Sitting of 25 February 2004

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL[Lords]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7 January]
  Ordered,
  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 hall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lon Is 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 First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

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

    Employment
    Dr. Hywel Francis: What assessment he has made of recent employment trends in Wales. [155768]
    Paul Flynn: If he will make a statement on the level of employment in Wales. [155775]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I am sure that all hon. Members wish to join me in a tribute to John Charles, who was one of the greatest Welsh sportsmen of all time and an international football legend.
    266
    The labour market in Wales continues to perform well, and better than the average for all United Kingdom economic regions.
    Dr. Francis: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. He will know of the recent TUC report, "Full Employment: The Next Steps". It identifies one of the key factors that contribute to economic inactivity in Britain as the inability of unpaid carers to access work opportunities. He will also know that there are 350,000 carers in Wales, of whom 22,000 are in his and my local authority area. Given that 80 per cent. are of working age and that 80 per cent. of those wish to work, will he consider meeting carers' organisations, especially Carers Wales, to explore strategies to assist carers, especially parent carers, to access learning, training and work opportunities?
    Mr. Hain: I shall be happy to meet such a delegation and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on behalf of carers. It is especially welcome in our part of south Wales because of its long tradition of industrial illness and injury, which means that the caring role in areas such as Neath Port Talbot is vital.
    Paul Flynn: The Government's employment record has been a triumph and follows the great success of the relocation over the years of civil service jobs to my constituency. We want more jobs to relocate there. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a major concern about the future of call-centre jobs and the possibility that they could be siphoned from Wales to the Asian subcontinent? Is that the fire in the basement of the Welsh economy?
    Mr. Hain: I acknowledge the danger of call-centre jobs going, for example, to India. However, they are being replaced by higher quality call-centre jobs and other jobs so that, as my hon. Friend said, Wales has the highest employment for decades and the lowest unemployment for 28 years. Unemployment in Wales soared to 168,000 under the Conservative Government; it is now only 41,000 and falling. The programmes that have helped to make unemployment fall will continue under our Labour Government.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Yes, unemployment is down, but, as I am sure hon. Members know, manufacturing employment is also down. There is also a skills shortage. Will the Secretary of State do two things? First, will he ensure that those who lose their manufacturing jobs have the opportunity to retrain for jobs where there are skills shortages? Secondly, I have heard a rumour that the Government are considering allowing 14 to 18-year-olds to leave school and do vocational training for part of the week. Will he ensure that such a provision is rolled out to Wales so that our youngsters have the opportunity for proper vocational education?
    Mr. Hain: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to examining the facts for a change. He acknowledges that unemployment is falling and employment is increasing. Economic inactivity is declining in Wales as a result of the excellent Labour policies that the Government and the Welsh Assembly

    267
    Government are pursuing. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that a skills shortage persists and that it must be tackled. I would welcome any ideas that he has about that. Encouraging youngsters to spend at least part of their week in vocational work is a good idea, because it means that we will have more trained plumbers, tradesmen, bricklayers and electricians. That is part of the Government's programme. However, the £1 billion of cuts that the Tories are planning are not part of our programme. They would massacre tens of thousands of jobs in Wales.
    Hywel Williams: Is the Secretary of State familiar with the report, "Not gone but forgotten", produced by Sheffield Hallam university on real unemployment in rural and north-west Wales? It shows that the average claimant count in Wales is 2.6 per cent. and that the figure for real unemployment is 11 per cent. The claimant count in Gwynedd is 2.7 per cent. and the real unemployment rate is 7.6 per cent. Conwy has a real unemployment rate 9.7 per cent, while Anglesey has a whopping real unemployment rate of 12.1 per cent. When will the Government be honest about the statistics, and when will they do something about those shocking and disgraceful unemployment figures?
    Mr. Hain: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to salute the fact that his constituency has experienced the tenth biggest fall in unemployment in Britain as a result of this Labour Government's excellent policies. He correctly identifies the still troubling amount of economic inactivity, which historically has been high in west Wales and the valleys. It is, however, starting to decrease for the first time in many years, and the programmes that we are introducing will continue that trend. I am sure that he wants to join us in driving that process forward.
    Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend may not have heard this yet, but in the past 24 hours a car component factory in my constituency, which is traditionally known as Camford Pressings, has announced about 90 redundancies. Many of those jobs will, in the vogue jargon, be "outsourced" to what have been described as low-cost economies in eastern Europe. Should the request be made, will he meet a small deputation from unions and management to see whether we can alleviate the consequences of that decision?
    Mr. Hain: I would be happy to meet such a delegation. I know that my right hon. Friend fights very hard, and I will join him in fighting for every job in his constituency and, indeed, throughout Wales. The difference between the current situation and that of the 1980s and 1990s is that if people are unfortunate enough to face losing their jobs there are now more opportunities to find alternative employment. We can at least look forward to that prospect, but we shall seek to safeguard those jobs and any others that he brings to my attention.

    Richard Commission
    David Burnside: If he will make a statement on the Richard commission on devolution in Wales. [155769]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): The Richard commission was established by the Welsh Assembly Government and I understand that it is expected to report to them at the end of March.
    David Burnside: I know that the Secretary of State agrees with me that lessons learned from devolution should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and that the lessons learned in Wales are particularly important. Does he agree that administrative devolution based or the Government of Wales Act 1998 has moved from the corporate local government model to an accountable Committee system combined with a voluntary coalition with collective responsibility? Does he expect the Richard commission to recommend that approach as an improvement to the operation of the Welsh Assembly? C in my part of the United Kingdom and, indeed, any o her part of the United Kingdom learn lessons from that? If the approach works and is accountable, it should be applied to all parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hain: If there is a lesson for his part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—it is that people should work together to make devolution and the Northern Ireland Executive work, and the hon. Gentleman's party should encourage that process. Developments in Wales are interesting and worth studying. The settlement has evolved under Rhodri Morgan's Government, who have established Cabinet government that differs from the original corporate design, but it would take constitutional change: to complete that process.
    Mr. Martin Caton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm his previously stated position that the recommendations of the Richard commission should be judged by their impact on the governance of Wales and on service delivery in Wales, and not by other factors?
    Mr. Hain: I will favour change if a persuasive case is made for it. In particular, changing the arrangements governing the Assembly must produce a better quality of life for people in Wales. I am not in favour of constitutional "anoraking" and the chattering classes in Wales pushing forward constitutional change for its own sake. if there are flanges that offer a better deal, we should adopt them.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to John Charles, who led Wales to its only appearance in the World cup finals.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: So far.
    Mr. Wiggin: Indeed Among his many achievements, John Charles played for Hereford United, where he scored more than 100 goals. His widow, Glenda, survives him, and our thoughts are with his family.

    269
    Did the Secretary of State agree with the First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, when he said that further powers for the Welsh Assembly net d not necessarily be approved in a referendum, because that does not tally with the Secretary of State's words on 5 November, when he said:
    "If we had an entirely different settlement proposed, say on the lines of the Scottish model with its own separate legal system and virtually everything except reserve matters devolved, I cannot see how that can be introduced by anything other than a referendum."?
    Mr. Hain: It is clear to me that if t full-blown Scottish solution—with a separate legal system, tax-varying powers and all the other accompanying powers—is proposed for Wales. it would require a referendum. However, there is much difference between that situation and the existing one, which would allow change to be introduced without necessarily requiring a referendum. That is the point and that is the position that Rhodri Morgan has endorsed
    Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the secretary of State for that reply, because his remarks on scotland have been a little confusing. On 13 January, he said:
    "I do not favour a Scottish solution. I will be absolutely frank about that. So in my mind that is ruled out."
    But on 27 January he said:
    "What about the Scots devolution settlement? It is not necessarily the right one for Wales which, unlike Scotland, has no separate legal system. On the other hand that is not to rule out a Scots option. We are speculating—nothing should be ruled out and, of course, nothing ruled in."
    Does the Secretary of States stand by that last remark?
    Mr. Hain: The only person who appears to be confused by those two statements is the hon. Gentleman. I have been clear that if we have a full-blown Scottish solution, including tax-raising powers and all, a referendum will be required. I said that that was in the realms of speculation because I have no idea what will be in the Richard commission's report. I do not know whether it will recommend that solution or another one. When the report is published, we will consider it. In the meantime, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, as shadow Secretary of State for Wales, was consulted by the shadow Chancellor about the cuts of £1 billion that are planned for the Welsh budget.
    Mr. Wiggin: I think that the Secretary of State ruled out many things in that answer Has he ruled out a reduction in the number of MPs? on 13 January he said:
    "My bottom line for any change is I am not willing to countenance anything that alters the number of MPs. It has to remain at 40 and I am not touching with a barge pole the Scottish nightmare of reductions in numbers of MPs."
    It seems that he will not wait for Lord Richard to report: he has already made up his mind on that subject.
    Mr. Hain: I am entitled to express a point of view as Secretary of State for Wales and to defend the position of the 40 excellent MPs, including the Plaid Cymru Members, who are entitled to represent their constituents here, if they are lucky enough to win. I am
    270
    puzzled by the question. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that under a Conservative Government he would welcome a reduction in the number of MPs in Wales?
    Mr. Wiggin indicated assent
    Mr. Hain: He nods. We should certainly wait for the Richard commission's report, but a number of key principles are involved, one of which is a referendum on a full-blown Scottish solution, and that is irrefutable. Another is that I do not believe that a persuasive case can be made for a reduction in the number of Welsh MPs, and I will continue to argue that case, even if he does not support it.
    Llew Smith: Will my right hon. Friend accept that when the Labour Administration in the Assembly set up the Richard commission, they were in reality contracting out policy making to other political parties? Have the other political parties been equally generous and allowed us to make policies on their behalf? Will he be very surprised if the conclusions of the Richard commission reflect the views of Rhodri Morgan, the person who set it up?
    Mr. Hain: I have talked to Rhodri Morgan about that and I can assure my hon. Friend that he has no more idea of what will be in the Richard commission's report than I do. I also assure him that there will be no contracting out of the final decision on any changes recommended by the Welsh Assembly Government to Westminster. The decision will be taken in the first instance by our Labour Governments and, in the second, by this Parliament. We will retain the ultimate say on whatever changes need to be made as a result of the report's recommendations—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. It is very unfair on Members.

    Prisoners
    Angela Watkinson: How many Welsh residents are held in English prisons. [155770]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): Information on a prisoner's place of residence prior to sentence or remand in custody is not held centrally.
    At 30 November 2003, there were 1,580 prisoners in English prisons who had been committed or sentenced by courts in Wales.
    Angela Watkinson: The Minister will appreciate the importance of family visits to prisoners serving custodial sentences as part of their rehabilitation and to prevent re-offending. Does he share my concern for those 1,580 prisoner families currently having to travel very long distances to make family visits? What plans are there to increase prison capacity in Wales?
    Mr. Touhig: There are no prisons in mid and north Wales. Prisoners accommodated in England are probably closer to their homes than if they were in

    271
    prisons in south Wales. There are currently about 2,400 places available in prisons in Wales. There are no plans to increase that number at present.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If there were plans to extend accommodation by the building of new prisons, would my hon. Friend ensure that they were run by the public sector and not the private sector?
    Mr. Touhig: Clearly, that is a matter for the Home Office, and I have no responsibility for it.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: As we are now in the period of the big conversation, will the Minister meet me briefly to have perhaps a medium-sized conversation about this subject? The truth is that at any given time 700 or 800 prisoners from north and mid-Wales are accommodated elsewhere. It is a human rights question. Given that the figures now stack up, and that the Prison Service has said that a prison is needed, may I meet him to describe precisely the views that people in north and mid-Wales seem to have on this issue?
    Mr. Touhig: The Government continue to investigate options for providing further increases in capacity. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall happily meet him at any time on it.

    CAP Reform
    Andrew George: What recent discussions he has had with Welsh Assembly Secretaries on common agricultural policy reform. [155771]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the First Secretary, and I meet the Assembly Secretary for Environment, Planning and Countryside to discuss a variety of issues. Indeed, we have a video conference planned for tomorrow.
    Andrew George: I thank the Minister for that response, but is he aware of the impact of operating two agricultural support systems across the board? What assessment has he made of the potential market distortions, particularly on the Welsh border and also for cross-border farms? In his discussions with Welsh Assembly Secretaries, has he discussed how long the historic payments will be able to continue, because surely the transitional period must come to an end?
    Mr. Touhig: My colleagues in the Welsh Assembly have undertaken a detailed analysis of the options, and the single farm payment is the one they have chosen. They believe that it is the right one, because it would certainly benefit the majority of farmers who have a large percentage of holdings right across Wales.
    The issue of cross-border matters is not yet resolved. Discussions are going on between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Ministers in the devolved Administrations. The Welsh Assembly's decision to go down the single payment route has been
    272
    roundly welcomed by all the farming unions across Wales. I talked to farmers last week, and they certainly welcomed it.
    Albert Owen: At the heart of CAP reform is a fairer and more equitable distribution of prices and profits. What discussion has my hon. Friend had with his colleagues in DEFRA and the Welsh Assembly Government about the price consumers pay for milk and the price paid to farmers? The current balance means that here is very little investment in the farming industry in Wales, and the consumer is being ripped off.
    Mr. Touhig: I understand my hon. Friend's point. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I travel around Wales, we often meet farmers and members of farmers' unions who complain about the price they are obtaining from the major suppliers—the supermarket sand so on. I understand that farmers' unions have been taking the issue up very strongly, and I know that my hon. Friend is also very concerned about it. We must keep the matter -wider review and make sure that farmers secure a good deal for the milk they produce.
    Mr. Roger Williams: The mid-term review goes on, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has failed to introduce the fallen stock scheme and has postponed the abolition of the over-30 month scheme. Will the Minister have discussions with his ministerial colleagues in DEFRA about those issues, because Welsh farmers cannot plan for the future?
    Mr. Touhig: My impression is that farming in Wales is much more confident than it was a year ago—indeed,farm incomes are increasing. I take on board the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and, of course, I have ongoing discussions with my colleagues in the Assembly who have responsibility for those matters and my colleagues in DEFRA. The matters figure in our discussions at all times

    Digital Television
    5. Mr. Wayne David: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues about the provision of digital television in Wales. [155772]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I have had regular discussions, because I am keen to see digital coverage right across Wales as soon as possible.
    Mr. David: The Secretary of State will be aware that many people in south Wales, such as those in the Rhymney valley, for example, cannot get Channel 4, five or digital television. Will he do everything possible to make it absolutely certain that Wales will be one of the areas that switch to digital as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Hain: I assure my hon. Friend that I join him in that objective because I am keen to see Wales become the first fully digital part of the United Kingdom.

    273
    Indeed, Greg Dyke, the former director-general, suggested that to me, and we are taking the matter forward.
    Lembit Öpik: The Labour First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, has asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
    "to ensure that those who rely on digital satellite do not need to subscribe to a pay-TV service to receive public service"
    broadcasting, and Liberal Democrats agree. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to ensuring that the thousands of Welsh viewers who find themselves in that situation can sign up to the Solus card scheme so that they do not have to subscribe to private broadcasters such as Sky to access public service broadcasting?
    Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has a persuasive case to make, and I want digital television to be extended to his constituency as well. May I take this opportunity to thank him for his efforts in helping to defend the earth from attack from asteroids through the conference that he is organising? He is doing a great service for the House and the people of Great Britain.
    Ian Lucas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency of Wrexham it is possible to access the BBC2W channel only by subscribing to Sky and Rupert Murdoch? Does he agree that that is a completely unacceptable state of affairs and that the BBC, as a matter of urgency, should supply digital television through an alternative source?
    Mr. Hain: I know that the BBC wants to supply digital television through whatever sources it can to whoever they can get it to throughout Wales. I shall certainly ensure that the controller of BBC Wales is aware of my hon. Friend's concerns about that matter.

    Farming
    6. Andrew Selous: What action the Government are, taking to help the farming industry in Wales. [155773]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): The UK Government, in partnership with the Welsh Assembly, which plays a crucial role, negotiate farming issues at EU level that will continue to encourage prosperity in the Welsh farming industry. The recent Welsh Assembly strategy to implement common agricultural policy reform is a positive result of the negotiations
    Andrew Selous: Farmers in Wales receive the lowest milk price in the European Union. with farm-gate prices having fallen from 26p per litre in 1996 to 18p per litre today. On top of that, the CAP reform that the Government negotiated will have an adverse effect on milk production. What is the Minister doing to ensure that Welsh dairy farmers receive a price for their milk that is greater than the cost of production?
    Mr. Touhig: The decision to implement CAP reform in Wales has been widely welcomed throughout Wales by the farming community, the farming unions—the
    274
    Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union—and the Country Landowners Association. Farming has had a difficult time over the past couple of years. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) recently asked me questions about farm incomes, and I can tell him that they have gone up by £2,000 to more than £16,000 in the current year. That is not high enough, but the figure is moving in the right direction. When I had discussions at an agricultural college in Ruthin in north-east Wales last week, I was encouraged by the response of farmers and those who work in the industry about their future. There is growing encouragement. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about milk?"] I shall come to milk—
    Mr. Speaker:Order. May I stop the Minister? His answer has been too long.
    Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend has already referred to the meeting that he had in my constituency last week at Llysfasi agricultural college. Incidentally, I hope that he enjoyed the rather splendid lunch that was offered. Does he recall the view of the experts present that the prospects for agriculture in Wales had improved greatly and that CAP reform negotiations were particularly good as far as Welsh farmers were concerned?
    Mr. Touhig: Yes, I very much enjoyed the visit to the college and I had a splendid lunch. I thank my hon. Friend and the college staff for providing it; it was excellent. I certainly had a good visit to the first-class milking parlour at the college, and I was greatly encouraged by what I learned from those who operate the parlour. There is a good future for farmers working together in partnership with the Labour Government. As we all know, farmers do better under a Labour Government.

    The Prime Minister was asked—
    PRIME MINISTER

      Engagements
      Sue Doughty: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 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.
      Sue Doughty: This morning in Guildford, I visited the picket line of the Association of University Teachers. Guildford is a high-cost area where teachers, lecturers, health care professionals and other public sector graduates are hard to recruit and retain. Does the Prime Minister accept that massively increasing student debts will make the problem much worse?
      The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Lady understands that the purpose of the proposals that we have put forward for higher education is to get more

      275
      money into the universities and the university system so that they can, for example, pay their lecturers better. That is in addition to the money that we are putting into our education system. For example, in her local education authority, we are allocating about £600 per pupil more in real terms than a few years ago. That is far more than the Liberal Democrats ever asked us to do. But we could not put all that additional money into schools and, indeed, into our universities unless we changed the system of university funding to make it fair for the student, fair for the family and fair for the taxpayer.
      Kali Mountford: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Chief Superintendent John Holt on the commitment that he has shown to community policing? From today, there will be 19 community safety officers in my area, in addition to a full complement of community beat officers and some very lively and active special constables—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Are not those people the very heart of policing and the heart of the community? Is not that the level of policing that communities want, and not just the headline policing that we so often see? Will my right hon. Friend encourage divisional commanders such as that one?
      The Prime Minister: I am delighted that special constables are lively and active in my hon. Friend's area; I hope that they are so throughout the country. There are about 11,000 special constables in the country but, in addition, as she knows, there are more than 3,000 community support officers and record numbers of police today. The reason is that we have managed to increase the Home Office budget significantly over the past few years. We will carry on increasing that budget, and I can tell the House the policy that we will not adopt, which is to freeze the Home Office budget in cash terms, which would mean a real-terms cut—the policy of the Conservative party—and, obviously, fewer police.
      Mr. Michael Howard: In his manifesto, the Prime Minister promised that there would be no excessive council tax increases. Under his Government, council tax has gone up by an average of 60 per cent. Why has he not kept his promise?
      The Prime Minister: We have kept our promise to fund councils—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. In the end, what we do from central Government is allocate a certain amount of grant from central to local government. That grant has gone up 30 per cent. in real terms compared with when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in office under the last Conservative Government; there was then a cut of 7 per cent. Let me just tell him that, this year, every single council will receive a real-terms, above-inflation increase in the grant from central Government. It is for councils to set their tax, but there is absolutely no reason for double-digit tax increases this year.
      Mr. Howard: One of the main reasons for the 60 per cent. rise in council tax under this Government lies in the burdens imposed on local authorities by this Government—increases in national insurance contributions, the tax hit on pension funds, the
      276
      mountain of red tape associated with so-called best value and comprehensive performance assessments, and much more. Are no' the burdens imposed by the Prime Minister's Government the main reason why council tax has gone up by 60 per cent. since Labour came to power?
      The Prime Minister: No, they are not. Incidentally, let me also say to the House that we will take no lessons on waste in local government from the person who introduced the poll tax.
      In relation to council tax, there is absolutely no reason for high council tax increases this year. Last November, the Local Government Association said that it thought that the 'e was a shortfall of about £800 million. We then provided an extra £760 million, which is why many councils are now posting increases below the rate of inflation, or of less than 5 per cent. There is no reason why there should be the rises in council tax of previous years. The fact is that we are increasing the amount of money that we give to local authorities. In the end, the increases are. up to them, but they should bear in mind the fact that for many people council tax increases are a burden to bear, which is why we have increased the subvention to them.
      Mr. Howard: Why will not the Prime Minister, just for once, accept some responsibility? Let us take an example of what has happened under his Government; let us take Sedgefield, his constituency. It has the second highest council tax in the country. It has a Labour-controlled district council, a Labour-controlled county council and a Labour Government. It even has a Labour Member of Parliament. Is none of them responsible for the council tax in Sedgefield?
      The Prime Minister: Of course, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to band D council tax in Sedgefield—[Interruption.] No, no; the average council tax in Labour an as is actually below that of Conservative areas. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Oh yes, it is.
      It must obviously be the case that the amount of council tax is at least in part-surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept this—linked to the amount of money that central Government give to local government. Now, it is beyond doubt that we are increasing the amount of money from central Government to local Government. What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policy? We saw that described—[Interruption]. Let us just work out what would happen if we adopted his policy. His policy is for a real-terms cut in local government spending with a cash freeze that would mean £2.5 billion off local government support. That is a 10 per cent. increase in the council tax alone.
      Jeff Ennis: Is the Prime Minister aw ire that Mr. Peter Finnegan, from Bolton-on-Dearne in my constituency, has recently completed a 50-day vigil to protest against the amount of national health service funding currently going to children's hospices? Is he aware that children's hospices receive on average oily 7 per cent. of their funding through the NHS, whereas adult hospices receive more than 35 per cent. of heir funding through the NHS? Does he agree that that funding differential is far too

      277
      great and that the Government should seriously consider putting more money where it is needed—into children's hospices?
      The Prime Minister: It is obviously important that we try to increase the amount of sum tort that we give to hospices for both adults and children n. However, I know that my hon. Friend will recognise that there has been a massive increase in the amount of investment going into the national health service. In field such as the care of children with cancer, there has been a huge increase in support, investment, consultants and equipment. It is important that we do what we n for hospices, but hospices are part of a broader pattern of health care treatment in this country. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that increases in investment are delivering real improvements in the national health service.
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: Can the Prime Minister clarify whether his Government are currently in negotiations with the Government of Tanzania over cur paying them to accept failed Somali asylum seekers from Britain?
      The Prime Minister: We are in negotiations with the Tanzanian Government on how we, can process claims for asylum nearer to the country of origin—
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Offshore
      Mr. Speaker:Order. Mr. Jenkin I expect better from you—[Interruption.] Order. I am not responsible for the answers of the Prime Minister, but I am responsible for good order in the House. I will not have this shouting.
      The Prime Minister: If anyone thinks that this is the fantasy island, they are wrong. Let me point out to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and to the Conservatives that if we get an agreement on this provision, it will allow us to process some of the claims, but it could not conceivably deal with the main issue of asylum
      Mr. Kennedy: In the light of that answer, does the Prime Minister recognise that this could be the beginning of an international trade in displaced people? That would be a very bad precedent to set. Will he therefore tell the House whether, in addition to those negotiations, he is negotiating with the Governments of any other countries on this issue?
      The Prime Minister: I honestly cannot understand the objection to seeing whether it is possible, if people are going to make asylum claims and begin their asylum journey close to the country of origin, to try to process some of those claims there. That is what we are negotiating with the Tanzanian Government, and those negotiations are being conducted in a perfectly amicable atmosphere. I do not think that there is any question of this ending up in a trade of displaced people. That is an absurd thing to say. I repeat, for the benefit of the Conservatives, that even if we manage to establish some of these centres, there is no way in which they can possibly deal with the bulk of the asylum problem. That has to be dealt with by the measures that we take here.
      Mr. Kevin Barron: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the National Institute for
      278
      Clinical Excellence published guidelines this morning on the treatment of infertility in The national health service. The Secretary of State for Health responded by saying that, as far as the recommendation for three interventions of in vitro fertilisation was concerned, one such intervention would be available throughout the country by April next year. That should be greatly welcomed as it will stop the postcode prescribing that we have had for many years. Will my right hon. Friend tell us when we are likely to see full implementation of the NICE guidelines?
      The Prime Minister: We hope that over the next couple of years we shall see at least very substantial progress towards implementation of the full NICE guidelines, and that they will allow us to end the current postcode lottery, as my right hon. Friend says. The first steps towards that will be taken within the next year. This will increase provision of IVF for people in their local area. In the longer term, however, we think that we can extend it even further, but we will release details of that when we are ready to do so.
      Q3. [155695] Tom Brake: Can the Prime Minister confirm whether the licensing guidelines for weapons components are the same as those for weapons systems? If they are not, as the report published today by Oxfam, Amnesty International and the International Action Network on Small Arms suggests, will he explain why it is unacceptable to export weapons systems to certain countries while it is acceptable to export weapons components that can be assembled into weapons systems?
      The Prime Minister: My understanding is that there are common criteria that cover both types of purchase and export. As a result of the intervention of this Government, this country now has about the toughest rules in Europe on the export of such weapons and weapons systems. I do not agree with the position taken by the Liberal Democrats and some non-governmental organisations, which would effectively mean that we could not export weapons at all.
      Mr. Jim Cunningham: I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend and colleague, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is introducing new measures to deal with the mis-selling of pensions and with companies that abuse their pension schemes. I know that my Coventry colleagues will agree with my drawing to the Prime Minister's attention the plight of Massey Ferguson workers who were shamefully treated by that company after long years of service. I notice, however, that there seems to be an omission in the proposals in relation to pension holidays. Will the Prime Minister comment on that?
      The Prime Minister: I can say two things to my hon. Friend. First, as a result of the measures that we are introducing, there will be a pension protection fund and a pensions regulator who will focus on tackling fraud, bad governance and poor administration. In addition, the Pension Commission will report back in due course on the private pensions regime. I totally understand the position of people who have seen their pension fund

      279
      destroyed and their ability to get a good pension limited by what has happened to their company. It is precisely for that reason that we are introducing the legislation.
      Mr. Howard: On Sunday, the Prime Minister announced with great fanfare that he was going to provide head teachers with guidance that would give them, specifically, the power to do random drug testing in their schools. Was he aware that they had the power and had already been given the guidance?
      The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong; the guidance is to be issued next week.
      Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister really ought to have a word with his Secretary of State for Education and Skills, because the guidance had been issued by the Department for Education and Skills just six days before the Prime Minister's interview. It urged "extreme caution", causing the Secondary Heads Association to say that heads could conclude only that they should not touch random testing with a bargepole. Six days later, the Prime Minister blundered in, sounding very enthusiastic, and saying, "I back random drug testing in our schools." Is it any wonder that teacher representatives say that there is complete and utter confusion about the policy?
      The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be against the policy; I think that he is wrong.[Interruption.] He says that he is not against the policy. So, he is in favour of the policy, but simply wanted to make the point about last week rather than next week. What a pathetic piece of opportunism. If we are both in favour of the policy, let us agree that it is a good idea.
      Mr. Howard: I am not going to take any lectures about opportunism from a Prime Minister who has based his whole career on opportunism. There he sits, Mr. Opportunism himself. I am in favour of the policy, but I am also in favour of a bit of competence in Government. I expect the Prime Minister to know whether the Department for Education and Skills has issued guidance. After nearly seven years in the job, is it not time that he realised that he is being paid to govern our country, not to chase newspaper headlines?
      The Prime Minister: After about seven weeks as Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should learn how to make a point sensibly. If he is in favour of the policy, let us work out how we make it work. Incidentally, he said in his opening question that teachers are all against the policy, but let me read what the head of the National Association—[Interruption.] I thought that he was reading out the quotation because he was against the policy. Now that we understand that he is in favour of it, let me tell him what the National Association of Head Teachers says:
      "It would give heads another weapon in their fight against drugs being pushed or used in their schools."
      The policy is an addition to allowing police officers in certain schools; it is an addition to drug education officers; and it is an addition to the largest ever increase
      280
      in education spending. So, the next time that we have a debate about this, v by not have it on the merits of the policy?
      Mrs. Betty Williams: At the first north Wales criminal justice board conference on 18 September in Llandudno, which is in my constituency as my right hon. Friend will know, the chair of the board, Mr. John Grant Jones OBE, drew attention to the difference between the perception of levels of crime and the actual situation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when we use crime statistics we should do so in a reasonable but, more importantly, a responsible manner?
      The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is of course right. According to the British crime survey, crime has fallen significantly over the past few years, but it is obviously still a huge problem t or people who are facing it. That is why we introduced n measures in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and those on antisocial behaviour, and why we have the largest even number of police officers in this country.
      I stress again the importance of ensuring that we invest in the criminal justice system and in additional numbers of police. Conservative policy is to freeze that in cash terms. Let me emphasise what that would mean: thousands fewer police officers in Britain.[Interruption.]I am afraid that that is their policy, and they are stuck with it.
      Dr. Andrew Murrison: The National Village Halls Forum will today deliver a petition to No. 10 Downing street signed by 37,000 people, including 4000 from Wiltshire, who are concerned about the future funding of a vital rural resource. Village hall have been strapped for cash since 1997 as lottery money has been diverted to other causes. Will the Prime Minister commend the efforts of the National Village Halls Forum in bringing an important issue to our attention" What will he do to make sure that village halls get a better deal, particularly in the light of the incipient merger between the new opportunities fund and the community fund?
      The Prime Minister: I cannot answer specifically the precise point on village hall funding, although I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets an answer on it. Of course, I commend the work of the pensioners forum on village halls—[Ho MEMBERS: "What?"] Sorry. The whole point about extra spending, however, whether on this or on any other mater, is that his party has now said that it will cut in real terms all that spending. It is no use him or any other Back-Bench or Front-Bench Conservative Member calling for more money when the shadow Chancellor has said that he will cut the money.
      Mr. Derek Wyatt: In July 2002, the steel workers at Allied Steel and Wire Sheerness and Allied Steel and Wire Cardiff were made redundant and their occupational pension schemes place d into administration. Across the House, 120 MPs reps sent more than 200 occupational pension schemes that are also either in deficit or in administration. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister institute a public inquiry so that we can find out

      281
      exactly what are the debts in those 200 schemes, and what the solutions could be, so that we can finally put this problem to rest?
      The Prime Minister: First, obviously, I am aware of the situation being faced by members of Allied Steel and Wire pension schemes. I have immense sympathy for them, other scheme members and other people in a similar position. We are looking at what we can do to help. My hon. Friend will know however, that a court proceeding is currently under way, and that the pension protection fund Bill is going through the House of Commons. Obviously, we will examine carefully the concerns that he and others have raised.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: While I appreciate that the Prime Minister has many of the world's problems to resolve, can he give some priority this week to a crisis in Southend-on-Sea, where the local council has been told in a census that its population has. declined significantly, with substantial problems for finance, when all the other evidence shows that that is wrong? Is he aware, in particular. that the report says that we have 1,000 fewer houses than the number that are 'laying council tax, and that in four wards beside where I live, there are many fewer people living than the number on the voters' register? Is not there a danger for the Government that if one of their highly paid quangos cannot calculate the number of people living in Southend-on-Sea, confidence will be undermined in the Government's wider policies?
      The Prime Minister: I understand that the Office for National Statistics has met Southend-on-Sea council to discuss its concerns about the census results for Southend. Apparently, it is working with Southend-on-Sea council and conducting a study to improve understanding of the difficulties in estimating accurately the local population. That includes an analysis of the local data. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not wish to prejudge those findings.
      Jane Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] I am enjoying this.
      The Prime Minister will know that the Children's Fund is to see a reduction in its budget. Can he offer some assurance to families in Lower Caversham in my constituency, where the Children's Fund has been doing tremendous work?
      The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Children's Fund has done tremendous work. I shall look at the issue that she raises in relation to the position in her constituency.
      Bob Russell: Is the Prime Minister content that hundreds of thousands of children are living in overcrowded accommodation, and that new Labour, in six years, has built just 1,343 council houses? In contrast, the Thatcher Government, in their first six years, built 365,000 council houses. Does he agree that if new Labour had built as many council houses as the Thatcher Government, hundreds of thousands of children would not be living in overcrowded accommodation?
      The Prime Minister: It is not simply a matter of the number of council houses, is it? It is also to do with the
      282
      overall housing budget, which is spent in many areas involving, for instance, registered landlords and housing associations. That budget has actually doubled over the past few years. But no, I am not content with the situation, which is why we want to increase the housing budget still further—although the hon. Gentleman should recognise, surely, that we have already increased it substantially. Since we are debating Labour and Conservative policies as a result of this question, I might add that the Conservatives would freeze, in cash terms, the amount going to housing.
      Mr. Eric Joyce: An employer in my constituency recently advertised jobs for 12 chefs, but has not managed to fill any of the vacancies. As my right hon. Friend knows, Scotland faces a significant demographic challenge. Does he agree that organised migration has an important part to play in helping to sort that out?
      The Prime Minister: It must obviously be organised, and it must be subject to proper laws and rules, but my hon. Friend is right to say that we should never denigrate migration to this country. It contributes a massive amount to our economy. It is important that we change the asylum system, for example, and that is exactly what we have done. It is important that we have proper rules for migration. But we should never decry the amount that migrants bring to our economy, and the work that they do.

      Gaia House
      Mr. Anthony Steen: If he will visit Gaia House near Totnes.
      The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so. Gaia House is a centre that offers insight and meditation, and zen retreats throughout the year, so this is an answer that, obviously, I shall keep under review.
      Mr. Steen: If the Prime Minister did visit this Buddhist retreat, he would have plenty of time to reflect on how to protect council tax payers from Liberal Democrat councils that wish to increase council tax, as Torbay council does, by six times the rate of inflation. The council has refused to cut bureaucracy. It spends money on surveys to establish how many tombs there are in Torbay's cemeteries—for health and safety reasons—rather than on protecting and maintaining social services for the living. What task will the Prime Minister take on to protect the weakest and most vulnerable in Torbay from the Liberal council?
      The Prime Minister: I obviously would be able to reflect on all that, but I think I would gain another insight as well. It is obviously true that we have hugely increased the amount of money we have given to Devon council—
      Mr. Steen: And Torbay?
      The Prime Minister: Yes, Torbay too. My briefing mentions South Hams. the hon. Gentleman's own local authority—
      Mr. Steen: As well as Torbay?
      The Prime Minister: Yes. The great thing is that we have increased the money for Devon, Torbay and South Hams. I think that probably the insight I would gain after this retreat would be "Vote Labour".

      Engagements
      Mr. David Clelland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Marks and Spencer opened its first-ever Lifestyle store in Gateshead yesterday, creating 210 jobs? We welcome that further demonstration of confidence in the north-east by Marks and Spencer, but, as my right hon. Friend knows, what the region desperately needs is more investment in research and development, and the kind of skilled jobs that often result from Government procurement programmes. We also eagerly await the promised redistribution of 20,000 civil service jobs away from the south-east and into the regions. I acknowledge the tremendous progress that has been made in the creation of employment and reduction of unemployment in my region under my right hon. Friend's Government, but what further progress can we hope to see in the coming months and years?
      The Prime Minister: I think that it is essential, first, to back the regional development agency, One NorthEast, which, as my hon. Friend knows, is making precisely that sort of effort to bring manufacturing and other industry into the area, and also ensuring that we have the right skills base there. That is immensely important. The second essential thing, as my hon. Friend implied, is to go on running the economy in an effective and stable way so that we have high levels of employment and low levels of unemployment. He will know, as I do, that in the north-east any political debate of 15 or 20 years ago would have centred on the huge levels of unemployment. It is a tribute, surely, to the management of the economy under this Chancellor, and to this Government's record, that we have seen in the past seven years dramatic reductions in unemployment, dramatic rises in employment and the best-run economy of any major industrialised country.
      Mr. David Trimble: The Prime Minister will know of last Friday's kidnap from a
      284
      Belfast city centre bar, which, but for the police, would have resulted in a murder. That kidnap was the work of mainstream republicans, who are led by the persons who have been returned here to serve as Members for Mid-Ulster and for Belfast, West. The Prime Minister will also know of the Iris' Justice Minister's description of their "vomit-making hypocrisy". Against that, the response of the Prime Minister's Government yesterday is seen by people in Northern Ireland as being rank moral cowardice. It is utterly unreasonable to expect us to remain in discussions with these people in these circumstances, and I have to tell the Prime Minister that unless he can summon up the courage to act on this matter within the next few days, I and my colleagues will take steps next Monday to bring that process to an end.
      The Prime Minister: For obvious reasons, as the right hon. Gentleman will surely understand, there is a limit to what I can say about any individual case that is being investigated by the police at the present time, and in respect of which charges will be laid, so I have to start with that qualification.
      Secondly, let me say very clearly, not just to Sinn Fein but to the IRA, that we have for a significant period of time said through the Good Friday agreement that these people are entitled to participate in the democratic process, but that they are able to do so only if they are fully part of the democratic club. One cannot talk about human rights for people one day and beat human rights out of them the next—that is not acceptable.
      We will have to consider, in the light of what the police find, what we then do. But I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before and I say again—indeed, this is the reason why we have had suspension of the institutions for the past year or more—that there will not be any compromise on this point. People cannot be part of a democratic process unless they abide by the rules of democracy. I am not going to comment on the individual case, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that if it is shown to be the mainstream IRA that has done this thing, action will obviously have to follow.

School Admissions (Prohibition of Religious Discrimination)
12.32 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit discrimination on religious grounds in admissions to maintained schools.
I begin by welcoming the opportunity to discuss this issue in the House. I accept that it is a controversial issue that has implications for the way in which we organise our school system and for race relations, among other things. I am very keen to put on the record my interest in this issue as an honorary associate of the National Secular Society. In terms of my own education, I am Jewish by background but I went to Church of England schools.
This Bill is not about whether faith schools are good or bad schools. Currently, faith schools are mainly voluntary aided. Although the Church or religion concerned does not pay the school's salaries or running costs, it is allowed to run its own admission policy independent of the local education authority. Where the school is over-subscribed, it is allowed to admit only children of a specific religion. Indeed, the contribution that religions make to schools relates only to capital costs, and has been reduced from 20 per cent. to 10 per cent.
The Bill would not close faith schools, convert them to community status or prevent them from being run with a religious ethos, but it would prevent them from selecting by, or discriminating on the basis of, religious background. There are several reactions for seeking to do that. First, it is self-evident that such discrimination against children is wrong in and or itself. Why should a child living next to a school be excluded from it, even though his neighbourhood friends attend it, solely because he or his parents either have the wrong religion or no religion—or, indeed, because his parents are unable sufficiently to persuade the school that they are religious enough to justify their child's attendance? Why should a child be punished by bung prevented from attending a school, which they would otherwise have an opportunity to go to, on the basis of the views or culture of his or her parents? Why should the child be denied fair treatment in school admissions?
Such criteria also encourage hypocrisy, as many in the Church and other religions recognise, when parents become church attenders purely to get their child into the local school. A recent newspaper report stated:
"Parents who want children to go to a top Church of England school face having to 'sign in' for 48 church services a year. They must present signed notes from vicars to prove they have worshipped the necessary number of times. Headmaster the Rev. Peter Shepherd's crackdown at Canon Slade secondary school in Bolton is in apparent defiance of C of E policy allowing local children… to be admitted … He defended his actions, saying demand for places … had rocketed. 'We have to find ways of being more discriminating', he said."
Those words speak for themselves.
Even if the application of such criteria causes long-lasting religious adherence, should the state be sanctioning religious recruitment by permitting those sorts of admissions policies in state schools? Is it right to segregate children according to their religion? The
286
Cantle report into the causes of riots in northern cities expressed clear concerns about the make-up of many of the state secondary schools—in this case, Church of England schools—in the area, which were nearly 100 percent. white, as children were bussed across cities at the taxpayer's expense despite the wide mix of races and religions in the catchment area. On the basis of observations on visits, the Cantle report said:
"We…found other schools where the intake was almost 100 per cent. of one ethnic background. This was often the result of the school's catchment area being composed of one particular ethnic make-up but that it could also arise as a result of the school's admission policy. One C of E school… had a policy whereby pupils had to produce a letter from their local vicar to prove that they and their parents were regular church goers. Consequently, Muslims rarely bothered to apply to send their children to the school and were effectively excluded from it."
I understand that the Government and many hon. Members supported the conclusions of that report.
If we are to stop the sort of racial segregation that we have witnessed in some cities we must either stop religious schools existing, or—a lesser step—stop them segregating and discriminating on religious grounds. Have we learned nothing from Northern Ireland, where we know that if children do not mix in school it becomes much harder—though not impossible—to tackle inbuilt and inculcated prejudice?
Why should religious parents, who tend to be more middle class, be allowed a greater choice of schools than non-religious parents? Community schools do not give preference to atheists or the non-religious, so why should state-funded schools discriminate? The disadvantage to non-religious parents in respect of the choice of school increases with every new faith school that is permitted to select on the basis of religious adherence.
It has been argued that faith schools are better schools and it is alleged that the results demonstrate it. However, that has always been alleged to be the product of their ethos rather than selection. If people and hon. Members who oppose the measure believe that faith schools are better schools because of the way in which they are organised, why not make it clear that they should not use selection as a means—directly or indirectly, advertently or inadvertently—of selecting on a better educational background or on a social class basis?

Answers to parliamentary questions provide clear evidence that the proportion of children eligible for free school meals is significantly lower, on average, in faith schools than in community schools. That is clearly a factor in faith schools achieving better results, regardless of their social mix. Therefore, it is clear that the policy cannot be defended on the basis of good results.
Many religions share the concerns that I have raised. Although they want their own schools, they do not feel the need to discriminate and segregate. I do not believe that support in public opinion is needed before one can propose something that is right, but I will always point it out when public opinion supports a measure. Polls show that up to 80 per cent. of people feel that it is wrong for state schools to select on religious grounds. When children are asked whether they feel any religious adherence, the majority say that they do not. They do

287
not see why selection should be made on the basis of their religious belief—or on the basis of the belief that their parents have, or claim.
There are strong arguments—improved race relations, better mixing, and non-
discrimination—for a ban on state schools being able to allow discrimination on religious grounds in their admissions criteria.
I commend the Bill to the House.
12.41 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I rise to oppose the Bill, based on my experiences as a practising Catholic, as someone who was taught by the Irish Christian Brothers—I shall take those stigmata to my grave—and as a former teacher in a Catholic school, where I am now a governor. As a Member of Parliament for the past 38 years, I have witnessed numerous examples of faith schools' commitment and dedication to the achievement of excellence, both in school and in the wider community.
I feel it necessary to express my opposition to this Bill as it aims to undermine one of the longest established traditions in our education system—that Children should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents, as far as is compatible with the effective and efficient use of resources. I believe that the attack on faith schools, which have gained a reputation for high educational standards, should be disregarded. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is seeking to disown the view that respect and tolerance of different religious beliefs are essential for positive community cohesion.
In introducing this Bill, the hon. Gentleman shows that he is clearly not interested in school standards. He is not even interested in the fact that many parents want the choice to send their children to a faith school, be it Catholic, Church of England, other Christian denomination, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh. However, his true intentions are uncovered in his association with the National Secular Society. His ultimate goal is to impose secular dogma on all children, regardless of the wishes of their parents. He camouflages his main objective in this Bill, knowing full well the profound implications that it would have on faith schools.
My first concern surrounds the assault on human rights mounted by the hon. Gentleman. We live in a multicultural, multi-faith society, and yet the hon. Gentleman is attempting to restrict the general principle that children should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. That is guaranteed in the protocol to the European convention on human rights and in legislation passed by this House. Furthermore, he intends to restrict the right to a religious education that is enshrined in the UN universal declaration of human rights and the declaration of the rights of the child. These instruments outline the concepts that parents are, first and foremost, educators of their children, and that the state should be a facilitator to ensure that all children, as far as is practical, can be educated in line with their parents' religious and philosophical convictions.
288
I find it surprising that a Liberal should wish to take away such rights. It is often stated that faith schools are exclusive,—a view also held by the Liberal Democrat spokesman on education, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knansborough (Mr. Willis). He has stated his belief that faith schools
"have become exclusive, erecting barriers against children who cannot meet the faith test "
However, if he were to look at the findings of the Catholic education service census of 2003 he would see that 18 per cent.—nearly one in five—of pupils attending Catholic schools are non-Catholics. Is that what Liberal Democ-ats mean when they label faith schoo ls exclusive and talk about faith tests?
By basing the Bill en the false premise of exclusivity, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon denies the rights of many non-Catholic or non-Christian parents, or parents of other faiths, who want to send their children to Catholic or other faith schools because they are attracted to the robust spiritual and moral value systems of such schools. He would undermine schools that take a proactive approach to inclusiveness and respect for religious beliefs. To see that, we have only to study the findings of a recent survey of ethnic minority students in Catholic secondary schools, which highlighted the fact that 80 per cent. of them believe that their schools encourage respect for people of different races and religions.
The guidance of my Church shows a desire for inclusion and a respect for diversity. Catholic secondary schools have a higher percentage of black pupils than other maintained schools. If the hon. Gentleman were to read the bishops' document, "Catholic Schools and Other Faiths", he would see that it highlights the need both to respect other faiths and have an understanding between the Catholic faith and other faiths. All other faith schools uphold the same philosophy in relation to their beliefs and understandings.
My second concern is about educational standards. The Bill would do nothing to improve educational achievement in our schools; its only achievement would be to unpick one of t he most successful aspects of our education system—faith schools, which have gained a reputation for high standards and educational achievement. I should have thought that all Members would applaud that, rather than seeking to destroy it.
The available evidence shows that, in general, attainment in Catholic schools is higher compared with other sectors. Furthermore, despite accusations about selection, Catholic schools cater for pupils with greater levels of poverty. An analysis of GCSE results from 1966 to 2001 for boa 11–18 schools and 11–16 schools found that, for nearly all levels of disadvantage, Catholic schools ha a higher percentage of pupils achieving the required standard in each year. When something is successful we should support it and expand best practice, not attack it.
My third concern is centred on the opportunism of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon in trying to exploit today's uncertain world climate. He is jealously pursuing his own secular agenda by trying to divorce the teachings of different religions from our society. By doing so, he risks creating the exclusion and alienation of certain communities that he claims to be trying to prevent.

289
It is easy to place the blame for horrific incidents such as 11 September, the disgraceful incidents around Holy Cross primary school and the racially motivated violence in some of our northern towns at the door of religion. To do so is a mistake, however. Such events are born of ignorance, prejudice, poverty and fear of the unknown, not of religion. If we take the route advocated by the hon. Gentleman, it can only increase prejudice and bigotry.

The UK is rich in diversity—from which our society has significantly benefited. The 2001 census found that 77 per cent. of people belonged to a religion, so it is right for the state to act as a facilitator to enable everyone to live out their religious beliefs in public as well as in private. Faith schools are based on the value of universal respect. Despite the claims made about their contribution to segregation, there is no evidence to support the view that they contribute to social segregation in this country.
In the teaching of my own and other religions, we talk of loving strangers and of loving our neighbour as ourselves. Such values are at the heart of Christian teaching and of faith schools, Muslim schools and Jewish schools. The Catholic bishops stated in the document, "Catholic Schools and Other Faiths", that Catholic schools
"should be ready to share resources with other schools and with other faith communities—especially if the Catholic school is situated in an area of deprivation and racial tension".
That attitude is shared by other faith schools.
Inter-faith relations have progressed over the past few years, and we must continue that journey. Faith-based education and schools have an important role in eliminating the stereotyping, prejudice and bigotry that exists in our society. Faith schools are not isolated institutions—they are part of our communities. They are part of the solution, not the problem. We must make further progress with inter-faith relations, both locally and nationally, not exclude them as the hon. Gentleman seeks to do.
The introduction of the Bill is purely opportunistic. It is not difficult to establish the hon. Gentleman's true motive for introducing it. Indeed, he admitted it himself. It has nothing to do with improving educational standards—it is an attack on the rights of those who wish to lead their lives in accordance with a particular religious belief. It is a case based on a list of inaccuracies. It is an attempt to deny parents the right to decide what is best for their children. It is an attempt that, I hope, the House will reject.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business): —
The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 157.

Division No. 58]

[12.50 pm

AYES

Barnes, Harry

Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

Berry, Roger

Davey Valerie(Bristol W)

Blunt, Crispin

David, Wayne

Carmichael, Alistair

Davidson, Ian

Challen, Colin

Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

Chaytor, David

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hancock, Mike

290

Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W &

Sedgemore, Brian

Abingdon)

Sheerman, Barry

Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

Skinner, Dennis

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Steinberg, Gerry

Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury &

Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

Atcham)

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Trimble, rh David

Price, Adam(E Carmarthen &

Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

Dinefwr)

Williams, Roger(Brecon)

Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

Rendel, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sanders, Adrian

Malcolm Bruce and

Sawford, Phil

Paul Holmes

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

Harvey, Nick

Amess, David

Hawkins, Nick

Atkinson, David(Bour'mth E)

Hayes, John(S Holland)

Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

Heath, David

Bacon, Richard

Hermon, Lady

Barker, Gregory

Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

Beard, Nigel

Hogg, rh Douglas

Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

Berth, rh A. J.

Howard, rh Michael

Bell, Sir Stuart

Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

Benton, Joe(Bootle)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Bercow, John

Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

Best, Harold

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Boswell, Tim

Jenkins, Brian

Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW

Johnson, Boris(Henley)

Surrey)

Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

Brady, Graham

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Brazier, Julian

Keetch, Paul

Breed, Colin

Key, Robert(Salisbury)

Burnham, Andy

Kilfoyle, Peter

Burns, Simon

King, Andy(Rugby)

Burstow, Paul

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

Cameron, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Cash, William

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping

Laws, David(Yeovil)

Barnet)

Leigh, Edward

Chope, Christopher

Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

Clappison, James

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Lidington, David

Cohen, Harry

Lilley, rh Peter

Collins, Tim

Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

Colman, Tony

Llwyd, Elfyn

Conway, Derek

Loughton, Tim

Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

Cotter, Brian

McFall, John

Crausby, David

Mclntosh, Miss Anne

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Mclsaac, Shona

Davis, rh David(Haltemprice &

Mackay, rh Andrew

Howden)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Dismore, Andrew

McNamara, Kevin

Djanogly, Jonathan

McWalter, Tony

Doughty, Sue

Malins, Humfrey

Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

Evans, Nigel

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Fallon, Michael

May, Mrs Theresa

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

Flook, Adrian

Mercer, Patrick

Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton

Forth, rh Eric

Coldfield)

Foster, Don(Bath)

Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

Francois, Mark

O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

Olner, Bill

Gapes, Mike(IIford S)

Osborne, George(Tatton)

Garnier, Edward

Ottaway, Richard

Gerrard, Neil

Paice, James

Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

Paterson, Owen

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Pickles, Eric

Grayling, Chris

Pollard, Kerry

Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

Pound, Stephen

Grieve, Dominic

Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

291

Pugh, Dr. John

Swire, Hugo(EDevon)

Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

Syms, Robert

Redwood, rh John

Taylor, David(NW Leics)

Robertson, Hugh(Faversham &

Taylor, Ian(Esher)

M-Kent)

Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Tyrie, Andrew

Russell, Bob(Colchester)

Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

Selous, Andrew

Viggers, Peter

Sheerman, Barry

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Webb, Steve(Northavon)

Whittingdale, John

Simmonds, Mark

Wiggin, Bill

Simon, Sion(B'ham Erdington)

Wilkinson, John

Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

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

Willis, Phil

Kincardine)

Wilshire, David

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

Young, rh Sir George

Spring, Richard

Streeter, Gary

Tellers for the Noes:

Stunell, Andrew

Jim Dobbin and

Swayne, Desmond

Mr. Ronnie Campbell

Question accordingly negatived.

Points of Order
1.2 pm
Mr. Mark Hoban: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from the Prime Minister to come to the House to clarify the fact that the guidance on random drug testing, to which he referred in Prime Minister's Question Time, was issued on 16 February, contrary to the impression that he gave? I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that he would like to come to the House he ensure that Hansard is corrected, and so that neither the House nor the public are inadvertently misled by his comments.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Prime Minister will be back next Wednesday, and someone can put that question to him then
Mr. Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that if a Minister, even inadvertently, says something to the House that is incorrect, he should correct it? In those circumstances, is it not incumbent on the Prime Minister either to amend the record in Hansard or come to the House and tell us that he got it wrong?
Mr. Speaker: I was trying to say in response to the first point of order that am not going to be drawn into these matters.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security
[Relevant document: The Sixth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights of Session 2000–4 on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Statutory Review and Continuance of Part 4, HC 381]
1.3 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee Report on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Review (HC 100), which was laid before this House on 18th December 2003.
I urge the House to reject the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would immediately withdraw the opportunity to protect ourselves through the process adopted in part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which has been used to ensure that those who have been certificated and gone through that process are held in secure accommodation, pending their efforts or the efforts of the Government to secure a third country to which they can be removed. In this afternoon's debate I hope that we can address some of the underlying issues and challenges that face us.
First, I want to thank Lord Newton and the members of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee for their dedicated work. We all appreciate the time, energy and commitment that they have put into the task that both Houses gave them in the 2001 Act. I also thank Lord Carlile for his continuing work and his further annual report on part 4 of the Act, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), who chairs the Joint Committee on Human Rights, for her report on the material that was published yesterday.
I should like all the reports to be considered alongside the discussion paper that the Government published today, which was placed in the House at 9.30 this morning. I shall take them together because when the House considered the Act it decided that we should examine Lord Newton's report as part of the continuing review of the measure. Lord Carlile reviewed part 4 and we have taken on board suggestions that he made on previous occasions about change s in the regime for those who are currently held in Belmarsh and Broadmoor and further changes that would be beneficial for implementing the Act.
I address the House with some temerity because when we passed the Act we debated the substantial dangers involved in any democracy taking powers, as we did when we created the Special Immigration Appeals Commission as a superior court of record, chaired by a High Court judge, in circumstances in which we knew that security information would have to be provided and facilities established outside he normal criminal justice system. Many Members of both Houses raised perfectly legitimate issues in relation to the challenge that that posed to human rights and the presumption of innocence. We took on the challenge only because we believed that part 4 offered the only way of protecting our security from terrorism from abroad and from non-British citizens whom we could not remove from this country. We could not remove them precisely because we respected international conventions and the human
294
rights of individuals who would be put at risk if they were returned to their country of origin, where they faced possible death or torture. That remains the case.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary explain how our security is enhanced by a secretive judicial process whereby people can be detained indefinitely on his signature as opposed to an open court system, which could at least ascertain the veracity of the evidence? The guilty would then be imprisoned rather than subject to the indeterminate detention that he appears to support in the document that was published today.
Mr. Blunkett: There are two parts to my hon. Friend's question. First, he asks whether security is enhanced and secondly whether the process, which he clearly does not like, for verifying the evidence that is presented to the superior court of record, namely the SIAC, does the job of ensuring that the evidence that the security services adduce is credible and therefore has veracity.
I am clear that the certification process for the 17 people who have gone through it has been done correctly. The reviews that have taken place and the challenge to the process in the appeal court have verified that. We shall fight vigorously the further challenge that will be taken to the House of Lords. The certification process and SIAC's processes have been reviewed by SIAC in 11 announced cases out of 14. It has verified that the process and the level of evidence are sufficient. The process obviously accords with the evidence given by the head of the Security Service, Eliza Manningham-Buller, who recently said:
"I see no prospect of a significant reduction in the threat posed to the UK and its interests from international terrorism over the next 5 years, and I fear for a considerable number of years thereafter."
Mr. A. J. Beith: On that basis, the Home Secretary clearly agrees with me that the threat from terrorism will not go away in the near future, and therefore we cannot consider the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 as temporary or emergency legislation. Is he therefore content to retain legislation in a form that does not fully meet requirements—for example, dealing with British citizens—and which will require a semi-permanent derogation from the European convention on human rights?
Mr. Blunkett: The derogation from article 5 is allowed under article 15 of the European convention on human rights. Article 15 was originally included in the convention because it was envisaged that at points in time it would be necessary to derogate, and without it there would be no facility for derogation. Our criminal justice system—and our criminal justice process as a whole—strictly adheres to the European convention on human rights compared with systems in other countries, so it was right for us to be honest and open by derogating. Some countries clearly operate without derogation by holding people without trial under an investigatory, inquisitorial process. Our combative process rightly expects that people will he brought to court rather than their being held almost in perpetuity without trial while investigations proceed for year after year.

