nigel Griffiths
  A response was sent to my hon. Friend on 27 January.

  Departmental Recruitment
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent on recruitment advertisements in the press, broken down by publication, by(a) her Department, (b) quangos under the Department and (c) non-departmental Government bodies under the Department (i) in the last year and (ii) since 1997. [145807]

  Ms Hewitt
  When running recruitment campaigns, my Department uses the most appropriate advertising media, be it national, regional, local, trade magazine or website, depending on the nature of the post to be filled. We use the service of advertising agencies to place our advertisements and to seek appropriate media advice.

  Individual management units generally meet recruitment costs from their own delegated budgets and there are no centrally held records of the breakdown of advertising costs.

  Fisheries (Compensation)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications there have been for compensation from former Icelandic waters trawlermen which(a) have been successful, (b) have
  878W
  been unsuccessful, (c) have been put on hold and (d) which are pending a decision, broken down by region of the UK. [152393]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Up to January this year 4,750 trawlermen had been paid a total of £40.7million. A total of 2,973 claims had been assessed as not qualifying for compensation. There are no claims on hold. Following is a breakdown of the numbers of payments and compensation by current area of residence:

  £

  Location

  Number of payments'

  Amount paid

  Hull

  1766

  18.4 million

  Grimsby

  821

  5.5 million

  Fleetwood

  363

  3.1 million

  Blackpool

  54

  404 thousand

  Cleethorpes

  226

  1.6 million

  Newcastle

  370

  3.6 million

  West Yorkshire

  237

  2 million

  Aberdeen

  290

  1.5 million

  Others

  623

  4.5 million

  I regret that there is no breakdown of claims not qualifying for compensation. I have today announced my proposals to extend the scheme list by 21 vessels. Claims from trawlermen who worked on these vessels will be re-examined with additional compensation for those who qualify.

  Miners' Pensions
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will announce the minimum payment under the Miners' Pension Fund; and if she will make a statement. [149796]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The level of pension payments by the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme is a matter for the Scheme's Trustees. In September last year they announced an increase in pensions in line with RPI.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been spent investigating companies suspected of having broken the rules on the minimum wage in each year since its introduction. [148173]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Inland Revenue enforce the minimum wage on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry(DTI). The following table gives details of the funding the DTI has provided the Revenue in each year since the introduction of the minimum wage in April 1999.

  £ million

  1999–2000

  3.5 plus 1.9 start-up costs

  2000–01

  3.5

  2001–02

  4.7

  2002–03

  5.85

  2003–04 (forecast)

  5.7

  Funding in the first two years did not cover overheads, including accommodation costs. Three new

  879W
  compliance teams were established in 2002–03, as were a number of local enforcement pilot projects to help improve compliance with the minimum wage.

  National Power Provision
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to ensure the integrity of the national power grid. [151260]

  Jacqui Smith
  Responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the national transmission system rests with the National Grid Company (NGC). NGC have a number of important statutory and licence duties relating to the development and maintenance of their system. The duty for enforcing these licence and statutory obligations rests with Ofgem.

  Officials in my Engineering Inspectorate monitor power failures attributed to the national grid on an ongoing basis and they liaise with staff in the transmission companies to ensure adequate remedial measures are put in place. At my request, Inspectors recently completed a formal investigation of the major interruptions on 28 August and 5 September 2003 and the conclusions and recommendations have been shared with the companies. Inspectors will be liaising with the companies over the coming months to ensure the recommendations are implemented.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to explore the licensing of new nuclear technologies in the United Kingdom. [152041]

  Ms Hewitt
  No steps are being taken by Government. It is for industry to bring forward any applications for a licence under the provisions of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.

  Online CD/DVD Sales
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's policy is on companies selling online competitively-priced CDs and DVDs to residents of the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [152416]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Provided companies are acting legally, online sales of CDs and DVDs will increase competition, providing consumers in the UK with more choice.

  Pornographic Messages
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the use of telephone transferred charge calls to propogate unwanted pornographic messages; and if she will make a statement. [152541]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  None. However the law relating to pornography applies online as it does offline. Unsolicited emails and reverse SMS messages advertising pornographic services are prohibited by the regulations implementing a recent EC Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications, and which are enforced by the Information Commissioner's office. The 880W
  mobile operators are drawing up a code of practice to cover new forms of content including pornography. Premium rate services continue to be regulated by the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS).

  Post Office Banking Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of discussions with major high street banks on the provision of banking services at post offices; and if she will make a statement. [151989]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  As a result of constructive discussions with the major financial institutions, all the high street banks and the Nationwide Building Society are making a very positive contribution to universal banking services, providing customers with free access to basic bank accounts at post offices, and making significant financial contribution (£180 million) to the cost of running the Post Office card account.

  Post Office Closures
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure that there is adequate consultation with relevant hon. Members and other interested parties when an urban post office is nominated for closure. [150616]

  Jacqui Smith
  Proposals for closures of sub-post offices under the urban network reinvention programme are put out to public consultation, including relevant Members of Parliament, in accordance with the code of practice agreed between Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch. In preparing closure proposals, Post Office Ltd. collect a range of information relevant to the provision of post office services in an area. This includes local authority plans, environmental and transport information, local shopping habits and other local developments and features. With the move to area plans, the public consultation period has been extended from four to six weeks during which comments and representations, including new or additional information, can be submitted for consideration by Post Office Ltd. before they reach a final decision. Recent experience of the programme has shown that there is a clear need for Post Office Ltd. to respond promptly to issues raised during the consultation and to explain its decisions more fully. The Government has impressed on the company the urgent need to improve its performance on this aspect of the programme.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the adequacy of the Urban Reinvention Programme's consultation process for closure proposals. [150816]

  Jacqui Smith
  Recent experience of the programme has shown that there is a clear need for Post Office Ltd. to respond promptly to issues raised during the consultation and to explain its decisions more fully. The Government has impressed on the company the urgent need to improve its performance on this aspect of the programme. There is also an escalation procedure agreed between Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch for
  881W
  handling disputed proposals which can be applied in the small number of cases where Postwatch opposes the closure proposal.

  Public Bodies (Membership)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who the members of the(a) North West Industrial Development Board, (b) South West Industrial Development Board and (c) Eastern Region Industrial Development Board were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and what their remuneration is. [151300]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information is as follows:

  (a) North West Industrial Development Board consists of the following members.

  Members

  Period of appointment

  John Alcock

  1 January 2001 to 31 May 2004

  Mrs. Lorraine Clinton—Chair

  1 May 2001 to 30 March 2004

  Duncan McLellan

  1 December 2002 to 30 November 2005

  Raymond Charles McManus

  1 August 2003 to 31 July 2006

  William Joseph Mullarkey

  1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006

  Kirit Pathak

  1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004

  Ruth Isabel Port

  1 August 2003 to 31 July 2006

  George Verghese

  1 December 2002 to 30 November 2005

  Mrs. Eva Wisemark

  1 September 2003 to 31 August 2006

  Marcus Wood

  1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006

  (b) South West Industrial Development Board consists of the following members:

  Members

  Period of Appointment

  Sue Astbury

  1 January 2003 to 31 December 2005

  Ruth Bagley

  1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006

  Peter Alan Courts

  1 January 2003 to 31 December 2005

  John Crownshaw

  1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006

  Ian Robert Douglas

  1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004

  Neville Gibson

  1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004

  Alan Neil Hayman

  1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004

  Denise Major

  1 January 2003 to 31 December 2005

  Richard Morgan

  1 January 2003 to 31 December 2005

  Rama Warren Nand-Lal

  1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006

  Victoria Picketing

  1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006

  Nigel Randall

  1 January 2003 to 31 December 2005

  Brian Sherwin

  1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004

  Terence Alan Slater—Chair

  1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004

  Barbara Speirs

  1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004

  (c) Eastern Region Industrial Development Board consists of the following members:

  Members

  Period of appointment

  David Richard Baggott

  1 January 2003 to 31 December 2005

  Alan Davies

  1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006

  Robert Downing

  1 July 2003 to 3 June 2006

  Martin James Gould

  1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004

  Keith Hamilton

  1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006

  Terence Ralph Hill

  1 July 2003 to 30 June 2006

  Fiona Hoskins

  1 August 2003 to 31 July 2005

  Shaz Khan

  1 January 2003 to 31 December 2005

  Hugh Lawson

  1 January 2003 to 31 December 2005

  Elaine Oddie—Chair

  1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004

  Laurence John Russen

  1 July 2003 to 30 June 2006

  Mike Smith

  1 January 2003 to 31 December 2005

  Members of the Industrial Development Boards are not remunerated.

  Research and Development (Tax Credits)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the claims for research and development tax credits that have been received by the Government have led to the development of a new product, service or process. [152060]

  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 progress has been made towards the achievement of(a) targets and (b) delivery of the (i) regional economic strategy and (ii) corporate plan of each of the regional development agencies. [152063]

  Jacqui Smith
  England's Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), working with their regional and local partners and stakeholders, have produced Regional Economic Strategies (RESs) which set out the medium to long term vision for the economic development of their regions. They are designed to be implemented by the RDA and by regional partners and stakeholders. Each RDA monitors and reports to its region on delivery of the RES differently but the Annual Report and Accounts, which the eight RDAs outside London are required to produce, outline the achievements and progress made by each RDA. They are laid in Parliament and copies are available in the Libraries of the House. I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 17 July 2003 about the Annual Reports and Accounts for 2002–03. The London Development Agency also produces an annual report and accounts, outlining achievements and progress, which is available on its website.

  The Government has agreed a common framework of targets for the RDAs to achieve. (The framework can be viewed on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk/rda/in.fo/index.htm.) Target levels are set through the Corporate Planning process and current targets were agreed by Ministers (and, in London, by the Mayor) and published in RDA's Corporate Plans for 2003–2006. The RDA details the activities and initiatives it will undertake in order to help implement the RES, and to contribute to the achievement of the targets set, within its Corporate Plan. Progress on achievement of the Tier 3 output targets is published six monthly and I refer the hon. Member to the statements I made on 7 July 2003 and today.

  The Corporate Plans, RESs, and Annual Reports and Accounts are available on each RDA's website.

  Seminars
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many seminars the Government has organised for the UK business community since 1997 on(a) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

  883W
  Development Convention and Combating Bribery and (b) Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; on which dates and in which locations; and (i) how many and (ii) which companies attended each seminar. [151588]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since 2002 officials have run seminars or given presentations covering both(a) and (b) in several locations including those listed as follows. However, accurate numbers and details of those who attended events since 2002, and any information for the period between 1997 and 2002 would involve a search of records and company research which would Incur disproportionate costs.

  Location

  January 2002

  London, UK

  October 2002

  Moscow, Russia

  January 2003

  Birmingham, UK

  March 2003

  Panama City, Panama

  March 2003

  Mexico City, Mecico

  June 2003

  Bogota, Colombia

  December 2003

  Tehran, Iran

  December 2003

  Kuwait City, Kuwait

  UN Technology Summit
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the oral answer of 6 January to the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart),Official Report, column 156, what action she has taken to ensure that, as a result of the UN Technology Summit in Geneva, the benefits of information and communication flow to all in society. [152270]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 3 February 2004]: The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held in Geneva on 10–12 December 2003. It focused on increasing the opportunities and allow the benefits of information and communication technologies (ICT) to flow to all.

  The WSIS Action Plan formally asked that the Secretary General of the United Nations set up a task force to review the adequacy of all existing financial mechanisms to meet the challenges of ICT for development, by 2005. The Secretary General was also mandated to set up a working group on internet governance to investigate and make proposals for action on the governance of the internet, also by 2005, to coincide with the second phase of the Summit.

  Preparations for the second phase will start officially with a meeting in the Autumn of 2004, but there will be a series of related workshops and meetings held from this Spring.

  From the beginning, the UK encouraged the Summit to create a framework for initiatives to meet local peoples' needs, particularly "enabling partnerships" supported by governments, private sector partners, civil society and local "champions". The UK is already
  884W
  engaged in this partnership approach to reduce poverty and meet our Millennium Development Goals. We will continue to promote this up to the second phase of the Summit in Tunis in November 2005.

  Wind Farms
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the contribution of the(a) concrete content of foundations, (b) losses in transmission and (c) the construction of necessary supports infrastructure to the (i) energy and (ii) carbon costs of wind farms. [152448]

  Jacqui Smith
  Research has shown that a modern wind turbine will recover all of the energy expended in its manufacture, operation and decommissioning within approximately three months. This figure is similar for onshore and offshore wind turbines. Exact figures for energy costs vary depending on the type of turbine, location, etc. However, a reasonable estimate in the construction of an onshore turbine is that(a) foundation energy costs account for up to 5 per cent. of the total and (b) support infrastructure accounts for less than 20 per cent. The rest is primarily accounted for in the manufacture of the turbine itself.

  Over an operating lifetime of 20 years, an onshore turbine is expected to recover over 80 times the input energy required. This figure also includes maintenance energy requirements and transmission losses of 6 to 9 per cent. Carbon savings are dependent on the emissions from electricity that would otherwise have been produced from conventional power stations, but it is reasonable to assume that the lifetime savings will be of a similar multiple. The energy recovery for an offshore turbine is expected to be higher due to higher energy outputs over a longer lifetime.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the additional cost of reinforcing the transmission grid to cope with the addition of wind farm-generated electricity. [152451]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Transmission Issues Working Group reported in June 2003 that the overall cost to connect an additional 12 GW of renewable energy generation to the GB network would cost £2.1 billion. National Grid Transco, Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Energy are currently revising these costs.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to regionalise the administration and management of the Civil Service. [152103]

  Mr. Alexander
  The administration and management of the Civil Service, other than for Senior Civil Service, is delegated to Departments. Sir Michael Lyons is conducting a review of the scope for relocating Civil Service jobs/functions out of London and the South East.

DEFENCE

  Bird Strikes
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the cost of bird scarers and (b) their efficacy in preventing RAF bird-strikes. [152459]

  Mr. Ingram
  In 2003 approximately £1.5 million was spent on bird control at RAF stations.

  The use of bird scarers reduces the number of bird-strikes when aircraft are close to the airfield. However the majority of bird-strikes occur when the aircraft is in flight; Bird Control Units can do nothing to prevent these.

  Catterick (Trainees' Boots)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pairs of correctly fitting boots each trainee receives at Infantry Training Centre, Catterick. [152377]

  Mr. Ingram
  New recruits to the Infantry Training Centre, Catterick are all issued with one pair of correctly fitting boots when they first commence training. These boots are exchangeable as necessary for reasons of fair wear and tear, accidental damage, etc. during the course of training. On completion of training, each successful recruit is issued with one further pair of boots.

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much space, expressed in square metres, the Department occupies for the offices of civil servants in(a) central London and (b) Greater London. [150289]

  Mr. Caplin
  MOD headquarters activity is currently carried out in six buildings in central London. Both military and civilian personnel occupy office space. The net usable area of these buildings, not including circulation, columns and walls, to the nearest square metre, is laid out in the following table.

  Building

  Net usable area (m2)

  Metropole Building

  15,528

  Northumberland Avenue

  10,285

  Old War Office

  25,396

  St. Georges Court

  20,835

  Great Scotland Yard

  14,631

  Total

  97,165

  1Includes circulation.

  The Main Building redevelopment project completes in 2004. Following reoccupation the MOD will dispose of four of the buildings listed in the table. Headquarters activities will be concentrated in two Whitehall sites, with one further building in central London, as part of an overall reduction in staff in central London from over 12,500 in 1990 to less than 5,200 by the time the project completes. The net usable area for these buildings, to the nearest square metre, is as follows.
  886W

  Building

  Net usable area (m2)

  Redeveloped Main Building

  49,634

  Old War Office

  25,396

  St. Georges Court

  20,835

  Total

  95,865

  In addition the Department occupies parts of three other buildings in central London, including the Met Office London Weather Centre, totalling some 4,355 square metres.

  A relatively small number of civil servants are based at operational and other military establishments throughout Greater London. Information on the proportion of these establishments used for office space is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of staff employed within his Department are over 55 years of age; and what(a) number and (b) percentage of staff recruited over the last 12 months are over 55 years of age. [145770]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 20 January 2004,Official Report, columns 1130–34W, by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office.

  Driver Training
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the resources available for driver training in the armed forces. [152303]

  Mr. Ingram
  No specific representations have been received regarding the resources available for driver training in the armed forces. However, in common with all other aspects of individual training, the resources available are under constant review.

  European Armaments Agency
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the appointment of the Head of the European Armaments Agency. [150784]

  Mr. Hoon
  The European Union's General Affairs and External Relations Council decided on 17 November last that a new European Agency should be created in the fields of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments.

  The Head of the Agency will be the EU High Representative for European Foreign and Security Affairs, Javier Solana.

  It was announced on 29 January that a Ministry of Defence official, Mr. Nick Witney, currently Director General International Security Policy, has been appointed to lead the Agency Establishment Team.

  The Government welcome these developments and look forward to the Agency contributing to the strengthening of defence capabilities of the European Security and Defence Policy and Europe's contribution to NATO.

  Forces Bases (Wales)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces are based in Wales. [152246]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 November 2003,Official Report, columns 324–25W, to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).

  Iraq
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what protection from radioactive fallout is offered to UK forces in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [148294]

  Mr. Ingram
  In accordance with NATO agreed definitions the Ministry of Defence defines fallout as the return to lower atmospheric layers and to earth of radioactive substances projected to high altitude, and contaminated particulate matter and debris absorbed into the cloud of a nuclear burst. Fallout will result from the detonation of a nuclear weapon. Radiological contamination can occur from the use of a radiation dispersion device. The likelihood of either occurring in Iraq is currently assessed as low.

  MOD has safety instructions on the measures to protect personnel from radioactive fallout, radiological contamination and Environmental Industrial Hazards. The measures the military adopt follow UK best practice for nuclear protection.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are deployed in Iraq. [150149]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]: As at 27 January 2004, there were around 10,000 United Kingdom personnel in Iraq.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of(a) tanks, (b) armoured personnel carriers and (c) other equipment used by troops from Welsh battalions stationed in Iraq were fully upgraded for use in desert conditions; and what the cost was of these upgrades. [151745]

  Mr. Ingram
  The only Welsh battalion to have deployed on Operation Telic to date is 1st Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Wales (RRW), which does not operate Main Battle Tanks. 1RRW operates Warrior and FV 430 armoured personnel carriers and these were considered fit for use in desert conditions and were not modified for this purpose prior to or during operations. The unit also operates Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) [CVR(T)]. These vehicles were also considered fit for use in desert conditions and were not modified for this purpose prior to or during Operation Telic.

  Units will also utilise other Combat Support Vehicles in theatre. These include Battlefield Ambulances of which all those deployed on Operation Telic were modified for use in desert conditions under an Urgent Operational Requirement at a cost of £8,000 per vehicle.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 21 January 2004,Official Report, column 1247W, about the Iraq Survey
  888W
  Group, if he will break down the figure (a) by nationalities and (b) by speciality; and what the figures were for January 2003. [151538]

  Mr. Hoon
  The figure of 1,272 personnel in the Iraq Survey Group is broken down as follows:

  Number

  United States

  1,210

  United Kingdom

  52

  Australia

  10

  United Kingdom contribution consists of 31 Service personnel (Army 20, Royal Air Force 7, Royal Navy 4) serving as Headquarters staff, Signals staff, EOD staff, Collection Team Commanders and interviewers/ interpreters; and 21 civilians who are scientific and technical specialists. The breakdown by specialism of other coalition members' contributions is a matter for their Governments.

  There are no comparable figures for January 2003 as the Iraq Survey Group was not established until June 2003.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the budget of the Ministry of Defence Police has been in each of the past five years in current prices; and what the planned budget is for the next three years. [152238]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Department now reports in Resource Accounting Terms. Budgetary figures from 2002–03 onwards are therefore not entirely comparable with those recorded for earlier years. Budgets from 2002–03 are broken down into Resource Defence Expenditure Limit (DEL), Capital DEL and Annual Managed Expenditure (AME). The Ministry of Defence Police budget figures, at then outturn prices, were as follows:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  134.237

  2000–01

  139.145

  2001–02

  132.732

  2002–03

  Resource DEL

  141.932

  Capital DEL

  1.160

  AME

  4.767

  2003–04

  Resource DEL

  151.716

  Capital DEL

  1.795

  AME

  7.183

  Budgets for future years are set at the appropriate time.

  Night Vision Goggles
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the overall allocation is of night-vision goggles to the(a) Royal Navy and Royal Marines, (b) Army and (c) Royal Air Force. [149878]
  889W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]: NVGs used by aircrew are not allocated on a Service basis. NVGs are issued to Front Line Commands according to operational requirements and as such, the numbers vary on a day to day basis. As at 31 December 2003, 307 aircrew NVGs were held by CINFLEET, 882 by Joint Helicopter Command (which operates both Army and RAF helicopters) and 865 by RAF Strike Command. A further 287 aircrew NVGs were undergoing repair or maintenance at designated regional repair facilities. NVGs can be operated only in helicopters that have been specifically modified for this role and are fitted to allow operation with NVGs according to their tactical role in operations.

  In addition to aircrew NVGs the following quantities of night vision weapon sights and goggles are held:

  Royal Navy: 455, of which 178 are Weapon sights and 277 are head mounted goggles.

  Royal Marines: 1,553, of which 855 are Weapon sights and 698 are head mounted goggles.

  Army: 18,541, of which 13,000 are Weapon sights and 5,541 are head mounted goggles.

  Royal Air Force: 1,630, of which 1,232 are Weapon sights and 398 are head mounted goggles.

  Personal Radio Systems
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether individual soldiers are permitted to buy components for their army-issued personal radio systems. [152378]

  Mr. Ingram
  No. There are well-established procedures in place for units to address shortages of equipment through the Ministry of Defence supply system.

  Project ISOLUS
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list sites owned by his Department that are being considered for storing radioactive waste as part of project ISOLUS. [152380]

  Mr. Ingram
  117 Ministry of Defence owned coastal sites are being considered for suitability to store radioactive material from nuclear-powered submarines under Project ISOLUS. Many have been dismissed and I will make an announcement once it has been established which of the remaining sites, or others that may yet be identified, warrant further consideration.

  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 6 January 2004, Official Report, column 68WH, that further public consultation will be carried out on any new options that have merit.

  RAF Flying Posts
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF flying posts there are this year; and how many are planned for each of the next three years. [152222]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House

  RAF Halton
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the report of the Defence Aviation Safety Centre into the possible impact on public safety of the relocation of glider squadrons to RAF Halton. [147968]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Aviation Safety Centre conducted a risk management survey on both RAF Henlow and RAF Halton in late 2003. Copies of the section of the report relating to RAF Halton and specifically the measures to ensure that the Station operates safely have been placed in the Library of the House today. It is expected that the recommendations proposed for RAF Halton will be fully adopted to ensure that the Station continues to operate safely.

  RAF Leeming (Security)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether there were breaches of security at RAF Leeming during the evening of 29 November and early morning of 30 November 2003; and whether an unauthorised person was able to approach within about 50 m of the vehicles of the Nuclear Weapons Convoy while parked at RAF Leeming; [147075]

  (2)how his Department keeps under review the protection and security arrangements at RAF Leeming; if he will make available the outcome and recommendations of such reviews; and if he will make a statement; [147076]

  (3)whether the convoy of road vehicles used in the transportation of nuclear warheads to and from RNAD Coulport and the Atomic Weapons Establishments in Berkshire stopped overnight at RAF Leeming on the night of 29 and 30 November 2003; and whether it was carrying nuclear warheads; [147077]

  (4)whether for the transport and storage of fissile materials the United Kingdom adopts the security and protection standards prescribed by IAEA INFCIRC/225 Rev 4; [147078]

  (5)whether, in addition to IAEA INFCIRC/225, his Department applies further safeguards during transit and storage of nuclear warheads that are equivalent to the United States Department of Energy's stored weapons standard; [147079]

  (6)if he will make a statement on security at RAF stations. [151684]

  Mr. Ingram
  I can confirm that an unauthorised person gained entry to RAF Leeming while a convoy of military vehicles stopped overnight on 29 November 2003 at the base. The person was subsequently escorted off the premises by the Ministry of Defence Police. In accordance with Government policy, I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at any particular place or time. Security at MOD establishments, including RAF Leeming, is kept under constant review. It would not be appropriate to disclose details of security reviews or their recommendations and I am therefore withholding the information requested under Exemption la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  891W
  However, stringent security and protection standards are applied by the MOD whenever United Kingdom Defence Nuclear Materials are used, stored and transported. These security standards are compatible with IAEA INFCIR/225, and the MOD applies further safeguards during transit and storage of nuclear warheads, which are equivalent to the standards applied by the United States Department of Energy to their nuclear warheads.

  RAF Stations
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF stations there were in the UK in(a) 2003 and (b) 1993; and how many accommodated flying operations in each year. [151629]

  Mr. Ingram
  In 1993, there were 83 RAF stations in the UK; in 2003, there were 47. In 1993, 36 stations had active runways or helicopter landing pads; in 2003, 28.

  Reservists
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) exercises and (b) training course places involving reservists have been (i) cancelled and (ii) withdrawn in each of the three armed services in the last two years. [149305]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]: The information requested is not centrally held and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Royal Gibraltar Regiment
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for changes in(a) manning levels and (b) overall structure of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment; and if he will make a statement. [151188]

  Mr. Ingram
  The staff of Headquarter British Forces Gibraltar are currently reviewing the military and ceremonial tasks of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment to identify the appropriate levels of readiness; to re-validate structures and manpower levels of the Regiment; and to develop the training requirements.

  Royal Navy
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on lean manned ships for the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement. [152244]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the Naval Service, the Type 23 frigates are commonly known as Lean Manned ships. The increased use of automation enabled a smaller ship's complement, with an emphasis on skilled maintainers and operators. A consequent reduction in the proportion of junior personnel available for manual tasks has been alleviated by providing additional civilian manpower to undertake cleaning, painting and dining hall support when the ships are in harbour.

  Sea Harrier
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Sea Harrier will be withdrawn from service. [152604]
  892W
  Mr. Ingram
  The first of three Sea Harrier Squadrons will be withdrawn from service on 31 March 2004. It is planned to retire the second Squadron in March 2005 and the final Squadron in March 2006.

  Survey Vessels
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total value was of the contract awarded to Vosper Thorneycroft to design and construct HMS Echo and HMS Enterprise. [149617]>

  Mr. Ingram
  The contract for design, construction and 25 years' support for HMS Echo and HMS Enterprise was awarded in July 2000 at a value of £130 million. The breakdown of this figure into individual elements is commercially sensitive and I am withholding it in accordance with Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to effective management and operations of the public service.

  Training Exercises
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries have cancelled training exercises involving HM forces in the past two years; and for what reasons. [152220]

  Mr. Ingram
  Of the 350 exercises listed annually in the United Kingdom Defence Exercise Programme, 69 were cancelled in 2002, and 151 in 2003. Of those exercises cancelled in the last year, some 10 per cent. were cancelled by nations other than the UK hosting exercises in their own country or sponsoring exercises elsewhere. While specific reasons for cancellation are not available in many cases, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost, many nations' exercise programmes (like the UK's) have been affected in recent years by competing operational priorities.

  Type 45 Destroyer
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the first Type 45 destroyer will be delivered to the Royal Navy; and whether this is the date originally specified. [150869]

  Mr. Ingram
  The currently approved in service date for the First of Class, HMS Daring, is November 2007. This date has not changed since the Type 45 was approved at Main Gate in July 2000, although it is currently under review.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  British Universities Overseas
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what independent audit is carried out of the quality of education offered by British universities operating overseas. [152205]

  Alan Johnson
  The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) carries out audits which cover the means by which an awarding institution secures the standards of its awards and the effectiveness of its quality management arrangements for partnership links, including those overseas. In addition, as part of the 'Institutional Audit'
  893W
  process for HEIs in England, the QAA also examines the management of any collaborative links an institution may have.

  Children's Fund
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by how much he expected the Children's Fund partnerships to underspend their 2003–04 budget profiles; on what basis the expectation of an underspend on Children's Fund partnerships was reached; and what alternative uses have been made of funds clawed back from his expectations of an underspend by Children's Fund partnerships. [151428]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]: The 2003–04 mid year review of expenditure in the Children's Fund programme was carried out to assess actual expenditure against partnerships' own projections. This identified approximately £12.5 million underspend from the first half of the year. Underspend from partnerships is being used to fund other commitments in the Children's Fund programme.

  School Transport
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Essex received free school transport to(a) secondary schools, (b) primary and infant schools and (c) special schools in each year from 1990 to 2003. [150907]

  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, Essex said that it provides free home to school transport to about 21,000 pupils at a cost of around £20 million in 2000/01.

  Higher Education Funding
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27 January in respect of the commitment to more funding for higher education. [152531]

  Alan Johnson
  In line with Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, confidential communications between departments are not made public.

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money deriving from the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme has been spent on promoting environmental education in schools in each of the last three years; and what assessment he has made of the impact of changes to the scheme on the funding of environmental education from this source. [151431]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The amount of Landfill Tax Credit Scheme (LTCS) funds spent on environmental education within schools under categories c and cc can be summarised as follows.
  894W

  Calendar year

  Expenditure (£)

  2001

  725,780

  2002

  234,700

  2003

  71,300

  Note:

  The figure for 2003 is as reported to date and may increase given that Environmental Bodies may report on expenditure for this specific year until April 2004.

  The reform of the LTCS was announced in the pre-Budget report in 2002. As a result, waste projects, previously funded under categories c and cc, are no longer eligible for funding. However, certain types of environmental educational projects are eligible for funding under the current scheme, for example in the biodiversity category.

  A sustainable waste management delivery public spending programme, administered by Defra, has been established following the reform of the LTCS, to ensure that sustainable alternatives to landfill disposal are widely available. Under the public expenditure programme the Waste and Resources Action Programme are responsible for taking forward work on waste awareness.

  School Buses
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received about safety on school buses; and if he will make a statement. [151863]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 29 January 2004]: The Department for Education and Skills has received representations from the National Association of Head Teachers on behalf of their members following their conference resolution on safety on school buses. We have received similar representations from one individual. I met with the NAHT to discuss safety on school buses on 19 January.

  Bus safety legislation falls within the remit of Department for Transport. Local Authorities are required to secure "Best Value" when negotiating home to school transport contracts, and can include a requirement that additional safety measures be included in tenders. When asked to do so we advise authorities to take the safety benefits of seat-belts and other measures into account when considering the suitability of transport for particular journeys.

  University of Humberside
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he was informed that the fraud squad of the Israeli police were investigating the unlawful sale of University of Humberside degrees; and what measures he has taken as a result. [152195]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 2 February 2004]: My Department was alerted by recent press articles to the investigation by Israeli police. The Higher Education Funding Council for England wrote to the University of Lincoln (formerly the University of Lincolnshire and Humberside) on 26 January 2004 formally requesting details of the University's position.
  895W
  Mr McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) false and (b) genuine degree certificates have been issued through each branch of University of Humberside franchised operations in Israel since they were established. [152196]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 2 February 2004]: The University has informed me that 4,965 students in Israel were awarded degrees and that these are genuine. I have no information on the number of false degree certificates.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Albatrosses
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 90W, on albatrosses and petrels, if the United Kingdom will ratify the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels before the first meeting of the parties on 2004. [147162]

  Mr. Morley
  We are keen to ratify this Agreement as soon as possible and very much hope that we will be able to do so before the first meeting of the parties.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 90W, on albatrosses and petrels, what legal and other assistance the Government are giving to the UK overseas territories of (a) South Georgia/South Sandwich Islands, (b) Falkland Islands and (c) Tristan/Gough to enable them to submit their ratifications of the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels on time for the first meeting of the parties in 2004. [147179]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK continues to provide assistance to, and work closely with, all the Overseas Territories referred to by the hon. Member. We are keen to ratify the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels as soon as possible and we are giving priority to those Overseas Territories that have the necessary legislation in place or have formally requested that ratification be extended to them.

  Biodegradable Waste
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of municipal waste going to landfill was biodegradable waste in the last year for which figures are available; and what estimate she has made of the likely change in the next five years. [151640]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 29 January 2004]: In 2001–02, 28.8 million tonnes of municipal waste were collected, of which 22.3 million tonnes (77 per cent.) were disposed of to landfill. 70 per cent. of the waste land filled was estimated to be biodegradable using various assumptions. Surveys of biodegradable content of municipal waste are not made routinely, but the Environment Agency plan to carry out a survey to determine the biodegradable proportion of municipal waste arising.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total amount paid under the Common Agricultural Policy was in the United Kingdom to(a) limited companies and (b) to individuals in the most recent year for which figures are available. [144457]

  Alun Michael
  The figures represent the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund year 2003–16 October 2002 to 15 October 2003.

  The figures include CAP market support and structural funds for the above reporting year.

  These figures represent payments to English farmers Information for other countries within the UK is a matter for their respective devolved assemblies.

  £

  Limited Companies

  574,273,502.02

  Individuals

  1,464,032,029.02

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will recommend to the Leader of the House that a debate should be held on Common Agricultural Policy reform prior to decisions being made on the methodology to be employed in implementing the single farm payment. [R][151159]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]: I am aware that a number of Members would welcome such a debate. However, I am always conscious that there are very heavy pressures on parliamentary time. The timing of such a debate is a matter for the Business Managers.

  Deposit Systems
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent studies her Department has undertaken in respect of deposit systems used in other European countries; and if she will make a statement. [152697]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 February 2004]: No studies have recently been undertaken. However, a study of deposits systems is currently under way, which will take into account international practices. We expect the first part of this study to report at the end of March.

  Environmental Protection
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial and practical assistance her Department has given environmental health officers since the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Regime came into force; and if she will make a statement. [150626]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has provided local authorities with a range of resources to help them carry out their functions under the Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) Regulations 2000.
  897W
  Financial

  Local authorities recover costs from fees and charges at levels set by the Department. These levels are revised in consultation with all stakeholders annually. As 2003 was the first year of the new PPC regime no figures are available for total costs recovered by local authorities for their PPC function, but total local authorities income for all industrial air pollution functions in 2002–03 was 8.3 million.

  Guidance

  In March 2003 the Department published a guidance manual, specifically for local authorities, which sets out the policy and procedures necessary to determine an application for a PPC permit. Additional guidance notes have been developed on particular issues as a response to requests for further information by local authorities. The Department has issued technical guidance tailored to individual sectors covered by PPC and regulated by local authorities. Six such notes have been issued to date with a further two to follow. These sector guidance notes provide local authorities with a basis upon which to determine what would constitute the "Best Available Techniques" (BAT) for an installation in that sector. Production of further advice and guidance will be guided by the results of research commissioned recently by the Department into local authority functions with respect to industrial pollution control.

  Support

  Four regional training workshops were held in early 2003 before the start of the local authority IPPC regime, these events catered for over 300 local authorities across England and Wales. Local authorities are encouraged to call upon on-going support from officials within the Department, for advice on policy matters, and the Environment Agency's Local Authority Unit on technical matters. The Department has promoted a network of local authorities, each experienced regulators of a particular industrial sector, to act as "centres of expertise" in order to provide additional advice to local authorities.

  European Definitions (Fruit and Vegetables)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the scale of penalties which will be incurred by retailers for selling(a) peaches which are less than 5.6 cm in diameter, (b) bananas which are less than 13.97 cm long and (c) carrots which are less than 1.9 cm at the thick end, following the Law Lords' decision on the case against Asda initiated by her Department. [146720]

  Alun Michael
  In November 2000 an inspector from the Horticultural Marketing Inspectorate found that some of the fruit and vegetables on display in the Asda store at Fareham in Hampshire contravened EC marketing standards. Asda's representatives argued that the court had no jurisdiction to deal with the alleged offences and the case eventually reached the House of Lords who on 18 December 2003 found in Defra's favour and returned the case to the magistrates court for trial. The full extent of the House of Lords decision can be found on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk.
  898W
  This decision confirms the view that the European Community's Marketing Standards for fresh fruit and vegetables and for bananas assist trade and protect consumers from the sale of substandard products can be upheld by prosecuting offenders in the magistrates court. It should be noted that contraventions in the Asda case involved inadequate labelling in relation to fruits such as lemons, apples, oranges and plums as well as the standard of Iceberg lettuces and aubergines. Unlike standards for other fresh fruits and vegetables, which do apply at retail level, the standard for bananas applies only to unripened green bananas. These are inspected only at the port of entry into the UK.

  While the figures given in the question are based on some misapprehension, produce of less than the minimum sizes prescribed in the standards is generally regarded as of unmarketable quality. The penalty for selling produce in breach of the EU Marketing Standards is a fine not exceeding Level 5 on the standard scale (currently £5,000) or imprisonment for up to three months, or both. These are unaffected by the decision of the Law Lords. However, prosecution is a last resort. When inspections show that produce does not comply with the standards, inspectors seek first to secure action to bring it into compliance. Prosecution is considered only where traders have failed to respond to repeated warnings.

  Flooding Insurance
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to offer a Government home insurance scheme to owners of homes built on flood plains who cannot obtain commercial insurance cover; and if she will make a statement. [152336]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 February 2004]: The Government have no plans to introduce such a scheme.

  According to the Association of British Insurers (ABI), it is the intention of the insurance industry, that flood insurance should continue to be available to the vast majority of existing properties. As set out in the ABI's Statement of Principles1, of the 1.9 million properties on the floodplain, flood insurance will continue to be available for all those properties defended to a minimum standard of 1 in 75, or for those properties where such defences are planned by 2007.

  For other properties (currently estimated at 200,000), insurers cannot guarantee to maintain cover, but will examine the risks on a case-by-case basis, and will use their best efforts to continue to provide cover. ABI believes that nearly all homes are insurable to a degree, provided appropriate local action is taken to protect the property, e.g., use of flood resilient design, accredited protection products, and temporary defences. However, the insurance industry has signalled that inappropriate new developments in the floodplain are unlikely to be able to secure insurance cover.
  1 www.abi.org.uk/Display/File/78/Statement_of_ Principles.doc

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the change in greenhouse gas emissions has been in(a) the UK, (b) Spain and (c) Portugal since 1990. [151489]
  899W
  Mr. Morley
  Under the provisions of the Monitoring Mechanism Decision (Council Decision 93/389/EEC as amended by Decision 99/296/EC), member states are required to report annually to the European Commission on their anthropogenic emissions of the six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol. The fourth progress report, published by the Commission in November 2003, shows data for member states' greenhouse gas emissions in 2001.

  The base year uses 1990 data for emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. For the fluorinated gases, most member states have chosen 1995 as the base year, as allowed under the Protocol.

  Under the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol, the EU and its member states have agreed to meet their commitments jointly under a burden-sharing arrangement. The EU target, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8 per cent. below base year levels, has been redistributed between member states to reflect their national circumstances, requirements for economic growth, and the scope for further emission reductions. Under the burden sharing agreement Spain and Portugal have agreed to targets that allow for an increase in their greenhouse gas emissions. Spain has a target to increase its emissions of greenhouse gases by 15 per cent. above base year levels by 2008–12, while Portugal has a target to increase emissions of greenhouse gases by 27 per cent. above base year levels by 2008–12.

  The UK's target is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 12.5 per cent. below base year levels by 2008–12. In 2001, UK emissions were 12.3 per cent. below base year levels; Spanish emissions were 32.1 per cent. above base year levels and; Portuguese emissions were 36.4 per cent. above the base year levels. Provisional figures for 2002, for the UK only, indicates emissions were about 15 per cent. below the base year.

  Gulf Stream
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has assessed on the impact of global warming on the Gulf Stream; and if she will make a statement. [152251]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 February 2004]: The responses of the Gulf Stream and other component: of the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation are being investigated in a major joint research programme by CEFAS and by the RAPID programme of the Natural Environment Research Council, working with Dutch, Norwegian and US Research Councils. This issue is also being investigated by the Hadley Centre, funded by Department, in collaboration with the RAPID programme.

  Under future climate change scenarios due to increased levels of greenhouse gases the Gulf Stream is predicted to weaken. Climate models do not, however, predict that the Gulf Stream will shut down. Consequently the UK and Western Europe are still predicted to warm by several degrees over the next century.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which landfill 900W
  sites have been chosen to continue receiving hazardous waste following the implementation of the Hazardous Waste Directive. [151194]

  Mr. Morley
  I have placed in the Library of the House the information requested, as at the end of 2003. The choice of whether any sites under the ownership or control are classified as hazardous is a matter for the landfill operator. From July 2004, the Landfill Directive permits stable non-reactive hazardous waste to be disposed of in a separate cell in non-hazardous landfills. This is expected to result in additional capacity being available for the disposal of hazardous waste.

  Horse Passports
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will assess the impact of the European Directive requiring horse passports on the population of semi-feral mountain ponies in Wales. [149656]

  Mr. Touhig
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that no final decision has yet been taken about the point at which Welsh mountain ponies will have to be passported, but implementation of the European legislation in full will require every horse, pony and donkey to have a passport. The Welsh Assembly, which is responsible, is still considering the final domestic legislation to implement the Directive, taking into account the need to preserve both the breed of pony and the environment in which it lives.

  Information Technology
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list each Information Technology system(a) supported and (b) in development by the IT Department at Guildford; which of those systems provide information to agencies associated with her Department; which of those systems support payments to outside bodies and individuals, giving the value of the payments for each system and the number of recipients of payments; which of those systems provide statistical information and payments to (i) her own and (ii) other Government departments; and which of those systems provide statistical information to the European Union. [150615]

  Alun Michael
  A table showing the list of each IT system supported by or under development by the IT Directorate at Guildford has been placed in the Library of the House. The table also sets out the additional information requested.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the contribution of organic farming to curbing the build up of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere. [152323]

  Mr. Morley
  Carbon monoxide is of concern mainly because of its effects on human health and its role in tropospheric ozone formation. As a result, carbon monoxide is one of the pollutants covered by the
  901W
  Government's Air Quality Strategy. No exceedences of the health-based ambient air quality objective have been recorded in the UK for several years.

  According to the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, over 90 per cent. of the annual UK emissions for 2001 resulted from incomplete fuel combustion, largely from road transport. The contribution of agriculture to the total is small, so organic farming is not expected to have a measurable effect on the total.

  Packaging Waste
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to publish the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003; and why they are only available in draft form. [147080]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 21 January 2004,Official Report, column 1234W.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 21 January 2004,Official Report, column 1234W, on packaging waste, what her policy is on the penalising of companies involved in the packaging waste process for actions taken in contravention of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) (England) 2003 before they were published. [152138]

  Mr. Morley
  The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003 came into force on 1 January and were published in final form on 14 January.

  The Environment Agency is responsible for monitoring compliance with the Regulations.

  Producers are required to register with the Environment Agency by 7 April, providing the required packaging data and fee. There are no actions required under these new Regulations that have to be discharged in the first 14 days of January.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 21 January 2004,Official Report, column 1234W, on packaging waste, what the extent was of the delays caused by the Christmas holiday period to the publishing of the Producer Responsibility Obligations(Packaging Waste) (Amendment) (England) 2003 [152139]

  Mr. Morley
  The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003 came into force on 1 January 2004. The final Regulations were published by the Stationery Office on 14 January.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason her Department had not allowed for delays caused by the Christmas holiday period when deciding(a) when to publish the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) (England) 2003 and (b) when they should come into force. [152140]

  Mr. Morley
  The new obligation year under the Packaging Regulations starts on 1 January each year. This determines when new Regulations must come into 902W
  force. The Department's intention is to publish new Regulations as soon as possible after making them. We would have preferred to see the new Regulations published before 1 January 2004, but from time to time, unintended delays occur which was the case on this occasion.

  Pollution
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the action plan on diffuse pollution relating to agriculture to be concluded. [152078]

  Mr. Morley
  The action plan to reduce diffuse water pollution from agriculture in England is currently being developed to ensure agriculture plays, and continues to play, its part to make water in England as clean and healthy as practicable.

  As announced in the pre-Budget report in December 2003, we intend to publish a draft action plan for consultation early this year that will set out options to tackle diffuse water pollution, including a consideration of the pros and cons of using economic instruments.

  Sellafield
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress made in ending discharges of TC-99 from Sellafield. [152191]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 January 2004]: As a result of co-operative efforts between BNFL, the Environment Agency, Health and Safety Executive and others, much has already been done to reduce Technetium-99 (Tc-99) discharge levels from Sellafield.

  The discharge limit was cut from 200 TBq/year (terabecquerels per year) to 90 TBq/year in 2000. Ministers also asked the Environment Agency to carry out a review of Tc-99 discharges and the Agency's proposed decision was published in September 2001. One of the proposals, to deal with new arisings of Medium Active Concentrate (MAC) (the complex liquid mixture that contains Tc-99 and other, more radiotoxic, radionuclides) using "MAC-Diversion" abatement technology, was implemented in 2003. This will allow the discharge limit to be reduced to 10 TBq/year in 2006.

  The Environment Agency also proposed further research on abatement of Tc-99 arising from stored MAC. In October 2003, following approval by regulators, a plant-scale trial began using tetraphenylphosphonium bromide (TPP)—a chemical that precipitates Tc-99 out of MAC. Initial results appear to be encouraging. However, a full evaluation of the trial by the regulators is still under way. If their assessment shows that TPP is acceptable for future use to reduce Tc-99 discharges, it will allow the discharge limits to be cut to below 90 TBq/year before 2006.

  Warm Front Programme
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what funding her Department has provided for the Warm Front programme in each year of that programme, including the current financial year; [151887]
  903W
  (2) when she expects to be able to announce the level of funding for the Warm Front programme in the (a) next financial year and (b) future years of the scheme. [151888]

  Mr. Morley
  The level of expenditure under Warm Front since the start of the scheme is as follows: 2000–01—£72 million; 2001–02—£197 million; 2002–03—£163 million. For the current financial year, 2003–04; £152 million has been allocated to Warm Front.

  Decisions on future funding of the scheme will be considered during the normal Government spending round process and announcements will be made after final decisions have been taken.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many households she estimates are eligible for the Warm Front scheme in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley; and how many households qualify for the Warm Homes Plus element of the programme. [151206]

  Mr. Morley
  We are preparing estimates of the total number of households in England currently eligible for assistance under Warm Front as part of the next spending round process.

  In addition we will be producing an Implementation Plan on the action required to achieve targets and tackle fuel poverty.

  Information on eligibility of the Warm Front scheme cannot be provided at a local authority level. The smallest area for which the Department for Work and Pensions can provide estimates of those eligible for the scheme is regional government office.

  Waste Disposal
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her Answer of 14 January 2004,Official Report, column 732W, on domestic waste, in which month the Government will consider the results of that work. [150841]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government will consider the results of work being undertaken as it is progressed during 2004, so no specific month has been identified for this work.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of(a) domestic, (b) commercial and (c) industrial refuse was recycled in each of the last three years. [151205]

  Mr. Morley
  Data from the three most recent annual Municipal Waste Management Surveys shows that the recycling and composting rates for household waste in England have been:

  Percentage

  1999–2000

  10.3

  2000–01

  11.2

  2001–02

  12.4

  904W
  Preliminary indications from the Best Value Performance Indicator returns for 2002–03 suggest a composting and recycling rate for England of 14.9 per cent., however this figure has still to be audited.

  The most recent figures for commercial waste and industrial waste in England are found in the Strategic Waste Management Assessment 2000, published by the Environment Agency, covering 1998–99. The survey collected data from a sample of 20,000 businesses across England and Wales.

  Commercial waste—22.5 per cent

  Industrial waste—34 per cent.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what subsidies are available for(a) the incineration of waste, (b) the recycling of waste and (c) other waste disposal options; at what rate per tonne those subsidies are paid; and what assessment she has made of the impact of each of the subsidies available on waste disposal options in England. [151366]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no direct subsidies available for waste disposal in the UK. However, in England the Government provide financial assistance to promote sustainable waste management in a number of ways.

  Examples include the Waste Implementation Programme and its components. This sustainable waste delivery programme aims to deliver a package of strategic measures recommended by the Strategy Unit report on waste, helping to move waste management up the waste hierarchy. The Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund provides assistance to local authorities to improve their infrastructure and collection systems for waste, in particular promoting recycling. Additional funding is provided through Waste PFI, for local authorities looking to work in partnership with the private sector to fund long-term waste solutions. £355 million has been provided over the SR2002 period.

  There is also a Government funded Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) which is designed to create stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and products, and remove the barriers to waste minimisation, re-use and recycling.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the environmental benefits of recycling. [151367]

  Mr. Morley
  Recycling has three direct benefits for the environment. By drawing recycled materials back into the production process fewer raw materials have to be extracted to produce the same amount of new products. This helps conserve natural resources and reduces the damage to the environment from resource extraction, for example mining or quarrying.

  It generally takes less energy to re-process recycled materials than generate new products from raw materials.

  Recycling also reduces the amount of waste sent to landfill, which is environmentally harmful.
  905W
  Recycling, which requires greater awareness of and direct involvement in waste issues by the public, will have the indirect benefit of encouraging greater public involvement and responsibility for their environment.

  The Government have commissioned a comparative study of the health and environmental effects of different types of waste treatment, which is to be published shortly.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the environmental benefits of incineration. [151368]

  Mr. Morley
  Incineration with controls on emissions is an important part of the Government's strategy on waste management. It is the only suitable way to protect the environment from certain biological pathogens and is the most effective way to render some hazardous chemical wastes safe.

  While re-using, recycling or composting waste can represent a better use of resources, incineration offers an opportunity to extract energy from the waste and is therefore preferable to disposal. This, in turn can reduce extraction and transportation of fuels that would otherwise be used to create energy. By diverting biodegradable waste from landfill, incineration also helps to reduce the production of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.

  Government have commissioned a comparative study of the health and environmental effects of different types of waste treatment, which is to be published shortly.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the environmental costs and benefits of landfill. [151369]

  Mr. Morley
  All waste disposal options have environmental impacts. Landfill has potentially adverse effects on air and water quality in addition to the local environmental impacts of noise and smell. The most important environmental impact reported in scientific research is the effect on global warming of emissions of greenhouse gases from the landfill of biodegradable waste. Methane (a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide) is generated at all landfill sites accepting biodegradable waste. The contribution of methane emitted from landfills to global warming contributes some 25 per cent. of methane emissions in the UK.

  Well operated and regulated landfills nevertheless have a role to play in waste disposal both now and in the future. The EU Landfill Directive (as implemented in England and Wales by the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002)) sets new standards for the management and engineering of landfill sites to reduce as far as possible the negative environmental impacts and any potential health risk. The Government are committed to reducing the UK's reliance on landfill, which, as well as its negative environmental impacts, makes little practical use of waste and is a missed opportunity to recover value from waste. For these reasons, Waste Strategy 2000 sets out a range of policies to promote the reduction, re-use, recycling and recovery of waste in order to divert it from landfill.
  906W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many tonnes of waste have been disposed of in England by(a) landfill, (b) incineration and (c) recycling in each of the last five years. [151370]

  Mr. Morley
  According to the most recent Municipal Waste Management Survey, about 28.8 million tonnes of municipal waste were collected in 2001–02. Of this, about 22.3 million tonnes were disposed of to landfill, 2.5 million tonnes were incinerated, and 3.9 million tonnes were recycled. The remaining municipal waste was dealt with using other management methods.

  The latest figures on industrial and commercial waste come from the last Environment Agency survey on commercial and industrial waste conducted in 1998–99, and a survey on construction and demolition waste in England in the same year. It is estimated that in 1998–99 51.2 million tonnes of industrial and commercial waste (including construction and demolition waste) were landfilled, 49.2 million tonnes were recycled and 1.3 million tonnes were incinerated. The Environment Agency is conducting another survey on commercial and industrial waste this year.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the impact of a £5 billion reduction in water company investment in environmental improvements on the United Kingdom's ability to meet its legal obligations to nature conservation sites; and if she will make a statement; [152250]

  (2) what representations she has received from the Environment Agency regarding the consequences of reducing investment by the water industry in environmental improvement; and if she will make a statement. [151770]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 February 2004]: The Government are committed to the maintenance or restoration of internationally and nationally important nature conservation sites, including Natura 2000. Ramsar and Sites of Special Scientific Interest. An assessment of water company programmes' effects on these areas, already under way, will be kept under review.

  The Government published guidance on the contribution expected from water company investment to meeting the United Kingdom's legal obligations in the Secretary of State's Initial Guidance on the Periodic Review in January 2003. The Secretary of State's Principal Guidance on the Periodic Review, which will be published shortly.

  The Secretary of State received formal written advice on the environment programme for the Periodic Review 2004 from the Environment Agency in November 2003. Both the Secretary of State and I have also had meetings and correspondence with the Environment Agency and English Nature to discuss the proposed environment programme.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [152642]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 3 February 2004,Official Report, column 838W.

  Iran
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards democracy in Iran. [151604]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  For elections in any country to be regarded as free and fair, electors should have a chance to vote for candidates with a range of views. We are concerned at reports that many candidates have been disqualified from standing in February's parliamentary elections.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether former members of the Iraqi Ba'ath party will be permitted to stand for election in Iraq under the proposed arrangements being negotiated with the Iraq Governing Council. [151973]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The process of de-Ba'athification is an Iraqi led process. Guidelines were announced by the Iraqi Governing Council on 11 January and provide a clear framework for this process. The Transitional Administrative Law, which will include the criteria for nomination to the Transitional National Assembly, is in the final stages of drafting. It is likely to follow the existing practice that nominees shall not have been a member of the dissolved Ba'ath Party at the rank of Division Member (uthu firqah) or higher—unless exempted by the National De Ba'athification Commission—or a member of the past agencies of repression, or one who participated in the oppression of citizens.

  South Africa
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which official from Trade Partners UK was given a sabbatical to work with BAE Systems in South Africa; what date and for what period this sabbatical was given; and what position the official held prior to his sabbatical. [151388]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  Nicholas McInnes is a DTI Civil Servant who was granted Special Leave Without Pay at his request with effect from 30 April 2003 for one year. He is now working in South Africa. Previously he was Director, International Management Directorate in UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) formerly Trade Partners UK.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress of the peace process in Sri Lanka. [152405]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on 26 January 2004,Official Report, column 62W.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the(a) President and (b) Prime Minister of Sri Lanka about the political situation in Sri Lanka. [152406]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary met the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, Ranil Wickremesinghe in June 2003. However, the British High Commissioner in Colombo also has regular discussions with both the President and Prime Minister. He last met the President on 3 December 2003 and the Prime Minister on 12 January this year.

SCOTLAND

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for answer on 22 January, on the Scottish whisky industry. [152947]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I replied to the hon. Member's question on 3 February 2004,Official Report, column 757W.

TRANSPORT

  Public Bodies
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who the members of the(a) Civil Aviation Authority, (b) Traffic Area Eastern and (c) Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151806]

  Mr. McNulty
  The names, dates of appointment and annual remuneration of members of the Civil Aviation Authority, Traffic Area Eastern England and Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee are recorded in the following table.

  First name

  Surname

  Appointed from

  Appointed to

  Remuneration

  Civil Aviation Authority

  John

  Arscott

  03/01/04

  02/28/09

  Yes

  Mike

  Bell

  11/14/03

  11/13/08

  Yes

  Harry

  Bush

  01/04/03

  03/31/08

  Yes

  Chris

  Jesnick

  03/01/01

  29/02/04

  Yes

  James

  Keohane

  01/01/04

  12/31/08

  Yes

  David

  Lusher

  05/01/02

  03/31/05

  Yes

  Roy

  McNulty

  09/01/04

  08/31/08

  Yes

  Roger

  Mountford

  04/01/03

  03/31/08

  Yes

  Helen

  Simpson

  08/01/01

  07/31/04

  Yes

  Roy

  Swainson

  07/01/02

  03/31/06

  Yes

  David

  Walker

  10/03/03

  Resignation from ACAS

  No

  909W

  First name

  Surname

  Appointed from

  Appointed to

  Remuneration

  Traffic Commissioner—East England

  Geoffrey

  Simms

  01/06/98

  07/08/06

  Yes

  Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

  Pravinkant

  Amin

  01/07/03

  30/06/06

  No

  Sian

  Baldwin

  01/01/02

  31/12/04

  No

  Ann

  Bates

  01/01/02

  31/12/04

  No

  Neil

  Betteridge

  01/07/03

  30/06/06

  No

  Josephine

  Clairmont

  01/07/03

  30/06/06

  No

  Lekh

  Dindayal

  01/01/02

  31/12/04

  No

  Jean

  Dunlop

  01/07/03

  30/06/06

  No

  David

  Finnegan

  01/01/02

  31/12/04

  No

  Julie

  Giles

  01/07/03

  30/06/06

  No

  Alan

  Hartley

  01/01/02

  31/12/04

  No

  Roy

  Hayter

  11/10/02

  31/12/04

  No

  Roger

  Hewitt

  01/07/03

  30/06/06

  No

  Grahame

  Lawson

  01/07/03

  30/06/06

  No

  Jenny

  Meadows

  01/07/03

  30/06/06

  No

  Thomas

  Pey

  01/01/02

  31/12/04

  No

  David

  Pugh

  01/01/02

  31/12/04

  No

  Keith

  Richards

  01/01/02

  31/12/04

  No

  Laura

  Smales

  01/07/03

  30/06/06

  No

  Carol

  Thomas

  01/07/03

  30/06/06

  No

  Richard

  West

  01/07/03

  30/06/06

  No

  Railways
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the total level of investment provided by the private sector in the railway industry was in each of the financial years since the publication of the 10 Year Plan; [152444]

  (2) if he will list the railway investment projects supported by the private sector in the last financial year; what the total level of funding provided by the private sector for these projects was (a) in the last financial year and (b) in total since the projects began; and what the private sector proportion of total funding for these projects was. [152445]

  Mr. McNulty
  The table shows total private rail investment in each of the three years 2000–01, 2001–02 and2002–03:

  £ million

  2000–01

  2,958

  2001–02

  3,386

  2002–03

  3,156

  Rail investment projects supported by the private sector in 2002–03 include the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL), West Coast Route Modernisation (WCRM), the train protection scheme, stations and depots, Waterloo-Fawkham Junction and the East Coast Main Line.

  The total level of private funding raised by London and Continental Railways (LCR) in 2002–03, mainly for CTRL, was £2.1 billion. The total amount spent by Network Rail (NR) in 2002–03 on the other projects listed was, respectively, £761 million, £140 million, £44 million, £26 million and £11 million.

  Comparable figures for the private and public sector contributions to the CTRL project are not readily available. The total level of private funding raised by LCR since the CTRL project began, mainly for that project, is £6.3 billion, not all of which has yet been
  910W
  drawn. The project also benefits from Public Sector Support (including capital and operating grants and loans, less amounts recovered by Government in respect of land rentals and proceeds from property developments) estimated in 2002 to total, over the life of the project, £1.8 billion in present value terms (discounted at 6 per cent. real to January 1997).

  Total spending to date on the WCRM project, by NR and its predecessor Railtrack, is of the order of £3 billion. Total NR spending on the other projects listed above, since they began, is not readily available. It is not possible accurately to estimate the proportion of total funding for these projects which is provided by the private sector, because some private rail investment is indirectly funded by the public sector through franchise payments and access charges.

  Rural Bus Grant
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce the levels of the rural bus grant to local authorities for 2004–05; and if he will enhance those grants to support authorities in securing the continuation of community transport schemes whose central Government funding has expired. [152860]

  Mr. McNulty
  The total amount allocated to local transport authorities in Rural Bus Subsidy Grant is due to rise from £48.5 million in the current financial year to £51 million in 2004–05. An announcement will be made shortly on the increases for individual authorities which will depend in part on consideration of newly available population data from the 2001 census. Following that announcement it will be for each authority to decide on what schemes and services the grant should be spent.

  Swanwick Air Traffic Control Centre
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the cost is of the software upgrade at Swanwick Air Traffic Control Centre to be made by National Air Traffic Services as a result of the near-miss between a Virgin Atlantic and a Delta Airlines aircraft in November 2002; [151781]

  (2) what the value is of software that will become redundant at Swanwick Air Traffic Control Centre owing to the software upgrade to be carried out as a result of the near-miss between a Virgin Atlantic and a Delta Airlines aircraft in November 2002; [151782]

  (3) if he will list the spending on computer systems at the Swanwick Air Traffic Control Centre for each year since 1997. [151833]

  Mr. McNulty
  Spending on its computer systems is a matter for NATS. The incident in November 2002 has been assessed by the UK Airprox Board—an independent body of experts—as carrying no risk of collision. It was the result of human error and the software has been modified by NATS to preclude a repeat of such human error.

  Taxis
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received
  911W
  concerning the Office of Fair Trading's report recommending de-restriction of taxis; and if he will make a statement. [152478]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 3 February 2004]: We have received just over 600 representations about the OFT's report into licensed taxi and private hire vehicle services. We are now considering them carefully so that we can respond to the OFT within 120 days of their report. The representations include the views of key taxi and private hire stakeholders that we sought.

  US Ships (Decommissioning)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the International Maritime Organisation recommendations on changing ballast water mid-ocean were followed in respect of the ships sent from the US for dismantling in Hartlepool. [152701]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 3 February 2004]: The vessels were appropriately ballasted for a towed transoceanic passage to the UK. No changes to the ballast water were made on route or after arrival at Hartlepool. If a decision was to be taken to discharge ballast water in Hartlepool then Able UK would need to submit a ballast water management plan for approval by the Environment Agency.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Motor Sport
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress with the Department's commitment to investment in British motor sport. [152566]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department, along with the Department of Trade and Industry, recently announced a £16 million investment into motorsport, to take forward the recommendations in the Motorsport Competitiveness Panels report. This is the responsibility of the Motorsport Development Board, and my Officials continue to work with the Government Motorsport Unit to take forward the sporting recommendations in the report.

  The East Midlands Development Agency also continues to work with Formula One Management, Octagon and the British Racing Drivers' Club about the long-term future of Silverstone.

  Tourism
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with One North-East about its responsibilities in relation to tourism. [152488]

  Name

  Jonathan Laidlaw

  Counsel

  Gerald Butler QC

  Counsel

  Anthony Heaton-Armstrong

  Former Chairman of Review of Coroners

  Louise Christian

  Christian Khan

  Dr. Roy Palmer

  HM Coroner, Southern District of Greater London

  Lindsay Pennell

  Victim Support

  912W
  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have discussed tourism with the Chairs of all the Regional Development Agencies, in the light of their taking over tourism responsibilities from 1 April 2003, and I met Tim Cantle-Jones, the ONE Board member with specific responsibility for tourism on 13 January 2004 to discuss progress on tourism reform in the North East. Also, officials from the Department and from the Government Office for the North East have been in regular contact with ONE as it has taken on strategic responsibility for tourism in the region, and have also had discussions with the Northumbria Tourist Board. I have asked ONE and the other RDAs to work with their tourist boards and the industry to decide upon the best support structure for the tourism industry in their particular region. I understand that ONE is working towards the introduction of a new structure for the delivery of tourism in the North East. DCMS officials continue to work with the RDAs to help ensure a planned and smooth transition to any new arrangements.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Deaths in Custody
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list those individuals and organisations(a) to whom (i) her Department, (ii) its executive agencies and (iii) the non-departmental public bodies for which her Department is responsible sent a copy of the consultation "Deaths in custody: a review of the role and practices of the Crown Prosecution Service": a consultation paper, and (b) from whom each received a response. [151653]

  The Solicitor-General
  An initial consultation paper for the "Deaths in Custody: A review of the role and practices of the Crown Prosecution Service" was sent to 151 people at the end of April 2002. 37 Consultees responded.

  An all-day seminar was held on 21 May 2002 to discuss the review. 83 people attended that seminar. The report; "Deaths in Custody: a review of the role and practices of the Crown Prosecution Service" was sent out to 217 people. 18 agreed to be named as contributing to the report.

  Some MPs were consulted, including those on the Home Affairs Select Committee, Joint Human Rights Committee and the Parliamentary Labour Party and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Also consulted were the judiciary, police, prisons, coroners, overseas DPPs, the legal and medical professions, academics, civil liberties groups, victims and interest groups and members of the general public who expressed an interest.

  The 18 people who contacted my office agreeing to their contribution to the report being made known are as follows:
  913W

  Name

  Selena Lynch

  Coroner for Inner South District Greater London

  Lord Campbell of Alloway QC, ERD

  —

  Dr. Margaret Stark

  Association of Forensic Physicians (formerly Association of Police Surgeons)

  Dr. Guy Norfolk

  Association of Forensic Physicians

  Phil Pavey

  CRE

  Robert Johnson

  Anoka County Attorney, US

  Win Griffiths

  MP

  Nogah Ofer

  Hickman & Rose

  Daniel Machover

  Hickman & Rose

  Wendy Towers

  PCA (at that time)

  Kathleen Lowe

  Law Society

  Margaret Warren (for her late husband, Peter Warren)

  Member of the public

  Hutton Report
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Solicitor-General if the Attorney-General will discuss with Lord Hutton the investigation of the source of the leak of Lord Hutton's findings to Mr. Trevor Kavanagh of The Sun, with reference to the witness summons clauses of the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996. [152519]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 3 February 2004]: The Attorney-General does not propose to discuss this matter with Lord Hutton. 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.

WALES

  Correspondence
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters from hon. Members from Wales he answered during(a) June, (b) July, (c) August,(d) September, (e) October and (f) November 2003; and if he will make a statement. [150059]

  Mr. Hain
  Details of correspondence from hon. Members from Wales answered in June to November 2003 are as follows:

  Number

  June

  2

  July

  7

  August

  1

  September

  3

  October

  3

  November

  5

  During that period, the Wales Office also answered 238 other letters and dealt with over 2,500 inter-departmental letters.

  As the hon. Member is aware, post devolution most of the executive functions of the Secretary of State for Wales now rest with the National Assembly for Wales.

  Hon. Members also take greater opportunity to raise matters personally rather than in writing.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  India
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of poverty levels within the Indian state of Jharkhand. [152411]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The latest official figures on poverty that relate to the State of Jharkhand pertain to the year 1999–2000 (National Human Development Report 2001); at this time Jharkhand was part of the state of Bihar. The percentage of people under the official poverty line was 42.6 per cent. out of the total population of 99.9 million. DFID has not undertaken an independent poverty assessment in the State of Jharkhand.

  Iraq
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether there are UK representatives on the International Advisory and Monitoring Board in Iraq. [152408]

  Hilary Benn
  The United Kingdom is not represented on the International Advisory and Monitoring Board for Iraq (IAMB). Its members are representatives of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development and the World Bank. The IAMB's role is to provide for the independent monitoring of the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), so it would not be appropriate for a party to DFI spending decisions to be represented on it.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 26 January 2004,Official Report, column 24W, on Iraq, who the voting members are of the Programme Review Board which approves Coalition Provisional Authority plans for expenditures from the Development Fund for Iraq; and who the Department's secondees are to the Coalition Provisional Authority. [152403]

  Hilary Benn
  The voting members of the Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority Program Review Board (PRB) are representatives of: the Iraqi Minister of Finance; the CPA's Economic Affairs, Governance and Security Policy Offices, and Office of Infrastructure and Operations; the Coalition military (Combined Joint Task Force 7); the Iraqi Council for International Co-operation; and the Governments of the United Kingdom and Australia.
  915W
  DFID secondees to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad are currently filling the posts of: Director of Operations, Policy Adviser, Financial Adviser, Senior Adviser and Institutional Development Adviser to the Ministry of Public Works, Electricity Adviser, Gender Adviser and Logistics Manager for the food Public Distribution System.

  Twelve secondees, directly employed by DFID, are filling a range of posts in CPA South in Basra; and six such secondees are working in CPA Governorate offices in Dhi Qar, Kirkuk and Wasit. A further 25 posts in the CPA in Basra are currently being filled through a DFID contract with the Crown Agents.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2004,Official Report, column 1144W, on Iraq, if he will place in the Library reports of the meetings between his Department's staff and Coalition Provisional Authority South regarding the review of projects funded by his Department in Southern Iraq. [152409]

  Hilary Benn
  We will shortly be publishing an Interim Country Assistance Plan (ICAP) setting out DFID's programme in Iraq over the next two years. The ICAP reflects discussions between DFID staff and the Coalition Provisional Authority (South). A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the projects funded by his Department in southern Iraq that have not been subcontracted to local firms. [152410]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID supports a staffing project which supplies the Coalition Provisional Authority in Southern Iraq with a range of reconstruction policy advisers. This project does not include sub-contracts with local firms.

  DFID does, however, fund a number of projects in Southern Iraq which do include sub-contracts with local firms. They are as follows:

  No.

  Project title

  Consultant

  Consultant's brief

  Current value (original contract value plus cost of any increases or extensions). (£)

  1.

  Public Service Delivery Initiative

  Centre for Management and Policy Studies

  To provide a team of experts with relevant experience to work with the Government of Nigeria's new Service Delivery Team

  54,787

  2.

  State and Local Government Project (SLGP)

  HTS Consulting Ltd.

  To enhance the capacity and effectiveness of state and local government in Nigeria to manage resources and ensure delivery of services, in the interests of poor people

  20,508,289

  3.

  Partnership for Transforming Health Services (PATHS)

  HLSP Consulting Ltd.

  The PATHS programme will assist Nigerian-led initiatives for health system reform

  17,181,515

  4.

  Health Sector Reform Early Start Project: Change Agent Programme (CAPS)

  HLSP Consulting Ltd.

  CAPS is a sister project to PATHS. It aims to provide two 'Change Agent Programmes' (CAP), one for "Health Sector Reform" and the other for "Immunisation Programme Reform" (IPR)

  1,674,128

  916W
  The Recovery and Infrastructure Group project is rehabilitating a number of important buildings in Southern Iraq such as hospitals and government buildings. The contract is managed by Halcrow, but local firms carry out all infrastructure work.

  Similarly, Halcrow manage a contract to rehabilitate a number of regional offices. Local firms carry out all reconstruction and all materials are procured from local firms.

  The Emergency Infrastructure Project is managed by Mott MacDonald. The bulk of funding for this project is spent on international procurement. However, local firms have been contracted to carry out reconstruction work. Goods and materials have also been procured from local firms for this project.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development who the members of the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority's programme review board are; what criteria were adopted to choose the members of the board; how many United Kingdom representatives are on the board; and what their period of membership is. [151970]

  Hilary Benn
  The membership of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Programme Review Board (PRB) comprises representatives of: the Iraqi Minister of Finance; the CPA's Economic Affairs, Governance and Security Policy Offices, and Office of Infrastructure and Operations; the Coalition military (Combined Joint Task Force 7); the Iraqi Council for International Co-operation; and the Governments of the United Kingdom and Australia. The UK Government have one representative on the Board, normally the Head of the DFID Office in Baghdad. Membership of the Board is not held in a personal capacity.

  Nigeria
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which consultants are retained by his Department to provide the Government of Nigeria with advice on public service delivery and civil service reform; what the value of the contracts with the consultants is; and what the nature of the consultants' brief is. [152381]

  Hilary Benn
  The requested information is shown in the following table.
  917W

  No.

  Project title

  Consultant

  Consultant's brief

  Current value (original contract value plus cost of any increases or extensions) (£)

  5.

  Access to Justice Programme

  The British Council

  The Access to Justice Programme's purpose is to support the development of Nigeria-led justice sector reform so that pro-poor policies are implemented

  16,583,210

  6.

  Procurement Agent for Nigeria Contraceptives and Communication against HIV/Aids Programme

  Population Services International (PSI)

  The programme will contribute to 90 per cent. of all young adults having access to STD/HIV/AIDS prevention methods by 2005

  52,800,000

  1 Inception

  Sudan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the levels of(a) malnutrition, (b) disease and (c) destitution in Southern Sudan in (i) December 2001, (ii) December 2002 and (iii) December 2003. [149985]

  Hilary Benn
  It was not possible to obtain the information on the overall levels of malnutrition in Southern Sudan for the month of December in the years requested. The following table lists rates of malnutrition for November through to February for the years indicated, and at the locations mentioned. These are from NGO surveys. As the NGOs would undertake surveys in areas where high levels of malnutrition were suspected they should not be taken as representative of the whole population. The rates give the proportion of children acutely malnourished. This approximates to the percentage of children who are less than 80 per cent. of the international reference weight for a given height:

  Southern Sudan: Rates of malnutrition

  Percentage

  County

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Aweil East

  13.9

  n/a

  25

  Aweil South

  n/a

  21.1

  22.1

  Aweil West

  13.9

  n/a

  n/a

  Gogrial

  3

  n/a

  n/a

  Magwe

  17

  23.1

  n/a

  Northern Leech

  16.4

  n/a

  n/a

  Phou State

  16.8

  n/a

  n/a

  Sobat

  23.4

  n/a

  n/a

  Twic

  25.1

  n/a

  n/a

  Yirol

  9.9

  n/a

  n/a

  The only year where we have information on levels of disease in December in Southern Sudan is 2002. Over that year there were outbreaks of measles and whooping cough reported, with 132 cases of whooping cough of whom two died, and 85 cases of measles with three deaths. There were also reports of rabies, but there are no actual numbers of cases affected. Basic health indicators in Southern Sudan are persistently very poor, and among the worst in Africa.

  In the absence of information specifically related to destitution we have referred to the monthly report of the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, which provides information on those requiring emergency humanitarian assistance in the form of food aid. The December issue of this report usually gives the harvest assessment and the needs assessment for the following year. For 2001 the main findings were that emergency
  918W
  needs were linked to the presence of insecurity in parts of Bahr-el-Ghazal, Upper Nile and Eastern Equatoria. In 2002 below average harvest combined with insecurity resulted in persisting requirements for humanitarian relief in parts of Bahr-el-Ghazal, Upper Nile and Eastern Equatoria. In 2003 agricultural production was generally good, but need for emergency assistance remained in many communities in Upper Nile and Bahr-el-Ghazal.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [148634]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Details of staff who have received Statutory Sick Pay in the periods specified could only be obtained at disproportionate cost to the Department.

  DFID is committed to managing sickness absence effectively, and we are making progress in reducing the levels of absence year on year.

  Sudanese Refugees
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the humanitarian condition of Sudanese refugees from the Beja community who are living in Eritrea; and if he will make a statement. [151949]

  Hilary Benn
  We have not made any specific assessment of Sudanese Beja refugees in Eritrea. However, we keep closely in touch with Government of Eritrea, NGO and UN reports/assessments, and are therefore aware of the concern that has recently been raised about the humanitarian situation faced by the Beja refugees.

  UK is willing to play its part in the provision of assistance to address humanitarian needs, in any part of Eritrea and with any community, where there are urgent, unmet humanitarian needs.

  We have been supporting supplementary food distributions to the Beja in Eritrea through the NGO Dutch Interchurch Aid.

  Voluntary Service Overseas
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his Department's
  919W
  grant to Voluntary Service Overseas (a) is this year and (b) will be next year: and how many Voluntary Service Overseas volunteers this money supports. [152088]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Under the Partnership Programme Agreement with DFID, the VSO grant for 2004–05 will be £24,460,000. The grant for 2004–05 will be £24,860,000. In the past two years, the grant has made up approximately 75 per cent. of VSO's total income and we have no reason to believe that this will change during 2003–04 and 2005–06.

  The total number of volunteers supported by the grant in 2003–04 will be 1505. In 2004–05, the number of volunteers supported is estimated to be 1540.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Homelessness
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on homelessness. [152486]

  Yvette Cooper
  Homelessness is a serious problem affecting families across the country, but particularly concentrated in London. The Government have increased funding to prevent and address homelessness, strengthened the safety net for vulnerable people, and reduced the level of rough sleeping by two thirds. Councils have also cut substantially the number of homeless families in Bed and Breakfast.

  Registered Social Landlords
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what plans he has to encourage councils to adopt registered social landlords as principal agents for development. [152487]

  Keith Hill
  Guidance to local authorities already stresses the need to consider using registered social landlords when funding provision of affordable housing. This will generally provide more dwellings for a given amount of public subsidy and increases choice and competition.

  Housing
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he is taking to encourage greater energy efficiency in new house building. [152489]

  Phil Hope
  The Energy White Paper, published on 24 February, announced that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would start work immediately on the next major revision of the Building Regulations. This work has started and using the energy efficiency provisions of the Building Regulations we aim to bring new standards into effect in 2005.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to assess the impact on North West house builders of his current housing policy. [152481]

  Keith Hill
  The housing policies in Regional Planning Guidance are monitored by the North West Regional Assembly. A full review of the housing figures in Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) will take place in 2006.
  920W
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of(a) households, (b) people, (c) accommodation units and (d) dwellings that will fall within the scope of the mandatory houses in multiple occupation licensing scheme proposed in the Housing Bill. [152182]

  Keith Hill
  The Government estimate that about 120,000 houses in multiple occupation will be licensed under the mandatory licensing scheme proposed in the Housing Bill. It is estimated that 360,000 to 450,000 dwellings up to 720,000 households (including single person households) will be protected by the regime.

  Local Government
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the review of local government boundaries. [152490]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Boundary Committee for England is currently undertaking reviews of the structure and boundaries of local government in the three northern regions prior to referendums on directly elected regional assemblies. There are currently no plans for further reviews of structures and boundaries.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with Essex county council on his plans to regionalise the fire service. [152491]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have no plan to regionalise the Fire and Rescue Service other than in regions which vote in a referendum for an elected regional assembly. No such referendum is proposed in the Eastern region.

  Regional Government
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will set a date for the referendum on regional government in the north-west. [152492]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to hold the referendums in the three northern regions in autumn 2004.

  But before a date can be set:

  The Boundary Committee must make its recommendations on restructuring local government in two-tier areas; and

  Parliament must approve the Orders calling the referendums.

  We expect to lay these in Summer.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will meet a delegation from Worcestershire to discuss the report by Professor David Blanchflower and Professor Andrew Oswald on the calculation of an appropriate regional funding adjustment for the county. [152493]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No. During the formula review, which was completed in 2002 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister looked in some detail at the different geographies, data and methods that could be used to calculate the ACA. Several of the options advocated by Professors Oswald and Blanchflower in their report were examined and rejected during the formula review.
  921W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister considered the Oswold and Blanchflower report as part of the written representations received on the local government settlement for 2004–05. However, as we made clear following the recent review it is our intention that the funding formulae will be frozen for at least 2004–05 and 2005–06. There would therefore be little purpose in the suggested meeting.

  Beaches
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether beaches form part of functional flood plains for the purpose of planning policy guidance. [152715]

  Keith Hill
  Planning policy guidance note (PPG) 25 defines the functional flood plain as the unobstructed or active areas within the land at risk of river and coastal flooding shown on indicative flood plain maps prepared by the Environment Agency where water flows regularly in times of flood. Areas that are defended are passive until such time as the defences are overtopped or breached and are not regarded as part of the functional flood plain.