295
As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Gentleman understands the issues and I respect his views. For the time being, my advisers and I believe that it is crucial that part 4 of the 2001 Act remains in place given the security risk and the presence of those whom I certificated. Those individuals used the SIAC process to challenge those certifications, and their lawyers have also gone to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords on the wider issue of whether we were correct to take the derogation and to use the powers. I sincerely believe that on the evidence produced those individuals pose a continuing threat, which is why I certificated them in the first place. The certification process has been upheld and verified by SIAC and by the generic appeal to the Court of Appeal. We have used a higher level of evidence and lifted the test higher than the standard required by "reasonable belief", which was the test laid down in this House just more than two years ago.
David Winnick: I have some reservations, which I hope to have the opportunity to express later. Can my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary imagine the criticism and backlash if, having been told by the security authorities that those foreign nationals are a threat and could well be involved in terrorism, he took no action and a terrorist outrage occurred in which some of those people were involved?
Mr. Blunkett: I can imagine the criticism, and I have been imagining it for nearly two and a half years. I do not expect people to give any Home Secretary past, present or future any quarter on those issues, but I guarantee that I have and will do anything possible within our law, our justice, the presumption of innocence and the rejection of the use of arbitrary power to protect us against the threat or use of terror in our country. I carry that basic obligation in this office, and the Government carry it on behalf of the people. If we were to fail to meet that obligation and there were an incident, I would worry about death, torture and destabilisation, but I would also worry about the reaction, which would not allow the kind of debate that we are having this afternoon about how we take on the challenges.
I re-emphasise that the original debate, the report and the challenge posed by the discussion that I am keen to encourage and support over the next few months is about how we deal with those profound issues while protecting our democratic life and maintaining our commitment to the principles of democracy, good government, justice and the presumption of innocence. The discussion must occur in an environment that allows us to address the issues calmly and sensibly, as we are doing this afternoon and have done in previous debates. If hon. Members have alternative ways to address the same challenges, they must bring them forward. In part, the Newton committee did its best to address the issues. Both the committee and Lord Carlile have raised some important questions, which I shall come to shortly.
Simon Hughes: I am sure that the Home Secretary would not
296
suggest that the seven Privy Councillors, the Joint Committee on Human Rights or the Home Affairs Ministers and Interior Ministers of the rest of the European Union— where there has been no derogation—do not share with him, Liberal Democrats and hon. Members representing other parties the desire to deal with terrorism and protect our country. In that case, the proposal put by the seven Privy Councillors, who were appointed by Parliament, that we try people under a different set of rules rather than holding them without trial is an acceptable alternative for Parliament and preferable to denying people the fundamental right not to be held without trial?
Mr. Blunkett: It is nice to do business again with the hon. Gentleman, whose question brings back many happy memories. I am coming to that issue, but I shall answer the question as succinctly as I can. It is, of course, possible to switch to alternative ways of dealing with individuals held under part 4 of the 2001 Act. The challenge laid down by Lord Newton of Braintree and the Privy Councillors is to decide whether it is possible to use without derogation a similar system for those being dealt with under immigration law who would otherwise be removed from the country and for those who are indigenous citizens of the United Kingdom.
Such a process would require the presentation of evidence from the security services and the protection of their sources. It would also require the presentation of evidence taken through the SIAC while ensuring that that evidence did not leak. The circumstances mean that it is not always possible for the defendant to be given the entirety of the evidence precisely because they are someone who is believed to be engaged in terrorism. That individual would transmit that evidence in one form or another, which would put the security services and their sources at risk. We are trying to address that circular argument.
I must put this important point on record because of the challenge in the House of Lords: part 4 of the 2001 Act was necessary and it remains necessary. It is the only way to deal with the circumstances outlined in the 2001 Act, and it must be maintained on the statute book and implemented. We are entirely open to persuasion that we can deal with a wider range of challenges while meeting the tests laid down by the Newton committee.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I accept that the Home Secretary makes a serious point when he discusses the risk that evidence could leak if it were communicated to terrorists. However, that problem has also arisen over the past 30 years in Northern Ireland, where we have convicted terrorists by conventional means Surely the effective processes to deal with evidence in Northern Ireland can be invoked to deal with the individuals covered by part 4 of the 2001 Act.
Mr. Blunkett: I have obviously familiarised myself not only with the issues before us today, but the debate and decisions on the Terrorism Act 2000 and debates that took place before that. I am aware of the significant difficulties. It is not a one-way process, with the only issue being how we can change the SIAC process and the provisions of part 4. The further question is how we can make our existing terrorism legislation, including the

297
Terrorism Act 2000, work more effectively. There is existing legislation on domestic terror that cannot be used effectively under current procedures.
I suggest that the challenge in the months ahead is to explore how we can make what we already have work more judiciously and effectively through the criminal justice system, while also learning the lessons of Northern Ireland. The challenge chat we faced post-11 September 2001—and will face again as we debate the issue in the months ahead—is how to deal with circumstances in which we do not use prosecution and punishment as discouragement, but get in at the beginning to prevent action from being taken by those for whom prosecution and punishment hold no fear. In other words, there are no norms when dealing with suicide terrorism generated by al-Qaeda and the networks working with it, in the way that there were in the past with terrorist groups that had a negotiating position and whose members sought to save their own lives even if they endeavoured to take the lives of others.
Vera Baird: Is my right hon. Friend able to confirm that two of the people currently subject to part 4 have been prosecuted, one to conviction and the other is in course of prosecution? If that is correct, were special procedures needed or used in those prosecutions?
Mr. Blunkett: I can confirm that one of the 17 has been found guilty of other offences. Those offences could be dealt with by the criminal court, but the certification and the material produced by the security service on that individual's more serious and wide-ranging association with and commitment to terrorism could not. That is the difficulty. Lord Newton poses the challenge of whether one can take a lesser offence and build on it, with evidence of what in other circumstances is called aggravation. That could mean the imposition of a longer, more substantive sentence, on the basis—in some form—of security service advice provided through a process similar to the SIAC process. The original crime would be enhanced, but it would still be addressed through the criminal justice system. That is a profound question. Can we get in at the sharp end and pick up on low-level criminality that is associated with terrorism? The report raises that issue and I shall deal with it in greater depth in a moment.
We will put out a statement today at the other end of the spectrum of prevention, about how we can protect ourselves against attack through the capabilities resilience programme, which we used to call civil contingencies. It will address how we can protect the public and intervene quickly if an attack takes place. The statement will update the House on developments and I hope that it will be helpful. However, it will obviously not protect the nation from what we are describing this afternoon.
Mr. Simon Thomas: What will concern many of us who opposed t he powers and would like to see the recommendations of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee adopted is the idea that the further powers the Home Secretary seeks to bring in—some of which we support—will add to the panoply of powers he has and not replace some of them. Before he goes into detail about the new powers that he wants to consider,
298
will he say whether the expansion of powers will enable us to stop the derogation from the European convention on human rights and drop the invidious system of detention without trial?
Mr. Blunkett: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration and I are asking the House—she will do so later by laying the relevant order—to proceed with part 4 and with the derogation because nothing that has been suggested is a substitute for those procedures. Nor have we heard any answers to the challenges that we lay down this afternoon. The Newton report and Lord Carlile have made sensible suggestions for dealing with low-level terrorist activity and association, and some legislative measures that have been Implemented abroad—some long before 11 September—are worthy of consideration. That might enable us to deal with at least one of the contradictions that we acknowledged two and half years ago—that if one uses powers under immigration law, as we have in the case of the 17 people who were certificated under the SIAC procedure, they are not being dealt with on the same basis as the indigenous population. That follows logically. However, that does not address the further challenge of the derogation with regard to the admissibility of evidence, the nature of the evidence base and the way in which it is presented.
David Davis: Before the Home Secretary leaves the subject of part 4, can he confirm whether I am right in my understanding of the documentation that he issued this morning? If I read it correctly, he undertook to review part 4 before the end of this Session. If so, will he come back to the House with his decision to continue or to amend it?
Mr. Blunkett: I intend to have extensive consultation over six months, in which we will invite Members of Parliament, the public and those with a specific interest to come forward and to build on the propositions in the reports that I have mentioned and the challenges that we put in our paper. We will then produce not an alternative to our defence against the House of Lords challenge, but a comprehensive response to the issue of combining the powers that we possess under part 4 with the challenge of how to deal with the indigenous population, including the enhancement of the effectiveness of the Terrorism Act 2000, to which I referred in response to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). We will also respond to the challenge that the Government face as we move closer to the expiration of the sunset clause in 2006. Instead of coming within three months of the expiration of the sunset clause and then having the debate, I prefer to have the debate in the calm that I described in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), to allow everyone to have a fair say.
We act as we do because we believe that there is a substantial and continuing threat. I am deeply disturbed when I hear some—not all—human rights lawyers, including those who represent those who are held in protective custody under the certification system, talk about the "so-called war on terror" and imply that there is no continuing threat.
Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this very important legislation, which we, clearly, are looking at for the purpose of securing security for our own population, has an international implication, because any extension of imprisonment without trial will be noted by countries around the world that are not so concerned as we are about those very high standards of justice? Will there be an opportunity in the consultation period to take on board comments from other countries, as well as bodies in this country, in order to examine terrorism in the wider sphere?
Mr. Blunkett: Albeit that I am open to criticism for making speeches on terrorism across the world, which is also faced with terror, the answer is "Yes, I think we should." I did it in New Delhi to an audience including human rights lawyers and members of the supreme court, who, contrary to the kind of dismissal that I saw on "Newsnight" last night, had a deep commitment as human rights lawyers and members of India's supreme court to human and civil rights in their country and across the world. I shall do the same in the Untied States in two weeks' time, because I believe that these are universal principles that are crucial to democracy and justice, and that we should debate them on that basis.
I am very mindful that what we do in this country is a benchmark, and I hope that it will remain a pillar of best practice and a beacon for people across the world.
Mr. Mark Oaten: The Home Secretary has just confirmed that he plans to review part 4 in a six-month period. Will he therefore consider amending tomorrow's order so that the extension period is six months, so that there will be a guarantee that we can debate it in a six-month period?
Mr. Blunkett: No, I will not. Apart from the fact that the regulations and the Act do not permit us to do so, we laid down the annual review by the House and the renewal procedure knowing that individual cases, after the initial six months, would be reviewed on a three-monthly basis. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission will review all the cases that it has dealt with on a three-monthly basis, and it has the power—and is free to—challenge the continuing evidence placed before it, and whether the risk continues. In terms of dealing both with Lord Newton's report and with renewal, I need to spell out that that is risk to the life of the nation that constitutes a public emergency within article 15 of the ECHR. I needed to get that on the record as well.
As I spelt out in quoting Eliza Manningham-Buller, nothing has diminished that threat. It is important to continue to re-emphasise that, because, sadly, people easily forget Bali, where 202 people were killed; Casablanca, where 44 people were killed; Riyadh, where 34 people were killed; Jakarta, where 12 people were killed; and Istanbul, where at the end of last year, over 50 people lost their lives including the consul general and members of his staff.
These are continuing threats that are taken seriously by all democratic nations, and rightly so, given the tremendous threat from al-Qaeda, repeated by bin Laden on numerous occasions. From February last year, to September—when he produced a tape—to
300
January this year, he has laid down that threat to anyone who dares to threaten what he believes and what his creed holds. Last February, he said:
"We also point out that whoever supported the United States, including the hypocrites 4 Iraq or the rulers of Arab states, those who approved their actions and followed them in this crusade war to fighting with them or providing bases and administrative support to them or any form of support, even by words, to kill Muslims in Iraq should I now that they are apostates and outside the community of Muslims. It is permissible to spill their blood and take their property."
That is a direct and continuing threat, not in theory, but in practice, to our lives, to the well-being of our country, to the values that we hold and to our democracy.
I simply ask that, in dealing with the real and very big challenges of not doing away with the standard of proof, the presumption of innocence and the way in which we have traditionally upheld—in the face of considerable—difficulties—our criminal justice process, we bear in mind the nature and level of the threat and what it means to us.
Mr. George Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly right about the nature of the threat, and I applaud much of what he is doing to counter it. Can he assess how much damage we have done to al-Qaeda in the last couple of years? We have had the military operations in Afghanistan, and bin Laden is pinned down wherever he is, but can he give a broader assessment of whether we are winning the war against terror?
Mr. Blunkett: At a superficial level, I think that people can presume that, given the attacks that I listed, the war is not yet won; the pronouncements of the head of the Security Service, MI 5, underline the continuing threat. But the challenge is what would have happened had we not taken the steps that we took, had we not got the quality of the Security Service—built up, it must be said, with its expertise and knowledge of dealing with terror emanating from Ireland, particularly over the last 30 years—and the anti-terrorist branch. That gives me an opportunity to say how much respect I have for them and to thank them for the work that they have been doing. The difficulty for them is that prevention is never seen or acknowledged. Prevention does not allow us to celebrate what has been done. It is only in the aftermath of tragedy that we see whether a system, process or security measure has failed. I have the privilege and the difficulty of being given the evidence of what they are doing and how they are doing it. I hold them in tremendously high regard. That is why prevention is so fundamental to this debate.
Vera Baird: My sight hon. Friend was discussing criminal procedures and the position of the security services. I accept entirely that he personally adopts a very much higher standard than reasonable suspicion before certificating people, and I am sure that SIAC adopts a high standard before confirming his certificates. Usually, civil courts adopt a criminal standard when their finding will imply that somebody has committed criminal offences, which is the position here. I wonder how far we are from being able successfully to prosecute the people concerned, at least

301
in front of a judge, and whether tilt need is not to search for better ways of protecting the evidence that has to be relied on and not for new powers.
Mr. Blunkett: Let me take the challenge on. We believe that if we have not actually achieved it, we have come very close to achieving the standard of proof relevant to, and by necessity demanded by, a criminal court. My hon. and learned Friend puts her finger on the difficulty, which is the nature of how we have reached that level and standard of proof by necessity, in terms of the nature of the evidence presented, its admissibility and the use of special advocates, the difficulty is that, every time we take a step to try to achieve what is being asked of us, we get disqualified by people being against particular elements of the process that they do not like.
I referred earlier to the difficult issue of how to ensure that, as with a criminal trial. defendants have all the evidence presented to them, when the defendants themselves are a problem in passing on and using the evidence presented to them, as opposed to the special advocate assigned to them, to continue the development and perpetration of terror.
That is not like the consideration of a normal criminal activity when someone is charged with finding out, through an adversarial situation, whether a person is guilty or not and evidence is adduced to determine that. That is different from people using evidence to continue to perpetrate the activity that they were doing in the first place that we were trying to stop. The way in which we move forward is a layman's challenge as well as a legal challenge for those of us who are not lawyers.
Could we have special advocates? The Newton committee suggests that we could have special advocates at a different level, which relates to what we were discussing a moment ago about the enhancement of the crime so that punishment would thus be based on an initial arrest for a form of criminality different from terrorism. It also lays down the challenge of producing a definition of terrorism, because the House and the other place have struggled to find one that would make terrorism a crime in itself, rather than the combination of activities that we put together in the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
I thought that I was struggling NA hen I tried to get the legislation clear in my head two years ago, but that was chickenfeed compared with actually taking on the challenge of trying to find the nature of the solution and addressing the contradictions raised by the Newton committee with which we are dealing now. The Government had to come up with the right solution for the specific problem of overseas citizens whom we could not remove. The Newton committee is now understandably challenging us to deal with a whole different range of individuals who ire preparing for, or engaged with, terror.
Lembit Ôpik: With reference to the Home Secretary's comments about Northern Ireland, does he accept that one of the lessons from Northern Ireland for Governments of all colours was that suppressing terrorist acts was not especially successful? For example, detention without trial had the counter-productive effect of strengthening the recruiting
302
activities of the IRA. However unpalatable it might be to acknowledge it, real progress was made in Northern Ireland after we started considering the motives of terrorists. Will he comment on the extent to which the Government have actively considered a strategy through which we would try to understand the motives of terrorism—without condoning them—because, after all, that is how the biggest progress was made on the troubles in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Blunkett: I am not getting into that whatsoever. I do not understand the motives of those who commit suicide and blow up other people. I do not understand the motives of religious teachers and leaders and others who are not prepared to do that themselves, so instead send young men and women as suicide bombers to do their work for them—that is what happens. I do not understand those who have no negotiating position and no demands other than the total capitulation of our democratic way of life and values, because, make no mistake about it, that is what al-Qaeda is all about. There is no negotiation about the unification of a country or, for example, a just solution in the middle east, which we all want; it has never engaged in that demand. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have tried to engage in that process and we have tried to engage the United States' powerful voice to help us to achieve it. Virtually everyone in the House of Commons would want us to continue to try to do that. How can we understand those who take innocent lives not to free themselves from the shackles of some sort of post-colonialism, but to destroy the modernity and the society that they literally hate?
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: My point is on precisely the issue about which the Home Secretary was talking before he took the previous intervention: the difference between the prosecution of terrorism and of normal crime. That is what causes some of us considerable difficulty, especially those of us who have been involved in the prosecution and defence of serious and organised crime, including terrorism. Many of the difficulties that the Home Secretary rightly enumerates are already dealt with when considering such serious crimes. When people are prosecuted for those crimes, it is inevitable that method and the fruits of method are revealed. Infiltration is revealed in such trials by necessity. Of course, that is subject to public interest immunity, which can be draconian in such circumstances. Will he consider what the difference is in truth between the problems when dealing with the most serious of crimes and with terrorism? It appears to us that terrorist crime is being elevated to a different level of crime, which is one of the reasons why some people cavil with the word "war"—not because of its seriousness, but because crime is being treated as something other than crime.
Mr. Blunkett: I know that my hon. and learned Friend is more familiar than I am with the uses of public interest immunity and the constraints that exist on the way in which evidence may be seen by defendants and how it may be used in court. If we believed that public interest immunity would cover the requirements that I have tried to enunciate, we would have used that. We will want to come back to the serious crimes about which he talks in a White Paper on organised crime, which will build on

303
the announcement of the establishment of a serious organised crime agency, because there are real issues regarding conspiracy that the Attorney-General wishes to examine and that were touched on in the Newton report. There are questions about the way in which one can read over from one set of activities to another, but that does not get us away from the nature of the evaluation of security advice.
The surveillance and work of the security services are our best means of prevention, and that is why I can confirm that we have already substantially increased the resourcing of the Security Service so that we can double its capacity to process and use the materials that it adduces as part of its intelligence gathering. The development of the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre that we established last June will be helpful for drawing together a range of evidence from not only MI5, but MI6, GCHQ and the defence intelligence service. The increase of staff numbers by 50 per cent. will also be helpful.
Mr. Oaten: Liberal Democrats fully support the Home Secretary's plans to staff up MI5 and other intelligence services. He said in the press—and just now on the Floor of the House—that he expects a doubling of staff. What is the date by which he hopes to achieve that increase?
Mr. Blunkett: That has already begun. I confirm that at the end of last year we agreed additional resources for this year and the next with the Security Service so that it could develop its work, as it has been doing. We described that privately and in more detail to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Obviously, recruitment, training and ensuring that people operate in an acceptable way takes time. Resources have been provided at each stage at which the Security Service has requested them so that it may continue its expansion at a scale and rate that is appropriate to its ability to recruit.
We have also increased the co-ordination of special branches, following the review that we undertook, by pulling them together into eight regional co-ordinating units. We have appointed a new co-ordinator, Bryan Bell, who was the assistant chief constable of Cleveland, to undertake that work. I referred to the White Paper a moment ago, and I shall say more about that and the necessary border controls and co-ordination in due course. All the elements go together in terms of prevention, surveillance and making sure that we act on an acceptable basis.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I hope that the Home Secretary will accept that I wish to make a non-partisan point. It is vital that the security services are expanded to meet the threat, but is it really such a good idea to make announcements that major recruiting programmes are under way in advance of the expansion? Is there not a danger that people sympathetic to the al-Qaeda cause may make special efforts to get themselves recruited? Would it not usually be better to do the recruitment first and make the announcement afterwards?
Mr. Blunkett: Actually, that is what I have just said; I was very careful. I notice that the right hon. Member for
304
Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, is smiling. He knows that that is correct. I was confirming that we had done it rather than giving al-Qaeda notice that something terribly new was about to happen. However, I take the point.
Dr. Lewis: I am sorry to have to return to this point, but the BBC news report on this subject stated:
"The Home Secretary will announce plans to recruit another 1,000 staff in Parliament next week".
Is he saying that the report is wrong and that the recruitment has already taken place, or is he saying that it is going to take place?
Blunkett: The BBC was wrong in only one regard. I am confirming the event this afternoon. The point is well taken that we do not want to parade what we are doing to those who would use what we are doing against us. The point is noted.
We should automatically assume that we will take forward some of the challenges that the Newton report laid down. We have laid that out in the written response that is part of today's debate.
An interesting question was raised about the nature of our system. I have mentioned its adversarial nature, and some of the Newton committee's recommendations would depend on an inquisitorial system that, as it says, mirrors the magistracy system in France. There would be an investigating magistrate and the more detailed work would be under taken behind the scenes, taking the evidence, collating it and bringing it forward in a different way. Our system is different, but if people are serious about an alternative one-I do not dismiss that, not least for low-level association and links with terrorist groups—we need to be serious about examining how it would work and how it would change the nature of disclosure and admissibility in our system.
David Davis: I must admit that, when I first read the Newton report, I had difficulty with the explicit point that it made about the examining magistrates procedure. As I understand it, it would put a firebreak into the evidence process, but ensure that it remained safe and even-handed. Would that not involve completely changing our approach to the treatment of major crimes?
Mr. Blunkett: By no means; we would not necessarily have to extend such a system to major crimes. In the end, it still does not deal with the question of to whom the material is exposed and how the safeguards can be built in, as with the special advocate process that exists through SIAC. By necessity, I have read the reports carefully. Each time one thinks that one is moving towards a solution, there is an objection to another piece of the equation. It is a bit like a puzzle that one thinks one has solved but finds that one has not. I have never been good at such puzzles, so I shall have to try to get a

305
bit better at them over the months ahead. That is why I thought it was useful to discuss the matter in the context and atmosphere of this debate.
Sir Brian Mawhinney:rose—
Mr. William Cash rose—
Mr. Blunkett: I have provoked lion. Members now. I shall take both interventions.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: I was a member of the committee and we examined the magisterial system in France and heard direct evidence about it. I assure the Home Secretary that the purpose of the report was not to call into question the fundamental framework within which we are looking at these issues. He is right: the system in France is different front ours. However, we were struck by the fact that there were, or appeared to be, advantages—not least, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) suggested, in terms of handling evidence. Given that the Home Secretary will have a full consultation and review, it is probably worth taking such a system seriously if we are seeking new structures that are acceptable to us, but that protect the rights of the individual somewhat better than part 4 does.
Mr. Blunkett: I do not for a moment dispute what the right hon. Gentleman says about taking such a system seriously and being prepared to examine how it might enhance the powers available to us, I said that there were probably lower-level activities—the French call them associating with a wrongdoer. Their system goes back to the time when they were dealing with major terrorism from north Africa—from Algeria to be precise.
As well as the inquisitorial system, the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the recommendations in the Newton report, such as those for electronic tagging and monitoring and on the subject of bank balances. They could come into play. I dispute whether the latter recommendations could come into play for those who are so strongly linked to, and engaged in, terrorism that they are central to the threat to us. Allowing them free access to talk with and to be with other people at all—never mind allowing them to use computers, telephones or bank balances—would put us at risk. We are half way to each other in recognising that the committee has raised an interesting issue that we should address and that we should be open-minded about.
I am interested in French law. However, I am not advocating it, and I had better mace that clear in case a baroness in the other place gets the wrong idea and is on the "PM" programme before I get the chance to refute the idea that I am. There is a historical difference in France. Because of the style—of investigatory magistrates and the way in which the French judicial system works, they have held people suspected of terrorism for up to four years without trial. I would not want that; the SIAC process is a k t better, not least the three-monthly reviews. Our ability to debate the issues this afternoon demonstrates the care with which our
306
democracy and the House take the issue of moving beyond the standard of proof and the procedures that we have normally adopted in criminal justice cases.
Mr. Cash: The manner in which the Government are presenting the information to the House, the discussion paper and all that flows from it and the dialogue that is going on are, unlike the approach taken to the Civil Contingencies Bill, extremely useful. Does the Home Secretary agree that, whatever merits there may be in the Newton committee's criticisms of part 4, one aspect has not been considered sufficiently? Under section 21, the Secretary of State can issue a certificate only if he reasonably believes or suspects that someone is a terrorist. We then have the review procedures on appeal and the provisions for certification in sections 25 and 26. In other words, unlike in the Civil Contingencies Bill, there is in this measure an opportunity for the court to get to grips with the question of whether the Home Secretary or other Ministers have misbehaved in any way. Does he agree that that is one reason why he might be right and the Newton committee might not be?
Mr. Blunkett: There needed to be a check—the House was very clear about this—on the certification and subsequent reviewing work of SIAC. When deciding to make SIAC a superior court of record, the issue of judicial review was debated. The starting point was how we could review certification judicially, as well as having the Carlile review, although Lord Carlile does an extremely good job of reviewing whether the process has been used correctly and whether due weight has been given to reasonable belief. That is why I have been able to say that we have now gone beyond reasonable belief in weighing up.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall not go on at great length. To put that matter in context, however, it is worth reflecting that when the House was debating this at substantial length in November, it was feared that very large numbers of people would be picked up, certificated and dealt with under the measure. It was suggested at the time that 200, 300 or 400 people could be picked up.
David Davis: One is too many.
Mr. Blunkett: Well, it would be if that person were unjustly accused—I accept that challenge. That is why we are agonising over how to go forward. We have been through the trauma of finding that people who have been through our existing criminal justice system have turned out to be innocent, and we are mindful of that. However, I was about to make the point that there was much concern because of the promises that had been given in the past. I remember that at that time one of my hon. Friends used the example of a former Home Secretary who projected at the beginning of the second world war the number of people who would be picked up for internment, which turned out to be a massive underestimate. I merely point out that we gave a pledge that we would use the provision judiciously and sparingly, and that we have kept that promise. We have used it only where we genuinely believed that the risk warranted it.
Therefore, in asking the House to allow us to retain part 4 for the foreseeable future, and in dealing with the challenges of Newton and Carlile—Lord Carlile also

307
came up with the idea of acts preparatory to terrorism —we are prepared to take on hoard a range of suggestions that might help us incrementally to deal with people who are part of a wider association or network.
Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Home Secretary help me on one point? If the legislation that he supports allows him to detain foreign nationals on suspicion of terrorist activities, is he considering extending that power to British nationals? Surely, if someone is entitled to legal rights, they are entitled to them whatever their nationality.
Mr. Blunkett: That is what we debated when we passed the 2001 Act. We discussed the fact that we were dealing with immigration powers, and with citizens whom we wished to reject from this country but could not because we wanted to safeguard their human rights. I have said this afternoon that although we face substantial challenges in improving the use of other parts of our law, including the Terrorism Act 2000, it is not my intention to use the SIAC process for citizens of the United Kingdom. Nor is it my intention, because I cannot see how we could do it, simply to do away with SIAC by using instead the system that we have in the United Kingdom purely to deal with this challenge.
We are trying to square the circle, because there are those who do not want special advocates but accept that we have to keep security evidence private, and others who do not want derogation but accept that if we have special advocates and want the process to be fair and open, we have to use derogation because we acknowledge that we are derogating from part 5. Then there are those who are uncomfortable with the certification process. But how do we deal with a magistracy investigation process in such circumstances? Some may agree with us on severity and the particular circumstances developed for part 4, but want us to consider other activity in connection with lower-level association, perhaps looking at what has taken place in France or the suggestions made by Lord Carlile on acts preparatory to terrorism. All those matters need to be dealt with in the months ahead.
Mr. John Denham: Part 4 applies solely to foreign nationals. If I understand Newton and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary correctly, measures against acts preparatory to terrorism or association with wrongdoers would not apply solely to foreign nationals but could apply generally to British citizens. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to say how during the next six months he will explore the real issues that that would raise, given that it would introduce legal measures that, in the real world, would apply only to one community in this country, whatever the theory of the law? He is raising enormously important issues, and the handling of them, including the consultation period, is critical.
Mr. Blunkett: I understand precisely what my right hon. Friend is, quite rightly, alluding to. Let me make the position clear. We had the same difficulty with citizens of, or persons who had originated in, Ireland when surveillance and anti-terrorism activity focused on 308
terrorism emerging Iron Ireland, and it was feared that the Irish community in Britain was therefore being tarred with a certain brush. Those questions were rightly put at that time. There was real fear, for example in parts of north London, where people genuinely feared at the time of severe bombings that there would be action against them purely because of their accent. It is perhaps hard for us to remember now just how horrendous some of those bombing attacks were. The blowing up of the Grand hotel in 1983. the bombing of the bandsmen and the Birmingham bombing, with their taking of innocent life, shook people to the core and invoked a reaction.
Part of what we are required, of necessity, to do is to calm fears. We should not exaggerate incidents or appear to be regularly hyping such situations, but should try to explain to the public that people from an Islamic background who have engaged with terror have disengaged themselves from the Koran and the teachings of Islam. That is what all my Islamic advisers and friends make clear. Therefore, in taking actions that deal with a particular source of terror activity, we need to take commensurate steps to maintain calmness, social cohesion and race relations, giving the necessary explanations and information. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has played an important part in that, including in taking forward suggestions not only on divided communities and the issues that were raised after the disturbances in 2001, but on the broader issues of how we develop faith and cohesion measures to enable us to avoid the kind of problems that he has raised this afternoon. I thank him for the way in which he has raised those issues.
I also say to my sight hon. Friend that if we were considering lower-level activities, we would be examining concrete suggestions over the next six months and beyond. I have one suggestion that goes with the grain of the Newton report and the experience in France. Let us suppose that it were possible to seek to prevent someone from being engaged in a low-level connection or association with terror by preventing them from using a particular bank balance, as Newton suggested, or a telephone or computer. I am now drawing on the Newton committee report. Let us suppose that an order were placed on that person to preclude them from using those facilities for a particular length of time. That would be a civil order, but if they breached it, it would be a criminal offence. We should be dealing with the breach of the order. That area is worth exploring, and I believe that the Newton committee and the acts preparatory to terrorism that Lord Carlile mentioned will help its to examine it.
Mr. Beith: Does Home Secretary recall that one of the reasons for setting up the committee was that there was a lot of anxiety About rushing legislation through Parliament when significant parts of it extended far beyond the realm of terrorism? Given that the response rejects quite a lot of i he committee's recommendations relating to greater monitoring in the areas that are not primarily about terrorism, will he at least reflect on the committee's concern that, if legislation covering far wider issues than terrorism is rushed through

309
Parliament with shortened procedures, it will undermine the consensus on the use of those procedures in future?
Mr. Blunkett: While I do not wholly agree with what was being said, I was about to say that there are other areas that deal with the wider Act, involving the open publication of statistics and relating to arrests under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the certification process, which we accept as well. The taking forward of the list of pathogens and toxins, the recommendations of the Newton report on the security of premises and the commentary in relation to aspects of the Act itself in terms of mainstreaming were among the suggestions to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
We are not rejecting those suggestions. We are saying that if there are opportunities to tin stream other parts of the Act in future legislation, the Government should consider doing that. However, deliberately to re-run them for the sake of re-running them now, not because anyone objects to them, would be detrimental to the other forms of legislation that every Member of the House is encouraging us to introduce. This is a bit like air traffic control: if one plane is it the air, the next one cannot go up until we have moved the first one. That is how legislation works. Each Cabinet Minister feels strongly that their own Departmet's legislation should be brought forward. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not being a great enthusiast for re-running every thing from other parts of the Act, and for being willing to re-run them when it is appropriate to do so, in the spirit of the Newton report.
Vera Baird: Have I understood the gist of what the Home Secretary is saying in asking for the powers relating to terrorism to be renewed? Is he saying that, however we try to devise appropriate criminal procedures, which might satisfactorily deal with British citizens who can be dealt with in no other way, and might reduce the number of people who need to be detained under the current powers, he is none the less perfectly satisfied that we cannot manage without the current powers as well?
Mr. Blunkett: The answer to that has to be an unequivocal yes; otherwise, the Act would collapse. The process of certification and the challenges being made would all be subject to that answer. I made it clear when I repeated the words of the head of the intelligence service that I believe it is a necessity to reaffirm part 4 and to look at the wider issues in the spirit that we have done this afternoon. I want to thank the House—
Hugh BayleyWill my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Blunkett: I shall allow my hon. Friend an eleventh hour intervention.
Hugh Bayley: My right hon. Friend is very kind. My concern is with part 12 of the Act, which does not directly deal with terrorism but contains anti-bribery provisions. Have I understood correctly that the Government will not repeal part 12 until such time as alternative, more clearly drawn legislation against international bribery has been enacted?
Mr. Blunkett: We have in draft related legislation that would give us the opportunity to do that. I hope that we
310
shall be able to do so. In the spirit of the question, I shall ensure that we deal with that question in the serious and organised crime White Paper. It would be sensible to deal with it in relation to the broader international issues.
The atmosphere in the House this afternoon and the way in which right hon. and hon. Members are approaching this issue are extremely encouraging. Democracy protecting democracy is the best possible advert for democracy. That is a great strength, and I thank all hon. Members for this. I commend the motion—which I carefully enunciated at the beginning of this debate, because I had to—to the House, and I hope that hon. Members will support it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Before I call the next speaker, may I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment tabled in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
2.15 pm
David Davis: I join the Home Secretary in thanking Lord Newton and his colleagues for their report on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. As the House would expect from a committee of distinguished Privy Councillors, it has produced a report that is substantial, measured and constructive. The committee clearly put in a formidable quantity of work and did an enormous amount of research. It also brought to bear a considerable level of expertise and experience, and made a number of serious recommendations worthy of careful consideration by the Government.
Matters as serious as the balancing of the safety of our citizens against the fundamental rights to justice of all human beings demand serious consideration, so it was with regret that I observed how quickly the Home Secretary seemed to dismiss the main thrust of the report when it was published in December. As Peter Riddell put it in The Times:
"The 121–page report is not what would have been written by Amnesty, Liberty or Michael Mansfield."
He concluded:
"Mr. Blunkett should not have been so hasty."
I am pleased that the tenor of the Home Secretary's comments today has been much more measured, and I commend him for that. He is right to say that the tone of this debate will serve us well in coming to a good conclusion.
As the Home Secretary has pointed out, the context for the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was the events of 11 September 2001. At that time, it was said that those events were an attack not just on the United States or the American people but on us all, on our democracy, our freedoms and our way of life. We should not forget that 78 of the 3,000 people killed that day came from our own country. Since 11 September, attacks have taken place in Bali, Mombassa, Riyadh, Casablanca and Istanbul, so no one should harbour any illusions about the potency of the terrorist threat, or about the fact that we in the United Kingdom remain a top target for people such as bin Laden and his al-Qaeda cohorts.

311
The committee, at paragraph 103 of its report, quoted the director-general of the Security Service, as did the Home Secretary. I believe that her words bear further repetition:
"I see no prospect of a significant reduction in the threat posed to the UK and its interests from Islamist terrorism over the next five years, and I fear for a considerable number of years thereafter."
The point here is that we are not talking about a temporary measure when we discuss these issues today. So far, we have been fortunate. As a result of the skill of the police and our intelligence services, planned terrorist attacks have been thwarted, but the need for vigilance remains constant. I therefore join those who welcome the announcement by the Home Secretary of additional numbers for MI5. I rather enjoyed his attempt not to give too much away while telling us what was going on in that regard.
We need to have in place all the necessary measures to prevent attacks from succeeding in the United Kingdom and, to the best of our ability, elsewhere in the world. It is clear that, in the House, we have to be united in the war against terror. So we agree with the Newton committee that there is a continuing need for special counter-terrorist legislation. We also believe that terrorists should be given no special status and ought to be treated as criminals. As Lord Lloyd set out in his 1996 review, as far as possible anti-terrorist legislation should approximate to the ordinary criminal law and procedure.
Of course, the Home Secretary is right to stress that the Government do not lightly take on the powers in the 2000 and 2001 Acts. It obviously involves difficult judgments and measures that no Government in a liberal democracy would ordinarily consider. The Home Secretary will be happy to know that I include him in that definition of liberal democracy.[Laughter.]I thought I might get a laugh. To be serious, that is why we need constantly to check the powers against three strict and rigorous tests.
First, are we confident that the powers work to minimise the risk of terrorism? That is not an otiose question. Secondly, do they undermine fundamental liberties to the extent that they do the terrorists' work for them? Thirdly, can the protection of the public be achieved with less harm to those liberties by any other means? To put it another way, we must always remember what we are defending. For those reasons, although we support the 2001 Act overall, we believe that all anti—terrorist legislation should be subject to annual review and full debate by Parliament—and, if necessary, regular revision.
Before I come to the most controversial piece of the report, which took up most of the Home Secretary's speech, I shall deal with some other serious sections of it. One of the most striking aspects of the committee's report is the number of powers that it identifies in the 2001 Act that have been used sparingly or not at all. It gives the example of freezing orders, provided for in part
312
2. Everybody agrees that the power to freeze assets is a key weapon in the fight against terrorism, yet the committee states at paragraph 146:
"These measures are in likely to be used against terrorism while the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001 is in place, which already makes specific provision for freezing terrorist assets."
The committee goes on to cite a number of advantages that distinguish the United Nations order from the part 2 powers, and concludes that
"freezing orders for specific use against terrorism should be addressed again in primary terrorism legislation, based on the welltested provisions of the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001."
In their response to Newton, the Government say that they do not accept the proposal, stating:
"The fact that the rower has not been deployed since the legislation came into force is not of itself an argument for setting it aside now, nor including it within wider primary anti-terrorism legislation."
We find that a curious justification for rejecting the committee's perfectly reasonably proposal, and ask the Home Secretary to consider the issue again, as much of the committee's argument is that the UN terrorism order is a better, more effective and more just law.
Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of what he is saying and quoting reinforces the proposition that the 2001 Act, which was introduced as emergency legislation, contains a host of provisions that could not by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as emergency measures, but were never subject to any proper scrutiny?
David Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend reiterates the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). We on the Conservative Benches have argued time and again that measures that involve relatively draconian powers require much greater scrutiny than is possible these days in this House of Commons—even when they are not emergency powers.
The committee says on the question of identity theft
"we are not convinced that all the relevant measures in Part 10 address it effectively".
The report cites an al-Qaeda manual that devotes two pages to falsifying passports and identity cards. It also notes the importance placed by the French authorities on credit card fraud as a basis for "micro-finance" in contemporary terror sm. We need to prevent terrorists from misrepresenting themselves in the system in the first place, and in his response to Newton, the Home Secretary said:
"The Government are assured that these powers are effective and proportionate".
How can that be the case when the committee has said that the problem is so large scale? The Home Secretary says that the problems will be addressed by the introduction of identity cards in the UK and by the use of biometric technologies, but under the Government's scheme, compulsory cards will not be introduced until 2011 and will not solve the problem of credit card fraud. We need a more rapid and tailored solution than the one that the Government are offering.

313
We agree strongly with the committee's recommendation on terrorist property, particularly in relation to extending the power of seizure to non-cash items. The Government say that the powers in the terrorism Act already allow such seizures, yet the committee has clearly identified a problem. We ask the Home Secretary for greater reassurance than that given in the published response, which states that current powers are adequate to tackle the problem.
We also agree with the view that
"open hearings in an ordinary Magistrates Court are not the appropriate forum for handling cash seizures in terrorist cases".
The committee recommends that the terrorism Act be amended to enable cash seizure hearings to be handled in a similar way to warrant hearings under the legislation. The Home Secretary said that he would look closely at that proposal, and we welcome that.
The committee echoes and endorses concerns raised by the Opposition—and most often by my right hon. and learned Friend—during the passage of the Bill in 2001 on the so-called Henry VIII powers, but the Government dismissed the committee's recommendation. We strongly agree with the committee. May I take this opportunity to urge the Home Secretary to reconsider his view—most of all on legislation such as this which impinges so fiercely on individual civil liberties?
That brings me to the most controversial aspect of the legislation, on which the committee again echoes our view. I refer to detention powers in part 4 relating to foreign nationals. The committee's conclusion in paragraph 203 is unequivocal:
"the Part 4 powers which allow foreign nationals to be detained potentially indefinitely should be replaced as a matter of urgency."
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) argued strongly that internment was not the best way of dealing with such cases. Regrettably, the alternatives that he proposed did not persuade the Home Secretary. As a result, under the detention powers, some 14 foreign nationals are being held indefinitely without trial.
It is undoubtedly the case that such detention is a serious infringement of civil liberties. I do not find the argument that such people can "always leave the country" particularly persuasive. On the one hand, to return to some countries might, in effect, be to return to death; on the other, releasing people whom we believe to be international terrorists to travel the world seems a peculiar policy. The difficulty is that if the Government are right about those 14 people held under the Act, releasing them could put hundreds or thousands of innocent lives at risk. The Home Secretary is right, and I must recognise that. Nevertheless, because it is such a serious infringement of civil liberty, I agree that the Government should heed the committee's request and seek an alternative. I am glad that the Home Secretary has undertaken to review part 4 over the next six months. I assume that in that review he will consider and seek alternatives. The difficult question is: which alternative will work?
314
One area in which I disagree with the Newton committee is on the possibility of tagging, curfews or daily visits to police stations as an alternative to such detention. That is impractical for serious terrorist crimes, let alone for suicide bombers. I welcome the fact that the Government have said that they have no intention of going down that route, although it may be useful for the more minor terrorist crimes. Another solution is needed.
Everyone agrees that the most desirable way to deal with terrorists is to bring them before the courts. That is where the Home Secretary should be concentrating his efforts—looking at aspects of the law that make prosecution more difficult and seeing whether they can be corrected. The Newton committee highlights one aspect in particular, on which we believe the Government should act. Paragraph 208 states:
"In our view one way of making it possible to prosecute in more cases would be to remove the UK's self-imposed blanket ban on the use of intercepted communications in court"
We agree. That was a conclusion reached by Lord Lloyd in his 1996 review. It has the backing of Lord Carlile. It has been advocated in terrorist cases for many years by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). It has had the support of successive Chief Constables in Northern Ireland.
We understand previous objections to ending the ban: principally, that it would reveal sensitive information about our intercept capability. We believe, however, that the balance of the argument has moved on, especially post-11 September. For example, al-Qaeda sees the United States as its No. 1 enemy. One should assume that its training and tactics are directed against that target. In the United States, however, extensive details of intercept capacity are published. They are a matter of public record. They will therefore already be accounted for in al-Qaeda's behaviour, training and tactics. It is difficult therefore to see how knowledge of our much smaller intercept capacity could make much difference to the training and tactics of al-Qaeda, especially when that is measured against the value of such information in court.
The committee put up an interesting idea for protecting the evidence from the sort of excursions that we hear so much about in relation to lawyers representing terrorists. The idea of an examining magistrate, or having that as a phase of the evidence gathering, is sensible. I must admit that when I first read it, probably like the Home Secretary, I did not see exactly where it was going. As a phase of evidence gathering, however, and as a way of introducing a cutout to protect the evidence and the methods used, it seems an eminently sensible approach. The Home Secretary has said that the matter of intercept evidence is one of a number of options under review. That review should be concluded quickly. The ban on intercept communications evidence should be dropped, and I hope that he will again look closely at the committee's proposal, as it is eminently sensible.
Mr. Oaten: I am encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman's comments. For clarity, is the thrust of his argument that if alternative measures were put in place

315
such as the acceptance of intercept communications as part of evidence, the Conservatives would support the removal of part 4?
David Davis: Yes, indeed. The issue that we are considering is one that the hon. Gentleman raised in an intervention on the Home Secretary. In relation to those 14 cases, if he is entirely persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that they are terrorists or would-be terrorists, and they would be expected to be convicted in a process that absorbed those changes, that is a good reason for part 4 to go. That is what we want, ideally, as a result of the review process.
The difficulty for the House is that we cannot know what the Home Secretary knows. We cannot test each of those cases. Perhaps the committee could do so—perhaps its members will tell us that they did test that proposal. We cannot do so, however. I am taking it on faith—something that one does rarely with Ministers when in opposition—that the Home Secretary will make a judgment about that in the process of that review.
Several hon. Members:rose—
David Davis: I knew that that would provoke everybody. I shall give way first to the ex-Home Office Minister and come to the others shortly.
Mr. Denham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. This is an important point on which to understand the Opposition's view. For the sake of argument—I am not familiar with the individual cases either—let us suppose that seven of the cases could be resolved as criminal cases, were the intercept information available, but the other seven relied on information obtained by the security services through methods that they could not possibly disclose in a criminal trial. Would we not have to conclude that circumstances would exist in which part 4 needed to remain? The alternative would be to release those individuals.
David Davis: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has restated my view. I made the point about 14 cases. Although this depends on something of which I am not certain—the level of evidence on which the Home Secretary's judgment is based the Home Secretary said earlier that he set higher hurdles than would apply in a normal court case. If that is true, that should resolve the issue for all 14.
Mr.Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend remind himself, however, that at the end of the day what the Home Secretary is considering is information given to him by the intelligence services? The truth is that they are often wrong, and they were desperately wrong about Iraq. I am very uncomfortable about people being deprived of their liberty on the basis of intelligence information that will always be uncertain and will never be the subject of any certain verification.
David Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. He and I have both been recipients of such information with respect to Iraq in our previous
316
incarnations, and I suspect that we both saw the errors along the way. That is why a judicial process—a process of justice—is a better process. That is why there should be a process of challenge. That is why the Newton committee's proposal of an examining magistrate, which allows the examining magistrate, as I understand it, to establish not just when there is incriminating evidence but when there is exculpatory evidence— the very reason lawyers are usually allowed to forage among the evidence—is an important addition. If that could be put in place, it would be an excellent replacement for part 4.
Mr. Blunkett: I merely seek clarification. Obviously the Butler committee will do its work in relation to Iraq. As for the intervention from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the intelligence services, I want to make it entirely clear that we have absolute confidence in the Security Service. We also believe that following the establishment of the joint terrorism and analysis centre, which will be led by the Security Service, the pulling together of information from the Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ and the Defence Intelligence Staff will be undertaken in a way that all of us will feel able to support.
David Davis: The Home Secretary knows full well that, like the other Members who have intervened so far, I am a great supporter of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ. We also know, however, that owing to the difficulties involved in gathering intelligence it is sometimes unreliable, and may not be sufficient to persuade someone beyond reasonable doubt. That is part of the whole question of challenge that we are discussing.
This is not an attack on the integrity of any of the intelligence-gathering services. It is simply a recognition of what they know to be a practical problem, and indeed a reflection of advice that virtually all of them have given me in the past, during my time as a Minister.
Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend raised the issue of what was in the Home Secretary's mind. The Civil Contingencies Bill simply states that what the Home Secretary thinks must be so, but in this context there is no doubt that in issuing a certificate he must have regard to the reasonableness of the judgment that he forms about whether a person's presence is a risk to national security, and to whether he reasonably suspects that the person is a terrorist That is subject only to two qualifications in relation to sections 25 and 26 of the 2001 Act. The decision can be questioned in court, and the issue of reasonableness on the part of the Home Secretary is then taken into account. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the imposition of certain conditions, there is a means whereby there can be a proper challenge to what the Home Secretary does?
David Davis: I ant sure that my hon. Friend's interpretation is correct, but it does not meet the requirements for a just process overall that we have been discussing today. Thai is the point that the committee was making.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: As I may owe my life to intelligence that was relevant when I was a Northern

317
Ireland Minister, I start with a presupposition in favour of the intelligence services. Having declared that interest, let me say that my right hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the fundamental quandaries. It is a question of how to verify intelligence, and how to verify the claim that to reveal intelligence is to undermine the safety of the state. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use the consultation period to enable my party to come up with constructive suggestions of ways in which those two issues can be addressed that meet the standards that we all want to apply. If it cannot do so, and the Government cannot do so, we hall remain in that quandary for years.
David Davis: That is true, and the difficulty is made much more acute by the consequences of error. When my right hon. Friend was dealing in a highly effective way, with terrorism in Northern Ireland, even the worst of the events there did not compare with those of 11 September.
Let me repeat what I said earlier When I first read the committee's proposal for an examining magistrate, I did not react very well. I do not like the continental procedures for most aspects of the judicial process. It struck me, however, that the committee had hit on something that would allow justice for the victim, verification and a firewall that would enable evidence that could not otherwise be used to be brought into play. That is a very good idea, which we will build on during this consultation process to meet the requirement that my right hon. Friend mentions.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Of course, the so-called evidence is factual assertion made by the security services, either to the Home Secretary or subsequently to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that here in lies the root of the problem with SIAC? It Is not a court, and the rules that govern it mean that documentation and evidence given to it by the Home Secretary or by the security services is, by definition, cherry-picked. SIAC's rules do not require that all flit evidence be placed before it, so what it is getting is a selective version of that evidence. Is that not an intrinsic problem in itself, and an affront to the principle of justice? Unless SIAC can weigh all the evidence, it is impossible for it to see the whole picture.
David Davis: The hon. and learned Gentleman is exactly right, which is why part 4 of the 2001 Act would not be justified under any circumstances other than the asymmetric outcome of getting wrong. On the one hand, getting it wrong means an injustice to one person, which is dreadful. Indeed, at one point, I intervened on the Home Secretary from a sedentary position to point out that one error is too many, but getting it wrong the other way could mean the loss of many thousands of lives, as we have seen in recent times.
Vera Baird: The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of forgetting—as is my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) —that hearsay has been admissible in ordinary criminal trials since the introduction of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Indeed, the Opposition supported that aspect of the legislation with reasonable enthusiasm. Hearsay is
318
Second-hand, third-hand or written material that can now be put into an ordinary criminal trial, but which previously had to be given by oral testimony. In talking about intelligence, are we really talking about matters that are so far away from that principle, which the right hon. Gentleman regards as an acceptable part of the criminal process? I do not think that we are.
David Davis: The hon. and learned Lady's point was, I think, answered by the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), which dealt with the whole question of verification. We are talking, in effect, about sentencing people for life—or as close to a life sentence as one can ever have—so verification is vital. Unlike the hon. and learned Lady, I am not a lawyer, but the principles of the assumption of innocence, and of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, are central to my belief in the law. That is why I consider part 4 of the 2001 Act to be an unacceptable infringement of civil liberties, under any circumstances other than those that currently apply.
Mr.Kevin McNam rose—
David Davis: I have taken quite a lot of interventions, so if I may I shall move on to one other aspect of this controversial section. The Committee made other suggestions that could help to bring about more terrorist prosecutions. On terrorism as an aggravating factor, paragraph 218 of the report states that
"it might be feasible to:
a. define a set of offences which are characteristic of terrorism and for which it should be possible to prosecute without relying on sensitive material, but
b. raise the potential penalty where it can be established that there are links with terrorism."
The Home Secretary said:
"There are already a wide range of criminal and terrorist offences that can be used to bring prosecutions. The Government is considering whether further offences should be introduced".
Senior police officers have told us that there are gaps in the law that create problems for them in their pursuit of terrorism—lacunae in the conspiracy law, for example. When the Minister winds up, I should like her to say when we are likely to see proposals in this area.
On plea-bargaining, the document published this morning states that there might be
"particular merit in terrorism cases in giving the suspect greater certainty of outcome in the event of co-operation by establishing a sentencing framework within which the accused may be sure of securing a reduced sentence in return for co-operation".
In their response, the Government say:
"It is customary for timely guilty pleas to receive recognition in the form of a reduction in sentence".
But plea-bargaining also relates to the defendant's giving evidence to convict other terrorists and to prevent other atrocities. Here, there would be clear problems over witness credibility, but it may nevertheless be a worthwhile tool. I would be grateful if the Minister expanded on the Government's view when she winds up.
I should like to raise a couple of matters that the Home Secretary has spoken about in recent weeks, but did not mention today. In his usual high-profile way, he has recently floated several ideas, including lowering the

319
burden of proof, trying terrorist cases without juries, using security-vetted judges and counsel, and holding entire trials in secret. Frankly, it is an extraordinary raft of ideas, and although we will examine the fine details of the Home Secretary's proposals, he should be aware of the Opposition's reservations at this stage.
In our view, it is not only highly dangerous, but totally illogical to move towards lowering the burden of proof for the most serious offences. That would be a deviation too far from the ordinary criminal law. The Home Secretary has made it clear that that is not his intention, which we welcome, but we need to know more about what he means by applying civil orders to those associated with the fringes of terrorism before we make a considered response.
It would also be helpful if the Home Secretary clarified more about his motivation in bringing forward these ideas at this particular time. Is he saying that the Government have intelligence about large numbers of people who are planning terrorist activities but against whom it is impossible to act? We know from our experience in Northern Ireland about the frustration experienced when known terrorists walk free because of the inadmissibility of intelligence in court, but that should not plunge us into making bad law that overturns centuries of established legal process.
The same applies to secret trials. If public confidence in the criminal justice system is desirable, and if it is to be maintained, as much of a trial as possible should be held in open court. That has always been the case, even under Diplock in Northern Ireland, where parts of trials could be held in camera when necessary. On single judge courts, is the Home Secretary really saying that jury intimidation in al-Qaeda cases is on the same scale as resulted in Diplock operating for 30 years in Northern Ireland? I do not believe so, and we will need some thorough convincing before following the Home Secretary down that path.
The powers that the House is examining today are exceptional, as has been apparent from several discussions. Under normal circumstances, many of those powers would not even be contemplated, let alone approved by the House. Regrettably, the threat of terrorism dictates that some are necessary. I agree with the Home Secretary that, without the powers of the 2001 Act, our defences against international terrorism would be severely weakened. For that reason, despite our reservations about part 4, we support the continuance of the Act. However, we call on the Home Secretary to return to the questions raised about part 4 and to review very carefully whether changes in evidence could allow him to replace what is effectively internment with a proper process of justice.
2.47 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: As one of the Privy Councillors who sat on the Newton committee, I welcome the opportunity that the debate provides for a serious discussion about the difficult issues raised by the Act. I also welcome the consultation that the Government have put in motion, but I am disappointed that they have rejected so conclusively the recommendations that we made in the
320
Report—reiterated today—about part 4. The Government are almost pre-empting, in what they have said, the outcome of the consultation. Over the course of the next six months—from today and over the consultation period—I hope that we can give serious consideration to the criticisms levelled by the Newton committee and its suggestions for possible alternatives.
Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his point is reinforced by the fact that the Joint Committee on Human Rights shares the views of the Newton committee?
Mr. Smith: There Ire many voices to be listened to—in both Houses and among the wider public—on the issue, and I hope that the Government will be in listening mode rather than made-up-their-mind mode during the consultation period.
It is difficult to balance the competing and crucially important issues that face any Government in these circumstances. On the one hand, there is the need to protect public security; on the other, the need to safeguard the civil liberties of the individual. Both duties are incumbent on any Government. When there is the potential for those two requirements to collide, Governments face a difficult task. They must try to find the solution that preserves the most of each of those principles, and that is the task that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary must undertake.
I want to concentrate on part 4 of the 2001 Act. As it stands, it is not satisfactory. Members of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee included dyed-in-wool Islington libertarians like me, and others of a rather different provenance, such as the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney). However, our conclusions about part 4 were unanimous.
The Committee identified a number of problems. First, and most importantly, it offends against every principle of liberty and justice on which our democracy is founded to detain people in this country. potentially indefinitely and without specific charge or proper trial. That is true regardless of who they are or where they come from. If it is at all possible to find another way to address these serious issues and difficulties, we should strive as hard as we n to find it. Simply dismissing out of hand the recommendations of the Newton committee does not amount to the strenuous work that is needed.
Secondly, the existence of part 4 required a derogation from the European convention on human rights. It is noteworthy that, in putting together our response to terrorism, we are the only country in Europe to have sought such a derogation. Other European nations have found robust responses to the problems of terrorism. Rightly, they are as exercised as we are about the dangers of terrorism, but they have not needed the same derogation.
Vera Baird: I hope that my right hon. Friend is not making a false point. No other country has derogated, but high-ranking lawyers have suggested that the French terrorist measures in particular are in breach of the convention.
Mr. Smith: My hon. and learned Friend tempts me to say that some of our F U partners uphold the principles

321
of the convention and other provisions more in name than in reality. However, it remains the case the UK has actively sought a derogation. I believe that, if at all possible, we should try to avoid doing so.
Thirdly, part 4 uses what is effectively an immigration procedure to answer a terrorism problem. I believe that we ought to answer terrorism problems through the action of the criminal law, and if necessary with specialist terrorist measures. We should not spatchcock into the procedure measures supposedly prepared in response to immigration issues.
The Privy Counsellor Review Committee also identified the central problem that the procedures under part 4 apply only to foreign nationals suspected of being connected with al-Qaeda and associated organisations, and not to UK nationals. However, the committee received evidence that about half of all those suspected of terrorist activity in this country are UK nationals. We should be trying to address those issues every bit as actively as those relating to foreign nationals.
I hasten to add that the evidence received by the committee showed, without a shad 3w of doubt, that the Home Secretary has applied the procedures under part 4 conscientiously, assiduously and with the utmost care. It is important to put that firmly on the record. However, those procedures and the principles behind them are deeply flawed and they are not wholly effective.
In our report, we propose a range of alternatives. I readily acknowledge that none of those alternatives is, by itself, a solution. Indeed, we should not be looking for a single alternative solution to part 4. The committee has tried to put together a range of measures that might add up to an answer. There could be other options that it was not possible for us as a committee to imagine or consider, but that the Home Secretary and the Home Office really should be consideration during the next six months. Simply to say that there is no alternative to part 4 is not enough.
Several of the options that we proposed have already been mentioned during the debate, but I should like to highlight a few of them. The first is the removal of the blanket ban on the use of intercept evidence in open court. In the United States, that happens as a matter of course. Indeed, there have been some successful prosecutions of terrorist associates in the US on the basis of intercept evidence acquired not just by the US intelligence services but by foreign intelligence services. That evidence was used in the US court system and there is no reason that we should not begin to go down that road.
In the paper that the Government issued this morning, they say that they are reviewing the matter, but they have been reviewing it for years and it is about time that we came to a conclusion and decided that intercept evidence can be used. It does not have to be used—it would be entirely up to the prosecuting authorities to decide whether to use it—but it could be used in court.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Can the tight hon. Gentleman help me? My recollection is that we were given evidence
322
that although British intercept evidence has not been used in British court cases it has already been used in a French court case. Is my memory right?
Mr. Smith: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct, although I am struggling with my own memory about that point, but I recall that it was mentioned to the committee.
David Davis: I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his part in the production of the report. When he was looking at the American use of intercept evidence, could he identify any major differences in law—other than the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which we should have to amend—that made it easier to use such evidence in the US than in this country?
Mr. Smith: Not that I am aware of; indeed, it seemed to us that the factors preventing the use of such evidence in our courts, rather than being legal issues, were more to do with process and organisation.
The committee made other suggestions. Much reference has been made to our proposal that an investigating judge system could be used to sift sensitive evidence before a matter is brought to trial. We believe that such a procedure could help the whole process. It could help to establish the validity of a case; indeed, establishing that something could be brought into the open could assist the intelligence authorities to make judgments about whether such evidence could be produced, and so forth. That could be a very helpful element in the process.
We also suggested that the Government could consider the use of prosecution for other offences that the courts could view as aggravated ones when sentencing in relation to terrorism. Again, that has been successful in the United States where the use of racketeering legislation has been effective. We proposed that more formal use should be made of plea-bargaining. I urge the Government to go beyond the notion of simply an admission of guilt producing a lighter sentence, because many other ways of cooperating could be encouraged, particularly in relation to terrorism offences. Such arrangements need to be put to much greater use.
We proposed a much greater use of surveillance. Of course I appreciate that close surveillance will require substantial increases in resources; I am very pleased that the Government are putting extra resources into the intelligence services, the staffing of MI5 and enhancing certain police provision. Rather than simply prosecuting people and locking them up, we should, as an alternative, maintain close and effective surveillance. That option seems not only desirable as a means of avoiding incarceration without trial, but it may be more sensible in countering terrorism.
The FBI told us very openly when we were in Washington that, in many cases, it prefers to keep people under watch than to take them in and lock them up because it finds out a lot more about their intentions and those of their organisations by watching them, keeping them under surveillance, following them and knowing what they are planning to do. We ought to think seriously about that as well.
Mr. McNamara: May I refer my right hon. Friend back to his statement about the number of British

323
subjects who are likely to be involved in terrorism? Was he given any information about the degree of surveillance over them and the methods being adopted by the security services? If that surveillance is going on, it powerfully strengthens his present argument.
Mr.Smith: Of course I am not at liberty to reveal all the evidence that we saw; but, yes, considerable surveillance activity is indeed taking place, and rightly so. Irrespective of whether someone is a British citizen or a foreign national, one of the basic principles should be that the protection that we as a society need should be the same whoever happens to pose the threat.
Finally, we also proposed restricting suspected individuals' access to bank accounts, telephone communications and so on as a means of providing some protection for society without denying those individuals their total liberty as part 4 does.
I am very glad that the Home Secretary has said that he will consider many of the Newton committee's recommendations, but I plead with him to show at least some concern about the central issue in relation to part 4: its fundamental overturn of a central principle on which the stability and liberty of our society is based. If it is at all possible to identify not just one alternative but a range of alternatives that, taken together, can provide something better for our society, it is surely incumbent on the House to try to find them.
3.4 pm
Mr.Mark Oaten: I beg to move, To leave out from—House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead there of:
"welcomes the Privy Counsellor Review Committee Report on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; and calls upon the Government to act on the Committee's recommendation to repeal Part 4 of the Act and replace it with alternative provisions for monitoring and prosecuting suspected terrorists which do not require the suspension of basic human rights."
Liberal Democrat Members acknowledge that the Home Secretary has an incredible responsibility for the whole country in ensuring that the provisions in law that he introduces protect us all as citizens. In tabling the amendment, we in no way wish to suggest that he is not fulfilling that responsibility properly. That is a big burden on a Home Secretary, who has to make difficult and complex judgments. I believe that the current Home Secretary does so with a great deal of care. I hope, however, that he will acknowledge in return that Opposition Members have a responsibility to probe and to test the Government on these issues.
It was with that in mind that we tabled the amendment. We believe that, as the report says, a balance has to be struck between the Home Secretary's need to ensure that he protects us, as citizens, from terror, and the need to ensure that we have good, proper principles of justice that protect the privacy and liberty of individuals. We wish to explore the latter aspect of that balance. In doing so, however, I state for the record that we all have to make difficult judgments, especially the Home Secretary. If an incident were to occur, the Home Secretary would obviously be responsible for taking on that burden.
324
The report is excellent and helps us to deal with those difficult balances. I pay tribute to the Privy Councillors who came together on a cross-party basis to put forward its recommendations. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), so I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will be able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We welcome the tone used by the Home Secretary this afternoon and the language used in the discussion paper that he launched this morning. I welcome the suggestion that there should be a six-month review of these measures. If I had known that yesterday, we might have taken a slightly different view of whether we wished to table an amendment because the point of it was to tell the Home Secretary that it was unacceptable to continue to implement these measures without undertaking a more urgent review By introducing the six-month review, the Home Secretary shows that he recognises, to some extent, that a more urgent response is required than merely noting the contents of the Privy Councillors' report. as the Government's motion suggests.
The timing of the debate is appropriate, not only because of tomorrow's debate on the statutory instrument that takes the measure forward, but because, following the recent events in Camp Delta, there has again been a focus on the principle of holding individuals without charge. There should be no possibility of a similar situation in this country. Of course, I accept that there are different technical circumstances, but the underlying principle is the same.
Although Parliament debated these systems and structures two years ago, and they have been in place since then, we face the same threatening situation. I do not buy the argument that things have moved on and there is less of a threat now than there was then. Although there has not been an atrocity in recent months, that does not mean for one minute that we do not still live in an extremely difficult situation. The Home Secretary knows about that threat better than anyone else.
Last year, Liberal Democrat Members decided not to vote against the provision to continue part 4, because there was a tense situation and no alternatives had been proposed. However, we judge that now the time is right to address these issues. Tomorrow, when the statutory instrument is debated in Committee, we will oppose the Government's plans.
The Newton report's recommendations on part 4 are important, because there are several key reasons why it is time to look at it again. We should remind ourselves that we are the only European country that has sought a derogation from that part of the European convention. I accept the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) that other countries may be sailing close to the wind, but their behaviour could be challenged. If the French fell foul of the convention, somebody could mount a challenge. However, we remain the only country that has sought a derogation and kept it in place.
Vera Baird: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the derogation is repeatedly subject to challenge in the British courts. That is partly the basis of

325
assault on it at SIAC and in the Court of Appeal, and no doubt that will be the case in the H)use of Lords. There is an opportunity to challenge the derogation.
Mr.Oaten: I accept the hon. and learned Lady's point, but individuals in other European countries have an opportunity to make a challenge.
The recommendations in the Privy Council report provide an opportunity to look again at whether we want to retain part 4 of the 2001 Act. The Privy Councillors' language is not mild. They recommend things strongly and say that they are deeply concerned. I hope that the Home Secretary accepts the general principle that if one establishes a set of individuals to review a system, there is a serious obligation to listen to their findings. The period of time for which the measures have been in place is another reason why there should be a review.
First, it is not right to hold individuals indefinitely without any idea of what their Ione-term prospects are. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed highlighted a second reason why time is a critical consideration. We do not know when the war on terrorism will be over, and have introduced temporary measures to tackle a situation that we may have assumed after 11 September was temporary. However, it has become clear that it is not, so we surely need more permanent solutions to tackle a situation that, I suspect, we will have to live with for many years to come.
The third reason why it is appropriate to look at part 4 now is the growing evidence of some of the tensions that it is causing among the Muslim population in this country. If they feel that the rights of fellow Muslims are less important, the good will and community relations that we need to continue building in those groups will surely be undermined. I do not necessarily share his sentiments, but the president of the Muslim Association of Britain said:
"This legislation will only lead to a society that is divided, shattered, rife with hatred, heaving with racism, with no promise of a prosperous future".
I do not believe that that is an entirely accurate view of the consequences of the legislation, but we must acknowledge that many member, of that community share that sentiment.
Having set out my arguments for reviewing and removing part 4, the Home Secretary would be right to ask me and others what we would do, as we have to be responsible about these issues. There are two problems in answering that honestly and with clarity, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice find Howden (David Davis) suggested. I do not know the detailed circumstances of the individuals who are currently being held. I can offer a range of suggestions, and endorse and support the recommendations of the Newton committee, but for some individuals held in Belmarsh, surveillance, tagging and intercepts would not be adequate. If, for example, there were any evidence or suggestion that one of them was determined to take part in a suicide attack, I acknowledge that some of my suggestions would not deal adequately with such a threat. Without knowledge of individual cases, I accept that it is difficult to produce alternative solutions.
The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury touched on the fact that no single measure could deal with all the cases—a package of measures
326
must be put in place. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) was right to ask the Conservative spokesman, "What if intercepted communications deal with only seven of the cases?" That is a problem and a contradiction, but perhaps I can respond by saying that the other seven cases may be tackled by better surveillance and that different techniques, including some of the measures that the Newton committee suggested, would serve for different individuals who are currently being held. However, I revert to the fundamental point that, without knowing the individual cases, it is difficult to ascertain the measures that would work in each case.
Let us consider the Newton report. Before we examine the detail of new technology and surveillance, one recommendation has not been mentioned enough: making more use of the existing, normal criminal justice system. The report referred to the case in January 2002 of two Algerians who were charged with membership of al-Qaeda. The charge was dropped before trial but, a year later, they were both jailed for 11 years after being found guilty of raising cash for terrorism. That made them the first people with suspected al-Qaeda links to be imprisoned in Britain. The case shows that existing criminal law may afford opportunities to succeed in getting prosecutions. If a lower charge made it possible to convict, sentence and imprison an individual, that would be preferable to detaining someone without charge for a more serious crime.
Mr.Hogg: One of the mischiefs of the power to detain under part 4 as it stands is that it removes the incentive for the prosecution authorities to strive strenuously to bring a prosecution in conventional terms.
Mr.Oaten: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an excellent point, which reverts to the question whether our starting point should be ascertaining whether we can find another form of crime that would lead to a satisfactory prison sentence and thus provide the necessary security against any terror threat. I hope that the Home Secretary will acknowledge that that should be the starting point, and not seeking a different sort of prosecution that will be difficult to achieve. In the case of the 14 individuals who are being held, I hope that every effort has been made to find another way of detaining them on full charge.
Let us consider intercepted communications and relaxing their blanket use. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that have been presented, but I hope that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration will provide some clarification about what appears to be an ongoing review. The Government seem to have committed themselves in the past to a review of the blanket ban. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the review will be completed at the same time as the six-month review of the Newton report that the Home Secretary mentioned. Logic suggests that the two have to happen together because the use of intercepted communications is a critical way forward. It would be a pity if the reviews were not completed at the same time.
Liberal Democrat Members are more than happy to accept that, although the use of surveillance, technology and intercepted communications is not ideal, it is preferable to some of what the Home Secretary raised in connection with his trip to India and Pakistan. I want to

327
deal with that later. However, in the fight against terrorism, Liberal Democrats prefer the route that makes use of every form of technology available to achieve a good conviction to meddling with and changing the principles of our constitution and justice. We must get that the right way round. We therefore strongly support the Government's relaxing of the blanket ban.
I accept the Home Secretary's arguments that the matter is not as simple as it sounds and that using the information entails a danger of revealing the sources and the evidence. However, the Newton report states that the Government have currently got the balance wrong. It states that it has not been struck in the right place if intercepted communications can never be used evidentially. Much more could be done on that.
Vera Baird: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he know that, in court cases in the UK, frequent use is made of foreign phone taps, which are admitted not daily, but certainly on a weekly basis? Shortly before I entered the House, I worked on a case concerning an Anglo-Dutch drug ring in which phones had undoubtedly been intercepted at both ends, but the English intercept could not be used while the Dutch intercept could. The Dutch police had no worries about disclosing their operational methodology-the defence expert was allowed to examine the machinery used to make an intercept.
Mr. Oaten: The hon. and learned Lady makes a powerful point. The world is moving forward quickly and, as she has already pointed out, we are not that far away from making progress. The Newton report contains a couple of suggestions about how we can protect sources for evidence-for example, the use of special advocates or, as is the case in France, a judge who can access the information. There are ways forward, and we hope that the Home Secretary will address the issue sooner rather than later.
On surveillance, it is bizarre to suggest that some of those individuals should be tagged and, if there were a genuine fear of terrorism. I acknowledge that it would not be sufficient for them to pop into a police station every now and then. With the available technology and the increased resources announced by the Home Secretary—I accept that he cannot clarify whether they have already been put in place or are for the future—sufficient surveillance staff should be available to MI5.
Surveillance is a powerful tool not only in obtaining evidence to achieve a prosecution but in preventing terrorism. It is also a powerful tool because we could release some of the individuals whom we hold and place them under surveillance. A surveillance package that examines not only tagging but all the technology—I accept that it is expensive and time-consuming—would be a sensible way forward. I hope that the Home Secretary will carefully examine how to implement more surveillance. However, surveillance would not be sufficient to tackle the threat of a suicide attack, if it exists.
I conclude by touching on some issues that I am surprised the Home Secretary has not raised today, because journalists such as Alan Travis from The
328
Guardian raised them with him when he was in India and Pakistan. Those issues greatly concern Liberal Democrat Members and the legal profession, and it would be helpful to get rid of some them here and now and take them off thy: agenda.
Lowering the standard of proof is a matter for considerable concern As I said earlier, Liberal Democrat Members say yes to new technology and new forms of evidence collection, but we have serious concerns about examining the lowering of the standard of proof. The standard of proof has already been lowered in such cases in relation to "reasonable suspicion" and "reasonable belief". Although I accept that the Home Secretary has gone to some lengths in addressing the matter, we would be concerned if he went further. Can he confirm that his six-month review will not examine reducing the standard of proof? It looks like the review will cover that point, because he is not intervening.
Mr.Blunkett: I am waiting for the hon. Gentleman to finish.
Mr.Oaten: I also hope that the Home Secretary can clarify his thinking on security-vetted judges and trials by judges alone. Again, Liberal Democrat Members are concerned about breaking into long-held establishments.
Finally—I touched on this point in an earlier intervention on the Home Secretary Liberal Democrat Members support the move to strengthen our intelligence services, which do a valuable job and play a valuable role. Without prejudging the Butler report, we may discover that the intelligence services have been undervalued and under-resourced and that they have not received the proper technology in previous years.
Without prejudging that report, I hope that the Home Secretary's announcement that staffing up is taking place is an acknowledgement that one way to tackle the terror threat is to make sure that we have the necessary resources and the skills of individuals on the ground. Perhaps the Minister can comment on the difficulty of making sure that we recruit from the right communities, because intelligence about making sure that we can talk to and be invited in, for example, Muslim communities in this country. That is complex and difficult. I hope that when we look at staffing up and resourcing, we shall have in mind in particular the ability to talk to those individual communities.
Mr. Blunkett: I was waiting to intervene until we had coalesced around the New Delhi speech.
I can confirm that it is not my intention to lower the standard of proof in criminal cases. I cannot confirm that it is not our position that there will be times when a judge sitting alone will he appropriate in cases in which the jury may well be under more than intimidation. I do not accept that, as we said earlier, juries are not under threat from al-Qaeda. They are under very considerable threat.
Mr.Oaten: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for clarity on that matter. His first answer gave me some comfort. His second just raised a further question. At the height of some situations in Northern Ireland with

329
regard to the IRA, it was not the case that juries felt under particular threat. While then may be a perception among some individuals that there is more of a concern about al-Qaeda, the Home Secretary will have to make a strong case about why the circumstances are different from those in some of the trials in relation to Northern Ireland.
I conclude by reiterating from these Benches our strong support for the Home Secretary in a difficult job. Our solution is to look at ways to improve the ability to achieve a successful prosecution. We much prefer that route to taking away some of the pillars of the establishment that have protected justice in this country for so many years.
We welcome the review that the Home Secretary has put in place, and we hope that ill six months he will announce that he is in a position to abolish part 4, but we shall seek to divide the House because we feel that the issue has gone on for too long an o needs to be brought to a head.
3.27 pm
Mr.John Denham: I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the way in which he introduced the debate and for moving it forward.
I should perhaps begin by declaring, if not an interest, at least culpability with regard to the legislation that we are considering, because I was a I Home Office Minister when it was introduced. I shall support its renewal, because I believe that maintaining part 4 is necessary. I reached that conclusion more by a process of elimination than from a fundamental point of principle—by looking at the other options available and concluding that there would be circumstances in which part 4 was necessary.
While I agree that it is desirable to minimise the use of part 4, I cannot go as far as the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who loads for the Liberal Democrats in this matter. He starts by aiming for its abolition and works backwards from there, whereas I start from the other end of the discussion. I shall say a little more about the reason in a moment.
The whole tone of today's debate is remarkably different from that of the debate when the Act was passed. That is very useful, because at that time our dialogue did not meet in the middle. On the one hand, it was driven by people, including Home Office Ministers, who were desperately concerned to put in place measures to deal with a serious and, as we saw it then, long-lasting terrorist threat. On the other hand, there were people in and around this place—I exclude many of the hon. Members who have spoken today—who did not entirely accept that there was a long-term, almost semi-permanent state of threat and who argued from the position that any diminution of oar traditional liberties was bound to be wrong, no matter what was necessary to meet the terrorist threat.
Not least due to the intervention of Lord Newton and Lord Carlile and those whom they worked with, as well as the way in which my right hon. Friend has addressed us this afternoon, the debate is now moving on. It is
330
much more centred on what needs to be done to meet the terrorist threat while protecting civil liberties wherever possible.
Jeremy Corbyn: Has my right hon. Friend or the Select Committee on Home Affairs given any consideration to the dangers of miscarriages of justice being perpetrated at six-monthly intervals by constant renewals of detention orders because of the lack of transparency in the legal process?
Mr.Denham: The straightforward answer is that the Home Affairs Committee has not examined that issue during my period of chairmanship. One of the reasons why part 4 is not an ideal piece of legislation is because it clearly carries some risk. As I shall say at greater length in a moment, I have reached the view that part 4 is currently necessary by a process of elimination because there are some circumstances in which no other satisfactory option seems to be available.
Mr.Hogg: Has not the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) made a serious point? If the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) reads paragraph 200 of the Newton report, he will find that the committee expresses great concern about the fact that there is no continuing supervision of each case to determine whether continued detention is just. In other words, Lord Newton says that injustices are now taking place.
Mr.Denham: I am not entirely sure that Lord Newton was saying that injustices are now taking place: he and his colleagues were clearly highlighting a concern about the operation of part 4. The Government should properly take that worry into account during their review of part 4, and many other elements of Lord Newton's report should be discussed seriously.
I take the view, not least because of the changed nature of the debate, that the 2001 Act might not be the last word on the anti-terrorism legislation that we need, so I look forward to the debate that will take place over the next six months. I also believe that it is right to consider such legislation alongside the proposed review of serious crime legislation. It is central to British policing practice that terrorism is first and foremost a crime, so it would not be right to separate the two pieces of legislation entirely—I am glad that that will not happen.
On part 4 itself, we must take seriously the recommendation on the use of intercept information. I would go further and ask the Minister to consider in the review whether other elements of information that come from the security services could be used to support criminal prosecutions in some circumstances, although I understand the deep-seated cultural reluctance to do that. I share the huge respect that other hon. Members have for the security services, but the truth is that the nature of security services information varies from that received from highly placed sources who really know what they are talking about to recycled press cuttings and marketplace gossip. There might be certain types of information that could be used to support prosecutions, even though I accept that there must be a central defence of the integrity of the security services.

331
It is worth exploring the idea of the investigating magistrate, as it has been called in the debate. The Home Secretary is right to say that that procedure would not solve the problem of a criminal case in which very sensitive information would be shared with the defence. That is one reason for concluding that part 4 will always be necessary in some circumstances. However, a filtering of the process—there might be advantages of taking all the onus of responsibility off the Home Secretary and putting it on to a judicial figure-is certainly worth debating over the months ahead. I have not taken a firm view on that matter, but we should consider it.
I want to make a couple of remarks about the broader political context in which we are discussing the legislation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave a robust response to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit æpik), who asked about the politics behind the terrorist movement. Morally speaking, I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend's outright condemnation of suicide bombing. However, I am not sure that that is the right basis on which we should plan our anti-terrorism strategy and introduce anti-terrorism legislation.
What I shall now say will be brief. Several right hon. and hon. Members know more about the subject than I do, so I apologise if it is far too crude. Europe has experienced two types of terrorism over the past 20 or 30 years—prior to the current threat. We have had, in the form of Baader-Meinhof or the Red Brigades, terrorist organisations that had essentially no social base whatever. They may have had a loose network of supporters, but they represented very little in the way of popular social movements in their countries. We have had in Northern Ireland and the Basque country terrorist organisations that—whether we like it or not have reflected broad social movements, to the extent to which people who would never dream of committing a terrorist act have none the less voted for political parties that shared the same political objectives as the terrorists. We have dealt with the terrorism of Baader-Meinhof and the Red Brigades by policing and security measures. In the case of terrorists with a social base, we have required political solutions alongside the policing and security measures.
It is difficult to assess the nature of al-Qaeda globally, but I fear that part of the international strategy against al-Qaeda—particularly the way that the Americans describe it—treats it as though it is some sort of global Baader-Meinhof. It treats it as a network of people who have no social base and no social support, rather than as a network of people who—whether we like it or not reflect a view of the world that is shared by people who are sympathetic to its objectives, if not its methods. If I am right, it is true that we will not be entirely secure from that type of terrorism until some of the underlying political issues have been successfully addressed. We need to take that into account when we consider counter-terrorism strategy in this country.
The aspect of the commentary that the Home Secretary has published today from which I take most pleasure is his conclusion, which I am sure is based on good intelligence advice, that by far the greatest threat in this country at the moment is from foreign rather than British nationals. One of our fundamental aims must be
332
to keep it that way. Those of us who work well with the Muslim community. or like to feel that we do, know that there are people in the Muslim community who would never have anything to do with terrorism but who share the global view of the injustices, as they see it, that have been done to Muslin is around the world. They reject the way in which they believe the west has handled these issues in the past. That view exists and is expressed. It is among that group of people that those who might raise funds, win moral support and even recruit for al-Qaeda will seek to work.
It must be central to our strategy and to everything that we do—it must be the bedrock of our real security—that we en sure that we do everything possible to enable the great Muslim majority who reject terrorism to isolate those who wish to advocate al-Qaeda's approach to problems. Equally, we must try to persuade those who hold a different world view that, although it is perfectly proper for them to propagate it, it is not in their interests to pursue it through any form of support for terrorism.
If that is right, a number of conclusions can be drawn on how the Government need to conduct the debate over the next six months. The first obvious point is for those who have suggested that the right way to deal with part 4 is to apply it equally to the British community. We must make it clear that that would be a fatal mistake. It would mean applying detention laws not to the British population in general but—because part 4 applies only to al-Qaeda—to the British Muslim population alone. The counter-productive effects of that would be absolutely disastrous.
We must also have a detailed dialogue with the Muslim community about some of the other proposals that the Home Secretary has, quite understandably, floated today. I refer to the proposals for crimes of association with the wrong type of people and, if I have understood it, the idea that someone who is done for credit card fraud might have their sentence bumped up because of secret information that they are involved in terrorism. Such proposals might be counterproductive if they are not fully understood and supported by people in the Muslim community, who must be convinced that they are necessary in helping them to isolate those who would like to argue the case for terrorism.
We must take discussions forward in the next six months with enormous sensitivity. We must have effective security and intelligence, and good policing. However, our greatest bulwark against the type of terrorism that we now face is the support, and active involvement and commitment, of the majority of Muslims in this country, who reject terrorism. They must be brought along side us during the next six months on measures that we discuss in the House, not as an afterthought.
3.40 pm
Sir Brian Mawhinnoy: First, I welcome the fact that we are having this debate. That is not because it reflects the hard work that my colleagues and I put into the report, but because it is on a matter of such fundamental importance to the whole country that ha] there not been a proper debate, people would have been surprised.
I join those who have welcomed the Home Secretary's announcement that he is making more resources available for surveillance and the Secret Service.

333
Perhaps because a majority of m embers of the review committee are former Ministers, and have all had experience of arm-wrestling with the Treasury, we were careful to produce a report that w is not a shopping list of items of huge Government expenditure. Indeed, the only serious expenditure recommendation in the whole report was to spend more money on surveillance, so it is a matter of some satisfaction that the Home Secretary has acted on that.
I welcome the announcement, to my knowledge first trailed by the Minister for Citizen' hip and Immigration on television on Sunday, that there is to be a serious debate. As the Home Secretary said today, to arrive at a point three months before the legislation's end in 2006, and then to wonder what to do, would be an insupportable way of governing We have therefore started a process. I shall return to the reasons for that later in my contribution, but I very much welcome it.
It is also right to start by thanking the Secretary of State. He observed scrupulously the undertaking that he made to the review group at the start of the process that we would have access to whatever material we wished to see, and it is right for those of us who were the beneficiaries of that to acknowledge it on the Floor of the House. I also thank my colleagues on the committee. It was an interesting experience, and a new one for me. I have to say that had I known before we started how hard and long we were going to work, I might have paused before so enthusiastic ally accepting the invitation. However, we not only worked hard; we worked together closely. In that regard, I am sure I am not the only one who wants to thank Angela Harris and those who worked with her. As her colleagues who staffed the committee are active civil servants, I will observe the convention and not mention their names; but I, for one, am extremely grateful to them.
I endorse what has already been repeated on the tone of this debate. Had the review committee not been comprised of old war horses, we might have been tempted ever so slightly to be offended by the Home Secretary's initial reaction when the report was published last December. Happily, we have moved way beyond that point. He has made a constructive contribution in response today and, unlike the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), I think that there is much more room for movement by the Government before the matter is concluded. Considering how far the Home Secretary has moved between December and February. I hold out great hopes that many more of our recommendations will be in legislation before the debate is concluded.
One other point that needs to he made, so I may as well make it, is that we made a conscious judgment that the committee was not an alternative Government. It was not our job to come up with a different, coherent, complete Government policy. That is why we recommended things to consider and suggested matters that should be explored, but stopped very far short of trying to put in place an alternative policy to the Government's. We therefore left ourselves open occasionally to the charge that individual proposals would not meet this or that contingency. That is right, but such matters are nevertheless worth exploring and pursuing.
334
I remind the House, first, that the committee took a unanimous view that this country faces a security threat. So there was no debate about whether security was needed. It is important to stress that. Secondly, there was unanimous agreement that, in those circumstances, unusual impositions on society and individuals are justified for the common good. I flew back overnight from Boston, and perhaps because my mind was partly on this debate, I was impressed by how much we have all adjusted to the current impositions on our aviation travel. They are impositions; such measures were not in place five or 10 years ago, but we accept them because we understand that there are threats that must be taken seriously.
Thirdly, the Committee was unanimous on the business of the use of intercepted communications. The subject has been touched on; indeed, I intervened on the matter earlier. We in the committee were slightly cynical, to be honest, in suspecting that the Government are using the phrase "this policy is being reviewed" as an example of some of the longest grass in politics. The ball needs to be retrieved from that long grass. There is widespread acceptance of the use of such communications. As I am sure the Minister knows, they will be introduced in this country because the Government will reach the point where it will be indefensible not to do so, as they are being used in the rest of the world. I therefore hope that she will take the opportunity of the review to deal with the issue once and for all and to improve our court procedures as a consequence.
There was also a unanimous view that a balance needs to be struck between the security of the nation and the rights of individuals. Indeed, there was a unanimous view that part 4 is neither proportionate nor reasonable, and is not sustainable. I should make it clear, as does the report, that no one is suggesting that the Government should remove part 4 tomorrow, not because the problems with it are not relevant to tomorrow, but because everyone recognises that some framework must be in place and that to leave a massive gap would not be good governance or in the best interests of the nation.
The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to me, and I want to link myself to his remarks—I am sorry that the Home Secretary has left the Chamber. I suspect that there are very few in this House or further afield who would see either of us as what the tabloids would refer to as "bleeding-heart liberals". Come 1 May, I will have spent 25 years in the House defending the principles of the liberal democracy in which I believe. Each one of us has our own additional personal motivation. I suppose that mine springs in part from my Christian faith. The individual in a liberal democracy is important, so a balance must be struck.
What we must not do in a liberal democracy is sink to the level of the terrorist. This Government have faced many difficult issues in Northern Ireland over the past six years. Those are different from the issues that some of us faced when we were Ministers. Too frequently, I stood in front of a barrage of television cameras and radio microphones trying to find the words to condemn the atrocities that were blowing people into eternity, and trying to uphold the principles of our liberal democracy—the rule of law—and the determination to get the perpetrators within the framework of the rule of

335
law. Those of us who were Ministers—and I am sure that it is true in another sense for all Members of Parliament—from time to time are urged to take action that is the equivalent morally of the sort of behaviour that the terrorists pursue. We must therefore find a way to uphold those principles of liberal democracy, and those principles of the rule of law, while at the same time defending the integrity as well as the civil rights and dignity of individuals.
We all understand that the legislation was brought forward in a hurry. There had been no coherent, considered development of a policy to deal with terrorism or the time to translate any such policy into legislation. I see the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), nodding in agreement at that analysis. It is understandable—I have no problem with the fact that the Government introduced legislation in those circumstances, because somewhat ill considered legislation in those circumstances was better than no legislation at all.
Jeremy Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting contribution. In relation to all his dealings in Northern Ireland during the 1980s and 1990s, does he think that the prevention of terrorism Act did much to reduce tensions or was it the two ceasefires and the political process that achieved a modicum of peace in Northern Ireland compared with what went before?
Sir Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will not remember—and I shall not bore the House by going down memory lane—that I was the first Minister who was asked by the Government to explore whether a peace process was possible. In part, that was because I had long advocated the idea that ultimately a solution had to be found in a political context. He should have no doubt, however, that the strength and commitment of the Government to security and trying to offer protection to the people provided an indispensable part of the foundation on which those other political policies emerged. I have no doubt about that whatever.
As I was saying, the legislation was rushed, and was tagged on to immigration legislation—that has been explored in depth, and I do not intend to go any further into it. It differentiates United Kingdom nationals and non-United Kingdom nationals, and deals only with the latter. Evidence to us, however, suggested that perhaps half of those who are in the frame as a matter of concern to the security forces are UK nationals. This legislation provides no ability whatever to deal with them. I understand the point made earlier about not wanting to stigmatise, which I accept, but terrorism legislation, which is supposed to be legislation for the United Kingdom, that does not deal with half of the identified problem is not very impressive.
Thirdly, there is an inherent problem at the heart of the policy—the only solution for non-UK nationals is to get them out of the country. The Home Secretary keeps telling us, however, that we are faced with a global threat. Moving them out of this country to some other country therefore does nothing to resolve the global
336
threat. They may be lust as much of a danger to United Kingdom nationals cut of the country as they would be in the country.
Let me return for a moment to the subject of Northern Ireland. Given parallel issues of this kind, it was recognised in the legal system that change was necessary, and it came in the form of Diplock courts. They broke the rules that were normal, but they did a fundamentally important job. They were not justified on the grounds that the justice they meted out, if judged on the basis of success in the Appeal Court, was at least as good as that provided through the normal jury process; that was not their raison dětre. Their raison dětre was the fact that in circumstances in which it was difficult to do the normal, the Government were so committed to the legal process that they were willing to contemplate the abnormal. That included public interest immunity certificates and the like. I feel that the Government should adopt the same open-ended, open-minded approach today.
Mr.Cash: My right hon. Friend may have noticed that I am troubled by one aspect of the Newton committee's report. I should like to know what he thinks about it. When the Home Secretary has reasonable cause to believe that a person is a suspect, or a terrorist, the courts have the right to adjudicate, subject to conditions that I mentioned earlier. Against the background of the terrorist threat, is that not a reasonable starting point? If we dismiss part 4 as it stands, what will we put in its place?
Sir Brian Mawhinney: I agree that it is a reasonable starting point. As I said earlier, the Government had to produce legislation it a hurry, without having thought the whole process through—and the safeguards written into it are important: my hon. Friend and I agree on that. What I do not find acceptable is the prospect of people spending yea' s and years incarcerated without having any evidence presented to them, and without being given an opportunity to test it in the historic tradition of the United Kingdom. I personally, and the committee generally therefore felt that while the provision was a good starting point, it was not a good finishing point.
Mr.Hogg: Those people will be detained without there being any finding that they have done anything wrong. All that can be said is that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the section 21 criteria have been met. That is different.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Yes, it is different. This is part of the general ambience of concern that led us to make our proposals.
There is another part of the Act that I think Members do not consider as worrying as they ought to. I refer to the wide dissemination of personal information that it allows. All sorts of Government bodies have access to information that many of us here have spent decades trying to prevent them from obtaining—not because we wanted to be awkward, but because we believed that the individual had a right o an element of privacy. I have no time to elaborate on t hat. but I remind the House that the committee unanimously recommended that

337
the Government should legislate to provide independent external oversight of the whole disclosure regime… to provide a safeguard against abuse and to ensure that rigorous procedural standards governing disclosure are applied across the range of public bodies, prosecuting authorities and intelligence and security agencies."
That quote is from the summary in part 3 of the report. I hope that the review will focus on the safeguards that are needed, which leads me to my third concern about this legislation.
The legislation is a rag-bag. Those of us who have been Ministers know that when one arrives in a Department, civil servants—God bless them—reach into their pigeonholes and provide all the legislation that, they say, is absolutely crucial and necessary and must be introduced before Christmas. Indeed, that is what happened in this case. It became known in the Home Office that a Bill was to be introduced, so the terrorist bit got put in, police powers got put in and criminal justice bits got put in. Indeed, everything else bar the kitchen sink got put in, including bits of legislation that had already begin put before, and rejected by, Parliament. However, they were recycled because the supposition was that, given the terrorist nature of the legislation, it would all get through. And of course, that supposition was proved to be right.
My point is an important one. If we are to ask the people of this country to accept certain draconian impositions on their lives and the way in which they live them, such impositions must be linked explicitly to terrorism; they cannot be blinded into all sorts of things. An extremely unfortunate event occurred recently, whereby terrorism legislation was used to disband a perfectly legal demonstration in the City. That is a matter of concern-or at least it ought to be—to Members on both sides of this House. That is why we made such an issue of the mainstreaming of legislation.
I understand the point that he Home Secretary makes—I have been there, done there it and got the T-shirt. There is always a battle each year about which Bills will make it into the Queen's Speech, so no member of the Committee expected the Home Secretary to rip up the entire terrorism Bill and produce new mainstream legislation. But, equally, I hope that the Minister will not use extensively the argument that these issues cannot be addressed because if the pressure on parliamentary time. There is a democratic need to disaggregate police and criminal justice legislation from terrorism legislation.
So that I can be consistent, I should point out that when we debated this legislation on Second Reading and in Committee on the Floor of thy' House, I expressed considerable reservations about the issue of religious hatred as dealt with in part 5.[Interruption.] It is clear that the Minister remembers. We have a unanimous recommendation to which I subscribe, but having listened to the evidence I am no more impressed by the arguments for part 5 than I was when the House first considered them. We heard evidence that at least some in the Muslim community regard part 5 simply as a sop to them. I should point out to tie Government that
338
gesture politics and sops are dangerous things, which is part of the reason why we said that, in future, there should be mainstreaming legislation.
Joyce Quin:rose—
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Are we going to continue our debate?
Joyce Quin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he knows, I took a very different view from him in committee and strongly supported part 5, but I agree that we should welcome what the Home Secretary said today about mainstreaming, and about dealing with these issues on their own merits in an appropriate framework.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: We worked hard to have a unanimous report and we were unanimous on this issue. I would not wish to cause even a ripple to float across the surface of that unanimity, but given that it was my contribution, I suspect, to the Second Reading debate on this subject that got me on to the committee in the first place, I thought it right to reaffirm that I have not changed my personal views, even though I support the committee's recommendation.
So we need new legislation: we need it to be thought through, widely consulted on, coherent and terrorist-based; and we need it to focus on the rights and responsibilities of the individual. If we do so, we will achieve greater public and parliamentary support. We must not sacrifice the right of the individual to accommodate our pre-existing structures. We must start with security and the rights of individuals, and shape our structures and legislation to that end. If we have that mindset, the state is worth defending and the country will be safer.
4.5 pm
David Winnick: The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) made one point to which I should like to respond immediately. He argued that the Act had been wrongly used against protesters and demonstrators—and I could not agree more. There is no justification whatever for the Act to be used against people who are demonstrating and have every right to demonstrate. The police were in the wrong and I hope that there will be no repetition of what occurred.
I shall support the Government tonight in the Division and I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has told the House today. However, I am unhappy—it would be strange if one were not—when people are detained outside the criminal justice system. The rightful position of Parliament is to protect everyone in the country, whether they are citizens of the country, ordinary residents without citizenship or foreign nationals. We believe in the rule of law.
There is, however, a dilemma. It has been said before, and I make no apology for repeating the fact again, that as a democracy we do face a dilemma, because a balance has to be struck between protecting the country and our citizens—the first responsibility of Government and of

339
Parliament itself—and ensuring at the same time that the rule of law applies in the normal way. It is a dilemma, and we are not the only democracy to face it.
Some people writing or broadcasting outside Parliament sometimes convey the impression that we are exaggerating the terrorist danger and that 9/11 was a one-off occurrence in western countries—a point to which I shall return in a few moments.
As we know, when the Act was being passed, fears were expressed that it would lead to a relatively large number of foreign nationals being held in detention, but that is certainly not what has happened. Although it is no consolation to the 14 people who are being held, or to their families, the number affected is very far from the number cited in some of the predictions. Some people have left the United Kingdom; they are all free to go. We know why the 14 cannot leave, but they are free to do so. I do not draw the comparison—some do—between those who are being detained here and the position of people detained by the United States in Cuba. It is very different indeed.
Mr. Hogg: I acknowledge the truth of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am sure that he would want to acknowledge that some of these people have been held for a very long time-in some cases for almost two years.
David Winnick: It is unfortunate. I cannot disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about that. If those people were not guilty, they should have been acquitted. If they were guilty, however, I should of course much prefer them to have been convicted in a court of law, having enjoyed all the legal rights of defendants. My point is that if the security authorities tell the Home Secretary that certain people are a danger, the Home Secretary must make a decision. Some hon. Members would say that any information from the security authorities should be ignored. However, as I said when I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, one can well imagine the reaction—in the House, the country and the media—if, having been warned that certain foreign nationals were a danger, he took no action to put them in custody, and it subsequently turned out that the same people were involved in a terrorist outrage. He would be harshly criticised in every possible way.
In every case, the Home Secretary must decide whether to accept or ignore the advice of the security authorities about certain matters or people. That is part of the responsibility associated with that office.
Jeremy Corbyn: Is that not the whole point? The information is provided, in secret, by the security services, and is decided on, privately, by the Home Secretary. The individuals involved in this case have been in prison for two years, and are likely to be there for a lot longer. Neither they nor we know what they are charged with. They have not been convicted, and are not going to be. Is that acceptable in a modern democracy?
David Winnick: With great reluctance, I think that it is acceptable. That is why I supported the 2001 Act when
340
it came before the House, and why I shall support the Government this evening. Critics of the Government. including my hon. Friend, should bear it in mind that there is no monopoly of concern about people being held outside the criminal justice system. I am no less concerned about that than anyone else, but I accept that there is a necessity to do what has been done. However, it goes without saying that I am unhappy with the situation, and wish that matters could be otherwise.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman's concerns in these matters are well known, but he must recognise the other side of the coin, as set out by the hen. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). some of us suspect that the information involved is faulty, but it is still possible to end up going to war on the basis of false information. That is why we want a degree of scrutiny and insight into decisions that affect our freedoms.
David Winnick: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. To some extent, he may want to rerun the war that recently took place, but not for a moment do I doubt that his concerns are genuine, any more than 1 question the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). It is part of the responsibility of Members of Parliament to be very much on guard. If we were complacent about such matters—if, in the absence of a Newton committee, there had been no concern or controversy—people would question the purpose of parliamentary democracy. The fact that this debate is taking place, and that concerns and anxieties exist—and I, who support the Government's position, to some extent share them—shows that we are carrying out the duties of the House.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: One aspect of what my hon. Friend says concerns me, as it did when he intervened on the Home Secretary. He spoke of the Home Secretary's need to avoid possible stricture and criticism. However, if a serious crime takes place in the future, how can that need square with what happens in the normal practice of criminal law? The security services do not have to be involved. My knowledge of organised crime means that, tomorrow, I could give the Home Secretary the names of half a dozen people who I am convinced will commit serious crimes in the near future. Most senior police officers could do precisely the same. I could even tell my right hon. Friend the nature of the crimes likely to be committed, but he would tell me that he could do nothing because he had not a shred of evidence on which to act. When the crimes finally took place, as predicted, the Home Secretary would not be criticized—why should he be? Does not the same thing apply to terrorists?
David Winnick: No, it does not, as my hon. and learned Friend knows very well, because this is a unique situation involving terrorism. I have much respect for him, however much we disagree, but that was a surprising intervention, because he knows very well the difference between ordinary crime and the dangers of terrorism that face us.
Mr.Hogg: Further 10 the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews),

341
we shrank from using arbitrary detention in Northern Ireland, yet following the argument of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) we should presumably have wanted to impose arbitrary detention to prevent impending attacks.
David Winnick: As we know, detention in Northern Ireland was undertaken by the then Conservative Government. I believe that decision was wrong. Detention in Northern Ireland was a recruiting arm for the IRA, as I said at the time, but each situation is different and we cannot compare what is happening now with what happened in Northern Ireland, although clearly the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that we can.
I should have been happier had there been a process of judicial review, as I suggested to the Home Affairs Committee when we were considering the Act. However, I was narrowly defeated by four votes to three.
I want to return to the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). We are constantly told by the police and others that terrorism remains an acute danger for this country and that it is a question not of if but when a terrorist attack occurs. Does am one in the Chamber disagree with that? As I said earlier, it is easy to imagine the reaction were the Home Secretary to ignore such advice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. De sham) rightly drew attention to what might happen to law-abiding members of Muslim communities who are no less opposed to violence and terrorism as we are. If a terrorist outrage occurred, some people would, unfortunately, want to incite hatred against members of particular communities.
In a footnote to page 53 of its report, the Newton committee stated that broadcasts connected with international terrorist networks
"have confirmed that Britain has been singled out as a target"—
for terrorism, and that an international terrorist leader had said that
"the killings of the British and Australia ns in the Bali explosions were carried out by zealous sons of Islam. Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia were all threatened with killings and bombings for their part in joining with America"
in the invasion of Afghanistan—note: not in the invasion of Iraq.
When the argument is advanced that we or the Government are anti-Muslim, why is there no mention of Kosovo? Why did the Government take action in Kosovo? The decision was controversial at the time—although not as controversial as Iraq. It is a deliberate lie that we are anti-Muslim.There was a clear and simple reason for taking military action ill Kosovo: to save the lives of Muslims—not of Jews, Hindus, Christians or Sikhs. Nevertheless, those who people lies and use every possible justification for military action against western democracies, including the UK, like to portray us as anti-Muslim.
There can never be a guarantee t hat any steps we take will stop terrorism, but the Government of the day have a duty to take the measures they believe necessary to protect the people of this country. I genuinely wish that the Act—certainly part 4—could go. I certainly wish
342
that there was no need to detain people in the circumstances in which the 14 are being held. I repeat that I am very unhappy about it—I wish it were not so—but I accept that it is necessary and that this country faces an acute terrorist danger, and in those circumstances I am willing to support the Government, although with the reluctance and hesitation that I have expressed. Nevertheless, in the end, I believe that the Government are acting correctly.
4.20 pm
Mr.A. J. Beith: I had the privilege of serving as deputy to Lord Newton, as deputy chairman of the committee. I say privilege, but like my colleague in all this work—the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney)—I recognise that it took a great deal of our time. I am grateful to the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman for paying tribute to the formidable amount of work that we did, and I pay a personal tribute to Lord Newton, whose leadership and patience in running the committee's affairs was one of the means that enabled us to get through so much work and to produce the report.
I also pay tribute, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to the committee's small staff, who worked very hard indeed to enable us to achieve what we did. It was a pleasure to work with colleagues with a wide variety of political views from different political parties and, of course, one of none—a senior judge. We started from very different positions, but we reached unanimous conclusions on all the matters that appear in the report.
The committee was in no doubt at all that the threat to this country from terrorism is very serious and has to be addressed by coherent legislation and effective Government action. That was not in dispute, and if it had been the material that we saw during our inquiries would have convinced us in any case about the seriousness of that threat.
Much of today's debate has revolved around part 4—the detention provisions-and I shall start with them. The provisions—in part 4, which have been so controversial, have been used to detain people who are, in fact, free to leave tomorrow if they can find a country that will take them. Indeed, they can go to their own country if they do not fear persecution there. Two such individuals have already taken the option to leave. The suspicion must be that, if there were grounds to believe that they would engage in terrorism, they might well continue to do so if they left this country and went elsewhere. That is one of the reasons why the committee was fairly sceptical about the efficacy of the whole procedure. While we did not discuss this, I sometimes wonder whether, in choosing not to leave, some of them prefer to make some kind of political statement through that process—although I would not willingly choose to use a method of making a political statement that involved remaining incarcerated in Belmarsh for an indefinite period.
The committee was also struck by the fact that those provisions do not address United Kingdom citizens against whom there is comparable evidence that gives rise to identical suspicions. There may be at least half as many such people as the number of foreign citizens about whom suspicions arise. We heard evidence about the number. Indeed, there have been examples of the involvement of UK citizens, such as Richard Reid, the shoe bomber.

343
The provisions require a derogation from the European convention on human rights that no other country has found necessary and that continuously undermines our promotion of human rights throughout the world, in the many countries where they are damaged and threatened. We therefore sought to find alternatives and to suggest things that, if taken together, could replace the part 4 provisions. They included alternative procedures that have been discussed today, such as the use of an investigating judge, who, as was pointed out, could provide a firewall by examining evidence and considering possibly exculpatory material without revealing to the defendant evidence that, if revealed, would destroy the ability of the authorities to crack down on terrorism.
We suggested the use of aggravation provisions in relation to other offences and the use of intercept material in court proceedings. One should not exaggerate how much can be achieved by the use of such material because there are serious limitations to the amount that could be used, but that ought to be part of the armoury. I am unconvinced by the fact that the review has still not been completed. We were told that the review would be completed in a matter of months while we were conducting the inquiry in the latter part of last year, and that is also what we are being told now. It seems to be an endless review. We must complete the process by establishing procedures for using intercept material as evidence in court.
Alongside those provisions, which are designed to enable prosecution to take place, we suggested a range of measures that, taken together, could enable stricter monitoring of those who are not in prison. Given that those provisions are clearly required for UK citizens about whom suspicions are entertained, and may well be required for people who are released from Guantanamo bay and reappear in this country with suspicions surrounding them, why cannot they be used in respect of a relatively small number of non-UK citizens?
In that context, we welcome the significant increase in the resources available to the Security Service for surveillance. As the Home Secretary said, that provision was not dreamed up for today's debate—or, indeed, for last weekend's newspapers, given that he seems, perhaps inadvisably, to have briefed them about it—but has been developing for some time, and rightly so. Indeed, the Intelligence and Security Committee stated in reports of 2001 and 2002 that the service needed more resources and that if it continued to transfer resources into counter-terrorism, as it had to, unacceptable risks would eventually be taken with various other threats to our security. I welcome the increased resources, although I probably would not be saying so much about them if the Home Secretary had not made them so public.
We suggested a series of measures that, taken together, and perhaps including other aspects brought out by this debate and the six-month review, would provide a basis for getting rid of part 4. We have to do something about it in any case, because it expires in 2006. The committee felt that we certainly should not wait that long, and that the objective should be to replace it before then.
344
We also argued for a focused, case management-based approach to the options for all those who are currently detained. Having looked at the Government response, I do not think that Ministers quite understood what we were suggesting. It would not be like the Special Immigration Appeals Commission process by which the validity of a person's detention is tested; it would involve Ministers considering whether individuals could be most suitably monitored back in the community, reconsidered for deportation, or dealt with in a series of other ways. We found no evidence that such a case-by case review was taking place. Yes, there was a SIAC review into the validity of the detention, but not a review of the options available at any given stage.
Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point that reinforces my earlier proposition. Once a power exists that enables the indefinite holding of a person, the Crown Prosecution Service or others will not strive strenuously to bring a proper prosecution.
Mr. Beith: That is one of the dangers of the system. The SIAC mechanism is very thorough, although its standards of proof are significantly lower than those in a criminal trial. Those taking part apply it conscientiously to test the validity of the limited grounds on which people can be detained under the legislation. However, the committee thought it wrong to have no focused system for checking whether the most sensible option is being pursued in each case. That underlines the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point: where there is no pressure, no action is taken.
Mr. Cash: I am sure: that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the recent ca se in which SIAC made a decision on the ground that tin. provisions of the legislation were incompatible with articles 5 and 14 of the European Court rulings because they permitted the detention of suspected international terrorists in a way that discriminated again it them on the ground of nationality. The Court of Appeal then reversed that decision, and it is now pending before the House of Lords. That illustrates the point, to which I constantly return, that it is not only a matter for SIAC—it can be adjudicated by the courts.
Mr. Beith: That is true of the principles involved, but not of the individual eases, which are dealt with by the SIAC procedure with no such recourse to the courts. My point was not about testing validity, but about the Government's responsibility to decide whether a certain course of action was still the most sensible one in relation to the individual concerned.
I do not want to spend all my time on part 4, because the Committee made many other recommendations covering a wide range of matters. I am concerned that the constructive tone of this afternoon's debate, mainly on part 4, is not reflected in the Government's response to many recommendations. The response was published only this morning, and I doubt whether many right hon. and hon. Members have had time to look at it in detail. If they did, they would find an amazingly long list of rejections of recommendations, many of which are about the way in which we monitor or scrutinise various processes that limit the freedom of the individual. Some of them have little or nothing to do with terrorism. The

345
committee made a series of recommendations on those subjects. I shall give just one example, because it would take up too much of the House's time to go into all of them. It relates to something to which the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire referred—information held by public bodies on individuals and the passing of information from one body to another on various grounds.
In paragraph 22, the committer makes the following recommendation:
"In our view, internal authorisation by a senior person would be adequate for the disclosure of addresses or phone numbers in terrorism cases."
In paragraph 23, we go on to say:
"While we accept that it may well be that the same regime could be justified for other types of serious crime, we would argue that prior judicial approval should be required in any case involving less serious crimes or the disclosure of more sensitive information. Parliament should be given the opportunity to decide what level of authorisation should be required, depending on the seriousness of the crime and the sensitivity of the information being disclosed."
We are talking about one Government Department passing information to another on a matter that
has nothing at all to do with terrorism—perhaps a much less serious crime—and that ought to be subject to an authorisation procedure. We befit ye that prior judicial authorisation is appropriate for sensitive information relating to allegations of less serious crimes.
The Government's response includes phrases on which hon. Members should reflect with care. In paragraph 24 of their response they say:
"The supply of information about an individual by one public authority to another cannot, in the Government's view, realistically be regarded as being as intrusive as, for example, a search of that individual's home."
I am not sure that everybody would agree. In paragraph 25, the Government go on to say:
"Given these considerations, and the numerous occasions where public sector data sharing of this sort, and joined up administration, will be in the public interest in promoting legitimate aims, the Government cam of accept the Review's proposal of prior judicial control of information disclosure."
In other words, the Government support joined-up government and want to deliver on all sorts of targets, so one Department should be Ale to give any other Department without any prior disclosure anything that it has on any individual. The reason adduced is not the imminent danger of terrorism but joined-up government and other "legitimate aims". Hidden in the small print of the Government response are some alarming approaches to issues that have always, both in this House and the Lords, been regarded as matters deserving the most serious consideration. That is just one example of a series of matters that do not relate primarily to terrorism—sometimes they do not relate to terrorism at all—onwhich the New ton committee made recommendations for procedures or protections, only for the Government to reject our proposals outright. I hope that the constructive spirit that the Home Secretary brought to the earlier part of the debate will now be applied to some aspects of the Government response.
The last general subject that I IA ant to refer to is the parliamentary process under which the legislation was introduced. After all, that is why the committee came
346
into existence. Questions are sometimes asked at our meetings about why our terms were drafted in a particular way, and why we received a particular remit. It appears to be a back-of-the-envelope job late at night in the House of Lords when, yet again, part of the legislation was rushed through and subjected to a challenge. A concession had to be made, so it was agreed that a committee of senior Privy Councillors would review the legislation and produce a report that had to be debated. If it was not debated, they could specify that the legislation, or parts of it, should lapse. We are now engaged in that process. Indeed, if the debate had not taken place, the Act would lapse. That would depend not on the result of a vote but simply on whether the debate took place. However, the reason for the back-of-an-envelope arrangement at dead of night was the genuine anxiety about rushing through legislation that covered a wide range of matters, was not part of a coherent body of anti-terrorist law and extended into many other areas.
One of the committee's recommendations is that the Government should revert to their declared policy of having a coherent body of anti-terrorist law. That assumption lay behind the Terrorism Act 2000; indeed, it was explicitly stated. I recognise that the Government believed that they had to act quickly after 11 September, but they should revert to the previous principle. The committee believes that that should happen, especially as it has been extensively acknowledged in the debate that the situation is not temporary and that the legislation is therefore unlikely to be temporary. Its permanence is mentioned on the last page of the Government's response to the Newton committee's report.
I have said that the Act covers many subjects that go far beyond terrorism. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire referred to the Home Office practice of clearing the shelves of anything that they did not get through in previous legislation by sticking it into the next relevant measure. That applies especially if there is an opportunity of getting legislation through quickly and with less trouble than normal procedures allow. I am convinced that that happened in the case that we are considering. Indeed, the Act includes items that were explicitly withdrawn or rejected previously.
One argument that is adduced for such action is that terrorists are criminals, that they commit other crimes, and that the whole Act is therefore terrorist legislation. That was hard to sustain when it became clear to us that the main use of British Transport police powers was dealing with football hooliganism, and the main use of some of the information powers was tackling sexual offences, especially paedophiles. Those are legitimate reasons for legislation but not for justification on the basis that one is dealing with the threat from terrorism. If we argue that all crime can be tied up with terrorism, all criminal justice measures should be emergency legislation, rushed through both Houses of Parliament in as little time as possible because somebody might commit a crime before the process is completed.
The Newton committee took the issue seriously and paragraph 333 of the report states:
"Some of these provisions appear to have been included in counter-terrorist legislation in order to take advantage of its accelerated passage and limited scrutiny, in order to avoid the

347
difficulties which had previously been experienced in securing Parliamentary approval. This inappropriate "fast-tracking" undermines the consensus which is desirable to allow legislation to be enacted rapidly in emergencies."
When the Government introduced the measure, they depended on the wide acceptance that, in an emergency, with a serious threat to the country, one sometimes has to react quickly and push through legislation quickly. However, they relied on that to include far wider matters in the Act. The committee suggested that it would be appropriate to revisit many of them in mainstream legislation. The Home Secretary's argument and the Government response are unconvincing.
The Home Secretary was a little more open and honest than the document. He referred to his difficulties in getting his Bills into the parliamentary timetable. However, the official response states:
"The Government does not believe that it would be an appropriate use of Parliamentary time to re-legislate for provisions that Parliament has already passed."
You could have fooled me, because the Home Office appears to do that regularly. Every year, a new criminal justice Bill and a new anti-terrorism Bill are introduced. The idea that one should not revert to subjects on which one has already legislated is not part of Home Office practice.
Mr. Hogg: There may be another reason for the Home Secretary's belief that it is not necessary to revisit legislation: the Henry VIII provision of section 124. Under that section, the right hon. Gentleman can amend any provision.
Mr. Beith: Indeed, that is one of the few powers that the Committee said ought to be repealed without qualification. The report stated:
"The powers of amendment…are particularly unwelcome in emergency legislation of this kind, and they should be repealed."
The House should know the Government's response to that. It states:
"Disagree. The Government believes that this power allows the Government to react quickly to changing circumstances that are a feature of many of the areas covered in the Act."
That is not just terrorism, because the 2001 Act covers a wide variety of offences. The response goes on to say:
"It is correct that terrorism legislation is placed on a permanent footing and that powers contained within it allow us to respond flexibly to any changes in threat."
Responding flexibly does not mean being able to amend legislation by statutory instrument on matters of fundamental principle.
Mr. Hogg: By negative procedure, too.
Mr. Beith: I must say that the Government response asserts that they could amend legislation only by the affirmative procedure. From memory, I am not sure whether we have ever received a convincing answer to that point. My reading of the statute is that legislation can be amended by negative instrument, and I am reassured to know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman also takes that view.
Mr. Shepherd: The point is enormously important. The Civil Contingencies Bill contains a similar provision
348
by which subordinate legislation may amend any primary legislation on the statute book. The trend is incredible and this is where it started.
Mr. Beith: The nost effective challenge to such provisions will be mounted not at this end but at the other end of the building. A challenge was mounted when the legislation was considered. The creation of the Newton committee was in part a response to this. Many Lords felt that the legislation was wider than it needed to be to deal with the terrorist threat and used attenuated parliamentary procedures inappropriately to push through provisions that, on reflection, would not be accepted by many Members in either House.
As I said earlier, a consensus has formed on the Home Secretary's remarks about reviewing during the next six months provisions to replace part 4 of the 2001 Act. I welcome that decision, and I take him at his word that he is prepared to engage in that process and build on the Newton committee's recommendation. Simply because others have not had the opportunity to do so, I have concentrated on the area about which I feel more discontented by the Home Secretary's response.
Many of the recommendations go far beyond terrorism, and I therefore put in a very strong plea for the extension of the spirit of consensus that the Home Secretary sought to include in part 4 of the 2001 Act into areas where the Government's initial response has been to suggest that nothing more needs to be done and that they will not give up powers that they have managed to introduce by this rapid process.
4.42 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: It is fitting to reflect for one moment that today marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of the National Council for Civil Liberties; there is a certain irony in our debating this matter and remembering the anniversary of that important non-governmental body.
The Home Secretary is right to highlight the enormous responsibility that he bears to protect the public from the threat of terrorism and the actions of terrorists. It is, however, a responsibility that we all share. To shirk it and bury our heads in the sand would be playing with lives which none of us wants. The criticisms of the Home Secretary are not about the urgency of the situation or the gravity of the threat, but about whether the methods adopted are proportionate, appropriate and capable of achieving the ends that we all desire or whether they are counter-productive.
On "Newsnight" yesterday, the Home Secretary discussed the intrusion of that responsibility into his Christmas holiday. I can sympathise; had he been of another faith, I am sure that his burden would have been just as great over December. If he does not mind my saying this—I am sure that he would not if he were here—he is rather like a wicket keeper who complains that everyone keeps throwing the ball at him. I want to consider the responsibilities of the whole team, and our response to it.
On 11 September 2001, after the collapse of the twin towers, when planes were still missing, buildings were being evacuated and no one knew who or what would next be targeted, I had just returned from the United Nations world conference on racism, held in Durban,

349
South Africa. What is the relevance of that to this debate? I reflected then how that country had changed, in such a short time, from being a potential target for international terrorism to one that sought to provide a model for future conflict resolution. It had gone from being part of the problem, on a would scale, to providing part of the solution.
One of the principal achievements of the Durban conference was to commit world leaders to a project in which each country would draw up its own national action plan against racism. Like other participating states, the UK Government agreed to draw up such a plan in co-operation with non-governmental organisations and minority ethnic groups. Surely in that way we could set an example to the world. It is relevant in this debate to ask what happened to that plan.
I have asked questions in the House about progress on the maintenance and achievement of the national plan, and I have been told, two years later, that it is in progress. When I talked to the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities about its efforts to achieve action to address the wave of racist attacks that have left members of minority groups in south Belfast living in fear of their lives, I was told that it has been informed that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary plans to drop his commitment to the national plan. That has enormous relevance. I wonder what representatives of the Muslim community in Britain will make of that decision, especially when they feel that their co-religionists are demonised in the war against terror and that their needs are not being addressed.
My right hon. Friend says that we should not adopt a knee-jerk opposition to anti-terrorist legislation, and that in the era of the suicide bomber everything has changed. He is correct to argue that we should study and understand, but I am not sure that everything has changed. It is not as though the IRA, the UVF or the UDA were ever gentleman terrorists or Northern Ireland was a place where terrorist played by the rules.
There are lessons to be learned from Northern Ireland. Those who wish to demonstrate that they are tough on terrorism, but cannot foe us on or address the causes of terrorism, are inevitably forced to rely on the supposedly inexplicable nature of the problem or the psychopathic nature of its perpetrators. We had indications of that from my right hon. Friend today. If that is the case, why does the determination to be a suicide bomber find resonance among young people? Why do they feel that legitimate grievances have not been examined and that no attempts have been made to rectify them? Those young people have not all been brainwashed. They have arrived at conclusions because of their experiences. Why was there so much rejoining—I say that with great sadness and t he same horror that every other right hon. and hon. Member must feel—in slums and ghettos throughout the world at what happened to the twin towers? That was an appalling and shocking response. Why did it happen?
Unlike the Northern Ireland conflict, in which the UK had a primary responsibility, the problem we face today is global and requires a global solution. Whatever we do can only be part of that solution. However, another lesson from Northern Ireland is that international standards provide a framework for the protection of democracy and the best guarantee for defence of the rule of law. In Northern Ireland,
350
successive Governments changed the rules and broke the law. When internment without trial failed, we introduced no-jury courts, relaxed the rules of evidence, relaxed the rules that prevented the use of confessions extracted under duress and allowed the use of informer and accomplice evidence.
What did that achieve? Certainly, it put some people behind bars, but what really happened was that the law became the enemy. Young people flocked to join the terrorist groups. Internment and Bloody Sunday were both the breaking of accepted rules. Indeed, on Bloody Sunday, in flat contradiction of a decision of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, the British Army was acting illegally. What also happened was that the prisoners, the men behind the wire of whatever community, and not the policemen, were the heroes. That surely is both unacceptable to us and something from which we should learn.
David Winnick: Those mistakes were undoubtedly made in Northern Ireland, but does my hon. Friend accept another lesson, which is that the House of Commons did not give in to terror and that, despite all the differences over how we should deal with the situation in Northern Ireland, we—Government and Opposition-were absolutely determined that the IRA would not succeed in attaining its objective? Thirty years later, the IRA was defeated—not militarily, but politically, because it could not achieve what it set out to do. Its objective was not reform and change in Northern Ireland, which were already taking place when it was formed, but a united Ireland, to be achieved through terror. The IRA never succeeded. We stood firm, and we, including my hon. Friend, were absolutely right.
Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that backhanded compliment.
My point, which is important, is that until we wrestled with the problems of reform in Northern Ireland, until we saw that people there had an unaddressed grievance, we would not succeed.
At the time of internment without trial, there was a song in Northern Ireland with the chorus "Armoured cars and tanks and guns". The song included the words:
"Being Irish means they're guilty
So we're guilty one and all."
Racial profiling of the Irish in Britain made them a suspect community. Not until there was more finesse in policing, and draconian treatment of the Irish community in this country was seen to be counterproductive, did we start to see an improvement. Indeed, terrorism and incidents of terrorism were at their height when internment was in operation in Northern Ireland. It started to diminish only when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, now my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Merlyn-Rees, started to end internment without trial.
Patrick Mercer: Another part of the song that the hon. Gentleman quoted is:
"England's name again is sullied
In the eyes of honest men."
Does not that point to a lack of objectivity in that particular republican paean?
Mr. McNamara: Not for a member of the Irish community living in west Belfast, South Armagh, the

351
Bogside, parts of north London or Birmingham. For them, England's action was sullied. One of the problems that we have had—indeed, that we have had with regard to human rights throughout the world—is answering questions about internment in Northern Ireland.
Jeremy Corbyn: To take things slightly further forward, after the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was introduced, about 10,000 people were arrested. Few were charged and hardly any were convicted, but as far as I am aware they were all Irish people, so the Act had a huge effect on the Irish community. I am sure that my hon. Friend has read the briefing that Liberty sent out for the debate. It makes the point that, small though the numbers might be, all those currently held in Belmarsh are Muslims. Exactly the same arguments are going on throughout the Muslim community as those that went on throughout the Irish community 25 years ago.
Mr. McNamara: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I was about to make a comparison with
"Being Irish means they're guilty".
because many people in the Muslim community now think, "Being Muslims means we're guilty, so we're guilty one and all."
Relaxing the rules, as we did, on evidence and on charging did, not defeat terrorism, but it did help to create the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and a whole series of monstrous miscarriages of justice. As that happened, the actual victims of terrorism were forgotten. How did we break the law? On Bloody Sunday, the Government permitted the unlawful use of lethal force and killed 13 civil rights protestors. In Gibraltar, the Government permitted extrajudicial assassination that was countenanced at the highest level and the SAS gunned down three IRA volunteers in cold blood, for which we were condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The British Government encouraged the creation of disinformation and dirty tricks units, allowed loyalist groups to be armed, and ran agents who committed murder with impunity. What did that achieve? Nothing; it prolonged the war and delayed the peace. When one teaches disrespect for human rights, changes the rules and breaks the law, where does it end? It ends in condoning terror, and in the murder of people such as Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson. My conclusions might be unacceptable to the Government, but we might have a bit more faith if they published the Cory report and established the inquiries that the Prime Minister promised—I strongly suspect that we will not have the separate public inquiries.
When the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill was first presented to Parliament, we were acutely aware of the risks of that sort of legislation. That is why the oversight regime is so important. The provisions of the Act must be renewed each year and it has a sunset clause that does not permit renewal beyond 2006. A special committee of Privy Councillors—we are indebted to all the Privy Councillor members of the committee who have spoken today—was charged with reviewing it.
The Home Secretary can take comfort in many of the positive things that have been said about his attitude to some of the cases. However, he should listen carefully to
352
the advice he has been given, especially because he asked for that advice from Lord Newton and the Privy Counsellor Review Committee, Lord Carlile and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I am pleased that there has not been a pre-emptory rejection of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee report, as happened in December, and that we have received some sort of reply. I am pleased that the Government have accepted the Joint Committee's recommendation that they should consider matters within a six-month period, particularly as it arose due to an amendment to the report that I suggested. The Joint Committee was far kinder when deciding the amount of time to allow—I would have given the Government only 28 days—but nevertheless the time period came about from the germ of my idea, which arose because experience shows that Governments suddenly decide to review emergency legislation two or three months before they must renew it. Allowing a specific six-month period in which they may review the legislation and come up with ideas and positive alternatives s thus important.
Derogation from the European convention on human rights and the use of powers to detain indefinitely has given rise to almost universal concern. I am gravely concerned about the position of 14 non-British nationals who are being held indefinitely in high-security prisons. Given the length of time for which they have been there, I believe that there may be a case for arguing that there could be a violation under article 3 of the convention because the detainees, who have no prospect of release, are the victims of a cruel or unusual treatment. The Government must remember that there can be no derogation from article 3.
I would also like to draw the House's attention to the fact that, when some of the cases were at SIAC, one of the witnesses giving evidence and who was hidden from the rest of the cow t, had dragged out of them the information that some of the evidence given in the cases may well—we cannot say positively—have been obtained by people it terrogated abroad, who have been subject to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. Such evidence would never be allowed in a British court, but it has been used as part of the intelligence summaries to keep people detained. The problem is that evidence obtained under torture has always been suspect. Those who are tortured or subjected to harsh and cruel procedures are human beings like the rest of us. Which of us here would not necessarily agree with an inquisitor subjecting us to torture, whether of a psychological or physical kind? However, it has been used to keep people behind bars. It is my considered view that part 4, providing for indefinite detention, s unacceptable and should not be renewed.
Several weeks ago, I was approached by the legal representatives of nine men currently held in Belmarsh, conveying to me a request from them that I should undertake a prison visit prior to today's debate to hear at first hand their views on the legality and the conditions of detention under which they are being held. I am aware—and I was aware when I made the application—that a n umber of individuals and agencies have undertaken visits in pursuance of their statutory obligations, but this was to be the first and only proposed visit sought by a Member of Parliament in response to a request from the prisoners themselves. I

353
very much regret, therefore, that last week I received a letter from the Prison Service declining my request for assistance in arranging such a visit. No alternative proposals were made.
I am familiar with security restrictions and difficulties posed by prison visits of a political nature. When Northern Ireland was beset by terrorist violence, I was able to visit both loyalist and republican prisoners in high-security wings without any obstacles being put in my way by the Prison Service in her Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom. That was the case under both Conservative and Labour Administrations. As a member of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee of the Council of Europe, I was appointed rapporteur on the imprisonment of the detainees at Guantanamo bay. In June last year, the Parliamentary Assembly overwhelmingly endorsed my report finding their imprisonment to be unlawful.
I am concerned about unlawful detention—whether it is in a United States naval base in Cuba or in Belmarsh prison. Whatever the fig leaf provided by SIAC—it is a diminishing one—that justifies holding people at Belmarsh, the general principle is the same. The Foreign Secretary has rightly condemned what has happened elsewhere: people should either be put on trial or returned to the United Kingdom. We do not accept the same principle for people in Belmarsh. There is a degree of hypocrisy about that that I find particularly unacceptable.
We have been asked about the alternatives. Other speakers in the debate have given a range of alternatives, so I shall not rehearse the whole package again. However, one thing is certain. Whether we hold 20 men or one man in the conditions in Belmarsh and insist on having the derogation, we are lowering standards in our country, lessening our position in the world and will be unable to argue actively and promptly for human rights to be observed in other countries. More importantly, we are dealing unfairly and cruelly with the men who, at present, are behind the wire.
5.4 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am one of those who opposed the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 when it was being debated on Second Reading. Having read the reports of the noble Lord Newton and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I am bound to say that my conclusions from that time have been strongly reinforced.
Inevitably, this debate has quite rightly focused primarily on part 4 of the 2001 Act, and I shall refer to that in a moment. However, I shall begin by making two general observations. The first goes to the undesirability of emergency legislation, a point that the Newton report brought out very forcefully. There are a number of reasons for that, but the first is that because emergency legislation is rushed through, inevitably much of it is never scrutinised. We therefore make legislation that could be in place for a considerable. time, but which has not been subject to parliamentary processes. My second reason, which is slightly different, is that the circumstances in which emergency legislation is pushed through-often circumstances of distress, high passion and drama—reduce the willingness of Members of Parliament properly to scrutinise it.
354
I am therefore very hostile indeed to emergency legislation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) have stressed, the 2001 Act was also used as a vehicle for passing many other pieces of legislation that were sitting in the back cupboard of the Home Office. The Government wished to put those in place, and used this Act as a means of doing so. That was a lamentable abuse. I am very much against emergency legislation in general, and the way in which emergency legislation was used in this instance in particular.
My second general observation relates to the security services. We need to be very alert to the limitations and shortcomings of the security services. I speak as one who dealt with them for some seven years. When I was at the Foreign Office as Minister of State, one of my responsibilities, subject to the then Foreign Secretary, was to handle relations with the security services and GCHQ. In a more limited way, I had dealings with the security services when I was Under-Secretary at the Home Office, as I was responsible for the legislation on terrorism then going through the House.
I have come to some pretty clear views on the security services. I do not wish to be in any way disobliging to them, but we have to face some facts. First, inevitably, much of what they tell Ministers is uncertain, imprecise and not capable of any external verification. That is inherent in the nature of their work. Secondly, they operate in the shadows, so they are not subject to the public scrutiny to which other services are subject. For example, we would be astonished if the police service were allowed to prepare its briefs and give advice in the way in which the security services do. As it is, the police service has to produce its output to the courts, and the press, juries and lawyers can have a go at it, so its act is sharpened up as a consequence. However, the security services have none of those pressures. They just give private advice, fairly certain that no one will scrutinise carefully what they are doing, and that no one will embarrass them. Is it—I ask rhetorically therefore surprising that they become rather set in their ways and complacent, always guard their backs and are perhaps not as robust in the quality of their work as they should be?
Moreover, the security services get things fundamentally wrong. I was one of those who voted against the war in Iraq, and one reason—although not the only one—was my absolute certainty that if the security services had advised the Government that Saddam Hussein was a serious risk to world peace, they were wrong. As it appears, I rather doubt that they did give that advice, but if they did, they were wrong. Consequently, I regard the work and activities of the security services as a pretty fragile foundation on which to deprive other people of their liberty. That is an important starting point for the House.
The Newton report, reinforced by the Joint Committee, has recommended that part 4 of the Act be replaced by permanent legislation with all possible speed. I agree with that view, and I hope that it will be replaced soon with legislation that does not involve a derogation from human rights legislation, does not rely on immigration law, and does not make a distinction between persons depending on their nationality or place of residence.