  The term functional flood plain was primarily coined in connection with river flooding, where the proper functioning of a river flood plain serves to reduce the impact of flooding on other areas. However, since most beaches are flooded by tides twice a day, and are undefended they could logically be considered to be functional flood plains, as could undefended areas above mean high water that are flooded by the sea on a regular basis. There may be instances where a storm beach created by extreme high waters has its crest above the flood level with an annual probability of occurrence of 0.5 per cent. In such a case the storm beach itself might not be classified as functional flood plain because of the very long periods between potential flooding events.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reasons beaches are not part of the definitions of land contained within planning policy guidance; and if he will take steps to ensure that they are. [152716]

  Keith Hill
  Beaches are part of the definition of land within planning policy guidance. Control under the planning system extends to the seaward boundary of local planning authorities, which is generally taken to be the mean low water mark unless statutory provisions state otherwise at a particular location. Any development on a beach above mean low water would thus be subject to planning control. Planning policies in national or regional guidance, where they are relevant, would be material planning considerations in the formulation of development plans and the determination of applications for planning permission.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which planning policy guidance notes cover proposed development on beaches. [152717]

  Keith Hill
  Planning policy guidance notes (PPGs) cover all land that is subject to control under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, namely all land within local authority boundaries. In coastal areas, the seaward boundary of local authorities is generally taken to be mean low water. Thus the planning system and all the PPGs would cover relevant developments within a922W
  local authority, including that on the intertidal or supratidal areas of beaches above mean low water. Particular consideration is given to development in coastal areas, including that on beaches, in PPG 20 Coastal Planning and in PPG 25 Development and flood risk.

  Dame Shirley Porter
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress being made in removing the damehood from Dame Shirley Porter. [152193]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government do not comment on individual honours cases.

  Homebuy Loans
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Homebuy loans were made to(a) those in social housing, (b) those on housing waiting lists and (c) key workers in London in 2002–03. [152018]

  Keith Hill
  A total of 332 Homebuy loans, funded by social housing grant, were approved for property purchases during 2002–03.

  A Housing Corporation survey, "CORE Sales", identified 242 of sales on Homebuy terms carried out in London during 2002–03. Of these:

  (a) 88 per cent. were to households in social housing;

  (b) a further 11 per cent. were to households who were not in social housing but who were on a local authority waiting list or common housing register.

  (c) The Housing Corporation's investment system shows that there were eight Homebuy loans to key workers in London approved during 2002–03.

  It should be noted that a further 1,400 key workers in London were assisted under the Starter Home Initiative in 2002–03—many of whom received equity loans similar to the Homebuy model.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how and by which department housing benefit in respect of tenants whose properties(a) are managed by arm's length management organisations, (b) have been the subject of large-scale voluntary transfers and (c) are council owned is paid; for what reasons they are not all paid on the same basis as the social security fund; and what the effect of the method of funding is on central Government housing allocations to each type of operator. [148065]

  Mr. Pond
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local authorities are responsible for the payment of housing benefit to eligible claimants. Housing benefit is paid as a rent rebate to local authority tenants and rent allowance to tenants of private landlords (including individual private landlords, housing associations and registered social landlords); tenants whose properties are managed by arm's length management organisations remain local authority tenants.

  Currently as part of the housing benefit scheme local authorities in England receive a subsidy to reimburse them for correctly determined housing benefit claims.

  923W
  Responsibility for payment of the indirect housing benefit subsidy element, which for English authorities was previously distributed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, will be transferred to the Department for Work and Pensions from April 2004. This element represented the 5.5 per cent. residual subsidy paid to authorities for rent allowance, council tax benefit and non-housing revenue account rent rebates, which supplemented the 95 per cent. direct subsidy that the Department for Work and Pensions already pay; from April this year the Department for Work and Pensions will pay all HB/CTB benefit subsidy as a direct grant, payable at 100 per cent. for correct claims.

  In addition responsibility for rent rebate subsidy will transfer to the Department for Work and Pensions from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister from April 2004. As a result of the transfer of all housing benefit and council tax benefit funding streams to the Department for Work and Pensions, a full review of the subsidy rules has been undertaken in order to produce a simpler, clearer system for reimbursing local authorities.

  Housing allocations take no account of these arrangements.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list(a) the 10 local authorities which are due to receive the greatest percentage increases in grant in the financial year 2004–05 and (b) the amounts of those increases. [152326]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Having adjusted for changes in function, the 10 largest percentage increases in grant are tabled as follows:

  Local authority

  Adjusted 2003–04 grant

  2004–05 grant

  Change

  Percentage change

  Oadby and Wigston

  2.689

  3.002

  0.312

  11.6

  Blaby

  3.744

  4.101

  0.357

  9.5

  South Staffordshire

  4.743

  5.158

  0.415

  8.7

  Milton Keynes

  152.958

  166.097

  13.139

  8.6

  North Somerset

  104.058

  112.921

  8.863

  8.5

  Congleton

  3.609

  3.909

  0.299

  8.3

  Member

  First appointed

  Re-appointed

  Expiry

  Remuneration

  The Housing Corporation1

  Armitage, Eric (Deputy and Chair Registration Committee)

  1 October 1997

  1 October 2000

  30 September 2004

  Yes

  Arthur, Richard (Chair of Registration and Super Committee)

  1 October 2000

  30 September 2004

  Yes

  Button, Sheila (Chair of Finance and Audit Committee)

  1 October 1997

  1 October 2000

  30 September 2004

  Yes

  Dixon, Peter (Chair)

  1 October 2003

  30 September 2006

  Yes

  Drew Smith, Sheila

  1 December 2002

  30 September 2005

  Yes

  Duncan. Michael (Chair of Investment Committee)

  1 October 2000

  30 September 2004

  Yes

  Fawcett, Julie

  1 December 2002

  30 September 2005

  Yes

  Higgins, David

  24 March 2003

  Ex-officio

  No

  Huka, Geraldine

  1 October 2001

  30 September 2004

  Yes

  Hutchinson, Yvonne

  1 July 1998

  1 October 2001

  30 September 2005

  Yes

  Moledina, Shaukat

  1 December 2002

  30 September 2005

  Yes

  Monckton, Ivan

  1 April 1999

  1 January 2003

  30 September 2005

  Yes

  O'Neill, Sandi

  1 December 2002

  30 September 2005

  Yes

  Perry, Norman

  2 October 2000

  Ex-officio

  No

  Winckler, Andrew

  6 April 1998

  1 October 2001

  30 September 2005

  Yes

  Housing Action Trust-iverpool1

  Allen, Nicola

  1 October 2002

  30 June 2005

  Yes

  Chape, Alan

  1 October 2002

  30 June 2005

  Yes

  Clark, Eileen

  8 February 1993

  1 May 2002

  30 June 2005

  Yes

  Dykes, Rodney (Deputy Chair)

  8 February 1993

  1 June 2000

  30 June 2005

  Yes

  924W

  Local authority

  Adjusted 2003–04 grant

  2004–05 grant

  Change

  Percentage change

  Telford and the Wrekin

  116.443

  125.771

  9.328

  8.0

  Cambridgeshire

  279.796

  302.047

  22.252

  8.0

  Reading

  89.805

  96.933

  7.128

  7.9

  Thurrock

  109.162

  117.776

  8.615

  7.9

  Public Bodies
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister who the members of the(a) Housing Action Trust Liverpool, (b) Audit Commission, (c) Housing Action Trust Stonebridge, (d) Buildings Regulations Advisory Committee and (e) Housing Corporation were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151807]

  Keith Hill
  The details of the members, their term of office in each case and whether they are remunerated are listed in the following tables:

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee as at January 20041

  Member

  First appointed

  Re-appointed

  Expiry

  Allen, Paul

  1 February 1998

  1 February 2001

  31 January 2004

  Brown, Tony

  1 February 2001

  31 January 2004

  Cassar, May

  1 February 2002

  31 January 2005

  Conway, John

  1 February 1998

  1 February 2001

  31 January 2004

  Cowans, Julie

  1 February 1998

  1 February 2001

  31 January 2004

  Finn, Michael

  1 July 1991

  1 January 2002

  31 December 2004

  Gibson, David

  1 February 1998

  1 February 2001

  31 January 2004

  Holliday, David

  1 February 2002

  31 January 2005

  Jones, Philip Mills,

  1 October 2000

  1 October 2003

  30 September 2006

  Christopher

  1 February 2001

  31 January 2004

  Roberts, Phil

  1 February 1998

  1 February 2001

  31 January 2004

  Sheehan, Frank

  1 October 2000

  1 October 2003

  30 September 2006

  Smith, David

  1 February 1998

  1 February 2001

  31 January 2004

  Soane, Alastair

  1 February 2001

  31 January 2004

  Stanton, John

  1 February 2001

  1 February 2003

  31 January 2006

  Sullivan, Lynne

  1 February 2002

  31 January 2005

  Thirumoolan,

  Arumugathasan

  1 February 2002

  31 January 2005

  Walsh, Sean

  1 October 2000

  1 October 2002

  30 September 2004

  Warburton,

  Peter

  1 February 2002

  31 January 2005

  Williams, Kelvin

  1 October 2000

  1 October 2003

  30 September 2006

  Wright. Clare

  1 February 1998

  1 February 2002

  31 January 2005

  Young, Janet

  1 February 2002

  31 January 2005

  1None receive remuneration.

  925W

  Member

  First appointed

  Re-appointed

  Expiry

  Remuneration

  Gallimore, Marjorie

  8 February 1993

  1 May 2002

  30 June 2005

  Yes

  Hardaker, Nick

  12 October 2003

  30 June 2005

  Yes

  Hubbard, Charles

  1 July 1994

  1 July 2000

  30 June 2004

  Yes

  Kemp, Erica

  1 September 1999

  1 September 2002

  30 June 2005

  Yes

  Parker, Graham

  7 March 1999

  7 March 2002

  30 June 2005

  Yes

  Pettitt, John

  1 May 2002

  30 June 2005

  Yes

  Ridley, Paula (Chair)

  26 February 1992

  8 February 1999

  30 June 2005

  Yes

  Housing Action Trust—Stonebridge1

  Ainger, Barbara

  1 November 2000

  1 November 2003

  31 December 2007

  Yes

  Balogun, Julie-Ann

  1 November 2003

  31 December 2007

  Yes

  Bamford, Terence

  1 November 2000

  1 November 2003

  31 December 2007

  Yes

  Bolaji, Hakeem

  1 November 2000

  1 November 2003

  31 December 2007

  Yes

  Bragman, Paul

  1 December 2003

  31 December 2007

  Yes

  Ferguson, Jennifer

  1 November 2003

  31 December 2007

  Yes

  Harrod, Richard

  1 June 2002

  1 November 2003

  31 December 2007

  Yes

  Magloire, Estella

  1 November 2003

  31 December 2007

  Yes

  Maloney, Colum

  1 June 2002

  1 November 2003

  31 December 2007

  Yes

  Pickering, Caroline (Chair)

  17 July 2000

  1 November 2003

  31 December 2007

  Yes

  Wilson, Peter

  1 December 2003

  31 December 2007

  Yes

  Audit Commission1

  Bowen, John

  1 September 2001

  31 October 2004

  Yes

  Bundred, Steven

  1 November 2003

  Ex-officio

  No

  Dixon, Jennifer

  1 November 2003

  30 April 2006

  Yes

  Filkin, Elizabeth

  1 November 1999

  1 May 2003

  30 April 2004

  Yes

  Hart, Graham

  1 November 1999

  1 May 2003

  30 April 2004

  Yes

  Hoyle, Roger

  1 January 2002

  30 June 2005

  Yes

  Jones, Peter

  1 November 2003

  30 April 2006

  Yes

  Lane, Pauline

  1 December 2000

  30 April 2006

  Yes

  Lemos, Gerard

  1 December 2000

  30 April 2006

  Yes

  Lyons, Michael

  1 November 2003

  30 April 2006

  Yes

  Moss, David

  1 December 2000

  30 June 2004

  Yes

  Pomeroy, Brian (Chair of Audit Committee)

  1 May 2003

  30 April 2006

  Yes

  Scott, Ros

  1 November 2003

  30 April 2006

  Yes

  Smith, Peter

  1 November 2003

  30 April 2006

  Yes

  Strachan, James (Chair)

  5 November 2002

  4 November 2005

  Yes

  1 As at January 2004

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister who the members of the(a) Rent Assessment Panel Greater Manchester and Lancashire, (b) Rent Assessment Panel London, (c) Rent Assessment Panel Merseyside and Cheshire, (d) Rent Assessment Panel Northern, (e) Rent Assessment Panel Southern and South Eastern, (f) Rent Assessment Panel Yorkshire, (g) Rent Assessment Panel East Midland, (h) Rent Assessment Panel South Western and (i) Rent Assessment Panel Chilterns, Thames and Eastern were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151809]

  Keith Hill
  A list of the members of the Rent Assessment Panels has been made available in the Library of the House.

  An appointment as part-time member is for a (renewable) period of five years. Part-time members are remunerated on a daily or half-daily fee basis according to the number of hours worked. Presidents and vice-presidents receive a salary.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister who the members of the(a) Advisory Committee Justices of the Peace in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside, (b) Better Regulation Task Force, (c) New Millennium Experience Company and (d) Civil Service Appeals Board were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151821]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.
  926W
  The information requested is as follows:

  Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside

  Chairs and members receive no remuneration except expenses. (See Table A)

  Better Regulation Task Force

  Chairs and members receive no remuneration except expenses. (See Table B)

  Responsibility for New Millennium Experience Company rests with my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Civil Service Appeals Board

  The Chair, Deputy Chairs and members all receive remuneration. (See Table C)

  Table A: Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside

  Position

  Name of appointee

  Term of appointment held

  Chairman

  Mr. R. Bracegirdle, JP

  1999–2007

  Member

  Mrs. B. Parker, JP

  1996–2004

  Member

  Reverend G. Rainford

  1998–2006

  Member

  Mrs. E. A. Midgley

  2000–08

  Member

  Mr. S. F. Shipway JP

  2001–09

  Member

  Mr. B. Rigby, JP

  2002–10

  Member

  Mrs. S. E. Edwards JP

  2002–10

  Member

  Mr. A. J. Wallace

  2002–10

  Member

  Mrs. C. A. Hamilton, JP

  2003–11

  Chairman

  Mr. J. R. Bisby, JP

  2001–09

  Member

  Mr. J. P. A. Tuley

  1996–2004

  Member

  Mrs. C. Beesley, JP, BA

  1998–2006

  Member

  Mrs. M. A. McCaldin, JP

  1998–2005

  927W

  Table A: Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside

  Position

  Name of appointee

  Term of appointment held

  Member

  Mr. M. J. Fisher

  1999–2007

  Member

  Miss H. M. Pape-Hughes

  2000–08

  Member

  Dr. R. B. Henig, CBE, JP

  2001–09

  Member

  Dr. E. A. M. Roberts. JP

  2001–06

  Member

  Mrs. C. Lomas JP

  2002–10

  Chairman

  Mr. D. Winthrop, JP

  1999–2007

  Member

  Mr. R.T. G. Lord

  1996–2004

  Member

  Mrs. U. J. B. Walton, JP

  1997–2005

  Member

  Mr. J. E. Hurst

  1999–2007

  Member

  Mrs. J. H. Rigby, JP

  2000–06

  Member

  Mrs. M. A. P. McKenzie-Murdoch, JP

  2001–09

  Member

  Mr. T. A. Harris

  2000–07

  Member

  Mr. J. A. Lark, JP

  2002–10

  Member

  Mrs. C. Rourke, JP

  2002–10

  Chairman

  Mr. P. F. Robinson

  1996–2004

  Member

  Mr. E. Bolton, JP

  1997–2005

  Member

  Mrs. A. N. W. Chapman, JP

  1997–2005

  Member

  Mr. B. Holden, JP

  2000–04

  Member

  Mr. P. W. Watkins

  2003–07

  Member

  Mr. G.R.Hill, JP

  2001–09

  Member

  Mrs. G. N. Rostron, JP

  2002–10

  Member

  Mr. C. J. Clark

  2002–10

  Member

  Mrs. V. Whittam, JP

  2003–11

  Chairman

  Mrs. E. A. Parkinson, JP

  1999–2007

  Member

  Mrs. B. Duxbury. JP

  1998–2004

  Member

  Mrs. M. Fishwick, JP

  1998–2004

  Member

  Mr. B. M. Mulligan, JP

  1999–2007

  Member

  Mr. M. J. Povey, JP

  1999–2007

  Member

  Mr. J. M. Edwards

  2000–08

  Member

  Mr. J. A. McGowan, JP

  2001–09

  Member

  Mrs. D. M. Dunne. JP

  2002–10

  Member

  Mrs. G. Lewis

  2002–10

  Member

  Mr. M. R. Malik

  2002–10

  Chairman

  Mr. M. Cresswell, JP

  1996–2005

  Member

  Mrs. J. Armistead, JP

  1996–2005

  Member

  Mrs. J. M. Winstanley, JP

  1996–2005

  Member

  Mrs. H. S. Harvey

  2000–08

  Member

  Councillor K. J. Helsby, MBE,

  2000–08

  Member

  Revd. F. D. Smith

  2002–11

  Chairman

  Mr. E. G. Hubert

  1997–2007

  Member

  Mr. J. P. Hyndman JP

  1999–2004

  Member

  Mrs. V. S. McGrory, JP

  2002–04

  Member

  Mrs. J. E. Hinkley, JP

  1997–2007

  Member

  Mr. E. Ahmed, JP

  1999–2007

  Member

  Mrs. J. R. Smale

  1999–2008

  Member

  Mr. I. D. Hurdley, JP

  2002–10

  Member

  Mrs. L. B. Sable, JP

  2002–10

  Member

  Miss B. E. Farragher

  2003–10

  Chairman

  Mrs. J. L. Berry, JP

  1998–2005

  Member

  Mrs. B. E. Creme JP

  1999–2005

  Member

  Mr. S. Terry, JP

  1999–2008

  Member

  Mrs. B. H. Warnock, JP

  1999–2008

  Member

  Mr. M. M. Elder

  1999–2005

  Member

  Mr. G. Sable Mr. M.J.Taylor

  1999–2008

  Member

  Mr. M. J. Taylor

  2000–08

  Member

  Mr. R. S. Rees

  2003–11

  Member

  Ms A. R. Malach

  2003–11

  Member

  Ms K. A. Rigby, JP

  2003–11

  Member

  Mrs. K. J. Heppleston-Baines, JP

  2003–11

  Member

  Mr. M. B. Enderby, JP

  2003–11

  Member

  Ms G. D'Silva, JP

  2003–11

  Member

  Mr. L. W. T. Collier, JP

  2003–11

  Chairman

  Mrs. A. Sykes. JP

  1995–2004

  Member

  Mrs. J. Cooper, JP

  1996–2007

  Member

  Mr. M. J. Garner, JP

  1996–2004

  Member

  Mr. M. Flacks, JP

  1998–2007

  Member

  Mr. D. R. Jones

  1998–2007

  Member

  Mrs. M. C. Bray, JP

  2001–10

  Member

  Mrs. J. H. Molineux, JP

  2001–10

  Member

  Mr. A. K. Hazell

  2001–10

  Member

  Mr. I. P. Armstong

  2002–10

  Chairman

  Mr. R. Matthews, JP

  1997–2004

  Member

  Mrs. D. Ainsworth, JP

  1995–2004

  Member

  Mrs. M. C. Ashworth

  1999–2004

  Member

  Mr. J. M. Coupe

  2001–07

  Member

  Mr. R. Needham, JP

  1996–2007

  Member

  Dr. A. Rauf, JP

  1999–2007

  Member

  Mrs. C. V. Ashworth-Lord, JP

  2001–10

  Member

  Mrs. G.J. Wilde. JP

  2001–10

  928W

  Table A: Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside

  Position

  Name of appointee

  Term of appointment held

  Member

  Mr. J. K. Davies

  2003–10

  Chairman

  Mrs. P. A. Holt, JP

  1999–2008

  Member

  Mr. F. Sullivan

  1994–2005

  Member

  Mr. J. Connor, JP

  1994–2005

  Member

  Mr. B. Ball

  1996–2008

  Member

  Mr. D. Bentham, JP

  1997–2005

  Member

  Mrs. S. Portman, JP

  1999–2008

  Member

  Ms C. R. Borders, JP

  2002–11

  Member

  Mr. R. S. Smith, JP

  2002–11

  Member

  Mrs. J. L. Dunn

  2002–11

  Member

  Mr. D. Marsh

  2002–11

  Chairman

  Mr. A. Roberts

  1995–2005

  Member

  Mr. S. B. Berry

  1996–2004

  Member

  Mr. D. J. Wildgoose, JP

  1994–2005

  Member

  Mrs. M. A. Evans, JP

  1995–2008

  Member

  Mrs. D. A. Manton, JP

  1995–2008

  Member

  Mrs. H. C. Jenkins

  1999–2008

  Member

  Mrs. P. P. King, JP

  2002–11

  Member

  Mr. J. T. Jackson, JP

  2002–11

  Member

  Dr. C. S. Raju

  2002–11

  Chairman

  Mr. D. Baggott, JP

  1995–2004

  Member

  Mrs. B. E. Ilett, JP

  1995–2004

  Member

  Mrs. J. Hurlston

  1997–2006

  Member

  Mrs. S. Marston, JP

  1997–2006

  Member

  Mrs. A. Saltsman, JP

  1997–2006

  Member

  Mrs. J. A. Watson

  1999–2008

  Member

  Mr. M. Watson

  2002–10

  Member

  Mr. A. Bridge, JP

  2002–10

  Member

  A. J. H. Van Weerdenburg, MBE, JP

  2002–10

  Chairman

  Mrs. J. Brown. JP

  1995–2004

  Member

  Mr. M. J. Harkin, JP

  1995–2004

  Member

  Mrs. G.L. Williams, JP

  1995–2004

  Member

  Mr. J. F. Connor, JP

  2000–07

  Member

  Mrs. M. Lucas, JP

  2000–07

  Member

  Dr. R. J. M. Gray

  2001–10

  Member

  Mr. G. Homer, JP

  2001–10

  Member

  Mr. J. R. Marsh

  2001–10

  Member

  Miss. K. J. Holder

  2001–10

  Chairman

  Mrs. M. Wall, JP

  1996–2005

  Member

  Mr. C. B. F. J. D'Souza

  2000–08

  Member

  Mrs. C. E. Hitchmough

  2000–08

  Member

  Mrs. M. Griffin, JP

  2001–04

  Member

  Mr. G. Cunliffe, MBE, JP

  2002–11

  Member

  Mr. T. M. Gregory, JP

  2002–11

  Member

  Mr. A. Bent, JP

  2003–11

  Member

  Mr. J. Winter, JP

  2003–11

  Chairman

  Mr. B. R. Worster-Davis, QBE, JP

  2002–07

  Member

  Mrs. M. H. Davitt, JP

  1995–2004

  Member

  Mr. J. Alexander. JP

  1997–2004

  Member

  Mr. J. G. Moore. JP

  1996–2007

  Member

  Mrs. C. E. Humphries

  1999–2007

  Member

  Mrs. K. P. Pye, JP

  2002–10

  Member

  Mr. A. D. Disley

  2003–11

  Member

  Mrs. L. Murray

  2003–11

  Member

  Mr. E. G. Grimes

  2003–06

  Chairman

  Mr. M. W. Evans

  1998–2007

  Member

  Mrs. S. E. Mashiane-Talbot, JP

  1998–2007

  Member

  Mrs. D. E. Morton, JP

  1998–2007

  Member

  Mrs. D. Bogle, JP

  2002–10

  Member

  Mr. B. M. Cave, JP

  2002–10

  Member

  Mr. G. Green, JP

  2002–10

  Member

  Mrs. M. K. Kakar, JP

  2002–10

  Member

  Prof. J. L. Verbov, JP

  2002–04

  Member

  Prof. R. S. Jones, QBE, JP

  2002–07

  Member

  Miss J.G. Keller

  2003–10

  Chairman

  Mr. G. H. Lloyd, JP

  1996–2005

  Member

  Mrs. E. A. Barnett, JP

  1994–2005

  Member

  Mr. D. J. Allman,JP

  1999–2008

  Member

  Mrs. A. Shute,JP

  1999–2008

  Member

  Dr. A. D. Havard

  1999–2008

  Member

  Mr. F. J. Hyland, JP

  2003–11

  Member

  Ms D. Bridson, JP

  2003–11

  Member

  Dr. P. A. Downham,

  2003–11

  Member

  Mrs. J. R. Carver

  2003–11

  Chairman

  Mrs. H. Williams, JP

  1996–2004

  Member

  Mr. S. Cooper, JP

  1996–2004

  Member

  Mrs. J. M. Dawkins, JP

  1996–2005

  Member

  Mr. B. Corbin

  1998–2007

  Member

  Mr. D. McCaughrean

  2000–09

  929W

  Table A: Advisory committees on Justices of the Peace in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside

  Position

  Name of appointee

  Term of appointment held

  Member

  Ms. J. A. Ash

  2000–09

  Member

  Mrs. E. A. Sinker, JP

  2001–09

  Chairman

  Mr. B. T. Spencer

  1998–2004

  Member

  Mrs. M. Brooks, JP

  1995–2004

  Member

  Dr. P. J. Tunstall, JP

  2002–04

  Member

  Mrs. D. M. Hilton, JP

  1998–2007

  Member

  Mr. D. Wainwright, JP

  1998–2007

  Member

  Mr. E. Hazeldine

  1998–2007

  Member

  Mr. B. W. Bawden, JP

  2002–10

  Member

  Mr. A. G. Dudley, JP

  2002–10

  Member

  Miss C.A. Roberson

  2002–10

  Chairman

  Mr. M. H. Middleton, JP

  1997–2005

  Member

  Mr. R. J. Pullin. JP

  1995–2004

  Member

  Mrs. S. Spencer, JP

  1995–2004

  Member

  Mrs. P. M. Snowden, JP

  1997–2007

  Member

  Cdr. C. J. Arthurs, JP

  2002–11

  Member

  Mrs. C. A. Alien, JP

  2002–11

  Member

  Mrs. D. S. Shaw

  2003–11

  Member

  Mr. R. McWilliams

  2003–11

  Table B: Better Regulation Task Force

  Position held

  Name

  Term of appointment

  Chair

  Mr. D. Arculus

  2002–05

  Deputy Chair

  Ms T. Graham QBE

  1997–2006

  Member

  Ms M. Alderson

  1999–2004

  Member

  Mr. S. Falder

  1999–2004

  Member

  Mr. M. Gibbons

  2002–06

  Member

  Dr. K. Hawkins

  2002–06

  Member

  Ms D. Hutton CBE

  1999–2006

  Member

  Mr. S. Petch

  2000–04

  Member

  Dr. I. Peters

  2000–06

  Member

  Dr. P. Rowlatt

  2000–06

  Member

  Ms J. Russell

  1998–2006

  Member

  Ms S. Stubbs

  2002–06

  Member

  Mr. T. Sweeney

  2002–06

  Member

  Mr. R. Symons CBE

  2002–06

  Member

  Mr. S. Ward

  1999–2004

  Member

  Ms V. Younghusband

  2003–05

  Table C: Civil Service Appeal Board

  Position held

  Name

  Term of appointment

  Chairman

  Mr. J. H. Davies

  1999–2005

  Deputy Chair

  Mr. M. E. G. Fogden CB

  1997–2005

  Deputy Chair

  Mr. J. Sheldon

  2001–04

  Member

  Mr. G. Bertram CB

  2001–04

  Member

  Ms S. Brown

  1998–2004

  Member

  Mr. J. F. Carling

  1999–2005

  Member

  Mr. E. McGivern CB

  1998–2004

  Member

  Mr. D. W. Rayson

  1999–2005

  Member

  Mr. G. L. Reid CB

  1999–2005

  Member

  Mr. A. Turner CBE

  1999–2005

  Member

  Mr. J. Turner CB

  2000–05

  Member

  Mr. I. Ward

  2001–04

  Member

  Mrs. C. Alderson

  2000–06

  Member

  Mr.A. J. Audley

  2001–07

  Member

  Mrs. L. J. Clare

  1998–2004

  Member

  Mrs P. Cryer

  1999–2005

  Member

  Mr. D. Evans

  2000–06

  Member

  Mrs. D. Hall Hall

  1996–2004

  Member

  Mr. P. J. Kelly

  1999–2005

  Member

  Mr. T. Thomson

  1998–2004

  Member

  Mr. F. Winrow

  1999–2005

  Swale Borough Council
  Mr Wyatt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many requests have been made to the Legal Department of Swale Borough Council under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 since 24 November 2003. [152337]

  Phil Hope
  It is a matter for Swale Borough Council to answer.

  Thames Gateway
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many additional housing units have been targeted for(a) Castle Point and (b) Canvey Island since March 2000. [152438]

  Keith Hill
  The housing growth targets for Castle Point (and Canvey Island) have been determined by Regional Planning Guidance 9 and are set out within Essex County Council's current Structure Plan, which relates to the period 1996 to 2011. For that period, Castle Point is required to accommodate 2,400 new dwellings.

  The East of England Regional Assembly is in the process of preparing new Regional Planning Guidance for the East of England (RPG14). This will contain housing growth targets for local authority areas within the region (including Castle Point).

TREASURY

  Advancing Enterprise Summit
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) who the speakers are at the Advancing Enterprise summit; [150764]

  (2) what the sources of funding were for the Advancing Enterprise summit; [150766]

  (3) what the (a) total cost and (b) cost to the United Kingdom Government is of the Advancing Enterprise summit; [150767]

  (4) if he will list the representatives of (a) the United Kingdom Government, (b) the United States Administration and (c) business and other representatives attending the Advancing Enterprise summit. [150768]

  John Healey
  The speakers and chairs at the conference 'Advancing Enterprise: Britain in a Global Economy' on 26 January 2004 were my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretaries of State for Education and for Trade and Industry, myself and:

  Arun Sarin

  Dr. Jean-Pierre Garnier

  Sir Terry Leahy

  Dr. Eric Schmidt

  Paul Walsh

  Hans Eichel

  Charlie McCreevy

  Rodrigo Rato y Figaredo

  Jean Claude Trichet

  Gerrit Zalm

  George Cox

  931W

  Charles Dunstone

  Caroline Plumb

  Dame Marjorie Scardino

  Lee Williams

  William H. Gates

  Sir Howard Davies

  Brendan Barber

  Sir Roy Gardner

  Digby Jones

  Ben Verwaayen

  Mervyn King

  Niall Fitzgerald

  The hon. Donald Johnston

  John Snow

  Dr. Alan Greenspan

  Lord Browne of Madingley

  Richard Lambert

  Professor Richard C. Levin

  Sir Tom McKillop

  Professor Alison Richard

  Gus O'Donnell

  Ed Balls

  A list of the senior business leaders and Government representatives who attended has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The costs of the conference are being met entirely from HM Treasury's resources. The aggregated cost of all Departmental events will be included in HM Treasury's annual report.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what allowance is made in the Government Actuary's projection of future immigration for(a) the number of people whose claims for asylum are rejected who remain in this country, (b) the number of people who overstay their visas and (c) the ending of visa restrictions for inhabitants of new member states of the EU. [152857]

  Ruth Kelly
  The latest (2002-based) official population projections for the United Kingdom were published by the Government Actuary's Department in December 2003. The migration assumptions underlying the projections use the internationally agreed definition of a migrant. A migrant is defined as someone who changes his or her country of usual residence for a period of at least a year so that the country of destination becomes the country of usual residence.

  For the long-term migration assumptions, an allowance is made for asylum seekers who are granted leave to stay in the UK. It is assumed that asylum seeker applications will be processed within twelve months and no allowance is made for failed asylum seekers who may remain in the UK for longer than 12 months as there is no reliable evidence on which to base such an estimate.

  The migration assumptions include an allowance for persons who enter the UK as short-term visitors but are subsequently granted an extension of stay for a year or
  932W
  longer. No allowance is made for those who overstay their visas illegally, again as there is no reliable evidence on which to base such an estimate.

  Failed asylum seekers who do not leave the UK and people who overstay visas illegally are part of the illegal population. The size of this group is particularly difficult to estimate because they often do not show up in official records and are motivated to remain hidden. This is also a problem experienced by most other EU countries: in a recent survey only one country out of 15 reported that they made any allowance for illegal migration in their population projections.

  No allowance has been made for the possible effects of enlargement of the European Union. At present, the precise impact of this change cannot be predicted, although recent Home Office research has concluded that the effect on the UK is likely to be fairly small.

  Carers
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of carers aged 65 years and over. [152757]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Sandra Gidley, dated 4 February 2004:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what estimate has been made of the number of carers aged 65 years and over. (152757)
  Figures from the Census 2001 National Report for England and Wales indicate that there were 944,650 people aged 65 and over providing unpaid care. The table below shows the distribution of these carers according to the number of hours of care provided per week.

  Number of people aged 65 and over providing unpaid care, 2001: England and Wales

  Care provided per week

  Number

  1 to 19 hours

  501,318

  20 to 49 hours

  102,182

  50 or more hours

  341,150

  Total number of carers

  944,650

  Source:

  Table SO25 Census 2001 National Report for England and Wales

  Child Mortality
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the main cause of death in children aged under 15 years was in 2003. [152564]

  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 4 February 2004:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what the main cause of death in children aged under 15 was in 2003. (152564)
  The latest year for which data are available is 2002. The attached table shows the percentage of deaths by major causes of death and age groups in children aged under 15.
  933W

  Percentage of deaths by age-group for main causes of death1, England and Wales, 20022

  Cause of death

  All ages under 15

  Under 1

  1–4

  5–14

  Infectious and parasitic diseases

  6.1

  6.5

  9.4

  3.3

  Neoplasms

  13.5

  1.5

  16.2

  26.4

  Blood and blood-forming organs

  1.4

  1.3

  1.5

  1.5

  Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic disorders

  4.8

  2.8

  7.1

  5.8

  Mental disorders

  0.5

  0.0

  0.0

  1.5

  Nervous system

  10.7

  8.6

  11.4

  12.8

  Circulatory system

  4.7

  4.0

  5.1

  5.3

  Respiratory system

  6.7

  6.5

  6.4

  7.2

  Digestive system

  3.1

  2.8

  3.8

  2.9

  Pregnancy and childbirth

  8.6

  19.8

  1.3

  0.0

  Congenital malformations

  15.4

  20.5

  17.6

  7.8

  Signs, symptoms and ill-defined conditions

  9.4

  19.6

  3.4

  1.0

  External causes of death

  14.3

  5.3

  16.3

  23.9

  Other causes

  0.8

  0.9

  0.5

  0.7

  Number of deaths

  2,377

  1,001

  551

  825

  1.The causes of death were selected using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes. The cause groups presented are entire chapters from the ICD-10 classification, as follows:

  Infectious and parasitic diseases—AOO-B99;

  Neoplasms—COO-D48;

  Blood and blood-forming organs—D50-D89;

  Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic disorders—EOO-E90;

  Mental disorders—FOO-F99;

  Nervous system—GOO-G99;

  Circulatory system—100–199;

  Respiratory system—JOO-J99;

  Digestive system—KOO-K93;

  Pregnancy and childbirth—OOO-O99;

  Congenital malformations—QOO-Q99;

  Signs, symptoms and ill-defined conditions—ROO-R99;

  External causes of death—V01-Y89

  2 Figures are for the number of deaths occurring in the calendar year

  Children With Heart Defects
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the incidence was of children born with heart defects in each year since 2000. [152548]

  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 4 February 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for the incidence of children born with heart defects in each year since 2000. (152548)
  The figures for 2000 and 2001 (the latest year available) are shown in the table below.

  Number of children born in England and Wales with heart defects1, and rate of occurrence: 2000 and 2001

  Year

  Number

  Rate2

  2000

  1,250

  20.6

  2001

  1,069

  17.9

  1 Heart defects was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes 145,6,147.1.

  2 Rate per 10,000 live and stillbirths.

  Source:

  Health Statistics Quarterly no. 16: Annual update—Congenital anomaly statistics, notifications 2001 England and Wales.

  Congenital Anomaly statistics for 2002 are scheduled for publication in April 2004.

  Financial Services
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people he estimates are actively using
  934W
  internet-based stockbroking services in the UK; and how many he estimates are doing so in other EU states. [152387]

  Ruth Kelly
  In the table are the latest available figures for the number of clients using online stockbroking services in the UK. This information is taken from a survey conducted for the Association of Private Client Investment Managers and Stockbrokers by ComPeer.

  Number of clients

  Q3 2003

  461,848

  Q2 2003

  432,556

  Q1 2003

  348,700

  Q4 2002

  362,040

  Figures for other EU states are not readily available.

  Future Tax Yield
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the Report of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Inland Revenue for the year ending 31 March 2003 (Cm 6050), Page 107, Table 5, Note 5, in which year the inclusion of(a) taxpayer favourable adjustments and (b) additional sums arising from the method of estimating future tax yield prior to that employed in 2002–03 in calculating the compliance performance of the Large Business Office for publication in Inland Revenue annual reports first commenced; who first sanctioned the use of each of these methods to calculate Large Business Office compliance performance; and on what date sanction was given. [152218]
  935W
  Dawn Primarolo
  In April 1998 the Large Business Office introduced an automated system to record adjustments arising from its enquiries into large companies' tax affairs. Inadvertent design faults resulted in the incorrect reporting of the results referred to. As soon as these faults were identified, they were corrected and the results for 2002–03 have been reported on the correct basis

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Department's progress in tackling illegal meat imports.[152602]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffat) on 8 January 2004,Official Report, column 423W.

  Two of the four new detector dogs enter into full operational service in mid-February and the remaining two are expected to do so early in April.

  Pensions
  Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) residential and (b) other properties have been purchased under the Self Investment Personal Pension system since its introduction.[152163]

  Ruth Kelly
  The purchase of residential properties is not currently permitted under the current rules for Self Invested Pension Plans. No figures are available on the numbers of other properties purchased under Self Invested Pension Plans

  Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the changes proposed in his pre-Budget statement in respect of Self Investment Personal Pensions upon(a) availability of housing for rent, (b) the amount and proportion of second and holiday homes, (c) the availability of housing in areas with a high preponderance of second and holiday homes and (d) other aspects of the housing market.[152164]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's technical paper "Simplifying the taxation of pensions: the Government's proposals" proposes allowing pension funds to invest in all types of investments, including residential property. The impact of this change, if introduced, will depend on the extent to which trustees and administrators decide that residential property is a suitable pension scheme investment.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria will apply to the purchase of residential properties under his proposed changes to Self Investment Personal Pensions.[152165]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's technical paper "Simplifying the taxation of pensions: the Government's proposals" proposes allowing pension funds, including Self Invested Pension Plans, to invest in all types of investments, including residential property. There will be no specific criteria relating to residential properties. There will be a single set of simple, flexible investment rules underpinning the simplified regime.

  The private use of pension scheme assets by a scheme member will be subject to a tax charge.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue to be raised from stamp duty land tax on leases in the next tax year.[152608]

  Ruth Kelly
  The yield from stamp duty land tax on the premium and rental elements of leases is forecast to be around £450 million in 2004–05.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the percentage of commercial rental contracts liable for stamp duty land tax.[152610]

  Ruth Kelly
  Approximately 60 per cent., of new commercial leases will pay no stamp duty land tax on the rental element. This compares with only 9 per cent. of leases that were exempt as regards the rental element under the previous stamp duty regime.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the future of e-conveyancing following the implementation of stamp duty land tax.[152611]

  Ruth Kelly
  None.

  Thalidomide Trust
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made by the Inland Revenue to establish the Thalidomide Trust's right to make distributions tax exempt under section 329 of the Finance Act 1996. [152301]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Discussions between the trustees of the Thalidomide Trust and officials of the Inland Revenue about the tax treatment of payments to beneficiaries of the trust are continuing. No conclusion has yet been reached.

  US-UK Enterprise Agreement
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the(a) measures introduced and (b) events taking place as part of the US-UK enterprise agreement;[150763]

  (2)what meetings officials from his Department had with representatives of the United States Administration regarding the US-UK enterprise agreement; [150765]

  (3)what the (a) total cost and (b) cost to the United Kingdom Government is of the US-UK enterprise agreement.[150769]

  John Healey
  The initiatives established in the US-UK Enterprise Agreement are:a scholarship programme;
  a forum to share best practice in enterprise education between school and related enterprise education providers and universities in the two countries;
  a joint government-business meeting to discuss common productivity challenges and policy implications;
  closer links between technology transfer offices in the US and the UK through the exchange of technology transfer professionals;

  937W
  a review to study the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers between Europe and America which we are taking forward with our European partners including France, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands.

  Treasury officials have had a number of meetings and discussions with their counterparts in relevant departments in the United States Administration, and are in regular contact with US officials to develop these proposals.

  The scholarships will offer the opportunity for entrepreneurs from the UK to study in the US. The budget for these scholarships is in the process of being finalised. Events to follow up the agreement will be announced in due course.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average waiting time was for treatment in each of Northern Ireland's accident and emergency departments in each month of the last year for which figures are available; and what steps he is taking to reduce these figures. [151320]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  In order to relieve pressure on hospital accident and emergency departments, Boards and Trusts are providing a range of additional services during the winter months, including extra community care provision, which helps to reduce demand on hospital services. Additional support is also being provided in primary care, where a flu vaccination programme has been running, which is targeted at over-65s and those at risk. Work will also be taken forward in all acute hospitals during 2004–05 on improving the flow of emergency patients.

  Acquired Brain Injury
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people suffered a traumatic head injury in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [152420]

  Angela Smith
  Traumatic head injuries cover a broad spectrum of severity of injury including those who do not present at hospital, those who attend Accident and Emergency Departments but are not admitted, those who are admitted for treatment and those who die before reaching hospital. Information is available only on those admitted to hospital. The table as follows provides figures on the number of admissions to hospital in Northern Ireland where the primary diagnosis is for head injury and, of these, the number of admissions where the primary diagnoses are fractures to the skull or facial bones or intracranial injuries. Information is provided for the last five years for which data are available.
  938W

  Total number of Admissions to Hospital1 with injuries to the head for the years 1998–1999 to 2002–2003

  Years

  All head injuries

  Skull fracture or intracranial injury

  1998–1999

  7,273

  2,573

  1999–2000

  7,126

  2,407

  2000–2001

  7,027

  2,284

  2001–2002

  7,236

  2,352

  2002–2003

  6,874

  2,399

  1 Deaths and Discharges are used as an approximation for Admissions

  Source:

  Hospital Inpatients System

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason the Department for Employment and Learning decided to provide no further funding to the ReConnect training facility for people with acquired brain injury. [152421]

  Jane Kennedy
  In December 2003, the Department for Employment and Learning advised ReConnect that its application for ESF assistance, under the second round of applications for the Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity, was unsuccessful.

  The Department runs an open competition for such funding. On this, as in the previous round, there were more acceptable projects than budget available to meet their bids. Applications are scored, by selection panels, against the requirements of the Programme's measures and the funding available is allocated to those which score highest. The ReConnect application did not score highly enough to receive an allocation.

  Unsuccessful bidders have a right of review, for which the closing date was 30 January 2004. A request for review has been received from this project, which is due to be heard in early February 2004.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total expenditure has been on providing community-based training and rehabilitation for people with acquired brain injury in Northern Ireland by(a) the Department for Employment and Learning and (b) the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. [152422]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Department for Employment and Learning (DEL)

  In the last eight years, ERDF and ESF assistance of £5.1 million and DEL match funding of £520,000 has been paid to two organisations providing community-based training where participants have included people with acquired brain injury.

  It is not possible to disaggregate the share of funding which might be attributed to the number of participants with acquired brain injury.

  (b) Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

  The information is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ards Hospital
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to broaden the range of services offered on the Ards Hospital site. [150737]
  939W
  Angela Smith
  The Ulster Community and Hospital HSS Trust is currently developing plans to redevelop the Ards Hospital site. The Trust's proposals include the provision of modern Local Health and Social Care facilities, which will consider a range of services, including Primary Care Services, Mental Health Services, Children's Services including Community Paediatric and Family and Child Care Services, In-Patient, Out-Patient and Diagnostic Services.

  The Trust is also presently undertaking a review of the Community Hospital Services currently provided on the Ards Hospital site and when this review is completed in the Spring of this year, a decision will be taken on the final configuration of these services.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend the opening hours of the minor injuries units at(a) Bangor and (b) Ards Community Hospitals. [150739]

  Angela Smith
  The Ulster Community and Hospitals HSS Trust is presently engaged in a review of its Community Hospital Services. This review will be considering the relationship between Emergency Services at the Ulster Hospital and Minor Injuries provision located at Ards and Bangor Community Hospitals.

  I understand that the review will be completed in the spring of this year, and a decision will then be made on the proposed configuration of services at Bangor and Ards Community Hospitals, which may include the extension of opening hours for Minor Injury Services within the Trust.

  Civil Service
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to resolve the Northern Ireland Civil Service pay dispute; and if he will make a statement. [152442]

  Mr. Pearson
  Extensive negotiations over several months did not result in an agreed pay deal for the 11 Departments of the Northern Ireland Administration this year. Management side presented an offer worth 3.67 per cent. on 5 November. As this could not be agreed, and Trade Union side declined to negotiate within the 3.67 per cent. envelope. We took the decision to proceed to pay the award and communicated this to staff and Trade Union side on 27 November. I have made clear to Trade Union side that the 3.67 per cent. deal is the maximum that can be paid. We are, however, open to exploring other reasonable means of resolving the dispute. A meeting of the Central Whitley Council between Trade Union and Management sides took place on 29 January 2004, and we are considering the points discussed then.

  Members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service working in the Northern Ireland Office are subject to separate pay negotiations involving three Unions: Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, Public and Commercial Services and the First Division Association.

  A formal offer of 3 per cent. has been made to the Unions.

  Community Support Programme
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his assessment is of the Community Support Programme in Northern Ireland. [152583]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Community Support Programme is an important collaborative initiative between the Department for Social Development and all 26 district councils aimed at developing a core local community infrastructure across Northern Ireland. This infrastructure supports the delivery of a number of important Government programmes, such as Neighbourhood Renewal and Investing in Health, which aim to tackle the root causes of deprivation and social exclusion, as well as other Government objectives around poverty through the provision of funding for frontline advice and information agencies, such as Citizens' Advice Bureaux and Independent Advice Centres.

  The work of the Community Support Programme has been strengthened by the implementation of the recommendations of the policy document "Beyond the Centre", published in 2000, which provide a clearer focus on people-centred community development and on targeting social need. On the basis of "Beyond the Centre", all 26 councils are developing integrated community support plans for their respective areas based on an assessment and prioritisation of need.

  On the basis of numerous examples of good practice arising from this work, the Community Support Programme now has significant opportunities for growth and development, both as a means for better integrating the current multiplicity of local funding streams and as a more robust model for social investment by Government.

  Economic Performance
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on economic performance in Northern Ireland over the last five years. [152589]

  Mr. Pearson
  Evidence suggests that despite the recent global slowdown, the Northern Ireland economy has continued to expand over recent years.

  Between March 1999 and September 2003, the number of employee jobs has increased by 46,180 (7.4 per cent.). While the vast majority of new employment is to be found in the service sector, manufacturing output and productivity have continued to rise over the period. Between Q1 1999 and Q3 2003 manufacturing output increased by 18.8 per cent., while manufacturing productivity increased by 40.9 per cent. Exports by Northern Ireland's manufacturing firms increased by 15.9 per cent. between 1998–99 and 2002–03, however, in recent years the level of manufacturing sales and exports has shown a small decrease.

  Elective Surgery
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the extent of elective surgery conducted in Northern Ireland on citizens of the Irish Republic in 2003; and if he will make a statement. [150758]
  941W
  Angela Smith
  The total number of elective admissions to surgical specialties in Northern Ireland by residents of the Republic of Ireland during the 2002–03 financial year was 319, which comprises 136 normal in-patients and 183 day cases.

  Residents of countries within the European Union are entitled to treatment if they are taken ill while visiting another European Union state. Patients may also be transferred to another country under formal contractual arrangements between individual hospitals or health boards if the treatment required is not available locally. Consequently, residents from the Republic of Ireland are sometimes treated in Northern Ireland and vice versa.

  Employer's Liability Insurance
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the costs of Employer's Liability Insurance in Northern Ireland. [152588]

  Mr. Pearson
  Insurance is a reserved matter. However, in Northern Ireland the Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment recently undertook a Business Insurance Survey of some 3,000 firms. The results of the survey are currently being analysed and will be published shortly.

  Ethnic Minority Funding
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding was provided to ethnic minorities in each of the last five years, broken down by project. [148816]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information required will require some time to collate. I will respond to the hon. Lady when the information is available.

  Fisheries
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial assistance the Government will give Northern Ireland's(a) fishermen and (b) processors during the tie-up scheme for cod fishing boats beginning on 14 February. [152415]

  Mr. Pearson
  I propose to introduce transitional aid for fishermen most affected by the cod recovery measures and who voluntarily cease all fishing activities during the closure of the Irish Sea to cod fishing from 14 February to 30 April 2004 inclusive. The scheme aims to provide assistance to the owners of eligible vessels who tie-up for the full 11-week closure. There are no plans to compensate processors. The majority of the Northern Ireland fleet may continue to fish and therefore provide continuity of locally sourced raw materials, which local processors normally supplement with raw materials from other parts of Ireland and the United Kingdom throughout the closure.

  Government Solicitors
  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 942W
  of the Energy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 in (a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02, (c) 2002–03 and (d) the current financial year, broken down by firm. [152212]

  Mr. Pearson
  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. Simmons and Simmons, appointed in June 2001 as specialist solicitors to assist with the policy development process leading up to the preparation of the Energy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, were paid the following amounts (including VAT) for this work:

  £

  (a) 2000–01

  Nil

  (b) 2001–02

  178,381

  (c) 2002–03

  608,541

  (d) 2003–04

  Nil—the Energy Order was made in February 2003

  Heroin Addicts
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many registered heroin addicts there were in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [150667]

  Angela Smith
  The latest available figures show the number of registered heroin addicts in Northern Ireland as at 31 December of each year 1998–2002 is as follows:

  Year

  Number of registered addicts

  2002

  213

  2001

  244

  2000

  233

  1999

  226

  1998

  161

  This information is published in the 'Northern Ireland Drug Addicts' Statistical Information Bulletin'. The next bulletin is due for publication on 24 February 2004, copies of which will be available on the DHSSPSNI website, Internet address:www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/publications/index.html. Copies of previous bulletins can be obtained from the Drug and Alcohol Information and Research Unit.

  Home Helps
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent changes have been made in Home Help Services in Northern Ireland. [152353]

  Angela Smith
  The Department's policy for the provision of the Home Help Service in Northern Ireland is set out in guidance to Health and Social Services Boards issued on 12 November 1980. The guidance introduced a Model Scheme for the Provision of a Home Help Service which has operated successfully from that time and the Department have not made any recent changes to the Model Scheme. HSS Trusts operate Home Help Services within the framework provided by the Model Scheme and in the context of local priorities and available resources.

  Hospital Discharges
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients' hospital discharge was delayed while awaiting community care packages in each of the last six years. [150740]

  Angela Smith
  The number of delayed discharges recorded as a snapshot of the position at yearly intervals from October 2000 to October 2003 (the latest date for which such information is available), and for February 1999 and February 2000, is shown in the following table.

  Number of delayed discharges

  February 1999

  249

  February 2000

  319

  October 2000

  327

  October 2001

  456

  October 2002

  392

  October 2003

  390

  Note:

  Information on numbers of delayed discharges has been collected in respect of the position at the last day of each month from August 2000, and previous to that date by annual census held in February.

  Hospital Trolley Waits
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 7 January,Official Report, column 406W, on hospital trolley waits, how many patients included in trolley wait totals for 2002–03 (a) were discharged from hospital and (b) left hospital without obtaining a ward bed. [151089]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available.

  Lung Cancer
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals died from lung cancer in 2003; and what the mean survival time was following diagnosis. [150751]

  Angela Smith
  In 2002, the latest year for which deaths data are available, a total of 777 individuals died from lung cancer (466 men, 311 women).

  The most recent estimate of the five-year relative survival rate for lung cancer patients, based on persons diagnosed in 1993–96, is 9 per cent.

  Maternity Hospital
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress towards the construction of a new regional maternity hospital. [150741]

  Angela Smith
  The new regional maternity hospital will be constructed in line with the timetable for the strategic redevelopment of the Royal Victoria Hospital site, which envisages that building work will begin in 2007 and be completed by 2010.

  The Royal Group of Hospitals Trust is currently preparing a business case for the development of the new maternity hospital. In developing the business case, the trust has engaged with Service Commissioners,
  944W
  neighbouring Trusts, medical and midwifery staff, along with users of the service. The Trust is expected to submit a business case to the Department by June 2004.

  Medical Treatments
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sufferers from rheumatoid arthritis in Northern Ireland are waiting to commence anti-TNF drugs; and if he will make a statement. [152355]

  Angela Smith
  At 15 December 2003, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 389 patients waiting to commence anti-TNF drug treatment in Northern Ireland. I announced on 13 January that I would provide additional resources for anti-TNF drugs for 2004–05 and the detailed funding allocations will be made shortly in consultation with HSS Boards and Trusts.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals are awaiting the commencement of treatment with(a) beta interferon and (b) glatiramer for multiple sclerosis. [152357]

  Angela Smith
  At 20 January 2004 there were 66 people awaiting the commencement of treatment with these medicines. The decision as to which medicine is appropriate is a matter for the patient's doctor, in consultation with the patient, when treatment is to begin.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recent meeting between the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office and the Ulster Political Research Group. [151612]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government have always said that we will work with those who want to engage in democratic politics. At our recent meeting I recognised the constructive approach of the UPRG but made clear that the many social and economic problems affecting loyalist working class areas cannot be tackled effectively against a background of widespread and continuing paramilitary activity. Attacks on prison officers' homes; hoax bombs at schools and elsewhere in the city; and involvement in drugs and organised crime are totally unacceptable. I also made clear, regarding Maghaberry, that we are working with the Prison Service to develop a safe regime for prisoners and prison officers, but that control of the prison by prison staff would be maintained at all times.

  Minority Ethnic Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons he has decided to limit provision for meeting the commitments of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister funding for minority ethnic voluntary organisations to a one-year period; and what assessment he has made under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 of the equality impact of his decision. [152131]

  Mr. Spellar
  In its first Programme for Government the Northern Ireland Executive committed itself to
  945W
  "bring forward, consult on and implement cross-departmental policies to tackle racial inequality within a strategic framework"
  including
  "targeted support for minority ethnic groups and projects".

  The funding scheme for minority ethnic voluntary organisations was established in April 2001 and work commenced on developing the strategy.

  A draft Race Equality Strategy was issued for public consultation on 25 February 2003 and an independent evaluation of the funding scheme was commissioned in June 2003. The final evaluation was received in December 2003.

  I propose to bring forward the final version of the Race Equality Strategy by the summer. In bringing forward the strategy, I will wish to consider very carefully the independent evaluation of the funding scheme and the views of key stakeholders.

  In the circumstances, I thought it prudent to extend the existing scheme for a period of one year. Any change to the existing funding arrangements in light of the new strategy will, of course, be subject to assessment under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

  MRI Scanning
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are awaiting MRI scanning in Northern Ireland, broken down by health trust area. [151178]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines extend to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [152329]

  Angela Smith
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) are only applicable to England and Wales. The Department are considering how guidelines issued by NICE can be used in the context of Northern Ireland's health and social services.

  Neurosurgery
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients in Northern Ireland are awaiting(a) inpatient admission and (b) initial outpatient assessment, in neurosurgery. [151215]

  Angela Smith
  I refer the hon. Lady to the Written Answer given on 19 January 2004,Official Report, column 997W, Question 148845.

  Patient Admissions/Assessments
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients are awaiting(a) in-patient admission and (b) initial out-patient assessment in Northern Ireland; and what the comparative statistics were at 12-month intervals over the last five years. [151216]
  946W
  Angela Smith
  The most recent waiting list data available shows the position at 30 September 2003. Data in the tables refer to the position at this date in 2003 and at the same date in the previous five years.

  Number of people waiting for in-patient admission to hospital (includes normal in-patients and day cases)

  Quarter ending 30 September

  Number

  1998

  46,428

  1999

  46,689

  2000

  50,184

  2001

  56,713

  2002

  60,190

  2003

  54,257

  Source:

  CH1 parts A and B.

  Number of people waiting for a first out-patient appointment (includes cancellations and deferrals)

  Quarter ending 30 September

  Number

  1998

  86,152

  1999

  98,712

  2000

  119,298

  2001

  133,974

  2002

  146,818

  2003

  151,752

  Source:

  CH3 parts 1 and 2

  Physiotherapy
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients were awaiting physiotherapy assessment in each six-month interval over the last five years. [151222]

  Angela Smith
  Information on the number of individuals awaiting physiotherapy assessment is not collected centrally. However, information is collected centrally on completed waiting times for a first outpatient appointment of an episode of care with a community physiotherapist. The total number of persons attending their first outpatient appointment, and the number of those who had waited for six months or more for their appointment, is shown in the following table. The information is in respect of six-month intervals from the quarter ending 30 September 1998 to the quarter ending 30 September 2003 (the latest date for which such information is available).

  Number of persons who attended their first outpatient appointment with a community physiotherapist, and number and percentage who had waited for six months or more for appointment, quarters ending 30 September 1998 to 30 September 2003

  Persons who waited six months or more

  Quarter Ending:

  Total Number of persons

  Number

  percentage

  30 September 1998

  9,863

  14

  0.1

  31 March 1999

  10,679

  19

  0.2

  30 September 1999

  11,837

  51

  0.4

  31 March 2000

  11,704

  83

  0.7

  30 September 2000

  11,492

  188

  1.6

  31 March 2001

  13,446

  142

  1.1

  30 September 2001

  12,754

  324

  2.5

  31 March 2002

  14,154

  475

  3.4

  30 September 2002

  14,303

  441

  3.1

  31 March 2003

  15,644

  570

  3.6

  30 September 2003

  12,798

  420

  3.3

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average length of time is for processing planning applications in Northern Ireland. [152580]

  Angela Smith
  The average time taken by the Department of the Environment's Planning Service to issue a final decision in respect of planning applications in Northern Ireland over the last three previous years is as follows:

  Average time in Northern Ireland

  Year

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total average days

  139

  134

  137

  Total average weeks

  20

  19

  20

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average time is for a planning appeal hearing to take place in Northern Ireland after an application for an appeal has been lodged. [152581]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As the Planning Appeals Commission is a tribunal Non-Departmental Public Body, I have asked the Chief Commissioner to write to the hon. Gentleman directly in connection with the information requested.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average time taken by his Department was to respond to letters of objection from people regarding planning applications in 2003. [152594]

  Angela Smith
  It is Planning Service's policy to acknowledge all letters of objection within three working days, and where specific questions are raised, it is the policy to issue a reply within 15 working days.

  However, it is often difficult to deal with specific questions at an early stage of the processing of an application, as detailed consideration will not have taken place by the divisional planning office and consultee replies will not have been received. More substantive replies can issue at a later stage. In addition, all those who object to planning applications are informed in writing of the final decision and the reasons for that decision.

  Police Officers
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of police officers in Northern Ireland, broken down by rank, are(a) female and (b) from an ethnic minority. [151319]

  Jane Kennedy
  The figures requested as at 1 January 2004 are shown in the following table.

  Percentage

  Rank

  Female

  Ethnic Minority

  ACPO

  12.50

  Chief

  10.34

  Superintendent

  Superintendent

  2.74

  Chief Inspector

  10.61

  948W

  Percentage

  Rank

  Female

  Ethnic Minority

  Inspector

  7.99

  Sergeant

  11.27

  0.09

  Constable

  17.70

  0.28

  Student officer

  36.74

  1.40

  FTR

  8.71

  PTR

  36.13

  Police Ombudsman
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints have been referred to the office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland for investigation since its formation; and how many of these complaints have resulted in(a) successful prosecution and (b) resolution between the parties. [150682]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Ombudsman advises that since her office opened on 6 November 2000, and up until 31 December 2003, a of total of 10,535 complaints have been made to her office. Of these complaints 4,598 have been referred for investigation, and prosecutions by the Director of Public Prosecutions have resulted in two police officers being convicted. In the same period the informal resolution procedure has resulted in 878 complaints being resolved between the parties involved.

  Police Service
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the Full Time Reserve of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [151614]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government accepted, subject to the security situation, the recommendation in the Patten report that"the future police service should not include a Full Time Reserve".

  In October 2002 the Chief Constable put to the Policing Board a human resource strategy to meet the staffing needs of the Police Service over the next eight to 10 years which the Policing Board endorsed. This included a phased run-down of the Full Time Reserve over an 18 month period from April 2005, subject to no further deterioration of the security situation and the continued success of the recruitment campaign for the Police Service.

  Later this year the Chief Constable will put forward advice to the Board and the Secretary of State on these matters. The Government recognise the major contribution that members of the Reserve have made to the maintenance of law and order in Northern Ireland and the high price that they and many of their families have had to pay in doing so.

  Negotiations between Government officials and the Police Federation about severance arrangements for the Full Time Reserve have begun.

  Prisons
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amount was spent on leisure facilities in prisons in each of the last six years. [150734]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Prison Service does not spend money on leisure facilities, however, the service does incur costs on recreation and physical education. Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the amount spent on gym assets including snooker and pool tables for the last six years is:

  Amount (£)

  1998–99

  13,900

  1999–2000

  27,275

  2000–01

  36,234

  2001–02

  13,847

  2002–03

  37,970

  2003–04

  24,814

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners in Northern Ireland are the subject of suicide watch observations; and what the corresponding figure was for the first day of each of the last 12 months. [150745]

  Jane Kennedy
  Where there is concern that a prisoner may be at risk of self-harm a form IMR 21 is completed to inform staff. This might lead to a period of assessment in the healthcare unit for those deemed to be at a more serious risk. This period of assessment might also include a period of close observation. In the period January-December 2003, the number of IMR 21 forms raised was as follows:

  Month

  IMR 21 referrals

  January 2003

  11

  February 2003

  11

  March 2003

  16

  April 2003

  16

  May 2003

  11

  June 2003

  23

  July 2003

  15

  August 2003

  19

  September 2003

  22

  October 2003

  24

  November 2003

  39

  December 2003

  33

  There has been an increase in the number of IMR 21 forms raised during the past year due to the increase in prisoner population and increasing tensions because of separation issues in Maghaberry.

  Public Bodies
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who the members of the(a) Probation Board for Northern Ireland, (b) Police Authority for Northern Ireland and (c) Board of Visitors of Magilligan Prison were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and what their remuneration is. [151458]
  950W
  Jane Kennedy
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Probation Board for Northern Ireland—Membership: chairman, deputy chairman and 16 members

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Expiry of appointment

  Gender

  Chairman

  B. Rowntree

  1 December 1998

  30 November 2004

  M

  Deputy chairman

  Mrs. F. Reid1

  1 December 2003

  30 November 2006

  F

  Members

  Ms J. Daykin

  1 December 2003

  30 November 2006

  F

  Mr. C. Flanagan

  1 December 2003

  30 November 2006

  M

  Ms M. Gilheany

  1 December 2000

  30 November 2006

  F

  Mrs. B.Grant

  1 December 2000

  30 November 2006

  F

  Mr. R. Hanna

  1 December 2000

  30 November 2006

  M

  Mrs. J. Hillen

  1 December 2000

  30 November 2006

  F

  P. Killen

  1 December 2000

  30 November 2006

  M

  Mr. A. MacLaughlin

  1 December 2003

  30 November 2006

  M

  Mr. P. McAteer

  1 December 2003

  30 November 2006

  M

  Miss M. McCann

  1 December 2000

  30 November 2006

  F

  Dr. R. McKee

  1 December 2003

  30 November 2006

  M

  Mrs. G. Rice

  1 December 2000

  30 November 2006

  F

  Mrs. G. Shaw

  1 December 2003

  30 November 2006

  F

  B. Stuart

  1 December 2000

  30 November 2006

  M

  Mr. W. Tweed

  1 December 2003

  30 November 2006

  M

  Ms K. Yiasouma

  1 December 2003

  30 November 2006

  F

  1 Previously member from 1 December 2000.

  Notes:

  1. Length of each term of appointment: three years

  2. Remuneration: Chairman—£25,860 per annum; deputy chairman and members attendance allowance plus travel and subsistence expenses.

  (b) Northern Ireland Policing Board

  In accordance with the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the Police Authority for Northern Ireland was dissolved and replaced by the Northern Ireland Policing Board on 4 November 2001. The setting up of the Northern Ireland Policing Board was one of the recommendations contained in the Patten Report.

  The board was made up of 19 members—10 political and nine independent. The 10 political members were nominated from among the members of the then Northern Ireland Assembly, in accordance with the d'Hondt process. The nine independent members were appointed by the Secretary of State.

  In October 2002, following the suspension of the devolved institutions, the then Secretary of State appointed the current 19 members of the Policing Board for a three year period.

  As of 1 January 2004 the members are as follows:

  Chairman:

  Professor Desmond Rea

  Vice chairman:

  Denis Bradley

  Other members:

  Alex Attwood

  Viscount Brookeborough

  Joe Byrne

  Fred Cobain

  Brian Dougherty

  Sam Foster

  Barry Gilligan

  William Hay

  Tom Kelly

  951W

  Lord Kilclooney

  Pauline McCabe

  Alan McFarland

  Eddie McGrady

  Rosaleen Moore

  Ian Paisley Junior

  Suneil Sharma

  Sammy Wilson

  Their remuneration is:

  Chairman: £45,000

  Vice chairman: £35,000

  Independent members £12,000

  (c) Board of Visitors members for Magilligan Prison

  Chairman:

  Armitage

  Vice chairman:

  Mrs. I. Johnston

  Members:

  J. Campbell

  Mrs. R. Craig

  Mrs. J. Doherty

  Cllr. R. D. McDonnell

  S. McGregor

  M. McIvor

  C. McLaughlin

  J. Mitchell

  W. A. Mitchell

  Mrs. M. D. Nicholl

  E. Turner

  Mrs. V. A. Von Hoff

  Plus one other

  Board of Visitors members are generally appointed for three years, but may be appointed for a shorter period. They may be re-appointed for further periods of three years or less, but not more than 12 years in total.

  Members of Boards of Visitors receive no remuneration.

  Racist Incidents
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many racist incidents were recorded by the police in Northern Ireland in(a) January and (b) each month in (i) 2003 and (ii) 2002, broken down by constituency; [149228]

  (2) how the police categorise different types of racist incident; and how many of each type of incident there has been so far this year. [149230]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested by my hon. Friend has been placed in the Library.

  Rating
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with European Union authorities on the issue of industrial de-rating and state aid. [152206]

  Mr. Pearson
  None. Industrial de-rating in Northern Ireland predated UK accession to the European Union in 1973. Member states were not required to notify pre accession financial support arrangements.
  952W
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the likely impact of industrial de-rating on(a) small and medium-sized and (b) large businesses in Northern Ireland. [152207]

  Mr. Pearson
  Our assessment on the likely impact on(a) small and medium-sized and (b) large businesses came from a variety of different sources, including studies by DTZ Pieda, Invest NI and the Confederation of British Industry (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 included the Regulatory Impact Assessment, New TSN and Equality Impact Assessment and all this evidence was summarised, analysed and considered objectively and the various options were discussed openly with representatives of the business community before a final decision was taken.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the likely impact of his decision to rate vacant premises on(a) small and medium-sized and (b) large businesses in Northern Ireland. [152208]

  Mr. Pearson
  Our assessment on the likely impact on all vacant commercial property, and in particular, small commercial property came from a variety of different sources, including the Regulatory Impact Assessment, New TSN, Equality Impact Assessment, as well as submissions made during the public consultation exercise in 2002 by the DETI and DFP Assembly Committees and submissions from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB). All this evidence was summarised, analysed and considered objectively and the various options were discussed openly with representatives of the business community before a final decision was taken. The impact of this measure will be felt by property owners rather than small businesses that tend to rent property and therefore are unlikely to face a vacant rate cost.

  Industrial De-rating
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what mechanisms he has established to monitor the impact of the phasing out of industrial de-rating in Northern Ireland. [152230]

  Mr. Pearson
  The policy document in relation to the "Rating of Vacant Property and the Removal of Industrial De-rating", published in April 2003, included Equality Impact and Regulatory Impact Assessments. Both these types of assessment require that the policy be monitored and evaluated after a suitable period of time has elapsed to allow the policy to 'bed down', and three years from its introduction is considered appropriate for evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation, following HM
  953W
  Treasury "Green Book" guidance, would seek to measure outcomes during and after implementation in terms of revenue generated and the main impacts against what would have happened in the absence of the policy.

  Social Rented Housing
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new houses have been built in the social rented sector in North Belfast in each year since 1997; and what the cost was in each year. [152577]

  Mr. Spellar
  Details of houses started and associated total scheme costs are as follows.

  Houses

  Cost (£ million)

  1997–98

  218

  9.3

  1998–99

  210

  11.9

  1999–2000

  325

  23.8

  2000–01

  105

  8.1

  2001–02

  200

  16.0

  2002–03

  254

  19.2

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on maintenance and repair of social rented housing in North Belfast in each year since 1997. [152578]

  Mr. Spellar
  Expenditure by NIHE and Housing Associations on the maintenance and repair of social rented housing in North Belfast, based on Housing Executive Districts 4 and 6, is as follows:

  £000

  Year

  Maintenance and repair

  1997–98

  12,710

  1998–99

  16,128

  1999–2000

  14,185

  2000–01

  13,575

  2001–02

  13,829

  2002–03

  13,886

  Specialist Drugs
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional funding was provided in 2003 for new specialist prescribed drugs for(a) rheumatoid arthritis and (b) multiple sclerosis. [150750]

  Angela Smith
  The additional £3 million allocated to Health and Social Services Boards in the 2002–03 financial year towards the costs of new specialist drug treatments including those for rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis has been made recurrent in the current financial year 2003–04 and increased to £3.1 million to cover inflation.

  A further £100,000 made available in September 2002 specifically for infrastructure support for beta interferon treatment for multiple sclerosis has also been made recurrent thus relieving pressures elsewhere in these drugs budgets.

  Speech Therapy
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals are awaiting speech therapy assessment; and how many of those have waited more than six months. [150736]

  Angela Smith
  Information on the number of individuals awaiting speech therapy assessment is not collected centrally. However, information is collected centrally on completed waiting times for a first outpatient appointment of an episode of care with a community speech and language therapist. In the quarter ending 30 September 2003 (the latest date for which such information is available), 2,453 persons attended their first outpatient appointment. Of these, 218 (8.9 per cent.) had waited for six months or more.

  Sports
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding has been provided to promote cricket in the Province in each of the last five years. [148817]

  Angela Smith
  The Sports Council for Northern Ireland (SCNI) is responsible for the development of sport in NI including the distribution of public funding to individual sports. Funding from SCNI for the five-year period 1998–2003 for the sport of cricket is:

  Cricket

  £

  Exchequer funding

  1998–99

  20,000

  1999–2000

  20,000

  2000–01

  20,000

  2001–02

  20,000

  2002–03

  26,330

  Total

  106,330

  Lottery funding

  1998–99

  215,298

  1999–2000

  212,837

  2000–01

  282,500

  2001–02

  57,202

  2002–03

  16,000

  Total

  783,837

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding has been provided to assist the promotion of(a) hockey, (b) rugby, (c) soccer, (d) gaelic football, (e) hurling and (f) other Gaelic Athletic Association sports in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [148818]

  Angela Smith
  The Sports Council for Northern Ireland (SCNI) is responsible for the development of Sport in NI including the distribution of public funding to individual sports.

  The following tables provides details of funding from SCNI for the five year period 1998–2003 for the four sports of Soccer, Gaelic Games (including Gaelic Football, Hurling and other Gaelic Athletic Association games), Rugby and Hockey.
  955W

  Exchequer Funding

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Soccer

  50,000

  50,000

  50,000

  59,000

  52,500

  261,500

  —

  —

  —

  1100,000

  1500,000

  600,000

  Gaelic Games

  30,000

  30,000

  30,000

  30,000

  45,000

  165,000

  Rugby

  16,000

  16,000

  16,000

  16,000

  24,000

  88,000

  Hockey

  65,167

  66,443

  27,464

  61,225

  54,902

  275,201

  Totals

  161,167

  162,443

  123,464

  266,225

  676,402

  1,389,701

  1 These figures indicate the funds allocated to Soccer from the Football Development Centre Programme for 2001–02 and 2002–03

  Lottery Funding

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Soccer

  677,073

  816,616

  942,492

  642,710

  609,131

  3,688,022

  Gaelic Games

  2,703,811

  1,303,185

  1,694,182

  1,025,420

  689,962

  7,416,560

  Rugby

  155,526

  100,784

  312,053

  144,000

  76,860

  789,223

  Hockey

  322,588

  14,000

  47,625

  199,850

  68,800

  652,863

  Totals

  3,858,998

  2,234585

  2,996,352

  2,011,980

  1,444,753

  12,546,668

  Safe Sports Grounds

  The money provided by the Safe Sports Ground Programme was made available from financial year 2000–01 for the three sports of Soccer, Gaelic Games

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Soccer

  1,206,809

  784,003

  415,188

  2,406,000

  Gaelic Games

  622,085

  350,833

  507,082

  1,480,000

  Rugby

  136,843

  140,612

  68,536

  345,991

  Total

  1,965,737

  1,275,448

  990,806

  4,231,991

  Tourism (Ards Peninsula/North Down)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to attract more tourists in 2004 to(a) the Ards Peninsula and (b) the North Down area. [149615]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) is working with local councils in the Ards and North Down areas and the Kingdoms of Down regional tourism organisation on a range of tourism promotion initiatives. These include marketing and promotion initiatives and familiarisation trips by international tourism interests/key market representatives. A programme of tourism events is planned for 2004, drawing and improving on their successful last year.

  The NITB's Strategic Framework for Action 2004–07, which will drive the tourism agenda for the next three years, will provide a focus and impetus to the growth and delivery of tourism to all areas of Northern Ireland, including the Ards Peninsula and North Down areas.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the current average waiting times are for MRI scanning in Northern Ireland. [151224]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available.
  956W
  and Rugby. The following table shows the funding that was allocated for these sports for the 3-year period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2003.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make it his policy to introduce within the public service agreements set by central Government a commitment to raise Council Tax Benefit take-up rates for pensioners from the current level of 65 per cent. to 90 per cent. within three years; and if he will make a statement. [148241]

  Mr. Pond
  We have no plans at present to introduce a target for take-up of Council Tax Benefit by pensioners.

  Take-up of Council Tax Benefit has historically been lower than for other income-related benefits, take-up by pensioners being lower than for non-pensioners. However, we are keen to ensure that all pensioners entitled to help with their council tax bills are claiming Council Tax Benefit. We have therefore launched a take-up campaign to help support local authorities in encouraging those who may be entitled to claim.

  The introduction of Pension Credit also means around 300,000 pensioner households will be newly entitled to Council Tax Benefit. To help facilitate take up, applicants for Pension Credit who also want to claim Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit are sent a claim form to return to their local authority. We have recently also introduced a shortened version of this claim form for pensioners to make the process of claiming even easier.

  Pension Service
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the(a) error rate and (b) arrears of work levels were for the last year in which pensions work was done in local offices in the South East region; and what the latest figures are for this work in the new pension centres. [151534]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefits Agency handled payments to pensioners as well as to people of working age through a network of over 400 social security offices. The Pension Service was launched in April 2002 to provide a more unified and responsive service via a network of 26 pension centres. Directly comparable data is not available in the format requested. However, I can confirm that within the South East Region the level of accuracy reported on Retirement Pension work has remained above the 98 per cent. target throughout the transition, and the levels of outstanding Retirement Pension work have reduced by more than 50 per cent..

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer, net of savings in means-tested benefits and additional tax revenues, of paying a full basic state pension to each individual, regardless of contribution record, at the rate of the guarantee credit, from the age of(a) 65, (b) 70 and (c) 75 years; and if he will estimate in each case the cost in each of the following four years on the assumption that the pension was then indexed to earnings. [150451]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is set out in the following table.

  £ billion

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  Over 65

  9.9

  10.2

  10.7

  11.3

  12.1

  Over 70

  6.9

  7.1

  7.5

  8.1

  8.6

  Over 75

  4.4

  4.6

  4.9

  5.3

  5.6

  Notes:

  1. Figures are in 2003–04 price terms rounded to the nearest £100 million. It is assumed the change comes into effect from April 2004 and only affects basic State Pensions.

  2. Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with Budget 2003 assumptions Estimates are all based on the 2002 population projection and allow for recent revisions.

  3. The costs take into account income related benefit offsets, which are calculated using the DWP policy simulation model and April 2004 benefit rates.

  4. Additional income tax revenue is estimated by the Inland Revenue using 2004 tax rates.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his policy on the use of sunset clauses in legislation; and which Acts containing such clauses relevant to his Department were passed in each year since 1997. [149336]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pensions actively promotes the better regulation agenda and the use of sunsetting where appropriate.
  958W
  The Regulatory Impact Assessment guidance 'Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment' advises policy officials to consider time limiting or sunsetting at an early stage of policy development, and gives specific circumstances where sunsetting maybe appropriate.

  No Acts for which DWP is responsible containing a sunset clause have been passed since the Department was formed in June 2001.

  For most of the Department's business, sunsetting would not be appropriate. For example where primary legislation establishing a benefit or other scheme is drafted on the basis that it will last indefinitely and the details will be set out in secondary legislation, it would normally be inconsistent to time limit this.

HEALTH

  "Agenda for Change"
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the projected cost increase in each of the next five years if all members of staff eligible for the Agenda for Change programme receive an annual increase in pay of one pay point in a pay band and successfully pass through the(a) foundation and (b) secondary gateways. [151144]

  Mr. Hutton
  The projected basic pay increases under Agenda for Change—2.5 per cent. on average by 2005–06 and 5.9 per cent. in the longer term (compared with 2002–03) in addition to annual pay uplift—assume that all staff will progress annually through pay points and pay gateways up to the maximum of their pay band. These projections also assume that the distribution of staff between the different pay points in a given pay band, taking account of joiners, leavers and annual pay progression, will remain similar to the distribution seen in current National Health Service pay bands. In other words, the additional costs do not arise from pay progression as such (which is a feature of most current NHS pay systems), but from the changes in the basic pay ranges to which NHS staff will be entitled.

  Cataracts
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the reasons that Netcare delivers cataract services on behalf of the NHS at a price less than NHS costs. [149029]

  Mr. Hutton
  All selected preferred bidders for the contracts for new independent sector treatment centres have gone through a rigorous procurement process to ensure that they are fit to deliver high quality clinical services for national health service commissioners. This has been independent of their price or the commercial aspects of the contract.