355
My opposition to part 4 is one of principle. When the legislation was being debated, I went to the House on Second Reading to ask the House—and, indeed, myself—about the circumstances in which a person could be detained indefinitely. That is all set out in section 21 of the Act. Such detentions do not follow a conviction or even a finding of wrongdoing or an intent to do wrong. All that has to be satisfied is section 21, which provides merely that the Secretary of State should have reasonable grounds to believe that a person constitutes a threat, and suspect that the person is a terrorist or is associated with terrorism. Having reasonable grounds to believe or suspect such a thing is wholly different from a finding that a person has indulged in wrongdoing. I find it very difficult to accept that a person can be detained for a very long period of time on such a fragile foundation.
Mr. Cash: My right hon. and learned Friend is putting forward his argument very clearly, but there is a problem. Lord Hoffmann, who is by no means backward in the matter of human rights—indeed, he is one of the foremost proponents of them—made it quite clear in the case of Rehman only about a year ago that, in the context of the issues that we are now discussing, the courts had to have regard for the decisions taken by the Home Secretary on reasonable grounds. Would my right hon. and learned Friend like to ponder that decision, or does he simply disagree with it?
Mr. Hogg: I simply disagree with it. I do not think that anyone should be detained for a long period of time unless there is a positive finding of fact made by some judicial or quasi-judicial body to the effect that the person has either infringed the law or embarked on some other relevant wrongdoing. The fact that the Secretary of State may have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that that is the case does not strike me as a good enough reason to detain the person.
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): The right hon. and learned Gentleman brings us to an essential point. Given his strong feelings about not detaining a person in any circumstances if they have not been convicted of an offence in open court and subject to our usual criminal justice processes, what does he think should happen to individuals about whom the intelligence evidence is more than highly suggestive that they are planning acts of terrorism against citizens of this country? What is his solution to that dilemma?
Mr. Hogg: I shall come to that. My view coincides largely with what Lord Newton has said. To say that we should sentence someone to a long period of imprisonment because of intelligence information that is "highly suggestive" seems to infringe almost every principle for which I have ever stood, and I am not going to start infringing them now.
The right of appeal in the Act provides that SIAC has the ability to determine whether there are reasonable grounds for the Secretary of State to come to the suspicion or belief that he harbours on the matter. There is no revisiting of the underlying facts. The question and
356
primary test is whether there were reasonable grounds for belief or suspicion, not whether the underlying facts were right or the individual has been guilty of wrongdoing.
What does SIAC see? It sees relatively little. It sees anyway only what the Secretary of State wants it to see. That was the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), and it is entirely right. What does a detainee see? Very often, they see almost nothing. If one looks carefully at the report, one will see that the nosed evidence is often the majority evidence. The closed evidence is disclosed to the special advocate, and from the moment the special advocate gets to closed material, he has no further communication with the detainee or the detainee's legal representatives. That is not a form of appeal that I recognise. It seems if thoroughly bad.
My conclusion on part 4 thus far is that it is deeply offensive. The right of a power of detention is fatally flawed because it does not reflect any independent assessment of wrongdoing—far less a conviction-and in any event, there is a wholly futile appeal process.
My anxieties are reinforced when I read paragraph 200 of the Newton re port on page 55, where it is said:
"Given the novel and contentious nature of these powers we believe that there should be a continuous proactive effort to manage the individual cases of the suspects with a view to finding alternative ways of dealing with them".
That is wholly right. What is the conclusion? The committee states:
"We were, therefore, surprised to learn that the authorities"—
they are the people 'or whom the Home Secretary is responsible "—
…have given no thought to what change in circumstances might lead them to conclude that an individual should be released or dealt with differently"
In other words, once he authorities have the detainee in the bag, they leave him there and pay no more attention to his case. Who is responsible for those people in those authorities? The answer is: the Minister now sitting on the Front Bench, and her boss.
Vera Baird: It cannot be right that no more attention is paid to detainees once they are in detention, because we have learned this afternoon that two have been prosecuted on criminal charges and that, as I understand it, the evidence for that was found by the authorities after they had been detained. So they are not completely abandoned.
Mr. Hogg: The detainees are kept in the bag, and I have no doubt that some prosecution authorities review their cases, but they are different from the Home Office authorities. The Home Office is quite happy to leave them in the bag. That is what Lord Newton and his committee say. I regard that as a scandal, as I am sure, to be fair, does the hon. and learned Lady.
Mr. Cash: I am sorry to trouble my right hon. and learned Friend a second time.
Mr. Hogg: My hot. Friend never troubles me.
Mr. Cash: I am glad to hear it; I will put my question a bit more sharply. I was going to be a little more

357
temperate. He has just said that there would be no review when the person was in the bag and left there indefinitely. How does he equate that with section 26 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which specifically provides that
"The Special Immigration Appeals Commission must hold a first review of each certificate issued under section 21 as soon as is reasonably practicable after the expiry 01 the period of six months beginning with the date on which the certificate is issued"?
In addition, there is provision for t repeat.
Mr. Hogg: That is on the basis of information supplied by Home Office officials in respect of whom Lord Newton made the precise criticisms to which I have drawn my hon. Friend's attention. That is one reason why the process is so perverse—and no doubt one reason why Lord Newton was so concerned about it.
Vera Baird: At each of the reviews, the detainee is entitled to be represented. I have seen and know well many of the representatives who feature in appeals on behalf of such detainees. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it would b unbelievable if they were not putting forward every change of circumstance so that SIAC could take it into account. Admittedly, it will judge that against the intelligence, but he is quite wrong to call such a form of appeal futile.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Lady must face up to two points. First, Lord Newton's committee and all the Privy Councillors unanimously concluded that there was a failure on the part of the Hone Office properly to discharge its duties in this regard. That is set out clearly in paragraph 200, and I commend it to her. Secondly and quite differently, as regards the appeal, she will find it comprehensively described at paragraph 176 of the report. In particular, serious criticism should be directed at the fact that much of the evidence is closed evidence of which the detainee will be wholly ignorant. If she finds that a satisfactory process, I do not and to be fair to her, I doubt whether she does either.
On one further point before I look to the future, I have a strong suspicion that the existence of part 4 powers, so that the person is in the bag, means that not very serious attention is given to whether that person can be prosecuted for substantive offences. Indeed, I suspect strongly that the fact that U ere are part 4 powers acts as a powerful disincentive to the Crown Prosecution Service and others when they come to consider whether or not they wish to prosecute, having regard to the uncertainties involved.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: May I ask the corollary of the question that has just been put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Given that here are 17 people against whom it is perceived that there is so much evidence that it warrants their detention without trial over two years, is it not extraordinary and singular that only two of them have been prosecuted during that period?
Mr. Hogg: Yes, it is. I think that that makes the point that I have tried to make: once somebody is in the bag, why bother any further? It is a strong supporting piece
358
of evidence to the effect that these part 4 powers are having a perverse effect and are themselves preventing prosecutions for substantive offences.
I want to look forward a little. I hope very much that there will be an implementation of the broad Newton recommendations. As a general proposition, I want these emergency provisions to he replaced by permanent legislation. I want terrorist offences for the most part to be dealt with in the mainstream of criminal law. I want to ensure that there is no further derogation from the human rights legislation, and, furthermore, that no distinction is made between defendants on the grounds of nationality or place of residence. The legislation should deal with terrorism qua terrorism and should not rely on the immigration laws.
Next, I believe that detention should only follow conviction for a substantive offence. Under no circumstances should long-term detention or any significant period of detention follow security-led information. I accept that there may well have to be changes to the law as to the admissibility of evidence—the points made about intercepts seemed entirely right. The practice may also have to change. The points about the juge d'instruction made in the Newton committee report are perfectly sensible, and we could no doubt expand on the use of special advocates. I further accept that there may be a residue of cases in which it is not possible to prosecute but there is some degree of risk. The House must wrestle with that.
I welcome the proposals in the Newton report that there may be restrictions falling short of detention that can properly be imposed: tagging, restrictions on banking transactions, surveillance and so on. I want to make two points, however. If those are to be invoked, it should be after a judicial or quasi-judicial process on the basis of statutory criteria that must be proved to the satisfaction of the tribunal. In those circumstances, I would be prepared to accept further restrictions, albeit falling short of detention. At the end of the day, I do not think that there are any circumstances in which I would support a policy that results effectively in internment without proper criminal process and above all without a proper conviction or judicial hearing.
Finally, let me say something about the Henry VIII clause, section 124. The Newton committee was rightly critical of it, because the Home Secretary is giving himself powers to amend both the Act and any preexisting legislation to the extent that he thinks "necessary or expedient". Moreover, he can do so by means of the negative procedure, which is subject to annulment. In other words, we have given the Home Secretary power to amend any piece of legislation that he sees fit to amend, and he can do it without primary legislation—on the back of a short debate upstairs, if such a debate is secured. That is simply not worthy of this place.
5.25 pm
Mr. Andrew Dismore: This debate reminds me of last week's television series about Dunkirk. We lost that campaign because our generals had prepared for the previous war rather than the one that they were there to fight. They did not know our enemies: they did not know how ruthless they were, or what techniques they would use. I think that today,

359
especially in the context of some of the comparisons with IRA terrorism, we too run the risk of fighting the last rather than the current war. We should be considering the nature of al-Qaeda, its aims and how it operates. We should bear in mind how different all that is from everything that we have experienced before in our fight against terrorism, whether it involves the IRA or other more recently identified terrorist organisations.
Al-Qaeda's world view is completely different from ours. It is not about dealing with developing world issues, or about the middle east; it is about overthrowing our way of life completely. I have read al-Qaeda's manifesto—I do not know how many other Members have; it was sent to me by a journalist—and it is clear that there is no room for compromise. These people's objective is to turn our country, the United States and the western world as a whole into a Taliban-style dictatorship, a theocracy under Islam. We cannot compromise or negotiate with them. Theirs is not like IRA terrorism, which had a political objective.
Moreover, members of al-Qaeda operate very differently from the IRA. They aim at soft targets, not high-profile targets. Their aim is to cause the maximum number of civilian casualties, as we saw on 11 September, and they are careless of their own lives: they go out deliberately to kill themselves by means of suicide bombing.
Mr. Gregory Campbell: I do not think a distinction should be drawn between the terrorism manifested by al-Qaeda and that of, for example, the IRA. Surely we should all expose terrorism, wherever it may originate—be it the "soft" terrorism that we see closer to home or the more ruthless, hard, rooted terrorism that we see internationally. We should expose and oppose all of it, to ensure that it is brought to an end.
Mr. Dismore: I hope the hon. Gentleman does not think that I am soft on IRA terrorism—far from it. My point is that we cannot fight old wars. We are fighting a new war against al-Qaeda, a different organisation with different aims over which we cannot compromise or negotiate, using entirely different techniques. If we do not recognise that, we have no prospect of winning this war.
I think that the report's recommendation on tagging is somewhat natve, and also rather dangerous. Part of the problem is that we do not know the identities of those in detention, save one who has allowed himself to be named: Abu Qatada. If anyone thinks that Abu Qatada could have been tagged and had his finances controlled in such a way, they have another think coming. Let us not forget that even though he was under surveillance, when the new law was introduced he managed to give the security services the slip, and went on the run for nine months before he was tracked down. So the idea that he would somehow be tagged or brought to a police station, or confined to using only approved bank accounts, is complete nonsense.
There is a risk associated with this development. I fully accept the Home Secretary's
word—indeed, I have had it independently confirmed elsewhere—that an
360
extremely high threshold is applied before anybody is put into detention. But if there were the alternative further down the chain of tagging or reporting to a police station, the inevitable temptation would be to use that power more widely. In effect, that would lead to a greater infringement of the civil liberties of a wider group of people for whom detention may not be appropriate, but whom we would like to keep under surveillance through a cheaper method. That would be wrong. If certain people are so dangerous to our society that action needs to be taken, detention is the appropriate course. We should not try to widen the net, which could happen if we have these wider powers.
Nor is there any need to extend the powers beyond the exemption relating to al-Qaeda. The police would seem to agree with that view. A senior police officer told me that they have no deg ire, should the law be extended, for what they call a "Casablanca moment", in order to round up the usual suspects. They are quite satisfied with the current position.
The report contains a lot of common sense about intercepts, but we must recognise that they are not a panacea in themselves. They have, however, certainly helped in other jurisdictions. From what I have read about the case of Abu Qatada, for example, if intercepts had been admissible evidence he could well have been charged. But we mug t also recognise that simply having intercepts as admissible evidence is not the end of the story. The police would still have to prove their context—who was speaking to whom—which can often be extremely difficult evidentially. One way to do so might be to have a rebuttable presumption: a presumption, rebuttable by the suspect, that the person on the phone line is t he owner or subscriber; otherwise, it could be extremely difficult to make use of the full evidential effect of that intercept.
We must also ask whether this law is going to be retrospective. I know that the House is very reluctant to consider retrospective legislation, but if we are contemplating allowing intercepts to be used as evidence, there is a lot to be said for allowing the law to be retrospective, so that it can be used on previously obtained intercept evidence. That could well provide us with the evidence that we need to prosecute those who are currently detained in Belmarsh. The intercept evidence on which hey are probably detained could then be used for a criminal prosecution against them.
Vera Baird: I share my hon. Friend's view, but there is no difficulty in this regard. If the law on admissibility were changed, everything in existence could be admitted from then on. Indeed, I hope that that happens.
Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for her comment, which I endorse.
The Newton report also refers to plea bargaining. I have always been a little suspicious of plea bargaining, particularly in the ht of the problems associated with the "supergrass" trials of old, which led to serious miscarriages of justice. However, there is a separate issue, which is not necessarily plea bargaining, namely a different form of inducement in terms of co-operation with the police and security services. As I have said, we need to recognise that international terrorism is different in character and poses different challenges. We

361
know that when such people are in custody, it can take a long time to establish their identity because they often have multiple identities and aliases. It is necessary to work through interpreters, which takes a lot longer, and religious observance can also cause delay.
On interviewing, we must also consider the high-tech nature of international terrorism, which has not been a feature of previous IRA terrorism, the use of computers and the need to examine many hard drives. In such circumstances, we must look at o her ways of seeking co-operation from suspects. Quite properly, they rely on the right to silence when advised to do so by lawyers, but in any event they have usually been trained in interview techniques and in how to void giving away information. Currently, the judges' rules prevent any offer of inducements to co-operate, but why could we not amend the law to allow suspects to give non-admissible statements in private for intelligence purposes only, which would not be used in evidence against them? Credit could be given for such cooperation if those suspects were subsequently prosecuted on other available evidence. Such statements would allow them to explain their involvement. People working in the security services hive put it to me that several suspects over the past year were proud of what they had done and wanted to trumpet it, but were advised not to do so because of the impact on their prosecution. Had they been able to make a non-admissible statement, that might have been a way of securing information from them to fight terrorism while at the same time protecting their legal rights by giving them help, should they be prosecuted, in respect of sentencing.
One issue that has not emerged from the debate so far is the question of advance passenger information. It was referred to in the Newton report and is, I believe, an extremely important issue, which we are not taking as seriously as we should. There is clear evidence that we are behind the game on that aspect of the war against terror. As we know, the US is demanding advance passenger information on certain flights coming into the US. Australia does the same as a matter of course, but our approach is rather hit and miss. There is some evidence that the Home Office is now starting to take it seriously, but we are behind the game and we must beef up our information to ensure that we are more aware of the people who enter the UK by air. That, of course, poses the question of which people are entering the UK through other routes.
There has been much discussion a the concerns of the Muslim community about anti-terrorist legislation. It has been said that there have been many arrests, but no court cases and no—or very few— —prosecutions. Part of the frustration arises from the fact the many of the cases are sub judice, so it is not possible t o discuss or explain them. As those cases come to trial, the Muslim community will, with a degree of patience, be able to see that some very serious offences have been committed. Ultimately, the work of the police and security services will prove justified in that respect. We should remember that not only Muslim group s are proscribed organisations under anti-terrorism legislation, but other terrorist groups such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or ETA.
There is also the question of how we organise the security services and I am pleased that the Home Secretary has confirmed their expansion. There is little
362
doubt that attacks have been stopped or disrupted: work on the ricin plot provides a clear example of a highly successful security operation. It is also clear that international co-operation has significantly improved over the years, particularly in the case of France, which was one of our main critics in the immediate post-9/11 period. There remains the risk of some of our efforts being dissipated. Although we have made London a hostile environment for terrorists, I question whether that position applies nationwide. Unless we ensure that the country is properly policed, the efforts made in London will be dissipated as people move out from the capital.
Part of the necessary work requires action on ordinary crime—document or credit card fraud, for example—using ordinary policing techniques, but further investigating and analysing those cases, and attacking terrorism by attacking the wider criminality that those offences show. Investigating those sorts of offences can in time lead to the discovery of terrorist activity and terrorist suspects. In that context, I am concerned that the campaign against terrorism is not one of the targets in the national policing plan. It has targets for many aspects of policing, but I understand that the fight against terror is not included in the plan.
The campaign is resource intensive, and we need to strive for a much more consistent performance throughout the country. That requires a consistency of capability throughout the country, which I am not sure that we have. In the end, there is a certain inevitability about having some form of national unit—perhaps based on the Metropolitan police with satellite units around the country—if we are to combat terrorism effectively and ensure that our country is safe, free and able to protect and maintain the liberties that we have debated so much this afternoon.
5.39 pm
Mr. William Cash: This debate must be judged in the context of the Civil Contingencies Bill. When the House discussed the range of powers being sought by the Government in that Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) all made similar points.
We were all deeply concerned about the Civil Contingencies Bill, which may overlap the review period that will take place as a result of the Newton committee report. It is therefore even more important that the Bill be rectified to ensure that it contains the test of reasonableness, and that the courts' jurisdiction in these matters is not removed. The Bill's powers are so wide that they could even invade the territory of the 2001 Act.
I made it clear in earlier interventions that I have concluded that there is no serious alternative way of dealing with the problems presented by the terrorist threat that we face. Unlike the Civil Contingencies Bill, the 2001 Act contains a test of reasonableness to be applied to the Home Secretary's decisions. I wholly disapprove of the Henry VIII clause, but it is worth considering it in the context of Lord Hoffman's remarks in connection with the Rehman case, which took place only a year or two ago.

363
A test of reasonableness means that judges can review the Home Secretary's decisions, albeit with some conditions. With great respect to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, he did not make it clear that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission could have regard to factors other than suspicion. I believe that courts have enough of an override capability to enable them to arrive at a proper review of decisions that have been taken, and I referred earlier to a recent case in which the Court of Appeal reversed a SIAC decision.
These are undeniably difficult issues, and the tone of the debate suggests that the House has been treading carefully through a minefield of problems. We have tried to give some indicators to the Government as to how to proceed in reviewing provisions that are on the statute book already. To that extent, the Newton committee report has served an extremely useful purpose. It has addressed some subordinate and supplementary questions in a way that I consider entirely helpful.
The central principle is whether the ultimate judgment in these matters should depend on the reasonable decisions of the Home Secretary. As long as the courts have the power to review those decisions, I believe that detention without trial is justifiable in these extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances. As I said earlier to my right hon. and learned Friend, we must also have regard to the power of SIAC to conduct the reviews.
In the Rehman case, Lord Hoffmann said that the events of 11 September 2001 in Washington and New York were
"a reminder that in matters of national security, the cost of failure can be high. This seems to me to underline the need for the judicial arm of government to respect the decisions of ministers of the Crown on the question of whether support for terrorist activities in a foreign country constitutes a threat to national security. It is not only that the executive has access to special information and expertise in these matters. It is also that such decisions, with serious potential results for the community, require a legitimacy which can be conferred only by entrusting them to persons responsible to the community through the democratic process. If the people are to accept the consequences of such decisions, they must be taken by persons whom the people have elected and whom they can remove."
In the context of the Civil Contingencies Bill, that makes my case, but in the context of the 2001 Act it makes the Government's case.
There have been no fewer than five reports criticising the arrangements set out in the Act, and there is no doubt that some extremely learned authorities have expressed grave concern about its wide-ranging powers. However, in the balance of the serious threat of the kind of terrorism that faces us and the necessity to maintain public safety—the first duty of Government—and national security, such powers are justified. In "Constitutional and Administrative Law", Bradley and Ewing make the point:
"It is thus up to the courts to ensure that these wide powers are not misused."
That is the position that the House should adopt. I do not say that because I want to be over-
critical.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: How can it be up to the courts when judicial review is expressly excluded from the
364
procedure? Allied to that point, if the procedure is justified, how long is it justified to keep a man in detention without trial? Two years have elapsed and no evidence has been provided, which signifies the probability that there is none that will be admissible. How much longer should those people remain in custody?
Mr. Cash: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that judicial review is expressly excluded, but if he is referring—as I am—to the issuing of a certificate, the very use of the word "reasonable" in the context of section 21(1) of the 2001 Act gives the courts the right to question the proceedings. Furthermore, subsection (8) states:
"A decision of the Secretary of State in connection with certification under this section may be questioned in legal proceedings only under section 25 or 26",
to which I have already referred. That is not eliminating judicial review; it imposes degrees on the conditions for its use.
Sections 25 and 26 deal with appeals against certification and the review of certification. I have already covered that territory, but the provisions state that on appeal
"the Commission must cancel the certificate…if it considers that there are no reasonable grounds for a belief or suspicion of the kind referred to in section 21(1)(a) or (b), or"—
and this is the point to which I referred earlier—
"it considers that for some other reason the certificate should not have been issued".
This is a difficult area and I do not approach it with the same certainty as I approach the Civil Contingencies Bill, on which the hon. and learned Gentleman and I think on almost identical lines.
In the context of the debate and the report, however, I have to make a distinction, because we need to be immensely responsible in our attitudes. It may seem strange that a former shadow Attorney-General should line himself up with the Government, but it is important to make distinctions that are necessary in the interests of public safety and public security.
I am not unaware of the dangers inherent in moving into such territory For example, I am extremely mindful of the statements that have been made in respect of habeas corpus. I have not yet heard them mentioned today, but they seem to be an essential ingredient in this matter. In one very important case, it was said:
"Habeas corpus is probably the oldest of prerogative writs. Authorising its issue in appropriate cases is regarded by all judges as their first duty".
That speaks for itself.
The importance that needs to be attached to dealing with the question it the context of article 5.4 of the European convention on human rights is self-evident, but I have argued from the Front Bench in the past-I will do so from the Back Benches for as long as is necessary—that such questions should not be driven by human rights legislation itself, as I rather suspect that the Newton committee was driven. Indeed, that was also evident in the report published today by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I take a very different view.

365
Again, Lord Hoffmann said unequivocally in the case of Simms and O'Brien that Parliament has the right to amend or even repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, if unambiguous legislation is introduced expressly to do so. Therefore, to hinge the whole argument on human rights legislation raises the question of what is the right thing for Parliament to decide for itself to do in respect of the protection and security of the nation and the individuals who live in it.
Similar questions arose in the case of Liversidge and Anderson in the early 1940s. Again, that case was decided on the ground that the words "reasonable cause to believe" were included in the Defence of the Realm Act 1915. That was decided in a manner that Lord Diplock, Lord Reid and several other judges have condemned. So a whole stack of very important civil liberty questions lies at the heart of this matter; but, by a rational explanation and by considering the objective and purpose of the legislation under debate, I strongly say that the first duty of the Government and, indeed, the Opposition is to have regard to the safety and security of the people of this country, including my constituents.
I am more than prepared to suggest, therefore, that we should look at the legislation by all means and see whether we can come up with a sensible alternative, but let us not fall into the trap of putting the principle of jurisprudence above the security of the nation and the constituents whom we represent. That is genuinely what is at stake. Therefore, to that extent, I support the Government and disapprove of what the Newton committee report says on part 4.
5.53 pm
Vera Baird: The Home Secretary is on strong grounds to ask for the renewal of these provisions today. Clearly, everyone agrees that there is still a threat to the nation's security—something about which one, of course, wants to be profoundly sceptical, but no one seems to doubt that the threat exists. In addition, not only the Home Secretary but the courts and the Carlile review all agree that the individuals who are being detained are a threat to the nation The Government, with their public protection hat on, SIAC, with its ability to peruse convention rights and civil liberties on behalf of individuals, and Lord Carlile, who scrutinised such things on behalf of the public. all agree about that. It is a strength, too, that the Home office has used this power very sparingly. I take some cheer from that for another reason: it suggests that the intelligence services, too, have to some extent kept matters in proportion, because they have not gone around looking for enormous amounts of evidence to press against enormous numbers of people. That is a reasonable, and cheering, inference. One's view of the matter depends on whose eyes one looks at it through. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) will not agree, but I am pleased that two people have been prosecuted since their detention on the basis of information that has since been made available, because that suggests that a degree of active investigation is continuing. Indeed, it must continue there must be a permanent principle that prosecution is the right thing to do.
Some hon. Members have called this the British Guantanamo, but there is no real justification for that. Okay, it is detention without trial—I regret that and I do
366
not like it—but the detention of those in Guantanamo Bay is not a scar; it is a suppurating boil on the face of democracy. People have been deliberately tipped into an offshore legal black hole—not because they are seen first and foremost as a threat to the nation, but because the authorities want to interrogate them while they are completely disoriented and out of touch with everyone else.
By contrast, the Home Secretary has told us that he uses a high test before he certifies, and I accept that. As soon as a certificate is issued, there is a right—albeit perhaps only nominal—to apply for bail. Although that is of course unlikely to succeed, it means that someone cannot be incarcerated and just left in prison, because they come to the attention of the judiciary immediately. Within three months, an appeal to SIAC is launched, followed by periodic reviews initiated by the authorities—the first after six months, and thereafter every three months. I do not accept that those appeals are futile, as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) suggested. He quoted the Newton report as saying that there has been an insufficiently proactive and focused case management approach to determining whether an individual should continue to be detained. That is a criticism of the authorities. Newton adds the caveat that there has not yet been a review because the cases have been under appeal almost from the start. That has been a protracted process owing to a whole range of factors, some of them outside the control of the Home Office and clearly in the camp of SIAC. As for a review brought about by the authorities themselves, we are not yet even into that territory. The people I know who will act for the detainees will not participate in futile appeals—they will be meaningful appeals, not least because of their presence.
It must be admitted that all the hearings will involve a partial recourse to secret intelligence. As a civil libertarian, I find that difficult to deal with. However, using a special advocate who takes instructions from the detainee and examines the evidence on his behalf, seems the best possible way of making that reasonable. He cannot speak to the detainee afterwards—that is right, although it must be difficult—but takes his comprehensive instructions first and does his best. I am satisfied that the special advocates whom I know will do a sound job and would not co-operate with a procedure that was merely a futile exercise to be gone through.
We have heard the criticism that this is detention on less than the civil standard of proof because it is based only on reasonable suspicion. That is unrealistic. I accept that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has adopted a far higher standard, and I am sure that it is not possible for SIAC to consider whether there are grounds for reasonable belief without considering the facts on which those grounds are based. Furthermore, it will do that with the jaundiced eye of a civil court that knows that its finding implies that someone has committed a crime, so it will adopt the ordinarily elevated standard of proof that a civil court adopts in that situation.
That said, 12 people have been in custody for almost two years without being told exactly what they are alleged to have done. They are in the particularly hopeless position of not knowing how long their detention will be; they are of necessity in a high-security

367
prison that is usually reserved for the worst criminals, although there remains a very real possibility that they are not criminals at all, or that some of them are not; and their issue has never been tested. I would add that these powers apply only to non-citizens, all of whom are Muslims subject to immigration control. It is arguably legally discriminatory—the House of Lords will decide that soon—and is certainly extremely discriminatory in the real world. Moreover, Newton says that the threat, contrary to what appeared to be the case two years ago, when it came almost wholly from foreign nationals, comes almost equally from UK citizens, but the measure provides protection only against foreign nationals. Having derogated from the European convention, abrogated basic rights to freedom and risked community disharmony, we have at best gained only partial protection. It cannot last, and there is no basis on which it should be allowed to do so. It must be subjected, as we are said to be subject by al-Qaeda, to constant attack.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, we should be operating in the realms of criminal law, and should move towards that as quickly as possible. When I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether, if we work hard at expanding the capability of the criminal law, we will succeed in getting rid of part 4, he said, very clearly, no. We have no option but to accept that today—everyone agrees that there is an emergency and a threat. We cannot possibly demand that the measure ends now, so we must vote for it tonight. However, it is my right hon. Friend who will, as many people have said, carry the can if any of the detainees cause trouble if he lets them out or gives up the right to detain them. He will be the last person to be convinced, so we consultees—we are all consultees in the process—have a task to perform. We have to work to try to get him to change his mind about part 4.
All of us who are consulted should aim to ensure that the criminal law can achieve the successful prosecution of British or foreign nationals who are terrorists. There is no other way in which can we persuade the Home Secretary that we can do without part 4, and we must do so by letting the provision fall into disuse and using the criminal law more often. I accept the point made strongly by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) that verifying intelligence is simultaneously a great difficulty in the procedure and an inadequate basis for evidence. However, we must seek to crystallise intelligence into evidence so that it can be scrutinised in the way in which courts usually scrutinise and verify the evidence—frankly, it is very similar to intelligence evidence-which they hear day in, day out about organised crime. That evidence comes from informants, convicted criminals and, sometimes, deep, dark parts of the underworld. It is uncertain in nature, but courts scrutinise it once it has been put into a statement or an oral form, and make up their mind about it.
We must do the same with intelligence. As more than one Member has said, there is a genuine need to challenge the current culture of intelligence secrecy, which goes beyond phone tapping. If one were to suggest to the intelligence services that they submit a
368
statement to the court, they would say that it would work out who it was from, how they got it, who told them about it and so on. Like any culture, if left unchallenged, the assumptions of that culture of secrecy will become set in stone. I suspect that that is happening. and I shall return to the subject when I deal briefly with phone tapping.
More intelligence should be admitted in criminal trials. We should no forget the powers that are already available. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows the admission of hearsay It allows first-hand evidence—"I saw I". However, it also allows second-hand evidence—"he told me he saw it"—third-hand evidence,—"he told me she said she saw it", and written instead of oral evidence. If that is good enough for ordinary criminal trials, it is clearly good enough for terrorist trials, and is a way in which intelligence evidence can be admitted. The weight put on it is a matter for the court, but it is available and is a mechanism that should be tried.
Witness protection measures are sophisticated and go far and wide. There are, for example, devices that distort voices. I appeared in a major case of organised crime in which an informant gave evidence. He was produced from nowhere in the sense that he had been circling in a car before he came in to court. He was dressed like a sort of Indian mystic—he was covered from head to foot in white clothing and wore a patently false beard. One could not therefore tell whether he was tall or short, fat or thing, or anything else about him. Despite all that, he gave evidence from behind a screen and left through a back door. However, he was worth bringing to court because he had an impact on the case. Witness protection measures. even as bizarre as those, are used in the ordinary courts and can be used in the instance that we are considering.
As the Newton committee recommends, surveillance, although expensive, can be much more intensive than it currently appears to be and can be admitted. More overseas courts admit more surveillance than we have historically ever done. Again, I suspect that the intelligence culture of deep, dark secrecy is responsible for that.
Hon. Members have made points about phone tapping, but we are under increasing pressure to change the rule. In an intervention, I mentioned a case in which I appeared shortly before being elected. Members of an alleged international drugs ring were telephoning about day-to-day arrangements for dealing with the consignment. The phone taps that were picked up at the Dutch end were admitted into the Old Bailey and those that were presumably picked up at the English end—no one can say whether there were any, but it would be nonsense if there were not—could not be used. Our European partners will not tolerate for much longer a position whereby they can give us evidence to help get rid of international crime but we neither use our own nor give it to them. Cleary, there is plenty of scope and the sooner the review produces a positive answer, the better. Again, I suspect that the security services have been unduly cautious for a long time.
There is a further problem about admitting such material. If a prosecution wants to use 20 minutes of the product of phone tapping, when a person's phone has been tapped for six months, it would be necessary, for fairness, to disclose the whole six months to the defence so that it can ascertain whether anything helps to

369
exculpate the accused. Of course, that is enormously expensive, cumbersome and perhaps capable of more closely approaching a threat to the method of obtaining the material. However, I believe that there is scope for compromise, probably through an independent judge scrutinising the material. Again, it is a tactic that can be used.
There is therefore a rainbow of measures, some extant and some potential. They form a rainbow only in the sense of ultimately offering some light for detainees because they will facilitate bringing more of them to trial. I accept that the standard of proof that is currently used is high and we are therefore, at all stages, not far away from being able to try such people if only we are a little imaginative about criminal procedure. To try such people must be our aim, thereby reducing the need for the part 4 powers by removing the foreign nationals out of Belmarsh and into court and protecting us, through the courts, from the British national extremists, who, we are told, now constitute an equal threat.
We consultees must work with the Home Office ceaselessly and use our imagination to build on those and other possibilities, with the intention of shaving part 4 to the minimum and in the hope that we can entirely remove any need for it to survive.
I end on a note of uncertainty, which runs through my position on the matter. If we go through the process, work hard, smarten up the criminal justice system, put the part 4 detainees on trial but part 4 continues, we fail to convict them and they are acquitted, will they simply be detained again?
6.8 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: The limited amount of time and the number of hon. Members who still wish to spear means that I shall endeavour to be as concise as possible.
Most of the debate so far, including the erudite contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) has rightly focused on the legal issues that confront the Home Secretary and the Minister. I do not envy either of them their dilemmas. They must consider, in the domestic context, what is known in the international context as the problem of pre-emption. The Minister summed it up succinctly in her intervention on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). However, my aim is to consider the security issues that have emerged concerning the din closure of intercept data in criminal trials and the recruitment of extra staff by MI5. Most of us would accept that it is fundamental to counter-intelligence work to maintain a strong element of surprise and keep one's enemy guessing. It was therefore a little unexpected to read in The Guardian on Monday 23 February:
"MI5 has won the backing of Tony Blair to allow the product of telephone taps to be used in court cases".
Historically, it has usually been tie other way round: politicians usually agitate for the disclosure of such material; security professionals tend, for very good reasons, to resist them.
That point has been illustrated repeatedly over the past 80 years. One can go back to 1927 and the famous raid on the Soviet trade delegation and the ARCOS company. The Home Secretary disclosed the important
370
techniques used by the security services, and we were unable to take similar action against Soviet dangers for many years after that. As recently as the first attack on the twin towers in the early 1990s, the Americans revealed information about their ability to listen to mobile telephone conversations, which ensured that they did not get that sort of warning when al-Qaeda tried again successfully in 2001. The danger of such disclosures is not only that terrorists learn what can be tapped; they may also learn what cannot be tapped and put that knowledge to use in lethal attacks in the future.
Let us consider what the would-be suicide terrorists and their co-ordinators will be trying to do in the months and years ahead. They will try to hide their affiliations; they will try to plan in secret; they will try to keep their communications secure and will therefore try to find out which communications systems cannot be monitored; they will try to find out what MI5 knows about them and their plans; and they will therefore try to infiltrate the Security Service to secure all those objectives. Conversely, the Security Service needs to operate in ways in which as little as possible of its intelligence-gathering capacity and its manning and recruitment are revealed.
That is why I am concerned about last weekend's flurry of publicity, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who I am pleased to see is still in his place, for also voicing his concern. The Home Secretary sought to brush aside my interventions—rather flippantly, I thought—suggesting that the announcements made at the weekend were old reports about a process that had been ongoing for a long time.
It is a fact that all the reports that appeared—I have a sheaf of them from which I could quote at leisure—indicated that recruitment will primarily be for the future. The 1,000 extra surveillance officers will apparently be in place after a time-lapse of three or four more years. I cannot see what could be gained by advertising to people who have an interest in trying to get into the security services for nefarious purposes that the mass recruitment of Arabic speakers has yet to be completed. The matter should have been dealt with in delphic terms, and confirmed only after the process had been carried out.
David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Lewis: I would rather not, because the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends will not be able to speak.
I conclude—in line, I hope, with my promise to be concise—with two quotes from items in the press today. In The Independent, Dr. Brian Jones, formerly the leading nuclear, biological and chemical analyst for the Defence Intelligence Service, who has intimate knowledge of these matters, states:
"From an intelligence and security perspective, it seems rather odd to so publicise a change to an organisation that normally operates with stealth and in the shadows."
Indeed, in The Independent today there is also a small item headed
"Would-be spies rush to visit website".
Underneath we read:
"Visits to MI5's website increased sixfold at the weekend after it was revealed that the security service intended to recruit 1,000 new staff to counter a feared al-Qaida attack on Britain."

371
I can only hope that the Security Service knows what it is doing in recruiting en masse in this very transparent way. It is a fact that would-be spies are rushing to apply. The question is: are they would-be spies on behalf of MI5 or are they would-be spies against MI5?
6.15 pm
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I also shall be brief. I should like to start by making two general propositions.
The first is something that is blazingly obvious, which is that there are a large number of people in this country who are in prison and who deserve to be there. There are a large number of people in this country who are in prison for a long time and who deserve to be there. I can claim a small or modest part in the imprisonment of some of them at least, either because I prosecuted them or, possibly even more so, because I defended them from time to time. Whereas many deserve to be in prison, no man and no woman in this country deserves to have his or her civil rights abnegated, and there is no reason that I am aware of for that to happen.
As part of this debate, I wish to state that there are 17 people we know of whose civil rights have been totally abnegated. They have been in prison for years, without recourse to proper legal procedures, without trial, without knowledge of the reasons for which they are in prison, and with every single civilised practice that we have in criminal jurisprudence in this country in abeyance. The importance of this is that it is not their rights that are abnegated. It is not their individual rights that are the subject of abuse and attack, because civil liberty does not belong to individuals. Civil liberty is something that we own as a collective whole.
What abuses those people abuses me. Without wishing to paraphrase or misquote the great poet, I would add that what diminishes them also diminishes me. The fact that there are those in this society, in my society, in my country, who are in this position now is an abnegation of my liberty in the same way as it is an abnegation of theirs.
The second general point that I wish to make is about al-Qaeda, which poses two threats to this country, both of them grave. The first is a threat to the liberty, life and property of our individual citizens and those who are within our jurisdiction. That is a grave threat, a threat that al-Qaeda has already demonstrated the ability to carry out.
The second threat is infinitely more grave, however. It is the erosion of our civil liberty. Every time our civil liberty is eroded because of al-Qaeda it is a victory, not for the Home Office, nor for the security services, but for al-Qaeda itself. Every time we erode our civil liberties, and do it at al-Qaeda's behest, it is a victory for al-Qaeda, a victory infinitely more profound and infinitely more deadly than the injury or damage to property or even to life.
We have now taken draconian powers as a result of the emergence of that terrorist, criminal organisation. I shall give one example under the Terrorism Act 2000, which hon. Members may be interested in. It is now an offence to possess "Scouting for Boys". I have a copy; I
372
have had it for a long time. It is an interesting book—now dated, of course—by George Baden-Powell. I have seen it on a list of books in an indictment. It is undoubtedly an offence to possess it. Why? It is because that little book tells one how to live in woodland, how to whittle sticks, how to build a bivouac, how to make a fire and how to survive. It is an offence to possess it, and it does not even have to be proved—I acknowledge the look of astonishment on the face of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who knows me well enough to know that if I am talking about law it is one of the very few things that I get right. It is an offence to possess the book at all under the Act—it does not even have to be proved that someone intends to use it for terrorist purposes. Let us not pretend that we have not ladled on our protections as thickly as possible.
May I pass over the excellent report that the Newton committee has produced? The committee has proved that on occasions the great and good can be precisely that, and has provided us with a report that is eloquent, intellectually sound well argued and wrong in only a small number of particulars.
I pass on to the red point that I want to make. It will take me only two minutes, which means that I can leave my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) some time effectively to wind up the debate for the Back Benches. I do not understand the rigorous distinction that has been drawn in the House between criminal activity and terrorism: doing so represents a grave danger. Terrorism is a crime—it is as simple as that. It is the terrorist who seeks warrior status and to be at war. The IRA persistently sought warfare status against us and we persistently denied it. Many of us cavil at the expression "the war on terrorism" because terrorism is the pursuit of serious crime—pure and simple—and should be treated as such.
We have all the ammunition, experience and criminal procedures necessary to prosecute terrorism as the most serious of crimes. If we did that, we would cease to dignify those whom we prosecute with the status of those held in Belmarsh, who are undoubtedly regarded as martyrs to, and warriors in, their cause. I can say straightaway that there would be no problem with evidence. We deal with covert surveillance in the courts every single day of the week. The system is now so effective and deadly that conviction rates have increased markedly in the past two years. We deal every day of the week with public interest immunity applications. People who prosecute go before judges and say, "I have an informant, but I car not reveal his identity because he would be at risk." In cases of which I have experience, such informants were every bit as much at risk as would be those who informed on al-Qaeda or other such criminal groups. Judges are perfectly capable of protecting the identity of those who give such evidence. We can deal with that without any trouble at all. The problem of not dealing with the situation in such as way is, as I have said, that we create a reservoir of hatred and resentment, which is not the hallmark characteristic of the way in which we deal with our criminal law.
I simply conclude as I did the last time we had this debate. The exclusion of the courts and judicial review is an abhorrence within our system. It is a gross abuse of our civil rights that should not be tolerated. It is a common truth that we do not improve human behaviour by the denial of human liberties—that has never been done and never will be.
6.23 pm
Hugh Bayley: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) for being brief and giving me a few moments to speak in the debate. He is unlikely to be convicted and imprisoned for the possession of "Scouting for Boys"—he even forget the first name of its author, so he clearly has not been reading it closely.
It is right and proper that the House has concentrated on the fight against terrorism and the security risks that face our country because that is what the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 exists principally to address. However, I wish to speak briefly about one of the Act's criminal provisions that would have become void if this debate had not taken place and if there had not been a similar debate in the other place.
As I indicated earlier, I want to speak about part 12 of the Act, which deals with the problem of international bribery and corruption. I have a longstanding interest in the issue. I introduced a ten-minute Bill six or seven years ago, and I was delighted wt en the Government introduced measures in the Act o make bribery or corruption by British citizens of British companies abroad an offence in British law.
Legislation is necessary. It is estimated that corruption costs $1.5 trillion globally, some 5 per cent. of the world economy, and it makes business difficult in many countries. The CBI used to accept with great reluctance that bribery was a necessary way to do business in certain markets, but it dropped that approach some years ago because the level of bribe required in some markets simply got to the point where it was impossible to do business at all.
I became interested in the issue because bribery and corruption undermine development in many poor countries. When President Mobutu of Zaire was driven out of his country, his personal wealth was judged to be almost as great as his country's national debt. A case is before the courts in London in which the Government of Nigeria are seeking to have returned to Nigeria $1.3 billion that is currently in the bank accounts of the former Nigerian President, the late General Abacha. Such a sum represents 20 or 30 years of British aid to Nigeria. It becomes completely impossible to carry out development assistance in circumstances in which Heads of State, other leading public officials or politicians corruptly accept money of that order. Corruption at the top trickles down through the ranks of public officials and police and customs officers until it paralyses development.
The Newton committee agreed with the Joint Committee on the draft Corruption Bill that there should be a radical simplification of the bribery and corruption law in the forthcoming Bill. The Home Secretary in the discussion paper that he published today does not agree with all the arguments of the Newton committee, but I am sure that he remains committed to the principle of introducing new legislation on corruption.
Part 12 of the Act is essential—for the time being at least, until there is other legislation—to the United Kingdom's compliance with the 1997 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on combating bribery. This year, the United Kingdom faces an evaluation by the OECD's working group on
374
bribery to see whether we comply with the convention. Also this year, we face an evaluation by the Council of Europe's group of states against corruption of our compliance with the Council of Europe's convention on corruption, which was ratified by our Government in December last year.
Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman is making a most important contribution on an issue that has not been touched on in the debate. A report in today'sFinancial Times under the authorship of Laurence Cockcroft, the chairman of Transparency International (UK), refers to the
"recent disclosure of a discreet briefing by Jack Straw, foreign secretary, last year to Foreign Office staff, in which he said UK business people caught making illegal facilitation payments to foreign officials would not be prosecuted".
Is the hon. Gentleman not alarmed and shocked at that?
Hugh Bayley: I am concerned to hear that, although I know that the Foreign Secretary has sent instructions to all posts abroad that they should report to the Foreign Office cases in which it is believed that there has been bribery or corruption of public officials in other countries by UK citizens. It is necessary to collect the evidence if we are to have prosecutions and convictions under the legislation. I am not in the business of drumming dozens of business men through the British courts and getting them sent to prison, but it is important for there to be a few cases so that the business community realises that this is a business practice that cannot and should not happen.
Through the good offices of the Solicitor-General, I have had the opportunity to meet her and her officials and the Serious Fraud Office, and I know that there are cases under investigation. I should hate to see the legislation in part 12 of the 2001 Act fall before new and better legislation is on the statute book, because all the effort that the Serious Fraud Office and others have put into gaining evidence, so that cases can be brought before the court to see how this legislation works in practice, would then be wasted. Dealing with any serious financial crime, and gathering evidence for prosecutions, is a costly exercise. It is especially costly and difficult when the evidence needs to be collected from abroad.
The United States has had legislation of this kind on its statute book for almost 30 years, and has brought some 29 cases against 23 companies and 54 individuals. Fines imposed have ranged from $10,000 to $․21.8 million, and some company executives have been sent to prison. International bribery and corruption are serious offences, and are not victimless crimes. The people who have been bribed in the American cases include Presidents, Government Ministers, military officers and Members of Parliament in 34 different countries, including developed ones, ranging from Nigeria, Mexico and Iraq to Israel, Italy and Canada.
Unlike the US legislation, ours is new and cases have not yet been brought to court under it. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the legislation in part 12 will remain on the statue book until such time as we have a new corruption Act. I welcome the commitment that the Home Secretary gave, in response to my intervention, that this issue will be addressed in the

375
serious and organised crime White Paper. I hope that the White Paper will cover the enforcement of the law, as well as the legislative framework for this matter.
6.32 pm
Patrick Mercer: We have been extremely lucky in today's debate to have three members of the Newton committee with us: the right hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney). They were all able to add much depth and clarity to a debate that I found useful and enlightening.
The Home Secretary started with a lengthy but clear exposition of exactly what the committee had said and his response to it. We did not need that to be quite so long, because it had all been trailed in the press several days in advance, so none of it came as much of a surprise. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) then made an extremely balanced and clear contribution, setting the agenda for the rest of the debate. He talked particularly about part 4 powers, and said that the fact that the Government had agreed to review not only those powers but the whole Act, including the details of intercept evidence, after six months would probably mean that the Opposition would support the Government on this measure.
The question of intercept evidence has been mentioned widely. The right hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Berwick-upon-Tweed, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and a number of others all talked about intercept. Although it is undoubtedly extremely important, perhaps I might add a note of caution from my practical experience of it. Intercept is not only, as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said, a question of telephone tapping—although I know that she knows that. As we move away from the last war, as the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said, and start to look at the new war—I shall be careful about using that phrase in the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)—or at the new campaign, we have to understand that we will be intercepting not only clear speech on the telephone, but veiled speech on the internet, in e-mails and in other means of electronic communication, which it will be extremely hard even for trained analysts to understand.
That point was clearly brought out by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). Using such information as evidence will not be simple. The people involved do not use clear speech. They do not say, "Let's organise an attack for next Tuesday using three rocket launches and four people carriers." It is not done like that. Even in the days of the IRA, which was relatively unsophisticated, not a single terrorist in my experience used clear speech.
It is clear from the difficulties with flying aircraft back and forth to America that whatever is being intercepted is extremely difficult to interpret. Turning that
376
interpretation into evidence will be very tricky. I thoroughly understand the Government's reservations and applaud the points made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Haltemprice and Howden and for North-West Cambridgeshire and other hon. Members, but using such evidence will not be as simple as it seems. Nevertheless, I appreciate that the Government have agreed to review the matter.
One or two other points emerged clearly from the debate. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) was backed up by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen and the hon. Member for Walsall, North. All spoke about the racial aspects of the legislation—how the Muslim community could feel particularly victimised. Indeed, the Muslim community in my constituency is extremely uneasy about the developments of the past two years. There is no doubt that the community feels scrutinised, if not victimised. I therefore ask the Minister what the Government will do about introducing a Muslim outreach programme such as that which the American Government so successfully implemented following 11 September 2001. How are we approaching that matter and how are we ensuring that such communities feel less uncomfortable? As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said, we depend greatly on those very communities for intelligence, information and recruits for our intelligence services, which I am told are developing and expanding considerably.
At least three colleagues spoke about allowing subordinate legislation to amend primary legislation—my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) ma le a powerful intervention on the subject. It is clear from his remarks, as well as those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), that, hand in hand, the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Civil Contingencies Bill are changing the face of legislation. We must be desperately careful that extreme measures do not lead to extreme legislation which, to paraphrase the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, we later regret or have to allow to wither on the vine rather than use day to day.
We have been told clearly—almost to the point of nauseam—that extra resources will be given to MI5, but where will extra resources come from for MI6, GCHQ, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, Customs and Excise, immigration services and the host of other agencies that collect information or intelligence? May I go one step further and ask the Minister to what extent those disparate organisations will be streamlined as a result of the White Paper on our intelligence services?
There has been a lot of exposure in the press about lack of economies of scale in our intelligence agencies. At least two contributors, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member For Sleaford and North Hykeham and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, have expressed their reservations about the use of intelligence, the gathering of it and the virtue of it. Only by streamlining our intelligence services will economies of scale be reaped. Only by doing that will we be able physically to produce a set of intelligence that it may be possible to interpret o that it can be used as evidence in court. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on that.

377
Although I do not believe that this matter has been covered tonight, I would be extremely interested to know what measures the Government intend to take against those people who are recruiting the British suicide bombers whom we have seen in action recently. To the best of my knowledge, three Britons have now destroyed themselves with suicide bombs, and I believe that they were recruited in this country in such a way that it was probably not a criminal act. What will we do about those leaders who choose to suborn the people whom they are meant to lead? What powers will we have to prevent that sort of recruiting, which manifests itself clearly in terror overseas and no doubt in due course here at home?
I want to underline the points made by several Members that this legislation puts too much emphasis on what has existed previously. The idea of internment—that is what it is—has clearly not worked in the past. We have been through that, and looked at the lesson. We cannot try to reintroduce internment even in a modified or attenuated version as we see in Belmarsh today. Can the Minister assure me that we will look at new ways of dealing with this matter?
We are blessed with excellent security services. It has already been mentioned that this time last year we were facing an attack in this country by a chemical or perhaps a biological agent—the information can be interpreted in two ways. Rioin was going to be used in north London. Similarly, in the middle o February last year, armoured vehicles were deployed around London Heathrow airport to protect us from a surface-to-air missile threat. Both those victories—victories they were—were based on solid and profound intelligence. We deterred both those operations. Had we not done so, I suspect that the whole nature of today's debate would have been different. We have the men and women of our intelligence agencies and our police force to thank for that.
My last point has been made clearly, not least by the hon. and learned Member for Medway: we cannot allow our liberties to be compromised bad laws. We must uphold the laws of this land. We must have effective and proper laws that reflect our particular brand of liberal democracy. If we do not, we give way to the pressures of the terrorists and we become as bad as they are.
6.43 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration(Beverley Hughes): First, this has been an outstanding debate. We have had some powerful and thoughtful contributions, which were almost exclusively on part 4, which I will address in a moment. I want to start with the issues that have been raised about other parts of the legislation.
The shadow Secretary of State spoke about freezing orders and identity fraud, and he has seen the reply in our response to the Newton committee. On the freezing orders, it is important that he note s that while we have used the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001 up to date, there may be some time in the future when we will need to act on our own quickly. It is therefore important to keep that power in place. More generally, in relation to other parts of the legislation, the fact that some powers may not have been used much does not detract from their deterrent effect. That is an important point that the police at d others have made to us.
378
My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) made specific points about part 12 and the bribery provisions. I am well aware of his long-standing interest in bribery, particularly bribery overseas. That relates to his concern about international development.[Laughter]. I am sure that my hon. Friend and his constituents will understand what I meant. I was casting no aspersions. Anyway, I can reassure my hon. Friend that we would not want to lose the powers in part 12 until alternative legislation was in place.
We heard speeches about other parts of the Act from two members of the Newton committee, the right hon. Members for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I echo the Home Secretary's thanks to all members of the committee, particularly those from whom we have heard today. I will not comment on all the issues that they raised—I hope they will understand—but I trust they will accept that the Government's response to the report is serious and considered. The Government have a duty to respond to reports, and it is in the nature of things that we will not agree with everything in them, but according to my count we have agreed with, or said we are already consulting or acting on, about 60 per cent. of the committee's recommendations. I hope its members will accept that our disagreement with some does not negate our view of the seriousness of the work that has been done and the important contribution that it has made to the debate. Indeed, the Home Secretary's document states that the committee's work and that of Lord Carlile have helped to shape the debate that we hope will take place shortly.
Inevitably, today's debate has mostly concerned part 4 powers and whether, as the committee suggests, they should be replaced as a matter of urgency. The House has discussed the various alternatives that the committee, and Members who have spoken today, have suggested. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already explained why the part 4 powers were introduced, and why we still need them. I think that the unprecedented and horrific attacks on 11 September, followed by the attacks that have been mentioned today—in Bali, Saudi Arabia, Casablanca, Jakarta and Istanbul—are testimony to the need for those provisions. It is clear that international terrorists remain willing and able to attack British interests at home and, indeed, abroad, as we saw in Istanbul. The absence of a successful attack so far on the United Kingdom or other western targets could lead some to conclude that the threat has been reduced or confined to parts of the world where such an attack would have little impact on us, but that is not so.
Mr. Cash: In the context of the potential for something of that kind to happen, may I point out that the Civil Contingencies Bill would almost certainly become operative? Given that the Home Secretary supports the Bill, will the Minister assure us that the test of reasonableness inherent in the 2001 Act will be applied to it, and that there will be no ousting of the courts' jurisdiction? After all, the Bill will overtake and possibly subsume the provisions of the Act.
Beverley Hughes: I know that the hon. Gentleman is very exercised about the Civil Contingencies Bill. I can tell him that alongside the written statement on

379
resilience that we placed in the public domain today are powers in the Bill—I think they
are the powers that concern him—to be used in such emergencies. They are intended to enhance our resilience in the event of an attack, and will be used only in those extreme circumstances.
As Members know, the threat is real and the risks high and long-term. We face a public emergency that threatens the life of the nation. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who summarised the various sources of consensus on that point, but let me now explain why we think this particular threat presents us with challenges that are very different from those we have experienced so far. It is perpetrated by people in different groups in many different countries—and by people in loose, fluid federations—with no obvious political objective except destruction. That means that those groups are very difficult to penetrate, and gathering and evaluating intelligence is very difficult.
Moreover, the tactics, which include suicide bombings, mean that prosecution after the event is, by definition, totally irrelevant. So prevention of such attacks is critical, which means that our main source of evidence has to be intelligence and similar material, not evidence after the fact. Taking all those factors in the round, the hallmarks of our normal judicial system that we value highly—open court; defendants hearing all the evidence; bringing to court witnesses, whose lives would then be threatened—offer us no realistic prospect of prosecution in key cases. That is the dilemma that we face in the light of this new kind of terrorism.
So how are we facing this threat? First—this point is worth making, because it was not made particularly strongly today— we are prosecuting where we can under existing terrorist legislation and the criminal law. There have been six prosecutions under the Terrorism Act 2000 and convictions under other legislation. It is important to note that many convictions in relation to terrorist activity are not necessarily prosecuted under that legislation, but under alternative criminal legislation, a recent example being the arrest and charging of Mr. Badat in Gloucestershire. Initially, that arrest was made under the 2000 Act, but inquiries led to his being charged under the Explosive Substances Act 1883. Other current cases, such as those involving ricin, and the offences arising from the death of DC Oake, may involve the laying of other kinds of charges.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: In looking at this issue, will the Minister reflect on the evidence that the Home Office gave to us in what was probably the most unsatisfactory of our evidence sessions? We asked what the Government's view would be if people whom they suspected of being terrorists were prosecuted under the rest of the legislative programme and sent to normal prisons. We asked what their assessment was of the risk of such people's propagating their terrorist philosophy, were they to be exposed to a range of people with whom they would not have contact under the terms of
380
restraining terrorist legislation. The Home Office gave no effective answer This is an issue that needs to be explored.
Beverley Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but I can assure him that the Prison Service and the other relevant agencies have well-established systems for dealing with people who present such a risk when ill custody. We will use whichever means we can to get the maximum number of prosecutions, and the maximum level of sentence for any person whom we suspect of terrorism, whether it means using criminal law or not.
In terms of how we are dealing with the current situation, we also hive the part 4 provisions. I want to make a couple of points about the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the way in which the certification process has been used. Members need to understand that SIAC is not an inferior type of court. In fact, by definition it s a court of superior record, which is chaired by a High Court judge. There are hearings in advance of individual appeals that deal with disclosure. The special advocates have played a powerful and important role in challenging material that the Secretary of State has put to SIAC. During the appeals themselves, and in examining social security witnesses, the advocates have actively challenged material and raised relevant point s of law. It is very important that Members understand the SIAC process.
I also want to put t on the record a rebuttal of the contention of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that because such people are in detention, the agencies would take their foot off the pedal in terms of reviewing cases and considering whether information has changed. That is not true. Every case is kept under active review by the Home Office, the police and the security services both prior to individual appeals and as part of the six-monthly and three-monthly reviews.
On the certification process, it is important to understand that Lon Carlile stated that the Secretary of State used his power proportionately and certified people only in appropriate cases. Members will know that in the 11 individual appeals that SIAC has determined, all the certificates were upheld.
That said, it is right and important, for the reasons identified by hon. Members in the House today, that we debate widely how we should respond to the threats of the future and whether, as the Home Secretary said earlier, we can establish incrementally additional means of dealing effectively with the threat that we face.
The Newton committee—others have agreed today—believes that the powers of detention should be replaced, that all terrorists should he dealt with by the same route regardless of nationality and through means that do not require a derogation That would be the ideal, but the question is how, at the same time as achieving those objectives, we can provide an effective response to the particular characters; tics of the new terrorism that we face. That point was powerfully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).
Some alternatives have been proposed. The hon. Member for Newark Patrick Mercer) himself provided a good critique of the limitations of intercept evidence. Terrorists know that we intercept them and the quality

381
of the information that we glean is variable as potential usable evidence. Intercept evidence, investigating magistrates and surveillance all have potential as a package, but the difficulty is that, either alone or together, they do not overcome one of the main problems—the nature of the intelligence that we would want to present and how we protect the lives of the agents who provide much of that intelligence, often by infiltrating small groups of people.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar spoke about using hearsay evidence. If a person were to say in court that someone told them that such and such a thing either happened or was said, the agent could and would be identified. I hope that out forthcoming debate will address that major obstacle.
We are not currently convinced that any of the alternative proposals mentioned today, even if taken together, provide a workable alternative to the part 4 powers. As the Home Secretary said, we face a challenge and the Government—and, indeed, the whole House—would be criticised if the country suffered a terrorist attack and we had not taken the necessary precautions. We need to balance the need to protect the nation with the need to protect the individual freedoms and liberties that are at the heart of our democracy.
The rights of the individual are central, but they are not confined to the rights of the suspected terrorist. Every member of the public, every family, every child has the right to expect the maximum security and freedom from harm in a mature democratic society. Our dilemma is how best to balance the rights of that majority and the rights of the few. It has to be a balance. To argue, as some have done today—that the rights of suspects—or the rights of the individual theoretically—in any process of prevention or prosecution must be supremely paramount is to deny the citizen's right to security. In our view, to say the t the processes and principles of law as we know them already are the only ones possible is to deny the nature of the terrorism that we are dealing with.
As we go forward, I hope that we can maintain the spirit that we have had today. We have made an excellent start, and I enjoin the public to join in the debate, as it is in their main interest that the Government are acting.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 313.

Division No. 59

[6:59 pm

AYES

Baker, Norman

Davey, Edward(Kingston)

Beith, rh A. J.

Doughty, Sue

Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

Etherington. Bill

Breed, Colin

Ewing, Annabelle

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Foster, Don(Bath)

Bruce, Malcolm

George Andrew(St. Ives)

Burnett, John

Gidley, Sandra

Burstow, Paul

Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Hancock, Mike

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies(NE Fife)

Harvey Nick

Carmichael, Alistair

Heath, David

Chidgey, David

Hoey,Kate(Vauxhall)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hogg, rh Douglas

Cotter, Brian

Holmes;, Paul

382

Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

Sanders, Adrian

Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)

Sedgemore, Brian

Keetch, Paul

Shepherd, Richard

Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

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

Lamb, Norman

Stunell, Andrew

Laws, David(Yeovil)

Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

McDonnell, John

Teather, Sarah

McNamara, Kevin

Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Thurso, John

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Webb. Steve(Northavon)

Moore, Michael

Weir, Michael

Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

Opik, Lembit

Williams, Roger(Brecon)

Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Willis, Phil

Wishart, Pete

Pugh, Dr. John

Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rendel, David

Richard Younger-Ross and

Robertson, Angus(Moray)

Bob Russell

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clapham, Michael

Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Ainger, Nick

Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

Allen, Graham

Clelland, David

Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

Anderson, Janet(Rossenda/e & Darwen)

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ms Ann

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Coleman, lain

Atkins, Charlotte

Colman, Tony

Austin, John

Connarty, Michael

Bailey, Adrian

Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

Baird, Vera

Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

Banks, Tony

Cooper, Yvette

Barnes, Harry

Corston, Jean

Barron, rh Kevin

Cranston, Ross

Battle, John

Crausby, David

Bayley, Hugh

Cruddas, Jon

Begg, Miss Anne

Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

Bennett, Andrew

Cummings, John

Benton, Joe(Bootle)

Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

Berry, Roger

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Blackman, Liz

Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

Blears, Ms Hazel

David, Wayne

Blizzard, Bob

Davidson, Ian

Blunkett, rh David

Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

Boateng, rh Paul

Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

Dawson, Hilton

Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Brennan, Kevin

Denham, rh John

Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Dismore, Andrew

Browne, Desmond

Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

Buck, Ms Karen

Dobson, rh Frank

Burden, Richard

Donohoe, Brian H.

Burgon, Colin

Doran, Frank

Burnham, Andy

Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

Burnside, David

Drown, Ms Julia

Byers, rh Stephen

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Caborn, rh Richard

Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

Cairns, David

Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

Edwards, Huw

Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

Efford, Clive

Campbell, Gregory(E Lond'y)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

Caton, Martin

Farrelly, Paul

Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

Challen, Colin

Fisher, Mark

Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Chaytor, David

Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

383

Flint, Caroline

Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

Leslie, Christopher

Follett, Barbara

Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

Foster, rh Derek

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Foster, Michael(Worcester)

Linton, Martin

Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings &Rye)

Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

Love, Andrew

Foulkes, rh George

Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Luke, lain(Dundee E)

Gapes, Mike(IIford S)

Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

Gardiner, Barry

McAvoy, Thomas

George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

McCabe, Stephen

Gibson, Dr. Ian

McCafferty, Chris

Gilroy, Linda

McDonagh, Siobhain

Godsiff, Roger

MacDonald, Calum

Goggins, Paul

MacDougall, John

Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

McFall, John

Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Grogan, John

Mclsaac, Shona

Hain, rh Peter

McKechin, Ann

Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

McKenna, Rosemary

Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

McNulty, Tony

Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

McWalter, Tony

Hanson, David

Mahmood, Khalid

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

Mallaber, Judy

Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil &Rhymney)

Mandelson, rh Peter

Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

Healey, John

Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

Hepburn, Stephen

Martlew, Eric

Hermon, Lady

Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

Hesford, Stephen

Merron, Gillian

Hill, Keith(Streatham)

Michael, rh Alun

Hinchliffe, David

Miliband, David

Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

Miller, Andrew

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Moffatt, Laura

Hope, Phil(Corby)

Mole, Chris

Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Morley, Elliot

Hoyle, Lindsay

Mountford, Kali

Hughes, Beverley(Stretford& Urmston)

Mudie, George

Mullin, Chris

Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

Munn, Ms Meg

Humble, Mrs Joan

Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

Hutton, rh John

Murphy, rh Paul(Torfaen)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

lllsley, Eric

O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

Jamieson, David

O'Hara, Edward

Jenkins, Brian

Olner, Bill

Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

O'Neill, Martin

Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

Owen, Albert

Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

Perham, Linda

Jowell, rh Tessa

Picking, Anne

Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

Pickthall, Colin

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Pike, Peter(Burnley)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Plaskitt, James

Keen, Alan(Feltham)

Pollard, Kerry

Kemp, Fraser

Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

Khabra, Piara S.

Pound, Stephen

Kidney, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

Kilfoyle, Peter

King, Andy(Rugby)

Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

Prescott, rh John

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

Prosser, Gwyn

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Purnell, James

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Quinn, Lawrie

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

384

Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

Reid, rh Dr. John(Hamilton N &Bellshill)

Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

Taylor, David(NW Leics)

Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

Rooney, Terry

Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

Trickett, Jon

Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

Truswell, Paul

Ruane, Chris

Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

Turner, Neil(Wigan)

Salter, Martin

Twigg, Derek(Halton)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

Savidge, Malcolm

Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

Sawford, Phil

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Shaw, Jonathan

Walley, Ms Joan

Sheerman, Barry

Wareing, Robert N.

Sheridan, Jim

Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

Watts, David

Singh, Marsha

White, Brian

Skinner, Dennis

Wicks, Malcolm

Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

Wilkinson, John

Smith, John(Glamorgan)

Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

Williams, Betty(Conwy)

Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

Wills, Michael

Soley, Clive

Winnick, David

Spellar, rh John

Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

Squire, Rachel

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Woolas, Phil

Steinberg, Gerry

Worthington, Tony

Stevenson, George

Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

Stewart, David(Inverness.E & Lochaber)

Wright, Tony(Cannock)

Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

Wyatt, Derek

Stinchcombe, Paul

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Tellers for the Noes:

Stringer, Graham

Mr. John Heppell and

Tami, Mark(Alyn)

Paul Clark

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee Report on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Review (HC 100), which was laid before this House on 18th December 2003.

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

  PROTECTING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES' FINANCIAL INTERESTS
  That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. OJ C286, Vol. 46, the European Court of Auditors 2002 Annual Report; No. 11954/03 and ADD 1, Commission Report evaluating the activities of the European Anti-Fraud Office; No. 11993/03, Commission Annual Report 2003: protection of the financial interests of the Communities; Third activity report of the European Anti-Fraud Office for the year ended June 2002; and Fourth activity report of the European Anti-Fraud Office for the year ended June 2003; and supports the Government's continuing efforts to promote measures to improve financial management and combat fraud against the European Community's financial interests. —[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Fireworks
  7.15 pm
  Dr. Howard Stoate: I have pleasure in presenting a petition initiated by my constituents Mrs. Jess Southerton and Mrs. Susan Stewart and signed by more than 750 of my constituents, mostly from the village of Hartley. My constituents welcome recent legislation restricting the sale and availability of fireworks to the general public, but feel that further legislation banning the over-the-counter sale of fireworks to the public is necessary in view of the large number of domestic accidents and injuries caused by the inappropriate use of fireworks by untrained members of the public that continue to occur to residents and animals in communities such as Hartley.
  The petition states:
  The Humble Petition of residents of North Kent sheweth
  That the over the counter sale of fireworks to the general public, who are untrained in the correct handling and use of fireworks for use in private firework displays, unnecessarily endangers the health and safety of their users, as well all on lookers and passersby, and causes unnecessary distress and nuisance to neighbours, domestic animals and livestock
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will take such measures as lie within its power to prevent the over-the-counter sale of fireworks to the general public at all times.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Lindisfarne Gospels
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  7.17 pm
  Joyce Quin: I am very pleased to be given this opportunity to urge the Government to take steps to ensure the permanent return of the Lindisfarne gospels to the north-east of England. I am also pleased to see in the Chamber several of my right hon. and hon. Friends who take a great interest in this issue, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) and my hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr. Jones), for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) and for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who, although he does not represent the north-east, comes from my part of the north-east in Gateshead. I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is here, because I am aware that the issue crosses the party divide. I pay tribute to other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp), who has taken a long-standing interest in the subject.
  I had a vivid realisation of just how dear the Lindisfarne gospels are to the hearts of people in the north-east some three years ago, when the originals were displayed in the Laing art gallery in Newcastle upon Tyne for three months. The number of visitors was very considerable—approaching 200,000, which, I understand, is double the number of visitors to the British Library in the same period. Having been one of the people who stood in line to view the gospels on that occasion, I well remember the excitement and exhilaration felt by those queueing.
  It is important to stress to people from outside the north-east that the gospels, more than any other work of art, encapsulate the cultural achievement of what is described as the golden age of Northumbria—the age of Cuthbert, Aidan and the Venerable Bede. As such, the gospels are a huge and powerful symbol of the region's proud past, but I should like to argue that they can be something more—an inspiration for the region's future. The campaign to secure the return of the gospels has existed for a long time, and will, I am sure, continue until success is achieved. I pay tribute in particular to the work of the Northumbrian Association, which has led an active campaign in recent years. I also acknowledge the efforts of previous Bishops of Durham and the current bishop in support of the campaign. Five years ago, the previous Bishop of Durham inaugurated a debate in the other place about the return of the gospels. Interestingly, he won the firm support of the Earl of Carlisle, whose family were connected with Sir Robert Cotton, who acquired the gospels 100 years or so after they were looted from the region at the time of the dissolution of the monasteries. It was good that someone connected to the person who bequeathed the gospels to the British Museum was calling for their return to the north-east.
  I am pleased that the press in the north-east, including The Journal in Newcastle this week, have supported the campaign to return the gospels. Indeed, a number of

  387
  well-known north-east personalities, including this week Brendan Foster, who is well known to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism, have spoken out in favour of their return. In any debate about the relocation of national treasures, worries are expressed about the setting of dangerous precedents and the fact that many more demands for relocation may follow. However, having visited the British Library and seen the works on display, I know that there are many works, manuscripts and books from different parts of the United Kingdom, including a fair number from the north-east of England. However, I do not know of any campaigns, and do not expect any, in favour of the relocation of those objects, which do not have the special significance or iconic status of the gospels. A helpful precedent would be an event that took place a few years ago, when the stone of Scone was returned to Scotland. It was a special object with iconic status, and its return has similarities to the case for the return of the gospels.
  I stress very strongly that the issue is not related in any way to that of the Elgin marbles, and should not be confused with it—they are completely different. The reason is obvious: the north-east is a part of the United Kingdom, and we are talking about the relocation of an item of our national heritage within our nation. Indeed, north-eastern taxpayers pay taxes towards the upkeep of the British Library just as much as taxpayers in London or anywhere else in the country do. National treasures do not lose their status as national treasures by being located outside the capital. Indeed, if the Lindisfarne gospels came back to the north-east, their status as a national treasure would be enhanced, not diminished.

  It is appropriate that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism will respond to our debate, as he and I have worked together enthusiastically to promote policies of decentralisation and devolution. I therefore hope that he agrees that the Government's record in promoting decentralisation in a range of policy areas including culture is laudable. Returning the Lindisfarne gospels would work with the grain of the Government policy of ensuring active regional and decentralisation policies in the cultural sector. Moreover, returning the gospels would boost the already important tourism industry in the north-east, and thereby boost the wider north-eastern economy.
  As a Member representing part of Gateshead, I am conscious of the important link between culture and economic regeneration, which has been given dramatic emphasis in cultural developments such as the renaissance of the Gateshead quays and the important boost to the region's image provided by cultural innovations and attractions such as the angel of the north. Returning the gospels would be a significant further step in the economic regeneration of the region and the enhancement of its image, the importance of which should not be underestimated when attracting investment to the region and portraying it as an attractive region in which to work and live.
  So far, the British Library and the Government have resisted the permanent return of the gospels to the north-east and I should therefore like to attempt to forestall some of their arguments against our campaign.
  388
  First, the library points to the fact that, recently, high-quality facsimiles have been available. That is true; they usefully contribute to making the gospels visible in several different locations.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend knows about the connection between the gospels and St. Mary and St. Cuthbert's church in Chester-le-Street. Its fight to have a facsimile on permanent display is obviously commendable but it would add to the history trail in the north-east if the gospels were on permanent display somewhere in the north-east. That would recognise the cultural and historical significance of the north-east to the development of Christendom in this country.
  Joyce Quin: I greatly appreciate my hon. Friend's point. The importance of Chester-le-Street in the story of St. Cuthbert and in that of the gospels should be commemorated in the way he suggests. However, what appeared to be a special deal between the British Library and the region on the availability of a limited number of facsimiles has been somewhat undermined by the fact that the firm responsible has produced approximately 980. They are now viewed as a commercial venture rather than a sensitive response to the region's case. Nevertheless, their existence suggests a strong case for the British Library to have a high-quality facsimile and for the originals to be located permanently in the north-east.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that the right hon. Lady will recognise, in pressing her powerful case, that in the view of the inhabitants of Holy Island, whence the gospels originated, the British Library has been helpful in making available a virtual version there and in supporting the presentation of information about the gospels on the island. I would not like the British Library simply to be criticised when it has given that help.
  Joyce Quin: I appreciate that point and I know that people on the island value the help. The island is a tremendously important tourist asset for our region, attracting almost 1 million visitors each year. Since the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has intervened, I acknowledge the cross-party support for the issue. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) has also been supportive.
  When I recently revisited the British Library and looked at the Lindisfarne gospels in the John Riblatt gallery there, I was interested to note that they are not highlighted in the way that I believe that they would be if they were permanently housed in the north-east. A leaflet about the John Riblatt gallery sets out its 10 highlights but the Lindisfarne gospels are not included. The British Library understandably views them as an important manuscript and in the context of the evolution of book production. However, the Lindisfarne gospels an much more to the people of the north-east of England.
  Those who want to retain the originals in London argue that they can be kept in appropriate conditions for their conservation. However, the gospels were exhibited in the Laing art gallery without conservation problems. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be

  389
  sympathetic to the point that, if we have a decentralised cultural policy for exhibitions, we should have such a policy for cultural skills and the ability to look after objects in the region where they are found. As a Gateshead Member, I know the expertise on conserving paintings that exists in the Shipley art gallery. I am therefore sure that skills can exist in the region. Sometimes, it can appear patronising when such doubts are raised.
  I have mentioned the number of visitors on Holy Island. In Durham, there are half a million visitors a year. There was a huge turnout of support for the gospels when they were in the Laing art gallery. Therefore, I believe that the region is a very suitable location for exhibiting the gospels. Although many of our London museums are wonderful, there is often such a concentration of treasures that it is difficult to single out particular treasures in the way that the gospels when they were exhibited in the Laing art gallery so well illustrated.
  Sometimes the objection is also raised that scholars tend to congregate in the capital and they need access to the gospels. Some scholars I am sure would be able to look at the facsimile versions, but others could be attracted to the north-east, not least because we have five very good universities. The rather amusing brief on this subject provided by the Northumbrian Association says that pioneers from the north-east thoughtfully provided the railways for people to get from London to the north-east, and, through Joseph Wilson Swan, provided the electric light so that the gospels could be well viewed when they got there.
  I also note the content of parliamentary answers. For example, I have here an answer to a written question given by the former culture Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), who mentioned having more regular displays of the original gospels in the north-east than has so far occurred.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister will understand that I want the permanent return of the gospels to the north-east. But at the same time it would be good if the Government could at least signify their willingness to have more regular displays of the original in the region, perhaps annually, or to facilitate a delegation of Members and representatives of organisations in the region to put their case to the board of the British Library.
  In her 1981 book about the Lindisfarne gospels, Janet Backhouse, then assistant keeper in the department of manuscripts in the British Library, recognised that
  "this particular book has never been regarded merely as a museum curiosity of interest only to scholars … but has kept something of the mystique of a holy relic even into the 20th century".
  We could now add "the twenty-first century". She also noted in that book that local awareness of the importance of the gospels remained very much alive.
  I conclude by telling my right hon. Friend that this would be an ideal year to decide on the permanent return of the Lindisfarne gospels, because September marks the 900th anniversary of the arrival of the body of St. Cuthbert in its permanent home in Durham cathedral. Perhaps even better, the gospels could be returned before 20 March, which is St. Cuthbert's day.
  390
  I believe, and I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends also believe, that the case for returning the Lindisfarne gospels to the north-east is overwhelming. Therefore, I urge the Government to respond positively to our campaign.
  7.33 pm
  The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) on securing this debate. As she said, we have stood shoulder to shoulder on the whole question of devolution, and I have no doubt that we shall do so later this year on the referendum for a "Yes" vote for further devolution to the north-east. There is no greater advocate for the north-east than my right hon. Friend, particularly with regard to devolution.
  I come to the subject of the debate, the Lindisfarne gospels, an issue of particular resonance to the people of the north-east. I welcome the opportunity to discuss it more fully in the House tonight.
  The Lindisfarne gospels are unique, unquestionably one of our greatest national treasures and a world heritage item. Now believed to have been created in the early part of the eighth century at the monastery of Lindisfarne, by a single author, they contain both the Latin text and the oldest surviving English example of a translation of the gospels. This remarkable work is a testament to the historic cultural diversity of the British Isles. They were created at a time when the monastery of Lindisfarne had a central role in fostering a spirit of collaboration and reconciliation during a period of great uncertainty and political change—history does keep repeating itself. To understand the spiritual and artistic roots of the great work is to understand much about its time.
  It is both clear and right that the Lindisfarne gospels are a source of great pride to the north-east. They hold an iconic status and it is understandable why people want them to be displayed in the region. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend views their return as important. However, I can equally appreciate the rationale behind the British Library's view.
  We do not know the location of the gospels prior to the 17th century, but by 1702, they were in the possession of the antiquary Sir Robert Cotton, whose collection was given to the nation. They were part of the founding collection of the British Museum, and were thus transferred to the British Library when it was created in 1972 as the National Library. The Lindisfarne gospels, as part of the British Library collection, are the property of the British Library Board, and they are held for the nation. The Government's view remains that the decision to return the gospels is rightly one for the British Library Board.
  Mr. Stephen Byers: My point is about the role of the board. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could say whether there have been any discussions with the board with the purpose of achieving a meeting between the board and the delegation to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) referred, because that would demonstrate his good will toward the campaign. I know that my right hon. Friend answers

  391
  in a ministerial capacity, but he will have a degree of personal sympathy toward the case that is being put for the Lindisfarne gospels. May I give him a word of warning? We feel that the Government have a responsibility in the matter, and there might come a time when they will have to indicate to the British Library Board the strength of feeling not only in the region, but in a broader area than the north-east—as we can see from the attendance in the Chamber—about the rightful place of the Lindisfarne gospels.
  Mr. Caborn: As I have said, the matter is the responsibility of the board, not the Government. However, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West wants to lead a delegation to put points to the board, I understand that it would respond favourably to such a request. I shall tell the board and my officials tomorrow that I would welcome a meeting between a delegation led by my right hon. Friend and the board. Points about the feeling in the north-east could then be put forcefully to the board.
  As I said, the decision is one for the British Library Board. As with all our national museums and galleries, the Government have an arm's-length relationship with the British Library, under which it can, and should, take decisions about its collections and future free from political intervention.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Is not the root cause of the problem the London-centric policies in this country? I doubt whether many of the individuals on the board represent anyone apart from an elitist group of individuals representing London. Is not the fact of the matter that whatever provocations I, as an elected north-east Member, or other hon. Members might make, unless we are in the London-centric clique, the board will frankly not listen to what we will say?
  Mr. Caborn: I do not think that that line of thinking should be taken with the British Library Board, because it would not get an especially good reception. If I may give a little advice, I suggest that it might be more useful to keep to the facts that my right hon. Friend presented in her contribution this evening.
  The British Library Board cannot freely dispose of any artefacts within the collection to other countries or collections. It must secure those artefacts and items for successive generations. I think that most hon. Members would accept that the British Library is one of the preeminent libraries in the world. As my colleague, the Minister for the Arts, commented recently in another debate about cultural property—unfortunately she cannot respond to this debate because she is on ministerial business in the States—such important works should be viewed within the context of institutions that have a powerful national, and international, reach.
  The British Library Board has to preserve and interpret these as well as other outstanding works in its collection. This places on the board an important responsibility. However, the British Library can, and does, take other courses of action to ensure that access to the gospels is as wide as possible, particularly for those to whom they have particular significance, namely
  392
  the people of the north-east. If the meeting takes place with the board, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West may be able to raise some of the points about the publicity given to the gospels that she has made in the debate.

  In recent years, the British Library has made great efforts to bring the gospels, with its other treasures, to the attention of visitors to the British Library, both on-site and online. Since the opening of the St. Pancras site, the gospels have been on permanent display in the John Ritblat gallery of treasures from the collection, under stringently controlled conditions, and placed alongside other landmarks of literary and human achievement. Entry to the gallery is free and it is open seven days a week.
  In April 2003, the library opened a new exhibition dedicated to the gospels, entitled "Painted Labyrinth— The world of the Lindisfarne Gospels". This displayed the gospels in the context of other eighth century artefacts. The exhibition was a huge success, both critically and in terms of visitor numbers. Alongside the exhibition, the British Library produced a virtual exhibition, accessible through its website. The virtual exhibition was also hugely popular. In addition, the library is well advanced in a project to produce an electronic facsimile of the gospels on CD-ROM.
  British Library staff are also working closely with teachers in the north-east to produce gospels school packs and resource boxes. These are intended to be distributed to local schools, teaching children about the rich history of this unique part of the United Kingdom. The British Library has also been at the centre of development of innovative new technology to allow visitors, both on-site and online, unprecedented access to the library's treasures. Indeed, the development of the "Turning of the Pages" interactive digital display allows the visitor to look at, and turn each page virtually, allowing increased access and interpretation without in any way harming the manuscripts themselves.
  The need to care for the collections must at all times be balanced against the need to provide access, and the British Library has actively sought to loan the gospels, when it can, to the north-east. However, due to their fragility, the gospels have been on loan only five times since entering the collection. Three of those have been to the north-east over the. past 20 years. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the most recent loan was to the Laing gallery in Newcastle in 2000.
  In early 2003, the British Library made further moves to preserve the integrity of the gospels as works of art, while ensuring that they are made accessible in the north-east. The library entered into an agreement with Faksimile Verlag for the production of "state of the art", museum-quality, full-colour facsimiles. Part of this agreement was to provide two facsimiles to the north-
  east—one to Durham cathedral and the other to Holy Island, as my right hon. Friend said. A third facsimile is on a seven-month tow of the north-east. It has already visited Bede's World in Jarrow, Hartlepool museum and Hexham abbey. Today, I understand, it is

  393
  being shown to Durham county council staff before going out on a tour of schools in County Durham. While on display at Bede's World last October, visitor figures increased by a staggering 34 per cent. in comparison with October 2002. That gives a clear indication of the success of this initiative.
  The decision of how to care for the gospels must be a matter for the British Library Board. I believe that the British Library has discharged its responsibility to make these treasures publicly available with imagination and determination, and has shown that such works can be
  394
  made accessible through a variety of means to perform their original role—that of inspiring and symbolising aspects of human history and the human spirit.
  I understand the strong points that my right hon. Friend and others have made in this short debate and I hope that they will be put to the British Library Board. We will see the response to that, but I reiterate that overall responsibility rests with the British Library.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Human Rights (Burma)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Paul Clark.]
9.30 am
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: In much of my speech this morning, I shall refer to the work of Amnesty International. It is perhaps proper that I first place it on record that I am a member of Amnesty International, and that in the next few days I shall forward to the Register of Members' Interests the fact that I benefited last week from financial assistance from Amnesty in respect of a visit that I made to a prisoner on death row in Ohio.
The matter before us today is rather different. My interest in the subject was first engaged by my local Amnesty group in Orkney, which has been vigorous for many years in its efforts to support the democracy movement in Burma and to raise the profile of the issues in this country. It is proper that we remind ourselves why there is so much concern in Britain and around the world about the situation in Burma, or if one prefers, Myanmar.
In 1990, the National League for Democracy, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won the election with 82 per cent. of the vote. Even Liberals in Orkney and Shetland have never achieved that sort of result. The military leadership of the country, however, which has been in power since 1962, refused to recognise the democratic wishes of the people of Burma. That injustice continues to this day.
The brave struggle by the Burmese people for basic human rights and democracy, led by Suu Kyi, who, of course, is a Nobel peace prize winner, remains frustrated. Suu Kyi has been confined to her home on Inya lake in Rangoon for more than half the 13 years since her landslide election victory. She was last released in spring 2002 and began to rebuild her party and support base. Then, on 30 May 2003, a group of thugs backed by the military junta clashed with supporters of Suu Kyi. She and 35 members of the National League for Democracy were taken into custody.
The calm, rational and measured response of Suu Kyi has been remarkable. After the United Nations human rights envoy Paulo Sergio Pinheiro met her last November, he said:
"She wants accountability and justice, not revenge."
This is a lady who has campaigned all her life for human rights that we in this country all too often take for granted. That she has managed to remain so composed and dignified is remarkable.
During recent weeks, there have been mixed reports in the media regarding the current situation in Burma. The Burma Campaign believes that the regime's strategy is to delay further international pressure while it finds
68WH
ways of coping with new United States sanctions. What is particularly worrying is that it believes that this strategy is working.
Tin Oo, the vice-chairman of the National League for Democracy, was moved from custody to house arrest only 10 days ago. However, the NLD still does not have access to this 77-year-old man. Aung San Suu Kyi was offered release last autumn, but she told the UN human rights envoy that she would not accept her own liberty until all those arrested on 30 May had been released. Her telephone is cut off and visitors must get Government permission to see her. Last month, there were reports in the International Herald Tribune that the death penalty is still being used to silence critics of the Government. In November, the editor of a magazine was condemned to death by the regime, shortly after the publication of an article alleging the misuse of funds donated to the country.
Despite this, the perception in the region is that the situation in Burma is improving. Media reports on 20 February, for instance, said that the Thai Prime Minister had told his Vietnamese counterpart that he expected Suu Kyi to be released before October's Asia-Europe meeting.
Bob Spink: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this important subject. I apologise for the fact that I will not be able to stay until the end of the debate because I have another commitment.
In mentioning the Thai Government position, is the hon. Gentleman aware that if neighbouring countries were to do more to bring pressure on the Burmese authorities, particularly with regard to trade, land ownership and development, extractive industries and so on, the Burmese authorities might do more to improve their human rights record? Should not the Thai Government allow more aid to go across their country's border into Burma at this time?
Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. In broad terms, I agree with his comments. Later, I shall discuss the various different levels on which those of us in different parts of the world can hope to bring pressure to bear on the Burmese Government, and the importance of action within the region will be central to that process.
Minor steps in the right direction and vague promises of democratic reform must be set against the reality of the current situation in Myanmar. The Burma Campaign has summed up the present position as one in which there is
"disruption of democracy; the continued detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and her colleagues; the scorched earth policy against ethnic peoples; the use of rape as a weapon of war against women and children; the mass forced displacement of civilian populations; the widespread and systematic violation of human rights; the largest use of child soldiers in the world; the production and export of illegal narcotics; the spread of HIV/AIDS to neighbouring countries; and the looming humanitarian crisis resulting from the collapse of public services."
We in Britain must not have the wool pulled over our eyes. That will be critical in the run-up to the EU's review of Burmese policy in April and the Asia-Europe meeting in October. We should take the approach that

69WH
Amnesty International took during its recent visit. It was highly critical of the regime because it judged
"concrete actions on the ground"
and was not swayed by
"fine words, and vague promises for the future without any timetable for change".
After its visit to Burma, Amnesty outlined its serious concerns about arbitrary arrests, prolonged interrogation and incommunicado detention without judicial oversight carried out by military intelligence and other security personnel. It also believes that Burmese trials continue to fall short of international fair trial standards. According to Amnesty, those recently tried have been denied access to a lawyer or have been permitted to talk to a lawyer only minutes before their trial. In some cases, political detainees have not been able to speak in their own defence or to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. As a result, long sentences have been handed down solely on the basis of statements provided by police officers or military intelligence. Amnesty estimates that there are 1,300 political prisoners in Burma. Amnesty's lasting impression from the trip was that tolerance of criticism and dissent is shrinking while at the same time the regime talks of moving towards civilian government. We must not be fooled by a charade engineered in Rangoon.
Despite all this, the latest process initiated by the regime has already started to benefit the generals. The international community has stepped back from any concrete action against the regime even though Aung San Suu Kyi and the leadership of her party remain in detention. One of the first elements of the so-called "road map to democracy" produced by the regime is to reconvene a national convention that was first tried in 1993. The NLD boycotted the convention because of the authoritarian restrictions imposed on delegates, which included not being allowed to deviate from approved discussion papers; being allowed to express support only for constitutional principles proposed by the military; not being allowed to distribute any papers on the convention premises; and being subjected to intimidation by the military while the convention is out of session. One delegate was given a 20-year sentence for distributing a paper to other delegates.
When Burma was last debated in Westminster Hall on 2 July last year, the Minister said:
"We will also make sure that the deep worries that exist in the international community are not left as words but are followed up by actions, which means that clear messages must be sent. The way in which the economy of Burma has developed must be addressed, but the regime and its leaders will find that the international community will target them and their cronies for further sanctions."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 2 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 96WH.]
The Minister was right to take that position then., and the time for rhetorical pressure has surely now long passed. Since the July debate, the two largest UK investors in Burma—Premier Oil and British American Tobacco—have agreed to withdraw from the country. That is welcome, but the UK Government have still not introduced legislation giving them power to ban new investment in Burma. Will the Minister now give an undertaking to do so?
70WH
In response to parliamentary questions tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), the Department of Trade and Industry revealed in December 2003 that in 1998 the total value of UK imports of goods from Burma was just £17.3 million. By 2002, however, it had increased almost fourfold, to £64.3 million. Between January and September 2003, a further £44.3 million-worth of goods were imported from Burma. According to the Burma Campaign, the UK currently imports more goods from Burma than does any other European state.
In last year's debate, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), speaking on behalf of the Conservatives, said:
"Foreign investment has provided the regime with the money that it needs to cling on to power and has enabled it to double the size of its army."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 2 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 92WH.]
He went on to call for targeted sanctions and an EU investment ban. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made in securing such measures and, indeed, whether they are the objectives of Government policy?
I can understand that some hon. Members may be reluctant to impose further sanctions on Burma. The Burmese people have suffered greatly under the current regime. I do not think, however, that targeted sanctions would hurt the poorest Burmese people, who tend to work in the informal economy, which is generally not dependent on foreign investment.
The Minister for Trade and investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing an important debate on a country about which many of us are deeply concerned.
Our approach to economic sanctions is to target the regime and those with economic interests in it, rather than to target the Burmese people with general sanctions. What does the hon. Gentleman think of that policy perspective?
Mr. Carmichael: That clarification is very helpful, but if the Minister reads what I said he will see that I spoke of targeted sanctions. If it is possible to minimise the effect on the ordinary Burmese person, who will certainly not benefit from foreign investment in the same way as those with power and influence, that will be extremely welcome and I will commend the Government on their approach.
According to the Burma Campaign, United States sanctions have hit some elements of the regime's support base in the export and banking sector, but those measures are now being undermined by the European Union. Burma is looking to the EU to replace lost US export markets, especially in textiles. The fact that the EU may be giving the regime assistance is reprehensible. Can the Minister confirm that when European Foreign Ministers meet in April to decide their position on Burma, our Government will press for tougher sanctions?
The impact of US sanctions has also been undermined by the actions of Swift bank, as was exposed in The Observer last month. Following the imposition of tough financial sanctions by the US in August, the regime has successfully converted its financial dealings into euros. The technology business Swift, via one of its regional

71WH
offices in Singapore, helped to supply software and other key data so that the regime could do that. Swift members include some of the biggest names in world banking: Citibank, JP Morgan, ABN AMRO and Credit Suisse. Can the Minister tell us what steps his Government are taking to prevent the euro from replacing the dollar as the currency used by the junta for international commercial activity?
It pains me to say that the mood music that will accompany April's talks does not sound promising. Earlier this month the Irish Government, who will hold the EU presidency when the talks take place, decided to recognise the military regime in Rangoon—a decision that will no doubt have angered one of Ireland's best-known sons, Bono of U2 fame. Writing in the Herald Tribune in January, he and US senator Mitch McConnell said:
"Without more pressure from trading partners and regional powers, the SPDC"
—the State Peace and Development Council—
"has little to fear."
They rightly concluded:
"Aung San Suu Kyi does not need the tributes or the unbridled admiration of a rock singer or a US senator. She needs unwavering, uncompromising international support—as tough and determined as she herself is. We can't wait for another atrocity appalling enough to hit the international headlines."
At the forthcoming EU review of the Burmese common position, our Government must argue forcefully for the agenda abdicated by the Burma Campaign. It has called for a ban on investment in Burma by all European countries and citizens; a ban on the import of goods and services from enterprises owned by the military, military personnel and their associates; a ban on the import of strategically important goods from sectors of the economy that are under state monopoly, such as gems and timber; and a ban on financial transfers and transactions denominated in euros. It has also called on member states to push for UN Security Council mandatory sanctions.
What is critical is that a time frame should be established by the EU. At present, the Burmese regime is busily trying to find new markets to replace those lost in the US. The EU and the Association of South East Asian Nations—ASEAN—are making no time demands on the regime, and thus its use of smoke and mirrors continues to be an effective way of maintaining power. That cannot be allowed to persist.
Last December, the EU adopted a resolution prohibiting the sale and export to Burma of equipment that might be used for internal repression or terrorism, and freezing the funds of certain people related to Government functions in the country. While that is welcome, there is a fear that at present Europe's position is simply not strong enough.
One important issue brought to my attention by Amnesty International involves visits to the EU by members of the SPDC. When Burma joined ASEAN a few years ago, its membership disrupted relations between the EU and ASEAN— the two organisations being known as ASEM, or the Asia-Europe Meeting, when they meet. ASEM could not meet in Europe because of the EU ban on visas for members of the SPDC, and it could not meet in ASEAN countries because EU members refused to sit at the same table as
72WH
members of the SPDC. However, it has been noted that several ASEM meetings are scheduled for this year in Europe and Asia. Can the Minister explain how it has suddenly been possible for the EU and ASEAN to meet, given the earlier problems?
At UN level, the Burma Campaign wants the imposition of targeted sanctions, including a mandatory arms embargo, an investment ban and a ban on Burmese exports of strategically important goods including oil, gas, gems and timber. The UN Secretary-General should take the lead in formulating a comprehensive road map with a specific time frame backed by a UN Security Council resolution and sanctions. Such tough measures are supported by the people on the ground, members of the National League for Democracy. At present, they have popular support but no power. Giving them power to control the level of international sanctions would give them a significant bargaining chip.
As the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) suggested, regional pressure on the regime is vital. Last year ASEAN members took the unprecedented step of criticising the detention of Suu Kyi, but they remain silent on human rights issues more generally. I think that we in this country are right to look to neighbouring countries in the region to take a much more robust and proactive approach to human rights abuses in that region. Pressure applied closer to home will always be more effective than that which comes from countries whose politics and culture are different from ours in the western developed world.
In September, Indonesia sent its former foreign Minister, Ali Alatas, on an attempt to bring about the release of Suu Kyi. That attempt was of course unsuccessful, but our Government must use their influence to pressurise ASEAN countries into being more robust in their dealings with Burma.
Finally, I want to impress on the Minister the necessity of recognising the contradiction between the fine words emanating from Rangoon and what is happening in practice. Amnesty International and the Burma Campaign UK both believe that, in many ways, the situation in Burma is deteriorating. I hope that if we return to this issue in another nine months' time, we might have a rather happier picture to outline, and that today's debate will have played a small part in the process of bringing about that happy situation.
9.50 am
Mr. Iain Luke: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing this debate. Some progress has been made since I secured the previous debate on this issue, which took place in Westminster Hall on 2 July. However, in recent times, the attempt to secure the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and to make the Burmese junta change course has been becalmed, so it is right that we should now reflect on what more we can do to make further progress.
I want to pay tribute to Amnesty International in Dundee, which got me involved in setting up the all-party group on Burma, along with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). In conjunction with our friends in the Burma Campaign UK, we have made progress in campaigning for changes

73WH
in that country and in bringing about greater recognition of the human rights abuses inflicted by the military junta, not only on minority groups but on the Burmese people themselves.
We should consider the economic progress being made in the countries surrounding Burma—I shall call that country by its old name—such as India. This week, we met the assistant high commissioner for Bangladesh, who told us about the economic progress that his country is making. Burma has natural resources that any developing country would give its eye-teeth for, and the poverty and trouble it is experiencing are a sad reflection on the state of that country.
We set up the all-party group not only to campaign for human rights but to bring about democratic change and to restore democratic government to Burma after some 15 years of junta control. Progress was made in last year's debate, and the Minister who was present then—he is also present today—painted a very active picture of what the Government were doing to bring about change; indeed, I paid tribute to them in that regard.
We should draw attention to the part that the Minister has played since then in persuading British American Tobacco, with which he had several meetings, to disinvest in Burma. Our all-party group also had many meetings with BAT, partly as a result of Government pressure, but what also became clear in our discussions with its Asian management was the extent of the economic chaos in Burma. BAT was not even sure that it could pay its workers, whether weekly or monthly, because the banking system had collapsed. That factor played a big role in forcing BAT out of Burma: at the end of the day, it was unable to operate properly. We had a long discussion with it about its operation, and I am glad that, thanks to the pressure applied by the Government and the Burma Campaign UK—and in the light of the economic chaos in Burma—BAT has disinvested in that country.
There is still a big job to be done, and we should not hide from what we need to do. It has rightly been pointed out that we need to consider a two-tier strategy. Our colleagues in the European Union still trade with Burma, and they are running scared from taking a more progressive and harder line on sanctions. There has been some £4 billion of investment in EU trade there in the past 14 years. The chair of the all-party group and I, along with MEP colleagues of all political persuasions, hope to visit those EU countries to put the case for stronger action against Burma. I hope to hear from the Minister that the Government will be making that case to colleagues on the European Council to ensure that there is a unified European voice.
We need also to consider the fact that trade continues with Asian countries. It has been rumoured that, in the wake of BAT's disinvestment, China has stepped into the breach and is investing considerable sums. We must discuss that issue with the Chinese Government when we get the chance, given their commitment to becoming a much more active player in the world economy. There are therefore many different countries and forums that we need to tackle to ensure that the pressure we hope to continue to apply is really felt.
74WH
The all-party group is actively seeking another meeting with the Burmese ambassador, whom we have met on several occasions. Following the 2 July debate, we met him at the embassy, on 15 July, and pointed out that it was now time for the Burmese Government, if they are honestly intending to move towards democracy, to issue their road map. Unfortunately, that road map has constituted something of a run-around—as much of the documentation has described it—in that it has been used as a ploy to stave off international pressure. At the last meeting of the all-party group, we agreed to speak again with the Burmese ambassador.
Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman is a recognised expert in this field and he has done much good work to draw international attention to these problems. Does he agree that one way to galvanise world opinion is to draw attention to the junta's links with the production of drugs and their trafficking across the Burmese border, which, of course, affects the entire world?
Mr. Luke: The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. As I said during last July's debate, the drugs trade is an essential part of the black economy in Burma, and to an extent it keeps the military junta afloat. If we can do more to highlight that issue and to embarrass the junta, we can bring about change.
We must continue to put pressure on the Burmese Government, and we will meet the Burmese ambassador— soon, I hope— to make that case. We shall point out that last July he promised that his Government would change their ways. However, no significant change Inn occurred, and in many cases there has been a re-entrenchment of the junta's existing attitude towards change. The Burmese Government have promised to introduce a civilian face to government by 2006, but I am very sceptical about whether they will live up to it. If they are going to make such promises, we must ensure that we continue to apply pressure.
There is a lot to do, and we must continue to work with as many groups as possible, such as Amnesty International, throughout civil society in the UK. Many trade unions are involved— Unison, for example, attends our all-party group's meetings in the House— and we need also to work with Church groups and the Burma Campaign UK to keep this issue to the fore. We did a great deal of wok last year: for example, the early-day motions that we tabled on the issue were the most heavily subscribed of last year's quota, and we will continue to consider that option in the next few months.
The Government must continue to make a strong case for the Burmese Government's accepting the inevitable fact that, if they are to progress and to provide economic security for their citizens, they must embrace democratic change and bring about Burma's full membership of the economic community. That way, Burma can capitalise on its immense wealth as a producer.
I look forward to the Minister's reply. He has been very supportive in the past and I have no reason to doubt that he will be so in future, and that he will continue to make the case. The campaign goes on.
9.59 am
Mr. Michael Moore: This is an important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing it and on setting out the position in Burma in such a comprehensive manner. His remarks were complemented by those of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke).
The position in Burma seems to go through a repeating cycle in which the regime's abuses get worse, international pressure increases to match them, concessions are suggested and then, over a period of time— frustratingly for us and worryingly for people in Burma—little is delivered. Thus we return to the beginning of the cycle once again.
A couple of years ago, there was considerable optimism when Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest in May 2002. That came with the easing of restrictions on the National League for Democracy and the release of many political prisoners. Within 12 months of those happy events, however, the situation was almost completely reversed, particularly in the events of 30 May last year. As the Foreign Office's human rights report of 2003 put it:
"The past year has proved to be another depressing period for the people of Burma during which tentative hopes for moves towards democracy and improved human rights adherence by the military regime were raised, eroded and then abruptly shattered."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland highlighted, we have had recent promises of a road map—a fashionable diplomatic tool—to lead us to democracy. The convention idea of 12 or more years ago has been resuscitated and we should hope that some progress will be made, but the with spread domestic and international scepticism about the idea is understandable.
Events are set against the background of an economy in ruins. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East pointed out, the country has rich natural resources yet most of its citizens live in stark poverty. In response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), he also drew attention to concerns about opium production and its clear links with the military regime. As we reflect on the dire state of the country, we should not lose sight of its dire HIV/AIDS problems.
Abuses are widespread and continue to horrify everyone of a decent disposition. The State Peace and Development Council, as the military Government of Burma style themselves, could teach us a few things about irony, but I doubt whether they could do much on human rights. The EU and the UN echo the British Government's strong criticisms. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Burma Campaign UK, among many others, have catalogued the level of abuses.
Those abuses start at basic levels with the lack of any freedom of speech, freedom of the press or freedom of association: all the basic tenets of a civilised society are ignored. Even at the convention, to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland explained, where some discussion was supposed to take place, people were arrested for daring to bring other discussion papers to the process. People are detained on an arbitrary basis, and the most recent estimate of the Burma Campaign
76WH
UK is that as many as 1,400 people are prisoners of conscience. As we have heard, ethnic minorities throughout the country are targeted by the regime.
There is a strategy of abuse in the economy with widespread use of forced labour; in the army with the use of child soldiers; and across the country with the most disgusting and systematic use of rape as a means of repression. Burma's generals oversee a loathsome evil state, but in all that, they have happily not broken the spirit of Aung San Suu Kyi or the thousands of others in her movement and across the country. Their shining example gives the international community a special responsibility to act on their behalf.
Significant progress has been made since the issue was debated here last July. The Minister deserves considerable credit for the decision of British American Tobacco to withdraw, coming on the heels of Premier Oil's decision earlier last year to divest itself of its interests in Burma. More recently, PricewaterhouseCoopers, with which I was associated in my Edinburgh days, and others have agreed to cease their involvement with the country. I also pay tribute to the so-called "dirty list" which, thanks to the campaigning zeal of the Burma Campaign UK, has become part of this country's debate on Burma. It has proved highly effective in drawing attention to the companies that continue to invest in, and trade with, Burma.
Trading is a delicate issue and we recognise the need, as the Minister highlighted, to ensure that sanctions on economic activities are targeted on the regime rather than on the generality of the Burmese population. It is clear from the National League for Democracy and others that that sort of campaigning is important, and they fully support it.
The issue of Burma has been raised in many international bodies and forums of the world. It is regularly aired in the UN, having been the subject of debates and reports by the General Assembly and by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. One element missed from that list is the UN Security Council. When the Minister replies, will he touch on whether the Security Council could make more effort to bring further pressure to bear on the regime?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out, the countries that make up the Association of South East Asian Nations have a special responsibility because they have the closest links with the Burmese authorities. Those countries have a duty to reflect on their economic and political ties. Suggestions have been made—I put it no more strongly than that—that part of the current make up of the Burmese regime may lead to its having a civilian as the head of Government just in time to be able to take over the presidency of ASEAN in due course. I believe that the world will see through such a charade, but it is incumbent on ASEAN and others to ensure that it does not come to pass.
Closer to home, the EU, which has been criticised by some campaigners, has a list of targeted sanctions, but people are concerned that since the US took tougher direct action against the Burmese authorities, the EU will soak up the trade and investment lost to America. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that he and his colleagues in European capitals are aware of that

77WH
danger, and that he will tell us what action is proposed. I personally believe that if sanctions are to be applied from Europe, it is best to do so at the EU level, but that does not remove responsibility from our own Government to keep up the pressure.
I repeat my earlier tribute to the Minister for his work on BAT and other companies. Regular and strong denunciations of the regime are made, including by the Prime Minister. As a full participant in the EU and the UN, the UK has an important role to play. I acknowledge the difficulties that the Government would face if they were to act in isolation, but I hope that the Minister will be able to update us on the Government's plans to ensure that the pressure continues to be felt by the Burmese regime.
There is consensus among the political parties represented in this Chamber about the situation in Burma, and by and large about the response that is required. We must recognise the progress that has been made, but we must not lose sight of the fact that further efforts are needed before we get rid of this evil regime.
10.10 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I add my warm congratulations to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing this debate. His introduction was comprehensive and powerful.
We can all agree that Burma has a brutal and oppressive military dictatorship that destroys the human rights of a people whose traditions are of peace and decency. I saw those traditions, and the landscape's mesmerising beauty, when I visited the country more than 20 years ago.
I applaud the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) for the consistent way in which he has raised the issue of Burma in the House. Burma is a country of considerable natural resources and wealth, and it is quite shameful that the benefits of that have not permeated down to the people.
The concept of human rights as a legitimate consideration in the formulation of foreign policy is becoming increasingly entrenched around the world, and that is understandable and right. It is no coincidence that countries ruled by some of the least democratic and representative regimes—countries such as Burma—also have some of the worst human rights records.
The 2003 human rights report issued by the Foreign Office points out that the period that it covers was a depressing one for Burma. It states:
"Human rights violations in Burma continue to be widespread and systematic and the Burmese ethnic minority groups suffer disproportionately."
Burma's human rights record is marked by consistent abuses and broken promises of reform. The ongoing conflict between the regime and various ethnic minority groups such as the Karen, until recent ceasefire talks, contributed substantially to an increase in the overall pattern of human rights abuses. Burma's regime has systematically detained large numbers of political prisoners, often elderly people, in appalling conditions. It has subjected them to torture and used rape and
78WH
murder as weapons against its own people. It has forced farmers off the land, burned villages and employed child soldiers and slave labour. Religious freedom is, in many respects, non-existent.
By any yardstick, that is an absolutely horrendous catalogue of unacceptable violence and abuse against our fellow human beings. It is coupled with the absence of any real form of democracy. Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy has been deprived of its rightful place as the Government of Burma. As we have heard already, with more than 80 per cent. of the vote in the 1990 elections, the NLD enjoys an unimpeachable mandate—one of which politicians in any democratic country can only dream.
The Burmese regime persists in making promises about moving forward to the so-called constitutional convention now that the ceasefires have occurred. The convention has been promised by the country's Prime Minister. In theory, all parties and groups will have a say, and the intention is to draw up a new constitution as part of the seven-point road map to democracy.
Talk however, is easy, and promises from the Burmese regime in the past have been of little value, serving merely to distract attention. There were some improvements in 2003, only for everything to be reversed with the ambush of Aung; San Suu Kyi and her supporters' convoy at the end of May. She has languished in detention, either in prison or at home, ever since. The "protective custody" explanation offered by the Burmese regime was a sick joke. I find it difficult to see how long-term progress can be made as long as Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters remain in detention and excluded from participation in a proper dialogue with Government and the convention.
Not only are democracy and basic human rights absent from Burma, but the country's people live in abject poverty due to chronic economic mismanagement. Total spending on health and education amounts to just 0.5 per cent. of gross domestic is product—a fraction of what is spent on the military forces of a country with no obvious external enemies. All that fosters a climate in which corruption and abuses of economic, civil and social rights are all too common.
The picture in Burma is indeed gloomy, but there have been some welcome developments. I freely pay tribute to the work that the Minister has done in that regard. We welcome BAT's decision last year, and Premier Oil's decision before that, to pull out of the country, thereby sending a very clear message to the regime. I pay tribute to the untiring efforts of the Burma Campaign UK, which does so much to keep the profile of this issue high and to persuade companies of the error of supporting such a brutal regime, however indirectly, by investing in the country.
The recent ceasefires that have been agreed and the ones that have been discussed by the Burmese military regime and the country's myriad rebel groups, most recently the Karen National Union and the Karenni National Progressive Party, are welcome. In addition, the transfer of Tin 0o, the NLD's vice-chairman, from prison to house arrest offers some basis for mild encouragement. Nevertheless, I see no valid reason why he should have been detained illegally in prison in the first place, and I deplore the fact that his "release" is

79WH
only a change to house arrest, rather than absolute freedom. However, such developments must be part of a far broader programme of change, reform and democratisation, and there must be genuine ceasefires involving a full withdrawal of SPDC troops from Karen areas. We must judge the changes' effectiveness by results, not rhetoric.
Too often, the lack of democracy in Burma and the plight of Aung San Suu Kyi is seen in isolation from the overall human rights situation and the suffering of particular ethnic groups. All these issues must be addressed in parallel, as they are facets of the same problem—the unwillingness of tie Burmese regime to respect its people and its peoples will. It is not good enough for other countries simply to wring their hands and to mutter platitudes about a vile regime, but to do precious little. The US has adopted a very tough line, and in June 2003 the EU's "common position" was apparently strengthened. It now includes "targeted sanctions", travel bans and asset freezes on regime figures and supporters. Also banned are defence links or arms sales, high-level visits, and non-humanitarian assistance from countries.
All that would be welcome if it were properly enforced, but in reality the situation appears somewhat different. In due course, I would value the Minister's perceptions on that point.
I am concerned that we have seen no evidence of positive results from the asset freezes and travel bans. The only official figure that we have, passed on to me by the Burma Campaign UK, is the freezing of €86 in Germany. Will the Minister take this opportunity to say whether that is accurate? What value of assets has been frozen EU-wide, and also specifically in the UK?
It appears that the Bank of England's list of assets to be frozen consists only of the assets of individuals, not of companies—even if, as in the case of companies such as the Myanmar Economic Corporation and the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings, those companies are effectively adjuncts of the regime. Business activities by companies close to the regime, or even owned by it, fund its activities. The common position calls for the assets of entities to be frozen, yet the apparent failure to do that has given the military regime an opportunity to shift assets out of harm's way.
What steps are the Government taking to bring regional pressure, such as we have alluded to this morning, to bear on Burma from the surrounding countries, Bangladesh, India and China? India and China are regional powers of enormous and growing significance and of wealth and influence, and I am sure that they are concerned about what goes on in Burma. What conversations have our Government had with those countries about the situation in Burma?
To refer to a point that I made in our debate last year, what efforts are being made by the United Kingdom to secure a UN Security Council resolution to extend the common position to a larger number of countries and unequivocally to condemn the regime? What contacts have Her Majesty's Government had with officials and member states of the Association of South East Asian Nations to press them to take a tough regional stance?
Andrew Selous: Does my hon. Friend think that the UN could take
80WH
further steps to put pressure on Burma? Should the regime's obvious contempt for the people of Burma and its complete disdain for the democratic will of the people make Burma a candidate for expulsion from the UN?
Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and he correctly alludes to the abuses, although of course other countries commit human rights abuses but remain members of the UN. However, the UN is a forum for bringing such matters to international attention and the Security Council is the right place to do that. There is some evidence that, where that has happened in the past, the UN has had some influence. We need to approach the situation in a multi-faceted way.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: On the point raised by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) about membership of the UN, when the UN condemns a country that is a member of that organisation it sends a much more powerful message than if the country is not a member. The embarrassment factor is much greater because Burma is a member of the UN. There is more that the UN could do, but we have to remember that some members of the Security Council might not take entirely the same view as us.
Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. The British Government have, of course, had some experience over the past year of some members of the Security Council not taking an identical view, but I am sure that we can find a route through this problem.
Will the Minister enlarge on the steps that the Government are taking to promote a fully watertight and legal ban on British companies investing in Burma? The debate gives us an opportunity to send a further unequivocal message to the Burmese regime that its behaviour is unacceptable, that it must change and that it must democratise Burma.
I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore): there is no divide in the House on the issue and, again, I pay tribute to the Minister for his efforts in this regard. I hope that, in his remarks, he will be able to inform us further about the progress that has been made in dealing with this tragic problem, which is of such concern to all of us who cherish human rights and who are concerned about their abuse anywhere in the world.
10.24 am
The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I repeat my congratulations to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on initiating this debate. I also congratulate him on the constructive way in which he put his case. If I am unable to deal with all the points he raised, I shall be happy to meet him later to discuss some of the issues in detail. He raised a series of important questions, so it would be worth while going through the issues in a different context.
I share the real concern that is felt on both sides of the House about the appalling human rights situation in Burma. In recent years, there has been no significant

81WH
improvement. Indeed, in many ways, the situation has worsened and I doubt that we shall see any serious improvement as long as Burma is governed by an oppressive, unelected military dictatorship.
We have gone through cycles with the regime. There was a period of engagement and liberalisation, with an election, but the regime did not like the result, so reaction set in. Periodically, the regime's grip on the country is relaxed but then there is further reaction. My diagnosis is that the regime has enormous control over the country. Many of the generals engage in economic and business activity: they accept backhanders, are involved in various forms of corruption, and are reluctant to give up the largesse that they receive from those activities. However, they want to maintain their grip not simply for financial reasons; there is also fear in the regime. The generals are afraid that their position and that of their families will be endangered if they liberalise and allow the Burmese people to control their own country.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has made it clear throughout that her aim is not overthrow and revolution but reconciliation. Her aim is that the military should be under democratic control, but she does not seek retribution. She shows a willingness to come to terms with the past which we recognise in other great leaders such as Gandhi and Nelson Mandela who have said that, in the long term, the key thing for a country is not to seek retribution but to be reconciled with its past. I have nothing but the highest regard for Aung San Suu Kyi in her articulation of those views.
I join with colleagues who express high regard for the Burma Campaign UK, which has maintained a high political profile for this issue for a long time, through all the cycles of liberalisation and reaction. It must have been deeply frustrating for members of the campaign when it looked as though things were going right and progress was being made, but then the regime suddenly clamped down and re-imposed its dictatorship. I hope that they will continue their campaign; they have broad support from all parties in the House. There is consensus that change must come in Burma, and as long as the dictators continue to run the country we shall continue to press for change.
The British Government have been at the forefront of international efforts to press for improvements in human rights in Burma. We co-sponsored a highly critical resolution at the United Nations General Assembly in December and we are working with our European Union partners on an equally firm resolution at the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in April.
One difficulty in respect of the United Nations is that some members of the Security Council have close relationships with the regime in Burma. China, in particular, maintains a close dialogue with it. However, I have no doubt that China is seeking to bring about changes in Burma. On several occasions, in Beijing and elsewhere, I have engaged with Chinese leaders who certainly recognise that a series of regimes in the whole south-east Asian region, including China itself, want to bring about economic reform and/or democratic change.
82WH
All those countries are seeking to change the historic image to encourage investment into their region and produce economic benefits for their countries. I am thinking of Malaysia and Indonesia—one can go through the list—but one country is letting down the whole region, damaging international investors' perceptions and raising questions about whether it is safe to invest there and create the jobs that the people of that region want. That country is Burma.
The regime in Burma—the dictatorship—is so incompetently handling the economy and so appallingly damaging the whole international perspective that it is damaging the whole region. Chinese and other leaders recognise that that country's dictatorship is damaging not only to the interests of the people of Burma, which it so clearly is, but to all the wider neighbours in the region, because of the way it stands out as one of the most reactionary dictatorships in the world, thus damaging the whole region's economic prospects.
The UN's approach partly involves supporting the nomination and mandate of Professor Pinheiro, the special rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights. He visited Burma in November and pressed for the immediate release; of 1,350 political prisoners. We strongly support him and the work that he is doing.
I also join in welcoming the release, such as it is—we must be grateful for small mercies—of U Tin Oo, the deputy leader of the National League for Democracy, from prison to house arrest on 14 February, as well as the earlier release of 26 NLD members. Those are small steps, but I call on the regime to release fully all the political prisoners. I welcome the fact that it has released some of the political prisoners, but I want it to release more. I welcome the fact that U Tin Oo is no longer lying on the floor of a prison cell and is in his home, but I want more to be done and for him to be fully released, as I wish Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to be fully released.
We have repeatedly condemned the violent regime-sponsored attack on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her convoy on 30 May 2003. Since then, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been in detention or under house arrest. I had been in regular telephone contact with her until her arrest, but the regime has repeatedly rejected my attempts to speak to her on the telephone again. She is not even allowed to telephone her family. The regime has failed to respond to our ambassador's repeated requests to arrange to call on her. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has repeatedly made it clear that she wants the process of change to be brought forward by dialogue and discussion. We hope that the regime will find a way to enter into serious dialogue with her, as that will lead to long-term and serious change.
Amnesty International was able to visit Burma in December. It noted a grave deterioration in the human rights situation. Again, let me welcome the fact that the regime allowed Amnesty to visit Burma. That is a change, and we must be grateful for those small mercies; they are small but important steps. Amnesty pressed the State Peace and Development Council to allow an independent investigation into the events of 30 May. I am glad that the UN resolution called on the SPDC to hold an independent inquiry. We await the SPDC's response. We will not hold our breath, but we hope that there will be some kind of investigation.

83WH
The regime's explanation for the events of 30 May defies belief. Its claim that there was some sort of communist conspiracy to overthrow the military dictatorship really does beggar belief. The communist party, as we know it, appears to be in China, and I am perfectly sure that the Chinese authorities would not allow those Burmese communists who are resident in China to carry out any sort of destabilisation in Burma itself. The prospect that there was some of sort of communist conspiracy is not a sensible or in any way coherent explanation for the behaviour on 30 May. Indeed, the regime seems not to have much of a sensible explanation for what it did at all. After it happened, there were various expressions of regret, and it almost seems as though the regime was so dysfunctional that one hand did not know what the other was doing. It ended up detaining Aung San Suu Kyi, without being quite sure why it was doing so. It simply continued with that process, and it is still in a bit of a mess. It is a very dysfunctional regime.
I should like to draw attention to the nine death sentences passed in November. Details of the charges are not known, but the accused, who were not allowed access to lawyers, were sentenced for conspiring with exiled dissident groups to disrupt peace and stability in the country. No doubt that was related to the events of 30 May. One of the nine was editor of a popular sports magazine—the first time that a journalist in Burma has received a death sentence. We condemn those death sentences and seek explanations from the Burmese Government for them.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the death penalty. The presidency pressed the EU's grave concern about the sentences in a demarche to the Burmese authorities in early December, and we will continue to press them.
In August, the generals put forward their seven-step road map to build what they call a
"modern, developed and democratic nation."
The first step is to reconvene the national convention to draft a new constitution. At a meeting in Bangkok in December, the Burmese Foreign Minister announced that a national convention would be held this year. The Thai Foreign Minister, Dr. Surakiart, briefed my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself on 18 December. We very strongly welcome—we wish to do so publicly—the Thai Government's engagement and their effort in trying to bring about change.
Mr. Luke: I hear what my hon. Friend says about the Thai Government's positive engagement, but does he share my concern about comments made in The Nation—a newspaper in Thailand—about a change in attitude by the Thai President and the Thai Government towards Burmese refugees who are now living in Thailand? There seems to be a hardening of policy. Indeed, some of the people who crossed the border to escape oppression have been returned to Burma. Has that been discussed with the Thai Government? Can we do any more to ensure that that hardening of policy is obviously softened?
Mr. O'Brien: We have indeed raised the issue of the Burmese refugees who have crossed he Thai border. We must recognise that the dysfunctional nature of the
84WH
regime in Burma has had a severe impact not only on the Burmese people but on a number of adjoining countries, including Thailand, because there is a serious refugee situation. The Thai Government have engaged closely with the Burmese regime to try to encourage it to carry out the sort of reform processes that might relieve the pressure not only on the Burmese people, but, frankly, on the Thai Government and their people as well.
We very much hope that the Thai Government will respond positively to the needs of those who are fleeing from the dictatorship in Burma. The Thai Government recognise that they must engage with the Burmese regime and seek to bring about changes to relieve the human rights problems in Burma. I welcome the steps that the Thai Government have taken to try to encourage the regime to bring about a process of reform.
Given the history of reform efforts in Burma, it is difficult to believe that the regime is genuine in its wish to change things, but each time an effort is made to bring about change, we need to encourage it, despite our scepticism. If I am right and we are dealing partly with a fearful, as well as a mendacious, regime, we need to encourage it to recognise that reconciliation is in the interests of all the Burmese people and, indeed, ultimately in the interests of the military.
As for the new road map, we welcome the fact that at least an effort is being made in terms of an announced plan. Despite our scepticism, we wait to see whether that can be delivered. If so, we shall give a positive welcome to a national convention and to an attempt to devise a new constitution.
Mr. Carmichael: I was perhaps remiss in not acknowledging the role that the Minister has played in this matter. Sometimes, when dealing with a situation in which there are so many negatives, one forgets to acknowledge the positives, and his role is a real positive. I say that more by way of explanation than excuse.
Does the Minister agree that a great deal of the scepticism could be allayed, and that reassurances would be much more warmly received, if a concrete timetable were to be attached to the regime's proposals, given the suspicion that we are facing a further delaying tactic that will ultimately allow it to continue to consolidate its position?
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right. There are obvious deficiencies in the road map put forward by the regime., including its lack of a clear timetable. Indeed, there are even doubts about whether the national convention will be held this year—I very much hope that it will—and about the sort of convention that it will be, who will be able to attend, and the possible role of the NLD. All those aspects are unclear and require clarification from the regime, but we must welcome the fact that at least we have a road map and the beginning of a process.
One key issue is who will draft the new constitution. We believe that the representatives chosen by the Burmese people in 1990 are those best qualified. The welcome ceasefires in the border areas have brought peace to places where polling could not take place in 1990, adding a new dimension to the constitutional drafting process. There is no doubt, however, that elected representatives from 1990 are essential to the

85WH
process of drafting a constitution. My reading of the SPDC road map suggests that that is not ruled out:. If the road map is to lead to reconciliation, the NLD and other representative bodies, including ethnic groups, must be given the opportunity freely to contribute to the debate in the national convention. On 23 February, the Burmese ambassador told me that the NLD was likely to be allowed to participate. We shall have to see how that is facilitated. Certainly, it cannot happen while Aung San Suu Kyi is under house arrest. Steps will have to be taken in the coming months to enable such a national convention to take place. Gagging orders of the sort seen in the 1993–96 national convention would not help. A constitution that has no popular support and is pushed through by whatever means, against the will of the people, will not contribute to national reconciliation or improve the human rights situation.
Several of the draft 104 principles that the SPDC says it wants a national convention to rubber-stamp seek to enshrine a constitutional military dictatorship. Nobody—least of all Daw Aung San Suu Kyi—would deny that the military has an important role in Burma's future, but its primary role should be to ensure the security and defence of Burma, not to run the economy or to enact and vote on legislation.
Mr. Luke: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: Yes, although I am conscious of the time.
Mr. Luke: The Minister will be aware that there is a Government in exile, who are based, I believe, in America. Has he had any discussions with them?
Mr. O'Brien: There is a Government in exile. Our primary links are with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD, who are based in Burma, but we are aware of the other claims that exist. Let me put it on that basis for now, and perhaps I will discuss it with my hon. Friend at a later stage.
What is needed now is dialogue and compromise. That is why we continue to press for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all her NLD colleagues, the release of all political prisoners, and freedom of speech and political activity. We want a genuine and meaningful dialogue between the SPDC, the NLD and other political parties and ethnic minority groups that will lead to national reconciliation. We want ultimately to see a Government who have the support of the majority of the Burmese people and promote and protect their human rights.
As the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) said, the EU common position expires in April. We are discussing its renewal with our EU partners. We believe that in light of the regime's road map, it would be wrong to send a signal that strengthened sanctions at a time when it is saying that it will undertake change. It would also be wrong to send a signal of a lack of resolve. We therefore support the rollover of existing measures of the common position in April and believe that that will maintain pressure on the regime. At the same time, we are saying that if it pursues
86WH
its road map, that is fine, but if it does not, there are opportunities for a further strengthening of the common position at a future date. We shall await the outcome of events and hope that changes will take place.
On sanctions, I welcome the steps taken by BAT and, before that, Premier Oil, to disinvest. We must be clear that the EU common position is directed at the regime and its links with various parts of the economy. One sector that I am considering is tourism. Several UK travel agencies still promote tourism to Burma. We are encouraging them to cease to do so, because many hotels and other tourism-related activities in Burma are linked to the military regime. Because there are kickbacks and investments by generals in hotels and other parts of the tourism industry, people who go on tourist trips to Burn a are in a sense actively supporting the regime and enabling those generals to receive financial advantage from it. I very much hope that anyone considering much a trip will decide against it.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) asked about asset freezes. As far as we are aware, the Burmese have very few holdings in the UK, so we have not frozen any. They do not invest here partly because we would impose a freeze on any assets as soon as they arrived. The Bank of England actively monitors the freeze list, and we do not believe that there are significant investments here. However, if the Burma Campaign or others wished us to examine any assets, we would be happy to pass that information to the Bank of England to ensure that that happens.
I was asked about conversations with other countries in the region. We have had discussions through ASEM—the Asia-Europe Meeting—and bilaterally with several countries, including Thailand and China, which are important in this context. I have also talked to the Malaysians, the Indonesians and others, including the Indians, about their relationships with Burma. The perception of most of those countries is that the regime's activities are damaging the whole region.
We fully support the tireless efforts of the UN special envoy to Burma, Tan Sri Razali Ismail, and urge the regime to allow him to return to Burma soon. We believe that his work is enormously important, and we very much support it. We hope that he can play a crucial role in the reconciliation process.
Andrew Selous: Given the fact that Britain is a member of the UN Security Council and that the Government believe in the justice of the cause, will the Minister explain what would be lost if the United Kingdom tabled a Security Council resolution requiring the UN to take stronger action on Burma?
Mr. O'Brien: Gestures may look good, but it does not look good when they fail, because the other side then claim it as a victory. 'Be regime would no doubt say that the UN had refused to pass a resolution condemning Burma, and would regard that as a victory. As for the way we play this, we need to maximise the pressure on the regime, rather than seek to make gestures that could prove to be counter-productive. We supported and promoted a strong resolution only a few months ago, which was subsequently passed. We were able to discuss it with other members of the Security Council and received their support or acquiescence. Some countries

87WH
have relationships with Burma, and may not wish to say particular things at certain times, so the timing of any steps at the UN is important. We also need to ensure that when we propose a resolution it is passed.
Andrew Selous: The Minister has been extremely generous in taking interventions, and I shall try to be brief. I accept that it would be unfortunate if the UN resolution were not passed, but I disagree with his argument. The pressure would the I be on the countries that defeated the resolution, and the international community would ask questions or countries that were not prepared to put pressure on the UN through their Security Council membership. The Minister did not deal with that point.
Mr. O'Brien: As for the British Government's dealings with the UN and other countries in the region, we have engaged very actively indeed for more than a year with a number of countries to see whether we can maximise the pressure on the regime to get it to move. Our aim is to get results, not to take gestures for the sake of it. If, by encouragement, cajoling and pressure, we can get the regime to move in a particular direction, liberalise, provide more opportunities for dialogue, and respect human rights more, we shall obviously seek to do so. The timing can be difficult to judge—each step must be made at the right time and calculated to encourage a process, rather than discourage it. If I may be critical of the UK, I should say that in the early part of last year we could have been more encouraging of the process of reform undertaken before 30 May. We could have said that we welcomed that reform and been more positive. However, I have no idea whether that would have made a difference to events on 30 May.
We need to measure our responses carefully and see whether we can get the road map to deliver something positive for the Burmese people, get Aung San Suu Kyi released, and get a process of dialogue and reconciliation started. That is the objective of our policy, which is why we are working with UN Security Council members and other bodies
Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for his generosity in giving way. I agree broadly with his analysis of the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). However, in relation to the overall scheme of pressure, is there a role for a ban by this country on new investment in Burma? That would be a more substantial gesture that would not be subject to the vagaries of international opinion in the Security Council.
Mr. O'Brien: There is no particular need for a legal ban on investment in Burma because there is little or no investment there at the moment. That is not because there is a ban, but because any sensible company director, seeing the economic incompetence with which Burma is run, would say that it is not a country in which they want to invest. There is hardly any investment going into Burma at the moment. Businesses in one or two neighbouring countries are making a small investment, particularly in the tourism industry, but by and large there is little or no western investment. The investment by BAT and Premier Oil, as we have seen, has been withdrawn. Total is still there, but few other
88WH
companies are. We do not foresee a need for such legislation, because we would be banning something that is not happening anyway. If that changed, the argument for a ban may well be made, but at the moment, we do not need a ban. It would be a gesture, but it would not have a positive result.
The SPDC repeatedly cites its commitment to national reconciliation, which is good. However, as long as we continue to receive reports that Opposition politicians and NLD supporters are being systematically harassed by the local authorities and the Union Solidarity and Development Association, I doubt whether that is achievable. In addition to facing physical violence, NLD activists are being singled out for other forms of harassment. A record of Opposition politics makes it difficult to get a passport or a train ticket from Mandalay to Rangoon, let alone run businesses or lease buildings. In May, a distinguished medical professor was sacked just because Aung San Suu Kyi visited her house while on release to see the professor's sick mother, who was staying there at the time. Two students have just been jailed for 17 years for distributing leaflets critical of the road map.

Hon. Members may have seen the recent television coverage of Aung San Suu Kyi's upcountry tour before 30 May, which showed the orchestrated violence and harassment that the NLD faced—organised, we believe, by military intelligence, even as thousands of people bravely turned out to show their support.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale raised the issue of ethnic minority rights and the abuses suffered by the ethnic groups in Burma. As a consequence of civil war and a heavy military presence, those groups have suffered disproportionately, whether through forced labour, extra-judicial killing, rape, forced relocation or the destruction of their villages. About 140,000 refugees live in camps on the Thai-Burmese border. There are some 20,000 refugees in Bangladesh and about 630,000 internally displaced people within Burma, which is why we welcome reports of the recent verbal ceasefire agreement between the SPDC and the Karen National Union, and reports of talks with other insurgent groups. We hope that those talks will lead to a peaceful settlement in which the worst abuses become a thing of the past. The Government stand ready to consider what support we can give to a genuine peace agreement and how we can help to protect refugees and internally displaced people hoping to return home. However, the conditions are not yet in place for that to happen.
The Government are committed to enhancing the human rights of the Burmese people, the primary responsibility for safeguarding which lies with the SPDC. Major improvements could be achieved if less money were spent on the military and more on medicine and education, on which the regime spends less than ․2 per person per year.
The international community, too, has a role. Within the EU, we are the largest donor of assistance to alleviate poverty and address basic human needs and health care in Burma, particularly on preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. We do so mainly through local and international non-governmental organisations and UN agencies, and we monitor their programmes carefully to ensure that the regime does not benefit from

89WH
them. We do our best to ensure, and we firmly believe, that our assistance enhances the prospects for a successful transition to democracy in Burma.
The situation in Burma is dire for the Burmese people, and damaging for neighbouring countries in the region. The rest of the world sees outrages and unacceptable attacks on human rights. The regime has, to some extent, recognised that the current situation cannot continue. A regime that lives on fear and seeks to maintain power in such a way must be pressured, encouraged and directed towards a transition to democracy and reform. As a Government, we will do all that we can to encourage that process.