  Netcare has been awarded the contract to provide an innovative mobile theatre solution that will perform over 40,000 additional operations at different sites over

  959W
  the next five years. The contract has been negotiated at a price less than the comparable NHS cost: this will benefit patients who will benefit from speedier treatment and is a good deal for the NHS.

  Consultants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assumptions his Department has made about the level of take-up of the consultant contract. [151569]

  Mr. Hutton
  We estimate around 70 to 80 per cent., of consultants are likely to take up the contract this year.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria his Department used to decide on the(a) location and (b) number of training places for consultants in grown-up congenital heart abnormality. [152166]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department makes decisions about the allocation of consultant training places or national training numbers (NTNs) each year. This includes decisions about NTNs in cardiology, which includes adult congenital heart disease.

  The decisions are based on intelligence collated from local and national bodies on workforce needs and are a balance of the needs of all medical specialties. The number of NTNs allocated to cardiology is made in consultation with the National Clinical Director for heart disease.

  New training places in cardiology are distributed to sites that have available training capacity and where possible are distributed nationally to areas which are most under-resourced.

  Contracting Out
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of procedures contracted out by the NHS to the public sector in the last 12 months. [146304]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not hold centrally information on the cost of procedures contracted out by the national health service to the private sector in the last 12 months. The exception is the independent sector treatment centre programme. One centre is already open at Daventry, and we estimate that, to date, contracted out procedures at Daventry will amount to approximately £1,096,800.

  Dentistry
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost of dental treatment in(a) Brent, (b) London and (c) England was in each year since 1997. [149898]

  Mr. Hutton
  The average costs of a course of dental treatment in the general dental service for adults and children in England, London and Brent and Harrow Health Authority (HA) for each financial year are shown in Table 1 for the period 1997–98 to the first half of 2002–03 and for Brent Primary Care Trust (PCT) for the second half of 2002–03 in Table 2.
  960W
  These costs are for payment made to the dentist for dental treatment. These include the patient charges where applicable. They exclude patient registration payments to the dentists. Some patients may have more than one course of treatment in a year.

  The averages for children excludes courses of treatment involving an examination only, which are not paid for separately but covered by the patient registration payment to dentists.

  Table 1: General Dental Service—Average cost of dental treatment for 1997–98 to 2002–03 first half

  £

  England

  London

  Brent and Harrow Health Authority

  Children

  Adult

  Children

  Adult

  Children

  Adult

  1997–98

  26.1

  32.5

  36.2

  47.2

  36.6

  45.7

  1998–99

  28.5

  33.5

  39.1

  48.8

  32.8

  47.7

  1999–2000

  29.9

  34.8

  42.3

  51.7

  34.0

  50.6

  2000–01

  32.0

  35.5

  45.7

  52.9

  37.2

  52.6

  2001–02

  34.5

  36.3

  48.3

  54.7

  40.9

  54.3

  2002–031

  35.7

  37.4

  49.0

  57.2

  42.2

  56.2

  1 Covers period from 30 April 2002 to 30 September 2002.

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board.

  Table 2: General Dental Service—Average cost of dental treatment for 2002–03 second half

  £

  2002–031 Children

  Adult

  England

  37.5

  37.2

  London

  50.8

  56.1

  Brent PCT

  39.1

  55.4

  1 Covers period from 31 October 2002 to 31 March 2003.

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board.

  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists' surgeries in Brent East constituency are accepting new NHS patients. [149905]

  Mr. Hutton
  Figures collected by the Department are by primary care trust (PCT) and not by constituency.

  Brent PCT has:

  51 dental surgeries accepting children (latest data available—January 2004);

  13 dental surgeries accepting national health service charge-paying patients i.e. those not exempt from payment (latest data available—January 2004); and

  44 dental surgeries accepting NHS charge-exempt patients (latest data available—October 2003).

  The nhs.uk website at: www.nhs.uk/root/administration/reports/dentalreport.asp gives information on dental practices and whether or not new patients are being accepted.

  Note:

  1. Some surgeries may accept more than one type of patient. So the overall total of 64 surgeries includes some surgeries which are not accepting new NHS patients.

  2. There may be some dental surgeries which are not included in the nhs.uk figures. nhs.uk figures have been used here because that source gives information on dentists' acceptance practices.
  961W
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) NHS and (b) private dental practices there are in (i) the Castle Point and Rochford Primary Care Trust and (ii) the Essex Strategic Health Authority. [152441]

  Dr. Ladyman
  At August 2003 there were 21 general dental service practices in Castle Point and Rochford Primary Care Trust and 248 practices in Essex Strategic Health Authority.

  Information on the number of private dental practices is not collected centrally. Generally, few dental practices are wholly private.

  NHS Students (Child Care)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to introduce the scheme to help with child care costs for national health service-funded students with children aged up to five years. [152771]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is intended to introduce a scheme to assist national health service-funded students with childcare costs in September 2004. Officials are currently developing proposals for the scheme.

  Drug Prices
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate of drug price inflation his Department is using in budgets for financial year 2004–05. [144145]

  Mr. Hutton
  In calculating budgets for 2004–05, we are providing for a growth of about ten per cent. in the estimated outturn expenditure on drugs for 2003–04. The percentage growth is based on a combined figure of volume and price inflation, and we are thus unable to break it down to obtain separate figures.

  General Practitioners
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many general practitioner vacancies there were in(a) Brent Primary Care Trust, (b) London and (c) England in each year since 1997; [150812]

  (2) how many general practitioner vacancies there were on average in each London primary care trust in each year since 1997. [150813]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department's annual general practitioner (GP) recruitment and retention and vacancy (RRV) survey started in 2000.

  The number of GP vacancies in England and in each London strategic health authority since 2000 is shown in Table 1. The number of GP vacancies in each London primary care trust (PCT) including Brent PCT, for 2003, is shown in Table 2. This is the first year vacancy data has been collected at PCT level.

  The RRV survey is a count of all GP vacancies that have occurred during each year. It will include existing posts that doctors have left and also new posts created to increase the workforce, even where they were filled very quickly. Thus, the increase in vacancies in part, is a result of there being more posts overall, reflecting the Government's plan to increase the GP workforce.
  962W

  Table 1: England GP vacancy numbers by London SHA, 2000 to 2003

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  England total

  11,143

  22,345

  32,487

  43,245

  of which:

  North Central London SHA

  22

  78

  80

  53

  North East London SHA

  18

  55

  17

  104

  South East London SHA

  38

  101

  81

  179

  South West London SHA

  16

  242

  329

  445

  North West London SHA

  49

  60

  93

  78

  1 In 2000 four HAs did not respond to the survey. These made up parts of: Thames Valley SHA, County Durham & Tees Valley SHA, North & East Yorkshire & N Lincolnshire SHA and Trent SHA.

  2 In 2001 two HAs did not respond to the survey. These made up parts of: Surrey & Sussex SHA and South West London SHA.

  3 In 2002 four HAs did not respond to the survey. These made up parts of:Surrey & Sussex SHA, South West London SHA, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire & Rutland SHA and Hampshire & Isle of Wight SHA.

  4 In 2003 one PCT in South West London SHA did not respond to the survey.

  Note:

  Years prior to 2003 have been mapped to current SHA areas 2003 numbers were collected directly from PCTs. Previous years vacancy numbers were collect from Health Authorities.

  Source:

  Department of Health GP Recruitment, Retention and Vacancy surveys, 2000–03.

  Table 2: GP vacancy numbers by London PCT, 2003

  ISHA

  Total

  England Total

  3,245

  of which:

  London All

  459

  of which:

  North Central London All

  53

  of which:

  Barnet PCT

  27

  Camden PCT

  8

  Enfield PCT

  4

  Haringey PCT

  9

  Islington PCT

  5

  North East London All

  104

  of which:

  Barking and Dagenham PCT

  7

  Chingford, Wanstead and Woodford PCT

  12

  City and Hackney PCT

  22

  Havering PCT

  10

  Newham PCT

  15

  Redbridge PCT

  13

  Tower Hamlets PCT

  13

  Walthamstow, Leyton and Leytonstone PCT

  12

  North West London All

  78

  of which:

  Brent PCT

  16

  Ealing PCT

  1

  Hammersmith & Fulham PCT

  5

  Harrow PCT

  28

  Hillingdon PCT

  9

  Hounslow PCT

  3

  Kensington and Chelsea PCT

  9

  Westminster PCT

  7

  South East London All

  179

  of which:

  Bexley PCT

  24

  Bromley PCT

  37

  Greenwich PCT

  32

  Lambeth PCT

  32

  Lewisham PCT

  21

  Southwark PCT

  33

  963W

  Table 2: GP vacancy numbers by London PCT, 2003

  ISHA

  Total

  South West London All

  145

  of which:

  Croydon PCT

  24

  Kingston PCT

  3

  Richmond and Twickenham PCT

  4

  Wandsworth PCT

  14

  1 One PCT (Sutton & Merton PCT, South West London SHA) did not respond to the survey.

  Note:

  No figures for PCTs are available before 2003 as previous years vacancy numbers were collected from health authorities.

  Source:

  Department of Health GP Recruitment, Retention and Vacancy survey 2003.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average amount of funding provided to a general practitioner surgery is in(a) England and (b) the London Borough of Havering. [150371]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect information at a London borough level, but rather at primary care trust (PCT) level. The answer therefore compares the national position with Havering PCT. The average funding per general practitioner practice in England in 2002–03 was £464,000. The average funding per GP practice in Havering PCT was £347,000. However, the number of practitioners per practice in Havering PCT as at March 2003 was lower (at 2.58) than the national average (at 3.76). Consequently, when practitioner numbers are used, the average cost per practitioner in England was £124,000, while the equivalent figure in Havering PCT was £134,000.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to recruit general practitioners; what the current national ratio of patients to general practitioners is; what the ratio is in the Portsmouth area; and how many general practitioner vacancies there are in(a) Portsmouth and (b) South East Hampshire. [151993]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are committed to recruiting and retaining more general practitioners (GPs). A range of measures have been implemented including financial incentives, extended options for flexible working and improved family friendly policies.

  The ratio of patients to unrestricted principals and equivalent (UPE) general practitioners (GPs) in England and in Portsmouth Primary Care Trust is shown in table 1.

  The number of GP vacancies recorded in the GP recruitment and retention vacancy survey between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003 in Portsmouth PCT and East Hampshire PCT and Fareham and Gosport PCT is shown in table 2.

  This is a count of all GP vacancies that have occurred during each year. It will include existing posts that doctors have left and also new posts created to increase the work force, even where they were filled very quickly. Thus, the number of vacancies in part is a result of there being more posts overall, reflecting the Governments plan to increase the GP work force.
  964W
  The Department of Health collects figures by PCT only, not by constituency.

  Table 1: Patients of unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs) 1 for Hampshire and Isle of Wight Strategic Health Authority—England, as at 30 September 2002

  Number (headcount)

  England

  Portsmouth City PCT

  All practitioners2

  32,292

  105

  of which:

  UPEs

  28,031

  101

  Patients of UPEs

  51,522,391

  181,805

  Ratio UPEs to patients

  1:1,838

  1:1,800

  1 UPEs include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs.

  2 All practitioners include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs, PMS salaried GPs, restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (para. 52 SPA), PMS other and GP retainers.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Table 2: Reported GP vacancies in England and Hampshire and Isle of Wight SHA and PCTs, 2003

  Headcount (number)

  England total

  13,245

  East Hampshire PCT

  18

  Fareham and Gosport PCT

  10

  Portsmouth City PCT

  10

  1 One PCT (Sutton and Merton PCT, South West London SHA) did not respond to the survey.

  Note:

  No figures for PCTs are available before 2003 as previous years vacancy numbers were collected from health authorities.

  Source:

  Department of Health GP Recruitment, Retention and Vacancy survey 2003.

  Health Care Professionals
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the net inflow of health care professionals to the United Kingdom was in each of the last ten years, broken down by(a) country and (b) profession. [151611]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 January 2004]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  The Nursing and Midwifery Council holds information on the number of initial admissions to the register by country. This information is available on the NMC's website at www.nmc-uk.org.

  The Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census provides a breakdown of all doctors in the national health service broken down by United Kingdom, European Economic Area (EEA) and non-EEA countries, and the full data has been placed in the Library.

  Health Care Workers (Communicable Diseases)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether health care workers from overseas who are employed at NHS treatment centres are subject to compulsory tests for communicable diseases; and if he will make a statement. [151870]
  965W
  Mr. Hutton
  Health care workers from overseas who are employed at national health service treatment centres will be subject to the same occupational health checks for communicable diseases as other NHS health care staff, in accordance with their duty of care to protect the health and safety of their patients. Under existing guidance, these will include checks for tuberculosis disease and for immunity to hepatitis B and chickenpox, with immunisation if appropriate.

  Health Statistics
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) delayed transfers of care and (b) emergency readmissions within 28 days of discharge there were in each quarter of 2003–04, for (i) each NHS region, (ii) each strategic health authority, (iii) each NHS trust and (iv) England, broken down by (a) age and (b) in the case of the reason for delay. [152848]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The latest figures for 2003–04, Quarter 3 (December 2003) will be available by the middle of February, and will be placed in the Library. All the information for Quarter 1 and Quarter 2, 2003–04 is available in the Library.

  Health Workers (Commonwealth)
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the United Kingdom will sign up to the code of practice for the international recruitment of health workers approved by the Commonwealth Health Ministers in May 2003. [150650]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]: The United Kingdom strongly supports the principles underlying the Commonwealth code of practice on the international recruitment of health workers. We do not intend, however, to sign up to the version put forward in May 2003. That version differed from earlier versions, which had been acceptable to us, and did not reflect amendments we had suggested.

  The Department has its own guidance and a code of practice embodying ethical principles for the international recruitment of healthcare workers, which are clear, explicit, and under regular review. While we support efforts to persuade more countries and bodies to adopt ethical principles for any active international recruitment they undertake, we do not regard the Commonwealth code of practice as it stands as an appropriate vehicle.

  Only 22 of the (then) 54 Commonwealth countries signed up to the Commonwealth code.

  Local Health Economies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications of the targets set by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's community plan for local health economies. [151630]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has recognised the need to consider the implications of Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Growth Area initiative for local health economies.
  966W
  Work to assess the impact on health care need is ongoing and we are considering the appropriateness of providing extra funding for those areas affected.

  Macular Degeneration
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average wait was between diagnosis of macular degeneration and first follow-up appointment with a health professional in the last period for which figures are available. [148934]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: Information on the average wait between diagnosis of macular degeneration and first follow-up appointment is not held centrally.

  Information is available on the number of hospital admissions (first period of in-patient care) and average-waiting times for those diagnosed with degeneration of the macular pole. In all, there were 3,417 admissions in England in 2002–03 for degeneration of the macular pole. The average waiting time for these admissions was 67 days.

  Admissions do not represent the number of inpatients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year. In-patients are defined as patients who are admitted to hospital and occupy a bed, including both admissions where an overnight stay is planned and day cases.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support those suffering from age-related macular degeneration currently receive after diagnosis. [148935]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: In addition to any medical treatment that may be appropriate, people with vision problems affecting their quality of life can be referred for a low vision assessment. Low vision services are usually provided in a hospital setting, but in many parts of the country are being provided in locations closer to where people live, for example, in local opticians' practices and at centres for visually impaired people. It is important that the prescribing of any optical aids, and training in their use, must be done in the context of an individual's vision and the optical status of the eyes. Low vision aids, such as strong reading glasses, magnifiers or telescopes are available free on loan to any person requiring them.

  Social services departments also have responsibility for assessing the needs of those who request help due to problems with their vision. Help could include aids to daily living, such as improved home lighting and hi-marks for cookers, or the provision of mobility training to enable a person to retain their independence with respect to travel.

  Marshfield Road Surgery
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis the decision has been taken to close the Marshfield Road Surgery of Dr. Barne Williams, in Chippenham; and what procedure was used to make the decision. [151160]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]: On 30 September 2002, the primary care trust (PCT) gave six months notice to terminate Dr. William's personal medical services contract (PMS) on grounds of

  967W
  breach of contract, following Dr. William's continued refusal to provide out-of-hours services to his registered patients.

  Dr. Williams invoked the national health service disputes resolution procedure, pursuant to Section 4 of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990. Subsequently, an independent adjudicator was appointed pursuant to the NHS (Disputes Resolution) regulations 1996. On 17 December 2003, the independent adjudicator upheld the PCT decision that the PMS contract should terminate on 30 January 2004.

  I am informed that Dr. Williams has now applied to rejoin the general medical services list and this is currently being considered by the Family Health Services Appeals Authority.

  Medical Students
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the future impact on the NHS of the increase in the proportion of medical students who are female(a) in general practice and (b) in hospital medicine. [151698]

  Mr. Hutton
  The increasing proportion of women entering the medical profession and the impact of this on participation in the workforce is factored into the Department's workforce planning.

  MMR Vaccine
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the refusal of parents to allow their children to receive the MMR vaccine affects(a) payment to the child's family doctor and (b) the star rating of the general practitioner surgery which the child attends. [151570]

  Mr. Hutton
  The MMR vaccine is provided to children as part of the childhood immunisation programme. General practitioners receive payment through a target system, which incentivises high levels of coverage in order to provide herd immunity. The target is achieved if they immunise an average of 70 per cent. or 90 per cent. of the children aged two or under on their patient list each quarter.

  Target payment rates are:

  £980 for the 70 per cent. target.

  £2,940 for the 90 per cent. target.

  The MMR indicator is one of 33 performance indicators in the primary care trust balance scorecard. Calculation of the ratings for 2003–04 is a matter for the new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection.

  There is no star rating system for GPs' surgeries.

  NHS Budget (Non-British Citizens)
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the annual budget for the national health service in 2003–04 has been spent on treatment of non-British citizens. [150645]

  Mr. Hutton
  Entitlement to free national health service treatment is based on residence in the United Kingdom. The national health service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989 place a duty on
  968W
  NHS trusts to establish whether a patient is ordinarily resident or otherwise eligible for free NHS hospital treatment and, if not, to levy a charge for any treatment provided.

  The amounts collected from NHS charged patients are not separately identified in trust accounts and are not collected centrally.

  NHS Complaints Procedure
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the individuals and organisations from which his Department, its executive agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which his Department are responsible received a response to the consultation, Reforming the NHS complaints procedure: a listening document. [149869]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each(a) NHS region, (b) health authority and (c) NHS trust for each quarter of 2002–03 the (i) monetary value of approvals to use (A) capital and (B) revenue for capital purposes, (ii) number of approvals and (iii) total capital allocation. [152509]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 February 2004]: The allocation of capital resources available for hospital and community health services for 2002–03 is contained in HSC 2001/027. This shows that £85.6 million was set aside for central budgets (to be distributed by the Department of Health); none was distributed directly to health authorities and the table below shows the allocations to regions for 2002–03.

  £000

  2002–03 regional capital planning totals

  General Allocations

  Renal services

  Fallon Enquiry

  Total

  Northern and Yorkshire

  183,112

  1,171

  —

  184,283

  Trent

  139,351

  902

  3,000

  143,253

  Eastern

  140,142

  898

  —

  141,040

  London

  279,262

  1,442

  3,000

  283,704

  South East

  231,867

  1,489

  —

  233,356

  South West

  132,332

  841

  —

  133,173

  West Midlands

  157,661

  1,010

  —

  158,671

  North West

  198,273

  1,248

  3,000

  202,521

  Total

  1,462,000

  9,000

  9,000

  1,480,000

  The allocations for renal services and the Fallon Enquiry were earmarked for specific initiatives. The general allocations in column two contained an element for the Local Capital Modernisation Fund (£110 million) initiative but the remaining £1.352 billion was available to regional offices to fund block and discretionary capital projects at individual trusts. It was for regions to agree individual capital projects with their local trusts and distribute the funding accordingly. To gather this information would involve disproportionate cost.

  Under Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts new serviced assets are paid for by annual payments from

  969W
  revenue allocations. This is the use of revenue for capital purposes. The major PFI schemes which were approved (which signed contracts) during the financial year

  NHS trust

  Region

  Date of approval

  Unitary payment (£ million)

  Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust

  South West

  1 May 2002

  21,267

  University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust

  West Midlands

  27 November 2002

  50,211

  NHS Professionals
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of whether NHS Professionals is able to operate more efficiently than the previous arrangements for the recruitment of staff. [152012]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 30 January 2004]: The benefits from the establishment of the NHS Professionals Special Health Authority will be achieved over time both in terms of reducing costs and in ensuring higher standards in the recruitment and development of temporary staff. National health service trusts across the country have already seen a reduction in temporary staffing costs and improvement in bank fill rates due to NHS Professionals. Local agency agreements have also saved an estimated £50 million over the last year.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the policy of NHS Professionals is on the international recruitment of nurses; how many nurses it has recruited from abroad in each year since its inception; and which countries these nurses came from. [152013]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 30 January 2004]: The NHS Professionals Special Health Authority does not currently recruit nursing staff from abroad. Information is not available on the nationalities of the nurses recruited to date by NHS Professionals.

  Nurses/Trainees and Midwives
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to commission research into the reasons why(a) nurses and (b) midwives trained in the UK (i) do not register with the Nurses and Midwifery Council and (ii) practise overseas; [151344]

  (2) if he will commission research to establish the number of UK nurse trainees who do not register with the Nursing and Midwifery Council and their reasons. [151721]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department have a continuing programme of research into workforce issues, which is reviewed on a regular basis. The Nursing Research Unit at King's College London has undertaken studies of the careers of the 1990–91 cohort of registered general nurses and the 1997–98 cohort of Project 2000 diplomates. Both studies provide information about practising overseas, the findings will be placed in the Library. The diplomate cohort provides information about registering with the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

  With regard to registering with the NMC, the study showed that the overwhelming majority of newly qualified or about to qualify nurses and midwives had
  970W
  2002–03 and for which records are held centrally on the unitary payment which becomes payable when the scheme is fully operational are listed in the table.

  registered or were about to register with the NMC. With regard to practising overseas, while many nurses and midwives expressed an interest in working abroad while in training, of these who intended to work overseas, under 2 per cent., actually went on to work abroad once they started nursing.

  Nurses have always used their qualifications to work overseas. The United Kingdom is a net importer of nurses and midwives and there are more qualified nurses working in the national health service than ever before. Between September 1997 and March 2003 there has been an increase of over 55,000 nurses working in the NHS. This shows that our recruitment and retention policies are working and suggests that overseas nurses consider the UK to be a good place to work.

  Nursing Students (Tuition Fees)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of meeting tuition fees for nursing students arising from the Higher Education Bill. [152334]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 February 2004]: 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 continue to cover the full cost of training and will specifically prohibit the charging of variable fees to NHS students arising from the Higher Education Bill. There will, therefore, be no additional cost to the NHS for meeting tuition fees arising from the Higher Education Bill.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the allocations to primary care trusts (PCTs) of the funding announced in his Department's press release of 18 September; and what guidance he will issue to PCTs on how their allocations on local dental services are to be spent. [145178]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  On 18 September 2003, we announced new investment totalling £65.2 million for dentistry. This consisted of £35 million capital for dental access and quality, £30 million for dental information technology (IT) and £200,000 for developing dental leadership. This was on top of revenue funding we announced in August of £9 million for targeted support on dental access and £1 million for organisation development. We subsequently announced on
  971W
  25 November 2003 further revenue funding of £15 million to support access for patients to a modernised national health service dental service, bringing the total of new funding announced this year for dentistry to £90.2 million.

  The £30 million investment in IT will facilitate integration of dental practices with wider NHS (IT) systems and will support local contracting. The IT investment and solutions for dentistry consistent with other NHS information technology initiatives are being taken forward within the national programme for IT.

  The funding of £200,000 for developing dental leadership is aimed at strategic health authority level to support primary care trusts (PCTs) in delivering the modernisation agenda for dentistry.

  The organisational development funds of £1 million are being distributed in line with advice from strategic health authorities (SHAs). They are intended to help PCTs, local dental committees and dentists to prepare for the change in the way dental services are commissioned. £0.3 million has been distributed for 2003–04 and the remaining £0.7 million will be distributed for use in 2004–05.

  The balance of £59 million is intended to support dental access and quality as follows:
  £9 million is for the NHS dentistry support team that has been set up to work with those areas where it is hardest to find an NHS dentist. These funds are being used in a targeted way to support local action plans for improving access to dentistry. The NHS support team have identified 16 PCTs with specific dental access issues. Funding for these PCTs, which are shown in the following list, will take into account the challenge faced by the individual PCTs and the potential benefit of the proposals in the dental action plan that each of the challenged PCTs is developing. Draft plans are now starting to arrive. The team allocated £200,000 in 2003–04, and will be increasing the pace of allocations early in 2004–05 based on the plans currently in preparation;
  £35 million capital funds are to enable PCTs to invest in primary care premises and facilities to improve access and quality. These funds will be distributed on a fair-shares basis at SHA level and then on a targeted basis to PCTs on the advice of the SHAs. The fair shares for SHAs are set out in the table. The bulk of the funds will be spent in 2004–05 to allow SHAs and PCTs to plan for its investment; and
  £15 million revenue funding for 2004–05 to support access will also be allocated on a fair-shares basis at SHA level and, on the advice of the SHA, on a targeted basis to PCTs. The SHA fair shares allocations of these funds are set out in the table.

  Guidance for PCTs on commissioning NHS dentistry, including the allocation of £35 million capital and £15 million revenue to support access, quality and choice was issued on 15 January 2004. The guidance makes it clear that access remains a key priority in the run-up to the new arrangements for dentistry from April 2005.

  PCTs which have been identified for support from the NHS Dentistry Support Team:

  Fareham and Gosport;

  Isle of Wight;

  New Forest;

  972W

  West Gloucestershire;

  North East Lincolnshire;

  Scarborough, Whitby and Rydedale;

  Craven, Harrogate and Rural District;

  Northumbria Care Trust;

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale;

  Hyndeburn and Ribble;

  Blackburn with Darwen;

  Morecambe Bay;

  Shropshire County;

  Telford and Wrekin;

  South West Staffordshire; and

  Central Cheshire.

  £000

  Strategic Health Authority

  Capital

  Revenue

  England

  35,000

  15,000

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  1,396

  598

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  1,039

  446

  Birmingham and The Black Country

  1,771

  761

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  1,853

  796

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  894

  384

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  1,411

  602

  Dorset and Somerset

  814

  349

  Essex

  1,071

  458

  Greater Manchester

  1,987

  852

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  1,148

  492

  Kent and Medway

  1,071

  459

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  962

  412

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  1,416

  607

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  1,073

  460

  North Central London

  961

  413

  North East London

  1,297

  556

  North West London

  1,344

  575

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  1,089

  466

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  988

  425

  South East London

  1,165

  499

  South West London

  863

  370

  South West Peninsula

  1,092

  469

  South Yorkshire

  981

  420

  Surrey and Sussex

  1,689

  723

  Thames Valley

  1,285

  550

  Trent

  1,813

  777

  West Midlands South

  1,013

  433

  West Yorkshire

  1,514

  648

  Radiographers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies exist for radiographers in the NHS in(a)Portsmouth and South East Hampshire and (b)England; and what assessment he has made of progress towards improving recruitment. [152350]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number and rate of three month vacancies for radiographers in each year since 2001 is shown in the following tables.

  The Government are implementing a range of measures to recruit more health care professionals and have made considerable progress in increasing the number of radiographers employed in the national health service and the number of training places for radiographers. There are 11 per cent. more NHS radiographers than in 1997 and the number of students entering training to become a radiographer has more than doubled since 1996–97.
  973W

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey: Vacancies in NHS Trusts by HA area and SHA area for qualified radiography staff

  Three month vacancy rates, numbers and staff in post

  March 2001

  September 2000

  Three month vacancy rate (Percentage)

  Three month vacancy (Number)

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalent)

  Staff in post (headcount)

  Diagnostic

  England (excluding HA staff)

  4.4

  420

  9,165

  11,032

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  0.0

  0

  78

  110

  Isle of Wight HA

  15.9

  4

  19

  26

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight SHA

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Therapeutic

  England (excluding HA staff)

  8.0

  114

  1,309

  1,453

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  6.5

  2

  29

  33

  Isle of Wight HA

  *

  0

  0

  0

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight SHA

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Three month vacancy rates, numbers and staff in post

  March 2002

  September 2001

  Three month vacancy rate (Percentage)

  Three month vacancy (Number)

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalent)

  Staff in post (headcount)

  Diagnostic

  England (excluding HA staff)

  5.5

  531

  9,260

  11,158

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Isle of Wight HA

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight SHA

  7.9

  23

  270

  340

  Therapeutic

  England (excluding HA staff)

  8.8

  134

  1,391

  1,543

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Isle of Wight HA

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight SHA

  0.0

  0

  55

  62

  Three month vacancy rates, numbers and staff in post

  March 2003

  September 2002

  Three month vacancy rate (Percentage)

  Three month vacancy (Number)

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalent)

  Staff in post (headcount)

  Diagnostic

  England (excluding HA staff)

  6.1

  599

  9,489

  11,489

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Isle of Wight HA

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight SHA,

  6.5

  22

  283

  364

  Therapeutic

  England (excluding HA staff)

  10.7

  169

  1,374

  1,542

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Isle of Wight HA

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight SHA

  5.7

  4

  56

  65

  Three month vacancy notes:

  1. Three month vacancy information is as at 31 March.

  2. Three month vacancies are vacancies which Trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole-time equivalents).

  3. Three month Vacancy Rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post.

  4. For 2002 and 2003 three month Vacancy Rates are calculated using staff in post from the Vacancy Survey. Earlier years vacancy rates are calculated using staff in post from the Non-Medical Workforce Census the previous September.

  5. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  6. n/a = not applicable.

  7 * = Vacancies plus staff in post is less than 10.

  Staff in post notes:

  Staff in post data is from the Non-Medical Workforce Census, September each specified year.

  General notes:

  1. Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  2. Calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  3. Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  4. Strategic HA figures are based on Trusts, and do not necessarily reflect the geographical provision of health care.

  Sources:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March each specified year.

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census, September each specified year.
  974W

  Rainbows Children's Hospice (Leicestershire)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had from hon. Members concerning the funding of Rainbows Children's Hospice. [151664]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Ministers have replied to a small number of Parliamentary Questions and letters from hon. Members. In addition, the former Secretary of State met with the Chief Executive of the Rainbows Children's Hospice in April 2003.

  Respite Care
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money Leicestershire West Primary Care Trust gave to projects dealing with children's respite care in 2003. [151666]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally. The New Opportunities Fund has provided £48 million over three years in support of palliative care projects for children, of which children's hospices have received £15 million.

  The Rainbows Children's Hospice Loughborough has received £650,000 from the New Opportunities Fund.

  Sensory Impairment
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department spent on (i) advertising and (ii) information campaigns in each year since 1995–96; what his estimate is for 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [149725]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 21 January 2004]: The following table shows the expenditure on major information campaigns and advertising commissioned by the Department's communications directorate for the financial years 1995–96 to 2003–04 (estimated). The figures include the costs of campaign-related publishing, TV, radio, poster, newspaper and magazine advertising.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Total campaign expenditure

  Advertising expenditure

  1995–96

  15.56

  2.08

  1996–97

  15.13

  2.50

  1997–98

  6.63

  2.04

  1998–99

  22.96

  8.53

  1999–2000

  35.97

  15.17

  2000–01

  25.32

  20.80

  2001–02

  37.23

  20.41

  2002–03

  34.85

  23.13

  2003–041

  52.5

  38.98

  1 Estimated

  The differences between 2002–03 actual and 2003–04 forecast figures is the result of the Government's commitment to increasing tobacco control advertising. The SR2002 settlement allocated £39 million per annum for three years to tobacco control advertising. Expenditure for the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Streptococcal Infections
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to implement the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Green Top Guidelines on Group B streptococcus. [151946]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' guidelines on the Prevention of Early Onset Neonatal Group B Streptococcus Disease have been circulated to all fellows and members of the College. Ministers have asked the UK National Screening Committee (NSC) to undertake further work to assess the existing evidence on screening and treatment for Group B Streptococcus in pregnancy in the UK. A recent workshop agreed a number of actions to reduce the risk of GBS infection, including ensuring better information for professionals and pregnant women, more consistent and appropriate advice and treatment for women at increased risk, and further research. The NSC will take forward a programme of work in the light of this report during 2004.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and (b) general practitioners are in training in (a) South Tyneside, (b) Tyne and Wear, (c) the North East and (d) the UK; and what the figures were in 1997. [152102]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number (headcount) of general practitioner registrars in South Tyneside Primary Care Trust (PCT), Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, County Durham and Tees Valley Strategic Health Authorities and England since 1997 is shown in table 1.

  The number (whole time equivalent) of pre-registration nurses in training in Northern England Workforce Development Confederation (WDC), County Durham and Tees Valley WDC and England in each year since 1998–99, the first year the information is available, is shown in table 2. Information is not available at South Tyneside PCT level.

  Information for GP registrars and nurses in training in Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of the devolved Administrations. While the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

  1. GP registrars in Northumberland, Tyne and Wear SHA and Co. Durham and Tees Valley Strategic Health Authority

  Number (headcount)

  1997

  2001

  2002

  June 2003

  England

  1,343

  1,883

  1,980

  2,157

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  25

  55

  73

  78

  of which:

  South Tyneside PCT

  3

  3

  4

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  28

  34

  37

  51

  Note:

  Data as at 1 October 1997, 30 September 2001–02 and 30 June 2003.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.
  977W

  2. Number of students in pre-registration nursing and midwifery training between 1998–99 and 2002–03

  Number (whole time equivalent)

  England

  Northern England WDC

  County Durham and Tees Valley WDC

  1998–99

  39,319

  1,278

  695

  1999–2000

  44,005

  1,728

  752

  2000–01

  48,422

  1,400

  827

  2001–02

  53,299

  1,883

  1,032

  2002–03

  58,902

  1,672

  1,154

  Note:

  There have been boundary changes since 1998–99, data are not, therefore, directly comparable.

  Source:

  Financial and Workforce Information Return.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting times were for(a) all specialities, (b) orthopaedics and (c) thoracic treatment in each year since 1997 for (i) England and (ii) each region; and if he will make a statement. [149854]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the(a) mean and (b) median waiting time for (i) in-patient and (ii) first out-patient appointments for each quarter from 1990–91 to Q1 2004; and if he will make a statement. [150539]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 January 2004]: The tables show estimates of the mean and median waiting times for in-patients and out-patients. Out-patient data are only available from Quarter 3, 1993–94.

  Patients waiting for elective in-patient admission: England

  Average waiting time (months)

  Quarter ending

  Mean

  Median

  30 June 1990

  8.55

  4.77

  30 September 1990

  8.41

  4.76

  31 December 1990

  7.95

  4.50

  31 March 1991

  7.57

  4.43

  30 June 1991

  7.53

  4.37

  30 September 1991

  7.31

  4.19

  31 December 1991

  6.43

  3.75

  31 March 1992

  5.12

  3.20

  30 June 1992

  5.03

  3.45

  30 September 1992

  4.96

  3.40

  31 December 1992

  4.77

  3.24

  31 March 1993

  4.53

  3.18

  30 June 1993

  4.72

  3.47

  30 September 1993

  4.80

  3.45

  31 December 1993

  4.80

  3.41

  31 March 1994

  4.61

  3.23

  30 June 1994

  4.64

  3.35

  30 September 1994

  4.59

  3.25

  31 December 1994

  4.42

  3.02

  31 March 1995

  4.02

  2.84

  30 June 1995

  4.08

  2.95

  30 September 1995

  4.01

  2.86

  31 December 1995

  3.87

  2.79

  31 March 1996

  3.66

  2.72

  30 June 1996

  3.81

  2.84

  30 September 1996

  3.89

  2.82

  31 December 1996

  3.99

  2.87

  31 March 1997

  4.17

  3.04

  30 June 1997

  4.34

  3.09

  978W

  Patients waiting for elective in-patient admission: England

  Average waiting time (months)

  Quarter ending

  Mean

  Median

  30 September 1997

  4.49

  3.27

  31 December 1997

  4.60

  3.36

  31 March 1998

  4.61

  3.42

  30 June 1998

  4.67

  3.50

  30 September 1998

  4.53

  3.25

  31 December 1998

  4.39

  3.03

  31 March 1999

  4.30

  2.96

  30 June 1999

  4.28

  2.95

  30 September 1999

  4.30

  2.95

  31 December 1999

  4.30

  2.94

  31 March 2000

  4.31

  2.97

  30 June 2000

  4.37

  3.08

  30 September 2000

  4.36

  3.00

  31 December 2000

  4.32

  2.96

  31 March 2001

  4.18

  2.90

  30 June 2001

  4.35

  3.16

  30 September 2001

  4.35

  3.09

  31 December 2001

  4.15

  2.94

  31 March 2002

  4.01

  2.92

  30 June2002

  4.07

  3.04

  30 September 2002

  4.02

  2.96

  31 December 2002

  3.89

  2.87

  31 March 2003

  3.61

  2.75

  30 June 2003

  3.62

  2.80

  30 September 2003

  3.53

  2.71

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH07

  Waiting times for 1stt consultant out-patient appointment following G(D)P referral: England

  Average waiting time (weeks)

  Quarter

  Mean

  Median

  Q1 1993–94

  9.37

  5.47

  Q2 1993–94

  9.35

  5.42

  Q1 1994–95

  8.90

  5.69

  Q2 1994–95

  8.91

  5.82

  Q3 1994–95

  9.06

  5.72

  Q4 1994–95

  9.33

  6.05

  Q1 1995–96

  8.60

  6.01

  Q2 1995–96

  8.85

  6.31

  Q3 1995–96

  8.76

  6.07

  Q4 1995–96

  8.68

  6.02

  Q1 1996–97

  8.48

  6.13

  Q2 1996–97

  8.46

  6.18

  Q3 1996–97

  8.64

  6.05

  Q4 1996–97

  8.70

  6.05

  Q1 1997–98

  8.71

  6.17

  Q2 1997–98

  8.86

  6.37

  Q3 1997–98

  9.13

  6.25

  Q4 1997–98

  9.32

  6.27

  Q1 1998–99

  9.30

  6.49

  Q2 1998–99

  9.63

  6.80

  Q3 1998–99

  10 06

  6.89

  Q4 1998–99

  10.42

  6.99

  Q1 1999–2000

  10.46

  7.09

  Q2 1999–2000

  10.73

  7.31

  Q3 1999–2000

  11.08

  7.32

  Q4 1999–2000

  11.49

  7.58

  Q1 2000–01

  10.49

  7.11

  Q2 2000–01

  10.76

  7.45

  Q3 2000–01

  10.90

  7.38

  Q4 2000–01

  10.81

  7.38

  Q1 2001–02

  9.72

  6.89

  Q2 2001–02

  10.10

  7.21

  Q3 2001–02

  10.49

  7.27

  Q4 2001–02

  11.06

  7.58

  Q1 2002–03

  8.93

  7.03

  Q2 2002–03

  8.97

  7.15

  Q3 2002–03

  8.98

  7.22

  979W

  Waiting times for 1st consultant out-patient appointment following G(D)P referral: England

  Average waiting time (weeks)

  Quarter

  Mean

  Median

  Q4 2002–03

  8.99

  7.34

  Q1 2003–04

  8.25

  6.86

  Q2 2003–04

  8.52

  7.05

  Note:

  The figures shown are estimates based on aggregate data, categorised into waiting time bands, and do not reflect shifts in the waiting time profiles within these bands, only between bands. The median is not very sensitive to reductions in maximum waiting times, and it is possible to see a rise in the median, while reducing maximum waiting times because of shifts in low time bands. Short term progress on delivering maximum waiting times (including in year tail-gunning) will not necessarily translate into a reduction in the median waiting time. Our policy, therefore, is to focus attention on the number of patients waiting the longest, and in each waiting time band.
  980W
  Year-on-year, the trend on both waiting lists and waiting times is clearly downwards. Waiting lists are now over 199,000 lower than March 1997, and numbers of patients waiting over 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months and 15 months for in-patient treatment are all lower than inherited March 1997 figures.

  Source:

  Department of Health form QM08

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital trolley waits there were in the London region in(a) 2000, (b) 2001, (c) 2002 and (d) 2003; and how many there were in December of each year. [149794]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of emergency admissions through accident and emergency departments and the time spent waiting for admission to a ward is published each quarter at www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity. This information is available in the Library. Information is not available on a monthly basis.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-social Behaviour
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what advice he has given to(a) police and (b) local councils on (i) the need to liaise with each other, (ii) the protocols for publishing intentions in the local press and (iii) operational protocols in respect of anti-social behaviour legislation; [152427]

  (2) what guidance he has issued to (a) local councils and (b) the police on the use of anti-social behaviour legislation to disperse groups of youths. [152428]

  Ms Blears
  We have issued a "Together Campaign Pack" which provides information and tools for local authorities, police and other practitioners to run campaigns against anti-social behaviour in their area. It encourages practitioners to keep the public and partner organisations informed and involved in the work they are doing to tackle anti-social behaviour.

  We have also issued Home Office Circular number 04/2004 describing the powers to disperse groups contained in Part 4 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. The circular provides information to assist the police and local authorities in the use of the new powers. The National Centre for Policing Excellence (NCPE) has been asked to produce further guidance on these new powers. We hope to publish the guidance later this year.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a code of practice for police operations in respect of recent anti-social behaviour legislation. [153077]

  Ms Blears
  We have published "A Guide to the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003", copies of which were sent to all Chief Constables in England and Wales and Members of Parliament. In addition, we have produced some detailed guidance on the measures in the Act for practitioners, including the police. Examples of these include:Notes of Guidance to Accompany Part One of the Act, 'The Power to Close Premises' where drugs are used unlawfully.
  Home Office Circular 04/2004 on the use of the powers to disperse groups contained in Part 4 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003.
  Home Office Circular 01/2004 on the purpose and effect of the firearms provisions contained in Part 5 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003.

  Information on when further guidance will be issued on other measures in the Act is contained in the Guide to the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003.

  Asylum Policy
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the differences between the proposed new measures on asylum policy and the present immigration rules. [150178]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill and accompanying explanatory notes set out the proposed changes to existing legislation and the effect of these changes. The Immigration Rules can be accessed through the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) website.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what instructions were given to his Department's staff on the length of time of stay that asylum seekers were allowed in the UK before applying for asylum before section 55 of the Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Act 2001 was enforced; from when those instructions applied; and what the current instructions are; and from what date they applied; [146972]

  (2)when he will publish revised National Asylum Support Service Policy Bulletin 75 on the application of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; [151409]

  (3)if he will publish the revised casework notes on the application of section 55 of the Nationality. Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, issued to the National Asylum Support Service caseworkers after 17 December 2003. [151418]

  Beverley Hughes
  Instructions on the operation of Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 first appeared in Policy Bulletin 75, published on 7 January 2003. Revised instructions appear in Policy Bulletin 75 version 3, published 11 April 2003.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 17 December 2003 that asylum applicants who could give a credible explanation of the way in which they arrived in the UK and who had made a claim for asylum within three days of arrival would be considered to have applied as soon as reasonably practicable.

  In view of the interest in the operation of section 55, a new revised edition of Policy Bulletin 75 which will include guidance to National Asylum Support Service caseworkers, will be published in February.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further research has been conducted since July 2002 on why asylum seekers seek asylum in Britain rather than elsewhere; on what size of sample such research was based; and from which countries the participants originated. [148041]

  Beverley Hughes
  Since the publication of the Home Office report "Understanding the decision-making of asylum seekers" (Home Office Research Series 243/Findings 172) in July 2002, there has been no further research undertaken by the Home Office which focuses specifically on why asylum seekers choose to come to the United Kingdom in preference to other possible destinations.

  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate carries out analysis of asylum statistics and findings from other studies to assess likely trends in asylum intake figures.

  The Research Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office is in the process of agreeing its 2004–05 research programme. It is likely that further investigations into the decision-making of asylum applicants and other migrants will form a part of this programme.

  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applicants who are citizens of Sri Lanka were given permission to stay in the UK in(a) 2000, (b) 2001, (c) 2002 and (d) 2003; and how many applications were refused in

  983W
  each of these years. [148422]

  Beverley Hughes
  [pursuant to his answer, 21 January 2004, Official Report, c. 1269 W]: Due to an administrative error the figures for Sri Lanka were not the most current figures available. The corrected version of the answer is in the table.

  Initial decisions on asylum applications1,2 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by year, nationals of Sri Lanka

  Principal applicants

  Decisions

  Sri Lanka

  Total decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of Exceptional Leave to Remain

  Grants of Humanitarian Protection

  Grants of Discretionary Leave

  Total refusals3

  Grants of Exceptional Leave to Remain under backlog criteria4,5

  Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria4,6

  2000

  9,050

  900

  285

  n/a

  n/a

  6,875

  895

  100

  20017

  10,350

  1,440

  540

  n/a

  n/a

  8,370

  n/a

  n/a

  20028

  4,285

  340

  275

  n/a

  n/a

  3,670

  n/a

  n/a

  January to September 20038

  1,265

  20

  55

  —

  35

  1,155

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a = not applicable

  1 Provisional figures rounded to nearest 5.

  2 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3 May include some refusals under non compliance grounds.

  4 Cases decided under pragmatic measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum backlog.

  5 May include a small number of cases where asylum has been granted.

  6 May include a small number of cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  7 Revised figures

  8 Provisional figures

  The table shows the available data, for outcomes of appeals relating to refused asylum applications (principal applicants) for nationals of Sri Lanka in 2000, 2001, 2002 and from January to September 2003.

  Outcome of Appeals1,2 determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority, excluding dependants, nationals of Sri Lanka, 2001 to September 2003

  Number of principal appellants

  Appeals determined by adjudicators2

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Total

  Total

  As percentage of Determined

  Total

  As percentage of Determined

  Total

  As percentage of Determined

  2001

  4,830

  1,810

  37

  2,900

  60

  120

  2

  2002

  6,435

  1,455

  23

  4,880

  76

  100

  2

  January to September 2003

  4,710

  580

  12

  4,015

  85

  110

  2

  1 Provisional figures rounded to nearest 5 (except percentages) with '*' = 1 or 2. Figures may not add up due to independent rounding.

  2 Figures include cases withdrawn by the Home Office, as well as the appellant.

  Information on asylum applications and decisions is published quarterly. The next publication will be available on the 24 February 2004 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Burglaries
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions for burglary were of first-time burglars in each of the last five years, broken down by(a) police authority and (b) age; and how many of these were given a custodial sentence in each year. [150788]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available. However Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1998 (Cm. 4649) and Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 2000 (Cm. 5312), both deposited in the
  984W
  The table shows the available data, for outcomes of initial decisions relating to asylum applications (principal applicants) for nationals of Sri Lanka in 2000, 2001, 2002 and from January to September 2003. Grants of exceptional leave to remain and of discretionary leave may be followed by review of individuals' cases and do not necessarily result in permanent settlement.

  Allowed appeals may result in grants of asylum, grants of humanitarian protection or grants of discretionary leave, or in appeals to the IAT by the Secretary of State, and do not necessarily result in permanent settlement.

  Library, contain estimates of the percentage of male burglars sentenced in 1998 and 2000 who had no previous convictions for a standard list offence. The estimated percentages were 25 per cent. and 31 per cent. respectively for 1998 and 2000.

  Cannabis
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prosecutions brought for cannabis-related offences have not resulted in a conviction in each of the last five years. [151506]

  Caroline Flint
  The information requested is contained in the table.
  985W

  Proportion of persons1 proceeded against for cannabis related offences2 who were not convicted

  Percentage

  1998

  9

  1999

  10

  2000

  8

  2001

  10

  2002

  10

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis

  2 Offences include supplying or offering to supply, possession with intent to supply, production, possession and permitting premises to be used for unlawful purpose (cannabis).

  Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what references will be made in his new campaign on drugs education to accompany the reclassification of cannabis on possible links with mental illness. [151291]

  Caroline Flint
  A £1 million information campaign started on 22 January to inform the public about the changes to the law on cannabis. This includes radio and newspaper adverts, leaflets, posters, postcards and education packs for schools. All these communications are designed to provide the simple message that cannabis is harmful and remains illegal.

  Further activity is planned to communicate specific messages about the health risks associated with cannabis, which are evidence based and rigorously market tested. This will include mental health issues.

  Drugs
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of people in England and Wales who take(a) heroin, (b) marijuana, (c) cocaine and (d) ecstasy. [150761]

  Caroline Flint
  The British Crime Survey (BCS) provides figures on use among adults aged 16 to 59 years of age in England and Wales. The 2002–03 BCS estimated that approximately 3.4 million adults had used marijuana, 640,000 had used cocaine and 610,000 had used ecstasy and 45,000 had used heroin in the previous 12 months.

  Approximately one million people were estimated to have used class A drugs during the last year.

  Estimated levels of drug use for those aged 16 to 59 years have remained the same since 2001–02.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the system of classifying illegal drugs. [152345]

  Caroline Flint
  The Government have no plans to review the system used to classify illegal drugs.

  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) is a statutory and non-executive non-departmental public body, established by the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) 1971. It has a statutory duty to keep under review the situation in the United Kingdom with respect to the misuse of drugs and to advise Ministers of the measures which they consider should to be taken to deal with social problems which arise from drug misuse. Ministers may also ask the ACMD to consider
  986W
  the appropriate classification and scheduling of any substance. In addition, the ACMD has a duty to consider any matter relating to drug dependence or misuse that may be referred to them by Ministers.

  Fixed Penalty Notices
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fixed penalty notices were issued in the most recent period for which figures are available, broken down by police authority in England and Wales; what the total value of these penalty notices was; what proportion of these were paid in full and on time; and what proportion of those fined paid their penalty in full and on time. [152189]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 30 January 2004]: Information on fixed penalty notices issued for road traffic offences by police force area can be found in the annual Home Office publication 'Offences relating to motor vehicles, England and Wales Supplementary tables'—Tables 20(a) to 20(c) refers. The latest issue covers 2001. Copies are available from the Library. The total value of fixed penalty notices issued is not collected centrally.

  Data are also collected centrally on the disposal, (i.e. paid, fine registration certificate issued etc) of fixed penalty notices issued for road traffic offences. However because of the time taken for the procedures for payment to be enforced the data are collected approximately nine months later than the period of issue. Tables 21(a) and 21(b) of the above 2001 publication detail 2000 data by number and percentage of fixed penalty notices by result. Tables 20(a) to 20(c) of the 2000 publication cover that period. Information is not available on the number of fines paid in full and on time.

  Over 6,000 penalty notices for disorder were issued in the year-long pilots in four police force areas which started in mid-2002. A Home Office Research Findings covering the evaluation of the pilots will be published shortly.

  Motoring Offences
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of totting procedures for motoring offences. [151940]

  Caroline Flint
  The penalty points system acts as a reminder to drivers that they risk losing their licences if they persist in offending and plays an important part in our overall enforcement strategy. For the majority of drivers, the threat of disqualification through accumulating the appropriate number of penalty points acts to encourage compliance with the law.

  Operation Tarian
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) raids, (b) arrests, (c) convictions and (d) drug seizures were carried out under Operation Tarian. [151731]

  Caroline Flint
  The Regional Task Force of Operation Tarian has executed 72 warrants, and made 82 arrests. At present no convictions have arisen as cases are
  987W
  awaiting trial. It has seized 1.3 kg of cocaine, 0.491 kg of heroin, 8 kg of amphetamines, 15,738 tablets of ecstasy and 301,600 kg of cannabis, with a total estimated value of £1.6 million.

  In addition it has seized £123,500 cash, placed restraining orders on property to the value of £1 million, dismantled six organised crime groups and disrupted 14 others.

  Murders (Southend)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many murders there were in Southend in each of the last 10 years; and how many resulted in convictions. [152000]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 3 February 2004]: Published information on homicide relates to England and Wales only. The latest available is given in Home Office Statistical Bulletin number 01/04, 'Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003: Supplementary Volume 1: Homicide and Gun Crime', a copy of which should be available from the Library or internet site http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hosbpubs1.html.

  Police (Cumbria)
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons he proposes to reduce the amount of police specific grant to be received in Cumbria in 2004–05 in respect of the Rural Policing Initiative. [151875]

  Ms Blears
  Force allocations for the 31 forces benefiting from the £30 million Rural Policing Fund are determined by sparsity and population factors alone. I have made no changes to the formulae underpinning the Fund for next year. Cumbria's share will reduce by £7,000 (0.5 per cent.) to take account of changes in data relative to other authorities. Cumbria's allocation for 2004–05 is £1,348,383.

  Police Statistics (Wales)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) recorded burglaries, (b) recorded thefts from or of a vehicle, (c) recorded violent crimes, (d) recorded crimes involving the use of firearms, (e) recorded drug offences and (f) crimes there were in Wales, broken down by (i) police force, (ii) constituency and (iii) local authority area for each year since 1997; [151734]

  Table 1

  Offence

  1997

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Crime recorded by the police in Wales1,2,5

  All burglary

  46,445

  41,941

  36,764

  32,883

  32,248

  36,848

  Theft of and from vehicles

  59,785

  56,161

  51,864

  43,652

  42,662

  48,879

  Violent crime3

  20,071

  34,770

  40,580

  40,822

  39,274

  56,561

  Firearms offences

  594

  591

  712

  614

  6106

  6161

  Drug offences4

  1,526

  9,749

  8,520

  8,351

  9,425

  10,268

  All crime

  236,936

  261,994

  255,487

  238,449

  241,765

  294,846

  988W
  (2) if he will list the crime clear-up rate in Wales, broken down by (a) police force, (b) constituency and (c) local authority area for each year since 1997. [151736]

  Ms Blears
  The available information is given in the tables.

  Recorded crime statistics are not broken down by constituency areas. However, they are available at Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level. CDRPs were set up under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, with data available from 1999–2000. CDRPs broadly equate to local authority areas and include representatives from police, health, probation and other local agencies and provide strategies for reducing crime in the area. Recorded crime figures are available at CDRP level for six key offences only: violence against the person, sexual offences, robbery, burglary in a dwelling, theft of a motor vehicle, and theft from a vehicle.

  There was a change of counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which had the effect of increasing the number of crimes counted. Numbers of offences for years before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable.

  The National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) was introduced across England and Wales in April 2002. Broadly, the NCRS had the effect of increasing the number of crimes recorded by the police. Therefore, following the introduction of the Standard, numbers of recorded crimes are not comparable with previous years. Total detection rates (percentages) in Wales, for 1997 to 2002–03, are given in the table.

  Percentage

  Force

  1997

  1998–991

  1999–20002

  2000–01

  2001–023

  2002–033

  Dyfed Powys

  61

  69

  65

  63

  64

  68

  Gwent

  51

  55

  53

  57

  55

  48

  North Wales

  34

  43

  36

  31

  28

  29

  South Wales

  36

  39

  31

  32

  33

  29

  Wales total

  41

  46

  40

  41

  39

  36

  1 Percentage detected using the expanded coverage and revised counting rules which came into effect on 1 April 1998.

  2 Revised Home Office instructions, which clarified the recording of detections, were introduced on 1 April 1999. These instructions provided more precise and rigorous criteria for securing a detection, with the underlying emphasis on the successful result of a police investigation. As a result of the revised detections guidance (in which some previous methods of detection were no longer counted), the numbers of crimes detected, and figures derived from them, will have been affected.

  3 Detection figures may also have been affected by the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS), with the exception of Gwent in 2001–02.

  Overall detection rates are not available for CDRP areas.
  989W

  Table 1

  Offence

  1997

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Crime recorded by the police in Dyfed Powys1,2,5

  All burglary

  2,590

  2,615

  2,072

  1,978

  2,122

  2,104

  Theft of and from vehicles

  2,372

  2,480

  2,203

  2,120

  2,052

  2,028

  Violent crime3

  2,503

  5,039

  5,839

  5,751

  5,844

  6,531

  Firearms offences

  61

  60

  45

  68

  626

  617

  Drug offences4

  374

  2,483

  2,030

  1,690

  2,407

  2,978

  All crime

  18,098

  24,588

  23,709

  22,878

  24,003

  25,104

  Crime recorded by the police in Gwent1,2,5

  All burglary

  9,154

  8,416

  7,656

  6,905

  6,172

  7,586

  Theft of and from vehicles

  9,649

  9,746

  9,107

  8,109

  7,019

  8,332

  Violent crime3

  6,139

  11,980

  14,493

  14,682

  9,837

  15,835

  Firearms offences

  129

  215

  248

  197

  618

  652

  Drug offences4

  389

  2,447

  2,214

  2,196

  1,729

  1,585

  All crime

  47,268

  58,738

  60,132

  56,728

  46,938

  61,237

  Crime recorded by the police in North Wales1,2,5

  All burglary

  7,554

  7,226

  6,892

  7,246

  7,405

  8,543

  Theft of and from vehicles

  7,911

  7,254

  7,501

  7,186

  7,710

  8,096

  Violent crime3

  3,167

  5,164

  6,258

  5,927

  8,049

  12,268

  Firearms offences

  109

  94

  104

  74

  66

  618

  Drug offences4

  238

  1,885

  1,586

  1,427

  1,382

  1,833

  All crime

  40,684

  43,848

  44,606

  47,712

  54,116

  65,133

  Crime recorded by the police in South Wales1,2,5

  All burglary

  27,147

  23,684

  20,144

  16,754

  16,549

  18,615

  Theft of and from vehicles

  39,853

  36,681

  33,053

  26,237

  25,881

  30,423

  Violent crime3

  8,262

  12,587

  13,990

  14,262

  15,544

  21,927

  Firearms offences

  295

  222

  315

  275

  656

  674

  Drug offences4

  525

  2,934

  2,690

  3,038

  3,907

  3,872

  All crime

  130,886

  134,820

  127,040

  111,131

  116,708

  143,372

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

  2 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. These changes had the general effect of increasing the number of crimes counted. Therefore, numbers of recorded crimes for this year are not directly comparable with previous years.

  3 Violent crime comprises offences of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery.

  4 Upto 1997, the only drug offence recorded was 'Trafficking in controlled drugs'. From 1998–99, the offences of 'Possession of controlled drugs' and 'Other drug offences', were added to the series.

  5 Three of the Wales forces implemented the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) prior to the official introduction on 1 April 2002; North Wales in October 2001, and both Dyfed Powys and South Wales in January 2002. Gwent introduced the Standard in 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.

  6 The figures given for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are based on numbers of firearms offences recorded which exclude air weapons. The previous years figures include air weapons offences. Therefore, the figures for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are not comparable with previous years figures.

  Table 2: Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) in Wales from April 1999 to March 2003: numbers recorded for six key offences

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  CDRP

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Dyfed-Powys

  Carmarthenshire

  2,275

  2,243

  2,455

  2,523

  115

  108

  130

  100

  Ceredigion

  783

  719

  723

  938

  45

  56

  29

  58

  Pembroke

  1,201

  1,245

  1,162

  1,340

  69

  87

  79

  51

  Powys

  1,260

  1,217

  1,177

  1,416

  63

  53

  54

  65

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,986

  2,237

  1,672

  2,751

  96

  59

  72

  62

  Caerphilly

  4,779

  4,959

  2,680

  4,494

  142

  153

  121

  152

  Monmouthshire

  1,749

  1,593

  982

  1,455

  54

  64

  45

  58

  Newport

  3,459

  3,217

  2,482

  4,248

  142

  105

  117

  147

  Torfaen

  1,801

  2,192

  1,369

  2,072

  69

  59

  82

  67

  990W 991W

  Table 2: Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) in Wales from April 1999 to March 2003: numbers recorded for six key offences

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  CDRP

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  North Wales

  Conwy

  954

  806

  1,072

  1,872

  52

  43

  59

  98

  Denbighshire

  913

  985

  1,249

  2,232

  53

  56

  70

  123

  Flintshire

  1,200

  1,047

  1,602

  2,106

  73

  83

  96

  98

  Gwynedd

  781

  784

  1,223

  1,738

  63

  59

  65

  94

  Isle of Anglesey

  562

  505

  656

  1,085

  46

  28

  70

  41

  Wrexham

  1,329

  1,231

  1,541

  2,439

  86

  133

  104

  101

  South Wales

  Bridgend

  1,419

  1,363

  1,468

  2,003

  54

  59

  47

  91

  Cardiff

  3,983

  4,236

  4,331

  6,175

  220

  151

  183

  200

  Merthyr Tydfil

  593

  676

  768

  1,106

  23

  27

  30

  34

  Neath Port Talbot

  1,199

  1,201

  1,373

  2,082

  38

  44

  37

  75

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  1,822

  1,992

  2,192

  3,542

  89

  80

  99

  165

  Swansea

  3,040

  2,801

  3,038

  3,936

  79

  96

  77

  94

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  834

  981

  1,238

  1,582

  78

  95

  68

  58

  Robbery

  Burglary dwelling

  CDRP

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Dyfed-Powys

  Carmarthenshire

  17

  8

  11

  14

  282

  284

  322

  266

  Ceredigion

  5

  3

  4

  8

  111

  97

  88

  87

  Pembroke

  3

  9

  6

  11

  175

  180

  169

  164

  Powys

  3

  35

  7

  128

  146

  135

  149

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  15

  14

  18

  10

  524

  420

  283

  372

  Caerphilly

  42

  45

  35

  51

  874

  704

  743

  878

  Monmouthshire

  25

  11

  6

  12

  243

  210

  243

  332

  Newport

  111

  149

  137

  230

  1,137

  894

  987

  1,084

  Torfaen

  23

  25

  19

  26

  370

  352

  306

  335

  North Wales

  Conwy

  24

  30

  16

  26

  415

  439

  575

  558

  Denbighshire

  30

  32

  42

  66

  464

  462

  462

  672

  Flintshire

  44

  38

  47

  41

  352

  423

  453

  620

  Gwynedd

  8

  5

  27

  24

  250

  273

  229

  336

  Isle of Anglesey

  8

  13

  10

  18

  175

  149

  107

  218

  Wrexham

  32

  45

  52

  49

  563

  432

  579

  823

  South Wales

  Bridgend

  18

  20

  41

  28

  662

  485

  500

  659

  Cardiff

  262

  198

  318

  421

  2,821

  2,197

  2,209

  2,792

  Merthyr Tydfil

  27

  19

  22

  17

  403

  345

  309

  292

  Neath Port Talbot

  17

  24

  28

  35

  711

  554

  660

  763

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  44

  39

  42

  74

  1,465

  1,256

  1,188

  1,360

  Swansea

  100

  118

  108

  153

  1,517

  1,296

  1,483

  1,552

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  51

  42

  36

  56

  804

  552

  496

  642

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from a vehicle

  CDRP

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Dyfed-Powys

  Carmarthenshire

  475

  468

  476

  466

  524

  486

  551

  432

  Ceredigion

  82

  75

  72

  59

  134

  102

  150

  103

  Pembroke

  134

  133

  119

  143

  308

  312

  264

  315

  Powys

  177

  185

  174

  165

  369

  359

  244

  345

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  562

  468

  404

  424

  828

  679

  447

  582

  Caerphilly

  1,191

  907

  783

  894

  1,551

  1,257

  1,185

  1,400

  Monmouthshire

  306

  255

  242

  262

  747

  588

  472

  629

  Newport

  958

  1,060

  849

  1,008

  1,787

  1,801

  1,699

  1,781

  Torfaen

  376

  384

  332

  458

  801

  710

  606

  894

  992W 993W

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from a vehicle

  CDRP

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  North Wales

  Conwy

  255

  233

  270

  255

  790

  713

  711

  791

  Denbighshire

  414

  341

  345

  411

  701

  975

  1,026

  1,058

  Flintshire

  521

  474

  433

  509

  997

  1,112

  1,154

  1,206

  Gwynedd

  203

  166

  193

  214

  915

  680

  728

  793

  Isle of Anglesey

  129

  136

  104

  132

  331

  282

  375

  401

  Wrexham

  788

  553

  601

  566

  1,457

  1,521

  1,717

  1,757

  South Wales

  Bridgend

  1,471

  1,047

  925

  890

  1,404

  927

  1,029

  1,264

  Cardiff

  4,123

  2,807

  3,111

  3,180

  6,697

  5,159

  5,319

  7,818

  Merthyr Tydfil

  781

  769

  825

  779

  904

  670

  785

  748

  Neath Port Talbot

  1,934

  1,342

  1,206

  1,150

  1,262

  878

  913

  1,133

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  2,177

  1,778

  1,491

  1,921

  1,796

  1,552

  1,447

  1,865

  Swansea

  4,300

  3,548

  3,347

  3,243

  3,549

  3,747

  3,587

  4,433

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  1,064

  728

  652

  681

  1,591

  1,285

  1,244

  1,318

  Note:

  Three of the Wales forces implemented the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) prior to the official introduction on 1 April 2002; North Wales in October 2001, and both Dyfed Powys and South Wales in January 2002. Gwent introduced the Standard in 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.

  Speed Cameras (Southend)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much revenue has been raised in fines imposed as a result of speed cameras in Southend since 1997. [152160]

  Caroline Flint
  The available information on the number of court fines and fixed penalties issued within the police force area of Essex for the offence of 'speeding detected by camera' for 1997–01 is shown in the table. It is not possible from the data collected centrally to identify Southend.

  Information for 2002 will be available in the Spring.

  Fixed penalty and court proceedings data for speeding offences detected by cameras1,2 in the Essex police force area, 1997–01

  Fixed penalties

  Court proceedings

  Offence and year

  Number of tickets3

  Estimated revenue4 (£)

  Number of fines

  Total amount of fine (£)

  Average fine5 (£)

  Speeding offences

  1997

  18,800

  753,700

  880

  93,900

  107

  1998

  8,700

  346,600

  1,700

  227,400

  134

  1999

  19,800

  791,400

  2,100

  357,400

  169

  2000

  46,300

  2,007,200

  2,800

  317,800

  115

  2001

  81,900

  4,911,100

  6,500

  651,200

  101

  1 Automatic cameras until 1998, all camera types from 1999.

  2 Offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and The Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973.

  3 Paid i.e. no further action.

  4 Estimate based on £40 fixed penalty charge to October 2000. From November 2000 the penalty was raised to £60.

  5 Includes cases where fixed penalty notices were originally issued but not paid and subsequently referred to court.

  UK Immigration Officials
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many UK immigration officials were in post at(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick, (c) Stansted, (d) Luton and (e) City airport on 1 January in each of the last six years. [148436]
  994W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: The table sets out the number of full-time equivalent immigration officials employed at the airports listed, as at 1 January for the last six years.

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Heathrow

  1—

  632.7

  588.7

  642.4

  721.6

  682.6

  Gatwick

  1—

  265

  258.6

  283.6

  292.5

  278.2

  Stansted

  48.6

  47.7

  44.9

  48.4

  54.6

  63.8

  Luton

  1—

  24

  24

  28

  28

  28

  London City

  13

  13

  11

  12

  14

  15

  1 1999 = Incomplete records available for Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton.

  As at 2 January 2004, the UK Immigration Service had a further 103 Immigration Officers who had confirmed places on training courses taking place in January, February and March who were to be posted to either Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted airports.

  Taiwanese Nationals (Police Registration)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the requirements for police registration have been lifted in respect of Taiwanese nationals. [150635]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]: The Government do not recognise Taiwanese nationality, although passports issued by the Taiwanese authorities are accepted for the purposes of travel to and from the United Kingdom. The holders of such documents continue to be required to register with the police in accordance with the requirements of Part 10 of the Immigration Rules. These requirements are a matter which is kept under review.

  Serious Crime
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to chief constables on the definition of serious crimes. [152155]
  995W
  Ms Blears
  No specific guidance is given on the definition of serious crime.

  All police forces in England and Wales are required to submit monthly recorded crime statistics prepared in accordance with the Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime. This contains a principal crime rule whereby if the sequence of crimes in an incident contains more than one type of crime the most serious crime is counted. In determining the most serious crime, the most serious violent crime takes precedence over the most serious property crime.
  996W
  A full list of the offence headings which comprise the recorded crime series is issued to police forces, along with their definitions (most of which are in terms of criminal law definitions), as part of the Home Office Counting Rules. The list is also given in Table 3.04 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 07/03 'Crime in England and Wales 2002–03' which was published in July 2003. That table also shows what offences within the violence against the person category are deemed to be more serious and less serious offences.

TRANSPORT

  Bus Quality Contracts
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport(Mr. Tony McNulty)
  The Department for Transport will shortly be taking steps to improve the potential effectiveness of the quality contracts provisions in the Transport Act 2000.

  The Act requires each local transport authority, after consultation with local bus operators and other stakeholders, to prepare a bus strategy to ensure that bus services meet the transport needs of local people and are of an appropriate standard. These strategies are translating into excellent practical results in some areas, with improved services and waiting facilities and increased ridership. In these places passengers are getting a better deal through local authorities and bus operators working creatively together.

  The Act provides various ways in which local transport authorities can more effectively influence local bus services—statutory quality partnership schemes, ticketing schemes and information strategies. We want local authorities to make full use of these powers. We are pleased that the first statutory quality partnership is to be launched shortly, and we hope to see more of these. Statutory quality partnerships are an essential element of our vision for buses in the context of an integrated transport approach.

  The Act also enables local authorities to make quality contract (or "QC") schemes where such a scheme is the only practical way for an authority to implement the policies in its bus strategy, and would do so in a way which is economic, efficient and effective.

  All proposed QC schemes need to be submitted to the Department for approval. Approval may be given if a scheme meets the criteria set out in the Act and is in the public interest. Although the provision has been in force since October 2001, no such schemes have been submitted to date. However, the provision is there to be used where the circumstances justify it.

  Some local transport authorities believe that they might meet the criteria for making a QC scheme but have been deterred by the length of time which the process will take. A particular issue is the 21-month minimum period which must elapse between the making of the scheme (after it has been approved) and its coming into force.

  I am persuaded that, where a local bus strategy cannot otherwise be delivered, 21 months may be too long in certain circumstances for passengers to wait for improvements. The Department will be issuing a consultation document shortly to give the bus industry, local authorities and other stakeholders an opportunity
  36WS
  to express their views on the implications of reducing the 21 months to a shorter minimum period, in the range 6–15 months.

  Some local transport authorities have requested guidance from the Department on the procedure to be followed in making an application, the supporting evidence required and the matters that will be taken into account in deciding whether to approve an application, including appraisal of the public interest. I have decided therefore that, in the interest of transparency, the Department should publish guidance on these matters that is available to all. The Department will shortly consult the main stakeholders on a draft guidance document before publishing it in its definitive form.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Wokingham District Council (Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report)
  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 Wokingham District Council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  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 Wokingham District 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—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments.

  The report acknowledges the problems and challenges faced by the council since July 2002, when it brought its benefits service back in-house following a period of outsourcing.

  The report finds that the council's management information was limited, and where information was being produced, its importance was not being considered. Performance in key areas was not being effectively reported or monitored. This was compounded by a very limited management-checking regime, which meant that the council could not provide any assurances about the quality and accuracy of benefits payments being made.

  The process of gathering evidence to support benefits claims was generally good, but the speed of processing claims was poor. The report notes concern about the possible impact that unreasonable delays were having on existing and potential customers.
  37WS
  The council's fraud investigations were generally effective and procedures were in place to consider the most appropriate sanction to apply. However, a lack of active management for administration work resulted in unreasonable time delays, which in turn affected the council's ability to prosecute fraudsters. Effective debt recovery on overpayments was similarly being hampered by slow decision making.

  In 2002–03, Wokingham District Council administered some £13.1 million in housing benefits, about 8.4 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.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC News 24
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport(Tessa Jowell)
  On 5 December 2002 I placed the independent review of BBC News 24 by Richard Lambert in the Libraries of both Houses, together with a letter setting out my response.

  In response to the review, I attached two further conditions to the approvals of BBC News 24. These required the Governors to publish their response to the Lambert report by the end of March 2003, and to promulgate revised commitments for the service, taking account of Richard Lambert's recommendations, by the end of May 2003.

  In addition, I was minded to attach a third condition requiring the Governors to report more fully on the delivery of News 24 in the BBC's annual reports. I stated that I would reconsider the intention in the light of the BBC's formal response and subsequent 2003 annual report.

  I have judged that these two documents provide enough information and demonstrate sufficient improvements to remove the need for a further condition on the approval.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Advisory Group Enforcement Delivery Service
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)
  The fourth and final report by the Lord Chancellor's advisory group on enforcement service delivery, entitled: "The move to a regulated enforcement industry transitional issues", has been published in November 2003 and copies placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I am pleased to announce that the advisory group has now fulfilled its original terms of reference. The group is therefore disbanded. I am grateful for valuable contribution provided by the members of the advisory group, throughout the four reports to my Department. Proposals for legislation will follow in due course.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Development Agencies
  The Minister for Industry and the Regions(Jacqui Smith)
  I have published the regional development agencies' reported mid-year tier three outputs as at the end of quarter two, 2003–04, which suggest all RDAs are on track to meet the annual targets set in their corporate plans.

  The figures cover the creation and safeguarding of jobs, the amount of brownfield land brought back into use, the number of businesses added to the regional economies, the number of learning opportunities created and the amount of private sector investment attracted benefiting deprived areas, all as a result of RDA activity.

  Press releases on the results have been issued in each region. Copies of these and the mid-year output results have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The results have also been placed on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk/rda/info.

TREASURY

  Invest to Save Budget: Round 6
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury(Mr. Paul Boateng)
  I am pleased to announce that 13 bids from across the public and voluntary sectors have been successful in round six of the Invest to Save Budget at a cost of £46 million in total over the three years to 2006–07 for England. The allocated sum rises to £51 million to include consequential funding for the devolved Administrations. The attached table describes the winners of this round.

  The Invest to Save Budget (ISB) is a joint Treasury/Cabinet Office initiative. It provides support for projects which increase the extent of joint working between different parts of government, identify innovative ways of delivering public services and reduce the cost of delivering the services and/or improve the quality and effectiveness of services delivered to the public. This is the sixth round of the ISB which started in 1999.

  It is expected that a total of around £370 million will be spent on ISB projects over the period from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2006. Round one was restricted to central Government Departments and their agencies. In the second and third rounds local authorities, police and fire authorities, health authorities, non-departmental public bodies and public corporations could also apply. In the fourth round, voluntary sector bodies were able to apply for the first time. The fifth round built on the partnership theme and encouraged the risk adverse public sector to innovate. The sixth round continues to seek out projects to improve delivery of public services through innovation and partnership working.
  39WS
  Winning projects have to agree an implementation plan with the sponsor departments. Each project has to provide six-monthly progress reports and carry out an evaluation of its success once it has been completed. Wider dissemination of the good practice from completed projects is then fed back into the whole spectrum of public service providers.

  Organisation

  Brief Description

  Funding Amount

  Region

  1. Crown Prosecution Service

  Crown Prosecution Service led project to deliver, for the first time, a truly joined up partnership approach to provide care for victims and witnesses.

  £27,123,000

  England & Wales

  2. Small Business Service

  Project to develop an on-line facility for Government Departments to reduce barriers to effective competition for public sector contracts and for improving value for money in public sector procurement.

  £1,250,000

  National

  3. Youth Justice Board

  Project to address the risk factors associated with offending children so helping to reduce the number of children entering the Criminal Justice system

  £1,365,000

  England & Wales

  4. Community Service Volunteers

  Project to reduce the demand for specialist mental health services across London and to create a greater understanding of mental health issues in the broad population

  £7,331,000

  London

  5. St Mungo's Inner London Detox Centre

  Project to provide a detoxification centre in Central London to offer an alternative to police custody for homeless street drinkers arrested by the Metropolitan Police

  £1,155,000

  London

  6. Prison Service

  Prison Service led project to deliver support for families and specifically children who have a parent in custody.

  £314,687

  South West

  7. Devon & Cornwall Constabulary

  Project that establishes a Targeted Drug release programme which will provide access for drug using offenders to pass from the criminal justice system to the treatment system when released from prison.

  £1,100,000

  South West

  40WS

  Organisation

  Brief Description

  Funding Amount

  Region

  8. Bath and Somerset Social Services and Housing Services

  Project that establishes a dedicated mobile nursing team providing 24-hour cover designed to take services in a residential location rather than moving a seriously frail person to hospital.

  £1,343,300

  South West

  9. Bristol City Council

  Project to reduce out of authority placements for children with complex mental health, emotional and behavioural difficulties to reduce alienation from their communities and increase their life chances

  £810,870

  South West

  10. Warrington Advice and Resource Centre

  Project to reduce the number of young people running away in Warrington by providing reactive services as well as proactively engaging with families to reduce repeat runaways and preventing siblings duplicating the behaviour.

  £458,064

  North West

  11. Gloucestershire City Council

  Project to develop and deliver a Local Planning toolkit for public service providers and partnerships to plan their neighbourhood and community services using shared information across the different agencies

  £100,000

  West Midlands

  12. Lincolnshire County Council

  Project to educate local people in Rural and Coastal Academies by the development of an integrated curriculum provision to pupils who are out of mainstream school; and an area based identification, screening and support service for adults with dyslexia.

  £1,092,000

  East Midlands

  13. Peterborough City Council

  Project to create an integrated network of service providers, statutory agencies and support workers, which will ensure the successful integration of new arrivals into Peterborough in the short, medium and long term.

  £2,262,400

  East Midlands

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Rosepark Nursing Home Fire
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister(Phil Hope)
  First, may I say that our thoughts are with the families and friends of the victims of this tragedy?

  It is too early to speculate about the cause of the fire. Investigations are already under way in Scotland and we will be looking very closely at their findings and considering the implications for England and Wales.

  The cornerstone of our policy remains the prevention of fire. When fires do occur, simple precautions such as keeping fire doors closed and installing smoke alarms can play a vital role in reducing death and injury. Integrated Risk Management Plans will make sure that more work is done by the Fire and Rescue Service to prevent fires in the first place, by identifying those people in the community most at risk, and targeting resources more effectively.

  Sprinklers can also play an important role in suppressing fires where they have broken out, though it is too early to conclude that if the Rosepark Nursing Home had been fitted with a sprinkler system, any loss of life could have been prevented.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been actively investigating the effectiveness of sprinkler systems in tackling fires in residential properties. The results of this work, which is being undertaken on our behalf by the Building Research Establishment, are
  42WS
  being fed into the review of the fire safety aspects of the Building Regulations (England and Wales), which is currently under-way. A report of the work will shortly be published, enabling those involved with fire safety in buildings to gain a more comprehensive understanding of residential sprinkler systems. However, the tragic incident at the weekend indicates that sprinklers may have a role to play in protecting vulnerable groups such as; homes for children, homes for elderly people, homes for disabled people, and, higher risk houses in multiple occupation.

  In relation to existing premises, including residential care homes, an employer is required under the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997. as amended, and under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to undertake a risk assessment in order to safeguard the safety from fire not only of his employees but of all people on his premises affected by his work. This assessment can include the provision of sprinklers within the building. This requirement will be extended by the proposed Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order to include most premises to which the public have access, and the duty imposed upon the employer will be extended to include any person who is responsible for managing the premises.