D-Day Normandy Landings
10.59 am
Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise this issue. The D-day landings on 6 June 1944 were one of the defining events of the second world war. If the declaration of war on 3 September 1939 was my earliest memory—I think that it was—I remember D-day vividly. I remember because, preceding it, literally thousands of American soldiers were stationed not far from where I lived in Cheshire.
Operation Overlord was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, military assaults of the 20th century. It opened up a second front against the enemy and was an extraordinarily dangerous mission, demanding courage and commitment. The landings were, by and large, a huge success, but getting a foothold behind the beaches turned out to be much more difficult. Indeed, after a month, the allies had not advanced more than a few miles from the channel. The fighting was bitter. I am told that there are no fewer than 38,000 allied graves in Normandy, which surely stands as testament to the bravery and sacrifice of our armed services.
The 60th anniversary commemorations will be the last—let us make no mistake about that. Age has taken its toll on the veterans, and many now have problems of disability or immobility. I am sure that the country, like me, wants the 60th anniversary commemorations in June this year to befit the debt that we owe to those who fought for our freedom 60 years ago.
It is estimated that about 10,000 British veterans survive. Some 8,000 are members of the Normandy Veterans Association, and I imagine that all are members of the Royal British Legion. No fewer than 97 branches of the association remain in Britain, and there are seven overseas. I am proud that one branch is in my constituency of Chipping Barnet, and its chairman, Councillor Terry Burton, tells me that it has 40 members. Two years ago, half of them applied to go to celebrate the 60th anniversary. Some will be going with their spouses or caret s at a cost of £330 for the coach and bed and breakfast over five days. I am further informed that, throughout Britain, 3,000 of the 8,000 originally planned to go—those who could afford and desperately wanted to do so.
I applied for this Adjournment debate on 9 February, and a few hours later I was told that the Government had announced the heroes return initiative, backed up by £10 million from the New Opportunities Fund, for the 60th anniversary of events from D-day to the conclusion of the second world war. I would like to think that my initiative triggered that statement, but that would be grossly unfair on the Government; it was just a happy conjunction of events.
More seriously, I received a letter in January last year from the then Minister for veterans, which in effect said that the Government's view was that the 50th anniversary celebrations were to have been the last. However, I am glad to say that the present Minister wrote to MPs on 7 July last year saying that the main details of events to be held in Normandy next June are still being discussed with the French authorities, and confirming that two military bands would be provided,

91WH
that there would be a ministerial and senior armed forces presence and that a one-year free passport would be available for veterans who wanted to attend.
Since the heroes return announcement on 9 February, a large number of the remaining 7,000 veterans who had not been able to declare that they wanted to go, have now expressed an interest. Mr. Sidney Greenberg, who is on the executive of the Normandy Veterans Association, tells me that his organisation has been inundated with requests for information. Obviously, many veterans could not afford to pay for themselves and for their spouses or carers to accompany them on what must be the most emotional remembrance of their lives.
It would be churlish of me not to thank the Government for the heroes return scheme, and I do so most sincerely. However, I hope that the Minister will accept that severe problems remain. In the spirit of genuinely wanting to see the 60th anniversary commemoration succeed, I would like to put a number of concerns to the Minister, whom I know and respect on a personal basis. I will not go into the parochial detail of the concerns, but concentrate MI a few particular themes.
First, the Ministry of Defence must immediately, because time is short, get involved with the French Government and authorities to ensure that the veterans get to the memorials, the services or the parades that they wish to attend. There are mobility issues to be taken into account; for example, anyone who is familiar with Normandy will know that the lanes leading to the beaches in question are extremely narrow. There will be logistical problems in addition to the understandable security problems. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the pace of his Department's liaison with the French authorities has increased, and that those matters are being tackled.
Secondly, the Department must, as a matter of urgency, liaise directly with the Normandy Veterans Association and the Royal British Legion. There has been a huge increase in inquiries and there is great uncertainty. I understand that only two officials are dealing with all those matters. I have been informed that the chairman of the Normandy Veterans Association, Mr. Leslie Frost, was sent a letter by an MOD official last autumn saying that there was no point in having a meeting. I find that inexcusable, and I hope that the Minister will reassure us that there will be direct, meaningful and continuing contact with those relevant organisations.
Thirdly, I believe that there is a need for a statement of clarification on the passes or identity cards that are needed for certain of the eve Its, such as the Arromanches ceremonies, which I understand will be attended by the President of France and Her Majesty the Queen. The need for security is understandable, but it is essential to plan now to ensure that no veterans are disappointed.
Fourthly, I should like to say that, thanks to the Government's 9 February initiative, veterans from other branches can now afford to attend, because they will be reimbursed at least part of their expenses. However, they must receive their funding in time to be able to go. It is essential that the arrangements are made as soon as possible. After all, we are talking about a
92WH
week in June that is only 14 weeks away. I might add that coaches and hotels in mid-summer are in high demand.
Finally, the Minister will know that the Normandy Veterans Association has arranged a service in St. Paul's cathedral in October, which must be the centrepiece of the commemoration in our country. I am informed that it will cost £10,500. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the heroes return funding will cover that expense. Cathedral services will also be held in other places, such as York minster and Portsmouth cathedral. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Syd Rapson) in his place. I know that he will agree that we need to ensure that these commemoration events are successful.
I am delighted also to see my good Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). If my information is correct, his father was killed in Normandy, 60 years ago. I willingly admit in this short debate that I speak with a certain amount of emotion. But I believe that I speak not only for my generation, but for many younger generations when I say that, quite simply, our freedom today, which we perhaps all too readily take for granted, is due to the commitment, loyalty, patriotism and courage of those who fought for our ideals from 1939 to 1945. Let us not quibble about a few pounds here or even £1,000 there to deny the veterans of the Normandy beaches the gratitude and honour that they fully deserve.
11.12 am
Mr. William Cash: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) not only on securing the debate but on the manner in which he presented his arguments, with which I entirely concur. I am delighted that these commemorations will take place. They need to be held in the manner that my hon. Friend described and consistent with the representations from the Normandy Veterans Association.
My father won the Military Cross at Maltot on 14 July. He was a young man of 25 and it is difficult for us now to realise just what that involved. I think that 2,000 men were lost in the preceding few days in one particular action on the hill of Calvary. It is called hill 112. It is difficult to imagine just how horrendous it must have been, although there have been some extremely good documentaries on this subject on television in the last few weeks.
I received a letter today from the Secretary of State for Defence, saying that there will be 80 days of events in Normandy. At his suggestion I have put it on the Whip that if there are any Members of Parliament whose parents were killed in Normandy they should make themselves known. There may even be in the House of Lords some people who fought there. I therefore suggest that Members who have an intimate and direct connection and those who participated should go over there. In that way we could show our respect, in an appropriate manner, for those who died. It would also be helpful to know from the Minister that we will be able to have the details, a point that my hon. Friend so rightly stressed.
11.14 am
Claire Ward: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on securing this important Adjournment debate.
I want to add my thanks to the Government and the New Opportunities Fund for announcing the heroes return package, and I hope that the Government and the lottery distributors will do all that they can to ensure that it goes ahead with no problems. As we have already heard, those veterans made the greatest sacrifice that anyone could possibly make to protect this country and to defend the values and democracies in which we believe. As someone from a generation that does not remember that military action, I feel that it is essential that we do more to commemorate their sacrifices. I also want to ensure that the next generations will not forget those sacrifices and what happened, and that they will learn from that history for the future. It has been said that the events are likely to be the last celebrations and commemorations to take place, because of the age of many of those involved.
I also congratulate the BBC on its work in collecting the stories and reminiscences of those involved in the second world war to create a national archive. Will the Government consider establishing a national day of commemoration and public holiday, perhaps in October or November, when we could also remember the 11th hour of the 11 th day of the 11th month? Will the Minister consider talking to colleagues in other Departments, such as the Department of Trade and Industry, to see whether that is possible?
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on securing this important debate on the remembrance and commemoration of the events leading up to the end of the second world war. I also welcome the contributions of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward).
I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on the significant progress made since the previous Adjournment debate on the issue on 11 November 2003. Let me begin by stating clearly that it is Government policy fully to endorse the importance of remembrance and commemoration. The D-day landings in June 1944 were particularly significant, as history makes clear. They were the largest international, combined forces amphibious assault that the world has ever seen. It is one thing to read about such momentous events; to have participated in person is another matter entirely. We collectively owe immense gratitude to those who put their lives at risk in such ways, and it is only fitting that the baton of remembrance for such momentous acts of human courage and perseverance should be passed on from that generation to our young citizens, who will be the next generation of the 21st century.
I was pleased to announce to the House on 15 January that both Her Majesty the Queen and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had accepted invitations from President Chirac to attend the main commemorative events to be held at Arromanches on Sunday 6 June. It is expected that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales will attend events on Saturday 5 June in Normandy.
94WH
It was suggested that the Government could provide direct financial assistance to Normandy veterans for their transport and accommodation expenses, but we were concerned that it would not be fair to provide assistance to one anniversary or group of veterans rather than another. However, that direct financial assistance is now available through the New Opportunities Fund's recently launched veterans reunited programme to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the eat of the second world war. That lottery-funded programme will help to ensure that all generations of United Kingdom residents can commemorate the anniversary together, both at home and abroad.
The three elements of the programme are: "Their Past, Your Future", which focuses on activities for schools and young people; the heroes return initiative, which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet mentioned and which will focus on overseas visits for veterans, their spouses or widows and their carers; and "Home Front Recall", which provides funding for events and activities in the UK. "Their Past, Your Future" was announced on 12 January. The second part of the programme was launched on 9 February, and the third part will be formally launched in the spring.
Over the next 18 months, we will commemorate the 60th anniversary of some of the most remarkable events in this country's history: the Anzio landings, the eastern fleet's engagements with Japanese installations, D-day and the Normandy campaign, the landings in southern France, the campaigns in Burma, the battle for Italy, the Rhine crossing, the liberation of the Channel Islands, VE-day and VJ-day.
I am acutely aware that this will be the last chance for many of the men and women who lived through those events to commemorate them in any numbers. Just as importantly, it will be the last chance for new generations to learn at first hand from veterans what it was like to be involved in those events. Their memories and experiences will provide a lasting legacy for the nation.
That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I felt that that unique combination of factors deserved lottery support. We are pleased that the New Opportunities Fund has seized the idea and begun to deliver that new lottery initiative. Getting from inception to launch in less than six months is a good example of cross-Government working with the national lottery. I was grateful for the words of support on that basis from the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet
"Their Past, Your Future" allows children to develop a deeper understanding of the issues around commemoration, remembrance, peacemaking and reconciliation. It allows our youngsters to learn more about the work of the British and Commonwealth armed forces, both past and present. As part of the project, children will work with different generations collaboratively, developing their critical thinking and learning about the past and present from museums, battlefields and other significant places. Children will also learn to reassess their attitudes towards people of different generations, nationalities and identities, and

95WH
will come to respect the contributions of veterans to past and present society.
It is impossible to over-emphasise the major contributions made by our veterans during the second world war. This generation of young people will have an invaluable opportunity to hear at first hand what our veterans did to preserve the freedom and security that we enjoy today.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Caplin: I am afraid not.
The heroes return scheme will provide £10 million of lottery funding to help second world war veterans resident in the UK to arrange commemorative visits to the overseas areas where they saw active service in that war. The scheme will ensure that new generations can learn from those experiences. The New Opportunities Fund will make grants towards the cost of those visits, which, if feasible, will be linked with a parallel education project or visit. A fixed sum will be available for each veteran and their spouse and/or carer to go towards the cost of the visit. That is £10 million over two years. I heard what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said about Normandy, but the project has been designed to be a long project over those important two years, not specifically for the anniversary of D-day in June.
I hope that many veterans will be able to take advantage of the heroes return scheme. Since the launch of the schemes, the Veterans Agency freephone helpline has answered 12,856 calls, approximately 6,500 of which related to that initiative. That slows that there is considerable interest in that worthy scheme.
In my letter of 7 July, I said that the Ministry of Defence will send two military bands to Normandy and I mentioned earlier the attendance of Her Majesty the Queen and the Prime Minister. The UK will also be represented during that weekend by other members of the royal family, other Ministers, including me, and senior members of the armed forces. We are still finalising the attendance programme and I realise that that can be frustrating for those trying to organise events in France. However, I am sure that the House will accept that the armed forces have been busy across the world and at home in recent months, and deployments are taking time to arrange. Our resources are not infinite and must be utilised carefully and sensibly. I will make further announcements when able to do so.
I shall now deal with the question that the hon. Gentleman raised about security in Normandy. The only event that will require major security will be in Arromanches on Sunday 6 June. The details have
96WH
been published and are available. If veterans ring 0800 169 2277, they will be able to get all the necessary details from the Veterans Agency, although not necessarily through their veterans organisation. A simple system of registration must be completed by mid-March and then photocards will be produced for those attending in Arromanches. We are also instigating a registration system for those attending other events over the weekend, but that does not need to be completed until mid-April. It comprises a simple list system primarily for travel operators taking groups, but also for individuals wishing to travel together. For security reasons we hope to have a complete register of those travelling to Normandy.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the Normandy Veterans Association, and I think that his information is slightly flawed. The national chairman of the association and the military attach in Paris have met on several occasions, the last of which was 21–23 January this year in Normandy to discuss many of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. I assure him that the Ministry of Defence has already approached the Normandy Veterans Association and offered assistance to its service of remembrance and thanksgiving at St. Paul's on 20 October. That event is in the early stages of planning; again, I will provide more information when able to do so. It may be that the hon. Gentleman's question about the funding for that event forms part of the "Home Front Recall" programme that we will announce in the spring. That will be the time for the Normandy Veterans Association to approach the lottery operator for a possible grant.
Sixty years have passed since those final shots were fired. Although this will be the last official commemoration of the second world war, the fortitude shown and the sacrifice made by so many at home and around the world will never be forgotten. This Government take seriously all the 60th anniversary commemorative events, and I welcome the initiative that the hon. Member for Stone is considering. Perhaps he and I can talk more about that in the weeks ahead.
The Government have certainly not forgotten the bravery and sacrifice of all those who took part in the Normandy landings in June 1944 and who will participate in the events in this country and on the continent. Through the veterans reunited programme, the Government will ensure that future generations, rather than forgetting those deeds, will learn why they should take up the baton of remembrance to recognise the invaluable contributions made by all our veterans around the world during the second world war.
11.28 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Second Chamber
2 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: Given the number of hon. Members from all parties who have taken the time to be here this afternoon, we can see that reform of the second Chamber is an important issue. Three colleagues have said that they wish to make contributions to the debate and hope to catch your eye, Mr. Cook, as well as the Front Benchers. As we progress, I shall be pleased to take interventions from other colleagues. There is still a great deal of interest in the House about further reform, the need for which is manifest. Although there are many ways forward, few colleagues want to defend the second Chamber's current composition.
The reform that reduced the number of hereditaries was welcome, as are the proposals that may be introduced in the next week or so. However, those proposals must be followed rapidly by further, clear recommendations for reform that will introduce some broader aspects to our second Chamber. On the basis of press reports, it seems that the Government will soon be issuing a Bill on the reform of the second Chamber, and we are all interested to see what it contains.
What might the Bill contain? Judging by the consultation paper that the Government produced in September 2003, we can expect it to do at least two things. First, it will remove the remaining hereditaries. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed all but 92 of the 750 hereditary peers from the House of Lords and did away with the right to inherit a place in the Lords. It is hard to believe that such a relic of feudalism survived as long as it did. It is harder still to believe that the Conservative party, now supposedly the champion of a democratic second Chamber, wanted to leave it the same. The only partisan remark that I shall make today is to refer to the party of my colleague who sits on the side of the Chamber that I am sitting on today, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The issue needs to command consensus in the House and beyond.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is being a trifle unfair because the position of the Conservative party was that the arrangements in 1999 should continue until there was a permanent settlement of the reform of the second Chamber. In the absence of a permanent settlement, there was no reason to interfere with the agreement that was reached in 1999. There was no desire to keep an elected element of hereditary peers until the end of time.
Mr. Allen: I am reassured by the hon. Gentleman's comments and I hope therefore that a more permanent settlement of the type that I shall float this afternoon will attract the attention of the Conservative party and, indeed, all other parties in the House, so that we make more progress towards a more permanent settlement.
Secondly, the forthcoming Bill is expected to set up an appointments commission on a statutory footing to determine the number and timing of appointments to the House, to select independent Members and to oversee party nominations. The composition and role of the second Chamber will also be affected by the
98WH
Government decision that was announced in June 2003 to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor and to establish a new Supreme Court. That will be in another imminent Bill. It represents the beginning of a proper separation of powers that is long overdue and that, contrary to press reports, was not dreamt up overnight; it had a long gestation period. Indeed, I am proud to say that it was part of a package that I drew up for the Prime Minister when he held the shadow Home Secretary brief more than 10 years ago. That is likely to be the programme.
What are the Government's red lines? They seem to be that an upper Chamber will be
"composed of a membership appropriate to its revising and deliberative functions, and not duplicate or clone the Commons."
It will be
"political in approach—but not dominated by any one political party"
and
"representative of independent expertise and of the broader community in the UK—but not disrupt the relationship between elected members of the Commons and their constituents."
I am sure that I speak for many hon. Members in all parts of the House when I say "Amen" to that.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am interested in Government red lines and I agree with my hon. Friend's thoughts that there should be no structural interference between the people and their democratic representatives. Why then did the Government, our leaders and our party choose to exclude even discussing the possible abolition of the House of Lords, let alone advancing the arguments for and against? That would have solved such problems.
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend is far better connected to the Prime Minister And those at No. 10 than I am, and I am sure that he will make a point of asking them those questions. My hon. Friend the Minister may also touch on those questions in his reply, although I hope that he does only touch on them because I want to persuade Members from all perspectives that going back over the old ground of who said what, why and who voted for which option is a recipe for no progress whatsoever. Although I know the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), I could say the same of every hon. Friend. All of us have a perfect answer that would be the right way forward, if only the other 649 Members could see any common sense. However, this is politics and, if we are to make any progress, all of its will have to compromise to a large degree. Otherwise, we could retain our purity and make absolutely no progress.
Andrew George: I certainly say "Amen" to that. As an enthusiastic democrat, I am keen to apply democracy where it is appropriate. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that we should apply the best possible democratic system to the way in which we elect this Chamber. Does he share my concern that much of the debate about the reform of the second Chamber is about its composition and how that will be achieved? There is an obsession with means rather than ends. Does he not agree that we must concentrate on ensuring that we have neither a lapdog nor a logjam Chamber, but a

99WH
Chamber for sober second thought and for holding the House of Commons properly and effectively to account? We should not be too obsessed about how its Members are chosen.
Mr. Allen: A great number of difficulties need to be overcome if we are to make any progress whatsoever. The hon. Gentleman has touched on several of them.
We also need to be careful not to try to create, as an answer, a complete package that, which tries to solve the problems all at once. We will make progress only through a step-by-step approach. Whether we address composition first, as I suggest is necessary, or consider something else, we need to be extremely careful that—I come back to this repeatedly—we do not make perfection the enemy of progress. We need to try to achieve consensus, as far as is humanly possibly, on what may be some very modest fist steps, but I hope that such steps will command broader support than has hitherto been the case.
I quoted the Government's approach in their document. Nothing that they said precludes some form of additional democratic determination of the membership. Although the Government's proposals are all welcome and necessary, I would like to consider what the consultation paper refers to as the goal of "representativeness". Rather than having a commission straining to achieve representativeness through meeting a series of quotas set by somebody, would it not be better for all of us to achieve at lea it some of that by a more democratic approach? Certainly it is the historic ambition of the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and now, as we have heard, the Conservative party to bring an end to an unaccountable, unelected upper Chamber. How can we all work together to achieve that?
The key rule is that the proposal for reform—whatever it is, however modest it is—must command the support of the Executive and the legislature. No one can, on their own, impose a solution on everybody else. The key is to make progress on the basis of agreement between the Executive—by that, I mean Governments of all political complexions—and Parliament. It is no longer possible to make policy in this area by multiple choice, just as it is not possible to make policy on health, education or taking the nation to war by multiple choice.
A year ago, a number of options were put before us. It was no surprise to any of us that none of them gained sufficient support. The Executive were not on side for those proposals and the Prime Minister was in one of his screen-saver modes, if I may put it like that. Many of us felt that the opportunity for reform had been lost, possibly for a generation, and that any serious proposal for change might never come again in our political lifetime. I was very depressed at that prospect. However, the Bill to be proposed this week opens the possibility for progress again. Quite rightly, people are saying "Okay, we can have this change in terms of the hereditaries and perhaps an appointments commission, but where are we going in the near term on the issue?" People are right to ask that question and to request that the Government attach that vision to proceedings after that Bill has been dealt with.
100WH
The Bill opens up the possibility for progress, which some of us thought had been lost. Again, I underline that the aim should be progress, not perfection, and achieving a step forward, rather than making claims for a scheme that will never fly.
Mr. Clive Soley: My hon. Friend has said many things that I have argued for some time, including the fact that there is not, and never has been, a big bang solution. First, does he accept that we are looking for a policy process that enables us to reach a settlement, rather than the other way round? In my view, the Joint Committee of both Houses ought to be part of that. Secondly, does he accept the principle that, if the Second Chamber is a hybrid one, it has a better chance of being adopted— that is, mixed backgrounds to the way that one gets there? Thirdly, bearing in mind what the Government are doing in devolving power generally, does he accept that there should be a strong reflection of the regions to bring the United Kingdom back into the second Chamber?
Mr. Allen: There is a lot to be said for all three points that my hon. Friend, with his great experience, brings to bear. Process is very important. Since this is a matter that involves Parliament's rights and those of the second Chamber, that is a stumbling block that we should avoid. I hope that all of us—me above all—have learned the lessons from previous attempts, and certainly from the process last year, which did not show Parliament at its best, to put it in the kindest of terms. How we move forward in the process that my hon. Friend talks about is extremely important. It is incumbent on my hon. Friend, the Minister and his colleagues to take very careful soundings of all parties in this House to ensure that we can move together—however slowly—to achieve consensus. This is one of those issues where anybody can take their ball away and spoil the party, so the negotiation and the process itself will be important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) mentioned the Joint Committee. There is a role for that, although I am not sure that it should be the same Joint Committee that we had in February last year with all the connotations that that brings with it. I do not wish to show any disrespect to anyone who served on it, but it was associated with what happened then. However, there should be a joint body. A Joint Committee with all parties involved would make a lot of sense. It would help Ministers to move the process forward and represent all the different views in both Houses on the matter.
Andrew George: I feel a strong sense of frustration that a lot of this debate has still concentrated on composition—on how people get into the second Chamber—and has not addressed why we should have the Chamber at all. I would like the hon. Gentleman and the Minister to talk about that. We are debating how people get into that place, but what does it do? What is its purpose? We are arguing about how it will be composed but it must have a purpose and unless we are clear about that we cannot offer advice, or even consider how that Chamber might be best composed.
Mr. Allen: I am content to rest on current purpose and current powers. I say that not because I do not want any

101WH
change, but because we should not get sucked into the details of how things might change. That would pre-empt the discussions of those who might come into the Chamber on a more legitimate basis. That argument is the same as an argument about devolution—about having a Scottish Parliament or assemblies for the English regions. If we decide in favour of devolution and a particular group of people is elected, it is incumbent on them to make certain decisions. We will often not approve of those decisions—that has been the case with some of the devolved organizations—but once we let go we have to let them take on some responsibilities.
That goes back to John Smith's original concept of introducing an elected element. I worked with him many years ago on that matter. His view was that, if we created a directly appointed element in the second Chamber, which was what was intended at the time, that element would be the engine for further change. However, that is less the case now than in those days. I am going to propose a slightly different way forward.
We can get hung up on specifics and details about changes that are not yet on the cards, so I shall focus on current powers and purpose until we get the one small step forward on the composition of the second Chamber. Other issues will then start to be smoked out. They will be dealt with by a process of reconciliation between the second Chamber, ourselves, and the Government. That is how a proper democracy should operate. I am deliberately avoiding both the hon. Gentleman's question and supplying answers to it, because it is appropriate for those answers to be given not by us but by people a little further down the line.
Pete Wishart: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's attempt to build consensus on the issue but what part would we who believe in the abolition of the House of Lords play in the process? How would our concerns be addressed, and how would we be a part of any consensus?
Mr. Allen: I am unsure whether that "we" refers to a party position or a personal one. I have spoken to a number of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, and I think that he might wish to make it clear that he is expressing a personal view.
I have a strong personal view about direct election. Given the chance, I would pass a Bill tomorrow for 100 per cent. direct election to the second Chamber. That is not going to happen. I can take my ball away and pontificate about that up and down the land and get lots of cheers in halls everywhere, but that will not make a blind bit of difference to the progress of things in this House. That is not what I see as my role in this House. My role is to move the show forward. I would rather move it forward one step than pretend that there is a revolutionary answer that I can institute tomorrow.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that I hope that he, like me, sees this in political terms and wants to move his political cause forward as the whole show moves forward in the second Chamber. Under the proposals that I will elaborate on in a moment, that will have tremendous benefits for his political viewpoint and his political party.
Mr. Hopkins: My hon. Friend says that a fully elected Chamber is not going to happen. Is not the reason for
102WH
that simply because our Government, and possibly a future Government of a different colour, do not want a fully elected second Chamber? Yet, if it were an option, the majority of the population and of MPs would vote for it.
Mr. Allen: I hope that my hon. Friend, knowing me as he does, will not expect me to take second place to anybody in respect of the efforts that I put in last year to create a wholly elected, second Chamber. My credentials are clear. However, I have looked again at the six-way car wreckage that we saw last February, and I feel that we cannot reconstruct a Rolls-Royce from the nuts and bolts that are littered on the motorway. Where we are is where we are. We need to get together a coalition to ensure that we move the show on a little further than before. Ultimately, who knows what might happen? However, my immediate goal is to make the second Chamber something that more of us in British politics can be proud of than are at the moment.
Mr. Soley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Allen: I shall give way to my hon. Friend because I know that he has to go. I have answered only one of his three points. I have the other two listed but other interventions have prevented me from getting to them. I will be glad to add another to the list.
Mr. Soley: I intervene on my hon. Friend only because of the last few exchanges—I remain here to comment on them at even greater risk to my other appointments.
Hon. Members, and the Liberals in particular, should bear it in mind that there are two cases for having the second Chamber. One is that it is a revising Chamber and the other is that it is a backstop to an over-weaning Government. On that score, when my hon. Friend and some of the Liberals talk about a fully elected Chamber, I ask them to remember that democracy and freedom are not the same things. Democracy is a majority, and a majority can be pretty brutal to smaller groups—the Liberals ought to be aware of that danger. The trick is to get the balance right between democracy and protecting minorities.
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend speaks wisely. The current second Chamber is a backstop. Through the Parliament Act 1911, the second Chamber can prevent the Government in the first Chamber from extending their own life. Some of us would like that backstop power to be extended to things such as human rights or the ability of local government to be constitutionally independent of the first Chamber. I make no bones about the powers that exist, but these are arguments that we need to have with our colleagues when we can genuinely call those in the second Chamber our colleagues. That is no disrespect to the hard-working Members of the current second Chamber.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush made the point about the need for a hybrid version. One of the lessons that I have the humility to say I have learned is that a 100 per cent. Solution—whether it is all elected, all nominated, or all singing, all dancing—is not the way forward. If we are

103WH
to make progress, we must ensure that there is some form of hybridity and joint action that is acceptable to all those who have an interest.
The final point that my hon. Friend made was about the regions. It is insulting that there seems to be a sense that people from the north-east, the east midlands or anywhere else—whether Scotland, Wales or any of the English regions—do not have a valid contribution to make. I do not wish to talk in the language of class warfare about people who have been born into certain situations. I would rather be positive, look at the people around and the talent available in the nations and regions, and say, "Let's put these people to work."
What fantastic brain-power we have in our regions. We know what great strides have been made in Scotland, Wales and the regions of England, even given the partial devolution settlement ill the past few years. If we put those people to work, they will be tremendous assets not only to our economic system, but to our political system. What variety they could lend. What sensitivity and experience they could bring to issues, based on their localities and areas. No Government should stand accused of wasting that talent.
We must accept that the Executive dominate our Parliament and that, although we can influence Government, without Government support no proposal will make progress. As I have said, it is impossible to create that proposal out of the wreckage of last February. The percentage gain is finished. Fully elected versus fully appointed is fully expired. The effort has to move on. In both Houses, an alliance has to be created between the legislature and the Executive and within parties to unify all those who care about the issue.
I was encouraged to read the words of the Lord Chancellor last week. He said:
"I am genuinely, personally very committed to seeing real progress on the Lords made beyond this bill"—
that is, the Bill to abolish the rest of, the hereditaries—
"and there is widespread support in government for that."
He said that that Bill
"is not the fundamental reform…I do rot exclude any option, but the one that needs particular examination is indirect elections."
That involves talking not about a percentage of the second Chamber, but a real number of, let us say, 300 people whom we would want in the second Chamber. It involves not a direct election, but an indirect one; not the perpetuation of a metropolitan elite, but recognition of the need to represent the diversity of all the regions and nations of our country. We need not a rival to the Commons, but a complement and a partner, with sufficient legitimacy to command public respect, but not so much as to threaten the first Chamber. Those with good will towards a reformed second Chamber should encourage the Government to think further along those lines and encourage them in their search for consensus.
The Leader of the House recently said:
"What I favour is the secondary mandate. The same votes cast in general elections would go into a regional pool".
He seemed positive about that possibility. Under that system, there would still be one election to Parliament: there would be a general election. However, the votes
104WH
cast, as well as determining who was returned to the Commons, would count towards determining some Members of the second Chamber.
I am sure that the following figures are etched on everyone's memory, although I did not recall them—I was helped out on them just before the sitting started. At the last election, 43 per cent. voted Labour, 31 per cent. voted Conservative, and 18 per cent. voted Liberal. I do not have the breakdown of figures for Scotland and Wales; I hope that colleagues will forgive me. They will know what the percentages were better than I do.
Andrew George: I fear that the second Chamber would be the cause of logjam if its make-up were politically opposed to that of the first Chamber, and a lapdog that rubber-stamped things if, politically, it shared the views of the first Chamber. If the hon. Gentleman follows that line, he will certainly propose a situation in which the second Chamber is likely to prove a lapdog to the Government. I have some serious concerns about that proposal from that perspective. The second Chamber should be holding the primary Chamber to account. It should be scrutinising what the first Chamber is doing, and providing independent sober second thoughts.
Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. That is an obvious worry, to which we have given considerable thought. I hope that he will join us in thinking through the matter, so that we do not get the very problem that he has highlighted. That is the last thing that I want. I will leave the more detailed explanations to those who have been more intimately involved than I. However, there are many ways through that problem. A certain number of the Members of the current. Chamber could be retained, for example. The election could be staggered, so that a percentage of the votes came from this one, the previous one or even further back, depending on how complicated one wished to make it.
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe rose—
Mr. Allen: I gladly give way to my hon. Friend, who has worked very hard on some of the details of this issue, and who will be more expert than I in his contribution.
Mr. Stinchcombe: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the advantages of the secondary mandate system is that no single party could ever have majority control of the second Chamber? If the party of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) were returned to power, that system would ensure that for the first time in history his party would not have a majority in both Houses when in power.
Mr. Allen: It is unusual for one party to get more than 50 per cent. of the electorate's vote under any system. One of the advantages of the proposed scheme is that, although my party has devolved power to areas in which we have been fairly sure that there would be a Labour majority under the first-past-the-post system, devolution has led to shared power in more instances than not. The proposal could provide a coalition that was not Labour-based for the first time, if one looked at

105WH
it like that, in a generous light. My hon. Friend is right and I hope that hon. Members such as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), who feel passionately about the democratic agenda, will lend us their expertise to ensure that people are reassured about where the project could lead.
I know that people will chip in later to fill out the detail if they catch your eye, Mr. Cook. This proposal is not cast in stone. It is a possible way forward that might command consensus. I ask Members not to take me too literally. To continue the example, each region and nation could have 25 seats, which could be allocated to the parties on the basis of the percentage of votes cast for them. A national top-up list would also figure in the model to reach a more precise proportionality. lf there were 25 seats, and one seat were allocated for every 4 per cent., there would be a bit of leeway or leftover that a national list would help to bring as close to proportionality as possible. A variety of rules for the regional lists could be added; for example, alternation between male and female candidates, closed lists, open lists —there are many possible options.
There are many disadvantages to the scheme. Last February, I could have come up with many such disadvantages if we had talked about two options: that proposal and a directly elected system. Colleagues who supported other options could have done the same. This is a wonderful game because there are 100,000 ways to say no, but probably only one way to say yes. That proposal might be the basis of one way in which we could all say yes to progress on the issue of the second Chamber.
When I was a Front-Bench spokesman in the then shadow Home Secretary's team, I served my time on the Plant commission, which Labour Members will remember. I know that there is no such thing as a perfect system, and that is what has decided my pragmatic view that there are different systems appropriate for different circumstances and institutions. Let nobody look for the perfect answer. Let us try to provide a progressive answer.
Mr. Hopkins: I accept that finding a perfect answer to satisfy us all will be extremely difficult. However, does my hon. Friend accept that there are certain dangers that should be avoided in any system? The main danger is that the second Chamber could become simply a place of patronage and control from Downing street—it could become no more than a Downing street cipher.
Mr. Allen: Yes, I do. I agree that we must be aware of that great danger. If we are to show good will to the proposal, we must all be involved and ensure that that eventuality does not happen. However, the biggest danger is that in search of the perfect answer we retain a system of appointees in the second Chamber, either because of past prime ministerial patronage or future appointments commission patronage, believing that the people of our country do not have the wisdom or maturity to be involved in that process. The perception, rightly or wrongly, that that attitude is displayed in our political society is a reason why fewer people participate in our democracy. That worries colleagues in all parts of
106WH
the House. The proposal may help to restore confidence and make people say, "Yes, my region has a voice in the second Chamber."
Mr. Grieve: Is there not a danger in the interesting model that the hon. Gentleman is proposing that a degree of democratic accountability will not exist? If people are selected from regional lists put together by political parties, where is the extra layer of democratic choice?
Mr. Allen: We must be aware of all the dangers that the hon. Gentleman refers to, and we must eliminate them through discussion and consultation to ensure that indirect election is as democratic as possible. For example, the process could include primaries, which his party is experimenting with. It could involve all sorts of possibilities. It is incumbent on us to ensure that we do not end up with a system that flies in the face of what we are trying to achieve through reforming the second Chamber. We must all compromise to make progress. Taking our ball away and protecting our pet scheme from adulteration is the easiest option.
I want to underline the positive elements in the proposal. There are many advantages. Every vote cast would have a value and would be recognised, possibly for the first time in a parliamentary election. That would reduce one of the negative aspects of the first-past-the-post system, which should not apply to a second Chamber. The proposal would rule out the need for separate elections to a second Chamber. I hope that it will also ensure that there is no ambiguity about the primacy of the House of Commons.
The proposal would provide balanced regional and national representation, which is absent from the upper Chamber. Only two of my colleagues, one of whom is the Lord Chancellor have an east midlands connection in the second Chamber. That is an outrage and should not continue. The Lord Chancellor is an able and eminent individual but he does not, sadly, carry the whole region with him when he speaks in his official capacity in the second Chamber. We want other colleagues to help him while he devotes himself to government.
The means by which each region determines the allocation of candidates could be decided by that region. The Scottish Parliament might want to nominate candidates. There might be primaries of registered supporters in the east midlands. There could be drawing of lots in the north-east. In other words, we should respect whatever method a region or nation chooses to deliver its Members, to the second Chamber. Let those people decide. In the first instance, it may be in order to ensure a sense of direction; perhaps a closed system might be the model. I should like to float the idea that our regions and nations must be trusted to agree with their people their own system of indirect election to the second Chamber.
This is probably the last chance that we shall have before the next general election to make some serious progress on the issue; it may be the last for a generation. I hope that the Minister will respond positively about departmental thinking on the matter. If he gives any word of encouragement, I hope that he will consider a serious process of pre-legislative scrutiny involving all

107WH
the different views that are represented in both Houses, Government, Parliament, and the country. The process should be on-line, so that a serious, considered, rational debate can take place in the atmosphere of pre-legislative scrutiny rather than in standing Committee. It could take place under a newly constituted Joint Committee of both Houses, with wide representation but without any of the burdens of the work that was so heroically done by the previous Joint Committee before February last year. Thereafter, that Committee should be requested by Government to distil one option into a draft Bill, which could be put out h further consultation in this House and beyond. It would then be required, like a normal Bill, to come back to this House for a yes or a no.
We have all learned a lot of lessons in recent years, which has been difficult in many respects. However, I hope that the experience gained will enable us all to make a serious contribution to what we all want—a second Chamber that works well for its incumbents and for Parliament and that, above all, works well and enjoys the respect of the people who helped to put some of the people into it.
Several hon. Members rose$
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. During these Adjournment debates in this Chamber, it is conventional to start the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before conclusion. That means I have to call the spokesman for the minor Opposition party in 17 minutes. I ask Members, who want to speak or to intervene to bear that in mind when they make interventions or contributions or respond to them.
2.43 pm
Mr. David Clelland: I shall try to be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing this important and timely debate and on bringing the issue to the fore again. In the Labour party manifesto at the last election—I do not have it with me—we said that we wanted to produce a more democratic and more representative second Chamber. I wholeheartedly agree with that, and I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend's remarks, because I think that we are coming together on the issue.
There was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to that manifesto promise, and hon. Members immediately thought that if the second Chamber was to be more democratic and more representative, it must be elected. That is, in my view, not necessarily so. A more democratic Chamber could be obtained simply by getting rid of the hereditary peers. It would then be entirely appointed by the Prime Minister, but, as he is elected, it would be more democratic than before. We can certainly have a more democratic; Chamber without having direct elections, although I am not advocating that policy.
The Government's proposals for an appointments commission are in breach of the manifesto, because that method of appointing people to the House of Lords is not a more democratic solution. Without taking the directly elected option, a more democratic solution would be to widen the responsibility for making appointments. A democratic appointments system would give us a better and more balanced House.
108WH
An important question was asked: what is the second Chamber for? We should have started with that question before we came to the issue of how to get Members into the second Chamber. I liked what the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) said from the Liberal Benches—the second Chamber should provide sober second thoughts, which is a good way of putting it, but he also said that the second Chamber should hold the Executive to account. There we part company.
Andrew George: Parliament.
Mr. Clelland: Yes, holding the Executive to account is a job for Parliament, not the second Chamber.
The second Chamber should be advisory and deliberative, and it should add value to our system of government. Elections cannot guarantee a Chamber composed of people who would add value. If people are to advise, deliberate and help the House of Commons in its work, they need experience, expertise and knowledge to be able to do so, but, as we know, the process of election does not necessarily guarantee that they have those qualities. A lot of people in the House of Commons are able and talented, a lot are not so able and talented, and a lot think that they are able and talented.
We need a system that would guarantee that the second Chamber was made up of people who were respected by the country and by the House of Commons for their views. How can we get such a system? If we held elections, we could end up with another Chamber like the House of Commons, which is full of teachers and lawyers, because there is no guarantee of a good spread of expertise and knowledge. Elections produce the candidates that the political parties decide to throw up; there is not necessarily a good balance of people. To achieve that, a planned system is needed. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North, who said that we need to ensure that we have good representation.
We need a second Chamber that represents the whole United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend said, very eloquently, the current second Chamber certainly does not do that. The devolved assemblies and the English regions should decide whether to appoint or elect representatives to the second Chamber, which would give a good geographical balance. Local government, too, should be represented in the second Chamber.
Political parties are an important part of our democracy, but that does not mean that we are entirely reliant on elections. Many voluntary organisations, professional bodies, business organisations and trade unions play an important and legitimate role in a democracy, but they are not directly elected by the people. Those organisations should also be represented in the second Chamber.
The secondary mandate that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) would mean the political parties deciding on their representation in the second Chamber, but I do not agree that it should be composed entirely of politicians, as a broader expertise is needed.
We can produce a more democratic, representative second Chamber that adds value to the political process by including more people in the system of appointments.

109WH
If we take that route, or a combination of my thoughts and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North, we can achieve a consensus that will move the issue forward and result in a second Chamber that commands respect and adds value to the political process.
2.49 pm
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: Thank you, Mr. Cook, for allowing me to contribute to this important debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing the debate. He and I recognise that the imminent publication of a Bill to remove all the hereditary peers from the second Chamber presents us with a political challenge and a constitutional opportunity of historic importance. The challenge is simple: it is to prevent the second Chamber from becoming a House of cronies. The opportunity is even greater: it is to achieve what so many for so long have considered unachievable—building a consensus across a divided House of Commons on how properly to complete House of Lords reform and provide this country, with its nations and regions, the second Chamber that it needs. It needs a second Chamber that is both more democratic and more legitimate than today's, but not so democratic or so legitimate that it can challenge the primacy of the Commons.
If we are to start that process of consensus building, we must find ways of reconciling the various factions that divided the House of Commons last February. That requires us in turn to not only understand but respect the reasons why hon. Members voted as they did in rejecting first a directly elected House, then an appointed House and then a hybrid House that was partly directly elected and partly appointed.
I voted for elections. Those who voted against a directly elected second Chamber last year did so not because they are not democrats. First, they wanted to protect the supremacy of the Commons, which is democratic and is supreme precisely because it is democratic. Secondly, they wanted to prevent our parliamentary democracy from being brought into disrepute by Parliament imposing on an election-weary electorate another tier of elections that they would not turn out to vote in.
If those who voted for an appointed Chamber did so because they considered themselves democrats, so more surely did those who voted for a directly elected second Chamber. As democrats, they could see no point in reforming the House of Lords unless it was to make it more democratic. They believe that, although democracy may not equal legitimacy, it at least confers it. It affords two vital constitutional protections: government by consent and government by representatives.
Indeed, it is precisely because the hereditary peers are an affront to democracy that we are soon to be asked to vote to remove them. But as soon as we vote to remove the hereditary peers we are confronted by the next problem: what to do about the life peers, who are also undemocratic. They are there only by reason of patronage. They have never been voted in and they do
110WH
not have the legitimacy that only election can confer. That is why hon. Members voted against an all-appointed Chamber
Hon. Members also voted against a hybrid Chamber. They did so because that may be the worst possible outcome in many respects. The unelected element would still remain illegitimate, and the elected element might also be illegitimate if the turnout was so low that the whole process was tainted in the eyes of the public. More fundamentally, we have to ask ourselves whether a stable constitutional settlement can ever be based upon a Chamber of Parliament in which Members have different legitimacies. Many of us believe that stability demands that all Members have the same standing and that none is more legitimate than any others. A hybrid House is not an answer, but a fudge, and two wrongs rarely make a right; they often simply make two wrongs.
When this House considered on 4 February last year the options for composing the second Chamber that the Joint Committee put before it—a directly elected, an all-appointed and a hybrid House—it rejected each for reasons of principle. We may not agree with all those reasons, but there were objections of principle to all those options. It was the fault of the Joint Committee that that happened. I served on the Joint Committee and I assume my fair share of the blame for that. We allowed the debate to become too narrow. We reduced complex constitutional issues—primacy, legitimacy and participation—to a mere set of choices between varying proportions of Members elected and Members appointed, all apparently plucked from the air. We gave Members the opportunity to restate their prior positions, but in truth, we never gave them an opportunity to reconcile them.
If we are ever to build consensus out of the wreckage to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North referred in respect of the February votes, that is precisely what we have to do. We have to ask one critical question that we have never asked ourselves before—not what proportion of MSCs we elect, but how we elect them. He is absolutely right. We need to devise an electoral model that will be democratic, but that will also ensure through the nature of the election itself that the second Chamber neither duplicates the composition of the Commons nor receives a mandate from the electorate that allows it to challenge its primacy. That must mean that we need to develop a model of indirect elections for the second Chamber.
Under my hon. Friend's proposed model of secondary mandate. Members of Parliament would continue to be elected by a first-past-the-post system and enjoy the primacy that only direct elections can confer, but each vote cast at the general election would carry with it a secondary mandate for a second Chamber. As he says, that Chamber could be could be 300 strong, with each of the 12 regions and nations of the UK having 25 seats. It would be composed by distributing the seats in direct proportion to the votes cast for each party in the general election in each of the 12 nations and regions. As well as being a democratic expression of political preference, the secondary mandate would be just that—secondary—in conferring a legitimacy one step removed from those elected by the first-past-the-post system. As such, Members of the second Chamber could never challenge the prime mandate of directly elected MPs.

111WH
As my hon. Friend also noted, the secondary mandate would underscore the primacy of the Commons because it would encourage the electorate to re-engage with the democratic process by voting at the general election. That is crucial, and it is the unique selling point of the system. Turnout is threatening to fall to American levels of non-participation, and this model is the only one that encourages people to vote in our general elections. Rather than add another tier of elections to an election-weary electorate when they are increasingly ignoring the elections that we already have, we should simply add weight to the votes that are already cast.
The ballot paper would look the same as it does today. Only one mark would be made, against the candidate of one's choice. As present, only the votes cast for the winning candidate count. I voted in Beaconsfield in 1997 for the Labour candidate, and it did not count. In the future, all votes would count, and all would lead to representation, including regional representation to cure the appalling ill that has been referred to—government of the nation not by the nation, but by the south-east instead.
Mr. Grieve: Only one cross would be made on the ballot paper. Is not the implication of making that cross that the elector would be sanctioning the move into the upper House of a group of people who were selected only by the party of the MP for whom he or she votes?
Mr. Stinchcombe: I will come to that point after I have completed the point on representation.
The proposed system would also lead to proportional representation, so that no single party could ever command the majority of the House of Lords or second Chamber, as I would call it. It would also be far more pluralistic, with smaller parties able to find their voice through the democratic process rather than the engineered means of patronage and appointment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North said, no system is perfect. There will be problems with the secondary mandate model. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) suggested, the lists will be closed, but that does not mean that they will not be democratic or transparent. We could have primaries and ensure that the party members choose their list and its order, with each member having one vote. We could re-engage people at an earlier stage with participatory democracy.
Let me deal with another potential worry. The system might mean that the British National party has more people standing and gains more representation. However, we should beat the BNP through democracy rather than run away from democracy because of it. Let us see what candidates it is forced to field if it wants to stand in every constituency in a region, let us see how many articulate skinheads it can find and let us expose it for what it is under the spotlight scrutiny that only elections can bring. Let us watch its protest votes dissipate to the other, more respectable parties, including the United Kingdom Independence party or socialist parties, and let us see it waste its money on lost deposits as it is finally defeated.
I accept that no system is perfect. The secondary mandate system is not perfect, but perfection should be the enemy only of the bad and not of the good. The
112WH
secondary mandate system is not just good; it is the best that we have on offer. It is simple and meets all our objectives. It underscores the primacy of the Commons, encourages people to vote at the general election and would make a second Chamber more legitimate than it has ever been while denying it the equal authority of the Commons. It secures regional and independent representation, pluralism and the continued presence of the experts needed to make the Chamber effective.
Most importantly, such a system would bridge the divide that was so evident in the Commons in February last year, so that we can finally move on and go into the next election with more to offer the British people than a House of cronies. As Lord Falconer said, this model will fly.
2.59 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), because of his thoughtful contributions both to the debate this afternoon and to the Joint Committee. I hold up my hand as one of the other guilty persons on that Committee for failing to identify clear choices on which the two Houses could have taken a view on 4 February last year.
I want to make it clear that my Liberal Democrat colleagues in both Houses are determined to do everything they can to assist the Government in fulfilling what they said in their election manifesto. As other hon. Members have pointed out, Labour Members of Parliament were elected at the last election on a manifesto commitment to make the second Chamber more democratic and more representative. As several hon. Members have said this afternoon, that task still remains to be completed.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), not just for his speech today, but for the single-minded way that he has worked to try to find practical and pragmatic ways in which we can move forward. However, my colleagues in both Houses and I do not believe that we can make real progress unless from now on we have a road map. It is not good enough to stick with the Bill that is to be published later this week.
As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North made clear, that legislation will provide a transitory solution, which will not be sustainable in the longer term. As a responsible and constructive Opposition, we therefore feel that unless we can clearly see the continuum and momentum thereafter, it would be wrong for us to support that Bill in its current form.
As the Minister will know, my colleagues and I have suggested to the Secretary of State that there should be not only that Bill, but a further draft Bill soon to cover the next stages. We cannot complete the process for this stage of the continuum unless we have that draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny now. By "now", I mean not next week, but certainly within the next few weeks, so that we can make real progress this Session—although, of course, that Bill could be carried over into the next Session.
I read the proceedings of a debate in this Chamber in which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North led on the issue of pre-legislative scrutiny. This issue is a classic

113WH
case in which that would help to narrow the options and to reach consensus between and within the parties as to the way forward that he and other hon. Members have been promoting this afternoon. Without that, the Government cannot rely on Liberal Democrat support to remove the remaining hereditaries.
The tinkering legislation that we expect to be published this week will almost certainly fail, either during consideration in Committee, which must take place on the Floor of the House because the measure is constitutional, or in the House of Lords. Without a road map, I believe that the Bill is doomed, in one House or another. I cannot believe that the Government, in the dying days of this Parliament, would try to use the Parliament Act to push through, against the other parties and some of their own Members, a temporary solution to what is a long-standing problem. I hope that the Secretary of State is listening to the Liberal Democrats because, as he knows, we may not have the swing votes on many issues in the House of Commons, but we often do in the other place, unreformed as it is.
The option of an all-appointed Chamber was the one major casualty of the parliamentary pile-up that occurred on 4 February last year. Although that vehicle was driven by the Lord Chancellor, with a co-driver from No. 10, it left the motorway with sensational results and disappeared out of sight. It would be ridiculous if the House of Commons were now to ignore that vote and, by voting through this temporary Bill without any promise of further reform, ended up with an all-appointed House.
Mr. Clelland: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what was defeated was not necessarily the principle of appointment, but the status quo?
Mr. Tyler: I would not agree. It was quite clearly put to the House by the Leader of the House and by Members on both sides that an all-appointed option was not a goer—and it left the motorway.
I should also say in response to hon. Members who mentioned abolition that a unicameral system also disappeared without trace—that vehicle was a complete write-off. The only vehicles with some semblance of continued existence were those heading for a hybrid solution. I am not wedded to a figure of 60 or 80 per cent. All I am convinced of is that if we are to move forward, the Government must make a firm proposition for a form of election.
I support the view, which has been expressed during the debate, that we must examine the different forms of election. I say to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) that that does not include the election of interest group representatives. That would take us back to 1832, as it is the legitimacy that supposedly existed for the pre-1832 Parliament in which the landowning interests were thought to be the only important sectional interests in the country that deserved representation.
I believe that Cornwall then had more seats than Lancashire. Indeed, in my constituency, Bossiney had a seat, which had previously been represented by Sir Francis Drake—one of my illustrious predecessors. That hardly constituted legitimacy or legitimate
114WH
representation. Therefore, we must discard the idea that somehow democracy can be served by having a better system of appointment by different interest groups. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) who said in the House that in this country talking of democratic appointment means election and anything else would be a misuse of the phrase.
We need to make real progress. I believe that there is good will in the Government. All the signs that we have seen in recent weeks from the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs—in this capacity he is the Secretary of State as far as I am concerned, rather than the Lord Chancellor—from No.10 and from the Leader of the House are that there is an opening now.
I endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that if we do not take this opportunity, it will be lost until after the general election. Imagine the situation if the three parties produce their manifestos for the next election with this issue unresolved and no progress made. It would be ludicrous. I say to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that it would be a great irony if the Conservative party which is split down the middle on the issue, were to occupy the moral high ground of being able to say to the Government, "Look, you are not doing anything like what was in your manifesto, as with all your other manifesto promises. Maybe you have torn them up." Surely we can persuade No. 10 and the Minister that this issue is something on which real progress can be made.
I turn to the issue of different forms of election. There is merit in examining the proposals that have come forward from Mr. Billy Bragg, and from hon. Members present, for some form of election that is different from that to the Commons. I have come round to the view of the different parts of the United Kingdom having some equality of representation. That would distinguish between the two Houses very effectively. If Cornwall were to become a region, I would expect 25 Members for Cornwall. Whatever the appropriate way to do it, there is merit, as in the American model, in giving precise regional and national representation in the second Chamber to distinguish it from the first.
We must recognise the fact that there is concern over primacy and supremacy in this House. I accept that, and it is why the votes last year must be taken into account. A Government who refuse to take note of the fact that the House of Commons voted against an all-appointed second Chamber—just as the vote went against its abolition—would be a Government who were trying to undermine the primacy and supremacy of the House of Commons. I do not believe that to be the case, so distinguishing between the two Houses is a helpful way forward.
I am convinced that Members from all parties will want to be involved in the process. The right way for that process to take place is within Parliament. We have had enough consultation papers; we have had enough royal commissions It is time to have some concrete proposals to narrow the options down. Clearly, the option that I have referred to needs to be involved.
I have some doubt as to whether secondary mandate or indirect election is the precise description that we should adopt, because "mandate" implies a mandate

115WH
not just for the individual constituency representative, but for a Government. For that reason, I have concerns about the suggestion that there should be only one ballot paper and one vote, and that those should be counted for both purposes. Once someone is in a polling booth, there is merit in having two ballot papers, or two sections to the ballot paper, so that one would vote for the Government one wanted and the constituency Member on one paper, and for the second Chamber representative of the party on the other.
My speaking time is up. I am delighted that the debate has taken place this week because it gives the Government a great opportunity to come clean and tell us what they intend to do.
3.10 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: The length of the contribution of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) does not suggest that there is a fixed view about the best way in which to approach the problem.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing the debate. I repeat that he has been assiduous, not only in respect of today's debate, but in promoting the reform of the second Chamber, something that he believes in passionately.
I start from the view expressed by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), who I am sorry to see has left the Chamber. In an intervention, he asked about the purpose of a second Chamber. It is obvious that it is not to achieve pure democracy. If we were in a state of pure democracy, we would be voting annually on whether to execute the Minister on the basis of whether he had succeeded in fulfilling his mandate and promises over the previous 12 months, which would be along the lines of the Athenian model. Mercifully, we do not do that.
We have parliamentary government. The democratic element introduced to it is the first-past-the-post system under which we are elected and the electorate's opportunity to express their view every five years. The purpose of the second Chamber is to revise and preserve freedoms, and freedom and democracy are not necessarily the same thing. Democrats can be oppressors just as much as tyrants. I start from that premise. Speaking personally, if we consider whether the present House of Lords and, for that matter, the House of Lords before the hereditary peers departed, has succeeded in fulfilling that purpose, it seems to me that is rather good at doing its job.
There is no overall majority in the second Chamber. There must be some movement among people of different political allegiances in corning together if the Government are to be defeated. As we have seen consistently during the past year or two, it has been successful in getting them to think again about important matters. Moreover, it is obvious to those who believe in a unicameral legislature that we do not have the time to carry out proper legislative scrutiny, let alone revision. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North, with whom I have had the pleasure of sitting on many a Committee, knows that the House of Commons is still not succeeding in properly scrutinising legislation. It would be disastrous to believe that we can wave a magic wand and make the second Chamber disappear.
116WH
Can the second Chamber be improved? At the outset of the last election, the Conservative party's commitment was to a mainly elected second Chamber. I suspect that that is the majority view within my party, although, as was rightly said, others hold different views, as they do on the Labour Benches. Indeed, a diverse view has been expressed this afternoon. 'There is a respectable argument for saying that we can have a wholly appointed second Chamber, although if we follow that route it will be difficult to justify current levels of prime ministerial patronage. Indeed, we would have to become reliant on something similar to a judicial appointments commission, such as a Lords appointments commission, set down with parameters enshrined in statute determining what it is supposed to do.
We could argue that such parameters would ensure that there was no overall majority, that the Chamber was broadly representative of the make-up of political parties nationally, and that there was an independent element. We could introduce other measures. such as a ceiling on the total number of Members of the House of Lords, allowing political parties to put forward their nominees without guaranteeing that they would be accepted, and setting a date for retirement from being an active Member. Those are perfectly logical suggestions. Another option is to have a broadly elected second Chamber. I shall return to that because it is important. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North put forward a variant of that proposal.
On the hybrid arrangements. I was a little surprised to hear the comments of the hon. Member for North Cornwall because it has always struck me, from both anecdotal conversation and what I heard in the House when we debated this last year, that a hybrid solution—having a substantial mix of elected and appointed people—is the option that commends itself to the fewest people. It raises enormous difficulties about the legitimacy of the appointed as against the elected element. and it would turn out to be undesirable. However, if we were to have a largely elected second Chamber, I can appreciate that there might be an argument for having a mechanism for introducing a very small top-up of independent appointees, or even of people co-opted by the House, to add certain areas of expertise.
Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Grieve: I will do so, but only briefly I hope.
Mr. Tyler: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the majority of his colleagues voted for a hybrid second Chamber?
Mr. Grieve: The voting that took place in the Chamber was quite mysterious and illustrated the diversity of views. However, it is increasingly not my impression—certainly the more I look at the current make-up of our colleagues—that the hybrid option commends itself. Many Members of all parties might have taken some pleasure in voting for entirely contradictory options one after the other because they did not want any great progress to be made. The hon. Gentleman might want to speculate on that, or to look at the voting figures in that debate.

117WH
I want to do justice to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North's contribution by addressing his proposal for indirect elections. I hope that he will forgive me if I deliver something of a critique. The proposal is perfectly reasonable because it protects the supremacy of the House of Commons. What bothers me, however, is that it is a recipe for a House of placemen. If there are closed lists, the people who are put on them will be entirely at the behest of the political parties who put them there.
I noted with interest the suggestion that parties might, with great generosity, hold primaries or have other systems, but I do not understand how Parliament can impose that on them. My experience of politics suggests to me that if parties are left to their own devices there will be closed lists, with the most loyal placemen rewarded with a position at the top.
We will end up with an unsatisfactory solution if we pursue that route. Although it fulfils the hon. Gentleman's objective, which I share, of providing a greater degree of public choice, it also withdraws that because when closed lists are introduced the public have no choice. We know from European elections that that lack of choice is reflected in low turnouts. When people come to vote on election day and they put their cross next to the person they want to elect as their MP, they will not pay a blind bit of notice to the list or to who is going into the upper House, or whatever we happen to call it. The electors will then complain that those people are unrepresentative of their views, and those people who have been elected will know that they are beholden to no one except their political party for putting them back on top of the list when the next election comes around. That is the reason for my rooted objection to the proposal.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) had to say. He had another model: corporate representation by groups within society that are regarded as stakeholders which elect their representatives to Parliament. That is the original fascist model. I hope that he will forgive me for saying that, as I do not mean it pejoratively. That model survives in one country in particular—the Republic of Ireland. When it was set up there in the 1920s it had some vaguely fascist affinities. Irish people might be embarrassed to realise that. His proposal is not completely idiotic, but it does introduce a sclerosis, because who chooses those groups?
We must give the subject careful consideration. I think that we could go for a form of direct election, but there must be straightforward accountability, with constituencies or at least counties returning a certain number of people and identifiable individuals being sent to Parliament to serve. I would decouple that from the general election process. I would have a separate system involving rotation, with one third coming up for election at different intervals. That model commends itself to me quite a lot. Alternatively, if we cannot do that, for goodness' sake let us get rid of prime ministerial patronage and at least have an appointed second Chamber that is not seen as consisting entirely of the Prime Minister's henchmen.
3.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs(Mr. Christopher Leslie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing this important debate. He made a thoughtful, constructive and detailed contribution on many seemingly intractable issues, and I appreciate the points that he made. Having heard the contribution made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), I am not sure exactly what Conservative party policy is, but perhaps a longer conversation with him will elucidate that.
Obviously, many hon. Members referred to what happened last February. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North called it a six-way car wreckage. I am not sure that I would characterise it as such, but in any case there was a failure to record a majority in favour of any option. Some have speculated as to the motives of those who voted. As the Joint Committee has suggested, perhaps the multiple choice system that sought to break down the proportion of elected versus appointed Member; was not the best approach to take.
I suspect that there are other routes towards finding consensus and forming a final view on what our second Chamber should look like. Many ideas about those potential routes have had an airing today. There is no doubt that there are significant flaws in the current system. The events of last February significantly changed the landscape of where we stand, and a Bill making a variety of proposals will be published shortly. We cannot, for example, continue to have a hereditary element in our second Chamber. That is simply intolerable. Surely all people with democratic instincts see that as the most obvious point. We have recently seen a small number of hereditary peers selecting another hereditary peer to represent them. I would not call it an election; I would call it a selection. How long can such a system be sustainable? Choosing from hereditary peers who have had experience in the second Chamber is one thing, but choosing hereditary peers who have had nothing to do with the second Chamber takes us into particularly difficult circumstances.
We have an Appointments Commission process, but on a non-statutory and informal basis. It is a matter of policy, not statutory law. Again, there are disadvantages to that situation, given its impermanence. I hope that the current Bill will stabilise the second Chamber, remove hereditary peers, put the Appointments Commission on a statutory footing, introduce rules for disqualification and allow peers to resign their membership without resigning their peerage. Nothing in that Bill need block off any road towards further reform. Nothing in the package is designed to lead to the entrenchment of the current system. We want to Keep the route open for further ideas and we intend to keep working on reform.
I hope that one benefit of this debate will be that we can begin to forge a consensus on a solution that will spread across as many different political parties and corners of parties as possible. The Secretary of State said in the introduction to the consultation paper that we issued last September that
"there is more to be done on Lords reform…Parliament is clearly divided",

119WH
but we hope that we can now shape a consensus on the way forward.
I should like to comment on several important contributions that were made today. First, there was the idea that there could be a regional component in the composition of a future second chamber and that regionalism could be part of the reform process. Regional identity is becoming increasingly important in our country. Referendums are occurring in October for the three northern regions, and this country has a strong tradition of local democracy elsewhere too. Regions form the basis of many different aspects of our life not only in economic, development and planning terms, but in our representation in the European Parliament. I believe that, if that proposal were developed more thoroughly, regions could have a number of advantages as the basis for membership to a second Chamber. They could provide a different but none the less geographical focus for Members' interests, and they would provide a sufficiently broad base not to undermine the position of constituency Members of Parliament as the primary form of democratic representation in Parliament.

It is also important to comment on a second related aspect, which was clearly brought out by my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, North, for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), and Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and other colleagues—the route of indirect elections, which can take several different forms. The idea of the secondary mandate has been floated not only by the royal commission, but by Mr. Billy Bragg, who is to be commended for putting this proposal into an easily obtainable form. Today, the Fabian Society is holding a debate in this very Chamber, and it will he interesting to see how that develops.
It is feasible to consider indirect elections as a way forward. They are used in many other democracies across the world, including in European countries. Germany has a particular system and France has an electoral college. Indirect elections can serve purposes that direct elections cannot. They can contribute to
120WH
establishing a proper hierarchy among the institutions of Parliament. They are pertinent to precisely the arguments over which we are wrestling with the House of Lords, and they deserve a much fuller examination.
There will be a number of deep-seated problems if we stick to the approach of fully elected versus fully appointed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge mentioned many of them in his contribution. There is the idea of the Commons' supremacy and how we deal with that issue if people feel that an elected component undermines it. That supremacy is cherished, and there is widespread consensus that we need to preserve it. The Government understand those concerns, and we must face up to the fact that a fully elected second Chamber might not automatically defer to the elected House of Commons. There must be a proper understanding of what its roles and functions would be and of the extent to which it could refuse to agree to legislation to which this House had agreed.
Other questions have been raised about diversity of representation. What added value is brought by the second Chamber? Again, some of the questions about hybridity are important; they cannot be dismissed and need to be thought through carefully.
Unicameralism was an option that arose last February, and it was defeated, but I sensed from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) in one of his interventions about the point of a second Chamber that there were questions about whether we need to continue with it. I suspect that that is a debate for another day. We want to see further moves. A Joint Committee is important, and I earnestly appeal to other parties to consider taking part in it to drive forward the consensus in the long term.
The key to the issue is finding a way of reconciling the Commons' supremacy with a more legitimate revising Chamber of Parliament. We can find ways forward, and I hope that all hon. Members and all parties share a belief in that entirely reasonable and feasible prospect. I look forward to the debate continuing in that manner.

Iraq
3.30 pm
Mr. David Stewart: I am pleased to have the opportunity to make the case for debt relief for Iraq. Reconstruction of Iraq is one of the most important issues facing the international community. Nye Bevan once said that
"socialism if anything is a crusade";
I believe that debt relief is also a crusade.
My involvement with this issue is twofold. First, I have been committed since my election in 1997 to the Jubilee 2000 campaign, and thoroughly support and praise all the individuals, the non-governmental organisations and the Churches that have lobbied for decades for the cancellation of unpayable developing world debt. I also support Jubilee Iraq and Oxfam, which have campaigned specifically for debt relief for Iraq. Secondly, on a personal front, I had the opportunity in September, through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, to spend three days in Basra, where I met Royal Air Force personnel and ordinary Iraqis, so I have some first-hand experience of the state of that country. There is clearly a great need for infrastructural growth and for new work to go into central services to promote sustainable development in Iraq.
I should like to share one word-picture with the Committee. Near the end of my time in Basra, some of the RAF officers and I left the secure compound to go just outside the gates. We were dressed in body armour and camouflage fatigues, and as I walked out of the gate, I passed a bus-load of young Iraqi children entering the base. I was not sure what sort of response we would receive, as they obviously considered us all soldiers. In fact, the response was immediate and unanimous: every single one gave us a thumbs-up sign. Some cynics might say that they could have presented another sign to us, but it was quite gratifying to me because they saw that having armed forces there was not just about the military aspect, but about breaking away from Saddam towards reconstruction.
I strongly believe that the Iraqi people will be free from Saddam's legacy only when we can break the chains of debt that he created. How do we do that? Iraq needs the oxygen of economic growth to tackle its shocking poverty. We need to improve employment rates, standards of public service, health and education. Of course, the international community understands that: it is committed to provide about ․32 billion of aid to Iraq to rebuild the cities, towns and villages, and to create the climate in which to grow new jobs. The Madrid conference in October 2003 was a good step towards Iraq's recovery. However, Iraq continues to be crippled by unsustainable debt, which threatens to undermine reconstruction efforts. Iraq's debt is not practically repayable: repayment would effectively involve the next 20 years of Iraq's oil revenues. That would mean less money for hospitals; schools and sanitation in a country that is desperate to rebuild.
I am aware, of course, that Iraq has potentially the world's second biggest oil revenues, but that is not much comfort to ordinary Iraqis, who earn about ․2 a day. International assistance, not least from the United
122WH
Kingdom, will have a central role in Iraq's reconstruction. The danger is that creditors' demands will lead to over-dependence on aid. In his classic analysis of the treaty of Versailles, "The Economic Consequences of the Peace", John Maynard Keynes wrote:
"By fixing the reparations payments well within Germany's capacity to pay, we make possible the renewal of hope and enterprise within her territory."
If debt repayments and reparations—the other important factor—continue to be required of Iraq, the country will have to pay out a large proportion of the aid that it is receiving, which will mean that plans to reduce poverty and rebuild the country will be seriously compromised. Beyond that, I believe that there are moral and legal grounds on which to justify the cancellation of Iraq s outstanding debts, enabling its full recovery. The truth is simply that Saddam never spent the money that he received from creditors for the benefit of his people. Ordinary Iraqis had no say. Iraq's debts were accrued under Saddam Hussein for his purposes only. Why should Iraqi people repay a debt accumulated by a tyrannical regime, which borrowed from creditors that lent to Saddam with their eyes open? Surely, with the fall of the dictatorship, Saddam's debts should be wiped out to enable Iraqis, who gained nothing from Saddam's spending, to start afresh. Thus, I call for debt relief for Iraq on the basis that the loans were odious and the debts are illegitimate. Put simply by Mohammed Kamil of the Iraqi Prospect Organisation:
"When Saddam executed people, he used to charge their families for the bullets used—this is what the creditor countries who financed Saddam are asking of Iraqis today."
The principle of odious debt is important. It is borrowing that is undertaken by a regime without the consent of the people and not spent for the benefit of the people. The doctrine of odious debt goes back to 1927, when it was develop by the Russian lawyer, Alexander Sack. More recently the International Development Committee referred to it in its report on debt relief. Oxfam argues a specific point. It says that what is needed is an internationally agreed framework to deal with odious debt as t arises. It proposes an independent, UN panel of economists—the analogy could be made with our Monetary Policy Committee-to rule on the legitimacy of Iraq's debt. Will the Minister respond to that in his summing up? That seems to be a sensible, constructive idea worth supporting.
Let me take the Chamber back in time to 1979 when Iraq had ․36 billion of cash reserves and no foreign debt. Over the past 24 years, under Saddam's rule, Iraq fought three wars, suffered 13 years of sanctions, and has suffered gross state mismanagement of the economy and human rights abuses. Three million people have died and infant mortality has doubled in just over a decade. Average incomes have fallen from ․9,000 to as little as ․200 a year. The world Food Programme reports that one fifth of Iraq's central and southern population is chronically poor, and unemployment in some areas reaches 50 per cent. The Iraqi people have clearly gained nothing from Saddam's rule.
Estimates vary, but the Government's estimate is that Iraq owes about ․120 billion of debt and ․80 billion in reparations and compensation payments, particularly to Kuwait. Therefore, each Iraqi owes about ․11,000, despite the average income being as low as ․2 a day. The

123WH
Gulf states and western and former Soviet countries provided export credit. Some of that funded arms; some funded non-military purchases. It enabled Saddam to channel his oil revenues into the oppression of his people and increased military spending. Under the previous Administration, Britain provided about £623 million, but the overall figure is now estimated to be about £1 billion if interest payments are also taken into account.
I put on record my thanks to the Chancellor for the positive work that he has done generally on debt relief, which I recognise and welcome. With regard to Iraq, some progress has been made in the past 10 months in measuring the scale of the debt and obtaining agreements from most creditor countries that, in principle, debt should be reduced.
Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman just quantified the Iraqi debt to the UK as about £1 billion. The UK has pledged just over £500 million to Iraq for assistance with, its recovery, which is most welcome and I echo the words of the hon. Gentleman in drawing our attention to that. However, does that contrast not highlight the problem? The UK has pledged £500 million but is owed £1 billion. The UK could give a great example to others if we were to face up to the sheer illogicality of that and wipe out that debt.
Mr. Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution; I know that he has a great interest in the subject and has worked very hard on debt relief issues. There is a danger of giving with one hand and taking back with the other. That is a good point. I am just about to touch on the Paris Club and the International Monetary Fund.
As hon. Members will be aware, debt relief to Iraq is at present being tackled through the IMF and the Paris Club, which are looking at restructuring initiatives. As I understand it, the scenario is for two-thirds debt "forgiveness", which will leave Iraq with at least ․40 billion still to pay. There are some worries about that, because the Paris Club conditions ․that is the list of creditors, effectively—depend on what it calls economic "conditionalities". That may mean, for example, the privatisation of a lot of Iraqi industry. There are big issues involved about the ultimate it dependence of Iraq.
Professor Rowat of Birmingham university said:
"If the new government inherits a heavy debt load, it will have fewer carrots to spend on establishing its legitimacy, leaving it to rely on sticks".>
Although I welcome the move of the IMF and the Paris Club, the fundamental issue of the illegitimacy of the debts has not been properly addressed. If the loans are odious, surely there is a strong argument for not simply restructuring but cancelling them altogether. No debt has yet been written off, but the Paris Club NS agreed a comprehensive treatment of Iraq's debt by the end of the year to give a fully rounded picture No arrears of debt are currently being sought, as I understand it.
I welcome the Evian report, which, under the Paris Club arrangements, is looking to adopt longer term solutions for countries with serious debt. Again, that appears to be sensible. The Government have pledged to ensure a fair and sustainable solution to Iraq's debts, but surely, in the disagreement between Iraqi people and the creditor nations over the legitimacy of Iraq's debts, the only fair way forward is through the process of arbitration.
124WH
In conclusion, my hope is for a future in which a democratic Iraqi Government work with the international community to rebuild and reconstruct their country, which has been shattered by wars and strangled by Saddam's oppressive regimes. Iraq is a country of stark contrasts: on the one hand, there was fabulous wealth, privilege and palaces for Saddam's inner circle; on the other, there was the poverty, starvation and torture endured by ordinary Iraqis.
My call is for a cancellation of odious debt, an independent UN panel of economists to rule on the legitimacy of Iraq's debt, and debt negotiations that are fair, with a strong Iraqi voice. That will give ordinary Iraqi men and women such as those I met in Basra the opportunity to win the peace.
3.42 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing this debate and on the way in which he presented his case. His speech was not only heartfelt and passionate, but widely referenced, well informed and erudite, reflecting his long-standing interest in issues of debt and development, and his active interest in Iraq. As he said, in September, he and the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) were among the first Back-Bench Members of this House, Mr. Cook, who—
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. I would be remiss in my responsibilities if I did not call the attention of the House to the fact that, in this Chair, the title of the first three members of the Chairman's Panel is Deputy Speaker.
John Healey: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I seek—
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): That is okay; just continue.
John Healey: I have not paid you due respect, and I apologise.
I was commending my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber for the commitment and interest that he has shown in Iraq, particularly as in quite early days, he and the hon. Member for Huntingdon were among the first Back-Bench Members of this House to stay in Basra as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of debt relief with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the most recent Treasury questions. As my hon. Friend has said, the question of Iraqi debt is one of the most important international issues facing us today. I welcome the chance to debate his concerns more fully than was possible at that Question Time.
I welcome, as the Government do, the wider Jubilee debt campaign to cut the debts of the poorest countries around the world. My hon. Friend has also recognised the role that the campaign, other charities and Church groups have played, which has been tremendously important in shifting international opinion on the issue.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to know that the UK Government have made it clear that our goal is a fair and sustainable solution to Iraq's debt.