  In the meantime our Community Fire Safety programme continues to educate people about the risks associated with fire and the measures which can mitigate against its occurrence. This programme has already been effective in reducing fire deaths and injuries from accidental fires.

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.

Illegal Meat Imports
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the largest amount of illegal meat seized in the United Kingdom at any one time in the year 2003; and what prosecutions followed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, according to the Food Standards Agency, the largest amount of illegal meat seized in the United Kingdom at any one time in 2003 was 33 tonnes, seized in June from premises in Bow, east London, by enforcement officers from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The case is currently under investigation and prosecutions have yet to be initiated.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I am very disappointed to hear about the number of prosecutions pending. Is he aware of the bushmeat conference in December where African Ministers stated that illegal meat is being smuggled into this country partly because people are not frightened of being convicted if caught in the UK? Bearing in mind that the market value of bushmeat is currently £36 per pound, the typical suitcase coming into UK ports and airports could contain far in excess of £1,000 of bushmeat, if not much more. The situation is not dissimilar to that of illegal, black market drug imports. What is the real reason why there have been no convictions? Is it that Defra lacks funds; or is it that, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said, Defra is a dog's dinner of the highest order?
Lord Warner: My Lords, there were several threads in that essay-cum-question. On one of them, I can tell the noble Lord that there were no outbreaks of human disease in the UK traced to the illegal importation of bushmeat. The Food Standards Agency has created an imported food division to take forward the Government's Step Change initiative which aims to deliver significant improvements in the co-ordination and delivery of local authority inspection of imported food at ports and inland.
I did not say that there have been no prosecutions; I said that a prosecution had not been initiated in the particular case. The noble Lord might like to know that it took two years to gather and analyse the information in Operation Aberdeen, in 2001, which
672
concerned a large-scale meat fraud. However, that operation secured major convictions of those prosecuted in the case.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord appreciates that many of us are worried not about human disease but about animal disease being brought in by these illegal meat imports. Is the Food Standards Agency working closely with Defra in these matters? Are Defra scientists able to advise the Food Standards Agency about the dangers of importing such meat?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure that my noble colleagues and other Ministers in Defra will be glad to look into the question raised by the noble Countess and respond to her.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, can the Minister indicate how many illegal meat seizures have taken place in regional airports and ports and how many prosecutions have taken place as a result? I acknowledge that there are notices in these places now, but they are pretty sparse. Is there any information on this?
Lord Warner: My Lords, it is not the practice of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to reveal the details of seizures, and no information on local authority enforcement action is held centrally.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I find that answer very unsatisfactory. Is the Minister not concerned not only about the risk to human health, which has been mentioned, but about the risk of animal diseases? If prosecutions are not brought, the import of such meat will continue. I am quite concerned about the Minister's response. I do not think that he appreciates the huge implications of the problem, including increased zoonosis. His department seems not to be taking an interest. I seek greater clarification.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Baroness listened to my earlier answers. I did not say that there have been no prosecutions. I simply said that a prosecution had not yet been initiated in the case that was the subject of the noble Lord's Question. I also gave the example of the case in 2001 where there was a prosecution regarding 4,450 tonnes of illegal meat and a fraud. In answering the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, I also said that it is not the practice of Customs and Excise to reveal the amounts seized. I did not say that it had not brought any prosecutions.
Baroness Byford: My Lords—
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, will the Minister confirm that the figures that he gave include seizures at airports in Northern Ireland?
Lord Warner: My Lords, my answers related to information about England.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the most recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease was caused by illegally imported meat?
Lord Warner: My Lords, that is a matter for my colleagues in Defra, but I will look into it—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Warner: My Lords, may I be allowed to finish my answer? I will look into that and reply to the noble Lord.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, will the Minister tell those of us who do not know exactly what bushmeat is?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am not altogether sure that noble Lords will thank the noble Baroness for that question, as bushmeat may include the meat of squirrels, monkeys, bats, rats and other mammals.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, will the Minister bring us up to date on the movement in the European Union or the European Parliament to ban the importation of bushmeat into the European Union? I understand that there has been a major move among environmentalists to do that, mainly due to denuding Africa of its wild game rather than the health issues.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am not aware that specific proposals have emanated from the European Union on the issue, although I know that much debate is going on about it in which the Food Standards Agency is involved. I do not think that any specific proposals have been forthcoming.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, since April 2003, there has been a threefold increase in illegal meats? The figure may be somewhere in excess of 7,000 tonnes. Is that correct?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have that specific number in my head. As I said earlier, we do not collect information centrally on local authority seizures of illegal meat, so I am not sure from where the noble Lord obtains his figures. He seems to have information that is not available to Her Majesty's Government.

House of Lords and House of Commons: Relative Powers
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell-Savours Lord Campbell-Savours asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the relative powers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords in relation to legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, the Government made it clear in the consultation paper, Next Steps for the House of Lords, that they had no immediate plans to change the role and powers of this House relative to the House of Commons.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, my noble friend will recall how a majority of Members of this House drove Clauses 41 and 42 in the then Criminal Justice Bill—they were on jury trials—into the long grass, but the same Members tell us that they support the primacy of the House of Commons. Does he believe that the use of affirmative instruments voted on in both Houses under a twin-lock procedure is compatible with the primacy of the House of Commons?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is no secret that the Government were not best pleased to experience 16 defeats on the then Criminal Justice Bill, including on the removal of jury trial for complex cases, a measure that we felt was essential to the proper pursuit of criminal matters. Having said that, one is aware that the House has a responsibility to scrutinise legislation. The issue is all on the detail of how far and how regularly the challenging and questioning in amendments is pressed by this House to the other end. Therefore, I stand by the position in the White Paper, which is that the broad balance of powers is right but, as ever, there will be disagreements, particularly towards the end of the Session, on whether those powers should be taken right to the limit.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister agree that membership of this House nowadays represents a balance of political opinion in this country rather more accurately than membership of the House of Commons, where the Government have 63 per cent of the Members on the basis of 42 per cent of the vote? In those circumstances, is it not right that this House should continue to have powers that enable us to negotiate modest changes to government legislation?
Lord Filkin: Well, my Lords, what an ingenious argument. One should look at the comparative influence of—how shall I put it?—the third party in a tri-party or quadrilateral balance of power and the strength of the Liberal Democrats, in terms of many of their amendments. One could make an argument, quite richly, that on that basis the Liberal Democrats are over-represented in this House.
Lord Carter: My Lords—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Carter!
Lord Carter: My Lords, in the most recent Parliament, there were 1,650 Divisions in the House of Commons and the Government did not lose one.

675
There were 650 Divisions in this House, and the Government lost 25 per cent. I take no pride in that statistic but, if it is a question of which House is holding the executive to account, I think that this House is doing a good job.
Will my noble friend agree that in this House, in which the government party is the third-largest party and has less than 28 per cent of the vote, there is a heavy responsibility on it to remember two fundamental conventions; namely, that the elected government are entitled to secure their programme of legislation and that, after suitable negotiation, the elected Chamber should finally have its way? The negotiations on the then Criminal Justice Bill could never be described as suitable.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend, a former Chief Whip. That is very much our perspective on the issues. He reminds us that the Government have 28 per cent of the vote in this House. He could also remind us that, in the proposals that we have set out to remove the remaining hereditary Peers, our vote will increase to 31 per cent. Therefore we are enshrining in those proposals that this party in government will never have an overall majority, and nor will any party in government in future. I hope that the House will commend that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and congratulate him on having asserted the constitutional position of this House with total objectivity and on having concentrated on the essence of the problem, which is how, when and how often we exercise our power.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am always grateful to receive compliments from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, but I wish he would make them to me in private to protect my reputation.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I ask my noble friend to follow the injunction of the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches and encourage the powers that be to change the balance rapidly so that it reflects the results at general elections more fairly? When can we expect that augmentation of forces and when can we expect the Light Brigade to come to the assistance of the Government?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord reads the newspapers, as I do. Over the turn of the year they were quite rich in rumours in that respect. However, that is only one part of the issue. The more fundamental part is how we intend to move forward to the second stage of reform of this House and to the subsequent stages of reform that will also be required. Before long we shall look forward to sharing those views with the House, as we are still absolutely committed to our 2001 manifesto. I shall repeat that if there is any doubt about it.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are perfectly respectable bases for supporting the
676
decision to continue jury trials in long fraud cases'' The first is the very high percentage—80 per cent—of success achieved at present, which I believe is higher than for any other category of case; and the second is that the Law Commission was specifically asked by the Home Secretary to report on whether there are any means of improving the understanding of the law by members of the jury. The Law Commission reported and produced certain recommendations, none of which the Government have ever put forward as being satisfactory.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am unsure whether I detected a question, but I note the comment with the appropriate interest.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, given that the Minister reads the newspapers, as do most noble Lords, can I tempt him to comment on the views expressed in an interview with Mr Peter Hain in the Times last Friday?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, if I recollect, my right honourable friend was signalling the importance of making further progress on House of Lords reform, not merely on the very substantial package of proposals that we have already set out, but he was clearly looking at how to go further than that, as that will not be the end of the process or the story.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the largest single group of electors is those who cannot bring themselves to support any single political party? On that basis, does he also accept that the largest group in this House should be the independent Peers?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, if one were wearing a hat one would shake it at such creativity. I am not sure that the largest proportion of electors support no parly. I believe that in general elections a majority of the electorate vote for one of the main political parties. I refute his assertion.

Medicines Regulatory System
2.54 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to conduct a full, independent and open review of the medicines regulatory system.
Lord Warner: My Lords, in the United Kingdom human medicines are regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, in accordance with national and EU laws. The EU legislation has recently been changed to ensure that the system continues to protect public health in an enlarged Community and the Government are working on implementation. A value-for-money audit of the MHRA was conducted recently by the National

677
Audit Office and a Public Accounts Committee report on the agency was published in 2003. There are no plans for further wide-ranging reviews.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very disappointing reply. Only yesterday it was discovered that the MHRA had not had full information about Seroxat from the drug company involved. There are great concerns about past delays preventing SSRIs being available for the treatment of children. There are also grave doubts about the yellow card scheme and about many other aspects concerned with the regulation of claims made about drugs, particularly in relation to Yasmin, the birth control pill, which the Minister may remember. That gives considerable grounds for an independent review. Will the Minister reconsider that?
Lord Warner: No, my Lords. An expert working group of the Committee on Safety of Medicines has undertaken a comprehensive independent scientific assessment of the available data on the safety of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, which includes Seroxat. The full conclusions of that risk analysis, coming from the clinical trials in December, were published in public. The MHRA, in dealing with particular issues, has taken an open and above-board approach. The yellow card scheme, also mentioned by the noble Lord, is recognised as one of the best in the world, although to improve it I have asked for a review to be carried out to see whether there can be improved involvement of patients directly with the agency.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the MHRA has an unrivalled reputation in the world as a robust regulator? Should we not be very cautious before starting to review legislation that might undermine that reputation which has brought so much credit to this country?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. From his own experience he knows how effective the MHRA is and what its standard is in Europe and across the world. The National Audit Office review recognised the international standing of the MHRA in a number of areas, particularly in the way in which it leads the field on the science of medicine safety.
Earl Howe: My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the regulatory cost implications of the EU Clinical Trials Directive on publicly funded clinical trials? Have the Government estimated the impact of the directive on the development of medicines in the future?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we have estimated some of those impacts. We have communicated with the research community about them and we are in discussion, as I believe the noble Earl knows, with the research community on the implications of the Clinical Trials Directive for this country. That directive will
678
come into operation from 1 May 2004. When the Government bring forward regulations for that, they will also publish a regulatory impact assessment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister lauds the National Audit Office report, but does he recall that that the National Audit Office also drew attention to the conflict of interest between the MHRA's role in promoting the interests of the pharmaceutical industry and in protecting the health of the public?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I read the NAO report very carefully. My recollection of it is that it found no evidence that the potential—I emphasise the word "potential"—conflict of interest had led to questionable decision-making on the part of the MHRA when the NAO conducted the value-for-money study.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
2.59 p.m.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan to review the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Newton committee recently published its report reviewing the whole Act. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, will shortly publish his second review of the working of Part 4 of the Act. Those reports will inform the debates that will shortly take place in both Houses.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In a civilised society, no one condones terrorism of any kind. Britain already has the most draconian terrorist powers in western Europe. Does the Minister agree that to add further to that by undermining the principle of trial by jury and radically lowering the burden of proof is wholly unacceptable? There is already an inquiry into the quality of our intelligence services. Would not the Home Secretary's latest proposals do a great deal of harm and undermine British justice without making our country any safer? How can we condemn the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay when our own action leaves much to be desired?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I acknowledge the noble Lord's concern and make clear that the comments of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary were about stimulating a debate. There is no proposed change or plan for change at present; but there is the beginning of a debate. My right honourable friend said that he will publish an options paper, setting out the options for that debate. Nothing has been ruled in; and nothing has been ruled out.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the priority for the Government must be the

679
protection of the values and systems that make our society worth living in, and that central to those are our traditions in the administration of justice? Does she therefore agree that any special measures that are introduced to meet the danger of terrorism must be as small as possible and last for the most limited period possible? Does she further agree that if we do not follow that course, we shall play directly into the hands of extremists, who will exploit the apparent contradictions?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely agree with my noble friend that the tradition of this country is beyond compare in our adherence to human rights and the rights of the individual. I also agree with him that it is therefore absolutely proper for any step that we take to make ourselves more secure to be proportionate and fair.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, does the Minister agree that conviction for a criminal offence on the balance of probabilities is without precedent in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Viscount is quite right: at present the standard of proof for a criminal offence is that it be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I must acknowledge that the circumstances of international terrorism and terrorism in this country call for a debate, but I endorse what the noble Viscount said.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that there is no purpose in having a debate unless the Government have proposals? Is she seriously telling the House that the Government propose that the standard of proof for achieving a finding of guilt in the criminal courts is to be lower for terrorist offences than for any other type of offence? That is an extraordinary situation.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not saying that that is necessarily what will happen. I am saying that my right honourable friend has said that he intends to publish an options paper so that there can be a discussion.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Part 12 of the Act, which makes it illegal to bribe foreign officials, is especially important? Can she give an undertaking that the legislative certainty of that provision will be maintained?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that Part 12 is an important part of current legislation. Of course, I cannot pre-empt what Parliament will do when it considers the matter, but I can say that it appears that Part 12 serves us well.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, when the Government consider the matter, will they please rule
680
in the possible repeal of the provision that currently makes it inadmissible to produce telephone intercepts in court to convict terrorist suspects? That might at least mean that the 14 people of whom we all know who are currently detained receive a trial—rather than no trial at all.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I hear what the noble and learned Lord says about the matter and understand why he makes those comments. I am in the happy position of being unable to assist your Lordships with what will be in the options paper and what will not.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness of what her noble and learned friend the Attorney-General said only two weeks ago when talking about the standard of proof. He stressed that it,
"remains for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant… As far as I am aware, that remains true in all respects and I regard it as a very important part of our justice system".—[Official Report, 20/1/04; col. 912.]
Will the Attorney-General be consulted by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the matter?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the exposition of the law as enunciated by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General. In all things, his advice is always most welcome; I assure the House that he gives it freely.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as a member of the committee, I thank my noble friend for what she has done to ensure that we have proper time to debate the committee's report in the House. Does she agree that calibrating the right balance between the protection of the rights of individual suspects and of the community as a whole at risk from terrorism is a delicate and difficult business? If so, does she accept that the extremely broad-brush approach with which the current debate has been kicked off is unlikely to achieve the necessary delicacy?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend about the delicate balance of which she speaks. I am confident that when the House comes to debate the issues, it will bring to it the acuity and balance that they deserve.

Eritrea and Ethiopia
3.6 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further steps can be taken by the United Nations Security Council to persuade Ethiopia to accept the ruling of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Border

681
Commission to which Ethiopia agreed when it signed the comprehensive peace agreement in Algiers in December 2000.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the United Kingdom and other members of the Security Council will continue to press Ethiopia and Eritrea to accept the boundary commission decision and begin a political dialogue. We welcome the appointment of the United Nations special envoy, Lloyd Axworthy, and urge both parties to work with him on resolving their differences.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which gives us a little more information about what is going on. Is she aware that there are powerful groups—factions—in Ethiopia that do not accept the Algiers agreement and, in fact, never really accepted the independence of Eritrea in 1991? Does she agree that it would strengthen the hand of those in Ethiopia who want peace if the Security Council were to insist on compliance with the Algiers agreement by the Ethiopian Government—with the proviso that any sanctions that might be imposed should not affect food and humanitarian aid?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I accept that there are powerful groups that find it hard to accept the findings of the boundary commission. It is important to note that at present there is something of a stand-off between both sides, because, unfortunately, the Eritrean Government have not yet confirmed that they are willing to deal with Lloyd Axworthy. It is important that Mr Axworthy, as the UN special envoy, has the united support of the international community. I knew him when he was a Canadian Foreign Minister; he is an extremely impressive man and I hope that he will be able to bring both sides together.
We will have an opportunity to take the matter forward. It was taken forward by my honourable friend Mr Mullin when he visited both Eritrea and Ethiopia earlier this month. I understand that the international development secretary, my right honourable friend Mr Benn, will also visit Ethiopia in February and will be able to press the points made by the noble Lord.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the reason why the Eritreans declined to accept a visit by Mr Lloyd Axworthy is that it is not they who are responsible for incursions into the temporary security zone; that it is not they who have failed to create the necessary conditions for demarcation to proceed; and that it is not they who have failed to co-operate fully and promptly with the boundary commission? In view of the Ethiopians' continued non-compliance with the Security Council resolution, does not she think that a threat to peace exists that should now be referred to the Security Council under chapter 6 of the charter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord's conclusions. The United Nations appointed Lloyd Axworthy relatively recently and he ought to be given the opportunity to take forward the remits that he has. I have indicated that there are shortcomings on both sides, and the noble Lord has indicated very clearly the shortcomings on the Ethiopian side. It is important now that we use the forthcoming visit of the development secretary to press home the point, as we did with the visit of my honourable friend recently. I hope we will give this process a chance, under Mr Axworthy, who I believe to be a very good choice for the UN envoy role.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister say what progress has been made in demarcating the frontier and whether this process also involved an element of arbitration in places where the frontier was in dispute? Furthermore, can she give us any good news about the return of prisoners and refugees by both sides which must surely help to build trust and confidence?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I fear that the stand-off between the two countries at the moment does not allow me to give the good news that the noble Lord requests. I wish I could give him such news. I can only reiterate that this is a highly unsatisfactory situation. The Ethiopians have refused to accept the findings of the boundary commission. The United Nations has put in an envoy who we hope will be able to bring the two sides together, but the Eritreans are currently refusing to deal with him. The boundary commission found in favour of the Eritreans, as the noble Lord knows, but at the moment, the area particularly around Badame— which is the area principally under dispute, and where there are about a thousand people living—is in considerable difficulty.
I return to my main point—that the envoy has to be given the opportunity to discuss the borders, the future of Badame and the important question that the noble Lord has raised in relation to prisoner exchange.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, would the Minister agree that this dispute in the Badame region goes back a long way, certainly to the time of Mussolini and probably before that, and that there has been a long string of undertakings and agreements— the US-Rwanda peace plan; UN Resolution 1226; as well as the Algiers agreement that we are talking about? Would she accept that it is going to take a lot to persuade the Ethiopians to come into line with the boundary commission, but that it is worth while persisting very hard, because last time the matter turned into violence with 100,000 lives being lost. We want no repeat of that.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords; I agree that it has been a dispute of very long-standing. Sadly, many disputes of long-standing duration become intractable over a period of time. It is obvious

683
that both sides view the Badame area as part of their own country. We have consistently stressed to the Ethiopians, at prime ministerial and ambassadorial level both in Addis Ababa and in New York, that we believe that the decision of the boundary commission is final and binding. However, it is now for the Ethiopian Prime Minister to persuade his government, his party, and his people that they must accept the boundary commission's findings. However, I am sure that he will face an uphill task in doing so, as my noble friend Lord Rea indicated in his supplementary question.
Lord Rea: My Lords, could I ask my noble friend to convey my congratulations to her honourable friend Chris Mullin on the excellent work that he has been doing in this troubled area? Perhaps I could use this short intervention to clear up any misunderstanding that I might have created with my first supplementary question. I do not include the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Mr Meles Zenawi, in any way with those who are trying to disrupt the agreement.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what he said about Mr Mullin. He is right. During Mr Mullin's visit, from 13 to 19 January, he was able to address these issues with both Eritrea and Ethiopia. He met President Issaias in Eritrea and Prime Minister Meles in Ethiopia. Her Majesty's Government have shared the regard that my noble friend has expressed about Prime Minister Meles. We are worried about many issues in Ethiopia, particularly in connection with human rights, but Prime Minister Meles shows some instincts for reform in his country; he is trying to bring forward the economic agenda and we support him in the way that he is dealing with NePAD.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, would it be wrong to presume that the Minister is familiar with the concept of horse-trading? I wonder whether the Ethiopian Government are taking up the position in the hope that they can gain some advantage, particularly from third parties who are interested to see peace in the area. Have the Government any idea what they might be looking for?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I used to be the general secretary of a trade union. Therefore, I do know a little about horse-trading, one way or another. I cannot read what the Ethiopian Government are looking for. Quite often, in these sorts of border disputes, individuals think that by not coming to an agreement they have more to gain as time goes on—for example, as more and more Ethiopians come into the area in dispute, the idea is that their claims will be strengthened by people on the ground. That may be some of the thinking behind what has gone on, but that is speculation. We have to allow Mr Axworthy to bring both sides together. It will not be an easy task, but we must afford him the opportunity to try to fulfil the remit that he has been given by the United Nations.

Child Trust Funds Bill
3.16 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Child Trust Funds Bill
  Business
  Lord Grocott: My Lords, before the debate begins, perhaps I may say a few words about speaking times. As noble Lords know, we have a target finishing time of 10 p.m. We can meet that if speeches are limited to a maximum of eight minutes. I give the House a gentle reminder that when eight minutes displays on the Clock it means that the speaker is in the ninth minute. If we are to meet our target rising time of 10 p.m., it means just that: noble Lords should speak for eight, not nine, minutes. It is quite important that we aim to finish around our target time because tomorrow we start at 11 a.m. That gives us a particular reason for wanting to aim for that target, quite apart from the fact that many of us might also wish to finish at that time in any case.

  Hutton Inquiry
  3.17 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the inquiry by the Lord Hutton into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly.
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, into the tragic death of Dr David Kelly. I particularly welcome and look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ryder of Wensum, who will obviously have a lot to contribute to the debate this afternoon.
  The report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, repays careful study. I intend to consider it in a little detail, both in relation to its conclusions and its findings. Also, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, asked me, in the Statement last week, to indicate what the Government's responses are to the criticisms made of them in the report. But it is right, as well, that I speak about the inquiry announced yesterday into the issue of intelligence, and the threat of weapons of mass destruction generally.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. agreed to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances leading to the death of Dr Kelly. The noble and learned Lord is a former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. He was a serving Law Lord when he accepted the task. His appointment was greeted with widespread approval. His conduct of the inquiry has been regarded as exemplary because of the transparency of the process, and the clarity with which the evidence unfolded.
  His report is an outstanding piece of analysis. There is a generalised complaint, however, that it criticised the media and was not balanced in its attacks on the Government.

  685
  The robust prejudice with which the report has been approached is exemplified by comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, in a place other than this House. He is quoted as saying:
  "I have not fully read his report but I have already come to the conclusion that his evidence does not support his conclusions and that is, put quite simply, a bad bit of work".
  Put simply, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, deserved better than that.
  Judges are not selected to produce a compromise; they are asked to analyse the evidence and reach findings of fact. That is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, has done with conspicuous skill as a trained professional and a judge. Look at his record; note the skill with which his handling of the hearing was praised; above all, read his report and see the meticulous care with which he analysed the evidence.
  Set that record against the attacks in the media on his report. Today's Independent newspaper report claimed that Dr Jones was overruled about the inclusion of the 45-minute claim. In the evidence that Dr Jones gave to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, he accepted that it was right to insert the 45-minute claim; indeed, he said that it was important intelligence. But his concern related to whether the intelligence should be prefaced in the dossier by the words "intelligence suggests" rather than "we judge". It is a significant issue, but not the sort of complaint that justified the subsequent reports of it.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, focused on a number of issues. The main ones were: the accuracy of Mr Andrew Gilligan's broadcasts on 29 May; whether the dossier was sexed-up and the propriety of its production; and whether the Government engaged in an underhand or duplicitous strategy in relation to the naming of Dr Kelly.
  Taking Mr Andrew Gilligan's broadcast first, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, concluded that the allegations reported by Mr Gilligan that the Government probably knew that the 45-minute claim was wrong or questionable were unfounded. Mr Gilligan himself accepted that he had made errors in his broadcasts in the "Today" programme on 29 May 2003.
  Secondly, on the so-called sexing-up, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, concluded that the allegation was unfounded as it would have been understood by the people listening to it. The dossier, he found, had not been embellished with intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable.
  Finally, on the question of the release of Dr Kelly's name, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, reported that there was no dishonourable, underhand or duplicitous strategy by the Government covertly to leak Dr Kelly's name to the media.
  However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, found that the Ministry of Defence was at fault for not informing Dr Kelly that its press office would confirm his name if a journalist suggested it. He also considered that the Ministry of Defence was at fault for not having set up a procedure whereby Dr Kelly would be informed immediately his name had been confirmed to
  686
  the press and in permitting a period of one and a half hours to elapse between the confirmation of his name and his being told of it. Of course, the Government must respond to those criticisms.
  The MoD acknowledged that it would have been better if it had told Dr Kelly explicitly that his name would be confirmed if a journalist suggested it, and if there had been a procedure to inform him immediately he had been identified by the press. The Ministry of Defence has already taken measures to improve procedures, including, first, by reference to terms of employment and, secondly, by reference to disciplinary and related procedures. It intends also to examine assistance to civil servants at risk of media attention and guidance on dealing with the media, where the principle will remain unchanged that no-one should speak to the media, on or off the record, without express approval.
  I wish to make the following points. The argument that Mr Gilligan's broadcasts were in substance true albeit inaccurate in some particulars is wrong. His claim was that the intelligence about Saddam using some weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to do so was inserted in the dossier, not by the JIC, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had told Parliament, but by Downing Street. He said that that was done against the express wishes of the JIC, and that it was done by Downing Street,
  "probably knowing the intelligence was wrong".
  Furthermore, he said that the source of that unprecedented charge was,
  "a senior official in charge of drawing up the dossier".
  That was the substance of the broadcast at seven minutes past six on 29 May. In fact, every single one of those claims was wrong, as the noble and learned Lord has found.
  Secondly, the criticisms that the noble and learned Lord makes of the BBC were, in large measure, based on the views of the BBC itself. Thirdly, the findings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, were entirely consistent with the findings of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee on the reliability and propriety of the dossier.
  With respect to those who attack the findings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, such as the Independent today, I ask that they understand what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, has done— an independent analysis of the facts that is unbiased, unprejudiced and fair. No axe to grind; no case to make; no unsupported assumptions. Instead, detailed findings of fact. We will make so much more progress in this matter if we accept those findings and then draw our conclusions from them.
  Perhaps I may lay one more canard to rest. It has been suggested that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, has enunciated a doctrine that greatly inhibits press freedom. It is said that this is new law. We do not accept that that is right. Obviously, we regard the independence of the BBC as critical. But the relevant findings are set out in the report.
  The first is: do not publish false allegations. In support of that, the noble and learned Lord relies on well known decided cases and quotes Reynolds from

  687
  this House. Secondly, he says that it is necessary to ensure that the editors of media outlets know the terms in which a serious attack is going to be made on the Government before it is broadcast and consider whether it is right in all the circumstances to broadcast it. Thirdly, he concludes that, where an allegation of inaccuracy is made, the management should normally investigate it before dismissing it. Finally, he concludes that, where the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee allege to the governors of the BBC that a broadcast is false, the governors should investigate it. None of that is either new law or bad practice.
  The report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, was into the death of Dr Kelly. It was set up in the wake of his tragic death. It did not deal with the accuracy of the intelligence, though the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, concludes that the dossier was an accurate account of the intelligence then available. We support and have the highest regard for the intelligence services. As has been made clear, we have not, until very recently, thought that an inquiry into the disparity between the intelligence received on weapons of mass destruction and what has been found about WMD by the Iraq Survey Group was either wise or timely. The ISG has been looking at the WMD position in Iraq.
  Until the beginning of this week (Sunday), we have always preferred to wait until that group had reported before considering any further investigation of the discrepancies that might exist after the ISG had reported. I myself expressed that view as late as Sunday morning, in a broadcast. However, a series of events has caused us to change our view. David Kay's evidence to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday of last week and the increasing uncertainty of the time within which the ISG might conclude its activities make it unwise to wait. We accept that an inquiry is required. We would have been happy for it to be conducted by the ISC, but my right honourable friend in another place was pressed hard for a Franks-type inquiry, and has agreed to it.
  The inquiry was described in detail by my noble friend Lady Symons yesterday, when she repeated the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place yesterday. The inquiry will be able to examine the whole intelligence issue, including weapons of mass destruction, and investigate in particular any discrepancies in that intelligence and what has been found in Iraq by the Iraq Survey Group. It will be able to make recommendations. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for agreeing to chair it, and to all the other members participating. I know that in this House we will be particularly pleased to see the participation of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge.
  I have no doubt about the independence and integrity of the members of that inquiry. I hope that they will be given time and space to conduct their inquiry, and that people will judge them by the quality of their findings rather than by whether they give the judgment that those who have already formed their view on the issue want. I hope that the willingness of
  688
  public servants such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, and their fellow members of the inquiry to give of their time in such inquiries is not undermined by the monstering that they get from some elements of the press—either after they have failed to deliver a judgment in accord with the prejudices of some, or even, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in advance of uttering one word on the subject.
  I am very glad that the Conservatives are co-operating in the inquiry. I welcome the participation of the Conservative Party. I am disappointed but not surprised by the Liberal Democrats' failure to participate in the inquiry. They will snipe from the sidelines; they will make no positive contribution; and they will hope that it all goes wrong for somebody else.
  Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord referred to the participation of the Conservative Party. He will be aware of the statement made by the right honourable Michael Howard, the leader of the Conservative Party, that the participation of the Conservative Party is on the basis that the terms of reference referring to the use of intelligence refers to the use of it by the Government and that the committee will be entitled to cover that aspect.
  In order for the committee to start with a clear understanding of its terms of reference, will the noble and learned Lord confirm on behalf of the Government that that is the Government's understanding?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that question was put to my noble friend Lady Symons yesterday to which she gave a clear answer. I stand by that answer.
  Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, a number of noble Lords did not believe that they had been given an answer to that question. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as a member of the Cabinet, has the opportunity to do so. The committee is being set up by the Government who are claiming the support of the Conservative Party, although they have not succeeded in getting the support of the Liberal Democrats. Michael Howard on the "Today" programme made absolutely clear his understanding of the terms of reference. The committee cannot start on the basis of an argument about its terms of reference. The terms of reference are the use of intelligence by the Government.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I said, that question was asked and answered yesterday. I am reluctant to reformulate the answer in different words. I shall find the words in Hansard and answer the question in the course of our debate.
  Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I put the question to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, yesterday. I am sure that it has nothing to do with her abilities, but her answer was not very clear. The answer, in effect, was that Ministers do not evaluate. I did not raise the question of usage, but the words—

  689
  evaluate and use by the Government—go together. We assume that that means Ministers and civil servants, not including the intelligence service, which is a separate civil agency and cannot be wrapped up in government. We are talking about Ministers and the political administration. That must be made clear.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have said, the matter was dealt with yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. The precise meaning of the terms of reference is plainly a matter that will ultimately be evaluated by the chairman of the inquiry. He and the other members of the inquiry must determine the scope of the inquiry. If the Conservative Party has difficulty with that, it must reach its own conclusion.
  My right honourable friend was, rightly, not willing to give the committee the task of deciding whether the political judgment that led us to war was right, which may go some way towards answering the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord King. It is for elected politicians to make that judgment, not a committee.
  We already know that there was both a legal and moral justification for our attack on Iraq. We went to war because of the breaches of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. That resolution made it clear that Iraq must co-operate with the United Nations in disclosing its WMD and WMD programmes, in stopping their development and dismantling all the work on them.
  The ISG has already found laboratories, technology, diagrams, documents and scientists who have been told to conceal their work. The ISG, as David Kay has said, has not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. David Kay thinks it unlikely that it will do so. We shall have to wait and see. But there is no doubt from what we have already found that Iraq failed to comply with Resolution 1441. Iraq was seeking, in breach of the resolutions, to develop weapons of mass destruction, and had the necessary intent to build up those weapons of mass destruction wherever it could. David Kay's estimate of whether stockpiles will be found may be right. We do not yet know. Even if it is, even if the 26 million documents that we have yet to read produce not one further clue, even if the interviews with scientists yet to be completed produce no further evidence, even if nothing more is found, the justification for war—the plain breach of Resolution 1441—would be there.
  As David Kay recently told a US Senate committee:
  "In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point by the Iraq survey group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean about what it had".
  He continues:
  "We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis of activities that were prohibited under the initial UN Resolution 687, and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the UN about this, they were instructed to not do it, and they hid material".
  690
  The world has been made a safer place by our willingness to confront Saddam, and pursue it to a conclusion so that there is no longer a regime acting in breach of a series of Security Council resolutions designed to ensure that the regime did not continue to develop WMDs. But the world has been made safer not only by the disarming of Iraq, but also because of the effect on other unstable, repressive regimes of our willingness to confront Iraq. We need only look at the six nations talks involving North Korea, Iran's recommenced negotiations with the IAEA, and the new relationship with Libya.
  The Hutton report has established that the intelligence we had was properly presented in our dossier. The Butler report will examine any discrepancies between the intelligence that was gathered, evaluated and used by the Government, and what the ISG has found. But let us make no mistake. We already know from what we have found in Iraq that breaches of the United Nations Security Council resolutions justified war. We can identify how the world has been made safer by the use of force.
  It is also worth saying that our invasion has freed Iraq. A country with a proud history had been brought to its knees by the evil and isolation of Saddam. Now its oil is flowing and its wealth has been put back into the hands of the Iraqis. There is much to do. There are real security problems. But a free Iraq, which is no longer a pariah, can join the family of nations rather than threaten them.
  While the wider issues of intelligence will now be considered, it is worth emphasising that the tragic death of Dr Kelly was the subject of Lord Hutton's inquiry. He discharged his task with conspicuous skill and he has provided an authoritative account of the circumstances leading to Dr Kelly's death. We achieve nothing by rejecting the account because it does not suit our prejudices. The picture which he paints is accurate, and for many painful. But we do not commission people of the calibre of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, to reproduce as fact the prejudices of a faction in the debate. It is precisely because the passions run so high that a measured and meticulous account is so important.
  Dr Kelly was a fine and honourable public servant. His death was a tragedy. The dignity and bearing of his wife and family through the pain of loss and the huge difficulty of public gaze is inspiring. May they now be left to grieve in private. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the inquiry by the Lord Hutton into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  3.38 p.m.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am proud to follow the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor because I greatly respect the office he holds. I hope that he will hold it for a long time. I know that he has some subsidiary offices, but he knows as well as I do that governments in their declining years tend to create offices to divert attention from their misdeeds. Such

  691
  offices do not usually endure for very long. They are here today and gone tomorrow. The noble and learned Lord would be wise, therefore, to emphasise the historic role that he performs rather than any other.
  I was disappointed in his speech. When he reads it over, he might think possibly that he should have voiced more sympathy for the family of Dr Kelly and indeed have apologised for the misdeeds of the Government that were recognised in the report.
  I, too, pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. for the skilful way in which he conducted his inquiry. Nobody could have gone to more trouble to try to arrive at just conclusions, but some of those conclusions trouble me greatly. I do not find it easy to accept that there was nothing wrong in the way in which Dr Kelly's name was made public. I would just remind noble Lords of the evidence given before the Hutton inquiry, which of course was beyond contradiction.
  I cannot get out of my mind the references in the diary of Alastair Campbell. I quote:
  "GH [Geoff Hoon] and I agreed it would f*** Gilligan if that was the source".
  I quote again:
  "The biggest thing needed was the source out".
  And I quote again:
  "Spent much of the weekend talking to TB and GH re the source".
  I cannot forget Campbell agreeing with Mr Dingemans at the inquiry that in government circles it was recognised that it would indeed assist them to get Kelly's name out.
  How on earth, in the face of all that, can one take seriously Mr Hoon's statement that he made great efforts to ensure Dr Kelly's anonymity? Far from doing anything of the sort, he agreed to the issue of a press statement and a course of action which he knew would lead to the naming of Dr Kelly. He did not even bother to tell Dr Kelly what he was going to do.
  As for the Prime Minister, he may not in the strictest sense have authorised the leaking of Dr Kelly's name, but he presided over the meeting where it was decided to issue a press release that led, inevitably, to the naming of Dr Kelly. Campbell's diaries show that neither he nor anyone else in No. 10 were the slightest bit interested in Dr Kelly's welfare. On the contrary, they spent hours and hours in unminuted meetings and made unrecorded telephone calls plotting not how Dr Kelly's interests might be protected, but how his being thrown to the media might be turned to their advantage.
  A fair summary of events is surely this. Campbell decided to wage war on the BBC, a war with no holds barred—and he was happy to use Dr Kelly as a weapon in that war. Dr Kelly, already under intolerable pressure, was given no support, but instead was thrown to the media wolves and in that situation of mental turmoil, largely created by others, he took his own life. If I were a member of Dr Kelly's family, I would find it hard to accept that no one is really to blame.
  692
  Having got that off my chest, perhaps I may now turn to the other aspects of the inquiry, and to Mr Gilligan. I accept, without reservation, that he was entirely wrong to say what he did on the "Today" programme. But while accepting the central finding of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, that the Government did not know that the 45-minute claim was wrong, I am bound to say that the evidence as a whole discloses a course of conduct by those in Downing Street concerned with the preparation of the dossier which is deeply troubling.
  From his background as a lawyer rather than a politician, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, may not have appreciated how wholly unusual were some of the goings on in Downing Street at that time, and how very different was the manner in which business was conducted from the way in which it was conducted by previous administrations, and, it is to be hoped, now that Campbell has gone, will be conducted in future.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, I think that nobie Lords opposite had better listen to what I have said because it is all in the evidence. It is of course wholly unusual for a press officer, director of communications, party political adviser—call him what you will—to set out to harass and intimidate the BBC with a veritable blizzard of complaints.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not think that noble Lords opposite know what I am going to say, so they had better listen. I am referring to the veritable blizzard of complaints, revealed in the evidence before Hutton, about the coverage of events in Iraq, going back long before the Gilligan broadcast.
  It is wholly abnormal for a director of communications, let alone a highly political one like Campbell, to play any part in the drawing up of a JIC dossier, which is supposed to be an independent intelligence assessment, let alone chair a meeting of the JIC, as Campbell did on 9 September 2002. It is not surprising that for that he was roundly condemned by the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is surely unique for anyone, let alone someone holding a responsible office in No. 10, to mastermind the preparation of a dossier based on a 12 year-old PhD thesis culled from the Internet and then pass it off as genuine intelligence. But that is what Campbell did with the dodgy dossier of February 2003.
  Going back to the September dossier, there is no dispute that Campbell persuaded the intelligence people to make changes that were not presentational changes, but changes of substance. The change from,
  "Iraq may be able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes",
  to,
  "The Iraq military are able to deploy these weapons within 45 minutes",

  693
  was a change of substance made at Campbell's request. I do not seek for one moment to go behind the finding of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, that the change was compatible with the intelligence material in Mr Scarlett's hands, but one can see only too clearly the risk of someone in Mr Scarlett's position, knowing the desire of the Prime Minister to have a dossier which was as strong as possible, being,
  "subconsciously influenced to make the wording of the dossier somewhat stronger than it would have been in a normal JIC assessment".
  I quote from the Hutton report.
  It is absolutely clear that Campbell should not have acted in a way which caused Mr Scarlett to be influenced. If he had not, we might not have finished with a dossier so at variance with what appear to be the facts. We might not have had a dossier which Mr Jones, the leading expert in WMD in the MoD, says in the Independent today was misleading about Iraq's capabilities because the views of the experts were ignored.
  For reasons of time, I shall not deal with the instance where Mr Jonathan Powell also got a change of substance in the dossier. It is worth noting that sometimes Mr Scarlett would not agree to changes asked of him, but it is illuminating to look at what then happened. The original draft of the dossier led Campbell to minute Scarlett on 17 September that "might" reads very weakly. He was referring to the fact that the draft stated:
  "Iraq might have stocks of vx nerve agent"
  and, by implication, nothing else.
  Scarlett stood firm and said,
  "We cannot improve on 'might'".
  What was the reaction of Mr Campbell? He removed the whole passage from the dossier and with it the point that the only stocks the intelligence service thought Iraq might hold were of VX gas. I suppose that is what they call open government and transparency.
  Finally, I turn to the Prime Minister. He signed the foreword to the dossier, which contains the words:
  "His [Saddam's] military planning allows for some of the weapons of mass destruction to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them".
  The Prime Minister knew perfectly well that the intelligence community was not talking of long-range weapons because in the original draft of the dossier he had cancelled that out. But those words were removed in the final draft and the words that were left in— unqualified—were taken to mean that there was a threat to Britain. A headline appeared in the Sun, "45 minutes to doom". Jonathan Powell got the headline that he wanted in the Evening Standard, "45 minutes to attack", and it was accompanied by a photograph of a London street.
  When all that happened, did the Prime Minister hasten to correct the false impression given by his dossier? Did he hasten to say that the reference in the dossier was to battlefield weapons only and that there
  694
  was no question at all of strategic weapons being ready or of there being a threat to this country? Not on your life. Downing Street was keen, very keen, to correct what Mr Gilligan said, but it made no effort at all to correct the false impression given by the wording of the dossier. When it suited his purpose, the Prime Minister was quite happy to see the public misled. Some might say that that deceit was almost as grave as any conduct on the part of Mr Gilligan.
  It is a sad and tawdry story and the public should be aware that while the conclusions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, were justified by the evidence, there is nothing for Downing Street to be proud of and many lessons to be learned by those in government who were involved in this sorry affair.
  3.51 p.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has made a powerful speech, not least because of his close identification with the family of Dr Kelly, and I congratulate him on it. He raised questions that need to be answered and have not yet been answered by the Government.
  However, I shall step back for a moment to the Hutton inquiry itself, on which the Government have become so reliant. The Hutton inquiry was strange in a sense, because the judge was a man of the utmost probity and integrity and he was regarded in Northern Ireland as a man of courage and honour. We on these Benches would not wish in any way wish to impugn him, even, if I may say so to the Lord Chancellor, as I snipe from the sidelines, which I intend to do for the next few minutes.
  The assessment of the Hutton inquiry ran into considerable difficulties on two fronts. The first was the context in which people would read its conclusions. I give one example. If one does not set it in the context of the extraordinarily high standards of accuracy of the BBC's journalistic output, one could not understand why 56 per cent of the public said that they did not believe the judge's findings with regard to the BBC. Nor could one understand why the public, in such polls as that commissioned by YouGov and the Daily Telegraph, have said by a ratio of 67 per cent to 31 per cent that they trust the BBC more than the Government.
  The public are not fools. They have reached those conclusions precisely because they set them in the context of their knowledge of some of the organisations involved. Similarly, the Government were being judged by the public on the basis of several years during which, rightly or wrongly, Mr Alastair Campbell was regarded as a somewhat dubious and devious figure in the way in which he used the power and street-reach of No. 10 to influence outcomes in the media. One cannot understand the reaction to the recommendations and conclusions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, if one does not realise that it was set against that background. That background is significant and it was not mentioned in the report.
  In that context, one of the conclusions that was reached widely in the media—not in this case by the BBC, but by newspapers—and indeed in comments

  695
  made since the inquiry was published, was about the distinction, perceived by many, between the conclusions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, about the likelihood of the journalists and other public bodies being at fault and what appeared to be the giving of the benefit of the doubt to the Government and specifically to No. 10. I shall give an example. All of us know—and we on these Benches have never denied it—that Mr Gilligan made a serious mistake by raising the possibility that the Government had knowingly included false information in the September dossier. We do not question that. It was a serious mistake, all the more so in that the allegation was made by a journalist from a corporation that has such a fine reputation. Understandably, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, made it clear that, in his view, the editorial control over Mr Gilligan at that time was weak and had to be improved. As we all know, the result has been disproportionately great, with the departure and resignation of the chairman and director-general of the BBC, both of whom are highly regarded in their own field.
  Contrast that with what happened when the Government and the intelligence service fell below a similar kind of standard. I quote from an article in today's Independent by Dr Brian Jones, the former head of the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons section of the Defence Intelligence Staff:
  "My belief is that right up to the publication of the dossier there was a unified view amongst not only my own staff but all the DIS experts that on the basis of the intelligence available to them the assessment that Iraq possessed a CW or BW capability should be carefully caveated".
  He goes on to state that he had considered who might have seen that ultra-sensitive intelligence and concluded that it was extremely doubtful that anyone with a high degree of CW and BW intelligence expertise was among the exclusive group which did the final scrutiny of the intelligence before it went into the September dossier.
  That is an example of a failure to read the detail provided by the most experienced experts in the field of CW and BW capability. It has many parallels with the failure to read the original notes on Mr Gilligan's report. In the first case, the BBC was heavily criticised; in the second, nothing was said about the failure to look back again at the intelligence to see whether Dr Brian Jones's objections should be upheld.
  I turn from that, without any apology to the Lord Chancellor, to the so-called "sexing up" of the dossier. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has already given some powerful examples of that: the use of "are" instead of "may"; the change of the title of the September dossier; the decision to leave out of the Prime Minister's foreword—in which he wrote:
  "I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons"—
  the Prime Minister's own reference in a first draft to the inability of Iraq to mount a nuclear attack against the United Kingdom. I stress "inability". The Prime Minister said that he could not. However, that essential sentence was wiped out of later drafts, including the final
  696
  one, of the dossier. I could go on and on. Between us, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and I could give at least half a dozen more examples. Frankly, if one looks at Appendix 3—I say to the Lord Chancellor that I have read the report very fully now—with its 16 specific recommendations from Alastair Campbell's team to change and strengthen that dossier and to give it more zip, it is hard to accept that there was no sexing up of the dossier.
  A Noble Lord: How dare you?
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: How dare I? I give way.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, may I deduce from that that the noble Baroness does not accept the findings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton? He rejected that finding.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the noble Baroness is very pleased to respond to the noble and learned Lord. I shall do so by reading directly from the Hutton report and I shall give the noble and learned Lord the precise reference, which is paragraph 228, subsection (8):
  "The term 'sexed-up' is a slang expression, the meaning of which lacks clarity in the context of the discussion of the dossier. It is capable of two different meanings. It could mean that the dossier was embellished with items of intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable to make the case against Saddam Hussein stronger".
  We fully accept that that is not acceptable. It is "unfounded", as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton said. But here is his second definition of the term,
  "it could mean that whilst the intelligence contained in the dossier was believed to be reliable, the dossier was drafted in such a way as to make the case against Saddam Hussein as strong as the intelligence contained in it permitted".
  That is exactly the definition that Members on these Benches wish to examine.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I shall read on; this is a direct quotation:
  "If the term is used in this latter sense, then 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".
  Lord Tomlinson: My Lords—
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: For the moment I shall not give way, having just given way to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I wish to continue my argument. It is an important argument and I am well aware that Members on the Benches opposite do not wish to hear it. Members on these Benches and all the critics of the report wish to make the case that we uphold the argument that the first definition was unfounded, but believe that the second definition is clearly carried out in the terms of the dossier. Perhaps I may say that over the past few days I have asked many

  697
  people—ordinary people rather than intelligence experts—what they think the term "sexing-up" means. I did not prompt them and they have all replied by saying, "We think it means enhancing the good things and playing down the bad". That is exactly what I believe the Government did.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that in the next part of the report the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, explicitly rejected that definition. He said that the way in which the term "sexed-up" would be understood is that it would mean putting in information that the person knew to be false. That is the finding of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. Does the noble Baroness agree that that is what the noble and learned Lord goes on to find?
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am willing to go on reading the report and to leave it to the judgment of the House. However, I have the words before me,
  "in the context of the broadcasts in which the 'sexing-up' allegation was reported and having regard to the other allegations reported in those broadcasts I consider that the allegation 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".
  I agree with that completely, as do we all; it is absolutely right. In the context of Mr Gilligan's broadcast, which we also repudiate, it is clear that that statement was unfounded. No one denies that and two major heads at the BBC have gone.
  But not "sexing-up", which the Lord Chancellor mentioned again. The term "sexing-up" takes both definitions. We are talking about the second definition and we believe that we are thoroughly justified in doing so.
  I shall now quote from Mr David Clark, the former adviser to the former Foreign Secretary:
  "Hutton, in assessing the charge that the Government sexed up the September dossier, relied on a definition of the term so extreme that he could not fail to acquit the Government of it".
  I leave that without further comment because I wish to turn to the rest of my remarks.
  I believe that the sexing-up of the dossier was made against an extraordinary background—I am talking again about the context of claims made by political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic about the danger posed by Iraq. I quote the Prime Minister on 24 September 2002 in his foreword to the dossier:
  "What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons".
  I quote the Foreign Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, on 2 April:
  "Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction".
  Should noble Lords like a rather more extreme argument, this is President Bush:
  "We cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun. It could come in the form of a mushroom cloud".
  698
  Unfortunately he was supported in that by Vice President Cheney, one of the most troubling people on the scene. On 16 March 2003, just at the beginning of the war, he said,
  "we believe he [Saddam Hussein] has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons".
  If noble Lords want to be a little light-hearted, only three months later, on 24 June 2003, the US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, said that:
  "I don't know anybody that I can think of that has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons".
  One wonders if one should introduce the US Department of Defense to the Vice-President and see if they cannot get their ducks in a line.
  I move on to what I regard as a crucial question which I hope the Butler inquiry can address, but I am not sure can do so for the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord King. I think it is crucial that it does so. I refer to the case of the intelligence advanced by Mr Blix, the senior UN intelligence head in his report to the UN Security Council on 7 March 2003, just before the war:
  "At this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance".
  He pointed out that he was receiving co-operation from the Iraqi authorities. Finally, on the question of whether he could complete the disarmament studies required of him under the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolution under which he went into Iraq:
  "It would not take years, nor weeks, but months".
  There are key questions: why did Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States insist on continuing with their plans and preparations for war in the face of Mr Blix's reassurance that he could complete the disarmament of Iraq? Why have thousands of people died because we decided that we could override the advice of Mr Blix? Why, now, do we see the facts unrolling every day to support the arguments of Mr Blix? This last is one of the most important questions of all.
  I turn finally to the issue of the inquiries. The second inquiry has already been announced by the Government at very short notice, the so-called Butler inquiry. Again, the noble Lord, Lord King, and others have raised the question of how wide the remit can go. The Liberal Democrats are not interested in sniping from the sidelines, they are interested in getting a full study of the use and presentation of intelligence, and they are interested in looking, as did the Franks report, at the judgments made by politicians in going to war. That is the most significant decision that any politician in any country can make—above all, in a democracy.
  It is quite clear that the remit does not cover that. My right honourable friend and Leader of the Liberal Democrats in another place, Charles Kennedy, asked specifically whether it might, and was informed that it would not cover that set of issues. I am afraid that will mean that once again, as with the Hutton inquiry, the public will greet it with scepticism and cynicism, will dismiss it, perhaps quite unfairly, as a whitewash job, and we will be back to yet another series of inquiries.

  699
  Sooner or later—and I say this with respect for the Prime Minister because I think he believed in what he was doing; perhaps too much—he will not be able to avoid the essential questions: why did we go to war? On what basis did we go to war? How can we possibly justify having done so?
  Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, and in light of her recognition that Mr Gilligan made a serious error in his 6.07 a.m. broadcast, does she agree that, despite the vilification of Mr Alastair Campbell, he was wholly justified in seeking an immediate retraction from the BBC and that it is regrettable that the BBC did not immediately give it?
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I shall answer that in two ways. First, I agree that the 6.07 a.m. broadcast made on "Today" certainly went beyond what was justified. We have already said that. I think that the subsequent broadcasts were corrected. It is right for the BBC to apologise. However, my point is that the disproportionate punishment of the BBC in compari son with the punishment of other people who got their facts wrong is very hard to justify.
  4.10 p.m.
  Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I must begin by saying that I find the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, to be meticulous in its detail, judicial in its weighing of the facts and excellent in its conclusions, with all of which I, as a layman, who very carefully observed the inquiry's progress, find myself in complete agreement.
  I have to say that I have found some of the comments made in the media and elsewhere about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, quite outrageous. People who comment that it is a pity that he could not find something negative to say about the Government completely miss the point that right is right and wrong is wrong and that sometimes, even in journalism and even in politics, things are indeed black and white. Perhaps it takes a judge to have the courage both to perceive and to say that.
  The most surprising thing for me about the BBC's reaction is that it was surprised. How could it be? Although maybe I should have expected it. At some stage before the Gilligan story of 29 May, I was with a group of Labour Peers at a working meal with some BBC governors and officials. I and some others expressed our criticism of the way in which the BBC was dealing with the Iraq war. I was astounded at the smug complacency and lofty dismissal of all criticisms. The mantra of "We have to cover all sides" was mechanically trotted out, although it was not an answer to our specific complaints. For me, the final straw was, on leaving, to be told, patronisingly, that what we had said was just what they would have expected from government parliamentarians; in other words, our comments had gone in one ear and out the other and they were sure that they were doing a great job.
  700
  I think we are all in danger of forgetting the electrifying effect, on the morning of 29 May, of that "Today" programme. As someone who shot bolt upright in her bed, I well remember it. I have to say that I do not consider this a one off, stand alone happening. I believe that long before 29 May there was in parts of the BBC an anti-war agenda. They adopted the anti-war movement from the first demonstrations and continued in the lead-up to, during and after the armed conflict. So it was on very fertile ground that the lies which were the Gilligan story of 29 May fell.
  It is nonsense to try to present this as one slip in a seven minutes past six broadcast. As an aside, I would point out that it does not seem to me to matter what time of the day or night you lie on the BBC—a lie is a lie is a lie. But this was not just one little slip; the whole story was lies—a lie that the Government knowingly inserted a wrong report; a lie that the intelligence report was not in earlier because the intelligence services were unhappy as it was from a single source. It was not in earlier than the 5 September draft because the intelligence report had only been received by SIS on 29 August, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, states.
  And it was not just at seven minutes past six—the story was seized upon by the "Today" programme presenters, and other journalists, who ran with it enthusiastically and embellished the lies. I quote John Humphreys at 7.32, from the transcript of the Hutton report:
  "Now our defence correspondent, Andrew Gilligan, has found evidence that the government's dossier on Iraq that was produced last September was cobbled together at the last minute with some unconfirmed material that had not been approved by the security services".
  Every single bit of that last statement from the pejorative word "cobbled" is wrong.
  Then, at 10 to eight that morning, Mr Gilligan, repeating all his earlier inaccuracies, referred to,
  "what my intelligence source says".
  He knew David Kelly was not an intelligence source. As David Kelly himself told Susan Watts:
  "You have to remember I am not part of the intelligence community. I am a user of intelligence".
  That is also in the Hutton report.
  I have been, all my life, a defender of the BBC; I still defend the independence of the BBC; and I am a passionate admirer and supporter of the World Service and of Caversham. I am delighted that the excellent Mark Byford is the acting head of his beloved BBC in this turbulent time for it. I have to say that his statement, along with that of the noble Lord, Lord Ryder—whose maiden speech we all look forward to—gave the BBC back its dignity in response to the Hutton report which the so-called apology from the outgoing DG and the resignation statement from the chair of governors so spectacularly lacked.
  I understand that the outgoing DG commented that Alastair Campbell had not been gracious. I found him dignified in the reaction to his vindication in the report. All I can say is that I have rarely seen anything so lacking in grace as the outgoing DG's attempt at an apology.

  701
  I should like now to turn to the part of the report which deals with intelligence and the JIC, with which I had some experience in my some 22 years of government service. Much was made in the press during the inquiry about the disquiet that some members of staff in DIS had about assessments. This issue has raised its head again today and has been referred to comprehensively by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
  I think it is important to know that the JIC process—a structure, incidentally, which is greatly admired and indeed envied abroad—is very much one where assessments are thrashed out round a table, usually at ad hoc current intelligence groups, and then, once an assessment has emerged, it is up to every participating service to go back to its headquarters and brief its head. If anyone is not happy about the assessment then they brief in writing accordingly and it is up to the top person to decide on the merits or otherwise of the case. It is for that person to speak for the service or organisation at the JIC. This is the normal and usual practice. In this case, it was all done properly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, has found.
  I have to say that in my own experience—I am trying now to be diplomatic in my choice of words—it is not unusual to find some parts of the DIS in disagreement with an assessment. I cannot help also pointing out that DIS officers, however expert in their own particular fields, are not intelligence officers. I think there has been a confusion in the minds of many people about that.
  I turn to the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, that the possibility cannot be ruled out that John Scarlett and other members of the JIC may have been subconsciously influenced by knowing that the PM wanted to have a dossier worded as strongly as possible. When I sat round Cabinet Office tables contributing to assessments for the Prime Minister and No. 10, I was, I think, always very well aware of what the then Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, felt about issues— one could hardly fail to be so—and what she would have wanted to hear. But I know that I and my contemporaries put forward to her what we considered true and accurate. I do not think that she would have wanted it otherwise—and nor would my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I am confident that my subconscious was resistant to her influence and, as I know rather well several of the people who currently sit around the JIC table, I am certain that their subconscious is every bit as robust as mine.
  I should like to conclude with some words about John Scarlett, a man I have known for a considerable number of years and have admired for his professional achievements as well as for his outstanding integrity, his intellectual honesty and his decency. I have been outraged by the misconceived attacks on him by various parts of the media. I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, has concluded that the scurrilous charges against him and attacks on his probity are unfounded.
  702
  Finally, fine government servants as well as members of the Government and staff at No. 10 were grossly traduced in lies which went round the world, and I, for one, am immensely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, for painstakingly investigating the charges and finding them unfounded.
  4.20 p.m.
  Lord Ryder of Wensum: My Lords, I declare interests as a former chairman of a regional radio company and as the paid acting chairman of the BBC. I would like to thank all the present and former officers and officials of the Palace of Westminster for showing nothing but great personal kindness to me during my 29 years here and, in particular, those members of the palace staff who gave such outstanding support during my five years as Government Chief Whip in another place.
  The departures of Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke are sad losses for the BBC. Mr Davies is an outstanding public servant with supreme integrity and a deep affection for the institution. Mr Dyke is an inspirational leader and his charisma reached every corner of the BBC. It was necessary for the corporation to apologise for the BBC errors highlighted in the Hutton report. Most of the mistakes were, of course, conceded during the inquiry itself. Mr Davies accepted ultimate responsibility by resigning as chairman of the board. Mr Dyke also offered his resignation to the governors and the board accepted it. As Mr Dyke said himself, in his e-mail to BBC staff last Thursday:
  "I've sadly come to the conclusion that it will be hard to draw a line under this whole affair while I am still here. We need closure".
  Now the BBC must set its eyes on the future in the public interest. Mark Byford has taken on the role of acting director-general. He has the total support of the governors and the executive. Mr Byford has worked for the BBC for 24 years. He is steeped in public service values and commands wide respect inside and outside the organisation. He has shown formidable skills as head of the World Service and is a strong, proven leader.
  Mr Byford has stressed that his role is to provide collective leadership with the executive to ensure that the BBC emerges from this difficult time a strong, independent and vibrant organisation, building on the legacy of Mr Davies and Mr Dyke. Mr Byford will undertake a review of the lessons the BBC must learn from the past few months, including how the corporation investigates and corrects editorial mistakes. Impartiality, accuracy and trust have always been core BBC values designed to serve the public. Brave, independent and rigorous journalism will be maintained under Mr Byford's leadership. This includes investigative reporting set within robust editorial frameworks. The board will never interfere with this work and nor shall I, while acting chairman, allow any external body to interfere with the BBC's crucial independence.
  The BBC is experiencing a busier time than ever. Over the next few months it faces the Graf review of online services, the Ofcom review of public service television, the DCMS review of digital services and, of

  703
  course, the charter review process. The BBC's major document on charter review was due to be published in March. It has been agreed to postpone publication until soon after a new chairman and permanent director-general can take personal ownership of it.
  The DCMS has assured me that the vacant chairmanship will be filled by the middle of April. I am not a candidate and intend to keep the department to this timetable. The advertisement for the job will appear in Sunday's newspapers. Meanwhile, the governors, solely responsible for the appointment of the director-general, will invite applications. A short list will be drawn up and a final choice made soon after the new chairman assumes office.
  I have always believed that the BBC's prime purpose is to enrich people's lives with programmes and services which inform, educate and entertain. This is done in the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, as well as throughout the world.
  Recent turbulence has been borne with true professionalism by the 29,000 people working for the BBC. They are devoted to a great institution which exists to serve the public. In particular, I want to pay a tribute to journalists for upholding the highest standards of objectivity when covering the outcome of the Hutton report. I venture to suggest that no other news organisation in the world could have achieved such balance in reporting itself in the eye of a storm.
  I believe that the BBC must remain as an independent organisation that serves the public above all else. I believe that the vast majority of the British people are proud of the values and traditions of the BBC. It is their BBC. And let no one forget, it belongs only to them.
  4.27 p.m.
  Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I never expected that it would be my experience to have to congratulate a former Conservative Government Chief Whip on making his maiden speech, having crossed the Floor of the House. But, I hasten to point out that there is no suggestion of defection. I am sure the whole House will believe that it was absolutely right that the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, should speak from the Cross Benches in his new capacity as acting chairman of the BBC. The whole House will also have been pleased that he did not feel inhibited by any suggestion that he should speak in a non-controversial way, in discharging the clear responsibility that he now holds to speak for that great organisation and national pride that is the BBC—and for its voice to be heard.
  One of the more boring remarks made in this House over issues of reform concerns whether there is any value in having Members who can speak with real authority and experience. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, whose maiden speech was well worth waiting for since 1997, has underlined that perhaps more controversial point. We very much look forward to hearing him again.
  I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, not particularly for the hours I spent over the past weekend trying to read his report, but for
  704
  reminding me of what today's debate was all about. The report marks an extraordinary event. When the dust has finally settled, I commend to every noble Lord, contrary to the comments of the Lord Chancellor, the reading of an outstanding article by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, on Monday. It is a tribute to his experience that even when he had only half read the report he had a pretty good idea. When he had fully read it, the comments he then made bore out his earlier comments on the matter. I was certainly impressed by what he said.
  I tried to understand how on earth we have reached this situation. On the first symptom, I share the view of the governor of the BBC reported in the Hutton report. The "Today" programme has become one of extraordinary political significance. It is a battleground of political ideas and attempts at spin and control. Recently, as the director said in his evidence, it has come into the business of creating rather than reporting news. There were elements of tabloid and Sunday journalism in which it appeared to be avoiding contacting people who might deny its story. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, and his colleagues that that has been one of my concerns.
  When I read that Kevin Marsh had said that the BBC had recruited Mr Gilligan so that he might get up the nose of the Government, I was not sure that that was what Lord Reith originally had in mind in his concept of the BBC. That attitude—it is valid criticism of the BBC because obviously Mr Gilligan got part of his story wrong—ran headlong into a Government absolutely determined, as no government before, to control and dominate the media in every possible way. That comes out clearly in the blizzard of e-mails to which the BBC was subjected.
  That happened not least because these incidents took place at a time of huge government sensitivity about the war—about its origins and the validity of the intelligence. That combination of events led to the extraordinary diversion and to the tragedy of Dr David Kelly's death. It was a diversion from the main issue that is now to be further pursued. I believe that there are valid criticisms to be made of the BBC and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, and his colleagues will be anxious to ensure that those lessons are learnt.
  I turn to the other part of the Hutton report that concerns me. I was impressed by Air Marshal Walker, a former deputy chairman of the JIC, speaking on the "Today" programme. His experience—and it is certainly mine as chairman of the ISC for seven years—is that the JIC has never before been used for a public relations exercise of this kind. I recognise the interpretation of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, of the meaning of "sexing up". Clearly, in my judgment, that document was sexed up. It was not sexed up in the context put by Mr Gilligan, but it was sexed up.
  I am sure that one of the lessons learnt will be the importance of getting the fullest evidence possible. My former committee, the ISC, examined the issue and established that there were no political pressures on the JIC for the production of that document. The ISC

  705
  merely took evidence and never had access to the e-mails. Once one has read the e-mails that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, had opened up—they were subsequently referred to as "a can of worms"— one can see the amount of political pressure that was exerted.
  I believe that Mr Scarlett, an outstanding public servant for whom I have the highest regard, was put in an impossible position. I understand the expression "subconsciously" used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, but it would have been impossible for Mr Scarlett to do that job knowing that he was under prime ministerial instruction to produce the strongest document possible within the bounds of the intelligence available without being influenced in that respect. With the experience I have in that field, I can draw no other conclusion.
  I turn to the naming of Dr Kelly. As a former Secretary of State for Defence, I was extremely unhappy about the way in which it was done. I agree with Alastair Campbell's evidence to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, that with hindsight his name should have been concealed or it should have been announced having given Dr Kelly clear warning of that so that arrangements could be made for him. The idea of a "Twenty Questions" exercise to see whether the media guessed the right name was most regrettable.
  I read the Hutton report—I need to read it again but I do not have time—and I could not discover who gave authority for the naming. I may have missed it. Of course the question and answer document was the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, but within that was one key policy decision: whether to release his name. I have not discovered the source of that. Whether it was taken by Sir Kevin Tebbit, who showed the question and answer document to Secretary of State Geoff Hoon, I cannot say because I cannot find out who took it, but the Prime Minister authorised it in principle by everyone recognising, "We will announce that we have a source and it is inevitable that the name will come out". That was not a glorious decision.
  The Chief Whip will note that I had one minute to acknowledge the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, so perhaps I may claim injury time in order to ask where we go now. I cannot understand why the Government have got into such a hopeless muddle over the new committee. I cannot understand why there has been a huge rush to set it up. One can announce that there will be an inquiry, but I understand that now we have four unexpected Privy Counsellors. No one expected that they would have to be appointed to the Privy Council because people had not had time to work out who was or was not a Privy Counsellor. That is indicative of the confusion.
  The terms of reference are obviously most important. Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who is a member of the Cabinet: what do the Government intend those terms of reference should be? I hope that in responding to the debate he will have a good, clear government answer to that question. I shall press on my colleagues the
  706
  question of the continuing participation of the Conservative Party in the inquiry if we cannot be clear about the agreement we have reached. It was spelt out most clearly by Michael Howard on television, and if that is not to be honoured in an attempt to divert the committee, who are splendid people in their own right, from what we understood the terms of reference to be, that would be most unsatisfactory.
  I want to make a final point and I apologise for the time. Out of this difficult issue, the aim of the work of the new committee must be to ensure that in future we have the best possible intelligence and that the best possible and wisest use of intelligence is made by government in pursuit of their policies. The Prime Minister was most evangelistic in the House today about the importance of America and Britain being a force for good in the world and making their contribution in difficult circumstances to try to make the world a safer, fairer and more just place. In those circumstances, if we are to enter all sorts of situations and regions, it is absolutely essential that we have the best possible intelligence and take the wisest decisions we can before we send our forces into what may be dangerous situations. That is the objective of the inquiry and I hope that, following on from the lessons learnt from the Hutton inquiry, the new committee can have clear terms of reference to ensure that we achieve that objective.
  4.38 p.m.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, one sets up committees of inquiry for a number of purposes. The first is to hold a government to account and the second, but equally important, is to attempt to re-establish public confidence. It is evident from the public reaction to the Hutton report that it has failed to re-establish public confidence. That is partly because its terms were set narrowly and the noble and learned Lord's interpretation of those terms was itself extremely narrow. Now we have a new inquiry whose terms are also set extremely narrowly. We now understand that the exact narrowness of those terms is not yet fully agreed between the Conservative Party and the Government.
  Those are the reasons why my party rightly refused to participate in the inquiry. Perhaps the House will allow me to quote from the last Liberal government's terms of inquiry over British operations in Iraq. They were:
  "to inquire into the origins, inception and conduct of operations of war"
  in Mesopotamia in August 1916. "The origins and inception" are rather broader terms. We have gone backwards in our attitude towards committees of inquiry.
  The underlying question, as a number of speakers have already said, is what was the case for war? How strong was the evidence for weapons of mass destruction? What were the other underlying motivations?
  There were many other American motivations, explicitly stated in Washington in the year that preceded the intervention: clearly, in the neo-conservative Right, to remake the Middle East,

  707
  through forcing changes of regime in Iraq and Iran, so removing the main perceived threats to Israel and to America's dominant position in what the Americans call the "Greater Middle East Region"; regime change in Iraq, partly to complete the job not completed in 1991 by the Administration of the first President Bush—to which many of those pushing for regime change in 2002 had belonged; in Iran, to restore the prestige the United States had lost in the Iranian revolution and in the failed attempt to rescue American hostages after the revolution.
  I recall that there was an active argument in Washington think tanks, and on the op-ed pages, about whether it was correct for the United States to attack Iraq or Iran first. There was a clear belief on the American Right that the Iranian and Iraqi regimes were the main supporters of Palestinian terrorism, of Hezbollah and Hamas, and that their removal would thus lead to Palestinian acceptance of Israeli terms for a settlement. It was stated in many publications in Washington at the time, and by Henry Kissinger, that:
  "The road to Jerusalem lies through Baghdad'.
  It is a deeply flawed analysis of Middle Eastern politics, but it was one that gained the status of conventional wisdom on the Right of Washington foreign policy discussions between September 11,2001 and the invasion of Iraq.
  It was a drive from the Right to force regime change in those two countries that predated the September 11 attacks. Those attacks, and the successful intervention in Afghanistan that followed, provided the impetus for linking global terrorism with Palestinian terrorism and Saddam Hussein with Al'Qaeda, which noble Lords will recall that the Right attempted to do, to make a plausible case for war.
  Our Prime Minister did not share that analysis. I hope that he was well informed about the mixed motivations in Washington that drove their case for war; if he was not, then there were weaknesses at the heart of the British Government. He clearly believed that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime was a threat to peace, to the region and to the world, but it is clear that neither he nor the rest of the British Government shared American perceptions of Iran. It is also clear that many others within the British Government, including the Foreign Secretary, did not share his deeply-held personal conviction, just as there were those within the Bush Administration, notably Colin Powell, who did not share the convictions of the leaders of the Pentagon.
  So the Prime Minister had to rest the case for war far more on weapons of mass destruction than his American allies did in order to persuade a more sceptical British Parliament and public. Clearly, that is where Downing Street came unstuck. It had to make uncertain evidence carry more weight than it was capable of bearing. The charge is that the Government stretched the evidence, that it massaged the evidence. On the evidence of the Hutton inquiry, although not in its conclusions, that charge is made.
  In his opening speech the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made some rather ungracious references to these Benches, which I felt were close to
  708
  unacceptable in this Chamber. The Prime Minister, in his speech on 13 March last year, referred to the Liberal Democrats as,
  "unified … in opportunism and error".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/03; col. 761.]
  It has been an uncomfortable period for us in the run up to war. We were not convinced that the evidence was conclusive; we felt that the Government were putting the worst case evidence in each dossier they produced. I remember a 167-page dossier that, we were told, had conclusive evidence on page 91 that the Iraqi regime still had anthrax. I read that page very carefully. The discussion was about whether the Iraqis had stopped producing anthrax in 1990 or in 1991. and whether under ideal, laboratory conditions, they might have managed to keep some of that anthrax active for another 10 to 12 years. In the presentation that was produced as evidence that they must still have anthrax. Not surprisingly, we on these Benches were not entirely persuaded.
  What were the other reasons for going to war alongside the Bush Administration? First, to maintain the closeness of the special relationship, to preserve Britain's claimed position as the bridge between the United States and Europe. Secondly, to gain concessions from the Bush Administration, in return for our support on their approach to war.
  It is clear that these hoped-for concessions were: first, legitimation, through the United Nations, in the approach to war; secondly, a constructive and well-planned approach to post-conflict reconstruction, within a multilateral framework, with a vital role for the UN. President Bush repeated the term "vital role" eight times in his press conference after the Belfast bilateral summit; and, thirdly, a parallel commitment to revive the Middle East peace process through the road map. A Government resolution on March 18 last year includes the statement that the other place:
  "also welcomes the imminent publication of the Quartet's road map as a significant step to bringing a just and lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and for the wider Middle East region, and endorses the role of Her Majesty's Government in actively working for peace between Israel and Palestine".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/03; col. 760.]
  We have gained none of those concessions.
  The failure to achieve the aims that Her Majesty's Government hoped to gain through following America's lead, and accepting America's case for war, raises wider questions, far wider than those that the Hutton inquiry or the Butler inquiry are allowed to address within their terms of reference: questions about the strategy of the Bush Administration to Palestine and the Likud Government; questions about the transatlantic special relationship; questions about intelligence co-operation; questions about the renewal of the US/UK agreement on intelligence co-operation; and, indeed, questions about the future of NATO. There is an excellent article in today's Herald Tribune by a leading American that says that it is time for the Americans to reconsider the future of NATO.
  There are some broad and difficult issues here that go to the heart of British foreign policy: the value of the special relationship; the Government's attempt to

  709
  balance between the United States and continental Europe; the terms of British intelligence co-operation with the United States. An inquiry into the origins and inception of Her Majesty's Government's approach to war with Iraq would touch on these issues. Neither Hutton, nor Butler, with their narrowly drawn terms of reference, will do so.
  4.48 p.m.
  Lord Birt: My Lords, I should say at the outset that I am currently the Prime Minister's strategy adviser, on a part-time basis. However, I speak today above all as someone who worked at the BBC for 13 years, and who is deeply troubled to see an institution I so revere suffer the worst setback in its history. I am reassured that the noble Lord, Lord Ryder of Wensum, who is a deeply thoughtful and conscientious person and who I have long known, is holding the reins at this difficult time.
  At the root of this crisis was a slipshod piece of journalism. Let us be clear: it was not "mostly right". The central thrust of the story was unfounded. But let us also be clear: the subject of the reporter's inquiry, the Government's dossier, was entirely legitimate. It was the treatment of the story that was deeply unsatisfactory. Faced with a tip-off on a contentious matter, experienced journalists test their sources rigorously. They proceed with watchful scepticism, scrutinising the emerging information from every angle. Through further inquiry, they build up their knowledge. They put the allegations to those involved. Painstakingly, they build up the fullest possible picture.
  Had all that happened in this instance, and had an accurate, fair and contextualised story resulted, it would manifestly have been in the public interest. One reason why this did not happen is that the programme itself failed to exercise due editorial scrutiny over its reporter. Moreover, when grave allegations are to be made—and especially when there is a risk of libel—the programme's senior editorial staff need to bring into play the organisation's best editorial and legal minds. That did not happen either.
  All organisations make mistakes. But the BBC was damaged in this instance above all by its failure to respond properly after the story was broadcast. When the coverage was challenged, it should have been rigorously investigated by BBC executives. But— transfixed as they were by outside attack—they did not. Rather, we had blind defence and sophistry. We heard the story being supported on the grounds that it was sufficient to report a source, provided that the source was reported accurately, whether or not the story was true.
  Indeed, the word most missing during this saga was "truth". Absolute truth in journalism or in any other sphere may be unattainable, but we can all recognise journalism that is honestly engaged in the pursuit of truth—journalism that is rigorous, fair-minded and questioning; journalism that is committed to getting it right.
  710
  When the governors finally became involved, they focused on a key principle—the independence of the BBC. They were right to do so, for the independence of the BBC—we will all agree—is sacred. It has been fought for by boards and directors-general since John Reith successfully resisted Churchill's demand for the government to take over the corporation in the general strike. Of course the BBC must be willing to stand up to the powerful. Of course it must investigate and reveal. But the governors' failure—under fire— was not to focus at the same time on another, equally vital, principle: the need to safeguard the integrity of the BBC's journalism, to try to discover whether the story complained of was actually true.
  Last week, the governors finally did act. But they took far too long to exert a grip as the crisis rumbled on. They failed for too long to act as the BBC's regulators—and, in the process, they have brought into question the institution's 1920s system of governance.
  The story in question in the form it took was at odds with the corporation's own high and stated standards—the standards that history has set it. It should not have happened, and it should not have been defended. From top to bottom a series of grievous errors was made. And it is those errors that damaged the BBC.
  The BBC can and, no doubt, will pick its way out of this dreadful imbroglio. But it can do so only by truly coming to terms with—facing up to—what really happened. For some within—still in denial; understandably shocked, bewildered and confused by the crisis—that will be difficult. But I assure your Lordships that throughout the BBC, at every level, there are many who do appreciate the significance of what occurred, who are deeply committed to journalism of the highest standard.
  The powerful "Panorama", put out in the week before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton reported, is one testament to that. It is on the firm foundation of its own best people that the BBC can re-stake its claim to offer journalism of challenge and integrity; can embrace the rigour that goes hand-in-hand with robustness.
  Your Lordships' support will be needed, too. The BBC has taken tumbles throughout its history. The institution can be infuriating, even for those of us who have led it! But at its best, the BBC has offered a vital, democracy-enhancing national debating chamber, unique in the world. It has nourished our lively, creative, national culture. It has given space to Britain's most innovative talents to express themselves—and, in the process, to engage, stimulate and entertain us. It has extended all our horizons, delving into our history, opening our eyes to the wonders of the arts and science and nature.
  The task of the coming months is to rebuild the BBC's confidence, health and strength; to encourage this great institution—of which the noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Ryder, spoke—to pursue its highest purposes: to restore and revitalise its historic commitment to public service.
  4.55 p.m.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, the speech just made by the

  711
  noble Lord, Lord Birt, is one of the best I have heard in this Chamber in a long time. I also welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ryder. He also put in context what the BBC has to do from now on. I shall come to the BBC later in my remarks.
  It is very difficult to have a debate on the Hutton report because the report is very difficult to debate: it considers a lot of evidence and arrives at conclusions. There is not much to be said about it. So we are having a debate on everything else, such as why the Government went to war. However, that is not what the Hutton report is about. What will the new intelligence committee say to us? That is not what the debate is about either. We are going round in circles trying to find anything other than the Hutton report to entertain ourselves this afternoon. It reminds me of what Macaulay said about the English nation in a mood of hysteria.
  Dr Kelly's death was tragic. As far as I could detect at the time and from subsequent evidence, Dr Kelly was shopped by Andrew Gilligan to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee as Susan Watts' source. What he said at seven minutes past six o'clock on 29 May does not worry me in the slightest; it is a worrisome matter but the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has dealt with it. Dr Kelly may have thought, "I could not have been the only source; he might have other sources". However, Mr Gilligan shopped his witness. When Dr Kelly realised that, he responded as anyone would when told that he was the source of a story. He felt exposed and humiliated. In my view, that is why he committed suicide. That is the core of the story. As in the old working class meal, around that little bit of meat are many layers of flour, suet and other nice fattening things. They are very nice to eat but not very meaty.
  If one concedes that that is the story, and if Dr Kelly had not committed suicide, then everything else we have been discussing—about sexing up, not sexing up, who said what to who and when—would not matter. Imagine a scenario in which he had not committed suicide but had perhaps been reprimanded. There would have been no inquiry. There would have been nothing about which to inquire. There would have been no need to release 9,000 pages of evidence. I should add that I am glad that they have been released as it has been an exercise in open government.
  When someone commits suicide, all the evidence has to be examined. The central problem is that behaviour and comments which seemed ordinary before the suicide start to look sinister after it. Quite naturally, finding a patch of ground on which he was in the right, Alastair Campbell carried on fighting. Spin doctors do not often find themselves in the right, but when they do, they fight. I do not blame him for that; this is a political game. Had this man not committed suicide all of that would have been a completely ordinary matter of daily politics to which we gave no further thought.
  So the Hutton report is about the death of one person and not about the Prime Minister. Quite a lot of people wanted a one-page report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, that started by saying, "The Prime Minister was guilty of taking the nation to
  712
  war on dubious grounds—period". The Independent, the Guardian and everyone would have been very happy, and no doubt cheering from the rafters. However, I do not think that we have a constitution in which a judge can dismiss a Prime Minister. We have a constitution in which Parliament has to decide such matters.
  Even if my right honourable friend had been in the wrong, and even if the noble and learned Lord had said so—we would have had a very different debate in that case; we would all have been talking about the noble and learned Lord, not about a thousand other matters—it would not have been right on that ground alone for the Prime Minister to resign. Prime Ministers resign when they lose the confidence of Parliament. That is the constitution; that is the way in which we do things.
  There is a problem, because people are demanding committee after committee and commission after commission. There is the Hutton report; there will be the Butler report. When the Butler report comes out and is debated, people will be disappointed. I tell noble Lords that now. I told people before the Hutton report, "You will be disappointed by it". Once again, people expect the noble Lord, Lord Butler, to say, "The Prime Minister is guilty because he took the country to war on dubious grounds". That is not what the noble Lord has been asked to do, but it is exactly what people expect.
  All the people who praised the integrity of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, before he published the report turned round and found all sorts of things wrong with him afterwards, only because he had not told them what they wanted to hear. If people want such a report, why do they not publish it themselves? The Liberal Democrats can publish their own report, have their own judge or many judges, and tell the judges, "Write this report". That would be very nice. Every party can have a report, and we can all be happy ever after. However, the report that we have on hand is not about why we went to war. It is about Kelly and it is absolutely clear that, so far as that question is concerned, the blame all lies on one side.
  As my noble friend Lady Ramsay said, sometimes the blame cannot be distributed equally all around. Sometimes one has to say yea or nay. If, instead of what the noble and learned Lord wrote, he had said that the BBC was innocent and the Government were to blame, not one person would have minded. A government who have been in power for seven years become unpopular. When one is in government, one is not there to be loved—one is there to govern. Not being loved should not be a problem. However, there is hysteria abroad that suggests that we resign despite the lack of evidence, as it were.
  I therefore think that people should wait either until they get a 15th or 16th commission to report what they want it to report, or for the verdict of history about who and what was the story behind our going to war in Iraq. Incidentally, I supported the Government's stance and have seen nothing to change my view on that.

  713
  I want to make one comment about the BBC. I must say that I feel slightly like a foreigner. Excellent though the BBC is, I really think that we make too much fuss about it. When the BBC was a great independent institution, it was because the elite was a single, small elite of white men who had all gone to one of two public schools and one of two universities. That is why it was so solid. We now live in a society with multiple elites. We have lots of genuine differences. We cannot go on having the idea that there should be one great cultural institution that is hegemonic, culturally, so that it reflects the ideals of Lord Reith. Every time I hear his name I want to do something violent, but I shall not.
  There is a problem. The BBC is financed by a regressive tax. I would like someone to find a way of financing the BBC by a progressive tax, not a regressive tax. I would like to see the BBC protected for its journalism and its arts, but not for its entertainment. I do not see why I have to pay for BBC entertainment at all. It can go out and compete. We need to think about the BBC; it may be the wrong time to do so, because as soon as one says anything about it people think one is attacking its independence.
  Andrew Gilligan was not the BBC. The "Today" programme was not the BBC. The BBC should calm down. It should have done what the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said. Now that it has not done it, it should not take this crisis and make it into a tragedy for itself.
  5.5 p.m.
  Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I listened with great interest as always to my noble friend Lord Desai, and especially to his final remarks about the BBC. I do not actually know whether Lord Reith went to one of those famous public schools; I had always rather hoped that he went to Glasgow University. I am not sure that he did, but he should have done.
  What is notable about the responses to the Hutton report is that they are mainly based on the opinions or prejudices that the commentators and reporters had before the inquiry began. The report did not change those at all. I should therefore like to put my own prejudices on record; they have not changed either. I am not new Labour, as older Members of the House will know, but I have no objection to the Prime Minister, wish him no harm and support him whenever I can. More importantly, I supported the war and still do.
  My reasons for supporting the war have nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or weapons of any kind, nor with any of the numerous reasons recited by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. They are quite simple and rely on Iraq's disdain for numerous UN resolutions over a considerable period, and the UN's failure to deal with that. In that respect, the UN came more and more to remind me of the League of Nations, which some noble Lords might remember. It failed in its duty to insist on the resolutions that it passed.
  I do not need to recite those resolutions, as they were set out in two very notable speeches last year by my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. She was right
  714
  then and is still right now. I support her entirely. I have known her for 40 years, since I was in the other place and she was a figure in the Foreign Office. We were often joined by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in those days; I am sure that he is still as favourably inclined towards her as he was then.
  The problem arose from Gilligan's assertion that the Government had inserted certain information, knowing it to be wrong. It would be hard to think of anything more serious to allege. Gilligan excuses himself by saying that most of his report was true. That might be right, although the noble Lord, Lord Birt, did not seem to agree with that. The claim was deftly dismissed by Michael Gove in the Times yesterday, who said that if he asserted that:
  "Greg Dyke was a charming, original, talented tax-dodger that would be mostly true",
  but that the last word would be a gross libel. Gilligan's assertion falls into a somewhat similar place.
  I now turn to the general picture of the journalism of Gilligan. I have been a member of the National Union of Journalists for 30 years plus, not in the glow and glamour of Fleet Street, but in the business and professional press where we try to tell the truth whenever we can. The NUJ has a code of conduct; one might say that it is an ethical code. I think that the president of the NUJ should send Gilligan a copy of the code, as he does not appear to follow it very closely. That goes to the centre of the issue. A good deal has been spoken of the probity and brilliance of BBC journalism but, like my noble friend Lord Desai, I am slightly sceptical about it. I shall not go into that now.
  I turn to Dr Kelly and to what is known as the duty of care that the MoD owed to him or is said to have owed to him. Having in my day been both an employee and an employer, I am not sure what "duty of care" means. A good employer safeguards the welfare of his employees as best as he can, but that does not mean that the employee is necessarily entitled to be totally protected should he stray from the path of righteousness. That is an absurd contention, and yet it has been contended throughout the whole event.
  If the MoD owed Dr Kelly a duty of care, Dr Kelly also owed a duty of care to his employer. He failed in that and his name was rightly released to the public. Whether the mechanism by which it was released was right or wrong is immaterial. I would have preferred the MoD just to name him, to have come straight out with it, without using a questionnaire approach. Dr Kelly failed in his duty of care to his employer and the result was tragic for him and for his family, but in that respect he was the author of his own misfortune. I do not like to say that, but that is the case.
  I have a general point to make on the media. Like the trade unions, the media have become over-powerful and over-mighty. The trade unions were dealt with in the 1980s and I supported the government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in doing that, although I sat on the Opposition Benches at the time. For some time the media—originally the press—were referred to by a nickname, the fourth estate. That was all right as long as it was a nickname, but in recent years the media have

  715
  come to believe it and that is where they have gone wrong. The media believe that they have the right to overturn governments, to harass and possibly to overturn Ministers, and to create on the "Today" programme the political agenda for the day—whatever happens to suit them—and that is wrong.
  I conclude by reminding the House of a matter that has continued throughout the war and the Hutton inquiry. The attitude of the press towards the Government and the Prime Minister reminded me of a phrase, which older Members will remember, used by Aneurin Bevan in the late 1940s: he referred to an attitude of the press as the "drip, drip, drip of denigration". That is still going on and it is high time it stopped.
  5.14 p.m.
  Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, in the increasingly bitter war of words that has been waged between the Government and the media since the publication of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, sadly the forgotten man has been Dr David Kelly. That is why I believe we are very grateful to my noble friend Lord Waddington for his very powerful speech, given his knowledge of the family.
  I recognise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, decided that he did not need to make any recommendations. The basis for that belief, in paragraph 472 of the report, is that he had no doubt that,
  "the BBC and the Government will take note of the criticisms which I have made in this report".
  As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde pointed out last Wednesday, to hear the Government one would think that virtually no criticisms had been made. I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde when he said that the Prime Minister believes,
  "that the Government have nothing to apologise for and that he proposes no action to change the culture in his Government to avoid what happened to Dr Kelly ever happening again".— [Official Report, 28/1/04; col. 214.]
  He asked the Government, and indeed the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the Government, to apologise fully and unreservedly to Dr Kelly and his family. The noble and learned Lord took great offence to that. He called it irresponsible, distressing and disappointing. I have to disagree with him completely.
  I should like to focus on one point, in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, to ensure that lessons have been learned and that any similar situation will be avoided in the future. We owe it to the family and friends of the late Dr David Kelly to ensure that the agony that he suffered will never be repeated. The report coincides with the introduction of the Executive Powers and Civil Service Bill. Therefore, this is an appropriate moment to reflect on what went wrong, as revealed in the pages of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton.
  In this country we benefit enormously from the impartiality, the independence, the integrity and the objectivity of each and every civil servant. I have said that on many previous occasions and I have had
  716
  personal experience of it as a Minister. There is an urgent need for very clear guidelines to be set out on where civil servants have access to the media. There is no room for any grey areas. I welcome the steps referred to by the Lord Chancellor at the start of the debate, but I believe that we have to go much further.
  My recollection is that when I was a Minister my senior civil servants, with my full confidence and that of my colleagues, enjoyed access to leading specialist correspondents and to Lobby correspondents. That access was always undertaken under very tight conditions, assisted by a highly professional attitude on the part of information officers. But of course we now have a Government in which "spin" is a clean word. Against that background of spin, I believe that the guidelines have become seriously flawed. The general atmosphere of spin, spin, spin has confused the situation and, therefore, we must ensure that the code of conduct for civil servants envisaged under Clause 13 of the Bill places the situation beyond all reasonable doubt.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that Sir Bernard Ingham was guilty of spin as well?
  Lord Hunt of Wirral: No, my Lords. Having, on occasions since he left office, heard Sir Bernard, the noble Lord may be correct in believing that he spins a little here and there. But when he occupied that vital office of communicating on behalf of the Prime Minister, I know of no instance when he was guilty of spin.
  I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, for his expert handling of a difficult brief and inquiry, with restricted terms of reference. However, my view of the inquiry is that one of the key questions, which was never asked and was therefore never properly considered, is why Dr Kelly's version of events was ever publicised. When he wrote that letter to his immediate superiors on Monday 30 June, he could have had no idea that, by the end of the week, its contents would be in the hands of the Prime Minister, Mr Campbell and the Secretary of State for Defence, through agitated phone calls of which we have no record during the Saturday and Sunday. In that letter, he says how much he deeply regretted talking to Andrew Gilligan.
  He was seen by Dr Wells during the afternoon of Friday 4 July, together with Richard Hatfield, the personnel director. In that interview, Mr Hatfield accepted that Dr Kelly had access to the media. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, finds at paragraph 26:
  "One of Dr Kelly's roles in the course of his work was to speak to the media".
  In accepting that, Mr Hatfield told Dr David Kelly that he accepted that he had no malicious intent and that no classified material had been revealed. Mr Hatfield decided that no formal disciplinary proceedings would be initiated. He warned Dr Kelly that he would be writing to him expressing displeasure at his conduct, and that should have been an end to the matter.

  717
  Dr Kelly had volunteered valuable information. How much have we heard of the leak inquiry? The information that Dr Kelly had volunteered should, as Dr Wells pointed out, have been made available to the leak inquiry, but it bypassed it and we still do not really know why. I am sure that it was right for his permanent secretary to arrange for the information given by Dr Kelly to be made available within government, better to inform those who had to make decisions about how to handle the allegations made by Mr Gilligan. However, in the Hutton report, Sir Kevin Tebbit says that his advice, presumably to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, was that no attempt should be made to publicise what Dr Kelly had said.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is suggesting that the conversation between Dr Kelly and Mr Gilligan was authorised or unauthorised. That is unclear.
  Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, it is not unclear. I said that Mr Hatfield's conclusion was that Dr Kelly should not have done what he did but that no disciplinary action would be taken against him, and that Sir Kevin Tebbit said that it should not reach the public domain. So the Prime Minister was wrong to decide that a statement should be issued saying that an unnamed civil servant had come forward. Everyone except the Prime Minister seems to have recognised that as soon as that statement was issued, Dr Kelly's name was bound to come out. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, says that it was not a practical possibility to keep his name secret.
  When Dr Kelly received his ticking-off, he had every right to expect that he would be afforded anonymity. As far as I can see, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, never considered whether the information should have been used only to inform the leak inquiry. The decision to rush out a statement was wrong. To have exposed Dr David Kelly to intense media interest is greatly to be regretted and must never be allowed to happen to a civil servant again.
  5.23 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I propose to limit my remarks to one specific issue, which is important, although it was dismissed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. That is the potential impact of the Hutton report on freedom of the media. Some of the noble and learned Lord's comments can be read as supporting the restriction of media freedom. At paragraph 280, the noble and learned Lord said:
  "the communication by the media of information (including information obtained by investigative reporters) on matters of public interest and importance is a vital part of life in a democratic society. However the right to communicate such information is subject to the qualification (which itself exists for the benefit of a democratic society) that false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others, including politicians, should not be made by the media".
  That passage is repeated at paragraph 291.
  718
  The noble and learned Lord seems to be saying that the media must not make allegations of misconduct about issues of public importance unless they are satisfied that they can verify the truth of those allegations. If he means that—it is not wholly clear whether he does—he plainly goes too far. The media, like the Government, must not make allegations that they know or believe to be untrue, but the media— again, like the Government—should be free to make and publish allegations that they believe to be true, even if it later turns out that they are not.
  Except in a few cases, such as contempt of court, there is and should be no control by public authorities over the publication by the media of allegations of misconduct. Instead, that is a matter for the civil law of defamation. The party accused of misconduct can protect his reputation by an action in court. But media bodies that act responsibly and in good faith may be protected by the law even if they make allegations of misconduct that turn out to be untrue.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, refers to the Reynolds case and sets out extracts from it in appendix 17. That is indeed an important case; it was a libel action brought by Albert Reynolds, the former Taoiseach, against the Sunday Times, which had made serious allegations against him about the performance of his duties. That case was decided in your Lordships' House by a 3:2 majority on the actual facts, but there was broad agreement on the principle. The principle was that where, on an issue of public importance, a newspaper or broadcaster makes defamatory allegations of fact that cannot be proved to be true, in some circumstances, it is still not liable to pay damages for libel. That is the defence of qualified privilege.
  What circumstances give rise to that defence must be decided, so the House of Lords said, on a case-by-case basis, but it is summarised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, at page 202 of the official report of the Reynolds case. He said:
  "The common law does not seek to set a higher standard than that of responsible journalism".
  The extracts in appendix 17 are, I fear, selective. They are passages that concentrate on the need to protect people's reputation, but they do not include passages from the same speeches that hold that a newspaper or broadcaster may have the defence of qualified privilege even where the allegation cannot be shown to be true or is shown to be actually untrue. The passages that I have in mind are those from the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, reported at pages 202 and 204 of the official report and that from the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hobhouse, that immediately follows the extract cited in appendix 17.
  In this case, there is no libel action, but the test for the BBC is the same: was it guilty of irresponsible journalism; not, was it making allegations that have turned out to be untrue? Was it guilty of irresponsible journalism? So far as Andrew Gilligan is concerned, the answer is plainly yes, for reasons set out in the report and repeated by previous speakers.

  719
  What about Andrew Gilligan's superiors? I am sure that many of your Lordships regularly listen to the "Today" programme. It is live and unscripted, often dealing with up-to-the-minute news. Indeed, those are essential features of the programme. That system can work only if the reporters and presenters on "Today" have a good deal of freedom of action. But the BBC must be able to trust its reporters before it can give them that freedom.
  It may be that Gilligan was known to be untrustworthy before 29 May. That is the implication of the e-mail from Kevin Marsh cited at length at paragraph 284 of the report, but that was sent a month after the original broadcast and, unfortunately, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, did not investigate Gilligan's previous record as a reporter. So the case against the BBC is, shall we say, not fully proven by the report.
  The noble and learned Lord's criticisms of how the BBC handled the issue after 29 May are, I fear, clearly justified. But freedom of speech is not to be prejudiced because the BBC made mistakes. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will find an opportunity to clarify what he meant in paragraph 280 and agree that responsible reporting of matters of public importance is protected even if the alleged facts turn out to be untrue.
  Nothing can possibly be of higher importance than information on the basis of which the country has gone to war. That may be the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. The report does not suggest that Susan Watts acted improperly in broadcasting what Dr Kelly said, even though the noble and learned Lord concluded that those allegations were untrue. It is clear that Susan Watts acted entirely properly and nobody at any stage has suggested anything to the contrary.
  The noble and learned Lord cleared the Government of acting improperly in publishing a dossier, even though the allegations about Saddam's possession of chemical and biological weapons, on which the dossier was based, were in all probability wrong. It cannot be right to apply a lower standard to the Government than we apply to the media. The report must not be used to attack the freedom of the media in general, nor of the BBC in particular.
  5.31 p.m.
  Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, in contributing to this debate I intend to stand back a little from the detail of the Hutton report, important though that is for a better understanding of last year's prolonged agony over the Government's dispute with the BBC and its tragic denouement.
  For speed-readers and for those with forensic skills, the temptation to delve deep, to apportion blame and to score political points is almost irresistible. As one who does not qualify under any of these headings, I would rather try to set the events covered by the Hutton report in a wider context and to look for lessons to be learned in a somewhat broader perspective.
  There are some important questions to be examined, which go wider than the terms of reference of the report itself and indeed will now fall within the scope
  720
  of the new inquiry announced yesterday. How did all those involved in intelligence gathering and analysis— and that includes the UN's own inspectors—come to overestimate the extent of Saddam Hussein's inventories of weapons of mass destruction? And why did Saddam himself not move decisively to extract himself from the predicament in which overwhelming military force was going to be deployed against him?
  It does not seem to me to make much sense now to contest the fact that there was, last year, an overestimation of Saddam Hussein's inventories of weapons of mass destruction, which is not the same thing as saying that there was an overestimate of the danger inherent in his capacity rapidly to reconstitute his earlier programmes and thus of the continuing threat to international peace and security which he represented and of his failure to comply with mandatory Security Council resolutions.
  Why did this overestimate occur? Many of the opponents of the war have no hesitation about answering that question, because, they say, the US and the UK deliberately exaggerated the threat and misled their parliaments and people about it. But that rather ignores the fact that the UN and many of the governments who opposed the use of force in March made just the same overestimates.
  The difference between the two groups came over the correct response and its timing. Some wanted to give the inspectors more time; others thought that Saddam had had enough time to comply. There is in effect a rather simpler explanation for this overestimate than deliberate duplicity. In 1991, when UN inspectors first gained access to Iraq's WMD programmes, they found that they were far more elaborate and advanced than Western intelligence, before the 1991 war, had ever predicted. Had Saddam Hussein not been so unwise as to invade Kuwait in 1990, he would, by about 1993, have had nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. In 1995 the inspectors discovered, in addition, from the evidence provided by Saddam's luckless sons-in-law, that he had a number of biological weapons programmes, including projects for their weaponisation.
  Following such a major series of intelligence failures, which could have had genuinely horrendous consequences, and faced, as they were, with 12 years of systematic Iraqi obfuscation and concealment, is it surprising that intelligence analysts and weapons inspectors were inclined to err on the side of overestimate rather than underestimate?
  Why then did Saddam not make a clean breast of it, open every door and every book to the inspectors and convince them he had nothing to hide? That he did not do so is not in doubt. We have Dr Blix's word for that in a whole series of reports. There is every difference in the world between a government who decide definitively to rid themselves of WMD once and for all and co-operate fully with UN inspectors—as the South Africans did over their nuclear programme and as we hope Colonel Gaddafi is now beginning to do— and a government like the Iraqi Government who do not. It took little over a year to finish clearing up South

  721
  Africa's nuclear programmes—and they were far more advanced than anyone else's had ever been— and 12 years not to do so in Iraq. Perhaps Saddam will give us an explanation for this conundrum, but I doubt whether anything he says will have any credibility.
  Meanwhile, it does not seem likely to be too wide of the mark to speculate that Saddam was simply not prepared to renounce these programmes once and for all; and that he was determined to retain the capability to reconstitute them if and when the international community tired of its efforts to deprive him of them. This hypothesis may, retrospectively, cast doubt on the immediacy of the threat posed; it does not cast doubt on its fundamental reality.
  One is surely bound to ask also how much significance it is reasonable to attach to the drafting differences in the British Government's September dossier, over which so much agonising went on at the time and on whose significance the whole dispute between the Government and the BBC was based. Does one seriously believe that the effect of the very slightly more cautious wording originally proffered by the intelligence services would, if it had appeared in the published dossier, have fundamentally altered the conclusions drawn from it, or indeed that it should have done so? I doubt it. After all, two months later, the Security Council—most of whose members, and certainly its permanent members, could hardly be expected to treat British intelligence as Gospel truth— agreed unanimously that Saddam Hussein was in breach of his WMD obligations and faced "serious consequences" if he did not immediately remedy that.
  What was a mistake, from which we need to learn, was to impart to a document based almost exclusively on covert intelligence, a degree of certainty which no such document can reasonably sustain. Just as intelligence does not win wars, but only helps you to win them, so intelligence cannot be expected to provide certainty, but merely varying degrees of probability or possibility. That is not a reason to ignore it or to discount it. Quite the contrary. When dealing with a totalitarian dictatorship, it is likely to be the best you are going to get and it may have to be a basis for action.
  I now turn to the sequence of events covered in the report of the noble and learned Lord, and it is important to remember at each stage that whereas we now, with the benefit of hindsight, read history looking backwards and knowing much that was not known at the time, decision-makers have to live history moving forwards, ignorant of much that we now know. There are two generic issues of process which merit some comment: the way the media separate, or rather no longer separate, the reporting of news from the commentary and opinions they express on it, and the way the e-mail technological revolution has influenced the transaction of government business. Time was when the separation of news from comment was a fundamental part of the professional credo of journalism. It still is in a very few honourable exceptions, such as the Financial Times and the New York Times. But generally the distinction is now ignored, as are the rigorous checks that used to be required as a necessary preliminary to filing a news story. Clearly in a free society
  722
  both abundant news and a capacity to comment fearlessly are essential, but mingling the two does no one any good. It reduces the respect and confidence we have in journalism. It reduces the value of the media's contribution to the formation of our opinions. It leads ineluctably to the sort of feud which we have seen played out before our eyes in recent months.
  No one can, or should, try to force the media to re-establish a Chinese wall between news and comment, but I would hope that they would reflect on whether it is not in their own best interest to do so. In that respect I was greatly encouraged by the most impressive contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, to our debate.
  To lament the omnipresence of e-mail and to attempt to turn back that tide would be about as silly and misconceived as the advice of King Canute's courtiers or the activities of the Luddites. E-mail is here to stay, or at least until it too is superseded by the next wave of technical innovation. What seems to have gone wrong, however, is that this major change has occurred without anyone having given thought to its implications for the conduct of government business, and above all for the essential clarity over lines of authority and responsibility.
  In the dim and distant past there was, on the one hand, the telephone, which was pervasively used but left no trace unless it was converted into an official document and therefore had no official validity, and, on the other hand, the official written transaction of business, which was regulated by rules and which clearly established lines of authority and responsibility. Into that idyllically clear division plunged e-mail, which was none of those things and falls between every bureaucratic stool. It is recorded, as we are now all too well aware, but is not regulated by any rules of procedure or any discipline. Most dangerously of all, it blurs the lines of authority and responsibility so that Lenin's famous dictum "Who, whom?" becomes rather difficult to construe.
  What is surely urgently needed now are clear rules of the road that bring e-mail communications within the ambit of other written communications—not so much a big conversation as a controlled interaction of various policy considerations. Lest I be thought to be a little critical, in particular of No. 10, I should add that I believe that my former department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and others are every bit as much in need of reform in that respect.
  It is right that we should debate this report with seriousness and with the intention of drawing lessons from it that will prevent mistakes being repeated in future. But I hope that we will not linger too long over the minutiae and, in some cases, the trivia of what has been uncovered. There is a natural prurience about such matters, which means that we find them endlessly fascinating. But the need to face up to present and future challenges, not least in Iraq, is pressing, and raking over the past is of only limited use in finding the right answers there.
  Whatever our views on the origins of the war, there is surely a lot more common ground on the future that we want to help Iraq and its long-suffering people

  723
  to achieve. Whatever we may think about the marginalisation of the UN—I believe that it was to be deplored—we need now to address our minds to how to increase its effectiveness. I hope that we can turn to those wider issues before too long.
  5.42 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. He and I spent four years in Brussels. He has made a vital contribution to this important debate. I am not easily astonished, but I was by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, who claimed that the Thatcher government, which he served with distinction, were guiltless of spin. I am totally astonished at his version of history. Notwithstanding that, I hope that we can remain good friends.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has said, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, was appointed, there was not a whimper from the lips of the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats, let alone their leaders. Yet when the decision—and it is reiterated in its terms of reference—emerged, all sorts of slurs encompassed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, and those acquitted of the death of David Kelly, and many other offences that were germane to them. We have heard it all today.
  For eight months the Prime Minister and others had to endure all sorts of calumnies. He was accused of deceit and deception, not least by those who were quick to come alongside him in his denunciation of Saddam Hussein and everything for which he stood. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, acquitted the Prime Minister of those grave charges, and because of that neither he nor others were forgiven by those opposed to those views. The dilemma that confronted the Prime Minister was acute. If he did nothing, permitting Saddam Hussein to remain in unquestioned power, but then Hussein used weapons of mass destruction—which the Prime Minister thought in good faith that he had—in the light of the information provided by the intelligence services, it is right that he would have been held culpable.
  In all the circumstances, the Conservative Opposition in another place and here have rushed to conclusions utterly out of kilter with their original views. They have been extremely opportunistic, and what is worse, they even realise it themselves. If the Conservatives had done the decent thing, this debate, in so far as it revolved around the issue of the Prime Minister's bad faith, could have been short-circuited.
  None the less, some useful lessons can be learnt. First, it would have been preferable if the Prime Minister—who, in my view, has already acted with the utmost good faith—had said that Saddam Hussein posed threats different in quality, and realistically, from any others and, underlining the words of United Nations Resolution 1441, had to be removed in the interest of mankind. That is what I think the Prime Minister believed. Some may think that the Prime Minister might have been wrong. I do not share that view. In all material respects, I believe that he maintained an honest opinion.
  724
  Secondly, the mystique of the intelligence services must, in some respects at least, be dispelled. The public, when it is taken to war, is entitled to much more information than it was given. Of course, certain information must be withheld but not most of it. I hope that the new committee will do precisely that.
  It is essential that the BBC be objective and independent. It is widely respected nationally and internationally. That is unquestionably the case now, and I believe that it will remain so despite all the criticisms unleashed on the governors. Everything that I have heard from Ministers since the publication of the report underlines that very fact.
  What of the immediate future? A delay of perhaps a year or more in the publication of the report would be unconscionable. There is a very good prima facie case for urging that the report be given within a certain time.
  The Intelligence and Security Committee, which has produced its report, has done an invaluable task. I do not concur with all its views, but that is inevitable when one considers the breadth of its considerations. Nor can we overlook that precedentedly no publicity had been afforded to the deliberations of the Joint intelligence Committee.
  The British Government decided to depart from that and to publish in September 2002 Iraq 's weapons of mass destruction—The assessment of the British Government, otherwise known as the dossier. That was unprecedented and should be applauded.
  The history of events that led up to UN Security Council Resolution 1441 is well known. But it needs to be emphasised again and again that Iraq did not comply with all its obligations to surrender its weapons of mass destruction capability and its weapons systems. Indeed, that was acknowledged by the Iraqis themselves.
  The Prime Minister had no alternative but to ensure that force—regrettable though that may have been— had to be used. The clear fact remains that Saddam Hussein could not be trusted. Chemical and biological weapons existed, albeit hidden, or secreted away by the regime. I cannot help feeling that much of that is attributable to the fact that the United Nations inspectors were there. What has happened since September 2002 does not have to be underlined by me.
  The Intelligence and Security Committee has. done a wonderful job. It has assessed the information put before it very clearly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, within the terms of reference, also carried out a thorough task. The Government should be acquitted of the very grave charges that have been hurled unconscionably at them.
  5.52 p.m.
  Lord Fowler: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and I shall come to his remarks on the BBC in a moment.
  First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, on his maiden speech, and above all I wish him well in. the job that he now has. He is no stranger to difficulties.

  725
  He and I worked closely together between 1992 and 1994. A Chief Whip who got the Maastricht legislation though the House of Commons with the majority that we achieved deserves our respect. I am sure that he will serve the BBC well. I was pleased to hear the reassurances that he gave.
  My view of the Hutton report and its conclusions is that the Government have been very fortunate and the BBC very unfortunate. Having read the evidence, like the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I still find the process whereby Dr Kelly's name was revealed to the press extraordinary. I emphasise that I do not believe that the Government were dishonest in the way in which they handled the matter. It was a question not of conspiracy but competence. One could have tried to keep the name secret, although I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, that that would have been difficult to do, and probably impossible. However, if that was the judgment, it is extraordinary that, rather than making an open statement of identity to all the media, and having a properly planned process for protecting Dr Kelly—the two go together—there was an elaborate, and totally unprecedented 20-questions procedure, in which the press was invited on fishing trips to reveal Dr Kelly's identity. That is totally objectionable.
  It is extraordinary that important decisions that could have a vital effect on the defence department were taken without the responsible Minister—the Secretary of State for Defence—being present. It is extraordinary, too, that the Secretary of State seems to have adopted a pretty hands-off approach to such a major issue affecting his own department.
  If I were the Government, I would not feel very proud of the way in which this tragic case was handled. I would not have responded in quite the aggressive manner in which the Lord Chancellor opened his speech this afternoon. The report has been completed; it has been accepted; and we now have the consequences.
  I shall concentrate on the consequences affecting the BBC. We have lost two exceptionally able men: the chairman and the director-general of the BBC. I regret that very much. They were outstanding leaders, and the BBC is very much the loser because of their resignations. We are now told that a line has been drawn and that peace has broken out. There is the danger. The relationship between government—any government, not just this one—and the BBC should never be a peaceful one. Of course the BBC has a duty to be as accurate as possible, but it also has a duty to question government, probe their policies and reveal their errors. The BBC is not an organisation whose duty is to relay the message of the government uncritically. Given some of the comments that have been made from—I regret to say—the Government Benches, that point needs to be emphasised.
  I note that Ministers now talk of maintaining and supporting the independence of the BBC. Governments are not the natural supporters of fearless reporting and the independence of the BBC. That is not what governments want. They have never supported that in my time at Westminster, and they never will. In the 1980s
  726
  I remember Margaret Thatcher speaking at a dinner for Cabinet Ministers and their wives at No. 10. She paid tribute to her husband with the words:
  "Whenever I was tempted to say anything nice about the BBC Denis persuaded me out of it".
  That not unfairly encompasses the view of the BBC in No. 10 in the 1980s.
  In the 1990s, as party chairman, I remember being at No. 10 with John Major when the unfortunate head of press relations was instructed to ensure that the BBC immediately changed a report of the Prime Minister's speech. It was a hard task given that the BBC had quoted exactly the words that he had used.
  The conflict between this Government and the BBC is nothing new, although 16 letters of complaint from No. 10 about the coverage of the Iraq war was not only excessive but clearly counter productive. It explains the BBC's reluctance to correct. I do not disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said on that point, but we need to remember the context of a corporation under a continual barrage from No. 10. Perhaps the noble Lord is a better man than most to take that message back to No. 10.
  In resisting the pressure of governments, the BBC must be able to establish that its standards of reporting are high. We should remember that, whether in broadcasting or the press, mistakes will be made given the speed of journalism. Even when elaborate precautions are taken, media organisations can get it wrong. Hitler's bogus diaries come to mind. There is a need to guard against journalists or editors hardening up a story beyond its true worth, which seems to be what Mr Gilligan did. He had rather a good story on the doubts about information in the dossier, but he then pushed it several stages too far.
  I am concerned about the suggestion that the BBC in future should only report the news rather than at times initiate it. That would be profoundly wrong. My first editor on the Times was William Haley, a former director-general of the BBC. He was perhaps austere, but he was an upright and principled man. His definition of the purpose of any media organisation was that it was there to expose. That is the media's duty. Neither Haley nor I mean exposing the trivia of an affair between a Minister and an actress. I mean exposing issues such as unacceptable hospital conditions, famine in poor countries, and, yes, the deficiencies of government.
  Mr Gilligan may have overstated his story but that does not invalidate the process. Programmes such as "Today" must continue to make the news as well as report it. Not to do that leaves it a broken-backed programme without influence or purpose.
  Overarching all that is the decision on what kind of BBC we want. Some want a much-reduced BBC; some want it for their own commercial interests. Over the coming months, we will have to judge. The Government, in my view unreasonably, criticised the BBC for its coverage of the Iraq war. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, repeated that charge today.
  I really wonder whether the Government or the public would prefer the kind of coverage transmitted in the United States. One news channel operated with

  727
  the national flag flying in the corner of the screen and martial music played as troops advanced. Would we prefer that? Or, as in another case, would we want military attacks delayed so that the advancing troops can act as a backdrop to a newscast by an influential correspondent? They both happened in the Iraq conflict.
  If one good thing has come out of this sad and tragic affair, it is this. Here, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and I totally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai. The opinion polls show clearly that there is much more support for the kind of BBC we have than some commentators and some politicians believe. As we now enter the period of debate on licence renewal, I think that the public have delivered a clear message to the politicians; that is, proceed with care. Do not tamper irresponsibly with an organisation which some of us still believe is one of the world leaders in broadcasting.
  6.1 p.m.
  Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I need to declare an interest before I make a short intervention in this important debate. I serve as rapporteur for Iraq, as WHO's special envoy particularly for that region, and I also serve as chairman of the AMAR International Charitable Foundation. In all of those capacities I have paid many visits to Iraq, to the neighbouring countries and to the region. Inevitably, I have received hospitality of some variant or another from a number of organisations and governments. Wherever I can I try to pay my own way, but I am often offered kindness and hospitality. I hope noble Lords will take that and set it aside from the comments I am about to make.
  I support the findings of the Hutton report. I appreciate his work and I pay tribute to him and his staff. However, I ask the Government to look again at the European Convention on Human Rights, which, in 1998, was to act as a lodestar. Of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, made the point that accuracy of information is an imperative for the media. But he did not go further and point out that the print media are not covered because the Government are in breach of the relevant article of the ECHR.
  The Broadcasting and Television Act 1956 demands a duty of accuracy and a separation of fact and opinion on radio and television. I guess that is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, was thinking of when he referred to the need for accuracy. Alas, it does not cover the print media. I wonder whether noble Lords recall the hounding of Dr Kelly by the print media and the fact that the family had to move house at once when his name was released. They knew that they had to run; they went to a house in Cornwall. Does that kind of thing really give the Kellys the right to privacy and family life in the United Kingdom? I ask the Government to think again and cast their minds back to that important article in the European Convention on Human Rights. Perhaps that might have made a difference.
  728
  As I said, I have paid many visits to Iraq. I should like to voice my personal sorrow on the death of Dr Kelly, whose work was so vital and so important. I regret the fact that he did not receive the Nobel Prize. The work of his team, the work of David Kay, and the continual work of the Iraq Survey Group, under Charles Duelfer, is of great value and importance nationally and internationally. It is of importance to the United Kingdom; it is of importance to the region. We are referring to a regime that assaulted its own people, attacked its neighbours and was preparing to attack outsiders.
  In his report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, referred to the continued controversy and debate surrounding the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But I think that there can be no serious doubt that Saddam Hussein possessed and sought to develop weapons of mass destruction throughout the whole of the 1990s and the early years of the 21st century. Indeed, there is evidence that he was doing so in collaboration with foreign terrorist organisations.
  Newly unearthed extensive video evidence that I have received on my latest visit to the region shows collaboration between Saddam Hussein (on video) and a leader of an international terrorist organisation. Masoud Rajavi, leader of the MKO, is shown with Saddam Hussein discussing various actions locally, domestically and internationally. They are shown plotting and money being given in payment for services rendered and in payment for services to be rendered, which are discussed very explicitly. The evidence clearly shows international terrorist organisational work between Saddam Hussein and outside organisations. Another set of videos shows collaboration between international terrorist organisations and the head of the Iraq secret police.
  Witness reports from non-Iraqis show descriptions of the transport and concealment of what clearly were non-conventional weapons, the involvement of non-Iraqi Arabs, and, I believe, the involvement of the Taliban as well. I personally have received witness reports that describe the construction, by non-Iraqi Arabs, of secret military facilities, and the burial of what appear to be weapons of mass destruction. I have witness reports confirming republican guard training of non-Iraqi Arabs. There is also evidence of foreign collaboration in the suppression of ethnic minorities— both Kurd and Shi'a. That evidence is clear throughout the 1990s and into the early 21st century.
  I have a further request for the Government. It is clear that, certainly across the Atlantic, there was insufficient intelligence on the ground. Would the Government consider more investment in the BBC World Service; for example, in the Arabic and Farsi services? Would the Government consider more investment into the British Council; not a terrorist organisation, not a secret police, but, none the less, a mechanism of understanding different cultures more effectively, and other ways in which the United Kingdom used to be stronger? I recall that investment into the BBC World Service was diminished—under a Conservative government, I am sorry to say—under the last chairman, Sam Younger, now on the Electoral

  729
  Commission. I recall fighting that battle very hard and unsuccessfully in the other place. We should put more investment into the BBC World Service, in particular into the services in this very troubled region.
  I do not think that the Government went to war because of weapons of mass destruction. If I recall correctly, we went to war because Saddam Hussein and his regime continued to defy UN conventions. Resolution 1441 rings loudly in my memory. We acted boldly as a nation. I believe that we were right. But the question now is when pre-emptive strikes should be needed. What are the rules? What are the guidelines?
  Last week, in the European Union and the European Parliament, we had Kofi Annan with us. He told us about the special working party that he has set up. He agrees that the role of the United Nations somehow has been marginalised in the present conflict. He does not want that to happen again. Therefore, he has set up a working group. I hope that the British Government will be forward in giving evidence to that working group. It is to attempt to set up the guidelines for when pre-emptive strikes may be needed in the future and could be supported by the United Nations Security Council. The role of the United Nations is vital.
  It is a tragedy that the UN is no longer in Iraq because it cannot see the genuine deep-rooted joy and satisfaction of the ordinary Iraqi at being released from the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein. I hope that once the next investigation, under the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is over, perhaps we may return to the question of when is it right to intervene. When is it right to intervene in order to assist others at their time of tragedy? I believe that we did the right thing in Iraq. I hope that colleagues, too, will share that view.
  6.10 p.m.
  Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, with all her experience on the ground, as it were. I agree with everything she said on the subject of Dr Kelly himself and the contribution which he made.
  However, I hope that she will forgive me if I do not follow her into that wider ground and concentrate instead on the report itself. Its central question—and it is a narrow one—is whether the Government knew, or probably knew, that information in the dossier was wrong. Whether the 45-minute claim was in fact wrong is of course a separate question, outside the terms of reference of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, which will now be addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. However, there is a third question which may or may not be answered by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, depending on how one construes his terms of reference, about which we will probably hear later. I do not find the terms of reference even to be grammatical. They seem to contain too many "betweens", but no doubt all will be explained in due course.
  Whether the noble Lord, Lord Butler, covers that point or not, I hope that we in this House will not forget the fundamental question, which is whether the
  730
  Government made the right judgment at the time. In that respect, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. That question should be the subject of continuous debate in this House and can be the subject of debate now. We do not have to wait until the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has reported.
  On the central question of whether the Government probably knew that the 45-minute claim was wrong, it is now quite clear that they did not. Nobody really suggests that they did. A further question was rightly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, about the position of John Scarlett, against whom also a very serious accusation was made; namely, that he allowed an allegation to be put into a JIC document which he knew not to be true or to be unjustified. That was another serious allegation and, again, we all now know that nothing was put in the dossier with which the JIC did not fully agree.
  There are of course other questions on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, might have reached a different conclusion. He might have done so in particular on the naming of Dr Kelly or the manner in which his name was mentioned. We now know that that was the point on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, changed his mind. At first, he thought there was some ground for criticism, but in the end, he decided there was not. His view was that once Dr Kelly had written his letter of 30 June, his name would be bound in the end to be revealed. Whether it was revealed in the most satisfactory way is another question on which different views might be taken.
  However, on the central question of whether the Government were dishonest in what they put into the report, I like many others have read all the evidence. On that evidence, there is no conclusion to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, could have come other than that the Government did not lie.
  What was the defence which the BBC put forward? That is set out fully in paragraphs 276 and 289. There were three grounds for its defence. All were addressed in the important maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, and echoed in the equally important speech of the noble Lord, Lord Birt. In view of what they said, the matters can be dealt with very briefly. First, it was said that Mr Gilligan was reporting only what his source had told him. The trouble with that defence is that that was not the case. He was not just reporting what he had been told; he was adding his own conclusions. That conclusion led to the grave allegation against the Government. Secondly, it was said that even if Mr Gilligan was wrong, it was early in the morning; it was off the cuff; it was unscripted; and he should be forgiven. Perhaps Mr Gilligan should be forgiven, but far less forgivable was the subsequent treatment of his report by the BBC. On 26 June, Mr Alastair Campbell asked the BBC directly whether it stood behind the allegation which had been made. On the following day, Mr Sambrook, on behalf of the BBC, replied with the simple word "yes". I accept that Mr Sambrook may have been driven mad by Mr Alastair Campbell. But it is extraordinary that Mr Sambrook could have written the sentence which one finds at the bottom of page 697

  731
  without even troubling to look at the original note that Mr Gilligan had kept. In that, there was no reference at all to the 45-minute point.
  The BBC's third line of defence was that it was entitled to say what it said in the interests of press freedom. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made that point and seemed to be saying that the BBC should be allowed make false allegations that impugn the integrity of others, especially of politicians, in the interests of press freedom. I entirely disagree with the noble Lord's claim that that is in accordance with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We will not argue a question of law now. I shall simply wait—
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I did not mention Article 10 in my speech. I referred to the important decision of your Lordships' House in the Reynolds case and to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls.
  Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I too have read the speeches and not just the extracts. My view is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, was entitled—indeed, bound—to reach the view that he did on the basis of the law as it now stands.
  In the final minute of my speech, I shall comment on the reaction of the press. I found it extremely depressing. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said on that subject. The tone of the press is so different from that of six months ago. Then it was roses, roses all the way as far as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, was concerned. He was a wise and upright judge, a second Daniel come to judgment, who was going to give Alastair Campbell a bloody nose and the sooner the better. The great misfortune of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, was that he reached a conclusion that was the exact opposite of what the press were hoping for. Articles were then written. I shall not refer to the article of my noble friend Lord Rees-Mogg, but I shall refer specifically to an article in the Spectator by Rod Liddle and to another article by Sir Max Hastings, in the Daily Mail, ridiculing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. Those articles of course make good copy. But sometimes I wonder whether journalists realise the harm they cause and the damage they do—not only to the object of their derision, not only to the people who read and perhaps believe what they are told by the papers, but to the profession which they themselves follow.
  It is that kind of article, that kind of allegation, that the whole report was a whitewash, which brings journalism into even greater contempt than politics. If anyone doubts that or thinks it is just the view of a judge and not that of a journalist, then I suggest they read a perceptive article by Mr Martin Kettle in yesterday's Guardian on the central question that the judge could not have reached any other conclusion. To call it a whitewash is not proper journalism.
  6.21 p.m.
  Lord Bramall: My Lords, I suppose it is one test of civilised behaviour that the decision of a properly constituted umpire should be binding. Certainly as a
  732
  past president of the MCC, rather naturally I subscribe to that view. Indeed, with one so eminent as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, we have little option. Within his limited remit covering the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death, his findings should be generally accepted and appropriate retractions and apologies made. In the case of the governors of the BBC, they have been.
  The fact remains, however, that because of what eventually went into that dossier on so-called "weapons of mass destruction", what was left out. and even more how it was interpreted and subsequently presented to Parliament and elsewhere, not least by implying that the possible 45-minute warning for small battlefield weapons was somehow equally relevant to long-range strategic ones, the British people were left with the distinct impression that the threat from Iraq to this county was infinitely more massive, imminent and alarming than it has since turned out to be or, probably now, ever had been.
  We know that the Government were determined to strengthen the dossier to the limit that the Joint Intelligence Committee would accept. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, has confirmed this, finding no impropriety in such action. But I suggest that, not surprisingly, the Government wanted to do just this because the other justifications or excuses for invading Iraq would not have been readily acceptable to Parliament, the country and to many eminent lawyers. I refer, of course, to the longstanding series of United Nations resolutions, including Resolution 1441, to which the Government later resorted as the prime explanation for war and perhaps more compelling, if less advertised, to the fact that America was going to war come what may. The view could be strongly held that it would be in our own national interest to be alongside, rather than outside, like the French. Neither of those justifications, whatever their validity, embrace the essential element of totally lawful self-defence on which most of the country wished to be reassured.
  So the question remains in the wider context, outside the remit of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. Taking into account all the factors: the national interest, the pre-eminence of Parliament and even some political expediency, we must ask whether the Government's determination first to strengthen the raw intelligence when so many in the know had serious doubts, in particular about the likely offensive use of such weapons, and then by implication to misrepresent its significance in relation to strategic weapons, all in order to mobilise public opinion behind an attack to which this country may already have been committed, now opens the Government to the kind of criticism and censure which within the narrow remit of the Hutton report they have so far avoided. On this, I believe that the jury is still out.
  Although it would be nice to think that the new inquiry under my noble friend Lord Butler of Brockwell might throw some penetrating light on these very things, I fear that unless we are given real assurances by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about his committee's terms of reference, it

  733
  may turn out yet again to be far too limited. Let us be in no doubt about this. Although evaluation would have taken place in the JIC, the interpretation was for Ministers above it.
  Finally, having made these accusations, I have to recognise that ultimately, in the real and harsh world, any historical judgment on whether we were right to invade Iraq will certainly not be made on the Government keeping on saying that they were right to do so, nor even on whether the country was taken to war under false pretences, which it may well have been, but on what happens in Iraq and the Middle East over the next one, two or even more years, and the effect that will have on our national interest and on international stability. On that, I believe it is still far too early to make a judgment.
  6.26 p.m.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. The happiest compliment I can pay him is to quote another earlier Field Marshal at the conclusion of my speech.
  Two days after the Hutton report came out I was telephoned by a Sunday paper seeking my comments on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, as a man. I explained that although I had met him on a series of occasions in Northern Ireland, he and I had, whether consciously or unconsciously, kept a general distance from each other in our respective offices, perhaps to underline the distinction between executive and judiciary in the Province. I greatly admire him, not least for 30 years' steadfastness during the Troubles and, as a man with three-eighths' Ulster blood, I take particular pride in the speed with which this careful and comprehensive report has been produced. Of the latter quality I give a tiny example.
  In a minute from Sir Kevin Tebbit to Mr Hoon set out in paragraph 87, there is in sub-paragraph (3) a small and no doubt inadvertent but substantial slip of the metaphorical pen which brings the reader up short. In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 430, that error is discreetly corrected without attention being drawn to it in the noble and learned Lord's own conclusions. It is a de minimis point, but it illustrates that the narrative was a real-time narrative and how, in the midst of such fast-moving events even Homer, in the form of a Permanent Secretary, can nod.
  My overriding sense of the events described is of a Greek tragedy unfolding with a single individual the ultimate victim, as the title of the report spells out. As in Hardy's poem, "The Convergence of the Twain", subtitled "(Lines on the Loss of the 'Titanic')", one senses the Government and the BBC moving inexorably towards collision, with a single man crushed by this occurrence.
  In terms of what has happened since the report, leading up to yesterday's announcement of a new inquiry, your Lordships' House must have felt for the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs—as I infer the Lord Chancellor prefers to be known—when his
  734
  weekend remarks on not holding a new inquiry were so rapidly overtaken by an absolutely contradictory development. But there was about the truisms he used at the weekend an echo of the Greek chorus in just such an Aeschylean drama. Although mighty forces were patently at work, the opposing human parts were played by Mr Campbell and Mr Dyke, both men of an unyielding disposition. The fact that in the end Mr Campbell was in narrow terms victorious had itself a Hardyesque resonance, for the final verse of the "Titanic" poem reads,
  "Till the Spinner of the Years"—
  I interpolate that both of the nouns in that line are in the upper rather than the lower case—
  "Said 'Now!' and each one hears
  And consummation comes, and jars two hemispheres".
  Yet victory unqualified is the wrong phrase, however much the Government initially forgot the wisdom of Slim's wartime aphorism that no news is ever as good or as bad as it first appears. If top-up fees were a Pyrrhic victory on Tuesday, the ghost of Pyrrhus was also present on Wednesday. I do not know whether Lady Bracknell knew who Pyrrhus was, but she was arguably the first observer to recognise the importance of handbags in public affairs. She would certainly have commented on this 24-hour conjuncture.
  Pyrrhic the Hutton report is because the BBC, like our Armed Forces, is one of our international jewels. The Government cannot have helped noticing, as some of my noble friends have quoted, in Thursday's Evening Standard that even in the light of the Hutton report the Government fell far below the BBC in public opinion reactions to the terms of the verdicts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton.
  Those in the BBC who have fallen on their swords have made it much easier for the BBC to reassert itself, as my noble friend Lord Carrington's heroic resignation did similar service for the then-Government in the aftermath of the invasion of the Falklands. But it remains essential that the prompt announcement made about BBC succession on Monday is swiftly followed up by actions and outcomes, as the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, encouragingly confirmed in his admirable speech.
  My concentration on the collision should not ignore the individual victim. Because the verdict of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, on the BBC has suggested leniency elsewhere, it is necessary to draw attention to his excoriating judgment, in what I shall neutrally call "judicial language", between paragraphs 430 and 439 on what Mr Hoon described as,
  "very carefully established MoD procedures".
  If I may be personal, twice when I was a Minister I felt alone in public through my own actions. I acknowledge that I never felt remotely suicidal, but my weathering the storm was immensely assisted by the unwavering support of direct colleagues. I can imagine how much worse it would have been, despite the identification of mitigating circumstances by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, if my sense of

  735
  loneliness had been increased by feeling, as Dr Kelly clearly did, that my direct colleagues were not doing everything they could to sustain me.
  Now we are to have a further inquiry, never envisaged last summer, sprung on us when all the auspices pointed elsewhere, as the Government, for all the conventional mantras about issues being constantly kept under review, must themselves be feeling. International policy in this administration is exemplified by Longfellow's banner with a strange device, which bore the word "Excelsior"— to which the Government have added as the first subtitle, "What works", and as a further one, "What Tony wants"; of which there is an echo in paragraph 228 sub-paragraph 7 of the report.
  There is. no doubt, a further subtitle still, in invisible thread, adding the smaller words, "What George wants", but then to be fair a similar Longfellow bannerin the United States might also include in invisible thread—but in tiny letters—the same thought: "What Tony wants".
  I spoke of the BBC in the same breath as the Armed Forces, for which in such debates universal praise is expressed. Oral orders in the heat of battle do not often come down through history to us, but I quote in conclusion two orders given by that fine fighting solder Sir Colin Campbell—the name is a coincidence—later a field marshal, in a three-year period. First, at Balaclava:
  "93rd! 93rd! Damn all that eagerness";
  and, secondly, at Lucknow:
  "Lie down. 93:rd! Lie down! Every man of you is worth his weight in gold to England today".
  Against the e-mails that the Hutton report revealed, such admirable consistency and clarity of policy—and indeed of purpose as that of this other Campbell would serve the Government well.
  6.36 p.m.
  Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I wish to concentrate entirely on the relations between the Government and the BBC in the light of the Hutton report and particularly on the report's impact on the future of the BBC. I should perhaps declare an interest as a former chairman and present pensioner of the regulatory body of commercial broadcasting in this country as well as the father of a member of the BBC's board of management.
  I am particularly happy in concentrating on the BBC to follow the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ryder. He did a service to the House by taking the courageous decision to make his maiden speech at this belated stage in the present circumstances. I found great value in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who brought to our debate his experience as a great director-general of the BBC. Perhaps some of the BBC's problems in the present situation would have been avoided if it had been able to stick to his famous exposition of broadcasting as a mission to explain; a mission to report the news rather than to make the news.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, presided with Olympian distinction and clarity over what amounts to a bitter dispute between two of the nation's
  736
  major institutions: Her Majesty's present Government and the BBC. As it turns out, the balance of his magisterial report leaves the main body of criticism at the BBC's door. Certainly the Gilligan story is an unhappy one, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, made clear.
  However, it is unfair that the totality of the BBC—to use one of the Prime Minister's recent favourite words— should be judged by this particular aberration. The Government and the BBC should realise that great damage has been done to them both by this recent chapter of events. For the nation as a whole, the trust in two of our most important institutions has been seriously damaged and the sooner a line is drawn by both politicians and broadcasters the better.
  I therefore welcome the Secretary of State's assurance the other day that this episode does not change the Government's view of the importance of preserving the BBC's independence in the forthcoming charter review. I was glad to hear the Minister on the Front Bench repeat a Statement the other day setting out the careful arrangements for approving the new chairman of the BBC.
  It is a recognition that when all passion is spent, the BBC, warts and all—and it has a fair share of warts— is a uniquely valuable national asset. In that tired cliche, it is one of the rare British institutions that is undoubtedly regarded as world-class and does us credit all around the world. Its contribution to the quality of civilised life stretches far beyond the inevitably controversial frailties of current affairs into education, music, sports and all the creative arts. It is the benchmark for the nation's standard in public service broadcasting and indeed for other broadcasters in the country. Compared to the pay-TV subscriptions that I happily now pay to enjoy sports and films, the BBC licence fes—leaving aside the fact that I now receive it for free as an elderly pensioner—remains extraordinary value for money.
  The Hutton report may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for the BBC if it is able to work with the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, and his ultimate successor, and Mark Byford, whom we all wish well, to deal with some of the consequences of recent events. They should help it to concentrate on sustaining its unique qualities in the multinational world of telecommunications now regulated by Ofcom. In my view, the key area for necessary changes lies in the role of the BBC board of governors in relation to the BBC's programme makers. The first task for the new chairman must be to equip the board of governors to be a more effective regulator and public trustee in the interests of the listeners and viewers. The BBC board of governors has the difficult dual role of being the public regulator, on the one hand, and being the non-executive directors of a huge creative enterprise, on the other.
  It is a demanding role but not an impossible one. It is infinitely better than the alternative of transferring the public trustee role to a new and untried Ofcom, most of the regulatory responsibilities of which lie in the field of commercial competition. In any event, Ofcom will have quite a difficult time over the next few years in settling

  737
  down to its wide range of responsibilities. As the legendary left winger Jimmy Maxton once said about parliamentary and governmental affairs:
  "If you can't ride two horses at the same time in this circus you'd better get out of the bloody ring".
  That is the advice that I would pass on, in all modesty, to the governors of the BBC.
  The Hutton evidence reveals the dilemma very clearly. On page 211, one of the inquiry's barristers said:
  "surely the problem here was that the Governors did in fact duplicate what the executives had done instead of forming a view of their own which, if they had been properly informed, might have been very different".
  It was on that basis that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, concluded that:
  "The Governors are to be criticised for failing to make more detailed investigations".
  But the Governors were ill provided to make any independent investigations of their own. The lesson is that under the new charter they should be equipped with their own distinct unit that will enable them to establish the public interest independently when the need arises. That would be to adapt the framework that I enjoyed as chairman of the old IBA, where we were proud of the creative work of the companies that held our franchises but we were at arm's length from them when something went wrong and we had to adjudicate on matters such as these. That model could be usefully explored.
  I believe that Gavyn Davies was a chairman of quality and integrity who found himself, with his fellow governors, stranded between the bullying harassment of Alastair Campbell and the opportunistic reporting of Andrew Gilligan. In a vivid phrase in his own evidence, at page 211, Mr Davies said:
  "There is a gap between what the Board is and does and what the management is and does".
  The infant Ofcom cannot fill that gap, certainly without undermining the coherent character of the BBC that has served Britain well over so many generations. It will be for Gavyn Davies's successor to reshape this aspect of the governors' role to preserve the BBC as the world's most trusted broadcasting organisation.
  6.43 p.m.
  Baroness Goudie: My Lords, following the tragic death of Dr David Kelly, and given its circumstances, there was strong pressure for a public inquiry to be set up and for it to be conducted by a senior judge. Her Majesty's Government acted with the utmost speed. They immediately set up a public inquiry and invited a very senior and highly distinguished judge to conduct it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, accepted the invitation.
  I do not recall any clamour that there should not have been an inquiry; I do not recall any clamour that it should not have been a judicial inquiry; I certainly do not recall criticism of the choice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton.
  738
  We then had the judicial inquiry process in the full glare of publicity. The nation was at one in being highly impressed by the way in which it was conducted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, and rightly so.
  We now have had the independent, impartial, meticulous and careful report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. The umpire has given his ruling. Imagine the uproar that there would have been if he had put his finger up when the Prime Minister, or the Secretary of State for Defence, or the No. 10 director of communications had been at the crease and they had not walked. They would have been expected to respect his verdict. Others should do so too.
  However, within hours of the publication of the more than 300 pages of closely reasoned report, criticisms of it were being expressed. The criticisms amount to little more than the fact that a judicial approach of rigorous analysis was adopted. What on earth else was or should have been expected, except by those for whom nothing less than a witch hunt would do? I wonder how many of those who reacted to the approach of opinion pollsters had actually read the report when they did so. By contrast, among those who have read the sound and balanced report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, and who did not have preconceived views of what the outcome should have been, I have not detected any serious criticism.
  For my part, I did have some reservations about there being an inquiry at all and, if there was to be an inquiry, some reservations about it being conducted by a judge. I often have such reservations. I suspect that we have too many inquiries. And I do have a real general concern about politicians asking judges to conduct politically sensitive inquiries and judges agreeing to do so. Certainly it was necessary for the Secretary of State to draw up tight terms of reference, and it would be wholly inappropriate for a judge then to be expected or entitled to broaden them.
  In the present kind of situation there is an acceptable alternative—it is what would have happened in any event—a coroner's inquest, possibly with a jury. If there are perceived to be weaknesses in such a process, then the law relating to inquests should be reformed. If it is felt that some inquests require a more high-powered judicial input, then the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, or the Attorney-General, or the Lord Chief Justice should have the power to appoint a High Court judge or a special coroner. If, however, there are wider political issues which are not suitable for an inquest, then they are not likely to be appropriate for a judge at all.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, as a judge, was given a task. He accepted the burden. He has discharged his role with the utmost skill. We should be grateful to him. We should accept his conclusions and let the sniping cease.
  6.47 p.m.
  Lord Haskins: My Lords, I should like to raise the issue of trust. I fear that most of us would have to agree

  739
  that, for a variety of reasons, the public's regard for the Houses of Parliament and for those who play a prominent role in public life has seldom been lower. While we can argue among ourselves about the rights and wrongs of the Iraqi war, we need to recognise, sadly, that the public have a deep suspicion of the Government's position and, even more sadly, near contempt for the position of the main opposition party. Bizarrely, despite its many mistakes, the public credibility of the BBC remains much higher than both. I have every confidence that the BBC will be able to weather this storm.
  The public are no longer as impressed as they might have been in bygone deferential days by inquiries led by senior judges and senior civil servants because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that this is merely a process to enable the establishment to close ranks. It seems to me that the American approach to its inquiry is both more transparent and comprehensive than is envisaged for here, which is a pity.
  The two inquiries will be taking place during the run-up to two general elections. If the present level of public cynicism in this country does not abate—and at present I can see no reason why it should—we might see a turn-out on polling day far below the abysmal 60 per cent of 2001. The cynics may argue that the Government do not care very much about this as long as they are returned to power, which is very likely at the present time. But we must remind ourselves of what happened in France last year when public cynicism led to a low turn-out and the Le Pen catastrophe. Of course I am not suggesting that a disaster of that kind could happen in Britain but, in very low turn-outs, extremists who can muster their support stand to gain.
  The Government may rightly feel that much of this general cynicism is both unfair and nasty. They have not been given full credit by the press for the most successful period of sustained growth for more than a century; nor is there a proper recognition that, as a result of unprecedented levels of investment, most of our public services are at last beginning to show a real improvement; and Northern Ireland is enjoying peace, albeit uneasily.
  It seems a tragedy therefore that the Government, and their supporters such as myself, find ourselves so lacking in public confidence. This is not helped of course by a vitriolic tabloid press which seeks, it appears, to usurp the role of the official Opposition.
  If we cannot tackle that public malaise—a combination of J.K. Galbraith's slothful culture of contentment and a deep disaffection with government and Parliament—we are heading into dangerous and uncharted waters. When respect for democratic institutions becomes undermined, so do democratic values of tolerance and social justice.
  The Profumo affair 40 years ago, culminating in the now much-discredited Denning report, did great damage to the public's perception of the establishment. But then the issues at stake were trivial compared with the subject of our discussions today. There was a credible opposition in Parliament to provide the public with an alternative—
  740
  that does not appear to be the case today. I believe that it is unlikely that the public will abandon their cynicism and distrust on the issue of the war after all the inquiries have run their course.
  However, there is one issue that can restore some degree of public confidence and which cannot await the outcome of the inquiries—the achievement of peace and stability in Iraq. For that to happen, the Americans, the British Government and our partners in the European Union must stand together and involve the United Nations as the only institution that has the ability and the trust of the world and the people of Iraq to deliver that outcome. The British Government must lead the way in persuading our American friends that their ambivalence and shabby treatment of the United Nations is no longer acceptable.
  6.51 p.m.
  Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, one of my predecessors as president of the MCC, I am not in favour of challenging the decision of the umpire, whether with or without the aid of an action replay. The task of a judge at a public inquiry is lonely and difficult. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, conducted his hearings splendidly and sensitively. In considering his conclusions we should all remember that he had the advantage of assessing the witnesses and weighing all of the evidence. I share the relief at his view that the Government did not seek the inclusion in the dossier of intelligence material which was known to be false. That conclusion seems to me to be fully justified, as it does to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, on the evidence.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, did a service in finding the facts, which I would like to return to and I do not think have yet been fully appreciated. I have some concerns about the balance of the report. The BBC made mistakes and they have paid a high price. But they were put under enormous pressure by Alastair Campbell, who the Prime Minister himself has publicly described as "rough and tough". To me that seems to justify Mr Greg Dyke's remarks that it was bullying conduct. Am I alone in thinking that the days when the type of dealings that Mr Alastair Campbell had near the head of government were conducted by senior permanent civil servants were healthier days that should be renewed?
  I want to say how much I admire the BBC for so much of its journalism. I am glad that it was prepared to probe so rigorously the case made by the Government for leading us into what so many of us consider to have been an unnecessary and costly war of choice. Throughout, my own party was very largely fully supportive of the Government. That made it more important that the media, and especially the BBC, should join the Liberal Democrats, so wonderfully led by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in redressing the democratic deficit by making certain that the doubts were heard. I am also glad that Tessa Jowell, over the past few days, has steadfastly said that she will uphold the independence of the BBC and, as I

  741
  understand it, continue the case for strong public funding. I share the view that it is vital to us as part of our democracy.
  For me the central problem flows from the narrow remit of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. He pointed that out. He records with deadly precision some of the material which would have remained buried and out of sight but for his inquiry. I found the way in which he set out some changes in the draft dossiers in September 2002 particularly cogent. On 16 September the dossier told us that Saddam,
  "is prepared to use nuclear and biological weapons if he believes his regime is under threat".
  By the draft of 20 September that assertion had been queried by Number 10 and the proviso that the regime would have to be under threat had disappeared. The distinction between aggressive use and defensive use had become blurred.
  I shall also give another illustration by reference to the first draft of the foreword by the Prime Minister, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, remarked upon, and which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, drew attention to this afternoon. It included the statement:
  "The case I make is not that Saddam could launch a nuclear attack on London or another part of the UK. (He could not)".
  That was deleted from the final dossier. We were left with the repeated claim that Saddam could launch an attack within 45 minutes. Why? The Prime Minister, as a lawyer, should know that the suppression of the truth risks creating the impression of a falsehood. There was no mention at all that battlefield weapons were what the dossier had in mind. Why?
  I have spent time on that claim because I believe that it was crucially alarmist and influential. I vividly remember how it was understood and reported. The Evening Standard said simply,
  "45 minutes from attack".
  The Government knew that that impression gained wide currency. But what did they do to correct a misunderstanding of their own creation? Nothing. Why? That over-dramatic, over-hyped claim had become crucial in trying to shift a deeply divided nation in favour of the war. It was of a piece with the desperation of the effort to persuade people in early 2003 with the infamous and irresponsible "dodgy dossier".
  The scepticism is greater now that an extensive search has discovered no weapons of mass destruction. Yet no one who read the reports of Hans Blix back in February last year should be surprised. He made it plain that the jury was still out and that he needed more time. But the Government ignored him and abandoned their long-standing commitments to the United Nations and followed the lead of the United States into war.
  Against that background, I would find it deeply disappointing and unwise if the new inquiry, so hastily set up yesterday, focused only on the accuracy of the intelligence material and where it seems to have gone astray. The Government seem not to appreciate that
  742
  public disquiet goes much wider than that. Many share the suspicions, which Clare Short and Robin Cook have voiced, that we too slavishly followed the lead of the United States. It is the greatest crisis of confidence in the handling of issues of war and peace since Suez.
  Any inquiry should take account of the advice that the Government received as to the legality of the war in international law. My concern was reinforced yesterday when the Government argued that war was justified for breach of Resolution 1441. But in international law the right to use force is a last resort and has to be unequivocally spelled out. Resolution 1441 did not do that. That is why the Government wanted a second resolution, until they realised that it would not pass. The Attorney-General then published a summary of his advice in which he based the ultimate authority for war on UN Resolution 678, passed in 1990, to authorise the use of force to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Yet both President Bush senior and Mr John Major publicly stated that this resolution would not have justified them in going to Baghdad. The suggestion that it somehow allowed an invasion for a different purpose 12 years later has been rejected by almost all international lawyers. It is widely believed that Elizabeth Wilmshurst, a very senior Foreign Office legal adviser, resigned because she disagreed. Yet the Government persistently refuse all requests for disclosure of the Attorney-General's full advice. We are apparently entitled to his "view" but not to his "advice", a distinction which seems incomprehensible to me. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has described his view as "straining at a gnat" and for what it is worth I have characterised it as "risible". In his advice, the Attorney-General would have needed to deal with some formidable objections to his view and his advice should at long last be disclosed to the inquiry. There are clear precedents for the Attorney-General's advice to be disclosed to official inquiries.
  Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. The question was asked of the Prime Minister in the House today and he said that the Attorney-General's advice could be available to the committee. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to confirm that.
  Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I find that extremely encouraging. There is so much lack of confidence among international lawyers on the legality of the war that it is crucial that that full advice should be seen.
  The clamour for a full inquiry was growing before President Bush gave Mr Blair no option but to follow his lead once again. The substantial plus of this war has been the removal of Saddam, but this was not its aim. Twenty thousand lives have been lost. Iraq is far from being the democratic empire of liberty which President Bush grandiosely promised. WMD have not been found. There are immense doubts and trust is low, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said. That is harmful to us. I hope that my own leader, Michael Howard, is right when he says that the terms of reference can be

  743
  widely interpreted to look at the use by government of the intelligence. For my money, nothing but a full and wide-ranging investigation can start the healing process.
  7.2 p.m.
  Lord Taverne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, has made a formidable case against the legal justification for going to war. In that sense, he has taken the issue beyond the particular inquiry into the Hutton report. One part of it which is relevant is how far there was at the time any justification in the Government's mind for believing in the weapons of mass destruction. I want first to address that background.
  Why did people believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? I commend to noble Lords an article in the current Atlantic Monthly by Kenneth Pollack, a leading Iraq expert and intelligence analyst in the Clinton Administration. The article is reproduced in today's Guardian, and it explains why government and security advisers believed that there were weapons of mass destruction. It puts them in perhaps a slightly more favourable light than the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, suggested.
  Mr Pollack describes how in the spring of 2002, 20 former UNSCOM inspectors gathered together and all agreed that Saddam was operating a secret centrifuge plant for separating nuclear fuel. That was the view of all 20 former UNSCOM inspectors.
  Before the inspectors went back to Iraq, the intelligence services of Russia, China, Israel, Germany and France as well as Britain agreed with the prevailing view which the Americans had expressed. In fact, President Chirac referred to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as late as February this year. The Germans, who opposed the invasion, were the most fearful and they argued that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years.
  All those secret services had been seared by experiences after the first Gulf War. Before the war, it was widely believed that Iraq was five to 10 years from acquiring nuclear weapons. Instead, they found in 1991 that Iraq could have had them within only six months to two years. After that, they found a continuous record of deception and an apparent determination to produce weapons of mass destruction.
  Everyone got it wrong. David Kay got it wrong. David Kelly, too, got it wrong. I did not believe the claim about weapons of mass destruction as a reason for going to war. I got it right, but I dare say that if I had been in government and this information had been supplied to me, I, too, might have believed it. Why they got it wrong and when they should have realised will no doubt be a matter for the new inquiry.
  I turn to the Hutton report. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, published the evidence given before him on the web, everyone feels qualified to deliver their own report. A thousand alternative Hutton reports have bloomed. Everyone knows exactly what he should have
  744
  found, just as everyone knows how wrong the England football team's manager has been in his team selection and in his tactics.
  According to recent comments, it now seems that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, is an establishment figure; a government stooge; a narrow-minded lawyer, ignorant of politics; and deeply biased against journalists. As a number of speakers pointed out—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was one—that is in contrast with what was said before his report came out. What a fair-minded man he was then; utterly impartial; independent-minded; and meticulous in his approach to evidence. What a good judge he was and how fairly he conducted the hearing.
  Indeed, his record as a judge in Northern Ireland speaks for itself. He based his judgments entirely on the evidence. If it meant freeing IRA men, however dangerous, he freed them. Everything suggested that he would go by the evidence, the whole evidence and nothing but the evidence. And that, I believe, is what he did in his inquiry.
  Let me reveal my prejudices. I start with a prejudice in favour of the BBC. I admired its independent reporting during the war. I deplored Alastair Campbell's tendency to bully it into supporting the government line. I dare say that parts of the report are open to criticism and the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, mentioned some of them. But overall, Hutton's main findings are convincing. At the heart was the charge that the Government published a vitally important document and probably knew that the key statement in it was untrue. It was a very grave charge. The Hutton report said it was unfounded and that the intelligence chiefs approved the statements in the dossier, as modified, and even if some more junior people had their doubts. Since the charge could not have been more serious, the chairman, the director-general and the governors were gravely at fault in not bothering to check it. I can understand that they resented Campbell's bullying tactics, but that was no excuse.
  Why, then, has the report been so viciously attacked? I believe it is because people have been told endlessly that Blair is a liar and they were furious that the Hutton report dared to find he was not. People believe all politicians are liars. The Daily Mail, Rory Bremner and even more sensible people like Max Hastings and Jeremy Paxman tell us that they are. Opposition politicians frequently accuse Ministers of lying. Michael Howard accused the Prime Minister of lying and did not have the generosity of spirit to withdraw the charge.
  Most of the press were furious because the Hutton report deprived them of their quarry. Shock horror verdict: the Prime Minister did not lie. I am not impressed by the fact that the public did not believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. You do not decide complicated issues of the kind that were before the inquiry by opinion poll. I know from my own experience when I was involved in the Hanratty case. I reached the firm conclusion, contrary to my first impression, that the evidence was overwhelming that he was guilty. I went public on that and was abused about it. At one stage I was described as the only

  745
  person left in the whole of Britain who believed that Hanratty was guilty—until the DNA tests were done which showed that my view of the evidence was right.
  That is why I am delighted by the Hutton report. Most politicians do not lie, although they are far too ready to call their opponents liars. I may disagree with Tony Blair, but I believe that he is an honest man. Ministers seldom lie. Cases like Suez are the rare exception, not the rule.
  Indeed I believe that the outcome of the Hutton report will be highly salutary. The BBC's independence will be safer. In future the Government will be more cautious about trying to bully it into conformity and I trust that the licence fee will be renewed.
  I hope that the BBC will be more careful to uphold its traditions of accurate and balanced reporting. Programmes such as "Today" and "Panorama" might be less concerned to promote their own agenda. In fact, "Today" had improved since Rod Liddle went— in good time too—and the Gilligan report was not typical. Perhaps even the press may now place accuracy higher on the list of its priorities.
  Finally, although this is a separate matter, perhaps the new director-general of the BBC will remember the words of Lord Reith about its mission:
  "To apply [broadcasting] to the dissemination of the shoddy, the vulgar and the sensational would be a blasphemy against human nature".
  7.11 p.m.
  Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, for someone who grew up in central Europe in the age of the dictators and who lived through the Second World War in this country, the idea of overthrowing a tyrannical regime through a coalition of the willing, even by pre-emptive action, would have fulfilled a deep-felt yearning and no sacrifice would have been shirked.
  The issues we are debating today, relevant and, indeed, grave as they may be, in my view pale before the conviction, shared by our Prime Minister and the President of the United States, that we are engaged in a total war against a world-wide conspiracy of terror. It is a war against an implacable, merciless enemy and a just war. A war in which the issue of weapons of mass destruction, that may until recently have been in the possession of Saddam Hussein, are but one element and not, as the doubters feel, the overriding cause for war.
  Of course, every effort must be made to revisit the findings of our intelligence and the relationship between government and the BBC and the media. However, I plead for a sense of proportion and for the need to achieve that unity, internally and among allies, which, had it been prevalent during the period leading up to the Iraqi war, might conceivably have spared us a military resolution and might still have effected regime change.
  The message arising from the testimonies of the two Davids, Dr David Kelly and David Kay, seems to be clear. They thought that the war against Saddam Hussein was justified and, indeed, essential for
  746
  the security of the neighbourhood and the world at large. David Kelly summed it up in a posthumous paper. In his Senate deposition, David Kay revealed that Saddam Hussein's Iraq, in a stage of dissolution and corroding corruption, was an even more dangerous place than we thought.
  We must not be blinded by partisan bias, or by bile against the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. George W Bush, after the twin towers tragedy, talked of the "axis of evil". Events have proved that this was not just a figure of speech, let alone a matrix for cabaret turns. However, diverse and divergent in their methods or in their priorities, rogue states, tyrannies and terrorist bands are bound to converge operationally sooner or later in their common quest to harm and harass, demoralise and ultimately destroy, our open society.
  In this context, the Hutton inquiry and the relationship between the BBC and government assume considerable significance. If I may once more be permitted to introduce a personal note, I feel that I owe a great debt of gratitude, and possibly the whole direction of my career, to joining the BBC as a twenty year-old journalist on the eve of the war and to having served throughout the war. The high standard of objectivity and accuracy, even in a life and death struggle, was a shining example of journalistic integrity from the top down. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, and must regretfully submit that even cursory monitoring of the BBC news reporting of the war in Iraq, of the controversies about that war and of events in the region, lacked integrity and objectivity. The Andrew Gilligan story is by no means the only controversial issue.
  That eminent lawyer, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, has judged fairly and convincingly. The right honourable gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition in another place, acted, perhaps unwittingly, against the spirit which enjoins a loyal Opposition to show a sense of solidarity in a grave hour of national importance, when facing an existential issue. I hope that the Opposition and the Government will sink their differences and will collaborate in this inquiry into the quality and performance of intelligence.
  In conclusion, I hope that all those people, and there are many, who still have great misgivings about the resolve to go to war in Iraq, will pause and reflect upon what would have been the alternative had we allowed Saddam to survive, recover and resume his tyrannical rule, feted as an icon who defied the wicked West, and thirsting for bloody revenge.
  7.16 p.m.
  Lord Parekh: My Lords, although it may sound a rather strange thing to say, it is a little too early to comment properly on the Hutton report. So much has been written and said about it, from so many different points of view, that it has become difficult to appreciate the report in all its complexity. We therefore need a little distance in time.
  Now that the Government have set up a new inquiry on the gathering and use of intelligence, the findings of the inquiry will shed a new light on the questions that

  747
  the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, addressed or bracketed out, and it will influence how we shall read his report in a few months' time.
  It is in this spirit of caution and tentativeness that I wish to raise two simple, but central, questions. First, why has the report aroused so much controversy and failed to reassure a large section of the British public? Not only the media, but also ordinary men and women, and even professional politicians, remain somewhat sceptical about the report and even use such silly and offensive expressions as "a judicial whitewash". Secondly, and more importantly, where do we go from here? What lessons can and should be learned from the findings of the report and the issues that led up to the inquiry in the first instance? I shall address these two questions in that order.
  The report became controversial for two kinds of reasons, some external and some internal. Since the inquiry was conducted in public, everyone had access to the relevant evidence and everyone, naturally, reached their own conclusions. Some sections of the media reached their conclusions before the inquiry started. Since the report's conclusions were rather different from those that most people had come to expect, many felt disappointed, even bitter, and began to suspect an invisible, conspiratorial hand. We generally tend to approach life, especially political life, with the assumption that no party to a dispute is ever entirely innocent. Therefore, we expect a public report to criticise all the parties involved. When that does not happen, our instinctive ideas of fairness, as well as our assumptions about public life, come under strain and we refuse, wrongly, to accept the report. We suspect a whitewash.
  In Britain, as well as elsewhere, there is a widespread culture of cynicism about those in power, a culture that has, sadly, been nurtured by the media, with at least some contribution by the politicians themselves. A report that gives the politicians the benefit of the doubt and accepts them as men and women of honour and integrity goes against this cynical grain and becomes a target of cynical distrust. We need to fight this corrosive trend.
  While these and other external factors account for the dissatisfaction with the report, there are also internal reasons. Like all reports, the Hutton report is underpinned by certain assumptions that influence the inferences that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, made from a given set of facts and the conclusions that he reached. So far as discovering facts is concerned, he is scrupulous and thoroughly objective. He is right to insist that Andrew Gilligan's early morning broadcast on 29 January was false and utterly misguided and that his subsequent conduct and changes in his testimony, with two different notes of his conversation with Dr Kelly—all these related things—impugned his integrity and made him an unreliable witness.
  Everyone should also agree with Hutton's findings that the Prime Minister behaved with impeccable honour, that Gilligan's charges against him were wholly unfounded and silly, and that the BBC should have apologised as soon as the complaint was made.
  748
  When facts do not speak for themselves so obviously and need to be interpreted, Hutton, I think, slips into a kind of thinking that can be easily misinterpreted. He talks of "subconscious influence" and of "mitigating circumstances". These sorts of expression, by which he negotiates his way from facts to conclusions, are inevitably subjective and vague. Furthermore, since he generally invokes these factors in relation to the Government but rarely in relation to the BBC or even Dr Kelly, some readers of the report might feel that he was somehow applying double standards or not being wholly even-handed. These critics may be wrong, and I think they are in some respects, but the report itself cannot be entirely absolved of all blame. While welcoming the report, especially its exoneration of the Prime Minister and the Government of the charges that were levelled against them, I am not sure that one can defend or endorse all its detailed conclusions.
  Hutton assumes that there were only two sides to the dispute—the BBC and the Government—and that Dr Kelly's death had to do with the behaviour of either or both of these institutions. He ignores the role of the media which aggressively hounded Dr Kelly, door-stepped him, chased him everywhere and made him look like a criminal on the run. Professor Hawton, the professor of psychiatry at the University of Oxford, told the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, that the main reason why Dr Kelly could have taken his life had to do with the loss of self-esteem brought about by a number of factors, the most important being his exposure to the media. Dr Kelly was a private person, but even if he were not he would have found it extremely difficult to cope with the treatment that was meted out to him by the aggressive media.
  Some criticism of the behaviour of the media was surely needed, because the media do need to find ways of respecting the privacy and vulnerability of people in public life. I can say that with some personal experience. When my own report on the future of multi-ethnic Britain came out it was grossly misrepresented in the Conservative media and I and my fellow commissioners were hounded and pilloried. We went through a crisis of confidence. I can easily imagine how Dr Kelly would have felt when the press pack started to hound him.
  Where do we go from here and what are the lessons we can learn? I want to end with two general suggestions. First, the kind of conflict that we saw between the BBC and the Government should be avoided in future. The conflict did no good to the BBC and alienated large sections of the British people from the political process. Rather than take an aggressively confrontational approach, we need to find ways of exercising timely self-restraint and wisdom. Over the past few years many of our major institutions have been losing their legitimacy in the eyes of the British people; for example, the press, the monarchy, Parliament, the political parties and even the police.
  Now the BBC is added to the list, and soon it might be our intelligence services. We cannot go on like this. If we did, we would find all of our institutions discredited or de-legitimised in one way or another and our democracy and public life in general would suffer.