125WH
problems, although that is just one essential element in our overall aim of helping Iraq back on to the road of long-term peace and prosperity.
Iraq should be a wealthy country. It has the second greatest oil reserves in the world—some 110 billion barrels. However, as my hon. Friend so vividly explained, because of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, wars and mismanagement, Iraq's people are now desperately poor. The population has an average income per head of only ․500 a year, which, as was said, is less than ․2 a day. That is particularly depressing when we consider that more than 20 years ago, its per capita income was ․3,600 a year.
On a more optimistic note, however, Iraq's abundant human and natural resources offer the potential for a rapid return to relative prosperity if the right conditions are created in the short and medium term. In order to access its potential wealth, Iraq needs to have in place the right economic conditions and institutions, which is why the Department for International Development's objectives for the next two years are to support economic growth, bring about effective and accountable governance and encourage much greater social and political cohesion and stability.
My hon. Friend is right: to achieve that objective, Iraq's debts must be brought back to sustainable levels so that it can start to invest and grow again. He is also right about the scale of the challenge, and his figures are correct too. Iraq's debt to the international community currently stands at about ․120 billion. As the UK Government have already made clear, our view is that creditors will have to write off the vast majority of Iraq's debt to restore economic stability. I say to the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), whose intervention I also welcome, that the Government stand ready to make a full commitment to do so.
I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber that we believe that the most effective way to deliver that commitment is through the Paris Club, which has already announced that it intends to agree a comprehensive treatment of Iraq's debt problem by the end of 2004. We will then work with the international community to ensure that other creditors offer comparable treatment. The plan is to deal with the debt under the Paris Club's new Evian approach, which he welcome and endorsed this afternoon. In our view, that approach offers a long-term solution for countries with the most serious debt problems, including debt reduction where the need is clearly demonstrated.
The Paris Club is the only forum in which major creditor countries work together to negotiate fair and sustainable debt treatments in a timely manner, drawing on assessments of needs, resources and obligations from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other responsible international organisations. My hon. Friend may be aware that preparations are now well advanced and that we hope to see a solution in the Paris Club following the transfer of power to a transitional authority in Iraq. In the meantime, I can confirm to him and the House that the UK will seek no repayment of debts.
126WH
Let me also be clear about the scale and nature of Iraq's debts to the UK Government. The Export Credits Guarantee Department has unrecovered claims of £623 million arising from insured commercial export contracts with Iraq signed prior to the first Gulf conflict in 1991. With interest, that figure could increase up to about £1.15 billion. Of those claims, only a small Fraction—about £26 million—relates to defence cases, all of which had export licences from the Department of Trade and Industry and none of which directly involved arms.
The ECGD can provide insurance on repayment risk, the premiums for which are based on the risk of default. It is important to stress that under the business principles introduced in 2000 by this Government, the ECGD now carries out rigorous environmental and social impact assessments of its cover decisions. For the poorest countries, the ECGD would issue guarantees only if the project contributed to the social and economic development of the country and did not lead or add to an unsustainable debt burden.
I recognise that many argue the case for an automatic 100 per cent. write-off of debt and that they do so, as my hon. Friend has this afternoon, on the basis of the Iraqi people's suffering under Saddam Hussein's regime. We expect the vast majority of Iraq's debts to be written off. Our aim is a settlement that will bring Iraq back to debt sustainability so that it can invest and grow again.
In the long term, however, Iraq is not comparable to the poorest countries of the world that are granted debt relief under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. Although Iraq is extremely poor now, as my hon. Friend has pointed out in the past and as I have tried to underline this afternoon, in the long term, its prospects for prosperity are good. It has the second largest oil reserves to draw on.
Any further debt relief beyond what is needed to make Iraq sustainable has to be considered against the country's other pressing needs: humanitarian relief and reconstruction. The Government have worked very actively to promote understanding of Iraq's needs in the international community. We have keenly supported the US presidential envoy James Baker. During recent months, his work has led to the building up of a G7 consensus that there should be substantial debt reduction for Iraq in the Paris Club this year. He has also persuaded several other large creditors to commit themselves to grant substantial debt reduction as part of the ․32 billion pled ed towards Iraq's reconstruction needs at the Madrid donors conference in October. That includes the Saudis and the Kuwaitis, who together hold more than 30 per cent, of claims on Iraq. The work is ongoing, and the UK actively participates and contributes financially. Our total reconstruction commitment in Iraq since April 2003 now stands at £544 million.
I now turn to the matter of odious debt, which my hon. Friend dwelt on in his speech. I understand the moral concerns that underlie that concept. The Government believe t hat the most appropriate response to such moral arguments is to ensure that Iraq is in the best possible position to support its people now and in the long term. That means that we must focus on pragmatic and practical means that can deliver a sustainable debt solution. As he will be aware, there are thousands of individual debts and it is not practicable to

127WH
go through them one by one. To do so would plunge the Iraqi people into a legal minefield and damage the prospects of finding a long-term, sustainable solution. There are also serious concerns about the workability of odious debt as a legal concept and the impact on other developing countries' ability to raise much-needed finance.
We believe that the multilateral process that we are supporting will lead to the writing off of the vast majority of Iraq's debt in the shortest possible time. We would welcome the involvement of the UN as an observer in that process. The Government also share the concern expressed by many groups, including Oxfam and some with which my hon. Friend is well connected, that we should work together to ensure that developing countries do not build up unsustainable debts in the future.
Mr. Michael Connarty: I hoped that my hon. Friend would move on to talk about the individual components of the debt. Just before the conflict began, I went to the Kurdish enclave in the north. I took Foreign Office information about the £1 million a day it was costing the allies to keep the no-fly zone in place. Will the Minister give an assurance that when we add up the debt owed by Iraq, we will not charge the cost of that no-fly zone policy to the Iraqi people, and through them to the Kurdish people in Iraq?
John Healey: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention and the expertise and interest that he brings to this debate, but he may have missed my point that the UK Government, at this stage in the process of preparing to take decisions about the amount of debt that we should write off as a country through the Paris Club process, will in the meantime require no repayments of existing debt.
128WH
With regard to the importance of the institutions and interest groups that want a long-term solution and a return to prosperity in Iraq, the Government welcome the work of the IMF and the World Bank on debt sustainability in low-income countries, which we expect to be completed over the coming months.
In conclusion, I should like to stress that the Government's overall aim is a peaceful and prosperous Iraq. That requires actions and commitment on many fronts. including debt relief. Finding a sustainable solution to Iraq's debt problems, essential though it certainly is, should be seen as only one part of our efforts towards that end.
I am keen to draw this debate to a conclusion on a more positive note, despite the scale of the challenges that are undoubtedly faced in Iraq. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber that he will know from his practical experience in Iraq that progress is being made. He touched on it himself: the coalition has launched more than 17,000 reconstruction projects; food distribution systems were restored soon after the conflict; almost all the 240 hospitals in Iraq are functioning; water and sanitation projects are providing cleaner water; schools across the country reopened in October; and power supply surpassed pre-war levels in October. Against this background, the UK's commitment and work to help Iraq will continue. If the right measures are taken now and the economy is able to grow, Iraq's human capital and oil reserves should enable it to meet its future needs without significant external grant assistance.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House earlier this month:
"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."—[Official Report, 4 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 782.1
We recognise that we have a big role and responsibility to help nourish that hope, and debt relief will certainly play a central part in that.

School Funding (Guildford)
Sue Doughty: I am most grateful for the opportunity to put to the Minister some of the problems in schools in the Guildford area. I pay tribute to the schools in my constituency. Each and every one has dedicated, strongly committed staff who deliver good education. The problem is that good schools are faced with difficulties in meeting the Government's financial controls and in dealing with their impact. I believe that the Government still fail to recognise the problems caused by the funding crisis of 2003–04. which has continued into the following year.
We are not a poor area, but low funding is causing major difficulties in meeting the requirements set by the Government. We run the risk of undoing good work, which the Government asked of our schools and which they worked so hard to deliver. Locally, the high cost of living, of which the Minister is well aware, is producing recruitment and retention challenges and driving up costs, as is the proximity to London schools, where teachers qualify for an extra £2,000 in allowances.
In Guildford, new teachers do not start at the bottom of the pay scale, as that would make it impossible to recruit. The problem of the bottom of the scale was ignored by the Government in their financial plans. Like schools across the country, the schools in my constituency were forced to plan for deficit budgets and cuts in staffing. More than 80 per cent. of Surrey schools project in-year deficits for 2003–04, and a sample survey by Surrey showed that 125 full-time equivalent posts have been lost.
The impact on total balances for schools in Surrey is a projected reduction of £12 million, which would bring balances down to about £3 million. That is unsustainable.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: As the hon. Lady is aware, the southern part of my constituency is also in Guildford borough. I share her concerns, expressed on behalf of local schools, including the very successful Ash Manor secondary school, whose headmaster, Bob Linnell, is one of the leaders of secondary heads in Surrey. All of us in Surrey have had the problems that she talks about. Does she agree that local education authorities such as Surrey county council, which is well led by Dr. Paul Gray, are doing an excellent job in trying to support schools, despite the difficulty caused by the lack of funding from the Labour Government?
Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have no problem in agreeing with him about the excellent work that is done by the department and by the director of education and children's services. However, it is like pushing rocks uphill.
The precise impact of next year's formula settlement is not known but it is expected to increase the budget by about 5 per cent. There will be the protection of a 4 per cent. minimum per pupil funding guarantee and the Government have diverted additional funding to education, so the 2004–05 settlement will produce between 1 per cent. and 1.5 per cent. of additional resources above inflation. That will translate into an
130WH
additional £3.5 million to £5 million maximum in the Surrey schools' funding pot. It means that a minority of schools that successfully balance their budgets in 2003–04 may have a real terms increase, but it is insufficient to tackle the cost pressures that resulted in the cull of £12 million from balances.
The county council is facing growing pressures across all services. Demographic changes in adult services such as those for older people are resulting in the need for further care packages and independent care, the cost of which I have raised before in the House.
Children's social care is getting more expensive because there are increasing numbers of looked-after children and a lack of foster carers, and high council tax rises to pay for it are not an option. The scope for the county council to find additional funding for schools is therefore severely restricted in 2004–05. The Department for Education and Skills has acknowledged its responsibility for the funding crisis of 2003–04, but it concedes only to having moved too fast in its reforms, which gives us no real hope of change, especially in the hard-pressed local authority.
New regulations restrict the budget increase that local education authorities can make to centrally managed school functions, such as those involving the education of pupils with special educational needs and early-years education. Pressure; on those budgets are immense following new statutory duties placed on local education authorities for the education of sick children, for example, and the rising cost of placements for pupils in independent and out-of-county settings. In my constituency surgeries, I regularly meet families who are desperate to get the right education for their children, for whom there is no decent funding. Will the Minister tell me where the money is supposed to come from to provide fair treatment for the disadvantaged?
The Government responded to the crisis by adopting a stability-before-equity policy for 2004–05 funding and are seeking to target funding to schools and LEAs in difficulty. Surrey did not qualify for transitional support grant, so that was one opportunity gone. The second approach suggested by the Government was for Surrey to target additional funding to schools in financial difficulty from within its total schools budget, which top-slices the funding for all other schools. Surrey consulted its schoo1s forum and decided not to undertake targeted funding in 2003–04, as more than 80 per cent. are predicting in-year deficits. There is no room to achieve stability before equity.
Despite Government reassurances, schools in my constituency are facing considerable challenges, which will not be fully funded—for example, work force reform and teachers upper pay scale 3. Problems have already been caused by UPS2 being funded at only 60 per cent., and UPS1 is around the corner. Again, the Government have made reassuring sounds but they have no clarity. Will the Minister tell me whether the Government are going to fund UPS3 in full, or, if not, how much of it they will fund? In the race for funding, we know that Surrey is never going to be a major winner.
In 2003–04, the Department encouraged local authorities to license school deficits and to approve the use of formula capital for ongoing running costs, but in recent months there has been a noticeable change in approach, with heads' ability to manage school budgets

131WH
being called into question by the Department and the introduction of training for school managers in running schools with declining funds. In Surrey, those managers have been doing a tough job for years. Does the Minister really believe that the shortfall in funding is coming from poor management?
In view of external audit concerns regarding the low projected level of schools' Balances, the county is seeking in-year balance budgets from schools in 2004–05. It is a hardline approach. It appears that there is a lack of recognition of the difficulty that that will bring to many schools. Surrey has had to recognise the concerns of some heads that, if they make difficult decisions, they may end up subsidising the schools that cannot. A deficit in any school could ultimately result in the top-slicing of all schools' budgets, either to write off a deficit if a school has to close, or in response to departmental targeting requirements.
Schools are taking a deep interest in this debate and many have been in touch with me. They point out other aspects of their experience. A chair of governors has pointed out that they are performing a management skill. They are eking out the money They are spending the time. We are paying school managers to spend their time finding savings here and extra money there. We are investing merely to try to plug the gaps. Our heads expect to manage, but spend a disproportionate amount of time on trying to balance books. Managing a deficit budget is a headache and one for which there is little remedy.
A local head said to me:
"We have done everything that is asked of us. We have implemented the workforce reform agreement but with no funding. Funding doesn't meet inflation".
He has cut back wherever he can. He has cut back on his plans for improving the schools. He is scraping even to get on with basic repairs and emergency repairs. Now his only hope is to lose a specialist music teacher. I should like the Minister to see that music work that is done at that school to understand the loss that that would be.
We have the problem that as teachers and teaching assistants move up the experience scale they get more expensive. The Minister is aware of our problems in retaining teachers. We want to retain these people. We have got to the stage in Surrey where as teaching assistants move up the salary scale they have to take a drop in hours if the books are to be balanced. As teachers move up the pay scale, more money is needed and they have no idea what will happen when teachers reach the top.
Decisions have to be based on finance and not on educational reasons. The chair of governors of a school that had a really good Ofsted report wrote to me:
"As a governing body it is fair to say that we are desperately disappointed that we have had to cut back in numerous areas of spending this year in order to reduce a deficit budget which has arisen due to a rise in income which continues to bear no relation to the much deserved increase in teachers salaries and employment costs over which we have no control. We have made these cuts in relation to our discretionary spending on various resources, curriculum, property maintenance etc but this spending is at embarrassingly low levels and certainly not something which we could continue to repeat in future years. We have not made any redundancies in our already cut back stalling as we feel that this would really impact upon our children's quality of education.
132WH
As a businessman I completely approve of keeping things tight—but not to the point of strangulation. Listening to the government is like living in a different world—I wish they would come down to the pit face and explain to my governing body that, contrary to our governors perceptions, our school is fortunate to have been so well funded this year and next. This just doesn't wash!!
We are living off our reserves and when they run out—well it will be interesting to see how things move on from there. At the moment 2005/2006 and onwards is very worrying indeed."
He also points that school governors are volunteers who become governors in order to run an efficient school to the benefit of the community. They are there to serve the community and the school and not just to wield the knife on behalf of the Government.
Ewhurst school in my constituency has no staff room for non-contact time for its teachers. It is not acceptable that, in this day and age, teachers spend non-contact time on a bench in a kitchenette. St. Thomas of Canterbury school is spending 91 per cent. of its budget on salaries, in common with many other schools that are way above the guidelines for salary spend. The recommended level is 80 per cent., but only three schools in the whole of Surrey have gone below that figure. When we reach 90 per cent. on pay and pay costs, the situation is desperate.
Money for in-service training is a joke in our schools, yet they, like others, need to plan for refurbishment. Schools need to make improvements. They need to spend on information, communications and technology. The schools can raise funds, but that is such a distraction from their core business of teaching kids.
Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Lady agree that, when she meets the heads of schools in the primary sector, one of their main worries, in addition to the shortage of funds to which she correctly referred, is the immense burden placed on heads, teachers and governors—especially on heads and governors—just to deal with the huge tide of paperwork, circulars and ring binders full of advice that they have statutory obligations to read, which churn out of the Minister's Department? Each head whom I have met during the past seven years has said that the burden is enormous and that the huge tide of paper coming from the Labour Government must be stopped.
Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is right to pay tribute to the people who are handling such enormous problems. It is way beyond what they signed up to, what they wanted to give their personal commitment to and put their lives into—the service of our communities and schools.
I draw the Minister's attention to the problems experienced by infant schools. They face a further hurdle. Children are not funded for full-time places until the term in which they are five years old. Schools must find the money for spring and summer-borns who are in full-time school before their fifth birthday. Will the Minister consider such discrimination in infant schools?
I wish to highlight a further comment by a Guildford head teacher, because our governors and teachers tell the same story. In a long letter to me, he said:
"By September 2005 we are looking at having to provide our teachers with 10 per cent. PPA non contact time. To achieve this we would have to appoint 1.4 Full Time Equivalent of a teacher.

133WH
However, there is some scope in the regulations to use Teacher Assistants to take classes instead of a teacher to achieve the PPA time. My teaching staff are not keen on this approach, but needs may dictate that we have no other choice. In order to balance the budget last year we actually reduced the number of Teacher Assistant hours. Given that covering the PPA time with teachers is too expensive to be a likely solution, then Teacher Assistants would need to be trained to become Higher Level Teacher Assistants to be qualified to provide this role. One would expect that in the interim period namely next year, we would be increasing the number of TAs and providing them with training. Which brings us back to the budget."
In my closing remarks, I want to go back to the budget. Guildford is an economic powerhouse. As a nation, we need our kids to do well. As an MP, I want them to do well. We need them to thrive and to pay taxes to support the education system for the benefit of the country as a whole. Guildford is an area of investment for this country but my schools are being forced to go backwards against all the improvements that we have seen in education. We do not want gold plating. We just want fair treatment. Will the Minister promise to take the situation far more seriously?
4.14 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): It is a pleasure to serve under your beneficent chairmanship again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have discovered that hon. Members take two approaches to such debates. One is to seek out common ground, present a fair balance of the facts and find a sensible way forward. The alternative is to paint a picture of disaster and desolation and to try to impress on the audience the gravity of the situation, thereby achieving action. In my experience, the first approach is far more likely to be effective than the second. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) chose to paint such a black picture of the situation in Surrey.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to return to the issue of education funding in Surrey. I had a useful meeting with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and his colleagues, although unfortunately the hon. Member for Guildford was not able to attend. I understand that there have also been Adjournment debates on the subject, which were responded to by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg).
One harmonious note from the hon. Member for Guildford was her word of congratulation in the first few seconds of her speech for the hard work done by teachers and pupils in Surrey. I am pleased to say that when she speaks of the hard work done by teachers, we can point to the increased number of teachers in Surrey. In 2003, there were 7,660 compared with 7,220 in January 1997. That is an extra 440 teachers, which is an increase of about 6 per cent. I am pleased that they have joined their 7,000 colleagues in working hard on behalf of local pupils.
Over the same period, the number of school support staff working in the county rose from 3,280 to 4,620. I am surprised that the hon. Lady was not able to refer to those statistics while painting her picture of the situation
134WH
in the Surrey local education authority area. She might also have pointed out that the teacher vacancy rate is 1.1 per cent. I am happy to put on record my gratitude to the hard-working to teachers and school leaders who have delivered significant improvements in education in Surrey.
In a non-partisan fashion, it is also important to place it on the record that the achievement of Surrey pupils in some ways reflects the high priority that Surrey county council puts on education, which was noted by Ofsted at the time of its last inspection. I shall address the funding challenges, but it is significant that results across all key stages in Surrey consistently exceed national averages, and the recently introduced comprehensive performance assessment mirrors that situation.
With regard to central Government funding, out of 150 authorities, Surrey is the 65th most generously funded. Between 1997–98 and 2001–05, our estimate is that Surrey's funding per pupil has increased in real terms from £2,820 etc £3,540 per year. That is an increase of about £710, or 25 per cent. in real terms, or about £1,000 in cash terms. That does not include capital investment, to which the hon. Lady briefly referred. In 1996–97, capital funding in Surrey was £8.5 million. In 1997–98 it was £11.7 million, and by this year it was £49.3 million.
The system for devolving funds from the Department for Education and Skills to local education authorities works on the basis that we calculate the number of pupils, give top-ups to reflect extra need—for example, to account for pupils whose families are on income support or the working families tax credit—and then, where appropriate, recognise additional costs. Surrey is 146th out of 150 authorities in respect of percentage of pupils from families on income support and percentage of pupils from families in low-wage employment. Surrey is a prosperous county, although it has areas of deprivation that need to be targeted by the local formula chosen by local government.
The hon. Lady knows that responsibility for funding schools is shared between central Government and local government. Both raise funds for education, and both have formulas for the distribution of those funds. The Government's money goes to the local education authority, which then has a formula for its distribution to schools. If the hon. Lady has concerns about how deprivation in her constituency is recognised in Surrey local education authority's funding formula, she should take them up with the authority.
Mr. Hawkins: First, I am glad that the Minister paid tribute to what Surrey local education authority has done. I declare a personal interest, because my wife, Jenny, was-vice-chairman of Surrey county council's education committee: until 2001. I pay tribute to the work that she and her colleagues did, and that their successors have continued to do.
In the meeting that. other Surrey colleagues and I had with the Minister, he recognised that Surrey has always passported on to schools more than the Government recommend in respect of central Government funding. That is a proud record. Does he not recognise that teachers get frustrated that the extra bureaucracy is taking up so much of their time and money?
Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman was doing well until his last sentence. The passporting by Surrey has.

135WH
met the basis set by the Government, but I was referring to the formula by which Surrey local education authority gives out money to different schools. In a large authority, that is obviously important. His allegation that the money is somehow swallowed in bureaucracy is belied by the fact that there are more teachers and support staff, all of whom are being paid more. That is the obvious explanation of where he money has gone. I thought he was going to refer to problems that he raised at the meeting, which are worth discussing.
Sue Doughty: I want to make a couple of points of clarification. I was surprised to I hear the Minister say that I was not with my county colleagues at the meeting with him. I seem to remember that,. I was there. I see my Surrey colleague, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, agreeing.
We are talking about the funding formula, and I hope that the Minister will address the overall situation. He will have heard me pay tribute to the schools, their excellent work and the improvements that they made at the Government's request. However, we have not addressed issues of deprivation. We are trying to sort out the Government's end of the formula, so I would be grateful if the Minister built on his discussions with me and my Surrey colleagues and addressed those points.
Mr. Miliband: If the hon. Lath says she was at the meeting, I do not doubt it. My notes said that she was not, but I am terribly sorry if I have misled the House and obviously I do not deny her memory of it.
In the summer, the Secretary of State set out the principles he would follow to restore confidence in the school funding system, and in late October he made an announcement on the approach that we are taking. He set out for the first time a guaranteed minimum increase in the budget of every school throughout the country, which will be 4 per cent. per pupil in 2004–05. The guarantee takes account of the unavoidable standstill cost pressures on school budgets, which we, with the National Association of Head Teachers and other teacher organisations, estimate to be 3.4 per cent. That is the first bit of headroom.
The hon. Lady said that she does not know what the increases are for Surrey next year. it is public knowledge that we have ensured that every local education authority will receive a guaranteed minimum funding increase of 5 per cent. per pupil, and Surrey's increase is above the average at 6.3 per cent. That gives further headroom for the authority. In addition, there is a package of transitional support for those authorities that had the lowest increase in 2003–04 and 2004–05.
We also discussed in our meeting the fact that certain schools have been hit hard by changes to the standards fund. The devolution of responsibility for the fund to local budgets was seen as good in theory on both sides of the House. It was urged on us by local government, but in practice it created particular problems in individual schools. The standstill that has been guaranteed for 2004–05 and 2005–06 in the operation of the standards fund gives welcome stability. Unlike the hon. Lady, I do not believe that that will be at the expense of equity. The standards fund is used on the basis of need, and it is right that we keep those funds for the next two years.
136WH
It is important that LEAs play their part in the process of delivering funding to schools, the passporting that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned and the attempts to limit central spend outside the individual schools budget so that the money goes through to the front line and resources are targeted to ensure that every school is helped to financial sustainability over the medium term.
Hon. Members should also remember the Chancellor's announcement of 10 December, which had a significant impact on school funding. He announced a further £317 million in the revenue support grant for 2004–05 for local authorities with education and social services functions. That is on top of the increases already announced in the provisional settlement. In the case of Surrey, the additional grant amounts to £7.3 million. That means that in 2004–05 the grant from central Government to Surrey county council will rise by 7.7 per cent., which is well above the rate of inflation.
The hon. Member for Guildford mentioned the fact that Surrey faces recruitment challenges because of its proximity to Greater London, and I do not deny that. Pay is not the only factor influencing teachers' decisions, but I was interested in her remark that the stability and experience of the Surrey teaching force mean that they have higher salaries. She will also know that newer staff have the fastest increase in salary on the main pay scale. Their salary rises once a year and those increases are worth between £1,000 and £1,500 an increment. On the upper pay scale, increases occur every two years. She is right to refer to the upper pay spine and I will refer to it briefly in a moment.
The funding formula that we have put in place is designed to be objective and reflect the relative needs of Surrey compared with those of other authorities. It tries to strike a proper balance between the basic funding and the top-ups that I referred to. The hon. Lady knows that Surrey benefits from additional funding through the area cost adjustment, which helps authorities with the highest staff recruitment and retention costs. Surrey's ACA factor is higher than that for those outer London authorities to the east of central London, but just below that for those to the west of central London. I am sure we could debate the size of that ACA—the hon. Lady may believe it should be bigger to reflect the recruitment challenges in Surrey—but I hope she recognises that it exists in the context of the current formula.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the work force agreement, and this academic year is the first year of its operation. Teachers will be relieved of the 24 administrative tasks, which will be passed on to teaching assistants. Next year, there will be a limit in respect of 38-hour cover and in 2005–06 there will be a limit of 10 per cent. in respect of preparation, planning and assessment time.
We have made it clear—most teacher organisations would support this—that work force reform involves the use of the whole budget, not just a marginal part. Our responsibility is to ensure that every school has the headroom to make the necessary changes to deliver on the higher standards that we believe will follow from helping teachers to focus on teaching and giving them.

137WH
support staff. I hope that I have addressed all the issues in the 30 minutes available for the debate.
Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister, but I am a little concerned about his remarks on headroom. We have schools operating with more than 90 per cent. of their budget going on staffing. How much headroom does he think there is?
Mr. Miliband: Headroom refers to the difference between the increase in costs and the increase in budget, both of an LEA and an individual school. The increase in the budget of an individual school is a matter for the LEA. We distribute money to the LEA, but its formula determines what the increase will be for individual schools.
138WH
Some people believe that there should be a national funding formula and that the famed powers of competence and sagacity of the Department for Education and Skill, should be used to distribute funds to 24,000 schools across the country. That is not the Government's position. We believe that the constitutional settlement that gives an important role to local government—people who are closer to the front line than those in Whitehall—is right. That constitutional settlement demands that LEAs make a judgment about how to distribute money, thereby determining the headroom available to each school in its area.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Parliamentary Questions
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will take steps to ensure that the texts of ministerial letters sent to hon. Members in respect of written answers are printed in the Official Report. [156641]

  Mr. Hain
  I have recently written to the Speaker assuring him that, following representations from hon. Members, my office is actively engaged with the House authorities and departments in exploring how we can best reduce the number of "will write" answers and make any subsequent ministerial letters more accessible.

TRANSPORT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many days on average his Department took in Session 2002–03 to give a substantive answer to a parliamentary Question for Ordinary Written Answer; and what the greatest number of days taken to answer such a Question was. [155932]

  Mr. McNulty
  In the Session 2002–03, the Department for Transport received 2,785 parliamentary questions for Ordinary Written Answer, of which 2,522 (91 per cent.) were answered on time. Records on average processing times for parliamentary questions are not collected and to compile such data would incur disproportionate cost. The greatest number of days taken to answer an Ordinary Written Question was 44 sitting days.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the relative effectiveness of(a) inconspicuous speed cameras accompanied by high-profile advertising and road signs and (b) single brightly-coloured speed cameras. [153021]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 10 February 2004]: The objective of the safety camera programme is to reduce injuries and crashes by deterring excessive speed at places with a history of speed related accidents. Visible cameras, clearly signed, help achieve this. Drivers can also obtain information on the location of cameras from local safety camera partnerships' websites.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money raised in fines from speed cameras during the last year for which records are available was spent in(a) West Sussex and (b) the East Worthing and Shoreham constituency. [154400]
  420W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on all the "Safety Camera Partnerships" expenditure for the financial year 2002–03 is being prepared and will be published shortly. This was the first year in which the West Sussex Safety Camera Partnership was operating.

  We do not hold statistical revenue information broken down by parliamentary constituency areas. The hon. Member may wish to contact the West Sussex safety camera partnership for more detailed information.

  Speed Limits
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes to(a) emission levels, (b) fuel consumption, (c) accident rates and (d) severity of accidents he estimates would result from an increase in the motorway speed limit to 80mph. [155498]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: Although no detailed estimates are available for such an increase, there is evidence to indicate that emission levels, fuel consumption, accident rates and severity of accidents would all rise.

  Road Resurfacing
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the trunk road network has been(a) re-surfaced and (b) re-surfaced with lower noise surfacing in each of the last three years. [155070]

  Mr. Darling
  Government policy is to encourage the implementation of technologies that reduce the noise arising from road traffic wherever these are cost effective and do not have adverse consequences on safety. Categorisation of sites for low noise surfacing is primarily based on maintenance need. In addition, we have criteria for categorisation for noise reduction of roads with concrete surfaces. We announced these criteria on 17 October 2001; they are:

  1. that wherever possible the application of quieter surfaces will fit in with normal maintenance needs;

  2. that priority will be given to those sites where treatment would benefit the greatest number of people;

  3. that the works will be carried out in such a way as to minimise disruption to general public and users of the network;

  4. that priority will be given to roads, opened since June 1988, where actual noise levels have turned out to be significantly higher than predicted at the time of Public Inquiry.

  Priority is given to road surfaces that are deteriorating and to locations where road safety is an issue. Where the resurfacing is specifically for noise reduction purposes priority will be given to those cases in which the actual noise levels exceed those predicted by at least three decibels, or where more than 100 properties per kilometre are affected by excess noise.

  During 2000–01 4.3 per cent. of the Highways Agency's core network was resurfaced including 3.5 per cent. with quieter surfacing. During 2001–02 the figures were 4.2 per cent. and 3.8 per cent. respectively, and in 2002–03 5.5 per cent. and 5.0 per cent. respectively. In the current year, 2003–04, the Highways Agency estimate these figures will be 5.0 per cent. and 4.6 per cent. respectively.

  Vehicle Insurance/Taxation
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department is taking to reduce the number of motor vehicles on the roads(a) without insurance and (b) without road taxation. [155791]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department is determined to take effective action to tackle the problem of uninsured driving,. To that end, we commissioned last August an independent review of motor insurance with uninsured driving as a key consideration. The reviewer, Professor David Greenaway of Nottingham University, is expected to report in April. We shall take a keen interest in his recommendations, with a view to taking appropriate action as soon as practicable.

  We have considerably tightened the enforcement of Vehicle Excise Duty through the "continuous registration" package of measures. By introducing continuous registration and using modern technology, we are improving the accuracy of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's vehicle register to the benefit of law enforcement and the honest motorist. To deal with short term Vehicle Excise Duty evasion, we have introduced fines for those over a month overdue with relicensing their vehicle. We are tackling those vehicles already outside the system of registration and licensing with enhanced enforcement using wheel clamping and ANPR cameras. By enhancing the quality of the vehicle register these measures are intended to assist the police in the fight against crime, and to assist local authorities in tracking down and enforcing costs against those who abandon vehicles.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he plans to take to reduce the number of uninsured drivers. [155888]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department is determined to take effective action to tackle the problem of uninsured driving. To that end, we commissioned last August an independent review of motor insurance with uninsured driving as a key consideration. The reviewer, Professor David Greenaway of Nottingham University, is expected to report in April. We shall take a keen interest in his recommendations, with a view to taking appropriate action as soon as practicable.

WALES

  Structural Funding
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Treasury on matching the funds of Objective 1 payments. [155774]

  Mr. Hain
  I have regular discussions with the Treasury on a wide range of subjects.

  Crime
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the crime figures in North Wales. [155776]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly discuss crime figures with various interested parties.
  422W
  Recently, we have received correspondence from the Chief Constable of North Wales, clarifying the impact of important changes in the reporting of crime, and pointing out that the British Crime Survey's latest findings show that crime in England and Wales as a whole has gone down by 25 per cent. since 1997.

  NHS Funding
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales Government on the funding of the NHS in Wales. [155777]

  Mr. Touhig
  I regularly meet the Assembly Health Minister to discuss the NHS and health provision in Wales including funding.

  Renewable Energy
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide fiscal incentives to support the manufacture of renewable energy products in Wales. [155778]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government attaches great importance to the renewable energy industry and will continue to support the development of all forms of alternative energy producing technology as outlined in our Energy White Paper.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh residents are in English prisons. [155780]

  Mr. Touhig
  Information on a prisoner's place of residence prior to sentence or remand in custody is not held centrally.

  At 30 November 2003, there were 1,580 prisoners in English prisons who had been committed or sentenced by courts in Wales.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the transfer of toxic waste from Wales to England. [155781]

  Mr. Touhig
  I understand that the Assembly intends to consult later this year upon amendments to the existing legislation controlling the movement of hazardous wastes.

  Cockle Regulation
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary regarding the Dee Cockle Regulation Order. [155782]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the First Secretary and I meet the Assembly Secretary for Environment, Planning and Countryside to discuss a variety of issues, including the Welsh cockle industry.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Huw lrranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Home Office on the use of legislation to tackle anti-social behaviour in Wales. [155779]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with Ministerial colleagues about matters affecting Wales.

  Last October, the Government published its "Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan", setting out priority areas for reducing anti-social behaviour over the next two or three years. Key areas for intervention include: nuisance neighbours, environmental crime and begging.

  Flooding
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on flooding in Wales. [155969]

  Mr. Hain
  I have regular discussions with Assembly Ministers about issues affecting Wales. It is for flood and coastal defence authorities to bring forward proposals to improve flood defences where required. The Assembly offers financial assistance towards the cost of these works via grant schemes On 6 February, I visited homes in Ynysmeudwy and Pontardawe which were affected by a flash flood and saw, at first hand, the effects of flooding on families.

  Recruitment Advertising
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his Department's expenditure on recruitment advertising was in each of the last three years, broken down by publication; and what proportion of such expenditure was(a) to advertise vacant posts and (b) in the form of other general recruitment advertising. [155519]

  Mr. Touhig
  None.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Prime Minister what(a) opinion polling and (b) market research projects have been carried out by the Government on the issue of military action against Iraq since 2001, broken down by financial year; what the (i) title and (ii) nature of these projects were; how much each of these projects cost; what the findings of each project were; where the findings have been published; and if he will make a statement.[153466]

  Mr. Caplin
  I have been asked to reply.

  No opinion polling or market research projects have been centrally commissioned by the Ministry of Defence specifically on the issue of military action against Iraq.
  424W
  However, we commission surveys of public perceptions of the Ministry of Defence, the armed forces and their equipment. As part of this work we monitor the impact of recent operations.

  I am withholding information on the costs of these surveys under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (commercial confidences).

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what assessment he has made of whether Iraq could launch a chemical, biological or nuclear attack against the UK mainland before publication of the September 2002 dossier; and if he will make a statement; [155975]

  (2) what assessment he has made of whether Iraq had considered using chemical or biological agents in terrorist attacks before military action was taken against Iraq; and if he will make a statement; [155976]

  (3) what assessment he made before military action was taken against Iraq, of Iraq's ability to produce chemical and biological weapons while the UN inspection team was in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [155977]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Worthing West (Mr. Bottomley) in my statement on 24 September 2002,Official Report, column 23 and to my hon. Friend, the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), at Prime Minister's Questions on 4 June 2003, Official Report, columns 155–156 and in a written answer on 15 October 2003, Official Report, column 234W.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what assessment he made of whether Iraq(a) had provided chemical and biological weapons to al-Qaeda and (b) intended to conduct chemical and biological terrorist attacks before military action was taken against Iraq; and if he will make a statement; [156006]

  (2) what assessment he made of the effect of regime collapse in Iraq on the risk of transfer of chemical and biological weapons materials to terrorists; and if he will make a statement; [156007]

  (3) what assessment he made of the effect of military action against Iraq on the threat posed by al-Qaeda before taking such action; and if he will make a statement. [156008]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), on 15 October 2003,Official Report, column 234W.

DEFENCE

  Iraq
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many British Service personnel(a) have committed suicide in Iraq or since returning to the UK from Iraq and (b) have been returned to the UK from Iraq early because of mental stress. [153691]
  425W
  Mr. Caplin
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 February 2004, Official Report, c.1636W]: Further information has come to my attention. The corrected answer to the question is:

  During the period 10 January 2003 to 20 December 2003 no member of British service personnel committed suicide in Iraq. Among Service personnel who have since returned to the United Kingdom from Iraq; two have since died and been recorded by a coroner with a suicide or open verdict. An additional five cases have been referred to a coroner for a verdict but the inquests have not yet been heard. There is no change to part (b).

  Operation Telic
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will investigate the concerns expressed by Justin Bowen, a Royal Army Medical Corps Private, and Vicky Bowen, a member of the Queen Alexandra Royal Army Nursing Corps, that their son, Scott, has suffered from Gulf War Syndrome symptoms after both parents served in Operation Telic in the Gulf. [153514]

  Mr. Caplin
  I am unable to comment on individual cases for reasons of medical confidentiality. However, the Ministry of Defence takes the health concerns of Service and former Service personnel very seriously. I therefore urge any personnel who served on Op TELIC who have concerns about health matters to consult their Service medical officer or general practitioner, who will investigate thoroughly. Service and ex-Service personnel are also entitled to be seen at the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (GVMAP) on referral from their doctor. The GVMAP provides as full a diagnosis as possible to veterans, assesses patients and recommends treatment.

  The arrangements for dealing with individual health concerns are complemented by a comprehensive package of research into the health of those returning from Op TELIC, announced on 7 May 2003, Official Report, column 34WS. Scoping studies have been completed and, in March, a questionnaire will be issued to some 7,000 Op TELIC veterans to seek data on health status and exposures.

  Recruitment Advertising
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's expenditure on recruitment advertising was in each of the last three years, broken down by publication; and what proportion of such expenditure was(a) to advertise vacant posts and (b) in the form of other general recruitment advertising. [155524]

  Mr. Caplin
  This information is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Service Medals
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will reassess the eligibility criteria for the award of gallantry medals in relation to operations in Iraq. [144012]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 15 December 2003]: The eligibility criteria for the award of gallantry medals are a matter for the Committee on the Grant of Honours,
  426W
  Decorations and Medals. The Committee advises Her Majesty the Queen on all matters to do with honours and awards. The Committee has not been asked to consider any changes to the eligibility criteria.

TREASURY

  European Council of Finance Ministers
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held on 10 February; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [154893]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended ECOFIN on 10 February.

  ECOFIN discussed preparation for the Spring Council on 25–26 March. There was broad agreement that further action was needed to reduce the European regulatory burden, promote investment and innovation and improve European labour market flexibility. ECOFIN therefore mandated the Economic Policy Committee (EPC) and the Economic and Financial Committee (EFC) to produce a key issues paper for the spring European Council for adoption at the 9 March ECOFIN.

  It was agreed that the next ECOFIN would start with a breakfast discussion of the four Presidencies regulatory reform initiative. I presented the Government's White Paper on the European Economic Reform1, stressing that while important reforms had been undertaken, a lot of work remained to be done. ECOFIN also adopted conclusions on the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines Implementation Report and endorsed the EPC report on structural reform.

  On the Savings Tax Directive, the Commission reported on the progress of its negotiations with Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino and Switzerland. ECOFIN unanimously supported the Commission's negotiating position and agreed not to accept any further counter-requests. The Council also unanimously agreed that the agreement negotiated with Switzerland should be concluded without further delay.

  No votes were taken at the meeting.

  1 HM Treasury, "Advancing long-term prosperity: Economic reform in enlarged Europe". Published February 2004.

  Financial Instruments
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on its use of derivatives and related financial instruments. [155560]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government uses derivatives to manage interest rate and foreign exchange risk associated with some of its activities. These instruments may include equity swaps, FRAs, exchange rate forwards, currency and interest rate swaps, as well as interest rate futures. the Government does not use these instruments to speculate in the financial markets.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people(a) have taken-up and (b) are entitled to tax credit in (i) the North West, (ii) Lancashire and (iii) Chorley. [156130]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated number of families receiving the Child and/or Working Tax Credits in (i) the North West, (ii) Lancashire and (iii) Chorley at 5 January 2004 is shown in "Child and Working Tax Credit Statistics, Geographical analyses—January 2004", which is on the Inland Revenue website at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/menu.htm. The estimates are based on a sample of cases, and are subject to sampling uncertainty.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many abandoned vehicles have been recovered in South Yorkshire in each of the last three years. [155017]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested for the local authorities in South Yorkshire is given in the following table.

  Number of abandoned vehicles collected in the financial year

  Local authority

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Barnsley

  248

  549

  Metropolitan

  Borough Council

  Doncaster

  410

  1,313

  Metropolitan

  Borough Council

  Rotherham

  150

  410

  Metropolitan

  Borough Council

  Sheffield City Council

  100

  1,421

  Total

  908

  3,693

  Information on the number of vehicles abandoned was collected for the first time in the 2000–01 Municipal Waste Management Survey. 2001–02 is the most recent year for which data is available from the survey.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what aircraft pollution monitoring arrangements are in place in the vicinity of Heathrow airport; and who operates each site. [154472]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 February 2004]: The following three air quality monitoring stations in the vicinity of Heathrow airport ate part of Defra's Automatic Air Quality Urban and Rural Monitoring Network (AURN):
  London Hillingdon is owned by Defra and has operated since July 1996. It is in a suburban location (Grid Reference: TQ 069786) and monitors ozone, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter (PM10).
  428W
  Brentford Roadside is owned by the London borough of Hounslow and has operated since June 2003. It is in an urban roadside location (Grid Reference: TQ 175781) and monitors oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide. (During the period 1997–02, this site operated a short distance from its present location and was named Hounslow Roadside.)
  Harlington is owned by BAA and has operated since April 2003. It is in an urban background location (Grid Reference: TQ 083778) and monitors ozone, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and PM10.

  These stations measure pollution arising from all sources not just aircraft and provide information on the overall pollutant concentrations to which residents in the area are exposed. Data from all three of these stations are quality assured to national standards.

  Further information on these stations, data summaries and hour-by-hour pollutant concentrations can be found at www.airquality.co.uk (the site at Harlington is in the process of being incorporated into this system).

  In addition, BAA and local authorities in the vicinity of Heathrow airport operate the following air quality monitoring stations at: Slough Town Hall; Slough, Colnbrook; Hillingdon, South Ruislip; Hillingdon Hospital; Hounslow, Cranford; Hounslow, Chiswick High Rd; and BAA Heathrow, LHR2 site close to northern airport runway.

  Information about air quality in the vicinity of Heathrow airport can also be found at www.heathrowairwatch.org.uk

  Asbestos Cement Pipes
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance her Department offers on the use of asbestos cement pipes to carry drinking water. [155786]

  Mr. Morley
  Asbestos pipes have been used extensively by the water industry without giving rise to any quality problems. However, the Drinking Water Inspectorate issued an information letter on behalf of the Secretary of State, which reminded water companies of the Asbestos (Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No. 2373). These Regulations effectively precluded the use of new asbestos cement pipes to carry drinking water, because of health and safety issues associated with cutting the material, not because of any concerns about possible effects of asbestos pipes on drinking water quality.

  Aviation Emissions
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the Government's target figure of carbon dioxide emissions in 2050 she estimates will be taken up by aviation emissions. [151195]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government estimate that domestic and international aviation emissions could account for 20–25 per cent. of UK carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. This calculation assumes that the 60 per cent. goal specified in the Energy White Paper for the domestic economy is achieved. If international aviation were to be
  429W
  included in the 60 per cent. goal emissions from other sectors would have to be around 15–20 per cent. below their Energy White Paper target to compensate.

  This calculation is based on an assumption of three new runways in the south east and does not reflect the impact of any economic instruments. It further assumes that emissions from all international departures from the UK are allocated to the UK inventory, as there is as yet no international agreement on ways of allocating international aviation emissions.

  The above figures do not include the radiative forcing effect which emissions from aviation have at altitude, which are 2–4 times greater than that from carbon dioxide alone.

  Carbon Sinks
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the environmental benefits accruing from the ability of(a) sugar beet and (b) other crops to act as carbon sinks. [155664]

  Mr. Morley
  Separate estimates for sugar beet are not available but research sponsored by the Department suggests that an upper limit of 0.14 million tonnes carbon per year (Mt C/year) is accumulating in crop biomass as a whole in the UK, mainly as a result of increases in crop yield. This is small compared with the amount of carbon that is sequestered by forests, which is currently around 3 Mt C/year.

  Agriculture and forestry sectors probably contribute most effectively to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through the production of energy crops and wood fuel by displacing use of fossil fuels.

  Child Poverty
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to achieve the Government's targets of(a) ending child poverty by 2020, (b) halving it by 2010 and (c) reducing it by a quarter by 2004–05; and if she will make a statement. [154368]

  Alun Michael
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Pond) on 12 February 2004,Official Report, column 1590W.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on Common Agricultural Policy reform and help provided to poorer farmers under the policy. [153439]

  Alun Michael
  The EU agreed on 26 June 2003 to a radical shift in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In future, the bulk of subsidies will no longer be linked to production, freeing farmers to produce the safe, high quality food which people want and bringing environmental improvements.

  On 12 February my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced how she proposed to implement key features of that groundbreaking reform in England. We will decouple fully in 2005 and move over an eight year
  430W
  transition period towards a flat rate Single Farm Payment to farmers. England will be split into two regions—land in the severely disadvantaged areas (SDAs) of the less favoured areas (LFAs) and all other eligible land. Different rates will apply in these regions. This represents a decisive irreversible and forward-looking shift consistent with the direction that we have already set in the Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy (SFFS) and in the June 2003 CAP reform negotiations.

  If farmers seize the market opportunities offered by these reforms, it is estimated that UK farm incomes could increase by around 5 per cent. relative to the 2003 Total Income from Farming, and farmers will be freed from some of the bureaucracy associated with the old subsidy schemes. For some of the poorer farms this change in support represents a chance to get off the treadmill of small scale and unprofitable commodity production.

  There are also Defra led initiatives already available to help poorer farmers. These include the Farm Business Advice Service to help farmers adjust and respond to the difficult trading conditions of recent years and a number of benchmarking initiatives to help struggling farmers see how they can bring their performance up to the level of more successful businesses.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will respond to the letter from the hon. Member for Spelthorne of 6 January 2004 regarding Mr. M. Gillard of Staines. [154345]

  Alun Michael
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responded on 16 February 2004.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with reference to her reply to the hon. Member for Pendle of 6 November 2003 on the dedication of land tinder section 16 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, how she followed up correspondence to Government Departments; what has been the response; what further steps will be taken to promote dedication to public and private landowners; and whether incentives will be made available. [155557]

  Alun Michael
  I was pleased to issue non-statutory guidance to accompany the regulations on dedication in January this year. The Forestry Commission is currently in the process of using the guidance to make the first few dedications across its freehold estate.

  I will be writing to a number of other large landowners in the public and private sectors soon to ask them to confirm their plans for dedicating land and am optimistic that this will lead to further successes. My officials are also considering ways to encourage dedications more widely.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Jim. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will
  431W
  make a statement on the Government's policy on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. [154617]

  Mr. Morley
  We will maintain the UK's position as a leading supporter of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in co-operation with EU member states and other contracting parties. CITES aims to ensure that where trade is carried out, it is done in a sustainable way that ensures the long-term survival of all species. It has been very successful in this respect and is widely respected for its ability to produce effective regulatory measures that are based on sound science. We will, therefore, continue to support CITES both practically and financially.

  English Meat
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to promote English(a) beef and (b) lamb. [153441]

  Alun Michael
  The promotion of English beef and lamb is a matter for the industry. The Meat and Livestock Commission's English Beef and Lamb Executive (EBLEX) is considering whether to introduce an English brand for beef and lamb produced in England, but any promotion of this would need to be in accordance with the EU's rules on state aids.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the spend of her Department is on the promotion of English(a) beef and (b) lamb in the current financial year. [153890]

  Alun Michael
  EU co-funding is available for promotion and information campaigns carried out by industry bodies such as the Meat and Livestock Commission. We work closely with such bodies and the EU Commission with a view to maximising the benefit to the UK industry. We also encourage the marketing and branding of local and regional produce. A processing and marketing grant is also available within the England Rural Development Programme. Our approach, in keeping with the Treaty of Rome and our policy to help create a sustainable future for farming and food, is about helping the farming industry to move away from dependency on subsidies. This also fits well with our policy for reforming the Common Agricultural Policy.

  Equine Passports
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the impact of the proposal that veterinary surgeons complete silhouettes for equine passports on the practice of commoning in the New Forest; and if she will make a statement; [155267]

  (2) which organisations were consulted on proposals that veterinary surgeons complete silhouettes for equine passports; and for what reasons the New Forest Commoners Defence Association was not included in the consultation. [155268]
  432W
  Alun Michael
  We have never said that only veterinary surgeons can complete and sign the silhouette in horse passports. The passport must be signed either by a vet or the competent authority—which is the passport-issuing organisation—in accordance with European rules.

  When concerns were expressed to Defra that in some cases the person completing some silhouettes on behalf of the competent authority had no proven competency and that there was no independent verification of the details, I agreed to provide further guidance to all passport-issuing organisations. I explained this to a meting of all passport issuing organisations on 4 November 2003. The New Forest Verderers have informed Defra officials how they intend to meet the requirements in respect of silhouettes for animals in the New Forest, and officials have confirmed that these are within the guidelines issued.

  Farming
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect on farm diversification of pre-1983 agricultural tenancy conditions which refer to earnings from agriculture. [150885]

  Alun Michael
  Ministers have become increasingly concerned that agricultural tenancy legislation, together with the terms contained in agricultural tenancy agreements, combine to prevent some tenant farmers from participating in diversification and agri-environment activities. Income from diversified activities might also affect succession rights under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. In view of these concerns, we reconvened the Tenancy Reform Industry Group in November 2002. The Group was asked to make recommendations to improve the health of the tenancy sector, and in particular, to encourage greater participation in farm diversification among tenant farmers.

  The Tenancy Reform Industry Group presented its report to Government in June 2003. The report, which has the support of all Group members, made a number of wide ranging recommendations for increasing flexibility within agricultural tenancies. These include updating the statutory succession provisions in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 to allow income derived from farm diversification projects undertaken with the consent of the landlord to be taken into account in assessing eligibility for succession to an agricultural tenancy. The Group also recommended a code of practice on diversification within agricultural tenancies, backed up by an independent adjudication scheme to which disputes can be referred when they cannot be settled between parties.

  The Government responded to the Report of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group shortly before Christmas. The Government accepted all of the Group's recommendations for amendments to the existing tenancy legislation and the proposed code of practice. It is anticipated that changes to the legislation will be effected by means of an Order under the Regulatory Reform Act. It is hoped that a formal consultation document on the Regulatory Reform Order will be issued later in the year.
  433W
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the total amount of Common Agricultural Policy subsidy paid to English farms in 2003, broken down by county; and what the(a) highest, (b) lowest and (c) average individual payment in each county were. [151352]

  Alun Michael
  The following table shows the total amount and average individual payments made for each county1 in England. However, we are unable to supply

  County

  Total amount (£)

  Number of claims

  Average payment (£)

  Tees Valley and Durham

  33,823,029.86

  1,763

  19,184.92

  Northumberland and Tyne & Wear

  66,327,723.89

  1,872

  35,431.48

  Cumbria

  72,822,877.45

  4,852

  15,008.84

  Cheshire

  16,210,308.85

  2,110

  7,682.61

  Greater Manchester

  4,320,959.33

  560

  7,715.99

  Lancashire

  23,156,928.16

  2,639

  8,774.89

  Merseyside

  2,762,820.68

  188

  14,695.85

  East Riding and North Lincolnshire

  56,488,361.31

  2,166

  26,079.58

  North Yorkshire

  111,619,984.91

  6,108

  18,274.39

  South Yorkshire

  14,762,236.39

  809

  18,247.51

  West Yorkshire

  14,179,485.69

  1,469

  9,652.47

  Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire

  55,531,457.94

  3,596

  15,442.56

  Leicestershire, Rutland and Northamptonshire

  78,391,446.46

  3,232

  24,254.78

  Lincolnshire

  98,095,650.80

  3,432

  28,285.65

  Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire

  74,282,940.97

  5,158

  14,401.50

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  78,969,277.49

  6,222

  12,691.94

  West Midlands

  2,380,209.55

  210

  11,334.33

  East Anglia

  186,325,648.48

  8,097

  23,011.69

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  35,191,734.37

  1,243

  28,311.93

  Essex

  51,179,181.00

  1,746

  29,312.25

  Inner London

  1,482,857.45

  100

  14,828.57

  Outer London

  1,964,304.69

  145

  13,546.93

  Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire

  77,024,191.94

  2,987

  25,786.47

  Surrey, East and West Sussex

  48,432,661.98

  2,615

  18,521.09

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  38,625,646.00

  1,747

  22,109.70

  Kent

  38,054,781.42

  1,808

  21,047.99

  Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and North Somerset

  88,933,774.97

  5,315

  16,732.60

  Dorset and Somerset

  65,335,288.74

  5,570

  11,729.85

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  45,469,578.91

  3,892

  11,682.83

  Devon

  91,593,508.63

  7,613

  12,031.20

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many Common Agricultural Policy payments were made to farmers in each English county in 2003; and what the total area was that the subsidy related to, broken down by county. [151353]

  Alun Michael
  The number of Common Agriculture Policy payments made to farmers in each English county and the areas the subsidy related to are set out in the following tables. The county split for the number of claims paid is in line with NUTS 2 (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) regional analysis.

  County

  Claims paid

  Tees Valley and Durham

  1,763

  Northumberland and Tyne and Wear

  1,872

  Cumbria

  4,852

  Cheshire

  2,110

  Greater Manchester

  560

  Lancashire

  2,639

  Merseyside

  188

  East Riding and North Lincolnshire

  2,166

  434W
  information on individual payments under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 unless such details are allowed by any of the exemptions to the Act. If such exemptions can be identified then further consideration can be given to the request.

  Financial figures represent the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund 2003 accounting year which runs from 16 October 2002 to 15 October 2003.
  1 The county split is in line with NUTS 2 (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) regional analysis.

  County

  Claims paid

  North Yorkshire

  6,108

  South Yorkshire

  809

  West Yorkshire

  1,469

  Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire

  3,596

  Leicestershire, Rutland and Northamptonshire

  3,232

  Lincolnshire

  3,432

  Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire

  5,158

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  6,222

  West Midlands

  210

  East Anglia

  8,097

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  1,243

  Essex

  1,746

  Inner London

  100

  Outer London

  145

  Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire

  2,987

  Surrey, East and West Sussex

  2,615

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  1,747

  Kent

  1,808

  Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and North Somerset

  5,315

  Dorset and Somerset

  5,570

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  3,892

  Devon

  7,613

  435W

  County

  Area (ha)

  Bedfordshire

  73,816

  Berkshire

  43,578

  Buckinghamshire

  100,562

  Cleveland

  23,101

  Cambridgeshire

  216,721

  Cheshire

  108,343

  Cornwall

  218,073

  Cumbria

  415,450

  Derbyshire

  164,544

  Devon

  417,851

  Dorset

  148,170

  Durham

  140,407

  Essex

  215,356

  Gloucestershire

  165,425

  Hampshire

  163,909

  Isle of Wight

  18,562

  Hereford and Worcester

  225,024

  Hertford

  80,630

  Kent

  162,236

  Lancashire

  172,266

  Leicestershire

  170,573

  Lincolnshire

  398,284

  Merseyside

  13,153

  Greater London (ER)

  3,223

  Middlesex

  3,177

  Norfolk

  280,035

  Northamptonshire

  164,961

  Tyne and Wear

  13,370

  Northumberland

  339,728

  Nottingham

  118,970

  Oxfordshire

  177,769

  Avon

  62,751

  Shropshire

  226,462

  Somerset

  211,011

  Staffordshire

  157,099

  Suffolk

  225,151

  Isles of Scilly

  49

  Surrey

  35,421

  East Sussex

  71,501

  West Sussex

  79,980

  Warwickshire

  120,579

  Greater Manchester

  24,769

  Wiltshire

  214,649

  West Midlands

  11,518

  South Yorkshire

  70,288

  North Yorkshire

  483,462

  Beverly

  76,166

  North Yorkshire

  46,076

  Humberside

  230,332

  Total

  7,352,423

  Fisheries
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the reliability of catch landing figures obtained by her Department is in determining fish stocks in British fishing waters; what her estimate is of the margin of error in estimations based on this information; what other information her Department uses to determine fish stocks; and what the estimated margins of error are using this information. [150305]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Fish stock assessments are undertaken by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and are linked to the sea areas in which individual fish stocks are mainly found. They will often embrace the waters of more than one country as well as the high seas. Account is taken of data contributed by all of the main countries exploiting each stock and 436W
  comprises officially recorded information on landings and fishing effort, plus scientific data on size and age structure, growth rate, maturity, and discard rates (when available). Most assessments also use the year to year trend in relative abundance estimated as catch per effort from independent national and international research vessel surveys. The absolute accuracy of assessments is difficult to estimate at the present time but judgments on the robustness of the underlying data will be reflected in the scientific advice provided regarding future levels of stock exploitation.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the effect is of the removal of large cod from a fishery on the overall levels of recruitment to a fishery. [150480]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Removing adult cod is expected to have relatively little effect on the survival or growth rates of juvenile cod, but could significantly affect the production of eggs.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU(a) Necessity and (b) Recovery research programme on selective gear is scheduled to start; what the cost of each project is; and what the United Kingdom contribution to each project is. [152170]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Necessity project begins on 1 March 2004 and is budgeted to cost Euro 2,806,946. The UK contribution is Euro 443, 420. The Recovery project began on 1 November 2002 and was budgeted to cost Euro 7,725,285. The UK contribution is Euro 378,325.

  Flooding
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate how many properties have benefited from flood defence funding since 1997 broken down by constituency. [155087]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra grant aids capital projects and related studies that meet specified economic, technical and environmental criteria and achieve the threshold priority score for the year in which they start. Decisions regarding which flood and coastal defence projects to promote, their timing and appropriate solutions are matters for the operating authorities—the Environment Agency (EA), local authorities and (in areas with special drainage needs) internal drainage boards.

  The Department estimates that 290,000 houses have benefited from flood defence projects (excluding those for flood warning or primarily to protect against coastal erosion) approved between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 2003. The programme is a rolling one and other houses will have benefited from projects approved prior to 1997 which will have been funded in the period. There is likely to be an element of double-counting in these figures where different projects (for example for annual beach recharge) have benefited the same houses. Such double-counting could not be removed, and neither could the total be broken down by constituency, without incurring disproportionate cost. The Department has agreed Service Delivery Agreement (SDA) Target 27 with HM Treasury to reduce flood risk to a further 80,000 houses (with no double—counting) during the

  437W
  Spending Review 2002 period—2003–04 to 2005–06.Because of the measurement method used for the SDA target (counting houses at project completion rather than approval) this figure will include some of the houses included in the 290,000 figure above.

  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what flood defences were funded by her Department, broken down by constituency, since 1997. [155089]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra grant aids capital projects and related studies that meet specified economic, technical and environmental criteria and achieve the threshold priority score for the year in which they start. Decisions regarding which flood and coastal defence projects to promote. their timing and appropriate solutions are matters for the operating authorities—the Environment Agency (EA), local authorities and (in areas with special drainage needs) internal drainage boards.

  The list which has been placed in the Libraries of the House, shows capital flood defence works projects (excluding those for flood warning or primarily to protect against coastal erosion) approved for grant since 1 April 1997. Of course the programme as a whole is a rolling one and some projects approved prior to 1997 will also have received funding in the period. I regret that I am unable to break the list down by constituency without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to protect houses that have been built on flood plains. [150380]

  Mr. Morley
  We recognise that there are around 1.9 million properties in England in flood risk areas that are at some risk of flooding.

  Defra provides grant aid to the flood and coastal defence operating authorities to support their capital schemes to reduce flood risk, including through the improvement of flood warnings. These projects must meet specified criteria and an appropriate priority score to attract Defra funding but decisions regarding which projects to promote and their timing rest with these authorities. The principal operating authority for flood risk is the Environment Agency (EA) but local authorities (LAs) and, in areas with special drainage needs, internal drainage boards (IDBs) also carry out works on a much smaller scale overall.

  The effective management of flood and coastal erosion risk is a priority for Government. This is demonstrated by the substantial increase in funding in recent years and for the SR2002 period. For example, total Government expenditure on flood and coastal defence was £310 million in 1996–97, £439 million estimated in 2003–04 and is planned to be £564 million in 2005–06.

  Defra has two relevant SDA targets under SR 2002. One relates to the delivery of the enhanced flood and coastal defence capital programme over the SR2002 period, reducing the risk to life, to major infrastructure, environment assets and to some 80,000 houses. The other is to implement the outcomes of the flood and coastal defence funding review, including funding the Environment Agency's flood defence service through a
  438W
  single stream of Defra grant in aid and transferring to the Agency responsibility for all rivers creating the greatest flood risk.

  In addition, Defra has initiated work on a major new Government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management, including consideration of possible new funding streams.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the recommendations of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group in its second annual report to increase resources for energy efficiency programmes by 50 per cent. [155873]

  Mr. Morley
  I am grateful to the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group for their report.

  We are considering their report as we prepare our Fuel Poverty Implementation Plan and will respond to their recommendations in the Government's annual progress report on fuel poverty. We plan to publish both documents after the Easter recess.

  Gangmasters
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to encourage employees to be proactive in preventing illegal working, as stated in paragraph 24 of her Department's response to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee's Fourteenth Report of Session 2002–03, HC 691, on gangmasters; and what data protection requirements inhibit her response to requests for assistance. [154662]

  Alun Michael
  Paragraph 24 of the Government's reply to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee's report on gangmasters actually refers to the role of employers, not employees. My reply assumes that this is the meaning intended in your question.