  749
  All of our institutions need to engage in some form of intense introspection on how they are run and how they behave, both within their own organisations and towards each other.
  Secondly, with all the good will in the world, the kind of confrontation that we saw between the BBC and the Government is likely to occur in the future, not only between them but also involving other sections of the media. That would inevitably call for some type of sensible resolution. I am not sure that a judicial inquiry headed by a single judge is the best answer because of the inevitable psychological and moral assumptions that every judge brings to his task. Perhaps we could think of a two or three-judge inquiry to cancel each other's biases and to inspire greater public confidence in the findings of the inquiry. One might even wonder whether a judge is always the best person to conduct such inquiries. We might think of senior trusted public figures who would be intimately familiar with both public life and the world of journalism. We might be able to persuade them to head such inquiries. We might even move away from such public inquiries and turn instead to a suitably strengthened Press Complaints Commission.
  Whatever we do, our urgent task now should certainly be to reduce the heat and polemics of our public life and restore a climate of sanity and mutual trust between our institutions so that they begin to see themselves as partners in the collective enterprise of restoring public confidence in our political process.
  7.25 p.m.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, referred to the fact that many people feel that the Hutton report was a whitewash. Indeed, over the weekend, I looked at an ITN teletext poll which asked the viewers whether the Hutton report was a whitewash. Of the more than 20,000 who voted, 94 per cent said it was and 6 per cent said it was not. Other polls have shown to varying degrees the same result. However, we should not take it from that that people are criticising Hutton. I believe that people are not criticising him, but were showing instead a complete lack of trust and confidence in government, politicians and our political system as they see it. That is what I think the polls were saying.
  At least the Hutton report is seen as a whitewash after the event, unlike the forthcoming inquiry which is seen as a whitewash before the event. While it is not for me to advise the Leader of the Opposition, Michael Howard, I think he ought to take note of what his noble friend Lord King said earlier today and ensure that the terms of reference are completely clear before he continues his support for this new inquiry.
  Most people to whom I have spoken say that the Government and Ministers have got off scot-free from the Hutton report while the poor BBC and to some extent Dr Kelly have ended up carrying the can. Bearing in mind the very narrow terms of reference, I believe that that was almost inevitable—although I feel bound to say that the noble and learned Lord,
  750
  Lord Hutton, was unnecessarily kind to the Prime Minister and Mr Hoon and particularly kind to Mr Campbell, who as we all know has a reputation as an arrogant bully and who has cast a malignant blight over British politics over the past seven years.
  Indeed, what I found most odd and unacceptable in the report was the confirmation that, while Mr Campbell and Downing Street were cleared of sexing up the dossier of 24 September 2002 which contained the 45-minute claim, they did have an input, and some of their suggestions were accepted by Mr Scarlett, who in my view was bound to have felt under pressure to do so. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, clearly believes that such contact between Downing Street and the security and intelligence services is proper. But I am not so sure about that. The duty of the security services is surely to produce accurate information based on reliable intelligence which should be made available to the Prime Minister and which he can accept, reject or question; but surely not ask for alterations, especially if they are titivated for public consumption.
  The most disturbing outcome of the Hutton inquiry, however, is the baleful and disproportionate effect that it has had on the BBC, its governors, managers and staff. It was certainly not intended to, but the report has played into the hands of the BBC's enemies, especially those who resent its independence and want to see its wings clipped. Indeed, the Culture Secretary was quick to say that the Hutton report would be taken into account when the BBC's charter came up for renewal in 2006. That must have sent a chill up many spines; it certainly did mine.
  Having said that, and as a long-term friend of the BBC and public service broadcasting, which I believe is very good value, I would advise the BBC to have a good look at itself and make some necessary alterations that will help it to retain its support and, indeed, gain more. I am a founder member of Global Britain, which over the past five years through an independent monitoring organisation—Minotaur— has carried out 13 tracking projects of the BBC's output. That research has raised a number of major issues, including that:
  "There appear to be few, if any, internal mechanisms for assessment on a systematic basis—in terms of Charter requirements—of coverage of controversial areas … Coverage of political affairs does not seem to take into account the important differences between opinion at Westminster and public opinion, with the result that coverage of events does not properly reflect the broad depth of views.
  Too much reliance is now placed on BBC reporters becoming the main fulcrum for the presentation of objective assessments as events unfold. They are often not equipped to do so because they do not have the specialist knowledge. This is particularly evident in the live 'two-way'",
  programmes. The research also suggests that:
  "Using the BBC's own correspondents as on-air 'personalities' for discussion and analysis—and even the source of exclusive stories—has become much more prevalent in the editorial process than is healthy.
  The emphasis is on glossy, personality-led presentation, often at the expense of accurate and balanced programming. In parallel, the main editorial thrust appears to be towards lines of questioning designed to generate maximum impact rather than establishing the facts.

  751
  There appears to be a dearth of intellectual rigour and lack of knowledge or focus at many levels of the editorial process. This seems to indicate poor levels of scrutiny both before and after broadcast. Getting material to air seems more important than balanced and accurate reporting".
  There could be various ways of solving those problems, but what must be avoided is putting the BBC under Ofcom or the culture department, or getting rid of the governors altogether. In my view, there should be a few more governors, drawn from a much wider section of the community than at present. It is essential that the governors represent and are seen to represent the owners and customers—the viewers and listeners—and should not simply be there to defend everything that the staff do or wish to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, said in his excellent maiden speech, it is their BBC if it belongs only to them. The BBC should always remember that.
  Although it might be difficult to separate the governors completely from the day-to-day running and administration of the BBC, there is a middle way of ensuring that standards are maintained, by setting up a trust paid for out of the licence fee that would enable the governors to have expert advice from outside the BBC itself.
  These are dangerous times for the BBC and freedom of speech generally. I hope that the governors and all those who work for the BBC will take on board criticisms and suggestions made by us and others for a better, more accountable and impartial public service broadcasting organisation.
  7.35 p.m.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I supported the Government in going to war against Saddam Hussein, and I still support that. There has been much talk about whether stocks of WMD will be discovered, but does anyone doubt that they existed and that Saddam used them? How could we doubt that? If at the last minute, after endless ultimatums that he had received from the UN, we and the United States had chickened out of military action, Saddam and his sons would now be torturing and murdering with renewed zest. Most of all, Saddam would have reopened all his plans to develop by any means, including of course biological and chemical weapons, the terrorising and intimidation of his own people and his neighbours. That would have been a major source of growing instability in the Middle East and a very real threat to the safety of this country.
  Thousands of lives were lost as a result of the war, but hundreds of thousands of lives were saved because of it. The death of the sons and the capture of Saddam have been major victories in the war against terrorism and indeed against tyranny in all its forms. I hope that it will not be too long before Saddam is brought to trial. The Nuremburg war crimes trials started in November 1945, less than six months after the end of the war. Less than 11 months later, 10 of the worst Nazi war criminals were executed. I suspect that, until Saddam is dead, many in Iraq will not really sleep easily at night.
  I accept the findings of the Hutton report. I believe that it was soundly based and disposes of many of the aspersions on the integrity and propriety of the
  752
  Government. As we have heard, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, was appointed there was little but praise for his abilities, objectivity and integrity. Now that he has shot the hunters' fox, his report is dismissed.
  I have confidence in the independent professionalism of the highest levels of the judiciary. Indeed, it is because I believe that it works so well that I oppose the Government's plans to dismantle the present system. We all know that in politics perception is reality, but I do not believe that the British people perceive our senior judges as either biased or incompetent. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, told us, by rubbishing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, we rubbish the judiciary. That does not help justice in this country.
  The task of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, was to give his judgment based on the evidence. However, many people, particularly the media and the Lib Dems, seem to believe that he was merely a judge taking evidence and presenting it to a jury, and that they are the jury to reach a verdict. I reject that interpretation. I do not feel qualified to be a member of that jury. I am by no means sure that I believe that it is really the right moment to have yet another inquiry, whatever its terms of reference. I am reminded of a letter written to the Times in 1958 by AP Herbert, which read:
  "The government, like an elderly hypochondriac, is always asking for a second opinion but never accepts it".
  Let me turn briefly to the two main findings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, as I read them. First, it is clear that the person responsible for the tragic death of Dr Kelly was Dr Kelly. For him, the pressure proved intolerable. The noble and learned Lord makes it clear that his suicide was not foreseeable and that Kelly was not an easy man to help.
  Secondly, I turn to the BBC. The accusation is not that it misused the two words "sexed up" as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, would have us believe. But the BBC made the most serious allegation that I can imagine, that the Government took the country to war under false pretences. I have watched and listened to the performances of the BBC throughout the Iraq affair and I have observed its constant anti-war agenda. There can be little doubt about its agenda. The techniques that it uses include the prioritisation of news items; any item of bad news on the situation in Iraq, however trivial, is automatically turned into the lead story. That is particularly so on Radio 4 and most of all in their flagship programme "Today", which is listened to by the entire political establishment, under its chief presenter, John Humphreys, who also spells out his personal views in his newspaper column.
  The BBC has yet to establish the distinction between a presenter and a commentator, or to show objectivity as a first requirement. I exclude the BBC political editor and most of his assistants from that accusation and I believe that the World Service has maintained its integrity and high standards.
  As individuals, we all have the right to an anti-war agenda. The commercial media, whether written or broadcast, has the same right. The BBC does not have

  753
  that right. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, said, "our BBC". It is responsible to all the people of this country who support it financially and who are thus shareholders in it. It has, I hope temporarily, failed in a massive way.
  I salute Gavyn Davies for his integrity in resigning as chairman. Greg Dyke is another matter. He is said to have shown inspiring leadership. The BBC workers demonstrated their support when the governors, rightly in my view, withdrew their support from him. However, his leadership was of the "happy-clappy" variety and resulted in a breakdown of discipline, amounting almost to anarchy. I am delighted that Mark Byford has taken over. He sounds a good candidate to be a permanent director-general.
  I am not prepared to join the pack in savaging the Prime Minister. I do not believe that it is in our national interest to do so. The office that he holds is too important to impugn the integrity of its holder without the clearest evidence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, has acquitted him; I accept his verdict. However, I agree that it may not be the end of the matter. To explain what I mean I shall conclude by quoting from Winston Churchill's tribute in the House of Commons on the death of Neville Chamberlain in November 1940. He said:
  "It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events. In one phase men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again, a few years later, when the perspective of time has lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new proportion. There is another scale of values. History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days. What is the worth of all this? The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honour".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/40; col. 1617.]
  7.44 p.m.
  Lord Alderdice: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, comes from a part of the world where pressure, force, the use of violence and profound emotions often serve to inform the truth rather than the facts of the matter. He was used to having to look at the facts of a case in circumstances where, as it would be said in Belfast, "even the dogs in the street knew different".
  It seems to me that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, considered this matter he said there were a number of questions. Did the unfortunate Dr Kelly take his life? Yes, he did. Was that something that reasonably could have been predicted as the outcome of the various interventions of others at the time? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, said no, it would not be reasonable to assume that of the other people around. That seems reasonable because we know many people in public life are under extraordinary pressure, but this is not the general outcome. Were there other reasons, thoughts and
  754
  matters in Dr Kelly's mind as well? We do not know; we cannot know; and we shall never know. It is difficult enough to know what is going on in anyone's mind when they are alive and able to respond; it is absolutely impossible to know what was in the mind of someone who has passed on. That is a tragedy and clearly there was turmoil, but it is a question that we cannot answer.
  The next question is whether there would have been an inquiry without the death of Dr Kelly. It seems to me that the answer is no. If the answer to all those other questions is so obvious, what was the purpose of the inquiry? It seems to me that it was because in such circumstances there is almost immediately a public outcry and a demand to search for the guilty or the responsible party.
  When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, considered the questions, inevitably he would come to the conclusion that some people may be able to be criticised, but that did not necessarily mean that they were guilty of the death of Dr Kelly. What about the demand to find out about guilt? There are other questions in the community that the noble and learned Lord was supposed to answer in some kind of impossible way. The first question for many people in the community is whether the reason that we went to war concerned weapons of mass destruction or something else.
  In introducing the debate, the Lord Chancellor said that in his view, undoubtedly the world is a safer place now that we have got rid of Saddam Hussein. That may be his conviction; it may not be an entirely unreasonable conviction, but it is not necessarily one that I share. I do not believe that people who travel around in aeroplanes feel safer; I do not believe that any of us really look at the world now and regard it as a safer place. Of course, some things are better for the people of Iraq, but that was not the claim that was made. It was claimed that this is a safer world. I hope I am wrong, but I fear that it is a less safe world, not because Saddam Hussein should have been allowed to stay, but because of how he was removed. It is not a matter of whether he was in power or not—no reasonable, fair, just person wanted him to remain in power—but the question is how one should get rid of him. The "how" is the problem.
  Many people believe that the Prime Minister had decided at an early stage that he was going to get rid of Saddam Hussein and that he was going to get rid of him, if necessary, by force of arms. Weapons of mass destruction was not necessarily the key issue. We have experience in the community of governments not being entirely forthright about their motives for doing things. We have a press whose approach is to assume that any public figure who says anything about anything is doing so for some ulterior motive. The idea that people enter public life with any real integrity—in or out of government—is not a fashionable view. So the BBC's approach is not just a matter of war and it is not just a matter of the reasons for the war; it is that this is exactly what is done in every circumstance, not

  755
  just by the BBC, but in general. The assumption is that a public figure is doing something wrong and that it is merely a matter of finding out exactly what it is.
  So what Andrew Gilligan did was not really a mistake. It was an inevitable consequence of an approach to journalism. It might not have been Mr Gilligan, Dr Kelly and the war, but somewhere along the line it was inevitable that some tragedy would supervene because of an approach to journalism that is not respectful, courteous or, actually, about finding the truth. That was revealed in an interesting comment made by Mr Dyke, who made clear that it was in the public interest to publish an allegation. It did not matter whether it was true; it did not matter whether the person who made it was prepared to come out publicly to say so. So an anonymous, uncorroborated, unattributable source is enough for any allegation, no matter how serious, to be promoted.
  That is not about informing; that is not about educating; that is not about the public interest; that is about exciting people. So much of what now passes for journalism is about whipping up people's emotions and feelings. It is not about giving them information. The boundary between "inform" and "entertain" has disappeared. They are almost seen to be the same thing. The reality and content disappear.
  That does not happen only in the press; it happens in other aspects of public life. It happens on the government side; it sometimes happens on the opposition side too. That is a serious problem. It is not about the current Government. The idea that a government might make a decision that they are determined to force through by pressure, persuasion or, frankly, deceiving people—promoting something with a whole lot of colour around it—did not start with the current Government. It started with the previous government, Margaret Thatcher's government, when the idea of working out something together by consensus disappeared.
  The responsibility of government was to get an idea and then to press it through. If you can press it through by force, you do. If you cannot, you spin a whole story around it that moves people and builds up their feelings so that they will be prepared to go with you for the moment and allow the matter through. It does not happen by thought, consideration, reflection and some kind of consensus.
  Because there is now so little faith in public figures, people turn to other areas where they feel that there is an assurance of truth. They turn to the press and the media. I discovered when I was a junior doctor that it was far more valuable to be in the press and on the radio to convince patients that you were well qualified than to have a dozen degrees and certificates up on the wall. If you are being used, especially by television, but also by radio, you must be an expert, whether or not you are qualified. People believe what is said, especially on television, even more so than on radio.
  I turn to intelligence. What is intelligence? We might well wonder these days. Intelligence is a couple of different things. It is about the accumulation of open
  756
  source, as well as covert, material; but then it is about assessment. It is about the judgments that are made, which are more important than the material obtained. It is about being clear about how soft and mistaken so much of that material is. We have not learnt. We all got it wrong about the Berlin Wall and the fall of communism, but did not learn from that to be a bit more sceptical of intelligence. People think that if it is intelligence, that means that is true; if it is on the BBC, that makes it true. I wish that it were so easy. It is not.
  What is key about the Hutton inquiry is that it reminds us all that a confrontational approach to political life that sets aside the truth in favour of what we would like to be the truth and that elevates getting your own way above getting agreement on the basis of the facts. If we do not realise that, the situation can only get worse. If the noble and learned Lord does us one real service, it will be that he calls us back to the kind of careful, courteous, thoughtful, respectful, fact-based approach that he so exemplified in his work in the report.
  7.54 p.m.
  Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, some commentators have been critical of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, because he did not address the question of whether the Government were justified in taking this country into a war to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. The noble and learned Lord himself said that that was not within his terms of reference and, in any case, an inquiry into such an issue should be done not by a single judge, however eminent and independent, sitting on his or her own, but by a group of people, including Privy Counsellors from the main political parties and people who are not politicians but who are independent and have the necessary experience of affairs.
  That is the sort of inquiry that we were offered yesterday to consider the intelligence aspects of the matter. It is to be chaired by my noble friend and eminent successor Lord Butler of Brockwell. I do not know whether to congratulate him or commiserate with him. At least they waited until the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, had reported before accusing him of a whitewash; they are accusing my noble friend of a whitewash before he has even uttered a word, let alone held a meeting.
  I assure your Lordships that my noble friend is no pussycat waiting to lie on his back to have his tummy tickled by the Prime Minister. If he and his colleagues see good reason to be critical of the Government, they will no doubt express that.
  To return to Hutton, I rather agree with Gavyn Davies: one may not have chosen the referee, but one none the less accepts his decisions. The noble and learned Lord has read and heard all the evidence, no doubt very carefully and thoroughly, and has come to certain conclusions. Others of us might have reached slightly different conclusions on the same evidence; but few if any of us have steeped ourselves in the evidence or had the opportunity to assess the quality of the evidence and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, said, the quality of the

  757
  witnesses who gave it, as has the noble and learned Lord. Having studied his conclusions and learnt the lessons, we should move on.
  This all started with the "Today" programme on 29 May, when Mr Gilligan included in his broadcast the allegation that the Government had inserted the 45-minute claim into the dossier, knowing or believing that it was wrong or probably wrong. Furthermore, he allowed it to be understood that his source for that allegation was the individual whom he had interviewed, later disclosed to have been Dr Kelly. In fact, he had no authority for the allegation, which he eventually admitted to be wrong; and it did not come from Dr Kelly, but was—on the most favourable gloss that Mr Gilligan himself can put on it, an inference that he himself drew from his interview with Dr Kelly.
  At that time, it was clearly a very damaging allegation that the Government inserted in the dossier a statement that they knew at the time to be wrong. It is understandable that the Government wanted to counter it and kill it as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, the Government, in the shape of Alastair Campbell, went in for overkill. He bombarded the BBC with a deluge—or, some say, a blizzard—of letters, telephone calls and e-mails. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, refers to that bombardment, but I am not sure that he has given sufficient weight to the psychological effect that it must have had on the BBC. Coming, as it did, on top of a long period in which the Government had been accusing the BBC of a systematic anti-war bias, the BBC clearly felt that it was being unreasonably harassed and bullied by the Government.
  If Alastair Campbell was obsessed about the BBC, the BBC in its turn was obsessed by its sense of being bullied by an overbearing Government. Its first and overriding thought was to resist that pressure, stand by its journalist and maintain the traditional independence of the BBC. That completely took the BBC's eye from the question of substance: whether the allegation complained of was well founded.
  It is ironic to think that, had the bullying tactics of Alastair Campbell been less fierce and persistent, the BBC might have been readier than it was to investigate more closely whether there was any substance in the Government's complaints, and to acknowledge that there was when this was found out. If that had happened, we might not be here this evening.
  The BBC has, as we have seen, paid a high price for its errors, but the Government cannot be completely acquitted of blame in their handling of the matter. No. 10's obsession with the need to nail the BBC also affected its behaviour in respect of Dr Kelly. Dr Kelly told the Ministry of Defence that he had gone beyond his authority in speaking to Mr Gilligan. He was called to account for that and given a severe reprimand. As far as Dr Kelly was concerned, that should have been the end of the matter. The Government should have stuck to a refusal to disclose the identity of the civil servant who admitted having talked to Mr Gilligan.
  The noble and learned Lord evidently accepted the view that in the end it would have been impossible to
  758
  prevent Dr Kelly being named because of the intense media interest. I can understand that and can understand and approve the Government's wish not to tell an untruth nor to equivocate if faced with a direct question: "Was it Dr Kelly who was interviewed by Mr Gilligan?" All the same, it would have been fairer to Dr Kelly if the Government had maintained a refusal to disclose his name. I fear the decision not to maintain such a refusal was another by-product of No. 10's determination to nail the BBC.
  The Ministry of Defence recommended that Dr Kelly should not be allowed to give evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. That advice was over-ruled by No. 10 and the Secretary of State for Defence. But the Ministry of Defence does not seem to have been given an opportunity at the relevant meeting at No. 10, or subsequently, to ask if that decision should be reconsidered.
  Dr Kelly was not as accustomed, as some civil servants become, to facing a parliamentary Select Committee. His evidence was, in the circumstances, bound to be a highly charged political occasion. If he was to be obliged to appear before the committee, I believe that, in his own interest, Dr Kelly should have been accompanied by a very senior civil servant, who could have supported him and helped him to deal with the very outspoken—indeed, I dare say offensive— questions that were thrown at him.
  Finally, there is the question of records of meetings at No. 10. We are given to understand that the noble and learned Lord was surprised by the absence—from the papers available to him—of records of at least some of the important meetings that took place in 10 Downing Street during this affair. Had such records been available, some of the confusion and misunderstanding that have bedevilled the affair might have been avoided.
  When a meeting takes place in No. 10 at which the Prime Minister is present and decisions are made, it is wise—I would venture to say necessary—that a full minute of the meeting should be made for the record. This is not just for the sake of the historian; people who have to act on the decision but were not at the meeting at which it was taken need a clear record—available for reference as required—of the decision taken and the reasons why that decision and not a different decision was taken.
  There is also the issue of accountability. Mere memory is fallible, as I know from experience. A contemporary written record of a meeting at which a decision is taken can be an invaluable aid to establishing exactly what happened and to discharging the duty of accountability.
  The occupants of 10 Downing Street have generally speaking been meticulous about recording the Prime Minister's meetings. If standards have slipped in this respect, it would be as well for integrity in government and good administration if they were restored.
  8.3 p.m.
  Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I believe that two of the greatest institutions of our country are the BBC and the Civil Service. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, have exemplified some of the advantages we have had in the Civil Service over the past 150 years, and similarly the advantages we have had from the BBC over the past 80 years. They are enormously valuable; in many respects they are the greatest institutions we have in the whole of our country. They are internationally respected and understood to have the probity and the standing which we have come to expect. It is a terribly sad reflection of our times that these two institutions are under the greatest threat. This is deplorable.
  Comparisons have been made between the BBC and commercial broadcasters. Comments have been made about the value of the independent reporting of Channel Four and ITV 1 and 2. I acknowledge that valuable aspect. The question that we have to ask is how much of that is due to the standards which are set by the BBC. The BBC is a yardstick and it sets a valuable benchmark. That is a particular value of the BBC and is, I believe, a most important background to the debate.
  Behind all this was the fact that there were two well-known Labour supporters—Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke—who came under constant and unremitting pressure from Alastair Campbell. They are both men of great ability and had a dedication to the BBC. They felt that they had to assert their independence, particularly since they were strong members of the Labour Party, and so they had to react in the way they did, partly for that reason, but partly also because of the unremitting nature of the torrential bombardment, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, called it, that produced a feeling that their independence was under attack. If the representations had been less vehement, an accommodation could have been reached. They might have handled the situation differently, but their reasons were honourable.
  The Hutton inquiry has produced a great deal of information. This was a valuable decision of the noble and learned Lord. He opened all the evidence to the public. When a judge in court comes to a conclusion about which I feel uneasy, I accept the decision because he has seen all the evidence and has heard all the witnesses—so my understanding is much less than his. In this case, with all the evidence, all being in public, and with the interest that one has in the issues, and knowing the people involved, one has been able to follow it all up in very great detail. We should be grateful for this opportunity to follow these investigations as thoroughly as we have been able to do.
  Furthermore, because one may have close personal knowledge of many of the people and of the circumstances over so many years, one is able to question, rightly, the conclusions that the noble and learned Lord reached. He gave us so much information that we have as good a right to come to our own conclusions as he has in a number of instances. I shall mention two of these conclusions.
  760
  The first is from page 153:
  "I do not consider that it was improper for Mr Scarlett and the JIC to take into account suggestions as to drafting made by 10 Downing Street and to adopt those suggestions".
  He also says that,
  "the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMD. may have subconsciously"—
  subconsciously—
  "influenced Mr Scarlett and the other members of the JIC to make the wording of the dossier somewhat stronger".
  I am in as good a position as anybody else is to judge sub-consciousness, and that is not my view.
  The noble and learned Lord refers to the term "sexed-up". Fortunately, I still have contact with my former constituency. I asked a number of people there what they thought "sexed-up" meant. The general view was that it meant exaggerated or made more interesting by exaggeration. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, does not have that view, but the view of ordinary people is similar to what I have described. "Sexed-up" is not a wrong description of what happened, taking into account the way in which ordinary people use those words.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the report states at sub-paragraph 8 on page 153:
  "The term "sexed-up" … lacks clarity [and]… is capable of two different meanings. It could mean that the dossier was embellished with items of intelligence known or believed to be false".
  Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I have read that and much of the Hutton report. The noble and learned Lord concludes that it is a much lighter version than I would have accepted. I would have interpreted "sexed-up" as an exaggeration or an embellishment. This in itself is not particularly bad; it is just an understanding of what happened. That is the interpretation that many of my former constituents made.
  On the complaint about the broadcast, at page 213 of the report, the noble and learned Lord made the following argument:
  "The Governors were right to take the view that it was their duty to protect the independence of the BBC against attacks by the Government and Mr Campbell's complaints were being expressed in exceptionally strong terms which raised very considerably the temperature of the dispute between the Government and the BBC".
  Of course there is a question of errors. But proper representations can be made and apologies for errors sought. Newspapers make errors every day and do not apologise, but the BBC normally does. The situation must be handled sensibly. If one handles it aggressively, one will not get the kind of reaction that one might seek.
  Following the new BBC chairman's appointment, I would like to see him or her come before the Public Administration Committee for its approval, in the same way as, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Radice, governors of the Bank of England came before the Treasury Committee for its endorsement.

  761
  David Kelly was 59 and coming up to retirement. It would be surprising if his pension and the fear of its loss were not on his mind. For six months, in 1974, I effectively ran the Department of Civil Service, subject to the Prime Minister, who, because of the political situation between the two 1974 general elections, gave me the responsibility of its day-to-day management. I had to deal with issues of dismissal and loss of pensions. It would be surprising if the possible loss of his pension was not prominent in his thoughts. By committing suicide, he would have been able to assure himself that whatever happened his wife would be protected. If that was so, we must accord his decision to end his life a sad but an honourable and an understandable one.
  8.11 p.m.
  Lord Judd: My Lords, I suggest that truth is always complex. It cannot be broken down into neat, watertight compartments. Each element affects and is affected by the others. As the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, reminded us yesterday, with all his relevant experience, the gathering, evaluation and use of intelligence is seamless. It would be naive to pretend otherwise, and that must be recognised in any inquiry.
  However, the seamlessness is true of the whole saga of the Iraq war. Real historical perspective would be essential before sound and wise judgments can be made, and even then there will of course be arguments. There will be judgments but absolute answers are another matter. The thirst for instant, absolute verdicts in limited spheres is, I suggest, inevitably destined for frustration, cynicism and controversy. However distinguished and however honourable those asked to make inquiries may be, and however courageously determined they may be in accepting, faced with an issue as complicated and literally intriguing as the war, it is to ask too much to expect the findings of limited inquiries not to raise more questions than they answer. That was true of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton; it will, I suspect, be true of the team led by the noble Lord, Lord Butler.
  The key question is whether the war was justified— whether the price in loss and maimed lives, and bereaved and grieving relatives and friends, was a valid price to pay in terms of the outcomes. Apart from the human cost to the allies, thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed and wounded in the war. Thousands of young Iraqi service people who had no alternative but to serve the cruel dictatorship were also maimed and killed. As we gravely ponder—as we in a responsible and civilised society should—the untimely and tragic death of a decent and talented public servant, we must remember the thousands who, without choice, suffered and died for the cause we embraced. Their families and friends are entitled to ask whether our preoccupation with Dr Kelly has not become a distraction from the wider question that must be addressed.
  We need the most comprehensive insight possible on which to base our judgments, whatever those may finally be. There is a debilitating uneasiness, if not
  762
  malaise, in our democracy, which centres on trust and credibility. We are all part of it. The political community is seen as closed and self-seeking. Much of the media are seen in the same way. The BBC has been a notable exception, but the BBC will retain its trust only if it invariably operates with the enviably high standards that it has established for integrity, independence and a constant striving for objectivity. Gravitas—let us not be ashamed of the word—is a part of that.
  The BBC must be a source of reliable news based on verified information and balanced analysis. It must never be a tool of anybody—especially the government. It will rapidly lose its status if it is drawn into a rat race of being the first with sensational stories. That is not its role, and it is not what the public want. Its hallmark should always be considered reliability.
  There is another characteristic, which too many in the political community and the media—even some in the BBC—have in common, and which I am convinced is central to public disillusion and alienation. I am talking about arrogance. If we are to restore public confidence in democracy, humility is indispensable. We politicians should argue our case. We should toughly analyse and criticise the case of others, but always in the context of recognising that nobody—not one of us as a mere mortal—has a monopoly of truth.
  There must be mutual respect. The challenge is to convince, not just to win. By convincing we can build the consensus that is essential for social and political stability. The absence of that culture means that there is a predisposition to mistrust findings that are seen as coming from establishment quarters that are inevitably perceived as related to the questionable worlds of politics and media.
  I hope that I am wrong, but I fear the same reception for the inquiry led by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, as that, however unfairly, given to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. If a new inquiry is to benefit from the experiences of the previous one, it must be seen to be about a search for truth, rather than just to allocate blame. Even now its composition should be seen to be widely drawn and demonstrably independent of the power circles that I have described.
  My noble friend Lady Symons has stressed that the legality of the war was based on the UN resolutions. But the UN resolutions were related to the supposed existence of weapons of mass destruction. If those do not exist, that surely raises questions about the validity of that legal argument. Nobody is suggesting bad faith on the part of Ministers, but it is a question that will not go away.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, did not feel able to deal with it within his remit. The new inquiry may well feel itself unable to face up to it, but it has to be faced. In saying that, I stress that it is a question about legality. There is a difference between legality and justification. That is a big issue, which is central to the whole realm of ethics. I suspect that history will look at justification every bit as closely as legal niceties, if not more so. Justification relates to human costs and measurable results.

  763
  While mentioning the United Nations there is another point to be made. Some of us argued that there needed to be a specific United Nations Security Council resolution authorising the war, and that to try to assemble an authorisation from past resolutions and their implications was not convincing. It is not mere legalistic concern. For an operation of that significance, with all its widespread consequences, endorsement by the most representative cross-section of the international community is indispensable. It is that that gives maximum authority. A specific resolution is the formalisation of that endorsement.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, was not expected to look at the history. But for the whole story to be convincingly evaluated, sooner or later that will have to happen. In 1991, why did the UN mandate, as formulated—we played a big part in the formulation— not authorise taking Baghdad? What were the underlying anxieties about Iran? What were the concerns to balance that equation? When there was not unconditional surrender, why was the situation played as though there had been, instead of deploying all the skills of imaginative, positive engagement? How far did that play into the hands of Saddam Hussein instead of opening up the situation if—a big consideration— indeed, it was possible to open it up?
  All those questions need to be considered if we are to learn for the future. On one specific, I hope that we shall have reassurance from the Government. It is surely important that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and his colleagues look at the work of Dr Blix and the UN inspectors alongside their examination of intelligence activity. What was the quality of that work? How seriously was it treated? Why was Dr Blix not allowed to finish his task before a decision was made about war? It is misgivings in that area that lend fuel to the argument that there was a prior decision to go to war in any case.
  We live in an age of blame. Like truth itself, responsibilities in the real world are a complex web of interrelationships. Finding scapegoats is the soft option. What matters is a determined search for the whole truth and a determination to learn for the future. Meanwhile, we are where we are. What matters now is to ensure the peace, not just in Iraq or even the region, but globally. That will require generous and vast resources. I suggest that it will also make a return to multilateralism, with the United Nations at its centre an imperative. Lasting peace cannot be imposed. It has to be built. That requires a common effort with a widespread sense of stakeholding and ownership in the process.
  8.22 p.m.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, when one criticises a government in this country, one criticises a government for falling below standards which are never reached by other people, and I accept that the standards of this country are infinitely higher; at the BBC, the present Government, the previous government and, I hope, any future government. We in this country set ourselves very
  764
  high standards. That does not matter though because when people fall below those standards, we can get quite cross.
  Until last year, no man could be tried twice for the same offence. The present Government have altered that. It is a pity that one of the exceptions does not include appeal from the judgments just given. I think that on many occasions some of those judgments have been perverse. It is admitted that Mr Gilligan erred and strayed. He erred and strayed greatly. He erred when he stated that the Government knew that the 45-minute warning was false. No one would believe that accusation. He strayed from the path of righteousness almost into the wilderness with his leaks to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee. But reading the evidence to the Hutton committee and its appendices, it is impossible for me to agree with the conclusions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, regarding the celibacy of the present administration.
  The Lord Chancellor is on the Front Bench today. Tomorrow he could be on the Woolsack. There is an immense difference in meaning between those two statements. It is equally different when applying those two statements to chemical and biological warfare. The change suggested by Downing Street is shown in the two drafts. The first states that weapons "could" be deployed; the second states that they "are" deployable in 45 minutes. In my view, that is sexing up. The evidence for that claim came from one reliable source, who passed on hearsay evidence.
  A 45-minute reaction time implies a fielded capability that should have provided collateral to an otherwise single, uncorroborated source. Iraqi staff officers, some of whom had been well trained in our own staff colleges, knew that to deploy those weapons down to divisional level would require large numbers of men, large amounts of paperwork and a large amount of signalling and e-mailing. Admittedly, a great deal of Iraq's communications in 1991 was carried out on secure fibre-optic lines, but at operational level, signals have to go via wireless telegraphy. That can be monitored. With the allies' total air superiority, there should have been air photographs or satellite evidence. There were none of those. When units move, signals increase. Where was the evidence of that?
  The many appendices to the Hutton report all say "strengthen" and "make clear". Appendix CAB/11/0027 asks,
  "Can we show why we think he intends to use them aggressively rather than in self-defence".
  Appendix CAB/11/0025 states:
  "we need a device to convey he is a bad and unstable man".
  In a paragraph headed "Feel"—the heading itself has sexual overtones—Philip Bassett states,
  "our aim should also be to convey the impression that things have not been static".
  That appears in Appendix CAB/11/0024. In Appendix CAB/11/0030, Mark Sedwill writes:
  "Executive Summary: Looks pretty good. Could be tweaked a bit in places".

  765
  Not one single note asks "Are you sure?" or "Have we got this right?" or "Check again". All those notes from officials in Appendix 13 could, in old-fashioned cavalry talk, be described as "hack on": "Never steady the beys, rein in the greys, but always let the 11th Hussars ride through".
  If the Government knew and were certain that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction, deployable at 45 minutes' notice, why did they allow soldiers to attack without chemical or biological warfare filters? Of course, if they believed that they did not, it would not matter that there were no filters. However, I do not completely acquit the Government of that belief, which makes the former even worse.
  I do have a difficulty, because I supported the war, I support it now, and I am quite convinced that Iraq will be a better place than it was under the reign of Saddam Hussein. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, and Anne Clwyd—I can call her noble too—described the horrors of that reign and brought me round, after elements of doubt, to agreeing with the necessity of the war.
  If those reasons were enough in their totality, why did the Government have to behave in that iffy way? Sexing up their own or copying other people's intelligence of doctrinal variety is not good enough. However, I suppose that I must accept, as I have, that it is possible to buy a very good driving pony from a dodgy Welsh horse dealer.
  8.30 p.m.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I congratulate the maiden speaker on his notable and helpful speech. Often when debates of such seriousness are held in this House, one is genuinely informed and one's mind is shifted in the course of debate. That has been true tonight. However, I have to say that those who suggest that if one disagrees with the judgments reached by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, one is somehow arguing with the referee or subverting the course of justice, that really is misconceived. Judges are human, they are constantly appealed in the normal course of their work and that is the nature of judging. Nothing could have been more difficult than the task with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, was vested in this case. It is no wonder that some of us, while accepting the utter integrity of his judgments, disagree with him in certain particulars.
  Perhaps I may concentrate on the issue of sexing up. I do so not to rake over the coals, but because there is real public unhappiness about this report. Others have referred to that and I think it is a reality. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, spoke of public trust and the importance of trying to restore it. We need to face the fact that, on this occasion, the public had greater access to this inquiry than to any other in history. People could watch it nightly on their televisions and read about it day by day. If ever the great British public has a sense that it is entitled to its own view, this is it. People are, to an extraordinary degree, unhappy.
  766
  First, in my view the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, gives an incomplete definition of the term "sexed up". He states on page 144 that it is capable of two different meanings. The first,
  "could mean that the dossier was embellished with items of intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable to make the case against Saddam Hussein stronger".
  It is this meaning that he ascribes to Andrew Gilligan's broadcast on 29 May, thus inevitably rejecting the sexing-up charge, pursuant as it is to his prior judgment about the untruthfulness of Andrew Gilligan's report.
  His second meaning of sexing up is that,
  "the dossier was drafted in such a way as to make the case against Saddam Hussein as strong as the intelligence contained in it permitted".
  But that is not sexing up in normal parlance.
  I suggest a third definition, one that he did not mention, which I believe is the one to which the British public relate; namely, that the dossier was drafted in such a way as to exaggerate or over-egg the interpretation of the intelligence contained in it or otherwise to distort its impact by emphasis, omission or presentation.
  Having read with care Chapter 6 and the conclusions in Chapter 12, I can say only that, in common with a great many members of the public, I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, under-sexed his conclusions about the impact of Alastair Campbell and his team on the final wording of the dossier. That is a vital matter. Your Lordships will recollect that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, put it in terms of possibility that Mr Scarlett may have been "subconsciously influenced" by No. 10. I summarise. Most people think that that is a severe understatement of what went on.
  It was only in the last draft of the dossier, produced on 20 September, that the foreword by the Prime Minister was included. Notably it made no mention at all of human rights issues, concentrating entirely on WMD. The Prime Minister stated:
  "I wanted to share with the British public the reasons why I believe this issue [WMD] to be a current and serious threat to the UK national interest".
  The foreword goes on to repeat:
  "I am in no doubt that the threat is serious and current, that he has made progress on WMD, and that he has to be stopped".
  Many noble Lords, notably the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and my noble friend Lady Williams, have laboured this point.
  This foreword and the dossier were designed to scare those who read it and the reference to the readiness of WMD in 45 minutes was included in several other parts of the report. Indeed it assumed a greater profile in the successive drafts throughout September, as the report catalogues.
  I turn to the whole question of the reality of the threat from Saddam Hussein. This is a particularly important incident referred to at some length by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. It may help noble Lords and the record if I read the e-mail sent on 19 September by

  767
  Jonathan Powell to Alastair Campbell and John Scarlett, this at a time when they were furiously and frenetically honing the final dossier:
  "Found my copy. I think it is good.
  I agree with Alastair you should drop the conclusion.
  Alastair — what will be the headline in the Standard on day of publication?
  What do we want it to be?"
  We know what it was: "45 minutes from attack".
  There is more in this. Alastair Campbell referred to "the threat" in the draft as it then stood:
  "Saddam is prepared to use chemical and biological weapons if he believes his regime is under threat".
  Jonathan Powell said that this was,
  "a bit of a problem. It backs up the Don Mclntyre argument that there is no CBW threat and we will only create one if we attack him"—
  Donald Mclntyre is of course a writer on the Independent—
  "I think you should redraft the para".
  Indeed, the paragraph was redrafted.
  While most of us accept the broad criticism by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, of the BBC's inadequacy at top levels concerning Gilligan's failing, what is one to make of his exculpation of the relentless pressure exerted by No. 10 throughout September, which led to the exclusion of reference to there being no danger to Britain from nuclear attack; excluded intelligence that Saddam would use his weapons of mass destruction only defensively; change of qualified statements to unqualified ones; repeated warnings of a "current and serious threat", which was misunderstood, written to be misunderstood and which, having been duly misunderstood by the public, was not the subject of an attempted rectification?
  That contrasts starkly with the demands made of the BBC by Alastair Campbell for its misrepresentation. What, too, does one make of the fact that the 45-minute claim was, as other noble Lords, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, have mentioned, never qualified to make clear that it was a battlefield threat only, and that the intelligence on which it was based was a single, uncorroborated source?
  Even Gilligan's story of Alastair Campbell's relentless efforts to sex up the dossier had corroboration from Susan Watts's recorded conversation with Dr Kelly. What did Alastair Campbell say about the fact that the BBC was relying on a single source? He said a heck of a lot.
  The frenetic exchange of e-mails and drafts between Campbell, Scarlett and Powell between 16 and 20 September will on reflection be seen to have been an inappropriate way of dealing with a matter of such immense importance. That has relevance for the review which I hope the acting chairman of the governors of the BBC will institute, just as the acting director-general is undertaking a review.
  8.38 p.m.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, the theme I wish to develop is that outlined earlier by my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon. He is quite right and astute in saying—if I may paraphrase him—that the situation now reached in the fourth estate of the realm, as the press is sometimes called, has uncanny resemblances to the position of the trade union movement in the 1970s. The perception of its role at that time was one of power without responsibility. I have in mind the famous quote from Baldwin about the press in the 1930s— power without responsibility—which he said was,
  "the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages".
  In that case, rightly or wrongly, there was some redress through the political process. In many respects the laws dealing with trade unionism were badly handled, but in the case of the media, if the analysis is correct, is there any corresponding way forward? I shall come in a moment to the propositions from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, with which I disagree.
  Let me establish what some leading authorities are saying at the moment about this situation being a crisis for the media. On Saturday, there was an outstanding article by Andrew Gowers, the editor of the Financial Times. He stated:
  "The true message of Hutton is that this was a story about journalism, not about the deliberate embellishment of a dossier on Iraqi WMD, against the wishes of the intelligence sen ices … That claim … was demolished … The Hutton report is about a story that was wrong",
  and so on. He continued:
  "No one—certainly not Lord Hutton—is suggesting that journalism must now retreat… we have a duty not to "sex up' what we claim to have found".
  In the Times on 3rd January, Sir Harold Evans, a distinguished journalist, stated:
  "Something is rotten in the state of relations between government and press in Britain. There is distrust all round— distrust of government by the press, distrust of the press in government, and of the press among the public. It should not fester… I believe that good might come from a public ventilation of grievances … and an informed examination of the practices, assumptions and ethical standards prevailing in journalism … and government-press relations alike".
  Finally, Mr Geoffrey Goodman, the distinguished former industrial editor of the Daily Mirror and the founding editor of the British Journalism Review, stated:
  "There is nothing wrong in demonstrating that there is an inevitable conflict between [government legislators and the media]: that is an essential condition within any democratic society.
  But where this conflict degenerates into a cancer of contempt, mistrust and eventually mutual derision between the two, the democratic process is itself threatened. Politicians have become increasingly contemptuous of journalists, and perhaps even of free journalism; and journalists have grown increasingly derisive of politicians and their function. In some cases there is also now a danger of journalists arrogating to themselves a new role '—
  I hope the House will forgive his pun—
  "—a kind of House of Columns to replace a House of Commons".
  The central problem is that we now have new tribunes of the people who, objectively speaking, seek to replace the tribunes of the people in Parliament but without having the same responsibility.

  769
  We are all schizophrenic about the media—we need them but are they really trying to catch us out? While wearing one hat, even Dr Kelly himself was apparently, if not encouraged, not discouraged from talking to the media, as an expert, about his knowledge of Iraq. He was perhaps talking about matters to one of his contacts, dropped his guard and certainly said—he may have set out to say it—something that he should not have said. "There but for the grace of God go I", was my thought at the time. Surely we have all been there. It is the idea that we are all in thrall to the press that forces us into these uncomfortable situations.
  But it is not a one-way argument about politicians and the press. We, as parliamentarians, have to be very careful about how we put issues to witnesses giving evidence to Select Committees. We also have our responsibilities. There should be some kind of restraint on the way in which the media develop their role in the governance of the country.
  I said that I wished to respond to an interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. As a lawyer, he has pointed out that the reporting of an allegation that one believes to be true but turns out not to be true is legally protected. But I hope that I am not doing him an injustice by saying that he would not wish to declare that that fine legal point is the basis of a proper relationship between the media and governance of the country—because we cannot have a civilised or constructive relationship on that basis.
  In conclusion, there should be an open study between leading journalists and leading politicians to see how we can find a way forward. It is not a question of having another Royal Commission. It is to build on what the Hansard Society's commission, under my noble friend Lord Puttnam and its vice-chair Jackie Ashley, is doing to look at how that problem of lack of respect and constructive relationship can be improved. That is an important conclusion from the Hutton inquiry.
  8.46 p.m.
  Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I must begin with a hereditary interest and I am most grateful to the BBC, because it is, to some extent, responsible for my position here. When my grandfather was in the Cabinet, as Sir William Mitchell-Thomson, he gave the BBC its original charter. When he arrived here, he introduced television with the Selsdon report. All of his diaries and readings that I have tried to find in a suitcase locked in store somewhere in Ealing have warned me about the events that would have happened—and have happened—today. He warned that one must not have sex, religion, finance or politics. We have too much of all of those. He also said that we must pay due attention to the English language. I now say that the first casualty of war was truth and the second was the English language— something that Geoffrey Wheatcroft wrote some time ago in the Guardian.
  About two years ago, Mr Hoon, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, said that there was no universally-acceptable definition of the phrase
  770
  "weapons of mass destruction". The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, only a year later, on 3 March 2003, said that there was no such definition of weapons of mass destruction. The English language is pretty good. The first definition of "weapons of mass destruction" was, supposedly, by the Times in 1937, when Franco tried to bomb the Basques out of existence in Guernica. The phrase was then used by the Nazis for carpet bombing. Then we became equally guilty of carpet bombing at Dresden. It was Lord Cochraine, an admiral, who first suggested to the Admiralty that there was a new weapon that could possibly replace fire ships. That was a noxious gas that was introduced in 1914.
  One way or another, we are talking about fear and threat of weaponry. The Americans did not define weapons of mass destruction until 1998 but even their law does not seem to apply. We are talking about something of which we know nothing. I often find to my amazement that when I have asked the Government a question they say that there is no definition and tell me to look it up in the dictionary. The most recent example was when I asked for the definition of "vermin". In France, the largest vermin is an animal called a blaireau—a badger. There is no definition of "vermin" in the United Kingdom.
  The great and wonderful English language should often be used in legislation and elsewhere to provide definitions. I am a "reporter", if one looks up the definition of the word. I did not realise that—it is an old usage in that one goes out to report upon matters, one writes them down and compiles reports. That stems back from my time in the Navy, when my noble friend Lord Geddes was also there. He was more competent than I, a seagoing officer who had to take a Corona typewriter and type seven carbon copies in a rough sea, where the "o"s and the "a"s perforated the paper, tore it apart and blew overboard. Ever since then I have worked for bureaucracies including the great Midland Bank, where we had to report on absolutely everything.
  Part of my time took me to countries of the Arab world—first to Iraq in 1974. I learnt from those countries and others that they have a great knowledge of and an interest in the United Kingdom. I also learnt that much of their knowledge and truth came from the BBC and in particular from the BBC World Service. I was often told, "You don't want to listen to much of the rubbish that is being broadcast in the United Kingdom. That is all politically motivated. But the World Service you can trust".
  When I returned from a mission—sometimes a government mission—I would often be asked whether I would go and see those in the World Service and tell them what I had done. If people in the host country had been rude to me—the Iraqis were always extremely rude—I would be extremely rude back and surprisingly enough the World Service would not always edit that out.
  I believe that there has been a failure in many of us to understand Iraq. When I first went there, people in the British embassy were not allowed outside and it was probably impossible to gather any reasonable

  771
  intelligence of what was going on. The Iraqis are masters at disinformation. First, they make everyone look the same and then they make them all speak the same.
  I became involved with the Iranians and the Libyans and discovered that many of them play cricket. The other day, one of them referred to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, as being the wicked wicket keeper of the Woolsack. He is portrayed as having to defend fast bowling when it is all off line. He has done a wonderful job and I want to thank him personally for having sat here throughout the debate. That is a great honour to the House and it is much appreciated. I hope that in due course he will realise that my hereditary duty at the BBC came to an end with the House of Lords Act in 1999 when, effectively, we were called "elected" hereditary Peers. I hope that before he leaves this House, if ever he does, he will refer to us with the one word "elected". The Iraqis and others think that we are more important because we were elected. I do not return to how or why.
  Here comes one of the worries: weapons of mass destruction. Let us look at the history. We went to war with Iraq but why did we stop? No one has been able to tell me that. I could spend half an hour telling your Lordships why other people think we stopped, but we stopped. Why did we start again? We started something again because we heard about the wonderful weapon of mass destruction called the "supergun" which could bomb everyone out of existence. It was actually fixed in concrete and pointed only in one direction.
  Then we experienced something totally unrelated. The United States, which had never been involved at the beginning of any war and had never really been involved in terrorism, had United States aeroplanes flown into buildings by United States immigrants. They were not called "weapons of mass destruction" because under the law they were not. That then led to the desire to hit back at somebody. First, the idea was to hit back at Osama bin Laden. You could hit back at him in Afghanistan—another of my patches. When you cannot get him there, you announce that everyone is linked together in an axis of evil and that they are all hosting terrorists—and attention turned to Iraq again. With that comes the information that they are a threat with their weapons of mass destruction.
  What a load of rubbish. A weapon of mass destruction, if it is so defined as gas or whatever—but it is not—is only of value if it can be "weaponised" and delivered. There is no way that most or any of the weapons referred to in government documentation could, with the facilities available in Iraq, be delivered to threaten us or anyone in western Europe.
  But we come to the methods of delivery that they had. Of course they had Russian-oriented missiles. I happen to have spent some time in the Ukraine and elsewhere and visited the missile factory there. It was explained to me that in no way would the Iraqis have been allowed to have Scud missiles that could do any harm to the Russians or reach their territory. During the Gulf War, a Scud missile landed and exploded, but had no explosive hits.
  772
  I must be careful what I am saying, but I am only reporting what people have said to me. I was told at that time that it took 45 minutes to change the head of a Scud missile. It could be used to drop propaganda or something else. How was it possible to activate it? Look at where the Scud missiles went during that war and think back at how many were camouflaged. Think back to what British troops did during the Tripoli incident when they made cardboard tanks. Again I was told that it took 45 minutes to get a Scud missile up and ready to go.
  A lot of disinformation is provided to us by a lot of people, but whatever the reasons I support the Government's decision to go to war and I will support for ever the right of a Prime Minister of this country to make that decision. If after the event people wish to have it justified, so be it. There was a lot of wrong, and a lot of disinformation, and a lot of fear was created unnecessarily. Let us put that behind us and let us get on with the job.
  8.55 p.m.
  Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I would rather be debating a Motion today that did not just take note of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, but warmly welcomed it. I certainly do. Right at the outset, I express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, for his diligence and impartiality in analysing the issues—the basis of the report—and for his well argued and well reasoned conclusions.
  The terms of reference were simple and straightforward:
  "urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly".
  It is a matter of some regret that in today's debate we have heard precious little about that. We have heard an enormous amount about other things that should be the subject of other inquiries and about some that will be the subject of a further inquiry. I regret that we have not dealt with the report.
  We all know the genesis of the report. Mr Gilligan made serious allegations that the Government probably knew, prior to its inclusion in the 20 September 2002 dossier, that their statement of Iraqi ability to deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes was wrong, and that 10 Downing Street ordered the dossier to be sexed up.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, describes the first of those claims quite clearly as:
  "a very grave allegation which attacked the integrity of the Government and the integrity of the Joint Intelligence Committee and gave rise to a major controversy which dominated the headlines for many days".
  I find it small wonder that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and his staff robustly defended themselves because their integrity before Parliament and before the nation had been seriously challenged. Mr Gilligan's already grave allegations were exacerbated three days later when he could have reflected, and corrected his earlier broadcast, when he wrote in the Mail on Sunday that the Government dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was,
  "transformed the week before publication to make it sexier".

  773
  Again the Government, and their director of communication, replied robustly, directly to the BBC and in their evidence before the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.
  As a supporter of this Government, I would have put the worst construction on a government that did not seek robustly to defend their integrity. I am sure that, if I were prepared to do that, the vast majority of honourable Members in this House would do it. I expected and demanded of the Government that they should defend their integrity in such circumstances and do it clearly and robustly. Their integrity was therefore examined, tried and tested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, and the Prime Minister, in advance of his report, conceded the imperative of his resignation should he have been found to have misled Parliament.
  I wish that some people who, in advance of the publication of the report, made accusations against my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had the same level of integrity in putting their reputations on the line, or at least that they would be prepared to apologise for the mistakes that they made. I look forward to the possibility that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will remedy, this week, that which he failed to do last week.
  The Prime Minister and the Government were not found wanting in the report. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, for that which he did.
  Today, in the opening speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I saw two speeches that contrasted ill with the measured, well argued references to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, that we had from my noble friend Lady Ramsay, or with the impressive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, with his insistence that an imperative part of the inquiry should be the pursuit of truth. For so many people, it was the pursuit of pre-stated political prejudices which led them to serious bitterness when the report did not provide the justification for that which they had decreed in advance.
  The two opening speeches contrasted ill also with the directness of the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, on the findings on the serious allegations against both the Government and Mr Scarlett. There were other excellent speeches—the clarity of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and the measured words of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford—but I turn to the opening speeches.
  I can understand the emotion that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, feels in relation to a death that everyone regrets. However, he does not improve the quality of debate in this House with hyperbole about Dr Kelly being thrown to the media or being subjected to intolerable pressure. As for being thrown to the media, I have to say to the noble Lord that there was in fact a rather willing victim who put himself in the position of going to the media without the necessary authorisation and in circumstances that led to his being severely reprimanded for that which he had done. When the noble Lord talks about, "Campbell
  774
  drawing up a JIC report", he offers a very liberal interpretation of language. It almost matches the famous words I remember being attributed to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, about being economical with the truth.
  Equally, in her opening remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, tried to have it both ways by saying that she supported Hutton but then appearing to want the decision to be made by opinion poll or media response. In the multitude of opinion polls, many of which were interestingly done on samples of fewer than 500 people, some produced mutually contradictory results. So we cannot nor should we have in this House a welcome for a report by a Law Lord of high repute then being subjected to judgment by media reaction or opinion poll. That would be a travesty of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, also referred to the report in today's Independent concerning Dr Jones. However, I think we should just look at what Dr Jones was actually arguing about. The Hutton report says that Dr Jones,
  "did not argue that the intelligence relating to the 45 minutes claim should not have been included in the dossier but… did suggest that the wording in which the claim was stated in the dossier was too strong and that instead of the dossier stating 'we judge' that 'Iraq has:—military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, including against its own Shia population. Some of these weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them', the wording should state 'intelligence suggests'".
  So all that argument in today's Independent was covered in the Hutton report, and it was an argument about the difference between "we judge" and "intelligence suggests". It was nothing to do with the substance of what appeared in the report.
  I really am surprised that so much of the debate has concentrated on the supposition that Dr Kelly—a valued civil servant who had given good service to his country and his people and who was obviously a valued member of society—should, in the circumstance in which he had gone beyond his competence at work, necessarily be given anonymity. Kelly spoke to the press. He spoke to them outside his remit without authority, not on technical questions but on questions that appeared to amount ultimately to not much more than political tittle-tattle. If I have a serious criticism of the Ministry of Defence, it is that it should ever have suggested that anonymity was appropriate in those circumstances.
  Too many noble Lords wanted an inquiry into the report. They welcomed the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, praised his thoroughness and integrity, and then sought to set new standards of obfuscation in professing to accept the report in full while simultaneously nibbling away at the detail. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I accept his report in full and I, if not the rest of the House, believe that we owe him our gratitude and thanks.
  9.5 p.m.
  Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I agree with every syllable just uttered by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson. I would like to start by reading out three quotations

  775
  from someone who stands completely outside the political fray. They are very significant quotations from last Saturday's Financial Times, taken from a very unusual signed article by the editor. He wrote:
  "The Hutton report is about a story that was wrong, defended against furious government complaints by a BBC management that had not bothered to check it, even weeks after it was broadcast, and backed by a board of governors determined to resist external pressure at the expense of obscuring the truth".
  The second paragraph that I want to quote states:
  "In reply, Mr Davies insinuates that Lord Hutton's conclusions do not fit the facts and mutters about threats to press freedom. And Mr Dyke claims the Gilligan story—though mistaken—was in the public interest and that the governors had no reason to apologise. In so doing, both demonstrate that they have only a passing acquaintance with the basic tenets of good journalism".
  The last quotation from Mr Andrew Gowers with which I shall detain your Lordships—the article is worth reading in full—states:
  "Against this background, Mr Dyke's contention that the thrust of the story was worth reporting, and that any mistakes were in the detail, defies belief. Worse, it demonstrates the extent to which the BBC has been infected by the poisonous culture that has long since tainted other parts of the discourse between politicians and the media".
  We all know how we got into this state. It was because the poor old BBC, for which we all must feel very sensitively, was subject to a blizzard of hectoring e-mails from Mr Alastair Campbell. It is worth inquiring why he saw fit to inundate the BBC with that blizzard of e-mails. It was because in his view the BBC's programmes—not only the "Today" programme—were demonstrating a consistent anti-war bias. There were many times when I was on the point of writing a letter to the BBC, because I was so furious in the evening at some of its programmes. I am glad to say that my wife dissuaded me from doing so the following morning.
  It is not only the anti-war bias of the BBC that gets to some of us, but the perpetual anti-American bias. It is so deep that I am quite sure that members of BBC staff do not realise that they are infected by it. I was not in the Chamber, but I watched the remarks of the noble Lord. Lord Weidenfeld. I agree with him entirely that it is not only Mr Gilligan about whom we have to complain. I even watched a "Newsnight" programme one night, and took the trouble to get the video of it. It was the night that Uday and Qusay Hussein had been killed by American soldiers. Noble Lords will not believe it, but they were described on "Newsnight" as "those two hapless men". "Hapless"? As the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, remarked a few moments ago, there are questions about some people's appreciation of the meaning of the English language.
  It is not only on the BBC that we have such difficulties. On "Channel 4 News" at seven o'clock earlier this week, Jon Snow said to Donald Anderson with the most venom that he could put into his voice, "You can't hide behind the skirts of the French and German intelligence services". He did not know, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, pointed out, that the Chinese and the Russian intelligence services had come to the same view. Leaving aside the vulgarity of the language of Mr Snow, that kind of attack
  776
  demonstrates how little some presenters know of the significance of the underlying facts of this unfortunate affair.
  Why did we have this explosion of anger? Here I have to make it clear that I take serious issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, whom I have known and admired for many years. Today she repeated many times that Gilligan was guilty of a serious mistake; she and her party repudiated his serious mistake. That is not the language that I would use. Gilligan was not guilty of a serious mistake; he was deliberately guilty of a foul slander and he saw that it was perpetrated throughout the media. He never apologised until very late in the day. That is not a serious mistake; it is much more serious than that. That is why there was an explosion of anger on the part of those of us who cared for the reputation of our friend.
  We were also very angry, not just because of the imputations against my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, but also because it let down the country and the BBC. If Mr Davies had apologised, like the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, did at the beginning and in my view appropriately, we would not have had this trouble. The problem with Gavyn Davies is that he does not like apologising. No one likes apologising. The two most difficult words in the English language are "I apologise". Mr Gavyn Davies simply could not come up with those words. He did not like the man to whom he thought he had to apologise. Mr Gavyn Davies was too unintelligent or too insensitive to recognise that he owed an apology not just to Alastair Campbell, but to the whole country, to everyone who had listened to the BBC broadcast. So he has gone.
  I am not a critic of the BBC as an institution. I have no desire whatever to change its charter arrangements. Here we have not a failure of an institution, but a failure of men. The list goes on. We had an extremely supine board of governors that clearly failed to perform its duty. It may surprise your Lordships to know that I have a certain amount of sympathy for Mr Greg Dyke. The board of governors should have said to Mr Greg Dyke, "No, do not go because you have a lot more on your plate and it is understandable that this did not come to your attention". However, they should also have said to Mr Greg Dyke, "We want Mr Sambrook out of this building within the next 15 minutes". In a moment I shall say a little more about Mr Sambrook, the director of BBC radio news.
  My right honourable friend Gerald Kaufman will be dilating on this subject and on the way in which Mr Sambrook concealed the facts from the board of governors and probably from Mr Greg Dyke in the course of his remarks at the other end of the corridor. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the state of the professional relations between Mr Sambrook and Miss Susan Watts, one of the very few BBC employees who, in my view, comes out of this matter with an enhanced reputation.
  I shall quote one or two passages from Miss Watts' evidence. She said of her conversations with Dr Kelly:

  777
  "He didn't say to me that the dossier was transformed in the last week and he certainly didn't say that the 45-minute claim was inserted either by Alastair Campbell or by anyone else in government. In fact, he denied specifically that Alastair Campbell was involved in the conversation on May 30 … he was very clear to me that the claim was in the original intelligence".
  She continued by testifying that the BBC had been primarily interested in getting her to corroborate Mr Gilligan's account, rather than in the merits of her reports. She said:
  "I felt under some considerable pressure to reveal my source. I also felt the purpose of that was to help corroborate the Andrew Gilligan allegations and not for any proper news purpose … I was most concerned that there was an attempt to mold [my reports] so that they were corroborative which I felt was misguided and false".
  On 11 July, Ms Watts's solicitors—she felt that she had to retain solicitors to protect her against her own employers—wrote a letter to Sarah Jones of the BBC Litigation Department. Again, I shall cite only partially, but the full text is available. It states:
  "I also place on record my extreme disquiet that a senior BBC executive"—
  that is Sambrook again—
  "has apparently told a journalist at The Telegraph that the BBC believes Andrew Gilligan's source to be my source also and that Andrew Gilligan and I 'got exactly the same story'.
  I do not agree that a comparison of the two reports suggests that there is only one area of difference between the information disclosed by my source and Mr Gilligan's source, as was suggested by Mr Richard Sambrook to my solicitor and on which basis he apparently predicates his belief that they are the same person … Further, I am very concerned about the process by which the circumstances surrounding my Newsnight report are being drawn into a dispute between the BBC and the Government and consider it inappropriate that my reports be used in this way".
  I think I have said enough to make it quite clear that Mr Sambrook is not fit to be supervising anyone in any institution, let alone to be head of radio news at the BBC.
  What of the future of the BBC? I entirely agree with the constructive suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Lea, which I shall not repeat. Unlike some of my noble friends, I think that we should have an overt recognition of the political nature of the job of the chairman of the BBC. No one cares especially about the gardening or sports programmes or the theatre department; they are not matters of controversy. It is the public affairs and news programmes with which we have difficulty.
  We have some useful landmarks that we could follow in that respect. Down the other end of the corridor, the chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee properly reposes with the Opposition and changes hands whenever there is a change of government. That is a line that we might consider with profit. Of course, we must be careful whom we choose. There are certain politicians on both sides of the House whom I consider totally unsuitable to be chairman of the BBC.
  I am not much in favour of the chairman of the board of governors who preceded Mr Davies. But I am quite sure that when the BBC was in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, and my noble friend Lord Barnett, something of this sort would simply
  778
  never have been allowed to happen. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that things will only get better.
  9.18 p.m.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, when noble Lords read Hansard tomorrow, they will see what a disappointment Members on these Benches have been to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and a number of other noble Lords. None of the seven speeches that have been made from these Benches have rubbished the Hutton report; nor has anyone from these Benches ever accused the Prime Minister of lying.
  I start with the statement in paragraph 472 of Hutton that was cited by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral:
  "I have decided that it is unnecessary for me to make any express recommendations because I have no doubt that the BBC and the Government will take note of the criticisms which I have made in this report".
  The absence of specific recommendations in the report was a mistake. At least initially, it allowed the Government to proclaim Hutton as bringing in a not guilty verdict, whereas we believe that the report and its evidence cry out for immediate action not just by the BBC but by the Government and others.
  My noble friends Lady Williams of Crosby and Lord Wallace of Saltaire have already set out in persuasive detail the reasons why my party is not prepared to serve on the Butler committee. I look forward to hearing the clarification by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor asked for by the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord King, of the terms of reference of the committee. I wish to concentrate my remarks on other areas where there is need for urgent action. In so doing I draw on my experience in public relations in the 20 years since I left the House of Commons. There is a self-mocking definition of public relations, which says "give us the truth and we will varnish it for you". So rather than debate the exact meaning of "sexing up", the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I must agree that there is no doubt that a document which went through several coats of varnish, the document which Parliament thought was the unvarnished opinion of the Joint Intelligence Committee, had several coats of varnish applied by Mr Alastair Campbell.
  The lessons from Hutton are very clear. Never again should a political appointee, and especially the Government's political propaganda chief, be so closely involved in the workings of our secret services. The role and powers given to Alastair Campbell when the Government came into power in 1997 were fraught with dangers for the political neutrality of the Civil Service and the integrity of the information services. There is an urgent need for a Civil Service Act to underpin the Northcote-Trevelyan principles of a politically neutral Civil Service promoted on merit.
  The Government are in the process of finding a Civil Service head for their information services and have before them the Phillis report and the Public Administration Committee's draft Civil Service Act. They should move quickly on both reports to restore public confidence in these areas.

  779
  While looking at Civil Service reform, the Government should also review their "duty of care" responsibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, asked what was meant by "duty of care". The view of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, seemed to be that "duty of care" was very sparse, but it is now standard practice for large companies to have established procedures for helping employees in trauma or stress or under the media spotlight. These would include professional counselling, physical protection from media intrusion, and assistance in dealing with media questioning, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, pointed out.
  Reading the Hutton report, it is hard to find a specific and consistent duty of care procedure being employed. Indeed, a reading of the evidence suggests that Andrew Mackinlay MP was not far from the truth when he said that Dr Kelly had been hung out to dry. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, observed that Dr Kelly may well have been a difficult man to help. But helping the difficult cases is just why you have such procedures in place.
  Another area where there is a need for government action is over Mr Alastair Campbell's assertion that parts of the BBC were operating to an anti-war agenda. That canard was repeated today by, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, and the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford, Lord Weidenfeld and Lord Gilbert. It was also said the other night by the noble Lord, Lord Jordan. It was that assertion by Alastair Campbell—in its way as damaging to the reputation of the: BBC as Gilligan's sexing-up accusation was to the Prime Minister—which coloured and influenced the BBC response to the complaints coming from Campbell.
  So I ask the Minister again tonight the question I first asked on 17 September 2003, which is whether the accusation made by Alastair Campbell of the BBC operating to an anti-war agenda was a statement reflecting the Government's official view. If not, Ministers should draw a line under that accusation by confirming all the academic studies undertaken since the war which show that there was no such bias in BBC reporting.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, identified some grievous faults in the management of the BBC, and as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, pointed out, grievously has the BBC paid for them. But he seemed to take no account of the water in which modern media operations take place. In 1988 Michael Dukakis lost a commanding lead in the race for the White House because he was perceived to react too slowly to attacks on him by the media. From that experience came the technique of rapid rebuttal. It means responding to every critical story, using every channel of complaint, challenging the journalist, his superior and his superior's superior. It is aggressive, in-your-face and it works.
  The noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Clinton-Davis, clashed over where and when spin started in Downing Street, but what is clear is that after the Labour 1992 defeat, new Labour studied rapid rebuttal techniques—read The Unfinished
  780
  Revolution by Philip Gould—and Alastair Campbell brought them into Downing Street in 1997. Anyone who saw him before the Select Committee, in his interview when he turned up uninvited at Channel 4 or in his multitude of post-Hutton interviews will have some hint of how that process of systematic intimidation works.
  The reality was that the BBC was reacting not to an isolated complaint but to a pattern of behaviour that allowed a genuine complaint to be dismissed as another of Alastair's rants. The real failure of the BBC management was not to have in place a more thorough, fail-safe mechanism to deal with such a complaint from such a ruthless foe.
  As I have said, the action needed now is for the Government to respond positively and quickly to the Phillis recommendations and for Mark Byford, the excellent acting director-general, to insist on back to basics in the standards of BBC journalism. In that respect, he will be greatly encouraged in that task by the authoritative maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, which will also create great confidence in the country as a whole.
  What I do not find in Hutton is any justification for changes in the BBC that would reduce or undermine its role as the iron pole around which we construct high quality public-service broadcasting. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert: look at Fox News. For some time I have been thinking of suggesting to the House authorities that they should show Fox News in one of the television rooms so that noble Lords can watch it. If noble Lords watch it for an hour, they will see the future if we do not have the protection that the BBC affords us as regards quality of news reporting and standards. In some ways, only in the United Kingdom could one of the world's best-known, most trusted brand names be submitted to such sustained criticism. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, might inquire why, during the Iraq war, Internet users in their thousands in the United States switched to BBC news so that they could find the truth.
  Of course the BBC should reform and improve, but so should the rest of the media. I was very impressed by the interventions of my noble friend Lord Goodhart but also by those of the noble Lords, Lord Lea, Lord Hannay and Lord Parekh, who spoke wise words about the nature of the media. They tie in closely with a section on this issue in the Puttnam report, which deals with the worrying, debilitating impact of the media on our national life In today's Guardian, Mr Martin Kettle writes:
  "A month ago, the Phillis report on government communications set out some ways that the post-Campbell political world could clean up its act. These need to be followed through. But do we in the media have an equivalent awareness of the equally urgent need to raise our own game? I do not believe that we have even begun to realise the damage that some modern journalism is doing to the fabric of public and private life".
  That is so very true. But I will have real hope only when I see such self-criticism written by Mr Trevor Kavanagh in the Sun.
  The noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, reminded us that the two greatest inheritances that we carried into this century from the previous one were our Civil Service

  781
  and the BBC. The Hutton report shows that both are under threat. That is why the real lessons of Hutton have been spelt out from these Benches this afternoon.
  We want a full public inquiry into our reasons for going to war. We want an overhaul of our intelligence services. We want the Phillis recommendations on government communications to be implemented. We want a Civil Service Act to protect the public service ethos of our Civil Service. A clear duty of care procedure should be put in place throughout Whitehall. We want the BBC charter review to be conducted in such a way as to restore public confidence that the BBC will emerge strong and independent of government interference.
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been a little tetchy about the position taken on these Benches. Part of the problem is that he is on the cusp of two careers. He rather takes the lawyer's view. He has the judge's verdict, so he can go back to chambers, throw his wig in the corner, have a sherry and that is the end of the problem. But the political world operates differently. There is another jury—that of public opinion, which will be tested finally at the ballot box.
  The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, referred to Suez. Perhaps the most honourable casualty of Suez was Sir Anthony Nutting, who called his memoirs, "No End of a Lesson". The sad and sorry story of Dr Kelly's untimely death has lessons for us all. The Hutton report will be of value only if the Government, as well as the BBC, accept the noble and learned Lord's invitation to learn those lessons and act accordingly. Then, and only then, may, to quote the final lines of the Hutton report,
  "a scientist who loyally served not only his Government but also the international community",
  rest in peace.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it has been a long debate, but I am glad to say not as long as I thought it would be a few hours ago. It has included some of our most senior Members of the House—those with wide experience in government and in the Civil Service.
  I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Ryder of Wensum on his excellent maiden speech. Although he sits on the Cross Benches, I hope that I can still call him my noble friend. He has taken on his new role with all the judicious skill that he displayed when he was Chief Whip in another place. Like my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater, I hope that we shall hear from my noble friend again soon. I wish him well in his post in the next difficult few months, and I know that the BBC is in good hands under his chairmanship and the acting Director-General, Mark Byford.
  It has been an unusual debate because it has been characterised by strong emotion, deeply held beliefs and— a rare occurrence in my experience—there has been an abundance of scratchiness, or even tetchiness, from the start of the debate this afternoon. Why? The reason is that the issue strikes at the core of the Government's reputation for trust and probity. It
  782
  deals with the peculiar relationship between Ministers and their political officers, their semi-politicised civil servants in No. 10, the career civil servants and the intelligence services.
  It deals with the war between the BBC and the Government, in which Dr Kelly became a pawn and chief victim. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally said, our debate points to the many lessons that need to be learnt right from the start of this sorry episode. There are lessons about the use of intelligence, the way in which Select Committees operate and how government treat their staff. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, reminded us earlier this afternoon that we should remember that the Hutton inquiry was first and foremost about the tragic loss of a gifted and honourable scientist.
  The noble and learned Lord completed his report last week, and I accepted its conclusions. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that one can accept the conclusions of the report and still look at some of the things that were left out, and some of the issues that were not entirely resolved, such as the naming strategy. The noble Lord seems to be really annoyed that we accepted the report's conclusions and supported the war. That is what the noble Lord gets so excited about.
  Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, it is probably a triumph of hope over reasonable expectation that the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, should say directly that he was hoping that the noble Lord would have the good grace to apologise for some of the comments that he and his party leader made before the report.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it would help if the noble Lord would be more specific about the allegations of accusing the Prime Minister of lying. He has read the Labour Party's brief well, but it left out the specific allegations. As part of the post-Hutton fallout, we now face another inquiry—the Butler inquiry—which we welcome.
  I believe that the war in Iraq was justified. The Conservative Party has been consistent in offering its support to the Government and to our Armed Forces. We have been equally consistent in calling for an inquiry to be held into the intelligence surrounding the war. It is becoming increasingly clear that there was a discrepancy between the intelligence assessment of the weapons of mass destruction and the reality on the ground.
  As already mentioned, David Kay has said that he does not believe that weapons of mass destruction exist or existed in Iraq. I hope that the House agrees that it is possible both to support the war and to want to get at the truth. I am very glad that after so many months the Prime Minister has accepted the case for this inquiry; although after hearing the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say on a television programme on Sunday that there was no need for a further inquiry, I was stunned to hear that view overturned within 24 hours. At last we have got an inquiry, and I am grateful for that.

  783
  There has been much discussion about the terms of reference of the inquiry, so let me be clear about our understanding of it. We believe that the committee can and should consider the way in which the Government used the intelligence with which they had been provided. We believe that that is now included fairly and squarely in the terms of reference. That is why we agreed to them. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not take refuge in the mantra that it is for the committee to construe its terms of reference. They are the Government's terms of reference. They must know what they intend them to mean.
  I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater for raising that. I look to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to confirm my view as clearly and unambiguously as I laid it out. The Government can already show their good intentions as regards this inquiry. As has already been referred to, writing in the Independent today, Dr Brian Jones (described at the Hutton inquiry as probably the most senior and experienced intelligence community official working on WMD) has made a specific request to the Prime Minister to publish the intelligence behind the Government's key claims that Iraq was actively producing chemical weapons and could launch an attack within 45 minutes of an order to do so.
  Given that Saddam Hussein has been overthrown, he clearly does not believe that there is any reason or sensitivity for not publishing the intelligence. If there is such a reason, he thinks that it should be stated clearly. What is the response of the Government? As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor acknowledged today, there are specific criticisms of the MoD in the Hutton report, focusing on the way it treated Dr Kelly in relation to the naming process. Paragraph 432 of the report states:
  "The principle fault lay in the failure of the MoD to inform Dr Kelly that the press office was going to confirm his name if a journalist suggested it".
  I shall not go over the ground again, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord listened carefully to my noble friends Lord Waddington and Lord Hunt of Wirral in their powerful contributions. I trust that right across government, attention will be paid in future to ensure that employees are given the care and respect they deserve, so that, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said, this can never happen again.
  There are lessons, too, about the process of government; such as, the lack of documentary evidence of the conclusions of crucial meetings, which was commented on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, in the course of the inquiry and, today, by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, with all the weight of experience that he has at his disposal.
  I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will reply to the charge made by my noble friends Lord Waddington and Lord Alexander of Weedon. Should not the Government have gone to greater lengths to avoid the kind of false interpretation that was placed on the 45-minute claim? As my noble friend said, when newspapers published headlines such as "45 minutes from attack" on the day of the
  784
  September dossier, and "Brits 45 minutes from doom" the day after, should not the Government have made it clear that the claim in the dossier referred to battlefield weapons? That they did not is just one of the reasons why public confidence in the Government is so low. The public feel manipulated by the Government's omission.
  My noble friends Lord Alexander of Weedon and Lord King raised also the question of the advice given by the Attorney-General. That is a crucial point. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will confirm that the Attorney-General's advice on the reasons for going to war will be made available to the Butler inquiry.
  There are lessons to be learnt about how the operation of Select Committees could be improved. My noble friend Lord King asked why the Intelligence and Security Committee could not obtain the e-mails that were readily surrendered to the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. In the previous Parliament, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth chaired a commission of distinguished parliamentarians and constitutional experts and proposed ways to strengthen democratic control of the executive. What a pity those recommendations were not taken up by the Government.
  Finally, I turn briefly to the BBC. The most serious and far-reaching repercussions of the Hutton report in the past week have been for the BBC. I join those noble Lords who have paid tribute to Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke. Notwithstanding the criticisms of them in the Hutton report, they both made a significant contribution to the BBC. That something went seriously wrong in the BBC is not in any doubt, but I share the view of many noble Lords that the BBC, at its best, has no equal in the world. Some institutional changes are now required, which must be properly debated and fully thought through, so that another generation can benefit from the excellent reporting that has been so true in the past.
  There is also an essential point of principle here. No one should underestimate the vital role that a free media plays in sustaining a vigorous and healthy democracy. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, himself states:
  "The communication by the media of information (including information obtained by investigative reporters) on matters of public interest and importance is a vital part of life in a democratic society".
  There are clearly important lessons to be learnt from the report about how governments run their business. They are lessons for governments of all political parties. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will tell us what lessons the Government have learnt and what plans they hope to put into effect, and when. One view, shared by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is that the Government should commit themselves in this Session to a civil service Bill in order to restore a proper separation between the political and official arms of government. The independence and impartiality of the Civil Service need now to be given statutory reinforcement. If that were done, the tragic death of Dr Kelly might not have been in vain.
  9.43 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have had a very full and impressive debate in many respects. I join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ryder of Wensum, on his speech. Two things emerged from it: first, how brave he was to devote his maiden speech to a topic of such public interest; secondly, how mysterious it is that he has been silent during the past seven years when the quality of his speech was so high. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in saying that the country can be confident that the BBC will be in safe hands during the months when he is the acting chairman of that great organisation.
  I shall not be able to address my closing remarks to every point that has been made before 10 o'clock, so I shall divide them into three areas: first, the comments on the Hutton report itself; secondly, comments on the forthcoming inquiry—the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord King, have brought us intelligence of what has been said in the Commons in the hope that we might say something different in this House; and thirdly, the position of the BBC.
  I turn first to the Hutton report. Three strands emerged in the debate. The first was the strand exemplified by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, who said, "We appointed a judge. Let us genuinely accept the report". The second strand was represented by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. They said that they accepted the report. They accepted, for example, the conclusion that the Government did not act dishonourably in relation to the naming strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, then delivered a speech describing the Government as "throwing Dr Kelly to the media". Those are not the words of honour. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, made it explicit that she accepts the wording of the report. The report states that it was perfectly proper for discussions to take place between Downing Street officials and members of the JIC. She then made a series of remarks to the effect that she did not regard that as proper; indeed, she regarded it as "sexing up the document". So the second strand comprises those who say that they accept the report, but then operate in precisely the opposite way.
  The third strand comprises, as one would expect, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who are absolutely straightforward: they said that they do not accept many of the findings. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, put his finger precisely on the point. Because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, has published all his evidence, some people think that they can have a shot at forming their own view and putting themselves in a position that might be regarded as superior to that of the noble and learned Lord.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. That was not my proposition. I made it perfectly clear that I accept the main finding of Hutton in respect of Gilligan's untruthfulness about the position of the
  786
  Prime Minister and the Government on inserting stuff into the dossier in which they did not believe. I repeat, I made that perfectly clear.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, on his straightforwardness. I understood him to say quite clearly at one stage that some of the findings of the noble and learned Lord were—I think I am using his word—perverse. Of course I do not dispute that he accepts some of the findings, but others he took absolutely head-on.
  The best example of the "I accept, but do not really accept" strand arises over the question of whether improper pressure was put on the JIC in relation to material put into the dossier of 24 September. Before one comes to a conclusion on that, it is worth pointing out what was the accepted context of that dossier. Some demand was made by all political parties for the Government to set out their case, including intelligence in relation to the position on weapons of mass destruction. No dissent was expressed by other political parties about doing that. It was recognised that it was unusual and it was of course recognised that both the intelligence services and the JIC would have to be completely involved in it. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, found, so would the Prime Minister, who would be responsible for presenting it to Parliament. If he was involved in presenting it to Parliament, plainly he was entitled to be satisfied about its contents, as long as it was owned by the JIC.
  We had the spectacle this afternoon of some noble Lords picking over a number of e-mails and remarking, "Well, this or that should not have been agreed. That had a damaging effect in relation to the dossier". I remind noble Lords that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, heard from Mr Scarlett, the chairman of the JIC, Sir Richard Dearlove, the chief of SIS, Sir David Omand, Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office and former head of the GCHQ and former Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, Air-Marshal Sir Joseph French, the Chief of Defence Intelligence and Mr Anthony Cragg, the Deputy-Chief of Defence Intelligence. He heard from every single one of those people on whether the JIC honestly thought that the assessment was valid and a fair consideration of the intelligence.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, also had the benefit of looking at the very same e-mails. The reason why, in my submission, judges of the eminence and calibre of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, are appointed to look into such issues is because dispassionately—away from politics, from trying to establish the point of view of a particular political persuasion, from trying to damage the political party in power or to score political points—it is possible to come to a firm and final conclusion about what happened.
  I ask those noble Lords in either the second or third category—the second category being those who say that they accept the report, but then take the findings

  787
  obliquely; the third category being those who seek explicitly to reject the findings—to reflect on the work carried out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord's argument on the e-mails be stronger if in any of those e-mails the Office of the Prime Minister had sometimes said, "Hold on, are you sure about that?" In none of them did it say that: they all said, "Hack on; make it stronger; make it quicker". Those of us who find that section of the report so difficult would be far more sympathetic to the view put forward by the noble and learned Lord if there was a counter-argument by someone saying, "Are you sure you've got it right?"
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Earl knows, in the e-mails corrections of fact were made that were neither strengthening nor weakening. I am asking him to consider—and he is a man much admired in the House—
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, flattery will get you everywhere.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is why I said it. Will he consider the possibility that if he had heard the evidence of those members of the JIC and also considered the e-mails, he might have come to same conclusion as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton? There is a danger in the approach taken to the conclusions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, by so many people in this House and beyond. I am sure that such opinions are held in good faith, but what is the point of appointing a judge who has gone through the evidence in such detail and then seeking to pick away at his findings?
  The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was exactly as one would expect from an advocate of his power. It was an advocate speech that did not really take on board the work carried out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton.
  I turn to the report's main findings. First, was the document sexed up? It was not, the noble and learned Lord said, in the sense understood by the people listening to the Gilligan broadcast. It was not sexed up in the way described by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and it was not sexed up as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, put it. He said that it was exaggerated, which is not accepted by the JIC.
  In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, if "sexed up" means acting consistent with the intelligence available, then it was sexed up in that sense. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, finds that, but he says that it was perfectly proper to operate on that basis. That is the conclusion that she contests.
  With regard to the naming of Dr Kelly, the Government found themselves in the position where two parliamentary inquiries were either going on or about to start in relation to the issue that the Government had wrongly sexed up the document. In effect, Mr Gilligan's allegations were being considered by the two parliamentary committees.
  788
  Plainly the most material aspect of Mr Gilligan's report was who was the source of that report. He had told the Foreign Affairs Committee that there was a single source. If the single source, or someone who might be the source, came forward, how was it possible, consistent with propriety, for that fact not to be revealed to the committees? That view was taken by Sir David Omand, Sir Kevin Tebbit, Sir David Manning, all of the officials involved and all the Ministers involved. What conclusion would have been drawn if it were known that the Government knew who the source was and hid that information from the two committees?
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, heard evidence from the chairman of the FAC; the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee and from a member of the FAC, Mr Andrew Mackinlay. He also read the evidence from when Dr Kelly gave evidence and noted the series of questions asked by Sir John Stanley about when the Government first discovered that Dr Kelly might be the source.
  Once it became clear to the Government that they had to disclose that fact to the committee, the question was not whether his name would be disclosed but how it would be disclosed. The evidence accepted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, was that the name was not disclosed in a straightforward, clear and clean way because they were not 100 per cent sure at that stage that it was Dr Kelly. That evidence was accepted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. He described the conduct of the Government as not dishonourable.
  His account of events is entirely inconsistent with the account given by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. If one asks oneself the question "Is it plausible that once the name was known to the Government they had to disclose it?", the answer is "Yes, it plainly is". The Government fully accept and must learn from the fact that much more care could have been taken in relation to Dr Kelly, and we apologise unreservedly for that.
  Equally, it is perfectly plain that, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been better if the name had been disclosed in a press release at a time identified by the Government and notified to Dr Kelly. But that is not the same as saying that a dishonourable course was followed. I am glad to see Members on the Benches opposite nodding in relation to that. That is why, when asked do I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said, I must reply "No, I most certainly do not". The implication of what he said is that the conduct of the Government, both Ministers and civil servants, was dishonourable, and I do not believe for one moment that it was.
  Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has quoted Sir Kevin Tebbit, but not as in paragraph 51 where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, quotes him as saying that he did not recommend to the Government that the evidence given by Dr David Kelly should be disclosed. He wanted it kept secret.

  789
  That is clearly set out on page 33 of the report. The only point that Sir Kevin added was,
  "I do, however, believe it necessary to have defensive material available should the story leak".
  It leaked with the authority of the Prime Minister. I do not believe that Sir Kevin anticipated that.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I believe that is at an early point in the story. If one looks at Sir Kevin's views as the story develops, he becomes increasingly concerned that the name will leak out and he agrees to the issuing of the press release on 8 July. He approaches it on the basis that it is almost inevitable that the name will come out; he proceeds on the basis that the inevitability of the name coming out has been told by Mr Hatfield to Dr Kelly a few days before. Obviously I shall read very closely the part of the report referred to by the noble Lord, but if one looks at the whole story and the way in which Sir Kevin's thinking develops, I believe one will find that that is only a part of the story.
  Lord Fowler: My Lords, is the Lord Chancellor saying basically that the procedure used then will never be used again?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is a very unusual situation. Of course we need to learn lessons from it. In the light of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, has said, we have obviously learnt that it would have been much better for a press statement to be issued disclosing the name. There should have been a close discussion between Dr Kelly and officials, and then a time agreed in relation to it. That is the conclusion reached by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton.
  But again I come back to the point that he has made it absolutely clear that there was no dishonour in what was done. It was a very difficult situation. That was his view and I earnestly ask noble Lords to look at the report and to consider whether or not what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said on a previous occasion was appropriate. The noble Lord, Lord King, also referred to this today. On 28 January the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, ended his remarks by saying:
  "So will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor apologise fully and unreservedly to Dr Kelly and his family on behalf of the Government? When he replies will he also say, without qualification, what the Prime Minister failed to say; "We are sorry that our actions led to Dr Kelly's death and we apologise unreservedly"?".—[Official Report, 28/1/04; col. 216.]
  I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will now be aware that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, made it absolutely clear, in wording that refers to officials and Ministers alike, just as the wording of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, covers officials and politicians alike:
  "I am further satisfied that none of those persons was as fault in not contemplating that Dr Kelly might take his own life".
  So when the noble Lord complains of tetchiness, I apologise for that. But one of the things that is of considerable sensitivity on the matter is that those
  790
  people who did their best in the Government— officials and politicians alike—fear that whatever may happen they will always be accused of causing Dr Kelly's death.
  I shall move on to the new inquiry, which we are calling the Butler inquiry. I support all noble Lords who have said, "Let the inquiry take place and let's accept that it has been set up in good faith; and let us not criticise the noble Lord, Lord Butler, before he has even started looking at the issues".
  The noble Lord, Lord King, asked a number of questions about the terms of reference. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in another place and my noble friend Baroness Symons said in this place that of course it will be a matter for the chairman to explore the terms of reference with committee members to decide the appropriate limit of the remit. To suggest that the chairman will not consider the terms of his remit is, with great respect, not sensible.
  As far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear that the terms of reference exclude ground already so thoroughly covered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. I do not think that any of us wants the report to go over the ground that has already been covered. It has been made absolutely clear that it excludes any consideration of whether the Government were justified in taking military action. That conclusion, which has been accepted by the Conservatives, is not a matter for a committee; it is a matter for the elected politicians.
  The terms of reference include, among other things,
  "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".
  Clearly, Ministers do not gather intelligence. As my noble friend Lady Symons explained yesterday, they do not evaluate it. That is done elsewhere in the Government machine. Ministers and governments do use intelligence, as the noble Lord, Lord King, mentioned. That is plainly covered in the terms of reference and it always has been since the terms of reference were agreed. I understand from looking at Hansard that the right honourable Mr Michael Ancram, the shadow Foreign Secretary, has accepted that the terms of reference are acceptable.
  Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, before we move on to another interesting and possibly contentious point, the right honourable Michael Ancram's points were made yesterday, if he is quoting Hansard. Since then an issue has arisen. Since the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is being extremely helpful, can he give a straightforward answer to a question? Are the uses made by the Government of that intelligence within the remit of the terms of reference?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the terms of reference are explicit in relation to that, so I am not

  791
  quite clear what the question meant. Before I answered the question, because the terms of reference were explicit, I thought I should think very carefully. The terms of reference, as the noble Lord knows, specifically refer to the use of intelligence by government and I explicitly accept that "government" includes officials and Ministers.
  Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way again. I am sorry that he did not just say, "Yes", because that would have been most helpful. As was made clear by the Leader of the Conservative Party on the radio this morning, the use by the Government of the intelligence is within the terms of reference. The noble and learned Lord knows—he is extremely clever and I respect him for that—that the terms of reference could be ambiguous. So that there is no misunderstanding before the committee starts its work on an extremely challenging task, could he just say, "Yes" in answer to my question: do the terms of reference cover the use of intelligence by the Government?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, of course, my Lords. I have said that three times now. Obviously I was not making myself adequately clear and I apologise. I understand from what the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord King of Bridgwater, said that the Prime Minister said that the Attorney-General's advice would be available. That is not my understanding of what was said in another place. The position is that the Government made it absolutely clear that they will co-operate fully. Noble Lords know perfectly well what the arrangements are in relation to the Attorney-General's advice. For the past 30 years it has not been disclosed, although as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, pointed out on a number of occasions, it has on a few occasions been released— normally in the context of judicial proceedings such as the Factortame case. If and in so far as I am wrong and my right honourable friend said something else, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord King, can rely on what was said in another place.
  Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. In view of all the doubts that have been expressed about the legality of the war, would it not be much better if we did not have to rely on a summary view given by the Attorney-General, but that the window was opened to his full advice so that those of us—and there are many—who thinkthat the war was unlawfulin
  792
  international law will have the opportunity of evaluating his advice and, if that advice is sound, reconsidering our view?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, I was a Law Officer. The Law Officers, in their current modern form, have been rightly extraordinarily astute to ensure that their advice is not normally disclosed. If it were to be disclosed as a matter of course, exactly the sorts of blandishments the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, puts so persuasively would be put in every case. My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith rightly agreed that there should be a summary of the legal basis for using armed force. It was utterly clear what that basis was and international lawyers are able to evaluate and debate the issue fully on the basis of that advice.
  I should say, although I do not express it as a concluded view, that the terms of reference of the inquiry are to look at discrepancies in the intelligence and what has now been found in relation to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Superficially, it is quite difficult to see at this particular point the connection between that and the legal advice of the Attorney-General. But no doubt at some stage the connection would be made in a clearer form.
  Finally—and I am sorry I have spoken for so long— the BBC. Everyone knows that there was a row with the BBC. Please no one take the view that the Government have any view other than they want to see a strong, independent BBC holding us to account, being the glory of the world in relation to the quality of what it provides. But, equally, if we think the BBC has told the wrong story and maligned us, it does not mean that we cannot object in relation to it. All that we would expect is not that the BBC withdraws in relation to the story, but takes the trouble just to look at it.
  The noble Lord, Lord Ryder, in his powerful speech, made it clear that many of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, in relation to the BBC were on the basis of an acceptance by the BBC of the various problems that have arisen as a result of what has happened. It was not that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, made findings against, in many cases, the wishes of the BBC'. There was a mature acceptance of the fact that things could get better. In relation to both the Government and the BBC there needs to be that mature acceptance. That entirely depends upon people accepting the report, rather than trying to cherry-pick bits of it to make political points. The whole point of asking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, to make his report was so that that would not happen.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at eleven minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Energy Bill [H.L.]
  (Sixth Day)
  Wednesday, 4 February 2004.
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld) in the Chair.]
  Clause 77: [Prosecutions]:
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 106E:
  Page 60, line 39, at end insert "; or
  (c) in Scotland, except by or with the consent of the Crown Office."
  The noble Baroness said: Clause 76(7) lays down that, if an offence under this section is committed by a Scottish firm with the consent of a partner, that person is guilty of the offence and liable to prosecution. Will the Minister explain why, according to the Bill, that person will not be dealt with in the same manner and with the same safeguards as an offender in another part of Great Britain? I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on her acuity in spotting this issue, but I reassure her that it is not an oversight on our part that there is no specific mention of Scotland in Clause 77(3). There is no need to provide for proceedings in Scotland here. The Lord Advocate ensures the same result; namely, prosecutions can be instituted only by central government agencies without specific enactment. The amendment, therefore, is unnecessary, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that response. We try to look through Bills fairly carefully, as the noble Lord knows well. If he assures me that the amendment is not necessary, I must obviously beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 77 agreed to.
  Clause 78 [Application of civil law to renewable energy instalknions etc.]:
  Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 106EA:
  Page 61, line 22, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 106EC, I shall speak also to the other government amendments in the group. It may be—
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I think that we are perhaps dealing with the group before the group to which the noble Lord wants to speak. Amendments Nos. 106EA and 106EB have already been debated.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am so sorry.
  Lord Higgins: Would my noble friend like to give to the Government the coloured version so admirably produced by our Chief Whip?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 106EB:
  After Clause 78, insert the following new clause—
  "ORDERS IN COUNCIL UNDER SECTIONS 76 AND 78

  (1) An Order in Council under section 76 or 78 that makes provision falling within subsection (3) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament (but may by virtue of subsection (2) be subject also to the negative resolution procedure).

  (2) An Order in Council under section 76 or 78 that makes provision not falling within subsection (3) is subject to the negative resolution procedure.

  (3) Provision falls within this subsection so far as it is provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were included in an Act of that Parliament."

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 79 agreed to.
  Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 106EC:
  After Clause 79, insert the following new clause—
  "MODIFICATION OF LICENCE CONDITIONS FOR OFFSHORE TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION

  (1) If the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so for purposes connected with offshore transmission or offshore distribution, he may—

  (a) modify the standard conditions of transmission licences or distribution licences;

  (b) modify, for purposes that in relation to modifications made under paragraph (a) are incidental, consequential or transitional purposes, the conditions of a particular transmission licence or a particular distribution licence;

  (c) modify a code maintained in accordance with the conditions of a transmission licence or a distribution licence; and

  (d) modify an agreement that gives effect to a code so maintained.

  (2) Before making a modification under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—

  (a) the holder of any licence being modified; and

  (b) such other persons as he considers appropriate.

  (3) Subsection (2) may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the commencement of this section.

  (4) The Secretary of State must publish every modification made by him under this section.

  (5) The publication must be in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

  GC 343

  (6) Where the Secretary of State makes modifications under subsection (1)(a) of the standard conditions of licences of any type, GEMA must—

  (a) make (as nearly as may be) the same modifications of those standard conditions for the purposes of their incorporation in licences of that type granted after that time; and

  (b) publish the modifications in such manner as it considers appropriate.

  (7) A modification under subsection (1)(b) of part of a standard condition of a licence does not prevent any other part of the condition from continuing to be regarded as a standard condition for the purposes of Part 1 of the 1989 Act.

  (8) The Secretary of State's powers under this section are exercisable only during the eighteen months beginning with the commencement of this section.

  (9) In this section—

  "offshore distribution" means distribution within an area of offshore waters of electricity generated by a generating station in such an area;

  "offshore transmission" means transmission within an area of offshore waters of electricity generated by a generating station in such an area; and

  "offshore waters" means—

  (a) waters in or adjacent to Great Britain which are between the mean low water mark and the seaward limits of the territorial sea; and

  (b) waters within an area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 (c. 29).

  (10) Expressions used in this section and in Part 1 of the 1989 Act have the same meanings in this section as in that Part."

  The noble Lord said: I shall attempt a second time to move Amendment No. 106EC. I anticipated this debate with great fervour. That is why I was so enthusiastic to move on to this group of amendments. There are 11 government amendments in total, and I shall speak to those. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I do not address myself to the other amendments in the group tabled until Opposition spokespersons have had the chance to speak to their amendments. Then I shall seek to reply to them.
  Let me make the obvious point that the Government tabled the 11 amendments to supplement the existing clauses in the Bill providing the basic framework for the regulation of offshore electric lines. The first four amendments each introduce a new clause, while the remaining seven make consequential changes to existing clauses.
  My noble friend Lord Whitty indicated at Second Reading that the Government would table amendments. Clause 79 provides for the extension of the four prohibitions in the Electricity Act 1989 to offshore areas as far as the outer limits of the renewable energy zones. That also has the effect of extending the licensing and exemption regime to those areas. The need for the regulation stems from the moves to much bigger-scale offshore renewable energy generation, most of which is focused on wind energy.
  The first generation of offshore wind farms was relatively small and widely dispersed around our coasts. However, the Crown Estate has recently
  GC 344
  announced site lease awards for a second generation of offshore wind farms, which will be much larger and concentrated in three strategic areas. While the process of obtaining the relevant construction consents for the 15 sites involved has yet to be gone through, we expect these wind farms ultimately to generate between 5.4 and 7.2 gigawatts of electricity, the higher figure being enough to meet the needs of around 4 million homes.
  Given the upsurge in offshore generation, the Government are clear that there needs to be appropriate regulation of the generation and of the connections to the main grid system. Regulation will help ensure that the cabling infrastructure required is provided efficiently and that a proliferation of relatively thin cables from individual wind farms is avoided. We are looking to allow a number of wind farm connections to be marshalled at transmission hub points offshore through thicker cables. We also want to ensure that the connections put in place allow fair and open access to the grid for offshore generation.
  Amendment No. 106ECg empowers the Secretary of State to modify the standard conditions of offshore transmission and distribution licences and make consequential and incidental changes to particular transmission or distribution licences. Such a power is necessary because we foresee that the different offshore environment may, as a matter of practicality, necessitate some change to standard conditions. For example, the differences in engineering involved when putting cables into the sea rather than on land may require some changes to licence conditions.
  We considered whether it would be sufficient to take account of the particularities of offshore circumstances by applying special conditions to each individual licence. However, we believe it will provide greater clarity and transparency for the industry if we specifically set out the modifications within the standard conditions that will apply in relation to offshore areas. The exact scope of the modifications remains to be established, and any proposals for modifications will be the subject of formal consultation. We anticipate that offshore and onshore licence conditions should remain the same unless there are good reasons to make changes.
  We are also conscious of the need to avoid uncertainty among licence holders, and we do not intend to take an ongoing power to make modifications. The power is exercisable only within 18 months of commencement of the section. We have notified the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform of our intention to take this power.
  The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 106EDg enables the Secretary of State to extend the system operator licence to apply to offshore. Chapter 1 of Part 3 sets out the British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements provision. They are designed to create a single trading market in wholesale electricity in Britain, with all the resulting benefits. Broadly speaking, the activity of transmission will be divided into two parts—system operation and the provision of transmission assets.
  I hope noble Lords will forgive me for using the acronym BETTA from now on, as it is a mouthful to spell out in full each time. I take it that, in this part of the Bill, we will all have to take care to ensure that Hansard reporters and others know that we are referring to BETTA, not using the word "better".
  The essential part of BETTA is that there is a single system operator for the whole of the British transmission system. Although licensing of the GB system operator cannot take place until certain provisions in the Bill have received Royal Assent, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has already indicated that she is minded to agree that National Grid Company plc's application for this role should be accepted. However, current transmission licences extend only to the British shoreline, and the changes to be made under BETTA will not alter that. That means that we need a power to extend the system operator licence to cover offshore areas. In addition, the changes to the system operator licence may have a consequential effect on other electricity licences, so the clause includes the power to make any changes necessary to those licences to take account of the extension of the system operator licence.
  Exercise of the power will again be subject to prior consultation and must happen within 18 months of commencement of this section. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has been made aware of our intention to take this power.
  Government Amendment No. 106EE enables the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to make regulations setting out the process to be followed by it in awarding offshore transmission licences by competitive tender. As I mentioned, BETTA will result in the activity of transmission being divided in two: system operation and provision of transmission assets. There are no offshore transmission licences, and it will be necessary to grant such licences to allow the necessary transmission infrastructure to be established and operated offshore.
  In awarding licences, GEMA will have to act in accordance with its statutory duties. The regulations will require the approval of the Secretary of State but will not be subject to a parliamentary procedure. Once more, we have notified the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee accordingly.
  The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 132ZAg amends Section 64 of the Electricity Act 1989 to define high-voltage lines for offshore areas. The Electricity Act did not originally contemplate offshore transmission, so the definition of "high voltage" applies only in England, Wales and Scotland. Currently, 132-kilovolt lines are defined as high voltage lines in Scotland but not in England and Wales. That is because, in Scotland, 132-kilovolt lines are generally used for the bulk transfer of electricity, whereas in England and Wales such lines are mainly used to distribute electricity.
  The definition of "high voltage" is important, as it feeds into what constitutes a transmission system. A transmission system must be wholly or mainly made up of high-voltage lines. The amendment makes it
  GC 346
  clear that offshore lines of 132 kilovolts and above will be high-voltage lines, if such a line conveys electricity from an offshore generating station. That is because such offshore lines will be used for the purpose of bulk conveyance of electricity and so are more appropriately classified as high-voltage lines.
  Government Amendments Nos. 141Ag to 1411Fg and 149 will make minor changes, which are a consequence of the first four amendments, the nub of our present debate. They each make adjustments to cross-references in the Bill to take account of the new clauses if they are approved. I beg to move.
  3.45 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 106EC, Amendment No. 106ECA:
  Line 22, leave out "in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate" and insert—

  "(a) in writing to all holders or applicants for licences who may be affected by such modifications, and

  (b) in the case of the licences referred to in subsection (1)(b), by publishing the same in at least two national daily newspapers and any appropriate trade journal or journals"

  The noble Baroness said: Before I move my amendment, perhaps I may say to the Minister that the way in which the amendments are numbered, with ZAAs and so forth, is a nightmare and makes it difficult for us to find our place. What makes it even more difficult is that on the groupings list the letter "g" has been included. However, that is not part of the amendment number, as the Minister will see from the Marshalled List. He referred to the amendments as including the letter "g", but that is not necessary. I say that only because it is confusing enough, and when we start looking for the letter "g", we do not find it. I might even suggest to those in the Whips' Office who prepared the Marshalled List that including the letter "g" is less than helpful.
  In moving Amendment No. 106ECA, as an amendment to government Amendment No. 106EC, I shall speak also to my Amendment No. 106EDA, which is an amendment to government Amendment No. 106ED. Both of those amendments introduce a new clause to the Bill. With the leave of the Committee, I would also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 115, 117, 120, 124 and 130. They make exactly the same point that I am making in those two amendments. It will be easier for the Committee if I speak to them now, rather than come back and repeat myself later. If I may, I will also speak later to Amendment No. 106EF, which is an amendment to the government Amendment No. 106EE, which the Minister has also spoken to in this group. The further five amendments are to Clauses 106, 109, 118, 122 and 140. Those are the amendments that I just said that I would group with them, with the leave of the Committee. All have the same effect as the amendment to the two proposed new clauses.
  Each of the clauses relates to the modification of energy trading and transmission licence conditions, or creating new standard transmission licence conditions,

  GC 347
  or licences for electricity and gas interconnectors and standard licences for energy administration. Each of the clauses gives the Secretary of State power to make and to vary the terms of general or specific licences.
  There is no real, major objection—although there may be some around the edges—to what is a necessary administrative process, as the noble Lord outlined. However, the Government seem to have a penchant for trying to give Secretaries of State carte blanche to take major administrative steps in any way they choose by passing the normal democratic processes of publicity. That will not do. If there are things that we are generally going to accept, but we leave it to the Government, we cannot give them carte blanche to deal with them in any way they like.
  I remind the Committee—with some pride, because I won—of a battle that I had with the Government over provisions in the Employment Act 2002, which enabled the Secretary of State to amend that Act, either by primary or secondary legislation, or otherwise. That is fine—primary or secondary legislation—but the word "otherwise" is extremely worrying. It took an attempted amendment at each stage, and finally the interventions of two noble and learned Law Lords, before the Minister at the end gave in and thought it was not correct. They are sort of at it again.
  Noble Lords might remember that only yesterday when we were discussing Clause 75(7), we discussed first exploitation and then exploration. The rest of that sentence says:
  "'exploration' includes the doing of anything (whether by way of investigations, trials or feasibility studies or otherwise)".
  We all stopped reading at the word "anything". That little word "otherwise" crept in. and I did not notice it yesterday. That is exactly how it is here; the Government are at it again. They want to publicise matters that ought to be fully in the public domain in such a manner as the Secretary of State "considers appropriate"—not even, the Committee will note, in such a manner as should be "reasonable". The words used are "as the Secretary of State considers appropriate".
  As drafted, the clauses could mean that the Secretary of State could publicise the terms or variations of licences by a classified advertisement in the Beano, or putting it on a lamp-post in the Outer Hebrides. The Committee may think that that is extremely fanciful, but it might be interested to know of a recent case where the courts held that notice of a planning application for a radio mast was validly given, even though it was posted far too far from the road for it to be read by any passer-by. It was impossible for anyone to read it, but it was considered to be OK. I only wish that I could give the Committee the name of the case; I have searched but I have not yet found it. However, I hope that by the end of the passage of this Energy Bill, which seems to be going on forever, I will have found that name. I notice that the Minister raised his eyebrows; perhaps he does not feel quite so concerned about the matter as we do.
  The absurdity is that, in the terms of the clauses as drafted, the Secretary of State need not even specifically or directly tell the licensee about the variation of the licence. Instead, he could leave it to him to find out for himself that the licence had been varied and the terms of the variation. The licences referred to in the clauses are not merely valuable commercial rights; they impose duties on the licensee and probably create rights for the consumers of gas and electricity. Details of those must be in the public domain and, one hopes, in the sight of vigilant members of both Houses of Parliament and the local and national media.
  The terms of my amendments are identical. They remove from the Secretary of State the power to publish licence details merely in any way that he considers appropriate, including in any obscure or secretive way he thinks appropriate. Perhaps the Secretary of State is taking to heart the Latin root of the word "secretary"—secretarius, meaning "secret".
  In place of the potential obscurity that the Secretary of State wants to impose on the licensing process, I propose two very simple changes. First, the Secretary of State must notify all licensees in writing of the terms of their licences and any changes in those terms. Secondly, he must publish details of the conditions,
  "in at least two national daily newspapers and any appropriate trade journal"—
  or "journals", if there are more than one. There is a slight variation in the case of the amendment to Clause 106, which includes a reference to particular licences as distinct from general licences.
  The amendments would not in any way detract from the licensing powers of the Secretary of State; they do not impose in any way an administrative burden on the Secretary of State. There are several agencies which, for a modest fee and in response to a simple letter, would see to everything, if there is no in-house agency in the department—although I suspect that there probably is. The amendments would not add to the cost for the taxpayer, as the expense would be met by the licensee. The amendment would support what the party opposite claims as one of its objectives—which is why I think it will like the amendments. It supports open government, which is a very important thing.
  Amendment No. 106EF would amend Amendment No. 106EE, to which the Minister spoke. As he explained, the Government propose to introduce a whole new clause providing for competitive tendering for what, we may assume, would be lucrative off-shore transmission licences. There is clearly no objection to an obviously necessary concept, although I have to ask why the Government have only just thought about that two months after the publication of the Bill and long after the Bill was first mooted. However, there is one area in which the tendering process is deficient: it does not stipulate the most important feature of the tendering process, namely its publication to prospective interested parties. Despite the details of the tendering procedure set out in subsection (2), that essential ingredient is omitted.
  Over the past few years, the Chamber and Committees have rung with government pledges about openness and with the buzzword, "transparency". Let me say at once that I do not for one moment suggest that the authority now or in future would act in any way other than with the utmost integrity. I am also prepared to assume, as it is nearly always so, that it will act with utmost good faith. In fact, I would say that that was always so. However, circumstances could arise in which, for some reason of expediency or others, it could be necessary—because the authority did not have the necessary time or ability, or whatever—to grant a licence without the fullest implementation of normal commercial tendering procedure, which means advertising the offer to the widest possible audience. Furthermore, circumstances could arise in which, in what might be called an executive decision, the authority decided that the competitive process called for under subsection (1), and the procedure needed to be curtailed without, of course, breaching the procedure laid down in subsection (2).
  I say at once, in anticipation of what I believe the Minister will say, that I acknowledge, as I have already done, that it is quite likely—even probable or, if the Minister insists, certain—that the tendering process will be carried out with absolute probity. I am also aware that the licences may be subject to rules laid down in Brussels. Nevertheless, there is a legal maxim that, if justice is to be done, it definitely—certainly—needs to be seen to be done. By analogy, if tendering is a form of open competition, it must be seen to be open. That means that it should be seen to be open not only by potential rival bidders and the financial and trade press but by that hypothetical man who is always riding up and down on the top of the Clapham omnibus. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in his place. I have warned him of what is to come, albeit at a much later stage in the Bill. However, the trouble is that we have hit the point now. have been trying to get to the root of the peculiar planning procedures which exist for electricity generation and transmission. The Committee should know this, so I shall not give all the background information. Suffice it to say that thus far I have got back to the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, where I find a clause which states, more or less, that any relevant Minister can grant permission for the development of relevant land so long as he does it under any enactment—that is, an enactment prior to 1962. As I now have to explore the whole gamut of legislation relating to public utilities, I suspect that I shall stop and invite the Government to have a look at the whole problem.
  The matter becomes relevant here because, under Clause 150, special provisions are made for additional planning inspectors in relation to major generation applications and, indeed, major transmission applications. In fact, the clause is precisely in line with what has been said about local government in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which is going through on the Floor of the House. It seems to
  GC 350
  me that, at least as a question of principle, we need to explore whether it is appropriate to have special planning provisions for particular utilities.
  I do not want to get into that now, but it becomes relevant because, while the generation is offshore, it is absolutely appropriate and proper that it is dealt with under this Bill. Indeed, while the transmission—I see that it is to be 132 kilovolts, which is the Scottish figure—is offshore, there is absolutely no problem, but what will happen when it comes ashore? I am not certain whether it comes ashore at the low-tide or the high-tide mark, and that may be important. We are talking about the really high-powered transmission lines. There is a distinction on the mainland because, as the Minister pointed out, 132 kilovolts is the Scottish high-power level and the English high-power level is 230 kilovolts. So there is a distinction there that we perhaps need to think about. But once that line is ashore, it needs planning permission. The current high-power transmission lines by and large do not go to the shore; they stop somewhere short of it. Of course, a lot of low-power transmission lines will run right out to the shoreline, but I believe it is rare to find a high-power transmission line that does so.
  How is that to be dealt with? It appears from the Bill that it is to be dealt with by the Minister by order. However, it seems to me that that is in breach of all the planning principles that we have. I raise the matter because we need to think carefully about it. I refer to the high-power transmission lines that we already have and the high-power transmission line that stops at the shoreline. How will that matter be decided? It seems to me that it certainly cannot be decided just by ministerial order. The construction of such a line would have to go through a planning process of some sort.
  I do not want to bring the whole system to a halt, but we need an answer to that question. I suspect the Minister will say that he will need to think about it. There is a serious problem here that will result in communities the length of our shores jumping up and down, if we do not find a satisfactory answer to it.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: We may eventually reach Amendment No. 107, which deals with the effect of the Bill on various shipping interests both with regard to freedom of navigation and safety at sea. On listening to the Minister, I thought that there were some issues involved in the matter that we are discussing that might also affect shipping. I am not clear from what he said whether these high-power transmission lines are to be above the sea on pylons or below the sea or perhaps a combination of both. If they are above the sea, they may interfere considerably with shipping, not least with pleasure boats, yachts and so on. If they are below the sea, they may also create problems. Either way, it seems likely that they may have effects on radios used by shipping and on navigational instruments. Underwater cables may have an effect on depth sounders.

  GC 351
  I presume that those factors have been taken carefully into account by the Government in considering the various sites at which wind farms might be located. If that is the case, no doubt the Minister can tell us what conclusions the Government have reached regarding how serious these issues may be. They ought to be considered carefully. Above-sea transmission cables could increase the area in which shipping is impeded, even though those routes may have existed for a long time. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us what the situation is, give us reassurance and in particular, given the overall context of the Bill mentioned by my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon, tell us what the situation is regarding planning permission. Foreign ships may not be immediately aware of the potential dangers posed to their freedom of navigation by the granting of planning permission by an authority in the United Kingdom.
  Lord Greenway: Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has just said, even if the transmission cables were to be buried—as is the case with telegraph cables—there might still be a problem with fishing craft using bottom trawling gear. That is a matter that the Government must look into.
  Viscount Ullswater: In his opening remarks, the Minister mentioned that the Secretary of State's power under this amendment and Amendment No. 106ED was exercisable only during the 18 months beginning with the commencement of the section. Although that may be a worthy intention, does the Minister perhaps not agree that as licences are gradually granted for the generation of power by wind farms, modifications may be required in licence conditions after 18 months, when the experience is gained? Should the Government so restrict themselves when glaring modifications may be required after that time? In particular, new subsection (1)(c) would modify a code maintained in accordance with the conditions. What would the process be to make a sensible modification to the licence conditions after that period?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): I apologise first of all to the Committee and, in particular, to my noble friend Lord Davies for not being here at the beginning of the debate on the amendment. I had assumed that, as the first amendment was a Scottish amendment, it might last some considerable time.
  A range of issues has been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is touching on something which comes much later in the Bill but which is relevant here and at various points. The planning system for this and for existing electricity power plant generation and transmission is different from that relating to planning permission in general. It is not particularly unique; it has been in place for decades and relates also to roads, railways and other large installations.
  It is true that in this case the link between onshore and offshore lines will be through the existing onshore regime, which is not the local planning regime but
  GC 352
  comes under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. It will need to upgrade the onshore system to cope with the arrival of new offshore legislation, but essentially, it will be the system that currently exists rather than the local planning system.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister is, as always, perfectly correct, but if my memory is correct on Section 37 of the Electricity Act, there has to be consultation over such developments. If a planning authority chooses to object, unless the Minister actually responds to its objections so that they are in effect answered, there has to be an inquiry. We need to work our way through the system. I did not wish to imply that there is not a planning system for these things, because clearly there is. There are separate issues which I will deal with on Clause 150.
  I would not have raised the matter here, except that it becomes relevant as soon as these lines are onshore. There may have to be planning inquiries about the routing of these lines, be they overhead or underground, once they are above the shoreline. We need to he aware of that and to know exactly how it will be done. From reading the Bill, one could have the impression that it could almost be done by ministerial order, and I do not think that is the intention.
  Lord Whitty: The ministerial order would have to be in the context of this legislation and the existing Acts that will affect the connection offshore to onshore. I hesitate to suggest it, but we may need a more wide-ranging debate when we come to the planning part of the Bill. Clearly, there is no implication in these provisions that anything can just be done by fiat.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, asked why we were talking about only the 18 months after the Bill comes into effect. It is because we need one-off modifications to establish the offshore licence conditions themselves. The licence conditions could be modified thereafter, as they can now, by agreement between the regulator—Ofgem/GEMA—and the licence-holders. That will continue to be the case, so the modifications could still take place.
  As for the potential danger of the transmission lines to shipping and to others, those lines would be trenched under the seabed or would lie on the seabed, as cables do now. Indeed, that is how we supply electricity to our islands and get a certain proportion of our electricity from time to time from France. It is not a new thing for shipping or for the way in which those cables are laid. They would need a licence, and that licensing system would he subject to regulations relating to cabling under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Therefore, this is not a new situation for shipping or for those who regulate.
  Lord Higgins: Is the Minister giving us an absolute assurance that there will be no question of the cables being above the sea on pylons? Secondly, while it is true as he says that there are existing cables, there will be far more cables now. Has the department carried out a careful study of the effect on instruments used to determine depth by small sailing ships, for example, which would normally not go anywhere near one of the

  GC 353
  major cables? There will he a great proliferation of cables, and the effect on depth instruments and on radar may be considerable.
  Lord Whitty: In terms of the total number of cables that could potentially, in some circumstances, have the effect that the noble Lord mentions, it is not a huge proliferation. They are high-tension and high-voltage cables, and they will be required to be protected in line with the voltage that they carry. That is not a new system, either here or in the rest of the world. High-voltage cables exist between islands and countries throughout the world, without any general disruption of signals, of shipping or of depth assessments. Therefore, it is not as big a problem as the noble Lord suggests. Clearly, when considering a site, we shall have to consider the route of the cables, and shipping companies and others with an interest in where the cables are laid will need to be notified. However, it is not a new situation for the users of the sea to contemplate.
  Lord Higgins: I have not had an assurance about the first point that I made, about pylons. Of course, what the Minister says about deep-laid cables is true, but we are presumably talking here about very shallow waters.
  Lord Whitty: Yes, but all cables come to shore, including high-voltage cables, so in terms of the inshore area at relatively low depth, that is not a new problem or issue.
  As for the first proposition made by the noble Lord, the presumption is that all the cables will either be laid on the seabed in certain areas or trenched. It is possible that a proposer might come up with another way in which to transmit the electricity through an above-the-surface system. I find that somewhat difficult to envisage, but I cannot give an absolute assurance that no such proposition would come forward. The Government and the authorities would need to consider that question extremely seriously, particularly with the implications for shipping.
  Technology will develop in that area, and the Bill does not strictly speaking prohibit it from happening—but I should be extremely surprised were there to be any such proposition in the first few decades of this operation. My technical advisers may tell me that there is a possibility, so I shall leave that door slightly open but, as near as I can be, I believe that that will not happen.
  Lord Higgins: It would certainly foul up the radar.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: If it happens. The cables below the surface would not foul up the radar.
  I turn to the amendments to our amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Effectively, she is saying that the powers of the Secretary of State in the first two amendments and the powers of Ofgem GEMA in the third need to be
  GC 354
  explicit. In the first two cases, they need to communicate this issue in relation to modifications to licences. The noble Baroness does not think that,
  "in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate",
  is a sufficient prescription; albeit that that form of words is used in many pieces of legislation, most recently and relevantly in Sections 33, 68 and 81 of the Utilities Act, which was, as I recall, not necessarily objected to in this House.
  It is one thing to argue that the clause as it stands is open-ended, it is another to be as prescriptive as the noble Baroness proposes. I recall that we have had this argument on many pieces of legislation. I am not inclined to accept stipulation on means of communication because technology moves on; for example, when noble Lords want me to put in a Bill "put on the website" or "use the first-class post". I hope that this legislation will last for some considerable time. However, the means of communication will have changed during the currency of the Act. Indeed, if we had been debating the Bill 20 years ago, some of the areas that we are now being pressed to stipulate would not have been appropriate.
  The noble Baroness is slightly time-warped herself—if I may say so—in that she refers only to national newspapers and any appropriate trade journals. She is not even saying that it should be advertised on the Clapham omnibus, despite her concern for the man on the top deck. Other means of communication, electronic and otherwise, are more appropriate now, but that will change in five and 10 years' time. So it is not in my view particularly helpful to specify the means of publication. Therefore, there should be some flexibility. The noble Baroness may consider that the current flexibility is too wide, but I consider her prescriptions too narrow.
  The same is true in relation to the third amendment, which relates to the procedure for promulgating the modification for licences and setting out the tender processes for the issue of transmission licences under GEMA. Again, that is being prescriptive in relation to ordinary pre-paid post.
  There are a huge number of administrative details about how the tendering process should take place. The habit has been to leave to the regulator how precisely that is done. That would include the way in which it communicates the process. GEMA will need to have the power to make subsequent regulations establishing exactly how the tendering process should be carried out. Noble Lords will find that in most areas where a regulator operates, we leave it to the regulator to decide within statutory powers how administratively it will deal with the tender process. That also seems sensible in this context. I, therefore, would not be prepared to accept that amendment either.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the Minister sits down, he may well have satisfied me. Indeed, I hope that he has. I shall read what he said with great care. The one point he did not pick up—or perhaps his team do not have

  GC 355
  the answer to it—is whether transmission lines will come ashore at the high tide mark or the low tide mark. There may be occasions when that is significant.
  Lord Whitty: I recognise it may be significant, but I cannot give an answer to that. We shall have to judge the proposition when it occurs. Existing transmission lines often come to the surface slightly inland, so high tide or low tide is not necessarily the only option.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Whether the lines come ashore on the surface or below it is neither here nor there. What I am asking is where is the boundary at which the planning regulations start to apply? There will be a definition on that somewhere. It may be that it is three miles. I am not sure.
  Lord Whitty: I am informed—and noble Lords more conversant with marine law will know this—that it is the low water mark where the planning conditions start.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am very grateful.
  Lord Ezra: Before we leave this important issue, may I raise a matter that is probably rather tangential, dealing with the financial implications of the arrangements? From what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, told us in his introductory remarks, a substantial amount of electricity will be generated from offshore wind farms, and a substantial network of high voltage lines will be laid to transmit that electricity to shore. Obviously, that will add substantially to the cost of electricity generation generally. Are the Government satisfied, within the terms of the renewables obligation, that all that will add up? Will it be an additional cost, on top of the costs created by the renewables obligation?
  Lord Whitty: The estimates of the cost include the cost of making the electricity usable and, therefore, the cost of connecting to the National Grid. Those are the costs that have been assumed for the contribution by offshore wind power to the achievement of the renewables objective. There is no new cost implied by the fact that, for various obvious reasons, we must have transmission lines from the offshore site to the grid. That is included in the capital cost of the installation.
  Baroness Byford: Following what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, I should like the Minister to indicate to the Committee what the cost actually is. That would be helpful to us all. It would be interesting to know what proportion of the whole it is. If that is not possible at this stage, the Minister might write to us and let us know. That would be appropriate.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am sorry if I am becoming rather a pain, but, if I have understood matters correctly, the main transmission lines under the ocean will, in effect, become part of the National Grid. Presumably, they are part of the construction cost of the wind-generating farm that feeds the electricity to
  GC 356
  them. Although subsequent transmission costs will include the cost of that cable, National Grid Transco or whoever will not bear the cost of constructing the high-voltage lines under the sea to the wind farm station. It will a liability of the person with the concession for the wind-powered station.
  Lord Whitty: The question of what the cost is is rather different from the question of who bears it. My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is that all the calculations of the relative carbon saving and the relative amount of power that could be generated by offshore wind power include the cost of bringing it onshore and joining it up to the grid. It is general electricity policy to separate generation from transmission. Hence, the transmission will be owned by someone operating under the grid system, not by the generator.
  The question of who bears the cost in the first instance will be a matter for different propositions. It is clear who will bear the cost of operating it. The totality must be taken into account by those making the case for a particular wind farm or range of windmills offshore. That is the extra cost of providing the facility.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The question is vital. It is one thing for National Grid Transco to have responsibility for laying the deep-sea high-voltage line at its expense; it is another if the costs are, as they should be, part of the cost of constructing the wind farm and getting the electricity to shore. We need an answer before the Bill completes its passage through the House. Without an answer to that question, we shall not know what we are talking about.
  Lord Whitty: The total cost of the installation will include the cost of the transmission belt, but the generator will pay the cost of the farms, and the transmission company will pay the cost of the transmission. They will then claim back from the generator by the systems charges, in the same way the grid does from onshore generators, which will eventually make up that cost. It is not a question of the generator paying for the cost upfront.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I think that I am satisfied.
  Lord Tombs: I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has received an answer to his question. Does the Minister agree that the provision of offshore wind generation will be more expensive than onshore wind generation? Obviously, the foundation, distribution, and construction costs and the cost of transmission to land will also add to the cost. The second part of the noble Lord's question was who will pay for it, and the answer is the same person who pays for the premium cost of wind power at present; that is, the consumer.
  Lord Whitty: As to whether onshore or offshore would be more expensive in practice, clearly one windmill operating offshore and requiring a transmission line will be significantly more than one similar-sized wind farm onshore connecting to a national grid only a few hundred yards away.

  GC 357
  However, economies of scale are involved. With much larger multiple applications offshore, the relative cost begins to change.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: It is interesting, because when I started I said that we did not have any major concerns about this group of amendments, in that we understand that administration must go forward, and that powers are needed in order to do that. However, I also said that we had some minor concerns. I listened to those concerns, and afterwards did not think that they were so minor. Whilst we still have some minor concerns, we do not believe that this particular power, that the Secretary of State can do anything that he considers appropriate, is correct.
  I take the Minister to task. I am not sure that I have ever been told that I am in a time warp.
  Lord Whitty: We all are.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble Lord may very well he, but I am not in a time warp just because I did not mention things other than national newspapers. My noble friend drew my attention to the fact that the amendment I tabled referred to such further manner as the authority shall deem appropriate. So, apology accepted.
  That is an important point, to which we shall return. I shall withdraw the amendment now, but there is no question in my mind about this. It is all very well the Minister saying that this has become usual, that it was done in the Utilities Act 2000, and no one seemed to notice. Yesterday, I did not notice the "or otherwise". It was only when I looked into it in more depth that I noticed it. It has become a habit of this Government to take unto themselves wide powers that look okay, but are not. It is important that we try to restrict that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 106ECA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 106EC, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Amendment No. 106EC agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 106ED:
  After Clause 79, insert the following new clause—
  "EXTENSION OF TRANSMISSION LICENCES OFFSHORE

  (1) This section applies where, at the commencement of this section, a transmission licence is in force that authorises a person to co-ordinate and direct the flow of electricity onto and over a transmission system by means of which electricity is transmitted within Great Britain, or within an area of Great Britain (the "co-ordination licence").

  (2) The Secretary of State may make such modifications of the co-ordination licence as he considers appropriate for the purpose of applying the authorisation and conditions of the licence in relation to the transmission of electricity within one or both of the following

  (a) an area of the territorial sea adjacent to Great Britain; and

  (b) an area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 (c. 29).

  (3) The modifications that may be made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) include such modifications of the co-ordination licence (including modifications of the conditions included in it) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for incidental, consequential or transitional purposes.

  GC 358

  (4) Where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so for purposes that in relation to modifications made under subsection (2) are incidental or consequential purposes, he may make—

  (a) modifications of the conditions of a particular licence (other than the co-ordination licence);

  (b) modifications of the standard conditions of licences of any type.

  (5) Before making a modification under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—

  (a) the holder of any licence being modified; and

  (b) such other persons as he considers appropriate.

  (6) Subsection (5) may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the commencement of this section.

  (7) The Secretary of State must publish every modification made by him under this section.

  (8) The publication must be in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

  (9) A modification under subsection (2) or (4)(a) of part of a standard condition of a licence does not prevent any of her part of the condition from continuing to be regarded as a standard condition for the purposes of Part 1 of the 1989 Act.

  (10) Where the Secretary of State makes modifications under subsection (4)(b) of the standard conditions of licences of any type, GEMA must—

  (a) make (as nearly as may be) the same modifications of those standard conditions for the purposes of their incorporation in licences of that type granted after that time; and

  (b) publish the modifications in such manner as it considers appropriate.

  (11) The Secretary of State's powers under this section are exercisable only during the eighteen months beginning with the commencement of this section.

  (12) Expressions used in this section and in Part I of the 1989 Act have the same meanings in this section as in that Part."

  [Amendment No. 106EDA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 106ED, not moved.]
  On Question, Amendment No. 106ED agreed to.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 106EE:
  After Clause 79, insert the following new clause—
  "COMPETITIVE TENDERS FOR OFFSHORE TRANSMISSION LICENCES
  After section 6B of the 1989 Act (applications for transmission licences) insert—
  "6C COMPETITIVE TENDERS FOR OFFSHORE TRANSMISSION LICENCES

  (1) The Authority may by regulations make such provision as appears to it to be appropriate for facilitating the making, in prescribed cases, of a determination on a competitive basis of the person to whom an offshore transmission licence is to be granted.

  (2) That provision may include—

  (a) provision, in prescribed cases, for the publication of a proposal to grant an offshore transmission licence;

  (b) provision for the inclusion in such a proposal of an invitation to apply for such a licence;

  (c) provision restricting the making of applications for offshore transmission licences and imposing requirements as to the period within which hey must be made;

  (d) provision for regulating the manner in which applications are considered and determined.

  GC 359

  (3) Regulations under this section—

  (a) may make provision by reference to a determination by the Authority or to the opinion of the Authority as to any matter; and

  (b) may dispense with or supplement provision made in relation to applications for transmission licences by or under section 6A or 6B above.

  (4) The approval of the Secretary of State is required for the making of regulations under this section.

  (5) In this section—

  'offshore transmission licence' means a transmission licence authorising anything that forms part of a transmission system to be used for purposes connected with offshore transmission; and

  'prescribed' means prescribed in or determined under regulations made by the Authority.

  (6) In subsection (5) 'offshore transmission' means the transmission within an area of offshore waters of electricity generated by a generating station in such an area.

  (7) In subsection (6) 'offshore waters' means—

  (a) waters in or adjacent to Great Britain which are between the mean low water mark and the seaward limits of the territorial sea; and

  (b) waters within an area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964.""

  [Amendment No. 106EF, as an amendment to Amendment No. 106EE, not moved.]
  Amendment No. I 06EE agreed to.
  Clause 80 [Consents for generating stations in Zones]:
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 106F:
  Page 63, leave out lines 47 to 50.
  The noble Baroness said: I shall be much briefer than was the case with the previous amendment. This is a probing amendment. An objection is received from the planning authority and studied by the Secretary of State. Upon reflection, he finds himself in agreement with it. He notifies the applicant that in order to receive the desired permission the application will have to be altered to meet the objection. Can the Minister explain why at that point the objection should be expunged from the record? All over the country people are doing things without permission. For example, the police were in action again in East Anglia in January to remove Travellers who were in open defiance of the planning law. If the objection to the original scheme is expunged, will it not be harder to ensure that things which are developed, built and commissioned are in line with local requirements and therefore comply with the law? I beg to move.
  Lord Triesman: I thank noble Lords for probing the matter. I hope that I can explain to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, why we cannot accept the amendment. It has the potential to lead to planning inquiries that could be of a far wider and greater remit than is necessary. Probably the best way to proceed is to try to explain what Clause 80 seeks to achieve, and how it seeks to achieve that.
  Noble Lords who are familiar with Schedule 8 of the Electricity Act 1989 will know that applications for consent to construct, extend or operate a generating station under Section 36 of that Act must be served on
  GC 360
  the relevant local planning authority. Where that local planning authority maintains an objection to the application, the Secretary of State must hold a planning inquiry. However, where the Secretary of State can meet the local planning authority's objection by making modifications to the Section 36 consent or attaching conditions to it, no public inquiry needs to be held. The provision provides useful flexibility in avoiding unnecessary public inquiries.
  The main purpose of Clause 80(2) is to clarify the role of local planning authorities where the application of consent relates to a generating station offshore; that is, not in a local planning authority's jurisdiction. We are proposing that local planning authorities should not have the right to force a public inquiry in regard to those parts of the generating station that are outside its jurisdiction. However, the local planning authority retains the right to require the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry in respect of those parts of the generating stations that are within its jurisdiction. Subparagraphs (7) and (10) of new paragraph 7A deal with the circumstances in which two or more planning authorities have jurisdiction over the same generating station because it straddles both their areas. Both authorities have the right to make an objection. Paragraph 7A(10) deals with the situation where the Secretary of State accepts the objection of one planning authority and not the other. In such a case, an inquiry is still required, but only in relation to the area of the planning authority whose objection has not been met rather than the one whose objection has been met. Paragraph 7A(10) is intended to make it clear that if the objection of one of the authorities is accepted, the inquiry will continue only in relation to the objection of the other authority. It limits and focuses it.
  The consequence of removing the subparagraph would be that the Secretary of State would have to hold a public inquiry covering the areas of both authorities when she could otherwise hold an inquiry in relation to the area of the authority whose objection had not been met. I hope that noble Lords will feel that this is the kind of efficiency that is often sought in these matters without compromising planning safeguards. It provides the right balance between proper planning processes and what might be an irrelevant and bureaucratic process.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I had not read it in the way that he explained and I shall obviously look carefully at Hansard tomorrow. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 80 agreed to.
  Clause 81 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 106G not moved.]
  Clause 82 [Safety zones around renewable energy installations]:
  Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 107:
  Page 64, line 31, at end insert "and provided the establishment of the aforementioned installation or its safety zone in the territorial sea adjacent to Great Britain will not interfere with a

  GC 361
  ship's use of a designated sea lane or a prescribed traffic separation scheme or the use in a Renewable Energy Zone of a recognised sea lane essential to international navigation."
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 107 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and refers to the siting of offshore wind farms. I feel that I have been becalmed for several days and many hours waiting for this amendment to come forward, and I cannot believe that we have reached it at last.
  Subsection (1) of Clause 82 gives the Secretary of State a discretionary power to issue notices declaring safety zones around offshore renewable energy installations. On the face of it, that sounds a perfectly sensible thing to do. However, there are concerns in the leisure-boating industry, where the authorities feel that those zones must not unreasonably restrict or exclude recreational craft.
  Looking al. the issue on a more general basis, there is widespread concern in the shipping industry, the ports industry and at Trinity House—the general lighthouse authority—that such installations and their safety zones should not impinge upon designated sea lanes or prescribed traffic separation schemes. The amendment is designed to ensure that recognised navigation rights are upheld.
  The sense of unease in the industry was heightened by the announcement last December of the proposed wind farm sites under round two of the consenting phase. On looking at some of the charts, one can see that some effort has been made to position these sites in areas where there is less shipping activity. But some of them—notably in areas of dense shipping traffic, such as the Humber approaches, the Thames estuary and Liverpool Bayare very close to or, indeed, encroach upon regularly used shipping lanes and, in one or two instances, completely straddle them.
  Moreover, these problems are likely to extend to other sea areas in future as a result of increasing demand for other renewable energy sources, such as wave and possibly tidal power. I understand that there are already plans for a full-scale trial of wave power generation off the Scottish Isles and that the Celtic Sea is earmarked for operational sites in future rounds.
  What is needed and, to my understanding, what seems to have been conspicuously absent in this case is proper prior consultation between the Government, the shipping interests, the Crown Estate and would-be developers of offshore energy sites. Perhaps I may give an example of what has already happened under round 1.
  There is currently under construction off Cromer a 30-turbine wind site, which cuts obliquely into two recognised shipping routes, narrowing the one closest to the shore, which is used by many ships in inclement weather, and forcing the one further out to be re-routed by means of what, at sea, we call a "dog leg", which not only narrows it but also pushes it closer to a third sea lane a little further to seaward. Squeezing ships closer together or forcing them closer to the shore would heighten the risk of collision or stranding, with the added probability of environmental pollution.
  GC 362
  On looking at the chart of the site—I have it here—my immediate reaction was to ask why they were not placed on sandbanks, where they would be free from shipping activity. I understand that there is. perhaps, a difficulty in that the sands shift from time to time; yet, on looking at the chart for the Thames Estuary, I see that there are two proposed sites running along two sandbars, at the Galloper and Gabbard.
  To avoid having such things happen in future rounds, the shipping interests believe that three things should be done. First, the impact of wind farms and the like on navigation should he assessed through proper risk modelling—something that has already been undertaken by the Dutch and Danish Governments, who, in recognition of their responsibility, have commissioned consultants to examine the potential risks.
  Secondly, we should employ management tools. such as routing measures, to enable offshore energy farms to co-exist with shipping and other users of the sea without conflicts arising. That idea is not new. I understand that, during the early days of North Sea oil and gas exploration, a system of maritime clearways—agreed navigation routes within which there would be no other activity—were employed to good effect.
  The third thing is something that the noble Lord. Lord Higgins, touched on. We badly need further evaluation of the adverse effect that offshore wind farms have on marine radar and VHF communications. That problem came to light after the strategic planning under round one. It needs resolving, possibly by specifying a minimum separation distance between shipping and wind farms.
  It is a fairly safe bet, when one places a fixed object in the sea, that sooner or later a ship will run into it. Ships are good at running into one another, but they also hit fixed objects. I need only quote two recent incidents. One involved the Nab tower, which is a fairly substantial structure sitting at the eastern approaches to Southampton. It was clouted by a ship, even though it has been there for many years. The other incident involved Hythe pier. closer to Southampton, which was cut in two by a ship the other day. If things are there, ships will hit them.
  There was also the "Tricolor" incident in the North Sea, just over a year ago. A sunken car carrier, lying on its side more or less level with the surface, was struck by several ships soon after it capsized. Some even got stuck on the wreck. Even when the wreck had been properly marked by buoys and was being controlled by warning craft, an average of one ship a week steamed within the warning buoys. That fact alone speaks volumes about the standard of navigation on some ships at sea today. It should cause huge concern with regard to offshore wind farms. I am tempted to draw an analogy with ten-pin bowling; it is a tempting target for ships.
  The overall responsibility for safe navigation around our coast lies with the Government due to their obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, not with those who wish to develop offshore wind farms. We certainly do not want—God

  GC 363
  forbid—a major accident, involving the collision of two oil tankers, with fire, loss of life and widespread pollution, because of the alteration of long-established navigation channels due to the ill thought-out positioning of an offshore wind farm. If one of those tankers were then to drift, it might even score a passable and wipe out an entire wind farm.
  I do not whether it is a question of a lack of consultation, a lack of joined-up government or a combination of both. It is a serious matter, and I hope that, even if the amendment does not find favour with the Government in its present form, the Minister will consider the implications carefully and that his department will have further consultations with all interested parties in the hope of finding a satisfactory resolution. I beg to move.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: I rise to support the noble Lord and speak in support of his amendment. I make two initial points. First, my interest in shipping goes back a very long way indeed. Indeed, I am rather surprised to find that I qualified as a member of the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers more than half a century ago. That may suggest that I am slightly out of date in terms of speaking to this amendment but between then and now I was shadow Secretary of State for some considerable time. During that period there was a collision of ships in the Channel on almost a weekly basis and the Government were obliged to make a Statement on the matter. Subsequently, the situation improved considerably, partly due to improvements in technology and partly due to the better management of shipping lanes, notably in the English Channel.
  I turn to my second personal point. I suspect that I am slightly less against wind farms than some of my colleagues. Your Lordships will recall that the matter came up at Question Time yesterday. I spend virtually every weekend in Holland. I am surrounded by wind farms. Apart from very low level wind noise, I do not find that if you stand under them they are all that noisy. Although it was said yesterday that wind farms wiped out birds in Spain, that does not seem to happen in Holland. I am not clear why Dutch birds should be better at avoiding wind farms but there are remarkably few bird corpses lying underneath the wind farms in Holland.
  I understand that the Royal Air Force has objected to wind farms, claiming that they interfere with low flying aircraft. I am not so much concerned about low flying aircraft but I am concerned about low flying ships. In that context, the point that the noble Lord made with regard to the effect of wind farms on radar—I am not speaking here of the electricity side of it but rather the rotation of the blades and so on—seems to be causing considerable worry. That is something which needs to be taken into account regarding the location of wind farms. However, as the noble Lord said, the Chamber of Shipping, Trinity House, the British Ports Association and the UK major ports groups have all expressed considerable concern about the proposals that are now being put
  GC 364
  forward. There is a general feeling that the approval of wind farm sites has not taken account of the risks to seafarers or the environment, or fully recognised the UK obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
  The amendment proposed by the noble Lord would give the Secretary of State discretionary power to ensure that installations or their safety zones cannot be established where they would interfere with designated sea lanes or prescribed traffic separation schemes, which is one of the major reasons why collisions occur less frequently in the Channel than used to be the case.
  In addition to that, we seem to find ourselves, at this late stage of the Bill, in a rather extraordinary situation. It appears that the Crown Estate takes a decision on various applications and their sites and then proposes, if necessary, diversions of shipping around those sites instead of doing what one would have thought was painfully obvious: namely, seeing where the main shipping lanes are and then deciding where to put the wind farms. That is quite extraordinary. The lack of consultation on the matter and, indeed, the lack of appreciation of the rather simple point that I have just mentioned seems rather strange. It is a matter of serious concern for the reasons that the noble Lord mentioned. If we are not careful we shall end up with an environmental disaster on a massive scale because the rather simple point that I mentioned and consultation have not been taken into account.
  It is also important to recognise that, in diverting ships in the way that I have described, one also has to take account of environmental damage to the marine environment that may result from the ships having to divert from their usual course, the increased risk of collision arising from that and, not least, increased costs of transportation. All those factors are very important.
  However, the amendment would also ask for consideration of designated lanes and prescribed separation schemes to be used. That would be in conformity with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which includes such a provision. Unless the Government are prepared to take action with regard to these lanes they would seem to be in conflict with the provisions of the convention. Not only are we a party to it, we have been one of its leading supporters before it was agreed and subsequently. So that is a very important reason. We need the Government to ensure that the proposals in the Bill take into account the provisions of the convention and also are not actually in conflict with it.
  One must ask to what extent the proposals are set in concrete. As I understand the issue, there has been a first round of wind farm sites and, rather curiously, looking at the maps provided by the Crown Estate, at least one of these appears to be within the DTI exclusion zone. What is more worrying as one looks at the various charts is the extent to which the proposed wind farm—certainly in round two—will interfere with navigation, with all the consequences to which the noble Lord and I have already drawn the attention of

  GC 365
  the Committee. The effect is not simply, for example, in the Channel where there is a massive one off Southend-on-Sea and another one off Margate/Ramsgate, but equally outside Liverpool, the Humber estuary and the Wash. It almost looks as though they have been deliberately planted to be in the main shipping lines, rather than elsewhere on the coast where they would not run the risk of interfering with shipping.
  I am sure we shall wish to return to the matter at Report. But I think it is very important that the proposals made by the industry—for example, resurrecting the UK shipping clearways charts—to help deal with this problem are made between now and Report.
  The noble Lord talked about the degree of consultation and assurance that the Government have so far given to the shipping industry. I speak here of our shipping industry, but of course it has enormous international implications. The Government seem to be underestimating the very real dangers that are being caused by the way they appear to have gone ahead with these proposals, without taking into account the very important interests of the freedom of navigation on the one hand and of safety for the wider community. I am very happy to support my noble friend. I hope that the noble Lord can give us assurances along the lines I have suggested and in particular with regard to more extended consultation, before final decisions are made.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: Listening to my noble friend Lord Higgins and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, no one can be in any doubt about the seriousness of the matter. Perhaps the most important thing that struck me in listening was the lack of consultation that has brought us to this position of the Government apparently not thinking that the matter is too serious. But, as my noble friend has recently pointed out, it is a very serious matter. I hope that that particular matter can be addressed in the Minister's reply.
  Lord Whitty: Clearly, this is a serious matter. We think that the legislation already covers it. Safety at sea is a main concern of the Government. Therefore, we must bear that very much in mind in regulating marine renewable energy installations. Some of your Lordships will be aware that the developers of any such installations must already have obtained consent under the Coast Protection Act 1949. That is designed to ensure that the structures are not placed in locations that would be detrimental to the safety of navigation. Consideration of various consents would also have to take into account the effect on marine radar and communications.
  The Department for Transport, which is responsible for overseeing this part of the regulations, considers applications for consent and consults the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and other organisations, including shipping organisations, with an interest in marine safety. The Coast Protection Act 1949 applies to developments in territorial waters and also to areas
  GC 366
  that have been designated under Section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act. It covers the renewable energy zones that are being established by the Energy Bill.
  It is true that there are complications in that the developer can choose to seek development approval from a project in England and Wales, or in English and Welsh territorial waters, using the Transport and Works Act 1992, which has a way of disapply ing: the Coast Protection Act 1949. However, even if they take that route, the controls over such developments are equally stringent and ensure that marine safety is not compromised.
  The language of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, relates to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. By implication, he is saying that the Government are ignoring their obligations. That is not the case—we take those obligations very seriously, and the provisions of this Bill are entirely compatible with our international obligations. They do not require an amendment to the Bill.
  Article 22 enables a coastal state to require foreign vessels to use designated sea lanes or traffic separation schemes. That is a right, rather than an obligation. We do not need further powers to exercise that right. We have an obligation under Article 60 of UNCLOS to make sure that installations and the safety zones around them in, for example, the renewable energy zone, are not established where they would cause interference to recognised sea lanes essential to international navigation. We will fulfil that obligation. We already have the legislative tools to regulate the location of developments. We do not need any further change to the Bill.
  It might be helpful if I say a few words about our general approach to the siting of offshore farms—
  Lord Higgins: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. It is my understanding that the various proposed items would require the diversion of ships away from the recognised routes, and that would be inconsistent with the articles of the convention. I may be mistaken, but that is my understanding.
  Lord Whitty: Some of the sites may well involve diversions, but they would involve diversions that would be available to shipping in those routes. We are not interfering with essential routes where there is no alternative. That relates to the obligations under both UNCLOS and the existing UK legislation.
  More generally, the impact of proposed developments on the safety of navigation was an important factor in deciding which sites would be offered a lease in the first instance by the Crown Estates. A high level of screening of proposed sites was undertaken in relation to the 15 sites in the greater Wash area, Thames estuary and the waters of northwest England, which covers the area to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred. That was based on traffic density data.
  We believed that the projects would be acceptable without major interference. Those projects which were seeking an application which would have been

  GC 367
  prejudicial to marine safety have been eliminated through that process. It is difficult at that point in the process to engage in a consultation with the marine interests because such applications are in effect a proposal to the Crown Estate on a commercially confidential basis.
  However, all elements of the Government are very open to a dialogue with the shipping industry about the impact of the proposed sites on navigation and navigational safety. The Department of Transport will shortly be undertaking a consultation of the industry to elicit views, including the cumulative impact of the various sites.
  I hope, therefore, that I have said enough to ensure that noble Lords recognise that we are taking the safety of navigation very seriously in these decisions. I do not say that there will be no impact on the shipping industry. As I say, there may well be deviations from what has hitherto been the preferred route. However, we shall attempt to minimise that and to ensure that navigational safety is not thereby endangered.
  I turn to safety zones, which is the main subject of this clause, rather than the siting of the wind farms. The safety zone scheme provided for in the Bill comes into play only when a renewable energy installation has all the suite of development consents in place. So the location of the development from a marine safety point of view will have been considered by that point. The purpose of the safety zone will be to protect shipping navigation in the area of the renewable energy installation to avoid collisions and to keep vessels a safe distance from the installation. The extent of the safety zone will be tailored very much to an assessment of the risk of collision at the particular location of the development. They will be no larger than they have to be to achieve that aim. The primary aim in these considerations is to ensure that there is no danger to navigational safety.
  I believe, therefore, that both the UK's international obligations and existing UK procedures and legislation cover the objective of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: Perhaps I may come back on one or two points. The general view of the industry is that the Government are underestimating the amount of traffic which is likely to pass near the wind farms. They underestimate the extent to which the diversions may increase the risks of collision either with other ships or other objects or, indeed, the wind farms. Alas, we do not have a blackboard in the Moses Room, but if one looks at the charts showing the way in which the proposed round two applications are located, it would seem that that is a valid view which is held by the outside interests. None of us wants an environmental disaster. Therefore, further consultation is necessary to establish exactly how important that particular aspect of the matter would be.
  The other point on which I am unclear, now that the Minister has resumed his seat, is whether he accepts the amendment. If, indeed, it is compatible with the
  GC 368
  United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as I believe it to be, and would ensure that there is compatibility with the convention, at least the Minister should say that he accepts the amendment and we can take it from there. Other than that, certainly we shall need to return to the matter on Report. I continue to remain extremely worried that through adopting an approach which seems to be more concerned about locating wind farms and diverting shipping rather than having the lanes in place and putting the wind farms out of their way, this may, indeed, become a matter which in years to come we shall regret.
  Lord Greenway: I have listened to the Minister's comments and agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, just said. I do not think it can be right necessarily for diversions to be imposed on shipping. especially where there is high-density shipping, around these proposed sites. Many of those ships are ferries on regular routes, so ships are going backwards and forwards, day in, day out, all year round. Those ships will use more fuel in order to go round the sites. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said earlier, that would mean more pollution from their exhausts, and could result in increased costs of transportation.
  To my recollection, the Minister did not comment on risk management, which is one of the points I made. Have the Government considered anything along the lines undertaken by other governments? As regards recreational craft, it was my understanding that possibly there would be a kind of inshore zone that would be sacrosanct. I do not know anything about the Coast Protection Act, but can the Minister confirm that that is the case? There is a worry that where some of the round 1 sites are located, there will be a leap-frog effect with other sites being added to the existing ones, and so on and so forth, further out to sea. I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments.
  Lord Whitty: I have tried to explain that the assessment of the applications at various stages has to take into account the density of traffic, the effects of deviation and the potential increase in marine safety. If the noble Lord wants to refer to that as "marine management", it does not establish a body which then directs marine routes as the way one would into a harbour but ensures that shipping takes safe routes.
  I am not entirely sure that I understand the noble Lord's point about inshore recreational shipping. Clearly, there are exclusion zones which may be provided for in the impact assessment. However, I am not sure that anyone has ever promised an exclusion zone covering the whole of the inshore areas for recreational craft. I do not completely understand the noble Lord's point.
  The main point of the provisions, and the main reason why we do not accept the amendment—there is also the fact that it is attached to a clause which deals with safety zones rather than the siting of installations—is that our current legislation effectively covers this application in a way in which it is normal

  GC 369
  for the shipping industry to be consulted. The international obligations are not normally repeated in legislation in the way suggested by the noble Lord.
  I am not prepared to accept the amendment. I believe that the dangers have been exaggerated and would in any case have to be taken seriously into account on any particular site designation or development application. The risk assessment would have to include those issues of dangers at sea to which both noble Lords have referred.
  Lord Higgins: I still have difficulty in understanding why the noble Lord will not accept the amendment, which is entirely in line with the requirements under the treaty. There is a case in many treaties for incorporating the particular proposals in domestic law. At all events, we shall need to return to this on Report. As the industry is deeply concerned about this issue, can he give an assurance that there will be further consultation before Report?
  Lord Whitty: I am perfectly happy to have further consultation with noble Lords before Report. The timing of Report stage is not in my hands. I do not think that any further consultation with the shipping industry necessarily would affect my attitude to the amendment. I think that we have built in sufficient safeguards through the whole of the process and in any case are obliged to do so under existing UK law, which it would not be necessary to repeat here. I regard this as not a particularly strong objection to the approach which we adopt in the Bill to facilitate the construction of offshore wind farms. I find some of these objections unacceptable.
  Lord Higgins: After the last three sittings, the timing of the Report stage remains a matter of conjecture. However, at all events, there is no reason why the consultations need to be delayed. I am sure that those in the industry who are deeply concerned would readily make themselves available for further consultation. However. it seems to me unreasonable for the Minister to say that he is sure he is right that the risk has been overstated.
  Lord Greenway: Naturally I am disappointed at the Government's response. I have only one thing to say. If an incident which, admittedly, I described as a worst-case scenario were to take place, the blame would lie firmly with the Government. It would not lie with anyone else. I believe that the Government must recognise that.
  Obviously, I hope that more consultations will take place before the next stage of the Bill and I reserve the right to return then with another amendment. I realise that this one may be defective. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 107A:
  Page 65, line 6, leave out "consult" and insert "obtain the agreement of"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 107A is another probing amendment. On reading the Bill, I find that devolution makes all-country legislation less than satisfactory. That will not come as a surprise to the Minister. He will no doubt tell me that my understanding is wrong. However, I believe that, in essence, this part of the Bill means that Scottish Ministers have no choice. In effect, if the Secretary of State is advised or is minded to declare a safety zone around a particular installation, he may do so provided he has consulted Scottish Ministers, but they do not necessarily have to agree. That is my first point.
  One can consider the plight of fishermen or shellfish collectors who may be prohibited from using a particular area of sea or from fishing a particular shoal. We have just been talking about normal routes. Can the Minister assure us that no safety zone would deflect the normal route of, say, a North Sea or west coast ferry? At present, some ferry routes follow laid-down lines. The Minister's response to the previous amendment makes me even more concerned and leads me to believe that an answer needs to be given to this amendment.
  Should not Scottish Ministers have as much power over the siting of safety zones as they do over deciding which activities in the territorial sea will be classed as criminal? Should they not have to give their approval rather than simply be consulted? I beg to move.
  Lord Gray of Contin: I rise to support my noble friend in this amendment. It follows on from a previous contribution that I made when I tried to elicit from the Minister who had the final say in various issues which concern the Secretary of State for Trade, the Secretary of' State for Scotland—albeit, the part-time Secretary of State for Scotland—the First Minister and Scottish Ministers. I did not obtain a very satisfactory answer to my question, and this seems to provide a suitable opportunity to discover whether the Government have given this matter any more thought. Perhaps they can tell us a little more accurately what might happen.
  It seems to me that my noble friend is making a very good point by seeking in the amendment to leave out the word "consult" and insert "obtain the agreement of". That highlights the whole problem. The Secretary of State for Trade comes forward with a suggestion and puts it to the Scottish Parliament. Does he "consult" or, ultimately, does he "obtain the agreement of"? When I received an answer on the previous occasion, I was told that this need not bother us too much because all these matters can be dealt with through consultation.
  The relationship between the Secretary of State for Trade and Scottish Ministers would work perfectly well so long as one had the same government in Scotland as in the United Kingdom. However, let us suppose, for example, that a different party was in power in Scotland. It might not be very easy for the Secretary of State for Trade to obtain agreement, and what would happen then? Whose word would prevail? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us a little more.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: If it is a UK power, the will of the UK Minister will prevail. If it is a devolved power, the will of the Minister from the devolved Parliament will prevail. It does not matter which party they belong to. The powers are either reserved to the UK or devolved. In this particular instance, it is a UK power. The Secretary of State has the power to deal with safety zones. It is sensible, and the legislation will prescribe, that the Secretary of State will consult with Scottish Ministers. One would hope that the Scottish Minister and the UK Minister would reach agreement, no matter which party they belonged to. However, were there not to be agreement, in the exercise of a UK power it must be the UK Government who prevail.
  It would be the other way round in provisions where there was a devolved responsibility or an assumption that the Ministers from the devolved Parliament would consult because it would fit in with an overall UK strategy. But if the UK Minister disagrees with the Scottish Minister in the exercise of a devolved power, ultimately the Scottish Minister can act. Therefore, I do not believe that the issue is complicated.
  In so far as there is a UK power involved in this clause, it is clear that the view of the UK Minister would prevail. We have not had any great problems with our Scottish colleagues, and this particular wording has been agreed to be the most sensible presentation of the way in which we would endeavour to carry out the duties under this clause.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for clarifying my question. I asked why there was a difference on two occasions in the Bill. I suppose he will say that in criminal law the Scots have different rules and regulations and that is why they have overall jurisdiction as opposed to this occasion, where they do not. However, I find this odd. Did the Minister refer to the fact that this particular part had been referred to the Scottish Parliament and they are content with it, or does he just assume that?
  Lord Whitty: The Scottish Executive has agreed to it.
  Baroness Byford: In that case, there is nothing much more that I can say. I asked for clarification because it seems unusual to have one system in one place in the Bill and a different system in another. However, the Minister having explained that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 107AA:
  Page 65, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).
  The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment as I wonder what is the need for this particular subsection. The Bill confers powers to declare safety zones in our waters and theoretically it sets out provisions allowing proper control and management of those zones. But this subsection appears to suggest that there should be no limit to the area of sea that could be designated—indeed, we
  GC 372
  touched on that earlier—and that some of the waters concerned might not be subjected to the regulatory regime in the rest of the Bill.
  I may have misunderstood but it would appear to be the case that, once a zone has been declared and approved on, say, Scroby Sands off Great Yarmouth, as is suggested, the zone might be extended indefinitely by this subsection to include the whole of the North Sea within our territorial jurisdiction. I query whether that is what is meant. Can the Minister assure me that that is not the effect of this subsection and perhaps explain the reason for this provision? I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this probing amendment. It returns us to the discussion that we had yesterday, when I was trying to discover what sort of limits there were to renewable energy zones. The noble Baroness has spotted another place in the Bill where they are undefined. Indeed, the Bill goes further in enabling them to be fairly unlimited in scope. I will listen to the Minister's reply with interest.
  Lord Triesman: I will set out the intention of this provision. The central theme of the provision is to ensure and maintain safety. In a recent debate with the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, on the issue of light dues, all of us decided that whatever the complexities in that area, the fundamental issue that we should be concerned with was safety, which is obviously enormously important. There should be no compromise in any effort made to ensure that all mariners have confidence in a system of protection for them.
  Safety zones around renewable installations—I emphasise that I use the phrase safety zones in the plural, because I want to come back to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer about renewable energy zones—will be considered only where there is a sound case for declaring them. It follows that where there is a sudden haste to impose a safety zone, the Secretary of State should have sufficient powers to impose one.
  The proposed amendment would lead to such a right, or power, being weakened in cases where the renewable installation was sited so close to the boundary of the renewable energy zone that it was not possible to impose the full safety zone—justified on safety grounds—within the zone. The installation could be left with, for example. a 500-metre exclusion zone in one direction, but only 100 metres in the opposite direction. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a safety zone can only be 500 metres maximum. We can see that this offers a degree of flexibility, but that is available to us only within a rather limited system. We would not expect a situation to arise very often where there would be a great deal of asymmetry between the different ends of the zone, but we need to provide for the eventuality where that is the case.
  The renewable energy zone is a singular concept, and anyone who reads the Bill will find that it is never expressed in the plural. I was trying to make this point

  GC 373
  yesterday, and for the purposes of clarity I will repeat it. While it is a singular concept, the wind installations might be in a number of places within that zone, and it is those that are in the plural.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that response. I am not absolutely sure that my amendment would detract from doing what I was trying to achieve, which was to make sure that we were limiting the amount of extension that could take place. Am I wrong in that?
  The Minister explained that safety zones can only be a total of 500 metres maximum, whichever way it is done. Obviously, if new planning permission is given for more installations extending further out into other navigation lanes, I was concerned that this is an open-ended phrase that comes into this section of the Bill.
  I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for her comments. I will take it away to give it further thought. The Minister is virtually saying that I should have no grounds for misunderstanding, but his answer was not entirely satisfactory. Does he have anything to add to it?
  Lord Triesman: Let me try to do my best, for the purposes of the greatest clarity that I can achieve. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea gives us the right to establish safety zones around renewable energy installations in the renewable energy zone. The provision enables us to establish a safety zone around an installation that is located on the boundary of the renewable energy zone, so that the safety zone extends outside the zone. Similar powers exist, incidentally, in relation to oil and gas installations on the Continental Shelf. There is no difference in that sense.
  The effect of the amendment is that the Secretary of State would be unable to apply safety zones beyond the defined limits of the renewable energy zone even where there was a demonstrable case for having such a safety zone in the interests of achieving all of the safety objectives which are shared on all sides of the Committee. That is why we think that the amendment would be unhelpful.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 107B not moved.]
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 107BA:
  Page 65, line 36, after "it" insert "including specifically fishermen or shellfishermen whom he has reason to believe traditionally work over the grounds to be included in the zone"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 107BA, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 107DA. These amendments are intended to provide specific protection to a much respected, but too often forgotten, group of people; namely, fishermen and shell fishermen around our coasts.
  In many places the areas to be covered by these provisions or in the vicinity of shoals or banks where installations may be built are the very areas which are
  GC 374
  worked by inshore fishermen of all kinds. They may not be grand industrial fishermen but they are people and families who depend for their livelihood on working coastal waters. They are the very people who, with the decline of so many of our great fishing ports, still give life, colour and definition to so many of our coastal towns.
  No one would think of not consulting the inhabitants of a region on major planning changes likely to affect their way of life, but it is easy for the planners and the civil servants in far distant departmental offices not concerned with the business of those who go down to deep waters to see the sea as so much empty space. Amendment No. 107BA would ensure that would never happen and would give fishermen a statutory right to be consulted on these matters.
  Given the fact that even in local fisheries there are cases where boats travel a long distance to carry out their work, Amendment No. 107DA ensures that representatives of fishermen in ports up to 50 miles from any proposed safety zone should be informed and consulted and given the opportunity specifically to make their case to any inquiry set up into the proposed zone.
  In order to aid the Committee I should say that the last words of the amendment should read,
  "must be consulted on the size and effects on fishing of a safely zone".
  I hope that the Minister can consider very positively the points underlying these amendments for there is no doubt that the livelihoods of many families could be affected by any disruption caused to fishing. If he is not able to accept my amendments, I invite him to explain to the Committee the procedures by which he will ensure that fishermen are informed and consulted and can put their case to an inquiry. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, highlights the difficulty of operating in the absence of any kind of marine spatial planning framework. People who will be affected by such an application will not understand how to make their representations and what sort of representations they can make. That would not be the case with a planning application on land. The amendment is extremely worthwhile as it explores those issues.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: In principle, one has every sympathy with the fishermen over this issue. Indeed, it is essential that their voice is heard. However, I do not think it would be particularly wise or safe to permit fishermen to enter these zones. The sea is a pretty hazardous place, and if the weather was inclement, I hate to think what might happen if a fishing vessel were to try trawling up between wind generators. It would be appallingly dangerous for everybody. Much as I sympathise with their position, I do not think that that sort of freedom is possible, although it is essential that they are properly consulted so that. if at all possible,

  GC 375
  these wind farms are not sited in traditional fishing areas. That would be the only sensible way to deal with the matter.
  Lord Whitty: We must be clear that we are dealing with the safety zones in this part of the Bill. The application of a safety zone is basically on the grounds of safety. It is clear that we recognise that on many occasions there will be possible implications for fishermen. It is important that we act in a reasonable and justifiable way in relation to all interests. The decision is essentially made on safety grounds, and as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has implied, there could be an issue of safety relating to fishermen.
  So far as taking views into account is concerned, Clause 82(7) requires that where the Secretary of State issues a notice about a safety zone or where a determination is made in relation to that notice, he must take appropriate action to bring it,
  "to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it".
  Clearly, where there is established fishing activity, it falls under that requirement.
  Similar requirements fall on any other person issuing a notice—the applicants themselves, for example. It is therefore important that we adopt a very inclusive approach so that everybody who is likely to be affected by it will know of its existence. It is pretty inconceivable that fishermen who could be affected by the safety zone would not be covered by that requirement. However, there may be other people equally likely to be affected—for example, those involved in recreational shipping, commercial shipping and other recreational activities in the area. They are also covered by the general phrase,
  "persons likely to be affected by it".
  Amendment No. 107DA would require that where the Secretary of State has deemed that a public inquiry is necessary in respect of a safety zone, representatives of the fishing industry and ports within 50 miles of the proposed safety zone, from where boats are traditionally fished in the area, should be notified of that decision. Fishermen who used that area for their fishing would be well aware of such a proposition. If we start specifying everybody who might be involved, we would, as normally happens in debates on legislation, be guilty of the implication that others who might have such an interest are excluded by mentioning only fishermen.
  Paragraph 6(3) of the schedule provides for the publication of a notice to inform,
  "persons likely to be affected by the proposal"
  than an inquiry would be held. I cannot conceive in the situation described by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that fishermen could be excluded from such a category. If we were to specify them, we would have to specify many other categories of people or potential sites in various parts of the sea. I therefore do not think that it is necessary to specify fishermen here.
  Baroness Byford: I have obviously listened carefully to the Minister. I referred to fishermen in the
  GC 376
  amendment because they use the sea the most, apart from business shipping which is, one hopes, further out. I want to ensure that fishermen are consulted before the zone is designated. Will the noble Lord point me to where it says that in the Bill? I cannot see it, but I may have misread the Bill.
  Lord Whitty: Clause 82(7) requires that where there is a notice about a safety zone or, later, when there is a determination on that notice, people who are likely to be affected must be informed.
  Baroness Byford: That is after the decision is made, is it not?
  Lord Whitty: No. It is when a notice is issued, which is the point where, as with most such propositions, it would be required to be drawn to people's attention. They could therefore object at that point. I assume that I am correct.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his comments. I named fishermen because, as I say, I think they will be the most directly affected. I hope the noble Lord thinks that we will still have a fishing industry, because it is very much under threat at present. It is very important that we protect fishermen as much as we can. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 82 agreed to.
  Schedule 16 [Applications and proposals for notices under section 82]:
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 107C:
  Page 202, line 6, at end insert "reference"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 107C, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 107D.
  Amendment No. 107C is a probing amendment. As it stands, the wording implies that the location might be given in the form of a map of, for example, the Goodwin Sands, with a shaded area to the north-east. If this is the case, will the drawing be to scale and, if so, to what scale? Perhaps it is already laid down and I have missed it.
  I understand that in matters relating to navigation at sea, it is customary to work in degrees, minutes and seconds of latitude and longitude. Indeed, in the papers relating to the common fisheries policy, I have come across areas or zones defined in those terms. When a zone starts on dry land, one may find a definition that reads, for example, "due east of Peterhead to a point", and the point is defined by such a reference. Will the Minister explain what the current wording means and why that form has been chosen?
  With regard to Amendment No. 107D, the notice may require objections to be sent to someone—let us call him Person X. If Person X receives any objections, he must copy them to the Secretary of State. Yet subsection (3) states that the Secretary of State is required, whenever he or she receives objections or copies of objections, to use them in deciding whether to hold a public inquiry.

  GC 377
  Will the Minister give me an idea of the checking system that can be put in place to ensure that all objections received by a third party are indeed copied to the Secretary of State; of the system that will ensure that those copies reach the Secretary of State; and of the system that will ensure that the Secretary of State is made aware of their arrival? Will the Minister explain why it was considered necessary to write this provision into the Bill? It may be that it is the same as provisions in other Bills.
  Finally, will the Minister explain why, in paragraph 4(3), there is no specific statement about sending objections to a third party but there is a requirement on the Secretary of State? It states:
  "Where objections, or copies of objections, to an application have been sent to the Secretary of State in compliance with the regulations",
  the Secretary of State must take appropriate action. I wonder whether we are creating yet more layers of bureaucracy, and I seek ministerial reassurance. I beg to move.
  Lord Triesman: Let me deal with the amendments in the same order that the noble Baroness introduced them. It is obviously of the utmost importance to those organisations and people who are likely to be affected by a proposed safety zone that they should be made aware of its location as quickly and as accurately as possible. Part of the burden of the noble Baroness's remarks is what is the most accurate way of doing that and what would therefore be most helpful.
  Limiting the description of the site to reference points would disadvantage potentially affected parties, particularly yachtsmen and other recreational users of the sea who might not be able to locate the positions of the installations in question quickly. Some would, of course, because they might have great experience of using reference points on charts. Others, I fear, might have less facility in doing so.
  We believe that a map is much more user-friendly to all concerned. My understanding is that charts will be to scale and that there should be no great difficulty in making sure that they can be used with precision.
  Let me turn to Amendment No. 107D. Having talked yesterday about what one could see over very long distances, I fear that today I must say that this amendment may turn out to be short-sighted. It seems logical to me that where the Secretary of State has asked for objections to an application to a safety zone to be sent to someone other than himself or herself, that person must also send a copy to the Secretary of State. That completes the circle; it makes sure that the Secretary of State is fully in the loop and is aware of all the communications about the matter.
  We are not placing a copying burden on the objector, incidentally, but on the person whom the Secretary of State nominates to do the job. This seems reasonable. The system that ensures that the loop is complete will obviously need to be specified in a way that ensures everybody knows what they have to do, in greater detail than would probably be appropriate in the Bill. None the less, it is intended that everyone should see a copy of everything, again on the grounds
  GC 378
  that safety is the preoccupation here. We do not want to find that anyone has missed out on a major safety requirement by a miscommunication.
  Lord Greenway: Most recreational craft these days employ some sort of GPS satellite navigation system which gives the latitude and longitude read-out, so there is no problem for yachtsmen in reading such figures. They do not necessarily need a chart showing the site.
  What is confusing me about objections is that we have already had round one; round two was notified at about Christmas time, and we are only now discussing the Bill. There was no method by which anyone could object under round one, which seems a strange way of going about things.
  Lord Triesman: All I can say is that it is essential that these provisions are right and that all future arrangements ensure that there is the fullest possible communication of the areas on maps. I take the point about the new pieces of machinery that find your latitude and longitude; I believe you can even do it in central London, let alone at sea. Many taxi drivers seem to employ that method for getting around.
  I take the point that we must make sure that the objections system is thorough and robust and that everybody knows what the position is. The Bill must establish that.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for his comments. I certainly had not realised that this system was not in being in the first instance, which is pretty bad.
  I thank the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 107D to 107DA not moved.]
  Schedule 16 agreed to.
  Clause 83 [Prohibited activities in safety zones]:
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 107DB:
  Page 66, line 13, at end insert—
  "unless it is a United Kingdom registered fishing vessel which has entered the zone for the purpose of plying its trade on local fishing grounds or a vessel carrying shellfishermen to a bank, shoal or reef within the zone on or over which there is an established fishery of shellfish."
  The noble Baroness said: The Government are constantly paying lip service to the need to avoid regulation, but Clause 82 contains provisions to establish a new regulatory system requiring fishing boats to apply for permits to go to fishing grounds that they have traditionally worked. I wonder whether fishermen have not already had enough to put up with, given the restrictions we have discussed in the common fisheries policy, without new regulatory burdens.
  Fishermen are no threat to the security of these installations. On the contrary, if anything, a threat to the way they work will be posed by the new installations. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said

  GC 379
  earlier that he feels sure that the fishermen will not want to go anywhere near them. The works in progress to build them will affect the fishing industry.
  However, the very nature of the sea and the areas of shoaling water where renewable energy installations might be installed means that in some places certain species will be in abundance. The Government must recognise the specific interests of fisheries and the shellfish industry.
  The amendment would give an automatic exemption to fishermen and shellfishermen to enter a safety zone. It appears—at least, I hope this is the case—that some type of exemption may underlie subsection 4(b). I hope the Minister will clarify that and assure the fishing industry that there will be no new regulatory system for local fisheries and no onerous permit system and that there will be a general exemption to allow fishermen to continue conducting their business.
  We all accept that there may be occasional emergencies or times of danger when an area should be closed to all navigation. There is provision for that elsewhere in the Bill and in law. However, a general prohibition on fishing in a safety zone unless permission is given is, I believe, putting the extra regulatory burden the wrong way round. Surely there should be a presumption on the right to fish without a need for such a permit unless good reason can be shown why navigation should temporarily be stopped.
  Does the Minister accept that fishermen are deserving of this kind of trust and support? Does he seriously envisage that a permit will have to be required every time someone wants to check their lobster pots, for example, or will they not be allowed to fish in the zones anyway? Will the Minister take this opportunity to spell out in detail the specific regulations and regulatory system proposed? Can he guarantee specifically that there will be no permit charge to fish in safety zones—in other words, that this is not another stealth tax? I seek clarification with the amendment. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I can see that, during the construction period of any installation, a safety zone would be very necessary because many unknown things would be going on. However, unless the Minister tells me otherwise, I can imagine that, once some installations were in place, they might well be a perfectly good fishing ground.
  The fishermen will know where the installations are; they are well able to avoid difficulties, as they have been doing for hundreds of years when it comes to rocks around our island. The safety zones may actually become richer fishing grounds, for one reason or another. We cannot know that yet and nor can the Government as they have not done an environmental assessment. Certain species might proliferate in the zones.
  There are many interesting issues in this respect. However, I cannot see why, just because energy is being gathered above the surface of the ocean,
  GC 380
  fishermen should necessarily be prohibited from operating beneath the wind turbines. It is not as though they are operating sailing vessels, for example.
  I can see that it will be necessary to hold considerable discussions with fishermen about safety issues and so on, but it seems excessive to expect that they would not be able to fish those areas, unless there was a very rigid regime. I should have thought that the zones would pose no more risk to fishermen than the natural hazards they meet every day.
  Lord Greenway: I should like to pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness. In my experience, any fixed structure placed in the sea picks up, over the course of time, a certain amount of accretions and crustacea. If there were suddenly to be a growth of mussels or whatever on these structures, I cannot help thinking that any fisherman worth his salt would creep in at the dead of night to harvest this unexpected bounty.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have been longing to ask one question—I do not know whether the Minister can give me the answer—about the type of cable lying under the sea, which may presumably, if there are a series of farms, be fairly high voltage cable. I do not know how high the voltage would be. Will that cable have any effect on instruments in the ships on the surface? Also, will it have any effect on the fish? These are things we should know. I do not know about electromagnetic fields that flow from high-tension cables, but I know that it is advisable not to live underneath one. Perhaps it is the same for fish and ships!
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I echo what I said before. I hope that an exclusion zone is an exclusion zone. I have immense confidence in our fishermen and in their ability as sailors. However, if an exclusion zone is not an exclusion zone; it is all very well to say that they will not go out there in a force 10 gale, but you can bet your bottom dollar that someone will be caught out there in a force 10 gale and he will not be in total control. If we are putting these fixed installations in the sea, even with a reasonable separation, they will be a hazard to anyone who enters that zone.
  Much as I sympathise with the good intentions of my noble friend, I hope the Minister's response will be that an exclusion zone is just that: an exclusion zone.
  Lord Whitty: In principle, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is correct: safety zones are safety zones. They are imposed for safety reasons and safety applies to fishermen as much as it does to any other people navigating in that area. Clause 83—the prohibited activities clause—provides for permissions to enter that zone under certain circumstances when there are individual installations and access to vessels which can, because of their size, manoeuvrability or location of the site, proceed safely. But those permissions have to be granted specifically under subsections (4)(5) and (6) of the clause.
  In general, there would be an exclusion for fishermen as there would be for other bodies. If one is imposing a restriction on safety grounds with some

  GC 381
  flexibility, that applies to fishermen as much as it does to anyone else. The attempt by the amendment of the noble Baroness to have a blanket override for fishermen of what is imposed for a safety reason does not seem to be sensible. There is a little flexibility here, but it would be slightly perverse to allow fishermen in general to override something imposed for safety reasons.
  The question of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, takes us beyond the safety zones into the whole issue of the cable. Clearly, the possibility of interfering with instruments was discussed when dealing with an earlier clause. The possibility of giving fish migraines has not been raised before. I do not think we have any evidence that high-tension, high-voltage cables, of which there are plenty around the world, have any detrimental effect on fish themselves.
  However. the issue of interference with communications radar or ships' instruments has to be taken into account when granting permission in the first instance. There are international precedents for that.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sorry, I did not hear the answer about when the cable is under water.
  Lord Whitty: When the cable is under water, it is unlikely that there will be any serious interference. it may not be nil and, therefore, that has to be taken into account in granting the application in the first instance.
  Baroness Byford: I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. There is obviously a difference of opinion about whether safety zones are or are not safe to fish in. That is not really my dividing point. I wanted to establish what is meant by the Bill, and I believe that the Minister has answered that point—that is, people are definitely not allowed to enter safety zones unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Minister is nodding.
  I now ask the Minister to turn his attention hack to Second Reading, when my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon raised the question of human rights. The Bill is supposed to be compatible with human rights. However, is the Minister confident that he will not be taking away anyone's human rights if safety zones are to be established and fishermen are not allowed to fish in areas where they have traditionally fished? I should be grateful for a response to that point.
  Lord Whitty: I cannot see that a human rights issue is involved here. We are not taking anyone's possessions; we are simply imposing a restriction on the grounds of safety. I do not believe that that would qualify as a deprivation under the Human Rights Act.
  Baroness Byford: Does the Minister not consider that it would he taking away part of people's livelihoods—a matter which I thought came under Human Rights Act? There is time to consider the matter between now and Report, but that was the reason that I particularly wanted to bring forward this amendment, which has prompted diverse views to be
  GC 382
  aired. I should have thought that, if people were precluded from an area and their livelihoods were affected, difficulties may well arise. I urge the Government to consider the matter between now and the next stage hut, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 83 agreed to.
  Clause 84 [Offences relating to safety zones]
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 107DC:
  Page 66, line 44, at end insert "unless it is a United Kingdom registered fishing vessel which has entered the zone for the purpose of plying its trade on local fishing grounds or a vessel carrying shellfishermen to a bank, shoal or reef within the zone on or over which there is an established fishery of shellfish"
  The noble Baroness said: We have nearly reached the end of my group of amendments. In moving Amendment No. 107DC, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 107DD. The amendments move on from the amendment that we have just considered, but I submit that they are of equal importance, as they deal not only with the question of prohibition and the regulation of fishing in safety zones but with the potential criminalisation of fishermen if they attempt to carry out their traditional trade. We touched on that point during debate on the previous amendment.
  Can the Minister explain why he believes that fishermen are such a threat to wind farms that he must propose these draconian powers? It is interesting that in a previous debate the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, obviously did not consider that to be a reason to ban people from fishing in those areas, but that was not the view taken by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. Therefore, I find myself moving another amendment on which I am not sure that agreement will be reached around the Committee.
  Under this section, if a man's tackle, nets or pots drift into a safety zone which he does not hold a permit to enter and he enters the zone to retrieve them, he could he arrested and sent to prison for up to two years. I wonder whether that is right. Subsection (9) gives no defence against a conviction on such grounds. What happens if a fishing boat is hove to and drifts on the wind or the tide into a safety zone of which the fisherman was aware but whose boundaries he had not noticed he had passed? Is he guilty of a criminal offence? Where is the defence against conviction under subsections (7), (8) or (9)? It is all very well to say that common sense should apply but, if we take motorists in Great Britain as an example, it rarely seems that that happens in real life.
  Therefore, I seek clarification on the position of the fishermen. What would happen if, for example, under subsection (2), a condition was put on a permit to fish in a zone and the person caught a type of fish which was not specified or was prohibited in a permit? Would that be a criminal offence? Again, surely it would be better to turn the Bill round the other way so that fishermen plying their traditional trade were automatically exempted and could not be criminalised in the circumstances that I described. I beg to move.
  6 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment. The longer these debates go on, the more it seems to me that banning fishermen from the safety zone is over the top. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has a different viewpoint. I cannot understand why fishermen are not deemed to be the best judges of whether it is safe to fish in a place. If safety were a measure of things, we would not allow anyone to be on roads at all, given how many people are killed on roads every year.
  I recognise that during the construction period there will certainly be issues, but I do not believe that the Minister has explained at any point the reasoning behind the process—and certainly not to the point at which fishermen should be sent to prison for entering a safety zone. Members of the fishing community, when consulted, asked whether they were not capable of judging when things were safe and when they were not, given the hazards that they face every day around our extremely rocky and hazardous coast, which are likely to be much greater than in a known safety zone, so-called.
  Lord Whitty: I really do not accept that argument. These are safety zones, imposed for safety reasons. The issue is not what harm the fishermen can do to the installation but what harm the installation can do to fishermen, or anyone else approaching it in a dangerous situation. I do not see that there is an argument for exempting fishermen from the provision; in these circumstances, as so often, we are saving fishermen from themselves. Under any other safety provision, we do not say that there is a whole class of people to which it shall not apply. If safety provisions are provided by the state, or required of someone to provide, we do not distinguish as to whom they should apply.
  As the noble Baroness said, exemptions are made and those exemptions are bound to have conditions; breach of those conditions; then becomes a criminal offence. But that applies to anyone—it is not directed specifically at fishermen, who are entitled to protection as much as anyone else.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that response, although I do not agree with all that he has said. He has not actually answered my question as to what happens if fishermen happen to drift into that area, in rough weather or in whatever circumstance. Would they just be guilty—would that be it?
  Lord Whitty: That would be a matter for the courts, which would consider the mitigating circumstances. I suspect that prosecution would hardly arise in those cases, but it would be either for the prosecuting authority or for the courts to make a common-sense judgment—although the noble Baroness just now rejected the operation of common sense. The clause
  GC 384
  provides for safety for fishermen and other sea users in the vicinity of these installations. It is safety that has to be protected—their own as well as anyone else's.
  Baroness Byford: The Minister rightly said that it was for the courts to decide, but it is for us as parliamentarians to lay down the law, which the courts then interpret. That is a very different matter.
  Lord Whitty: I draw the noble Baroness's attention to something that may meet her points partly. Subsection (8) of Clause 84 refers to the person taking all reasonable precautions,
  "to prevent the contravention in question".
  That would probably cover most of the drifting inadvertently, unless it was a case of total negligence.
  Baroness Byford: That is a wonderful phrase that nearly covers everything that could possibly happen. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 107DD not moved.]
  Clause 84 agreed to.
  Clause 85 [Supplementary provisions relating to offences under s.84]:
  [Amendment No. 107E not moved.]
  Clause 86 [Extinguishment etc. of public rights of navigation]:
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 107F:
  Page 68, line 38, leave out from first "through" to end of line 39 and insert "some or all of those places"
  The noble Baroness said: Again, we seek clarification. The amendment is designed to elicit whether the Government have a specific purpose in mind in using the phraseology of the Bill. Will the Minister explain the importance of the distinction between the rights of navigation,
  "so far as they pass through those places",
  and the rights of navigation,
  "so far as they pass through some or all"?
  Will he give an example of a situation in which the legal position would be unclear if both phrases were not combined in the same sentence? I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am not going to answer either of the noble Baroness's questions, because we think that she has got it right, and we accept the amendment.
  Baroness Byford: Wow! You have made my day. I hope Members of Committee do not take offence, but I shall be leaving in five minutes. My step will be even lighter when I go. Maybe I should have moved the other amendment as well—but perhaps we shall return to it at another stage. I thank the Minister.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 86, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 87 agreed to.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 108:
  After Clause 87, insert the following new clause—
  "COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 86 OR 87

  (1) If the Secretary of State shall grant any consent or make any declaration under section 86 or 87 which shall interfere with the private or commercial interests of any person or corporation, he or it shall be entitled to compensation.

  (2) Such compensation shall not be limited to the financial or other benefit received by the person in whose favour the consent or declaration is made."

  The noble Baroness said: In presenting the Bill to your Lordships—indeed, to Parliament—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made the following statement under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. He said:
  "In my view the provisions of the Energy Bill are compatible with the Convention rights".
  The views of the noble Lord on matters of fact are not something with which one should lightly disagree. However, in the case of the provisions of Clauses 86 and 87, it is clear that there are massive encroachments on the proprietary rights of both individuals and businesses. Between them, Clauses 86 and 87 cover some two and a half pages, but I need not trouble the Committee with the text. The gist is fully explained in the marginal notes.
  Clause 86 provides for the extinguishment of certain public rights of compensation, while Clause 87 provides for,
  "further provision relating to public rights of navigation".
  Subject to anything that my honourable friends in the other place may yet have to say about the details in those two long and complicated clauses, I am not going to argue about the principles involved in them. For example, erections of wind farms offshore may very well interfere with rights of navigation, of access to parts of the shore or with fishing rights. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and my noble friend Lord Higgins, made that point very strongly earlier. However, there are those who at present enjoy those rights, and possibly other rights. The two clauses empower someone to take them away—presumably for the public good, but additionally for the commercial advantage of some company or other. That termination of rights, which may have existed for hundreds of years, is in fact nothing less than an act of confiscation.
  The Minister invoked the European Convention on Human Rights. Allow me to remind Members of the Committee of the first protocol to the convention, which states:
  "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful possession of his possessions".
  Savour that primary and overriding principle. The protocol does, however, go on to make exceptions in favour of the public interest, subject to the conditions provided by law, and,
  "the right of a State to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest".
  GC 386
  Those exceptions, governed by the public interest, are undoubtedly the justification for the Minister's claim that the Bill, and, in particular, Clauses 86 and 87, are compatible with the convention on human rights.
  Let me assume for the sake of argument today that building monstrous windmills out at sea, at enormous expense, and of dubious effectiveness in generating electricity at reasonable cost at times of the day when it will be of any use, is in fact necessarily in the public interest. Let me further assume, for the sake of the same argument, that these machines, which will interfere with navigation rights, the ability of fishermen to fish, and of the fish to breed, are in fact in the public interest, even though they will he operated, not by the state, in whose favour the exception is made by the convention, but by some commercial firm to whom the state has granted the right to construct and operate these machines. In other words, let me assume for the sake of argument at this time, but subject to what my honourable friends may have to say on the principles involved, that every argument of the Government in support of the power by which they seek to extinguish long-held and valuable private and commercial rights is valid.
  The fact is that under the laws and customs of this country, rights of property, whether tangible in the form of land or intangible, such as navigation or fishing rights, are not expropriated by the state under the pretext that it is for the public good. Every person whose land is compulsorily acquired, whether, as in the old days, for the purposes of building a railway, or currently for road building, receives compensation. Even the refusal of planning permission or the existence of a planning scheme affecting a property may attract a claim for compensation. Whether the compensation is adequate or not is of course a matter of opinion.
  The rights covered by the clauses are no less valuable, no less important, and certainly not by any means intangible or ephemeral. My proposed new clause gives anyone adversely affected by the operation of the two clauses a right to compensation. I have not specified how that compensation should be calculated. That is a matter for the courts to decide under Section 8 of the Human Rights Act if the Secretary of State does not set a satisfactory figure when exercising his powers under the two clauses. I am content that the legislation should not be too prescriptive in this regard.
  The only constraint that I propose on the level of compensation is that contained in subsection (2) of the new clause. Compensation should relate to the loss suffered by the person whose rights have been terminated or curtailed. That may be far greater than the commercial advantage conferred on the person enjoying the benefit of the clauses. Compensation should therefore cover that loss. I hope that the Minister will agree that this new clause does not

  GC 387
  interfere with the operation of Clauses 86 and 87. It merely provides for justice for those adversely affected by them. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, that human rights are extremely important. I am sure that the Minister agrees that we must pay extreme regard to them.
  With respect, I believe that the noble Baroness slightly spoiled her case by using such emotive language, in referring to offshore wind farms as "monstrous windmills" of dubious efficacy. It is irrelevant whether she believes them to be a good or bad form of power. I would say to those people who object to the proposed excellent wind farms, which will undoubtedly contribute to the National Grid—and is another way of looking at the matter—that I still believe people are more likely to prefer that option, and indeed onshore wind power, to having new nuclear build in their back yard, especially at the stage when we have not solved the issue of nuclear power. I make that point only to say that mixing up whether we agree with the form of power with the issue of human rights creates a difficult argument.
  I see that shipping can take a different route. Recreational sailing and boating is public use of what could be said to be the marine equivalent of common land or open access land. There is plenty of other ocean over which people could sail or boat as a recreation. However, I return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, to the fishing rights. That is what concerns me in this regard.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Greenway: I totally agree with that. I have a modicum of sympathy with the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. However, compensation for altering public rights of navigation is almost impossible to quantify for shipping. We should bear in mind that we are dealing with international shipping, not only with British ships. However, I very much go along with what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said about compensation for fishing rights. That is a much more important problem, which we shall discuss under the next amendment.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I agree with what the noble Lord says. It is difficult to imagine the effect of offshore wind farms on the public. However, I say to Members of the Committee who do not live near the coast where there are a lot of oil rigs that people come to our part of the world on pleasure trips, to look out to sea and see the oil rigs. They get very excited about it. Indeed, buses stop on the road when they get to that point, and the people all get out—rather like the opening of Parliament—and are told about the oil rigs. Therefore, one could say that it is a huge asset to the tourist industry. Equally, in another place, it might be a terrible nuisance.
  GC 388
  The effect is very difficult to quantify, but with regard to offshore windmills I do not believe that people are horrified. When there is one right beside where one lives, that is different, as it alters everything about one's landscape. I believe that if wind farms are set up off the coast where I live, people will get quite excited about it.
  The fishing industry is different. It is terribly important that people who regularly go and catch prawns and shellfish of different sorts will make the most frightful fuss, and I cannot see a windfarm being set up in those places because there would be such a row. I find it very difficult to anticipate, although I appreciate the point that the noble Baroness is making. She is quite right to raise it.
  Lord Kingsland: Section 86(1) gives the Secretary of State power to make a declaration extinguishing public rights of navigation, in so far as they exist, in respect of a site of a renewable energy installation. Does the power offend Article 1 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights?
  The first paragraph of Article 1 of the convention states:
  "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law by the general principles of international law".
  The Strasbourg jurisprudence affords the concept of "possession" a wide meaning. In a case called Beyeler v Italy, the court held that,
  "the concept of 'possessions' in the first part of Article I has an autonomous meaning which is not limited to ownership of physical goods and is independent from the formal classification in domestic law: certain other rights and interests constituting assets can also be regarded as property rights and thus as 'possessions' for the purposes of the provision".
  The fact that domestic law does not acknowledge a particular interest to be a legal right or recognise it as something other than a property right is not determinative under Article 1 of the first protocol. The concept of possessions is not the same as the concept of ownership. It may be sufficient for the purposes of Article 1 that the applicant demonstrates an established interest with economic value. Of course, there must be an entitlement to some real economic benefit, even if its value is not yet ascertained. Possessions have been held, for example, to include the good will of a business.
  In the case of Pine Valley Developments v Ireland, the court found that Article 1 was able to protect a legitimate expectation that a certain state of affairs would apply. The loss in that case was in the form of a reduction of value and loss of commercial potential. In the case of Tre Traktorer Aktiebolag v Sweden, the applicant took over a restaurant and subsequently the licence previously granted to serve alcohol was withdrawn. The court held that a licence to serve alcohol could constitute a possession, given that economic interests connected with the running of the restaurant were possessions for the purposes of Article 1.

  GC 389
  I incline to the view that a PRN can constitute a possession. First, a recurring theme in case law for determining possession is the concept of an established interest with economic value. I would expect that those exercising a PRN, especially if they were doing so as part of a commercial enterprise, could rely on the decisions of Pine Valley Developments v Ireland and Tre Traktorer Aktiebolag v Sweden.
  In my opinion, the broad interpretation of a "possession" is likely to encompass a PRN and, ultimately, it may turn on the particular facts: namely, the number of individuals that would be affected; whether there were other convenient navigation alternatives; and the scale of detriment to any commercial enterprise. Of course, states are allowed to deprive an individual of possessions where it is in the public interest, but that is subject to the conditions provided by law and the general principles of international law that compensation should be paid. The amount of compensation must be reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
  Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable to conclude that the right to exercise one's public rights of navigation, at least in some cases, is a possession for the purposes of Article 1. In those circumstances, the Government are obliged to provide a provision for compensation in the Bill.
  There is one other issue of relevance; that is, whether or not the provisions in Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act 1989 meet the Article 6 test in the convention. In my view, there is a potential flaw in the 1989 approach—that is, there are circumstances in which the Government are not obliged to hold a public inquiry. While I accept that if they do hold a public inquiry the possibility for the courts to judicially review on appeal the decisions of that inquiry would bring the Bill within the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights, that would not be the case where the Government decided not to hold a public inquiry. Therefore, in my view, the Bill raises a second potential issue over the European convention.
  Lord Whitty: Some helpful and interesting points were made earlier. Perhaps I may make it clear that we are dealing with navigation rights. Fisheries will be the next item.
  I am afraid that I disagree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. If we are dealing with Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which obviously the Government take extremely seriously, then we must consider what is regarded as property or possessions and we must examine the way in which domestic law deals with property and possessions.
  Throughout, the Bill attempts to strike a fair balance between the rights of the wider community and environmental benefits, and so on, and the rights of the individual in regard to navigation. Therefore, we are operating on a balanced and justifiable basis. However, there is a basic objection to what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggests—that is, whether there is a deprivation of a possession in the first place.
  GC 390
  The public right—it is a public right; it is not an individual right to navigation is not, of itself, a possession. It is simply a right to navigate and it may be used for business or pleasure.
  Even if it were a possession in the normal parlance of English or Scottish law, the European Convention on Human Rights does not lead to any kind of inescapable conclusion such as the one that the noble Lord draws—for example, that compensation should be paid. Legally speaking, in domestic law the situation in England and Wales is that the public right of navigation is not a property right. Therefore, Article 1 does not apply in this situation.
  In Scotland, the situation is somewhat different. However, I believe that it is even more damaging to the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in that the right is treated as one of a number of rights held by the Crown in trust on behalf of the public and forms part of the regalia majora. In Scotland, that right is a right of property, but it is property held by the Crown on behalf of the public. Therefore, no individual member of the public has the right to claim that that is his possession and that he is entitled to compensation for the extinguishing of that right.
  Therefore, I do not believe that in any normal reading of either English law or the European convention would the extinguishing of public rights and navigation in either English or Scottish courts be allowable and I do not believe that it would pass the first hurdle. Therefore, I reject the amendment.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also referred to Article 6. The procedure under the Electricity Act which is being followed here is a sufficiently fair and balanced judicial or quasi-judicial procedure. I believe that the implication of the noble Lord's comments was that that would probably be the case where a public inquiry operated, but were there not to be a public inquiry because, in his view, there was no resort to a judicial review, doubt would arise.
  I am not sure that the noble Lord is correct to say that there would not be a right to a judicial review of that decision. I suspect that there would be. It would be a different kind of judicial review from the review of the outcome of a public inquiry, but it would be a review of the reasonableness of the action of the Secretary of State in refusing a public inquiry. I undertake to consider that point to see whether any amendment is necessary in that respect. However, I am clear that nothing proposed in the Bill is in any way contradictory to Article 1 of the convention.
  Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two brief observations to make on what he said. First, his certainty about Article 1 is not reflected in the Government's Explanatory Notes to the Bill, which express some doubt about whether or not Article 1 applies. Secondly, I believe that I made it clear in my opening remarks—this is well reflected in the

  GC 391
  jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights—that the domestic classification of property rights is irrelevant as to whether a particular thing is a possession under the first protocol of the convention. The fact that PRN is not a property right in English or Scottish law is neither here nor there so far as concerns the European Convention on Human Rights.
  Perhaps I may add something about judicial review. I was lax in my language when I turned to the question of Article 6. There would, of course, be a right to a statutory review after the public inquiry system set down in the Electricity Act. The nature of the investigation would be very similar to the judicial review but the investigation would, indeed, be set out in statute.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Kingsland for his clear exposition of what he considers to be the legal position in which we find ourselves. I note what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said. I do not live near enough to the coast to be able to look out and say whether or not these wind farms look good. Sometimes, I wish that I did. The noble Baroness made the point that she thought it would be difficult to quantify what kind of compensation could be awarded. My noble friend Lord Kingsland answered that point in a sense when he said that it would have to be reasonable.
  I am sorry that my language offended my namesake, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. She was 100 per cent correct. I wish that I had not expressed my feelings quite so strongly. I noted what the noble Baroness said. I also noted what the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said. I thank the Minister for his reply. We hold different views on the matter, but the bottom line is whether we believe that the people affected are entitled to compensation. That will turn on a legal interpretation.
  I heard what the Minister and my noble friend Lord Kingsland said. I very much hope that the Minister was not offended by my remarks. I am not a lawyer and therefore I did not mention all the cases that my noble friend mentioned. I am inclined to go along with the advice of my noble friend Lord Kingsland, particularly as he has been a Member of the European Parliament and is very conversant with all kinds of laws. Therefore, I have confidence in his advice. I hope that I do not embarrass him by saying that, especially if he finds out subsequently in the highest court of the land that he was wrong. Having said that, of course I shall withdraw the amendment, but it is a matter to which we shall certainly return as this is a very serious issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 88 agreed to.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 108A:
  After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—
  "COMPENSATION FOR FISHING INDUSTRY
  ( ) Where the creation of a safety zone under this Part, or where the operation of a renewable energy installation within a safety zone causes or has caused financial loss to United Kingdom fishermen or shell fishermen who traditionally work on or over grounds within that safety zone—

  (a) by interruption of business;

  (b) by causing harm or pollution damage to fish or shellfish;

  (c) by altering the temperature or current flow or other characteristic of the local waters or of any bank, shoal or reef such as to deter fish or shellfish from the area;

  (d) as a result of concerns over the effects on public health of the consuming of fish or shellfish caught within a safety zone; or

  (e) by other means,

  the Secretary of State must establish a scheme of compensation to offer compensation to those fishermen who show that they have traditionally fished on or over those grounds for any loss attributable to the creation of a safety zone."
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with the important issue of potential compensation for fishermen and shell fishermen whose livelihoods may be damaged by the creation of a safety zone or the erection of energy installations within it.
  It is important that the Minister should explain to the Committee and to the industry what kind of compensation arrangements the Government envisage. The amendment requires the Minister to set up a compensation scheme for fishermen who can show that they have traditionally always fished over those grounds.
  This is an extension of the law. The Bill envisages the creation of zones at sea where fishermen will, in future, at very best only be allowed to go with a permit or by permission. My noble friend Lady Byford mentioned that in an earlier amendment.
  Unlike deep sea oil and gas installations, where there are already controls, these installations will in many cases be in inshore fishing grounds and may, in some cases, be on sandbanks or flats that are worked by landing from boats as well as by fishing. What consideration has the Minister given to the effect of installations and safety zones on fishing activity? Will he give an assurance that if fishing is not allowed during the building of an energy installation, there will be a scheme of compensation financed by the government department that has agreed to the creation of the zone?
  It is not enough to say that the fishermen can go elsewhere. It might well be that he has agreed to the installation of a wind farm right in the middle of the best fishing ground off a particular coast. Will fishermen be able to take comparative catches and revenue into account in any claims of compensation? Technology is evolving in this area all of the time. For example, what if it is found at some future date that there are scientific consequences of the installation of wind farms, as is often claimed is the fact with mobile telephone masts?

  GC 393
  I have no reason to think that might be the case, but what if at any time in the future there were public health concerns arising from the operation of installations and there was either an effect on sales of fish or the Government closed an area to fishing? Can the Minister assure the Committee that a scheme of compensation would apply in those circumstances?
  It is also the case that erecting or operating a major structure out at sea can have effects on the temperature of the surrounding waters or may affect the flow of water or tide so as to alter the configuration of the seabed or of a sandbank. The effects may well be marginal but they could happen and could have a direct and serious impact on the appearance of fish and shellfish.
  Can the Minister assure the Committee that compensation would be available for fishermen in such a case? It may be that there are other instances that other Members of the Committee might bring to mind. However, I believe that the issue is one of great importance and I hope that the Minister can explain in this debate what plans he may have in mind.
  I did not say at the beginning, although I suppose it is unnecessary in Committee, that this is a probing amendment as, indeed, all amendments are. I did not say either that although the amendment is tabled in my name also, I am moving it on behalf of my noble friend Lady Byford, who, regrettably, was not able to stay any longer. I beg to move.
  Lord Greenwav: As I said on a previous amendment, I support the thrust behind this. I believe there is a case in point as regards fishermen, not necessarily just in relation to offshore wind farms but in relation to the oncoming alternative energy sources, which I mentioned earlier. I refer, for instance, to wave power installations which I understand might cover quite large areas of the Celtic Sea; a very well-fished area. I believe there is a case for considering this subject more closely and would be interested to hear what the Government have to say.
  Lord Whitty: The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness sets up a whole framework for compensation. It covers a number of direct and potentially indirect effects on fisheries as the result of the creation of an offshore installation and safety zone. Again, the issue of whether the amendment is entirely appropriate in this part of the Bill is in issue. This part deals with safety zones. Once there is an installation, a safety zone is required. It is the initial installation which may be the issue.
  However, the issue of establishing a fairly wide-ranging form of compensation in the scheme proposed by the noble Baroness does not seem to be appropriate anywhere in the Bill. In most cases when we deal with diversion of fishing away from a relatively small part of what is likely to be a fishing area, the fishermen are able to fish a few miles away, or even a few hundred yards away in terms of fishing banks as a whole. Therefore, there is unlikely to be a demonstrable loss of income and loss of access to fish. Contributions at earlier stages suggested that more fish might be
  GC 394
  attracted to those zones, and they would create a potential fishing site that may or may not be accessible. depending on the safety considerations. We would hardly be depriving them of a previous income. We may be creating a different eco-climate.
  No question of compensation would arise in either of those cases. There may be an issue, in some limited cases, where the installation and the safety zone around it really hit, rather than simply diverted, and caused the loss of a major source of fish income to the fishermen. In those cases, the effect would need to be discussed prior to the installation, and it would need to be determined whether compensation should be payable. Compensation would therefore depend on the particular circumstances and whether there had been an informed and reasonable discussion between the developers and all parties prior to those proposals.
  That is one factor that would have to be taken into account in the decision on whether consent would be given in the first place. I am not ruling out, in all circumstances, compensation to fishermen for loss of access and, therefore, income. A broad-based scheme. with all its direct and indirect effects on fishery income, would not be appropriate. It would be dealt with in the normal way, either by negotiation or litigation in order to establish compensation. I accept that fishermen may be in a different situation to the general issues of public rights of navigation, but it would be a limited subset of fisheries rights that would be affected, and they would have to be dealt with case by case.
  Viscount Ullswater: Before my noble friend decides what she will do with the amendment, is the Minister suggesting that no compensation is payable by government, but if fishing rights were extinguished by an operator, even for a certain amount of time, the operator might have to bear the compensation for those who had been fishing up until then?
  Lord Whitty: There are two issues: first, whether the developers, in their proposition, have reached an agreement with people likely to be affected that recognises the need for compensation; and secondly, whether, if they fail to do so, that is unreasonable behaviour on the part of the developers. In most analogous situations, on-land developments will involve a degree of compensation for loss of access to adjacent businesses. There is an element of compensation in the original proposition.
  If that has not been faced up to, the Secretary of State would have to bear that in mind in the decision whether to give consent in the first place. If consent has been given without compensation in the first place, there may still be a right to compensation, should it subsequently be established that a serious and irreplaceable source of income had been destroyed as a result of the decision to go ahead. In most cases, the developer would pay the compensation, but there could be one-off cases where compensation from the Government might be appropriate.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for his reply. I thank my noble friend Lord Ullswater for elucidating where this compensation might come from and that it certainly would not come from the Government. That was a useful intervention.
  I will withdraw the amendment. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Byford will want to look carefully at what was said. Fishermen are under threat in all sorts of ways. If this happens to be where they traditionally fish, and it causes them financial loss, we need to take that seriously. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 109:
  Before Clause 89, insert the following new clause—
  "POWERS OF GEMA TO SECURE INFORMATION FROM OFFSHORE GENERATORS OF ELECTRICITY
  Regulations may provide that GEMA shall have such powers as the Secretary of State shall consider necessary or expedient to secure information from offshore generators of electricity including generators fróm wind, tides or waves."
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment originated with my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. He is unavoidably absent this evening and will be for a couple of weeks. At the same time, I would like to speak to his identical Amendment No. 109A. Both amendments are to the same effect. They give GEMA power to secure information, first from generators of offshore electricity and, secondly, in Amendment No. 109A, from offshore producers of gas. But the principles are the same in both cases.
  Industrial and commercial gas consumers have long complained that they do not have the same access to information about gas production offshore as the companies which produce the gas. They are, therefore, at an unfair disadvantage when trading with these producers in the wholesale British gas market. Ofgem shares this concern with them. They would like to extend the information available both to Transco as operator of the British gas network and to consumers. We think that this could be helpful for security of supply.
  Ofgem's responsibility for regulation broadly extends only to the onshore gas market in Britain. The DTI is responsible for regulating the offshore oil and gas sector. This issue of information is, therefore, relevant to both Ofgem and the DTI as regulators, because what happens offshore may very well be—indeed, it is likely—material to movements onshore of the wholesale gas market.
  Let me summarise Ofgem's publicly stated views about information disclosure regarding offshore gas. They come from a paper with the far from succinct title of The gas trading arrangements. Reform of the gas balancing regime. Next Steps. It was published in April 2003. They are as follows. On operational efficiency, Transco faces difficulties when determining whether to take action to balance gas inputs and offtakes. These difficulties are exacerbated by the unpredictability of offshore daily production.
  GC 396
  When, due to lack of information. Transco takes unnecessary action to balance input and offtakes, this imposes additional cost on the market which inevitably in the long term is passed on to the consumer.
  On market efficiency, the lack of information available to all market participants about offshore production reduces their ability to react to, and to address, supply shortfalls. Unexpected supply shortfalls could increase the volatility of gas prices. thus increasing the cost of operating the system. Security of supply is also adversely affected by the absence of timely offshore information to Transco and other participants. That is because there may be insufficient time for parties to react to supply shortfall, such as an outage, which may increase the likelihood of a gas emergency.
  There are what Ofgem pretentiously called "information asymmetries". In plain and simple English that means that participants who had access to information about offshore production via their offshore affiliates would be better able to predict price movements, and therefore would have an unfair advantage over those without offshore affiliates.
  Last autumn, the DTI and Ofgem made a joint approach to the offshore gas producers to secure greater release of information to Transco and to consumers on a voluntary basis. The approach was in three phases. The first has already been agreed. The second, involving the release of information to Transco as network operator, is making progress. But the third, which is about the release of consolidated information to consumers much closer to "real time" in a manner designed to accommodate legitimate confidentiality concerns of individual producers, has not yet advanced very much. Ofgem regards reaching a solution on all three phases as important.
  The remarks that I paraphrased from Ofgem's published concerns about the gas industry apply in equal measure to electricity, hence the same amendment is tabled by my noble friend—Amendment No. 109A.
  These amendments are not designed to inhibit competition between suppliers in either the gas or the electricity industry. They are designed, however, to inhibit unfair competition. They are also designed to protect the market and ultimately the consumer—you and me—from fluctuations in supply, and hence the risk of sudden shortages. Fluctuations in wholesale and market prices of fuel inevitably get passed on to the consumer. Inefficient fluctuations in supply inevitably lead to waste of valuable resources.
  I do not believe that any form of voluntary arrangement between producers can be relied on to resolve the problem. In saying this I do not impugn the good faith of members of the industry, or even of the DTI, who would have to sanction any scheme.
  I have not considered, even assuming it is a factor, whether a voluntary exchange of information between market participants may be a breach of the Competition Act and goodness knows how many EU directives. I know not whether that is the case, but it

  GC 397
  could be. I have not managed to look into that matter which occurred to me when reading a speech of my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I hope that I shall be given a reply to that point.
  Having said that, if a voluntary scheme does not prove successful after a reasonable period, we would expect the Secretary of State to have the power to require the release of this information. I ought to mention that just before I entered the Chamber today I was sent—I shall not say from whom—yet another briefing on this issue. The authors of that briefing said they considered that giving away too much information might be very bad for competition. I just mention that as it is appropriate to give the whole picture, as undoubtedly the Government will do when replying to this amendment.
  I believe that this is a matter which has to be resolved by the DTI. The wide discretionary statutory powers that these two amendments propose would enable that to be done without further recourse to primary legislation. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I shall give rather short shrift to Amendment No. 109 but respond fully to Amendment No. 109A which raises the really fundamental issues here. I can be reasonably brief on Amendment No. 109. GEMA already has powers through standard licence condition 13 of the Electricity Generation Licence to require licensees to provide the information the authority needs to carry out its functions. Clause 79 of the Bill extends the requirement for a generation licence offshore and standard licence condition 13 will apply to offshore electricity generators. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness on Amendment No. 109.
  However, she raises a whole raft of interesting questions and sensitive matters on Amendment No. 109A. I address most of my remarks to that amendment in the hope of persuading her that it is not necessary although we recognise the anxieties that have given rise to it. Ofgem is not the offshore gas regulator and so the situation is very different from that pertaining to electricity.
  First, I reconfirm the Government's commitment to consumers of gas through a robust secure gas supply system and a well functioning gas market. The Government recognise that these may need to be underpinned by further access to information—that was the main burden of the noble Baroness's remarks—about the supply capability of the offshore industry. In general the Government prefer to avoid legislative provision if we can meet our objectives with a lighter touch. We believe that we can do so in this instance.
  We are already working with the upstream gas industry towards this end on the basis of voluntary agreement. I believe that the noble Baroness recognised that fact. We do not believe that the sweeping powers proposed in the amendment are the best way forward. They could lead to an inflexible
  GC 398
  outcome and would lead to unnecessary bureaucracy, which I know the noble Baroness detests as much as we do on this side of the Committee.
  The noble Baroness was very honest in her presentation of the issues and recognised that this is a sensitive and technically complex area where the commercial concerns of individual players must be finely balanced with the need for the market to have access to the requisite information.
  "Information- is a blanket term. It can be easy or costly to provide; it can be hard data or depend very much on judgment. As the noble Baroness indicated, it may be commercially sensitive and its disclosure may harm a commercial player even though—perhaps because—it gives commercial advantage to another player in the market.
  Our great preference in this difficult area is for voluntary arrangements rather than compulsion. Our reasons for that are that we want to work with industry, not against it; we are not in the business of placing avoidable burdens on industry; and we are conscious that the North Sea is just one production province competing for the resources of petroleum companies in what is a global market. To increase the burden on this industry could impact on the attractiveness of the province to both existing, participants and potential new entrants with the inevitable risk of accelerating the decline of economic UK energy production. The Committee will be aware that one major company has already significantly reduced its commitment to the North Sea.
  Perhaps at this stage I may declare a tangential interest. My eldest son works for BP, but he is safely located in Tokyo and therefore not directly involved in BP's endeavours in this part of the world.
  We consider that a well-focused voluntary arrangement is likely to be more successful, effective and ultimately more responsive to market needs than a statutory requirement, which the amendment proposes. Therefore, it would not be sensible at this time to confer such wide powers while the prospect of effective voluntary information provision exists.
  I recognise the strength of the argument presented by the noble Baroness in terms of the difficulties surrounding these issues. We know that we need to get the balance right. We have been working on these issues for some time. I cannot pretend that at this stage we have completed all the discussions and are in a position to say that everyone is satisfied. I am sure that if we were, the amendment would not have been proposed.
  However, we are doing considerable work in this regard and have made significant progress. In the past few months, agreements have been reached, which have moved things further forward. Our main. proposition is that this is the way we should go rather than to enclose the concept in statute, which would produce a rigidified structure and place burdens upon industry. We do not think that that is the way forward. It is on that basis that I ask the noble Baroness perhaps to consider withdrawing her amendment.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am very relieved to hear the Government's reply. The gas industry in the North Sea is enormously important. Vast amounts of gas are harvested. We are desperately trying to persuade the companies to stay there and not to pack up when it becomes more difficult to harvest the gas.
  Does this Bill make a difference to the offshore gas industry? I wonder how the amendment arose. Does the Bill have anything to do with North Sea gas?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: Obviously, there is an opportunity to explore contingent issues that affect North Sea gas at present. There are outstanding issues that need to be resolved relating to players in the industry. We are conducting discussions that have been going on for several years.
  The noble Baroness has brought in a potential solution to some of the difficulties by proposing an amendment that would write a structure into the Bill. I say merely that, although the opportunity to discuss gas issues is welcome, we do not think that, in this context, putting something into the Bill would advance the cause of the industry.
  7 p.m.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sorry. I think that I misunderstood. I thank the noble Lord.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I notice that he said that, in the past few months, there had been some improvement. I mentioned the fact that the approach was to be in three phases. Parts one and two had already been achieved, so we are nearly there.
  I said that I thought that a voluntary system probably would not work. That was how I put it. If, no matter how hard one tries to influence people, time passes and the voluntary system does not work, will the Government consider having an alternative system?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Baroness has raised some significant issues. They will have to be resolved. We must get the balance right. If we reach the point of failure with the present process, the Government must, ultimately, act in the interests of the nation. The supply of gas at a reasonable price is an important factor for the nation. We might have to take some legislative opportunity. I hope to get her to agree at this stage that now is not the time for that.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 109A not moved.]
  Clause 89 [Amendments of 1989 Act consequential on Chapter 1 of Part 2]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 109AA:
  Page 71, line 41, at end insert—
  "( ) In section 3A (principal objective and general duties of the Secretary of State and the Authority)—

  (a) after subsection (2) insert—

  "(2A) Subject to subsections (1) and (2) above, the Secretary of State or the Authority shall carry out their respective functions under this Part in a manner which he or it considers best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.";

  (b) after subsection (3) insert—

  "(3A) Subject to subsections (1), (2) and (3) above, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State or the Authority, in formulating or considering any proposals relating to his or its functions under this Part, to have regard to environmental matters.";

  (c) in subsection (8) at the end insert—

  ""environmental matters" means—

  (i) the conservation of natural beauty or amenity (including geological or physiographical features);

  (ii) any features of archaeological or historic interest; and

  (iii) any flora or fauna which are dependent on, or associated with, such features" "

  The noble Baroness said: The point of the amendment is to extend the principal objective of the Secretary of State and Ofgem under the Electricity Act 1989 to include sustainable development and environmental conditions.
  Section 3A(1) of the 1989 Act defines the principal objective of the Secretary of State and Ofgem as the protection of the interests of consumers of electricity supply by promoting effective competition between generators and suppliers. That is still extremely important, but it does not reflect the way in which government policy has moved, especially in the past few years, nor does it reflect the importance put on sustainable development and environmental matters—the reason that the Bill has come into being.
  Energy policy has a significant impact on the environment, as, I am sure, the Government recognise, through the technologies developed and how and where they are sited. The Government's Energy White Paper states that energy policy should ensure that significant damage resulting from climate change should not occur. It recognises that the supply of electricity is fundamental to the achievement of sustainable development.
  The amendment would give Ofgem and the Secretary of State the latitude to expand their view of their duties. Clause 89 is an amendment to the Electricity Act, so it is right that we should amend the Act to reflect the different weight and greater importance now given to sustainability. I tabled the amendment to try to do that.
  I remember that in discussions on the Water Bill the Government agreed that Ofwat should have a very similar duty; it was felt that was very important with regard to water. So there is a precedent for this. I hope, therefore, that the Government will feel, in the same

  GC 401
  way as we have come to regard water sustainability as very important, that energy policy and its delivery should also be thus regarded. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am not proposing to accept the amendment, but I am grateful for this opportunity to set out how we are already tackling sustainable development and environmental concerns, which is what the amendment addresses and the noble Baroness has articulated.
  There is already a clear and express duty on the Secretary of State and on the authority to have regard to environmental matters when carrying out their respective functions under Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989. This duty is very similar to the one contained in the amendment. There is also a duty on the authority to have regard to guidance issues by the Secretary of State on social and environmental matters. In light of these existing duties on the Secretary of State and the authority, we obviously consider that the amendment would merely duplicate those duties and is therefore not necessary.
  The draft social and environmental guidelines, currently laid in Parliament, which the Secretary of State from time to time issues, seek to support the implementation of the longer term strategies set out in the Energy White Paper. The guidance includes a request that the authority report annually on the way it has regard to the guidance each year.
  The Sustainable Energy Act 2003 placed a statutory requirement on the authority to produce regulatory impact assessments for all important decisions. These must include environmental impact assessments.
  Helping protect the environment is one of the seven themes in the authority's draft corporate strategy 2004-07. The authority reports to Parliament, therefore there is already the opportunity for Parliament to address the authority should there be concern that this area of work is not being addressed or meeting the standards required.
  It should also be noted that early in 2003, Dr Robin Bidwell was appointed as a member to the authority. He has substantial environmental experience.
  The overall duties of the energy regulator were debated in some detail during the passage of the Utilities Act 2000 and also when the Energy White Paper was published. The current drafting of the principal objective and the general duties strikes a fair balance between protecting the interests of consumers and safeguarding the environment.
  There was general agreement, through the Energy White Paper consultation, that the principal objective and general duties did not need addressing. This ensures regulatory certainty, which is a must if our energy markets are to work. Piecemeal rearranging of the regulator's general duties does not provide for regulatory certainty, which is an important objective.
  We consider that the authority already has the clear duty, which the noble Baroness is seeking to impose through this amendment, to have regard to environmental, social and economic considerations.
  GC 402
  Through the social and environmental guidance, we have the ability, from time to time, to give guidance to the authority on these matters. We therefore do not see the need to amend the authority's duties.
  Because we understand and sympathise with every objective outlined by the noble Baroness and because we think we have the structure in place to guarantee that we meet those objectives, we hope she will consider that her amendment is not necessary.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall read carefully what he said. I think that there is a difference between the spirit of his reply—and that of course that was an important objective and so on—and the actual wording of my amendment which wanted to ensure that having regard to sustainability was part of the principal objective. Perhaps he can explain whether the duty laid on Ofwat is greater than we propose to lay on Ofgem. If there is a difference, why does the DTI think that difference is necessary?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: Ofwat is a different structure from Ofgem. Ofwat has clear environmental and sustainable factors built into its remit and its role. The broad objectives fit into the overall pattern of the principles which affect a range of these utilities.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I would suggest respectfully to the Minister that the factors are built into the role much more firmly and much better because we gave Ofwat that particular duty during the passage of the Water Bill. So I think I shall have regard to what the Minister has said. I shall attempt to return to this issue at a later date. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 109AAA:
  Page 71, line 41, at end insert—
  "( ) In Schedule 8 (consents under sections 36 and 37), for paragraph 2(l) substitute—
  "(1) Where an application is made to the Secretary of State for his consent under section 36 or 37 of this Act, the applicant shall notify—

  (a) where applicable, the relevant planning authority;

  (b) so far as reasonably practicable, each competent authority who is not the relevant planning authority., which exercises functions in relation to the area; and

  (c) any other person who the applicant is directed by the Secretary of State to notify.""

  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 109AAA, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 109AAB, 109AAC and 109AB. Amendments Nos. 109AAA, 109AAB and 109AAC seek to impose a duty on the applicant to consult all relevant competent authorities concerning applications made under Sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act and to hold a public inquiry where objections cannot be resolved.

  GC 403
  Amendment No. 109AAA is a probing amendment. It extends the current requirement to notify local planning authorities of applications to develop an electricity generating installation under Sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act and to include—as far as possible—any competent authorities of relevance to that application. The requirement to notify local planning authorities of these applications may not be widely applicable in the marine environment, where they do not have jurisdiction. So the amendment is necessary to ensure that the relevant competent authorities—such as English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales or the Joint Nature Conservancy Council—are given adequate notice of such applications.
  The amendment also ensures that, where there are outstanding objections from any authority consulted, the Secretary of State will he required to hold a public inquiry; for example, if English Nature were giving contrary advice. Public inquiries provide a tried and tested way in which all the pros and cons of development proposals can be examined in detail. I move the amendment partly because—as I said before—we do not have a Marine Act to protect marine areas or a strategic environmental assessment; and, as the Minister told me yesterday, there is no intention to bring forward such a provision within the next few years. Therefore, I feel that we should consider these amendments.
  Amendment 109AB seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that regulations exist that set out how all interested parties can comment on applications made under Sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act. The Secretary of State currently has a permissive power to produce regulations that set out how applications to develop an electricity generating installation should be advertised and dealt with. The amendment would change that power to a duty.
  In addition, there are questions about whether the current regulations will apply in the marine environment. The existing regulations are The Electricity (Applications for Consent) Regulations 1990 (SI 455). They are comprehensive but need to be replaced to reflect the changes to the Electricity Act in relation to offshore wind farms for the simple reason that they are drafted to deal with terrestrial applications. We are now considering applications that would fall within the marine environment and I should like to know if those changes are adequately covered by existing regulations. I beg to move.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: The effect of the amendments taken together would be to expand considerably the list of organisations which have the power to force the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry if they object to an application for a Section 36 consent for a generating station or a Section 37 consent for an overhead line. At present, under Schedule 8 of the Electricity Act only the planning authority has the special power to force the Secretary of State to hold a
  GC 404
  public inquiry. That is because the planning authority represents a democratically-elected body representing people who live in the area, and has the responsibility for planning. It is right and proper that it should have that ability.
  However, in my view it would be wrong to go further. Expanding the number of organisations which could require the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry would almost certainly lead to more public inquiries based probably on the views of special interest groups. The whole planning system could he re-prioritised in a way that would thwart the Government's renewable energy objectives.
  Under Schedule 8 the Secretary of State already has the power to consider objections from anyone and to decide whether to hold a public inquiry. She is therefore bound to see any proposal in the round and to take a balanced view of it.
  The list of competent authorities could be interpreted to include some strange entries. It seems a nonsense to give a power to a government Minister to force a public inquiry on another Minister when the Government take their decisions collectively. While Scottish Ministers have devolved responsibility for consents under Sections 36 and 37 in Scotland and Scottish territorial waters, it would be odd to give them a power to force a public inquiry into a wind farm in southern England, which I believe would be the effect of the amendments.
  The amendments also go over ground which is already covered in the Electricity (Applications for Consent) Regulations 1990. Among other things, those regulations set out that a notice of application for consent must be published in a number of relevant newspapers. They provide for the Secretary of State to direct that a notice should be served on a specified person or persons and set out minimum timescales within which objections to any applications for consent should be sent to the Secretary of State.
  The regulations apply to onshore and offshore consents and have been used satisfactorily as the basis for applications received, for example, in relation to the sites in round one of offshore wind farm leasing. The regulations will be amended or replaced after the Bill has been enacted to take account of changes introduced in the Bill. However, it would be more appropriate for the objectives in Amendment No. 109AAB to be covered by those regulations; in effect they are already covered by them. Therefore, I do not think that it would be sensible to accept the amendments, the last of which is already provided for in secondary legislation.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his explanation, which clarifies matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 109AAB to 109AB not moved.]
  Clause 89 agreed to.
  Clause 90 [Other amendments consequential on Chapter 1 of Part 2]:
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 109B:
  Page 73, leave out lines 16 to 19.
  The noble Duke said: This is a probing amendment. New Section 47A(1) of the Bill states:
  "The matters to which the Secretary of State may have regard, in exercising or performing the powers and duties conferred or imposed on him by or under this Act, include, in particular—
  (a) activities in relevant waters".
  The Secretary of State has enormous powers and responsibilities in the exercise of his office. Many of his decisions will affect individuals, companies, employees, families and other classes of people. Is it right that he should take into consideration not only the matters brought before him but others that it appears to him,
  "may be made in the future"?
  Is it proper that he should allow the "likelihood" of similar activities occurring sometime in the future to sway his judgment in the present? Will the Minister give examples of the kind of situations that might justify paragraphs (c) and (d) of the new section? I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: This is an important issue. I am grateful to the noble Duke for giving me the opportunity to show how we shall approach these important issues in the future.
  The noble Duke will recognise that the Petroleum Act 1998 is concerned with the licensing and control of oil and gas activities. Clause 90 of the Energy Bill amends the 1998 Act in a way intended to allow the Secretary of State, in exercising the Act's powers, to take into account existing and possible future offshore electricity generation activities. That is wholly sensible. We need to control the use of our energy resources that lie offshore on a strategic basis, looking at the different ways they can best be utilised, both now and in the future. Clause 90 enables the Secretary of State to consider actual and possible future electricity generation activities when exercising oil and gas responsibilities. It really does no more than that.
  The effect of Amendment No. 109B would be to leave the Secretary of State able to take into account existing and currently proposed electricity generation activities in exercising 1998 Act powers, but unable to take into account anticipated future proposals or the likelihood of current or future proposals becoming reality. That would be too short-term an approach. It is essential that we are able to look ahead and plan
  GC 406
  properly. That means looking ahead at the scenarios for oil and gas and for offshore renewable energy generation in the context of the UK's overall energy needs.
  It is essential that the two sectors are able to co-exist in a sensible way. There are already examples of the relationship being very productive—for example, wind energy generation capacity being developed on oil and gas infrastructure. The Government are also doing their bit. Licensing and consents responsibilities for oil and gas and electricity are combined in a single unit at the Department of Trade and Industry. That unit is responsible for the programme of offshore strategic environmental assessments, SEAs being an essential tool in determining where energy activity will be directed. The SEA programme has now been redirected and involves integrated assessments of oil and gas and renewables.
  For those reasons, we consider that the 1998 Act needs amendment. Clause 90 needs to remain as drafted so that we can continue to move towards a fully joined-up approach to oil, gas and electricity. That is the substance of Clause 90.
  The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for that full explanation. Obviously the simple man's approach will not do in this case. I am grateful that the Minister explained the matter in such detail. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes): We now come to Amendment No. 109C. These two amendments are quite long and complicated, and I am aware that the Committee does not want to overrun. I wonder whether, rather than breaking off in the middle, it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to move them when we reconvene.
  Lord Whitty: I would rather give my answer to the noble Baroness's amendments, and then she can judge whether she wishes to return to them. Broadly speaking, there are some things in the amendments that would require the Secretary of State to make regulations under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. I was going to say that we were drafting regulations that meet many of the points covered in the amendments. They will come forward for consultation in the next few months. There will be more comprehensive regulations under the Food and Environment Protection Act that bring up to date a number of its provisions.

  GC 407
  I was going effectively to accept the spirit of what the noble Baroness said because of what we were already doing. It would not require an amendment to this legislation; it would be tidier simply to do it under the Food and Environment Protection Act. If, however, the noble Baroness nevertheless wishes to move the amendment, I suggest that she does so next week.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I need to know whether the noble Baroness is or is not moving the amendment now.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I would move the amendment now, but I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we were able to have
  GC 408
  a substantial debate, especially given the Minister's helpful reply, next Tuesday, rather than overrun yet again.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In other words, "No".
  Earl Attlee: Does the noble Lord want to suggest adjourning the Committee?
  Lord Triesman: It may be a convenient moment to adjourn until next Tuesday at 3.30 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Grand Committee stands adjourned until next Tuesday at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock.

  GM Crops
  GM Crops
  Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe and River Danube
  Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe and River Danube
  Police Service: Staff Support Associations
  Police Service: Staff Support Associations
  Faith Communities Unit
  Faith Communities Unit
  Cannabis
  Cannabis
  Fungal Diseases
  Fungal Diseases
  School Session Times
  School Session Times
  School Swimming
  School Swimming
  Stakeholder Pensions
  Stakeholder Pensions
  Horse Passports: VAT
  Horse Passports: VAT
  Sports Coaching Qualifications: Funding
  Sports Coaching Qualifications: Funding
  Drug Free Sport Directorate
  Drug Free Sport Directorate
  Crystal Palace National Sports Centre
  Crystal Palace National Sports Centre
  Sport: Overseas Tours
  Sport: Overseas Tours
  Public Bodies: Disabled Members
  Public Bodies: Disabled Members

  Energy White Paper: Annual Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  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 annual report. The Government also envisage simultaneous publication of the fuel poverty strategy implementation plan and the CHP strategy.

  NHS Foundation Trusts
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health (Mr Hutton) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  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

  WS 22

  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

  Child Trust Fund: Draft Regulations
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  The Child Trust Funds Bill will ensure that every child, whatever their family background, will have access at the age of 18 when they begin their adult life to a stock of assets which they can invest in their future. The child trust fund will also help children and their parents to understand the benefits of saving and investment and how to engage with financial institutions.

  The Government are today publishing draft child trust fund regulations. These draft regulations will be of particular interest to potential providers of the child trust fund.

  The draft regulations include the requirements for a stakeholder child trust fund account. Every child trust fund provider will make a stakeholder account available as one of the investment options. A stakeholder child trust fund account will have its charges capped at 1.5 per cent per year, and providers will be required to accept all contributions of £10 and above. No charges will apply to transfers between different types of accounts, including from stakeholder to non-stakeholder, and between providers.

  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. The Government will continue to monitor that the level of the charge cap best meets the interests of consumers.

  The decision was evidence-based and considered the particular characteristics of the child trust fund. The economics of the child trust fund are very different from other financial products, such as the stakeholder pensions. In particular, child trust fund accounts will

  WS 23
  be smaller in terms of the average size of funds compared to pensions and will have a lower minimum contribution level than other stakeholder products.

  The evidence on which the decision for the cap was based included the report commissioned by the Government from Deloitte, which looked at the trade-offs of different charge caps for providers and consumers. Deloitte's report will be published later this year, at the same time as its report on the other products in the stakeholder suite.

  The minimum contribution for the stakeholder account has been set to ensure the child trust fund is accessible to all savers, including those who cannot commit to regular contributions. Providers will be free to accept lower contributions if they wish and it is expected that competition among providers could drive down the minimum amounts accepted.

  The Government will continue to work with the Financial Services Authority on the development of an appropriate regulatory regime.

  Copies of the draft regulations together with an explanatory commentary are available in the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of the House.

  Census 2001
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  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 the House. 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.

  Middle East: Israeli Security Fence
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  On 8 December 2003 the UN General Assembly in Resolution ES-10/14 requested the International Court of Justice to urgently render 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 statements to the court if they wish to do so. On 30 January the UK submitted a national written WS 24
  statement to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

  As we 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, we will place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Colchester Garrison PFI
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  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 PFI 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

  WS 25
  among 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.

  Reserve Forces: Employer Notification
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  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 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 to be better informed about their rights and obligations. It
  WS 26
  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.

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Further to my Answer to the honourable Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth) of 21 January 2004 (Col. 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 honourable Member enclosing a copy of this Statement.

  Rosepark Nursing Home: Fire
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  First, may I say that our thoughts are with the families and friends of the victims of this tragedy?

  It is too early to speculate about the cause of the fire. Investigations are already under way in Scotland and we will be looking very closely at their findings and considering the implications for England and Wales.

  The cornerstone of our policy remains the prevention of fire. When fires do occur, simple precautions such as keeping fire doors closed and installing smoke alarms can play a vital role in reducing death and injury. Integrated risk management plans will make sure that more work is done by the fire and rescue service to prevent fires in the first place, by identifying those people in the community most at risk and targeting resources more effectively.

  Sprinklers can also play an important role in suppressing fires where they have broken out, though it is too early to conclude that if the Rosepark Nursing Home had been fitted with a sprinkler system, any loss of life could have been prevented.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been actively investigating the effectiveness of sprinkler systems in tackling fires in residential properties. The results of this work, which is being undertaken on our behalf by the Building Research Establishment, are being fed into the review of the fire safety aspects of the Building Regulations (England & Wales), which is currently under way. A report of the work will shortly be published, enabling those involved with fire safety in buildings to gain a more comprehensive understanding of residential sprinkler systems. However, the tragic incident at the weekend indicates that sprinklers may have a role to play in protecting vulnerable groups such as homes for children, homes for elderly people, homes for disabled people and higher risk houses in multiple occupation.

  In relation to existing premises, including residential care homes, an employer is required under the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997, as amended, and under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to undertake a risk assessment in order to safeguard the safety from fire not only of his employees but of all people on his premises affected by his work. This assessment can include the provision of sprinklers within the building. This requirement will be extended by the proposed
  WS 28
  Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order to include most premises to which the public have access, and the duty imposed upon the employer will he extended to include any person who is responsible for managing the premises.

  In the mean time our community fire safety programme continues to educate people about the risks associated with fire and the measures which can mitigate against its occurrence. This programme has already been effective in reducing fire deaths and injuries from accidental fires.

  Advisory Group on Enforcement Service Delivery
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)
  The fourth and final report by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Group on Enforcement Service Delivery, entitled The move to a regulated enforcement industry: transitional issues has been published in November 2003 and copies placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I am pleased to announce that the advisory group has now fulfilled its original terms of reference. The group is therefore disbanded. I am grateful for the valuable contribution provided by the members of the advisory group throughout the four reports to my department. Proposals for legislation will follow in due course.

  BBC News 24
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  On 5 December 2002 I placed the independent review of BBC News 24 by Richard Lambert in the Libraries of both Houses, together with a letter setting out my response.

  In response to the review, I attached two further conditions to the approvals of BBC News 24. These required the governors to publish their response to the Lambert report by the end of March 2003, and to promulgate revised commitments for the service, taking account of Richard Lambert's recommendations, by the end of May 2003.

  In addition, I was minded to attach a third condition requiring the governors to report more fully on the delivery of News 24 in the BBC's annual reports. I stated that I would reconsider the intention in the light of the BBC's formal response and subsequent 2003 annual report.

  I have judged that these two documents provide enough information and demonstrate sufficient improvements to remove the need for a further condition on the approval.