  The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs is unlikely to be in a position to provide direct assistance to employers seeking advice on illegal working. However, My hon. Friend, the Minister for Citizenship, Immigration and Counter Terrorism, chairs the Illegal Working Steering Group which comprises representatives of the commercial sectors where illegal work is most prevalent. The steering group has examined ways in which employers can be encouraged and supported in carrying out checks under section 8 of the Asylum and immigration Act 1996. Following discussions with the steering group the Government have consulted on measures to strengthen the document checks of prospective employees that employers must make under section 8. The Government are now planning to bring forward revised measures.

  The Government are not aware of any circumstances where the Data Protection Act would inhibit the disclosure of data held by a Government Department or employers necessary for the prevention of illegal working or the apprehension of offenders.

  GM Crops
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations the Devolved Administrations in(a) Wales and (b) Scotland have made to her Department regarding the growing of Chardon LL maize in the UK. [154705]

  Mr. Morley
  The transformation event T25, contained in Chardon LL, already has a Part C marketing consent under Directive 2001/18/EC. Ministers are currently considering the advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment on the commercial cultivation of T25 maize in light of the results of the Farm Scale Evaluations. The UK's position will be decided in consultation with the Devolved Administrations. Discussions with the Administrations in Wales and Scotland are on—going on this matter.

  The question of the possible addition of Chardon LL to the UK National Seed List is a matter for joint decision with the Devolved Administrations.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the acceptable threshold under EU law is for the contamination of non—GM crops planted in the UK with GM traits. [154706]

  Mr. Morley
  The EU has agreed a general threshold of 0.9 per cent. for tracing and labelling the adventitious presence of approved GM traits in non—GM crops and food. The European Commission's guidance to member states is that co—existence arrangements should not go beyond what is necessary to ensure that adventitious traces of GMOs stay below the tolerance thresholds set out in Community legislation.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to refuse permission for the planting of GM crops before bringing laws into effect on(a) co-existence and (b) liability. [154707]

  Mr. Morley
  We are currently considering our policy on co-existence and liability in the light of the report on these issues by the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. We will set out our response in due course.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she will make in the Council of Ministers regarding the European Commission's decision to support a proposal to permit BT11 GM maize to be imported as food into Europe; and if she will make a statement. [152773]

  Mr. Morley
  This application has already been referred to our advisory body who have raised no objection on food and safety grounds. It will be discussed in Council in the normal way.

  Hen Harriers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the 440W
  population of hen harriers in the UK was (a) at the latest date for which figures are available and (b) in each of the previous 10 years; [154710]

  (2) how many breeding pairs of hen harriers (a) established nests and (b) successfully bred in the UK in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; [154711]

  (3) what analysis she has undertaken of the impact of agricultural changes on the breeding success of hen harriers; [154712]

  (4) what steps she is taking to encourage the reintroduction of breeding pairs of hen harriers to lowland England. [154713]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The most recent estimate of the hen harrier population is based on the results of the 1998 survey of hen harriers in the UK. A total of between 450—591 territorial pairs were found in the UK with a best estimate of 521 pairs. The full results were published in the journal Bird Study 48:341–353 in 2001. There are no directly comparable data for any of the previous 10 years but there is thought not to have been any overall change in the size of the population since the last estimate was published in 1993, for the period 1988–1989 (Bird Study 40: 1–11).

  The information regarding breeding pairs of hen harriers is not available for the whole of the UK. However, there were 17 known breeding attempts by hen harriers in England in 2003. Just eight of these were successful. A further five attempts failed before it could be established whether eggs had been laid.

  There are currently no steps being taken to encourage the reintroduction of breeding hen harriers to lowland England. The conservation effort for hen harriers in England is focused in upland moorland areas in northern England where hen harriers have nested regularly in recent decades. We believe that a cessation of illegal persecution in England, and elsewhere in the UK, would allow the population to recover naturally, obviating the need for any reintroduction programme. Furthermore, we believe that, in contrast to the Red Kite programme, the reintroduction would not be in accordance with IUCN guidelines, insofar as we cannot be certain that the factors which brought about their loss from the English lowlands (almost certainly habitat loss and persecution) no longer pertain.

  The Government have not specifically conducted an analysis of the impact of agricultural changes on the breeding success of hen harriers. However, agricultural change and persecution are widely held to have been responsible for the historical decline, to currently low levels, of the UK population. Currently, illegal persecution appears to be the main factor limiting hen harrier population size and breeding success over much of its range.

  This contrasts with Orkney, where the population has declined dramatically since the end of the 1970s. The decline here is thought to relate to declining prey availability, resulting from changes in agriculture, particularly a decrease in the area of rough grazing and an increase in sheep densities. Full details were published in Biological Conservation 111: 377–384 in 2003
  441W
  It should be noted that in the absence of illegal persecution, hen harrier numbers might be expected to increase, if moorland burning regimes for both agricultural and grouse management purposes are altered. This would allow the development of taller heather swards and thus an increase in the area of suitable nesting habitat available to hen harriers. English Nature's Hen Harrier Recovery Project has shown that the inappropriate burning of moorland is a serious problem for the small number of hen harriers nesting in England. This results in the loss of nesting habitat and, in some cases, the destruction of active nests.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she last met(a) English Nature and (b) the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to discuss hen harriers; [154719]

  (2) what representations she has received from (a) English Nature and (b) the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on hen harriers; [154720]

  (3) when she last met the (a) British Association of Shooting and Conservation, (b) the Countryside Alliance, (c) the Game Conservancy Trust and (d) the Moorland Association to discuss hen harriers. [154721]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  With Regards to English Nature there has been no formal meeting to discuss, or specific representations received, on the position of hen harriers in England. However, we have received representations on habitats, including upland heathland, which support hen harrier populations, in relation to the condition of sites of special scientific interest. English Nature has also provided briefing on the establishment and progress of their Hen Harrier Recovery Project.

  The RSPB met with my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Environment, (Mr. Morley), in late 2002 to discuss Hen Harriers. Ministers met with the Game Conservancy Trust in May 2000, after the publication of the Raptor Working Group final report. Discussions focussed on the issues and recommendations surrounding this report. A further meeting is in the process of being arranged, for which the agenda has not yet been determined.

  I met with BASC in November last year, though we did not discuss hen harriers. I have been invited to meet with the Countryside Alliance. However, due to other pressing diary commitments I have had to decline. This meeting was not to specifically discuss the issue surrounding Hen Harriers. Ministers have not met with the Moorland Association regarding the position of hen harriers in England.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on(a) hen harriers and (b) Operation Artemis; [154722]

  (2) what involvement she had in planning Operation Artemis; [154723]
  442W
  (3) whether she intends Operation Artemis to be a long-term solution to the position of the hen harrier in England. [154726]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has had no direct discussions with JNCC concerning Operation Artemis, nor the position of hen harriers in England.

  Operation Artemis is a police-led initiative aimed at combating the illegal persecution of hen harriers in the United Kingdom. Defra officials have had no direct involvement planning the Operation but outline proposals were presented at the Police and Customs Wildlife Enforcement Conference at Exeter in October 2003. This annual event is organised by Defra as part of its support for the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW).

  Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom (North Wales Police and co-chair of PAW) is due to launch Operation Artemis at the forthcoming PAW Open Seminar to be held in London on 24 February 2004. In the absence of full details of the range of activities planned by the Police Service and other partners, it is too early to assess whether or not this initiative is likely to offer a long—term solution to the issue of illegal persecution of hen harriers in England.

  Ivory Trade
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to ensure that the proposed sales of ivory stockpiles do not conceal illegal trade. [154618]

  Mr. Morley
  The decision to allow this one-off sale of ivory stockpiles was taken at the Conference of Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in Chile in November 2002. One of several very strict pre-conditions which must be met before any sales can take place is that the CITES Secretariat must be satisfied that the importing countries are able to effectively regulate their domestic ivory trade to prevent any illegal ivory from entering into these markets. We will therefore be working in co-operation with the EU member states and other CITES parties to make sure that this, and all the other strict conditions, are met in full before any sales are allowed to go ahead.

  Large Combustion Plant Directive
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how she will implement the Large Combustion Plant Directive; and if she will make a statement. [155005]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 February 2004]: We have received a range of comments on the Regulatory Impact Assessment that was published in June 2003 with other consultation documents regarding the implementation of the Directive. We are continuing to assess the potential economic impact on UK industry of the introduction of the Directive, using both internal

  443W
  analyses and independent research. We are also in detailed dialogue with industry to help us to understand their views as expressed in response to consultation.

  We expect to make an announcement about our plans for implementation of the Directive as soon as possible after the further analysis has been completed and evaluated.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much(a) beef and (b) lamb was imported into the United Kingdom from countries outside the EU in each of the last three years. [155096]

  Alun Michael
  The following table shows the level of(a) beef and (b) lamb/sheep meat and meat products imported into the United Kingdom from countries outside the EU in each of the last three years for which 12 months data is available.

  UK imports of beef and lamb/sheep meat from non-EU countries,2000–02

  Commodity type/country

  2000

  2001

  2002

  t'0001

  £ million

  t'0001

  £ million

  t'0001

  £ million

  Beef

  Brazil

  66

  95

  74

  106

  72

  98

  Argentina

  10

  19

  6

  11

  24

  39

  Uruguay

  9

  19

  9

  14

  15

  27

  Botswana

  6

  17

  11

  31

  6

  18

  Namibia

  6

  20

  9

  29

  7

  25

  Others

  14

  38

  12

  29

  8

  20

  Beef total

  111

  208

  121

  220

  131

  227

  Lamb/sheep

  New Zealand

  85

  163

  71

  155

  77

  179

  Australia

  12

  20

  10

  20

  13

  29

  Others

  2

  3

  1

  3

  2

  5

  Lamb/sheep total

  99

  186

  82

  177

  91

  213

  1 Product weight.

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise.

  Migrant Workers (Cockle Industry)
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to tackle the illegal exploitation of

  UK imports of milk, 2002–02

  Country

  2000

  2001

  2002

  t'0001

  Percentage of total new UK supply

  t'0001

  Percentage of total new UK supply

  t'0001

  Percentage of total new UK supply

  Irish Republic

  62

  0.4

  56

  0.4

  27

  0.2

  France

  9

  0.1

  10

  0.1

  11

  0.1

  Germany

  20

  0.1

  12

  0.1

  6

  0.0

  Denmark

  26

  0.2

  10

  0.1

  1

  0.0

  Belgium

  7

  0.1

  4

  0.0

  2

  0.0

  Netherlands

  0

  0.0

  1

  0.0

  2

  0.0

  Others

  2

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Total

  126

  0.9

  93

  0.6

  49

  0.3

  1 Product weight.

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise/Defra.

  444W
  migrant workers in the cockle industry, with particular reference to improving co-ordination with the Home Office. [154634]

  Alun Michael
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is one of the departments which participates in Operation Gang master. This multi agency initiative which also includes the Home Office Immigration Service, is designed to collate intelligence and to sponsor joint operations against those gang masters who break the law while operating in the informal economy. This includes the provision of labour to the cockle industry.

  Government Departments also undertake individual compliance activity against illegal working. In this context the Immigration Service has conducted three operations with other agencies since June 2003 targeted at illegal working in the cockle industry in the Morecambe Bay area.

  The Government are currently considering the details of the Gang master (Licensing) Bill presented by the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) as a private members bill. This provides for a licensing scheme which would, if introduced, regulate the activities of gang labour providers in the agriculture and related sectors.

  Milk
  Albert Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of milk imports to the UK came from Poland in the latest period for which figures are available; and what percentage of UK consumption this represents. [154892]

  Alun Michael
  Trade information up to November 2003 has been received by Defra from Customs and Excise. From January 2001 to 30 November 2003, there are no recorded imports of liquid milk from Poland.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much milk was imported in the last three years. broken down by country of origin; and what percentage of the total milk processed in the UK this was in each case. [155332]

  Alun Michael
  The following table shows(a) UK imports of milk and (b) percentage of total new UK supply, split down by country of despatch for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002.

  Ministerial Visit
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last visited a grouse moor in an official capacity. [154724]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Within the last year I have visited three grouse moors; Ilkley Moor, in August, Brendon Hills in September and the Chilterns in December. I have also accepted an invitation to visit another moorland estate later this year.

  Organic Farms
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many organic farms there were in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley in each of the last three years. [151204]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As of March 2003, there were 44 organic farms in Lancashire, of which two were located in Chorley. It is not possible to comment on the number of organic farms in each of these areas prior to this date since the Department has only just started to collate this information.

  The following table does however show the number of organic farms who were benefiting from aid under the Organic Farming Scheme (OFS) in each of the years 2001, 2002 and 2003:

  Organic farming scheme

  Lancashire

  Chorley

  2001

  29

  2

  2002

  29

  2

  2003

  28

  2

  The OFS is an entirely voluntary agri-environment scheme which provides financial help during the conversion period to help farmers make the move from conventional to organic farming methods. From 30 May 2003, the OFS was re-launched with an optional option i.e. a maintenance option, which offers payments to all existing organic farmers to encourage the continued management of the land in an environmentally beneficial way.

  Public Bodies
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who the members of the(a) Joint Nature Conservation Committee and (b) Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and whether they are remunerated. [151803]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  Name

  Term of Office

  Remuneration (£)

  Acting chair

  Professor David Ingram

  1 April 2002 to 31 March 2005

  34,765

  Members

  Professor Peter Doyle

  1 April 2003 to 31 March 2006

  8,536

  Professor Richard Pentreath

  1 April 2003 to 31 March 2006

  8,536

  446W
  (b) Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee

  The appointments of the members of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee expired on 31 December 2003 and an announcement will be made shortly regarding the future of the committee.

  Raptors
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of(a) the impact of the UK Raptor Working Group and (b) the health of the raptor population; and what plans she has to reconvene the working group. [155177]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Ministers welcomed the final report of the Raptor Working Group, in 2000, as providing Government a consensus view from organisations representing statutory and non-governmental conservation, game-management and racing pigeon interests as to desirable actions to reduce conflicts with birds of prey. The statutory nature conservation agencies and others, co-ordinated through various fora, are taking the detailed recommendations of the Working Group forward. Monitoring of raptor populations provides feedback as to the status of different populations. To this end, the extent and scale of illegal persecution of birds of prey continues to give cause for concern, as does, in particular, the population status of the hen harrier in the UK.

  There are no immediate plans to reconvene the Working Group.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what means of control are available to a landowner where biodiversity on his land is endangered by an excess population of raptors. [154715]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Birds of prey are an important part of the natural biodiversity of the UK and the health of their populations is widely recognised as a key measure of ecosystem health. While we recognise that some specific conflicts occasionally arise with human interests, notably on grouse moors, with racing pigeons, and with lowland gamebirds, we are not aware of any land in the UK where biodiversity more generally is endangered by raptors. The legal means of control for raptors are limited. Government established a Raptor Working Group in 1995, involving a wide range of stakeholder interests, to advise, interests, "on statutory and other mechanism for the resolution of problems". The UK Raptor Working Group's report, published in 2000, recommends "enhanced enforcement of existing legislation to seek to eliminate illegal killing of birds of prey". A copy of their final report is in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the current estimated population is of(a) buzzards, (b) peregrine falcons, (c) hobbies, (d) merlins, (e) ospreys, (f) goshawks and (g) marsh harriers; and what the population of each was in each of the previous 10 years. [154716]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Annual population statistics do not exist for buzzard, peregrine or merlin. The most recent UK population estimates are set out as follows. The
  447W
  estimate for buzzard is known to be a significant under-estimate, but there has been no formal survey of its current UK population size.

  Species

  Year of most recent UK survey

  Population estimate

  Buzzard

  1983 (Northern Ireland) and 1988–91 (Great Britain)

  12,000–17,000 pairs

  Peregrine

  2002 (UK and Isle of Man)

  1,402 pairs

  Merlin

  1993 and 1994

  1,300±200 pairs

  Annual UK population estimates are available for the following species, based on the collation of best available information by the Rare Breeding Birds Panel. Collated national totals are not yet available for the 2002 or 2003 breeding seasons.

  Hobby (confirmed and possible breeding pairs)

  Osprey (occupied territories)

  Goshawk (confirmed and possible breeding pairs)

  Marsh harrier (breeding females)

  1991

  469

  73

  229

  91

  1992

  582

  76

  243

  107

  1993

  493

  88

  299

  110

  1994

  500

  95

  225

  129

  1995

  430

  99

  319

  156

  1996

  454

  104

  213

  136

  1997

  624

  111

  347

  132

  1998

  675

  131

  249

  138

  1999

  553

  136

  293

  145

  2000

  711

  151

  322

  206

  2001

  697

  158

  255

  195

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what systems her Department has for monitoring the(a) numbers and (b) impact of raptors in the U K; [154717]

  (2) what analysis she has made of the impact of raptors on (a) the brown hare population, (b) game birds and (c) new born lambs. [154718]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Raptor populations in the UK are monitored through a number of schemes. Information on these schemes is comprehensively summarised in table 2.4 of the final report of the UK Raptor Working Group, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. There is no national provision for monitoring the impact of raptors in the UK.

  There have been no studies conducted on the impacts of raptors on the brown hare population. But the impact of raptors on game birds was studied and reviewed in the report of the UK Raptor Study Group.

  With regards to lambs the Scottish Executive and Scottish Natural Heritage, commissioned a study of the interaction between white-tailed eagles and lambs on Mull, in 1999 and 2000.

  The results showed that the diet of 11 pairs of white—tailed eagles during the breeding season was species-diverse but included lambs. While most pairs took few lambs, one pair took twice as many lambs as any other pair under study. A lack of alternative prey (rabbits) and the proximity of the nest to a lambing area in 1999 may have been responsible for higher lamb predation then. There was no information as to whether lambs killed by eagles would otherwise have survived.
  448W
  The study found that the number of lambs was small compared with overall lamb mortality, but sufficient to be an important loss to an individual farmer if eagle predation of lambs was additive and concentrated on one farm. There is no information to suggest that raptors take significant numbers of lambs elsewhere in the UK. Further information on this study is available in: Birds of Prey in a Changing Environment, pp47l–479, published in 2003 by The Stationery Office.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the(a) cost and (b) efficacy of English Nature's raptor programmes. [154725]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Raptor conservation projects form a small element of English Nature's conservation work. The two significant projects currently ongoing are the Red Kite Reintroduction Programme and the Hen Harrier Recovery Project, with costs to English Nature in 2003–04 of approximately £10,000 and £90, 000 respectively.

  The Red Kite Reintroduction Programme is a partnership between English Nature, RSPB and a wide range of other organisations and funding bodies. The majority of funding for this programme comes from external sources, including the Heritage Lottery Fund and sponsorship from private companies. The Red Kite re-establishment programme in England, together with a similar programme in Scotland and effective conservation measures for the species in Wales, has increased Red Kite numbers to a level where they constitute a small but significant proportion of the European total. As was intended at the outset, the project has helped enhance the international status of Red Kite, a species whose global distribution is restricted to Europe.

  English Nature's Hen Harrier Recovery Project is now entering its third year. It is staffed by a project coordinator and three seasonal fieldworkers. It has so far been successful in improving our understanding of the status of the hen harrier in England and of the factors affecting breeding numbers and success.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the outcome of the red kite reintroduction programme in England. [154714]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The on-going red kite reintroduction programme is widely recognised as one of the most successful projects of its kind. It has already resulted in the re-establishment of self-sustaining red kite populations in three areas of England, with estimates of about 200 breeding pairs in the Chilterns, 30 in the Midlands and 16 in Yorkshire in 2003. Despite the success of the programme, less than 5 per cent. of the bird's potential British range has been recolonised. Further releases are anticipated, and from spring 2004, birds will be released in north-east England in order to encourage recolonisation of this part of the bird's former range.

  The red kite programme has also been instrumental in raising public awareness of conservation by focusing interest on a flagship species such as the red kite. It has

  449W
  also highlighted issues that still adversely affect birds of prey more generally in Britain. This includes the use of illegal poison baits in the open countryside and accidental secondary poisoning by modern, highly toxic rodenticides. The high profile of the red kite project has been utilised to help promote effective measures to tackle these issues, which will benefit a wide range of wildlife in addition to the red kite.

  Single Farm Payments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the first Single Farm Payments to be made. [155098]

  Alun Michael
  The Single Payment Scheme will be introduced in 2005; the earliest date provided for in the June 2003 CAP reform agreement. The payment window for 2005 payments will open at the start of December 2005 and run to the end of June 2006. We will endeavour to commence payments as soon as possible within that period.

  Trophy Hunting
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on trophy-hunting. [155256]

  Mr. Morley
  Many of the species that are hunted for trophies are listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which is implemented in the EU under Council Regulation 338/97. Under these Regulations, the import of hunting trophies is allowed only where it has been established that this will not be detrimental to the populations concerned. We shall not hesitate to use the powers that are available to refuse the import of hunting trophies where there is evidence that these have been taken illegally, or that such hunting is itself unsustainable.

  Warm Front
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to improve the effectiveness of the Warm Front programme following the recommendations of the Fifth Report of the Public Accounts Committee of Session 2003–04. [155117]

  Mr. Morley
  We are currently considering options for the future format of Warm Front. We expect to publish our conclusions as part of the Fuel Poverty Implementation Plan which we plan to publish after the Easter Recess.

  Wind Turbines
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she plans to commission into the effects on health of low frequency noise from wind turbines. [154765]

  Alun Michael
  Defra is not currently researching the effects of low frequency noise from wind turbines on health. However, as part of Defra's research programme 450W
  on noise and nuisance issues, research has been let to better understand the assessment, management and effects of low frequency noise as a whole.

  World Environment Day
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to mark World Environment Day on 5 June; and if she will make a statement. [153743]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is currently considering a number of options regarding Environment Day but no firm or detailed decisions have yet been made.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Minutes
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether it is her Department's policy to make notes of(a) meetings and (b) telephone conversations involving Ministers; and under what circumstances no notes would be taken. [149531]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 20 January 2004]: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport follows the central "Guidance on the Management of Private Office Papers" which makes clear that good record management procedures are necessary not least to ensure accountability and provide an audit trail. Among the records covered by the guidance are Ministers' meetings and telephone conversations.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many days on average her Department took in Session 2002–03 to give a substantive answer to a parliamentary question for ordinary written answer; and what the greatest number of days taken to answer such a question was. [155918]

  Mr. Caborn
  Ministerial colleagues and officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport attach great importance to answering parliamentary questions accurately and to time. We aim to ensure that all Members receive a substantive response to an ordinary written question within a working week of it being tabled.

  It is not possible to provide information in the format requested without incurring disproportionate cost. However, during the Session 2002–03, 1,224 ordinary written questions were tabled to DCMS, excluding those withdrawn or transferred to another Department. 642 (52.5 per cent.) were answered within the target date. Of those questions remaining, 63.9 per cent. (372 questions) were answered within the next one to five working days.

  The greatest number of days taken to answer an ordinary written question was 132 working days.

  Tobacco Task Force
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects the Tobacco Task Force to(a) report next and (b) be wound up. [155803]
  451W
  Mr. Caborn
  The Tobacco Task Force is not scheduled to deliver any further reports. Any outstanding business of the Tobacco Task Force is expected to be concluded by August 2005 at which time the ban on tobacco sponsorship will cover 'global sports'.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Work Permits (Health Workers)
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits were issued to health workers for each of the top 10 medical specialties in each of the last 10 years. [155984]

  Beverley Hughes
  The total number of work permits approved by the top 10 medical specialties from 2000 to the third quarter of 2003, the period for which information is available, is as follows:

  Number of work permits approved

  2000

  Hospital consultants (undefined)

  1,917

  Pharmacist

  415

  Dentist

  302

  Psychiatrist

  121

  Radiographer

  99

  Occupational Therapist

  90

  Optician

  58

  Speech Therapist

  42

  Anaesthetist

  35

  Psychologist

  34

  Total

  3,113

  2001

  Hospital consultants (undefined)

  2,141

  Pharmacist

  474

  Dentist

  319

  Physiotherapist

  261

  Psychiatrist

  240

  Radiographer

  155

  Occupational Therapist

  135

  Optician

  97

  Speech Therapist

  63

  Anaesthetist

  43

  Total

  3,928

  2002

  Hospital consultants (undefined)

  5,900

  Pharmacist

  443

  Radiographer

  390

  Physiotherapist

  378

  Dentist

  357

  Psychiatrist

  352

  Occupational Therapist

  238

  Anaesthetist

  213

  Optician

  194

  Biomedical Scientist

  181

  Total

  8,646

  2003 (Figures for the first three quarters only)

  Hospital consultants (undefined)

  6,970

  Radiographer

  364

  Pharmacist

  315

  Physiotherapist

  311

  Dentist

  293

  Psychiatrist

  262

  Occupational Therapist

  163

  Anaesthetist

  156

  Speech Therapist

  155

  Biomedical Scientist

  130

  Total

  9,119

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a decision on the asylum application ref: R333201 of the Saudi Arabian constituent of the hon. Member for Putney. [154603]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 12 February 2004]: As you are aware, this is a complex case, which is still being actively considered. I am unable at this time to say when a decision on the asylum claim will be made. I have written to my hon. Friend on 25 February with further details.

  Car Crime
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) car thefts and (b) thefts from cars were reported in Worcester in each year since 1997. [155037]

  Ms Blears
  The table shows the recorded crime figures for the Worcester Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP). Figures for 2002–03 will have been altered by the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (April 2002). Figures were not collected for any previous financial years.

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from a motor vehicle

  2002–03

  417

  1,388

  2001–02

  353

  912

  2000–01

  402

  753

  1999–2000

  457

  906

  Crime (Havering and Romford)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons under the age of 18 were convicted of criminal offences last year in(a) Romford and (b) the London Borough of Havering. [154853]

  Paul Goggins
  The available information relates to 2002 and shows that 338 persons aged under 18 years were convicted in the Havering Petty Sessional Area, the magistrates court which sits at Romford. The figure includes eight persons convicted at the Crown court, having been committed for trial from Havering PSA.

  Statistics for 2003 will be available in the autumn.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 28 January 2003,Official Report, column 440W, regarding the Criminal Records Bureau, if he will place a copy of the survey in the Library. [155052]

  Ms Blears
  Once the report has been finalised, a copy will be made available and placed in the Library.

  I will write to you again to confirm when this has been done
  453W
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to enable the Criminal Records Bureau to access information from Customs and Excise and Immigration authorities. [155667]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: From the outset, the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) has been able to access conviction data in relation to cases brought by non-"Home Office" police forces and other agencies such as Customs and Excise, through the Police National Computer. Similarly, the CRB would have access to relevant local intelligence held by the police arising from a joint operation involving the police and an agency such as Customs and Excise. We are committed to bringing forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows to enable the CRB to access intelligence information held by non-"Home Office" police forces and other law enforcement agencies such as Customs and Excise and, in due course, the Serious Organised Crime Agency. It is currently open to bodies such as Customs and Excise, if they have information that, for example, connects a school employee to the smuggling of child pornography, to notify the relevant authorities of such information.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will commission research to assess the effectiveness of the Criminal Records Bureau in protecting children. [155978]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: We shall build on research conducted in early 2003 which showed that employers found information supplied by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) useful in making recruitment decisions, and that some one in five had decided not to appoint someone on the basis of information supplied by the CRB.

  Female Prisoners
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many girls aged(a) 15, (b) 16 and (c) 17 years were held in prisons in England and Wales in each of the last five years; in which establishments they were held; and whether there are girls of these ages in prison now. [154217]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of girls aged(a) 15, (b) 16 and (c) 17 held in prisons in each of the last five years and on 30 November 2003, by establishment, is given in the table.

  The Youth Justice Board issued a commitment to remove all 16-year-old girls from Prison Service custody by 31 December 2003. This commitment was achieved. However, in. exceptional circumstances it may be necessary to detain a 16-year-old girl in a Young Offenders Institution in the future.

  Number of girls aged 15,16 and 17 in prisons by age

  15

  16

  17

  June 1999

  Brockhill

  0

  1

  3

  Bullwood Hall

  4

  4

  9

  Drake Hall

  0

  0

  1

  Eastwood Park

  0

  1

  8

  Foston Hall

  0

  0

  1

  Holloway

  1

  3

  7

  454W

  Number of girls aged 15,16 and 17 in prisons by age

  15

  16

  17

  New Hall

  1

  7

  21

  Styal

  1

  6

  7

  June 2000

  Brockhill

  0

  2

  7

  Bullwood Hall

  1

  4

  5

  Drake Hall

  0

  0

  1

  Eastwood Park

  1

  4

  5

  Holloway

  1

  3

  12

  Low Newton

  0

  1

  3

  New Hall

  0

  6

  7

  Styal

  0

  8

  18

  June 2001

  Brockhill

  1

  0

  6

  Bullwood Hall

  2

  2

  21

  Eastwood Park

  0

  2

  9

  Holloway

  1

  1

  8

  Low Newton

  0

  0

  3

  New Hall

  3

  7

  22

  Styal

  0

  0

  2

  June 2002

  Brockhill

  0

  4

  9

  Bullwood Hall

  2

  2

  25

  Eastwood Park

  1

  3

  4

  Holloway

  0

  3

  10

  Low Newton

  0

  0

  1

  New Hall

  6

  15

  27

  Styal

  0

  0

  5

  June 2003

  Brockhill

  0

  2

  7

  Bullwood Hall

  0

  3

  11

  Eastwood Park

  0

  0

  6

  Holloway

  0

  0

  11

  Low Newton

  0

  0

  1

  New Hall

  0

  1

  34

  November 2003

  Brockhill

  0

  1

  12

  Bullwood Hall

  0

  0

  15

  Eastwood Park

  0

  0

  9

  Holloway

  0

  0

  4

  New Hall

  0

  1

  23

  Fixed Penalty Notices
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fixed penalty notices have been issued by community support officers; and for what offences. [155055]

  Ms Blears
  Information on how many fixed penalty notices have been issued by Community Support Officers (CSOs) in individual forces is not collected centrally.

  CSOs may be given powers to issue penalty notices for a variety of offences. Designating CSOs with these powers, and determining the appropriate recording procedure, is a matter for the Chief Officer in each force which has CSOs. The following fixed penalty notice powers may be given to CSOs:
  penalty notice for riding a bicycle on the footpath;
  penalty notice for litter;
  penalty notice for dog fouling;
  penalty notice for disorder offences; and

  455W
  those CSOs who are also appointed as Traffic Wardens, may issue traffic penalty notices available for that role.

  The following are available to CSOs under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act and have not yet been commenced.

  penalty notice to parents for truancy—due to commence 27 February;
  penalty notice for graffiti—due to commence 31 March; and
  penalty notice for fly posting—due to commence 31 March.

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the Oral Answer of 19 January 2004,Official Report, column 1073, on the Forensic Science Service, what extra resources the Forensic Science Service requires in (a) one-off capital investment and (b) additional annual revenue. [155935]

  Ms Blears
  The independent McFarland Review found the Forensic Science Service (FSS) to be significantly under-capitalised, a situation compounded by the constraints of Trading Fund status. The actions we are taking to develop the FSS as a Public Private Partnership (PPP) will ensure it has the commercial freedoms necessary to develop and build on its proven ability as a world leader.

  The future financial requirements of the FSS are currently being addressed in work under way to produce an outline business case that will look in greater detail at how best to optimise its performance and economic prospects.

  Identity Theft
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the individuals arrested in operations against identity theft of British passports have been(a) charged and (b) convicted; what the sentence was in each case; and how many passports were recovered. [144252]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is not possible for me to provide the hon. Member with the details sought within this question. This information is not routinely collected and could be retrieved only at disproportionate cost.

  Leyhill Prison
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the events which led to the escape of Mr. Roddy Maclean from Leyhill Prison. [154968]

  Paul Goggins
  I received the final investigation report into the abscond of Roderick McLean on 10 February. I am studying the report and will write to the hon. Member.

  New Prisons
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is carrying out the survey to identify suitable sites for new, large prisons; and what the terms and conditions of the survey are. [153985]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service is actively seeking urban sites that are suitable for the development of prison establishments. The size and function of new 456W
  prison establishments is determined by the size and mix of the projected population. The details of individual sites cannot be disclosed at this stage for commercial reasons.

  Police
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many plain-clothes officers are deployed by police forces in England and Wales. [155048]

  Ms Blears
  The requested information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision is made for police drivers to receive(a) initial and (b) refresher training; and if he will make a statement. [155056]

  Ms Blears
  Police driver training is a matter for individual forces.

  A national driver training package was produced in 2000 which was endorsed by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and recommended to forces. It consists of three core courses:
  Basic—assessment to ensure driving competence;
  Standard—training which may include emergency response driving; and
  Advanced—further training to perform roles which require a high level of driving skill.

  It is recommended that periodic formal assessments should take place every three to five years, accompanied by refresher training, if required.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department has published on(a) the vision levels that police drivers need to achieve and (b) how frequently they should receive eye checks. [155058]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office has not issued guidance on eyesight standards specific to drivers in the Police Service.

  The Association of Police Officers Joint Working Group on Health, Safety and Welfare Medical Sub Group produced guidance on visual driving standards in 1994. This was set as a minimum visual acuity of 6/18.

  The guidance also states that advanced drivers should undertake a medical assessment, including eyesight test, every three years until aged 45 and then annually.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what standards of driving test police drivers are required to meet; and what the failure rate was in each year since 1997. [155059]

  Ms Blears
  Police driving standards, ranging from basic to pursuit, are published on the Association of Chief Police Officers website: www.acpo.police.uk/policies/index.html

  There is no central collection of data on failure rates.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are published by his Department on the disciplinary code for police drivers. [155060]
  457W
  Ms Blears
  The Code of Conduct set out in the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999 sets out the principles which guide police officers' conduct and applies to officers working in all areas and of all ranks.

  There is no specific code or principle that relates to police drivers. The Association of Chief Police Officers issues Police Driving Guidelines, which all police forces follow.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what disciplinary measures are taken against police drivers who are involved in road accidents. [155061]

  Ms Blears
  Discipline measures are taken against those police officers who are found to have breached the Code of Conduct.

  Police drivers who are involved in road traffic accidents are not automatically assumed to have breached the Code of Conduct. However, if an allegation or report of a breach is made a disciplinary investigation will be undertaken and this can result in a hearing. If the case is proved against the officer the disciplinary hearing will determine the appropriate sanction, which, if serious can be dismissal from the force.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Government criteria there are for(a) siting of police cells, (b) the number of police cells and (c) conditions of police cells. [153771]

  Ms Blears
  The number and siting of police cells is a local operational matter for the Chief Constable and the Police Authority.

  The conditions of police cells are subject to National and European legislation such as the Health `nd Safety Act, the Disability Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Act.

  The Home Office has issued the Police Design Buildings guidance and intends producing a Design Quality Guide. Police Authorities and forces are also advised on building projects by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE).

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the displacement of crime from areas subject to intensive policing initiatives to neighbouring areas. [155874]

  Ms Blears
  Research in London has found very little evidence of geographic or functional displacement as a consequence of the Street Crime Initiative (SCI). While there was some evidence of local shifts within the boroughs, this was not considered significant.

  Under the Crime Reduction Programme there were a number of evaluations which included some estimation of whether activity had led either to a displacement of crime, or conversely to what is termed a diffusion of
  458W
  benefits (reductions in crime across a larger area, or across a wider range of crime types, than were being targeted).

  For instance a report detailing the impact of 63 evaluated Reducing Burglary Initiative (RBI) projects is soon to be published, and this report will include estimates of displacement and diffusion of benefits. Under the RBI, a methodological report was also produced by one of the evaluation teams that examined the complex issue of how one measures crime displacement, and proposed a new statistical technique for doing so.

  However, it has lo be acknowledged that there remains no agreed methodology for assessing whether policing initiatives result in a displacement of crime or a diffusion of benefits. Nevertheless, past research evidence from outside the Home Office indicates that displacement of crime resulting from police or related crime reduction activities is by no means inevitable, and indeed crime reduction gains usually outweigh any possible displacement of crime.

  Prisons
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the prison health care centre in Liverpool has entered into a commercial cleaning contract. [155248]

  Paul Goggins
  There is no commercial contract for cleaning in the health care centre at Liverpool prison.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many suicides there have been in safe cells in each of the last two years; [151687]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the average costs of a suicide in prison; [151688]

  (3) what plans he has to change the design of safe cell units; [151689]

  (4) what consultatons his Department has had with suppliers of safe cell units. [151691]

  Paul Goggins
  Safer cells have several design features which can assist staff in the task of managing those at risk from suicide, such as specially designed furniture and fixtures which are manufactured and installed to make the attachment of ligatures very difficult, and access to window bars prevented via non-opening windows with integral ventilation grills. Realistically, no cell can be considered totally 'safe' and the Prison Service's preferred terminology is 'safer cell.' Safer cells can complement (but not replace) a regime providing care for at risk prisoners.

  The Prison Service employs the term 'self-inflicted death' rather than 'suicide.' This includes all those deaths where it appears the person may have acted specifically to take his/her own life. In 2002, of the 95 self-inflicted deaths in prisons, four occurred in safer cells. In 2003, of the 94 self-inflicted deaths in prisons, three occurred in safer cells. In 2004 to date (28 January), of the 10 self-inflicted deaths in prison, one has occurred in a safer cell.
  459W
  An independent evaluation of safer cells, carried out by the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science in 2003, including interviews with prisoners and staff, revealed that the ventilation design in safer cells may require revision. Otherwise, the Institute concluded that the safer cells programme has much to commend it, and recommended that the programme continue. Three prisoners stated to evaluators that being in a safer cell had prevented them from killing themselves.

  The Prison Service is already looking into alternative safer ventilator designs to meet the report's finding. In those cases where ligature points have been identified in particular types of safer cells, remedial action has been taken and guidance issued to prisons. Also, funding has been agreed to progress the design and production of second generation safer cell furniture, building on the original safer cell furniture design, and by using mass production techniques reducing costs and enhancing robustness.

  The competition for the framework agreement for the supply and installation of safer cell furniture was procured under European Union rules. A notice was issued in the Official Journal of the European Community in June 2001. Nine companies responded to the Notice, and five were subsequently short-listed to receive the tender documentation. Tenderers' responses were evaluated, both commercially and technically to see which offered overall best value for money, three companies being awarded the framework agreement. Those companies were: MT Hogjaard, Premier Custodial Group Ltd. and Newcastle Joinery Ltd. Premier Custodial Group Ltd. have subsequently withdrawn from the framework. The framework agreement was for a period of twelve months commencing on 23 January 2003. The framework

  Table 2: Details of escapes

  Establishment

  Security Category of Prisoner

  Date of Escape

  Date of Recapture

  Guys Marsh

  C

  5 May 1998

  5 May 1998

  Guys Marsh

  C

  5 May 1998

  5 May 1998

  Altcourse

  Unclassified

  21 May 1998

  21 May 1998

  Werrington

  YO closed

  25 May 1998

  29 May 1998

  Werrington

  YO closed

  25 May 1998

  25 May 1998

  Werrington

  YO closed

  25 May 1998

  25 May 1998

  Werrington

  YO closed

  25 May 1998

  25 May 1998

  Werrington

  YO closed

  25 May 1998

  30 May 1998

  Aldington

  C

  14 June 1998

  21 August 1998

  Featherstone

  C

  19 July 1998

  20 July 1998

  Lindholme

  C

  2 September 1998

  7 September 1998

  Eastwood Park

  Female closed

  23 September 1998

  23 September 1998

  Everthorpe

  C

  26 September 1998

  1 October 1998

  Deerbolt

  YO closed

  26 October 1998

  30 October 1998

  Deerbolt

  YO closed

  26 October 1998

  26 November 1998

  Glen Parva

  YO closed

  5 November 1998

  27 November 1998

  Glen Parva

  YO closed

  5 November 1998

  12 November 1998

  Pentonville

  C

  26 November 1998

  26 November 1998

  Castington

  YO closed

  20 December 1998

  21 December 1998

  Castington

  YO closed

  20 December 1998

  21 December 1998

  Littlehey

  C

  30 December 1998

  30 December 1998

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Unclassified

  31 January 1999

  Not recaptured

  Featherstone

  C

  7 February 1999

  13 November 1999

  Featherstone

  C

  7 February 1999

  30 April 1999

  Featherstone

  C

  7 February 1999

  27 October 1999

  Feltham

  YO closed

  27 February 1999

  17 March 1999

  Lincoln

  C

  10 March 1999

  19 March 1999

  460W
  agreement has been extended for six months and is now due to expire 23 July 2004. The Authority does have the right under the Agreement to extend the framework for a further two periods of three months each.

  The total cost of a self-inflicted death in prison is £132,660.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners escaped from prisons in each of the past six years, broken down by(a) date, (b) category of offender and (c) prison; and on what date each was recaptured. [154121]

  Paul Goggins
  The following tables list the information requested for the past five financial years, and so far in the current year. Escapes where the prisoner was recaptured within 15 minutes are not included. The security categories are A, B, C or D for adult male prisoners; A, closed or open for female prisoners and Restricted Status, closed or open for young offenders.

  Unsentenced prisoners are not security categorised and are termed Unclassified. Escapes can take place only from closed establishments; an escape from an open prison is counted as an abscond. There have been no category A or YO restricted status escapes since 1995.

  Tables 1: Number of escapes

  Year

  Number of escapes from prisons

  1998–99

  28

  1999–2000

  30

  2000–01

  10

  2001–02

  15

  2002–03

  5

  2003–04

  10

  461W

  Tables 2: Details of escapes

  Establishment

  Security Category of Prisoner

  Date of Escape

  Date of Recapture

  Dover

  YO closed

  25 March 1999

  13 April 1999

  Featherstone

  C

  1 April 1999

  12 April 1999

  Thorn Cross

  YO closed

  23 May 1999

  23 May 1999

  Huntercombe

  YO closed

  24 May 1999

  24 May 1999

  Risley

  C

  29 May 1999

  29 May 1999

  Pare

  Unclassified

  23 June 1999

  23 June 1999

  The Mount

  C

  26 June 1999

  24 December 1999

  Rochester

  YO closed

  19 July 1999

  20 July 1999

  Rochester

  YO closed

  19 July 1999

  20 July 1999

  Rochester

  YO closed

  19 July 1999

  3 August 1999

  Lindholme

  C

  7 August 1999

  13 August 1999

  Lindholme

  C

  7 August 1999

  15 March 2000

  Lindholme

  C

  7 August 1999

  4 September 1999

  Styal

  Female closed

  8 August 1999

  8 September 1999

  Styal

  Female closed

  8 August 1999

  12 August 1999

  Styal

  Female closed

  8 August 1999

  15 August 1999

  Styal

  Female closed

  8 August 1999

  14 August 1999

  Liverpool

  Unclassified

  8 August 1999

  9 September 1999

  Lindholme

  C

  23 September 1999

  23 June 2000

  Lindholme

  C

  7 October 1999

  12 October 1999

  Lindholme

  C

  7 October 1999

  14 October 1999

  Lindholme

  C

  7 October 1999

  14 October 1999

  Lindholme

  C

  7 October 1999

  14 October 1999

  Haverigg

  C

  21 November 1999

  21 November 1999

  Stocken

  C

  12 November 1999

  29 November 1999

  Littlehey

  C

  26 November 1999

  Not recaptured

  Hollesley Bay

  YO closed

  1 March 2000

  1 March 2000

  Hollesley Bay

  YO closed

  1 March 2000

  1 March 2000

  Hollesley Bay

  YO closed

  1 March 2000

  1 March 2000

  Deerbolt

  YO closed

  12 March 2000

  12 March 2000

  Deerbolt

  YO closed

  12 March 2000

  12 March 2000

  Guys Marsh

  C

  22 June 2000

  19 September 2000

  Erlestoke

  C

  23 July 2000

  23 July 2000

  Blantyre House

  C

  30 August 2000

  22 August 2002

  Portland

  YO closed

  1 October 2000

  1 October 2000

  Risley

  C

  16 November 2000

  6 February 2001

  Brinsford

  YO closed

  29 December 2000

  7 August 2001

  Downview

  D

  5 January 2001

  19 January 2001

  Kirklevington

  C

  10 January 2001

  7 February 2001

  Lancaster Castle

  C

  14 January 2001

  14 January 2001

  Lancaster Castle

  C

  14 January 2.001

  14 January 2001

  Guys Marsh

  C

  3 July 2.001

  24 July 2001

  Guys Marsh

  C

  3 July 2.001

  9 July 2001

  Guys Marsh

  C

  3 July 2001

  24 July 2001

  Feltham

  YO closed

  29 July 2.001

  14 September 2001

  Wealstun

  C

  14 August 2.001

  11 October 2001

  Grendon

  B

  30 September 2001

  30 September 2001

  Grendon

  B

  30 September 2001

  1 October 2001

  Grendon

  C

  30 September 2001

  1 October 2001

  Doncaster

  Unclassified

  8 November 2.001

  9 January 2001

  Winchester

  B

  10 December 2001

  15 December 2001

  Erlestoke

  C

  30 January 2002

  2 February 2002

  The Verne

  C

  7 February 2002

  14 March 2002

  Norwich

  Unclassified

  14 February 2002

  16 February 2002

  Rye Hill

  B

  18 March 2002

  19 March 2002

  Rye Hill

  B

  18 March 2002

  26 March 2002

  Brixton

  Unclassified

  30 June 2002

  Not recaptured

  Norwich

  C

  18 July 2002

  31 July 2002

  Cardiff

  Unclassified

  10 November 2002

  12 December 2002

  Littlehey

  C

  13 November 2002

  20 November 2002

  Weare

  C

  9 February 2003

  19 February 2003

  Brinsford

  YO closed

  26 May 2003

  28 May 2003

  Brinsford

  YO closed

  26 May 2003

  26 May 2003

  Brinsford

  YO closed

  26 May 2003

  26 May 2003

  Brinsford

  YO closed

  26 May 2003

  26 May 2003

  Dartmoor

  C

  16 June 2003

  22 June 2003

  Dartmoor

  C

  16 June 2003

  9 July 2003

  Lindholme

  C

  23 July 2003

  27 July 2003

  Bullingdon

  C

  8 August 2003

  26 August 2003

  Pare

  Unclassified

  10 October 2003

  Not recaptured

  Leicester

  Unclassified

  8 December 2003

  9 December 2003

  462W 463W
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by prison the number of out-of-cell hours that prisoners are permitted. [152709]

  Paul Goggins
  The average number of daily hours that prisoners have spent out of their cells on weekdays and weekends during the financial year to the end of December is given in the table.

  Establishment

  Weekdays

  Weekends

  Acklington

  10.4

  9.2

  Albany

  10.0

  7.4

  Altcourse

  13.0

  13.0

  Ashfield

  10.0

  9.3

  Ashwell

  15.5

  15.5

  Askham Grange

  16.0

  16.0

  Aylesbury

  8.7

  6.2

  Bedford

  7.9

  5.7

  Belmarsh

  8.6

  4.4

  Birmingham

  7.6

  6.9

  Blakenhurst

  7.9

  7.5

  Blantyre House

  15.3

  15.3

  Blundeston

  10.1

  7.4

  Brinsford

  8.7

  6.3

  Bristol

  8.0

  6.0

  Brixton

  4.5

  3.6

  Brockhill

  8.7

  7.1

  Buckley Hall

  13.4

  13.1

  Bullingdon

  10.2

  .6.4

  Bullwood Hall

  11.1

  7.3

  Camp Hill

  10.7

  8.5

  Canterbury

  7.5

  7.1

  Cardiff

  9.1

  5.9

  Castington

  7.7

  5.3

  Channings Wood

  9.8

  6.9

  Chelmsford

  9.7

  7.3

  Coldingley

  12.5

  10.0

  Cookham Wood

  7.7

  7.5

  Dartmoor

  9.3

  7.0

  Deerbolt

  9.1

  5.4

  Doncaster

  11.3

  11.3

  Dorchester

  11.6

  10.6

  Dovegate

  12.6

  11.2

  Dover

  12.0

  11.9

  Down view

  10.6

  9.3

  Drake Hall

  16.0

  16.0

  Durham

  9.8

  4.7

  East Sutton Park

  15.1

  17.0

  Eastwood Park

  10.7

  8.3

  Edmunds Hill

  9.5

  9.5

  Elmley

  8.6

  7.7

  Erlestoke

  11.0

  10.0

  Everthorpe

  11.1

  8.8

  Exeter

  8.5

  7.5

  Featherstone

  8.2

  10.1

  Feltham

  6.9

  9.5

  Ford

  13.3

  13.3

  Forest Bank

  12.4

  7.7

  Foston Hall

  10.5

  9.1

  Frankland

  9.3

  7.0

  Full Sutton

  9.5

  7.5

  Garth

  10.0

  7.5

  Gartree

  10.0

  7.3

  Glen Parva

  7.0

  3.5

  Gloucester

  6.8

  5.0

  Grendon

  14.0

  11.7

  Guys Marsh

  8.2

  7.4

  Haslar

  11.2

  10.4

  Haverigg

  11.9

  11.9

  Hewell Grange

  24.0

  24.0

  High Down

  6.2

  4.4

  Highpoint

  10.0

  7.5

  Hindley

  io.q

  8.9

  Hollesley Bay

  15.5

  15.5

  464W

  Establishment

  Weekdays

  Weekends

  Holloway

  7.1

  6.4

  Holme House

  5.4

  4.9

  Hull

  5.6

  5.2

  Huntercombe

  9.9

  8.6

  Kingston

  12.1

  7.7

  Kirkham

  13.5

  13.0

  Kirklevington

  19.0

  19.0

  Lancaster

  10.0

  7.5

  Lancaster Farms

  9.9

  8.6

  Latchmere House

  19.0

  19.0

  Leeds

  8.7

  8.0

  Leicester

  9.3

  6.5

  Lewes

  7.5

  6.5

  Leyhill

  16.01

  16.0

  Lincoln

  6.2

  1.3

  Lindholme

  11.0

  7.8

  Littlehey

  9.1

  8.6

  Liverpool

  7.1

  5.4

  Long Lartin

  0.2

  9.2

  Low Newton

  10.5

  8.4

  Lowdham Grange

  12.8

  12.8

  Maidstone

  8.8

  6.6

  Manchester

  10.8

  8.5

  Moorland

  11.4

  5.1

  Morton Hall

  15.0

  15.0

  Mount

  8.4

  6.7

  New Hall

  11.0

  9.3

  North Sea Camp

  21.6

  21.6

  Northallerton

  8.3

  6.4

  Norwich

  8.4

  6.6

  Nottingham

  7.8

  5.0

  Onley

  8.3

  7.6

  Pare

  9.8

  10.0

  Parkhurst

  8.9

  6.8

  Pentonville

  7.6

  7.0

  Portland

  8.2

  5.6

  Preston

  8.2

  6.5

  Ranby

  9.9

  9.1

  Reading

  7.9

  6.6

  Risley

  10.5

  10.1

  Rochester

  6.7

  6.5

  Rye Hill

  11.7

  11.6

  Send

  12.9

  12.9

  Shepton Mallet

  10.5

  9.1

  Shrewsbury

  9.4

  17.1

  Stafford

  9.6

  4.8

  Standford Hill

  12.0

  12.0

  Stocken

  10.8

  6.2

  Stoke Heath

  10.3

  10.1

  Styal

  11.6

  11.4

  Sudbury

  20.7

  20.7

  Swaleside

  9.8

  7.3

  Swansea.

  8.9

  8.6

  Swinfen Hall

  10.4

  6.8

  Thorn Cross

  12.5

  15.3

  UskPrescoed

  14.5

  13.4

  Verne

  16.0

  16.0

  Wakefield

  9.0

  6.5

  Wandsworth

  6.0

  3.9

  Warren Hill

  10.3

  9.0

  Wayland

  10.3

  8.8

  Wealstun

  12.0

  12.0

  Weare

  9.7

  8.9

  Wellingborough

  9.8

  8.0

  Werrington

  11.0

  9.7

  Wetherby

  9.8

  6.1

  Whatton

  12.0

  9.2

  Whitemoor

  9.7

  7.5

  Winchester

  8.8

  6.5

  Wolds

  12.6

  10.4

  Woodhill

  8.9

  7.5

  Wormwood Scrubs

  7.1

  5.4

  Wymott

  10.7

  10.1

  Sentences
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 9 February 2004,Official Report, column 1290W, on sentences, whether the extension of penalty fines to 10 to 16-year-olds outlined in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 will be introduced before the publication of the evaluation of the operation of the scheme for 16 to 17-year-olds. [155451]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 February 2004]: We will be evaluating the operation of the scheme for 16 to 17-year-olds, on an interim basis after six months and again after 12 months. We expect to pilot penalty notices for disorder in some areas for 10 to 15-year-olds later this year, taking account of early experience with 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Serious Organised Crime Agency
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the proposed total headcount is for(a) agents, (b) management and (c) administrators for the Serious Organised Crime Agency; and what the headcount is for the agencies that it will replace. [155115]

  Females by custody type and drugs offence type and nationality

  Unlawful import/export

  Unlawful supply

  Possession with intent to supply

  Possession

  Other drugs offences

  UK nationals

  Sentenced

  278

  33

  143

  276

  9

  Untried

  18

  4

  11

  33

  0

  Convicted unsentenced

  9

  7

  6

  27

  0

  Fine defaulters

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Non-criminals

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Foreign nationals

  Sentenced

  508

  4

  20

  41

  4

  Untried

  26

  1

  4

  11

  0

  Convicted unsentenced

  12

  0

  0

  4

  0

  Fine defaulters

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Nationality not known

  Sentenced

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Females by drug offences and nationality Percentage

  Unlawful import/ export

  Unlawful supply

  Possession with intent to supply

  Possession

  Other drugs offences

  United Kingdom

  36

  86

  87

  88

  64

  Nationality Missing Belgium

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Brazil

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Colombia

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  France

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Germany

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Ghana

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  India

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  Irish Republic

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Jamaica

  38

  11

  10

  6

  14

  Netherlands

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nigeria

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Portugal

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Africa

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Spain

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Trinidad and Tobago

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  466W
  Ms Blears
  It is expected that the new agency will have approaching 5,000 staff but it is too early to provide a breakdown of that number into agents, management and administrators. As precise details of all the numbers to be transferred have yet to be determined, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive indication of the headcount for the agencies that it will replace.

  Women Prisoners (Drug Offences)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women are in prison for(a) drug offences, (b) drug trafficking offences and (c) supply offences; and of these groups of women, what percentage (i) have dependent children, (ii) are UK nationals and (iii) are non-UK nationals, giving countries of nationality in each case. [143408]

  Paul Goggins
  Information as at the end of June 2003 on the number of women in prison in England and Wales for drug offences, drug trafficking offences and supply offences, and the percentage of these who are UK nationals and non UK nationals are given in the following tables.

  Information on the number of women in prison for drugs offences who have dependent children is not available.
  467W

  Females by drug offences and nationality

  Percentage

  Unlawful import/export

  Unlawful supply

  Possession with intent to supply

  Possession

  Other drugs offences

  United States

  2

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Venezuela

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other

  4

  0

  3

  0

  1

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Note:

  Figures are rounded and therefore may not add to 100.

  Young Offenders Institution
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether resources available for young offenders institutions will be increased during 2004. [155254]

  Paul Goggins
  At this time baselines for individual establishments have been finalised for 2004–05. The position will be clearer when the distribution of budgets within the Prison Service has been actioned during March.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Child Trafficking
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what resources are available under the Children Act 1989 for local authorities to care for child victims of trafficking; and if he will make a statement. [152341]

  Margaret Hodge
  It is for local councils to decide the level of resources they allocate to services for children in their area, including the child victims of trafficking.

  Overall the local government settlement has increased resources for Children's Social Services from almost £3.7 billion in 2003–04 to just over £4.0 billion in 2004–05. This provides for an increase in total resources of some 8.7 per cent, overall.

  Children's Fund
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what reductions he intends to make in the allocation of funding to the Children's Fund; what consultation has taken place with the key stakeholders; what estimate has been made of the impact of funding reductions on individual programmes; and if he will make a statement. [154880]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 12 February 2004]: Allocations to Children's Fund partnerships were originally planned to reduce by £24.6 million in 2004–05, from £164.6 million to £140 million. However, following representations from affected projects I have been able to identify additional resources outside the programme which means that a total of £160 million plus a contingency amount of £6 million will be available to partnerships in 2004–05.

  I have consulted key stakeholders through the Children's Fund Advisory Forum which is made up of the main voluntary sector organisations involved in the Fund, the LGA and the ADSS. The Department is
  468W
  assessing the impact of its decisions directly with partnerships through both the Advisory Forum and its regional teams. Final decisions on 2005–06 will not be taken until I know the outcome of the 2004 Spending Review.

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many civil servants, broken down by grade, there are in the Department and the agencies for which the Department is responsible; and what the figures were in January 1997. [150271]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 10 February 2004,Official Report, column 1294W.

  The number of staff in the former Department for Education and Employment as at 1 January 1997 was 37,598. This comprised 4,999 in the core Department (including the Government Offices) and 32,599 in the former Employment Service Agency. A grade breakdown could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Education Funding
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent from central government funds per pupil on(a) primary and (b) secondary education in (i) the East Riding of Yorkshire and (ii) the UK in each of the last five years. [155329]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend is responsible for education in England only, so the following table gives a comparison between the East Riding of Yorkshire and the England average.

  Per pupil funding from 1999–2000 to 2003–04

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  England average

  SSA/EFS

  Grants

  Total

  SSA/EFS

  Grants

  Total

  Primary (aged 3–10)

  1999–2000

  2,210

  150

  2,350

  2,410

  150

  2,560

  2000–01

  2,270

  310

  2,580

  2,470

  310

  2,780

  2001–02

  2,330

  390

  2,730

  2,520

  420

  2,940

  2002–03

  2,320

  430

  2,750

  2,570

  450

  3,010

  2003–04

  2,620

  300

  2,930

  2,850

  350

  3,200

  Secondary (aged 11–15)

  1999–2000

  3,000

  80

  3,080

  3,250

  100

  3,360

  2000–01

  3,110

  230

  3,340

  3,370

  270

  3,630

  2001–02

  3,150

  320

  3,470

  3,420

  400

  3,820

  2002–03

  3,200

  340

  3,530

  3,480

  420

  3,900

  2003–04

  3,140

  370

  3,520

  3,460

  500

  3,960

  469W
  Notes:

  1. Figures reflect education SSA/EFS settlement (all sub—blocks). Total funding also includes all revenue grants in DfES Departmental Expenditure Limits relevant to EPS pupils aged 3–10 and 11–15.

  2. Figures exclude EMAs and grants not allocated at LEA level and the pensions transfer to EPS and LSC for 2003–04.

  3. The pupil numbers used are those underlying the EPS/EPS settlement calculations plus PLASC three-year-old maintained pupils and estimated three to four-year-olds funded through state support in maintained and other educational institutions where these are not included in the SSA pupil numbers.

  4. 2003–04 and 2002–03 figures are provisional estimates as some grants have not yet been finalised/audited. Data are as reported by LEAs.

  5. Real terms figures are based on GDP deflators as at 6 January 2004 (2002–03 prices).

  6. Per pupil figures are rounded to the nearest £10 so may not sum.

  Employer Training Pilot
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the roll-out of the Employer Training Pilot. [155808]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: Employer Training Pilots (ETP) were introduced in six local Learning and Skills Council areas in September 2002 to test new measures to improve access to training. ETPs offer a package of support to help low-skilled people in work gain their first level 2 or basic skills qualification. The pilots were subsequently extended for a further year (to August 2004) and doubled in number to cover a total of 12 LSC areas.

  An independent evaluation of the first year of the pilots, published in December 2003, showed that ETPs are proving successful at engaging employers and their low-skilled employees in training. Building on this success, the Pre-Budget Report in December announced that ETPs are being extended for a third year and that a further six pilots will be launched in September 2004. This will mean that the pilots cover over a third of England and will enable the Government to explore further the impact of the pilots on the demand for training.

  My officials are currently consulting with the Learning and Skills Council's Regional Directors over the locations for the new pilots and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Foundation Degrees
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students have started Foundation Degrees since they were introduced; and what proportion have completed the courses. [142032]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest data from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), showing the number of students starting Foundation Degrees, is given in the table. Completion rates are not calculated by the Department, but figures published in January by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) show that in 2002/03,1,100 students successfully completed Foundation Degrees.

  We welcome the increase in numbers. We now need to build on this as we look to make Foundation Degrees the standard two year qualification at this level.
  470W

  Students starting Foundation Degrees HE and FE institutions in England

  Academic year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  2001/02

  2,331

  1,922

  2002/03

  4,805

  4,170

  2003/04

  8,274

  6,966

  Source:

  Higher Education Funding Council for England.

  Millennium Volunteers
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the Department will announce which organisations will deliver the Millennium Volunteers programme. [155980]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: Local projects should now know their funding allocations for the period to March 2006. We hope to notify national projects about their allocations in the near future.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Education and Skills how many(a) specialist schools and (b) non-specialist schools are designated under section 102 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998; and how many and what percentage of pupils they have selected in each year since their designation. [155624]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect data on the number of schools which have partial selection by aptitude as part of their admission arrangements; or how many individual pupils are selected as a result of such tests. However, we do know that of the 685 specialist schools operational in September 2001, 6 per cent, reported that they were selecting a percentage of their pupils on aptitude in a chosen specialist subject.

  Student Finances
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 5 February 2004,Official Report, column 1030W, by the Minister for Education (Lifelong Learning and Higher Education), to the hon. Member for Hertsmere, on student finance, if he will break down the financial assistance available to students by each £1,000 band of family income between £15,000 and £35,000 under (a) the present arrangements and (b) his proposed arrangements for higher education funding from 2006–07. [154768]

  Alan Johnson
  The following table summarises the financial assistance available to students by each £1,000 of income between £15,000 and £35,000 under the present arrangements

  Present arrangements—2003/04

  £

  Residual income

  Fee remission

  Maintenance loan

  £15,000

  1,125

  4,000

  £16,000

  1,125

  4,000

  £17,000

  1,125

  4,000

  £18,000

  1,125

  4,000

  471W

  Present arrangements—2003/04

  £

  Residual income

  Fee remission

  Maintenance loan

  £19,000

  1,125

  4,000

  £20,000

  1,125

  4,000

  £21,000

  1,077

  4,000

  £22,000

  972

  4,000

  £23,000

  866

  4,000

  £24,000

  761

  4,000

  £25,000

  656

  4,000

  £26,000

  551

  4,000

  £27,000

  445

  4,000

  £28,000

  340

  4,000

  £29,000

  235

  4,000

  £30,000

  129

  4,000

  £31,000

  24

  4,000

  £32,000

  0

  3,919

  £33,000

  0

  3,814

  £34,000

  0

  3,708

  £35,000

  0

  3,603

  Note:

  Maintenance loan rates given are for students living away from home and studying outside London (and not in the final year of their course).

  I refer my hon. Friend to my response to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 10 February 2004, Official Report, column 1398W, that indicates the size of loan available under the arrangements outlined in the Government's discussion paper "Moving toward a single combined grant for higher education".

  More detailed information will be available in due course as details such as tapers for the single combined grant are finalised.

  UK Students Overseas
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many UK students studied abroad on full-time courses in(a) the EU, (b) the USA and (c) the Commonwealth in the most recent year for which figures are available. [140898]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest available information is tabulated as follows. The figures are from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and show the number of students studying overseas. Mode of study is not available.

  Students from the UK in tertiary education abroad: 2001

  Country of study

  Student numbers

  European Union: (reporting)

  Austria

  214

  Belgium

  231

  Denmark

  388

  Finland

  147

  France

  2,721

  Germany

  2,397

  Ireland

  1,939

  Italy

  145

  Netherlands

  648

  Spain

  2,363

  Sweden

  791

  Total

  11,984

  USA

  Total

  7,059

  472W

  Students from the UK in tertiary education abroad: 2001

  Country of study

  Student numbers

  Commonwealth Countries (reporting)

  Australia

  4,529

  Malaysia

  66

  New Zealand

  149

  Total

  4,744

  Source:

  "Education at a glance 2003" published by OECD

  Universities
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Education and Skills what the age profile is of first degree entrants to UK universities(a) in 2003–04, (b) five years ago and (c) 10 years ago, broken down by those aged (i) 20–30, (ii) 31–40, (iii) 41–50, (iv) 51–60and (v) 60 years and over. [142600]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest available data are shown in the table. Comparable data for earlier years is not held centrally.

  Full-time First Degree Entrants to UK HE Institutions1

  Age

  1994/95

  1997/98

  2002/03

  Under 20 years

  181,630

  212,270

  235,141

  20–30 years

  97,465

  96,444

  96,661

  31–40 years

  16,301

  16,090

  14,523

  41–50 years

  5,330

  4,985

  5,011

  51–60 years

  846

  984

  987

  61 years or over

  249

  346

  257

  Unknown

  474

  954

  210

  Total

  302,295

  332,073

  352,790

  1Figures cover all domiciles and are based on a census count as at 1 December.

  Note:

  Figures for 2002/03 are provisional.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus Travel Advice
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign
  and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he provided to tourists inquiring about the safety of travel to Cyprus in mid to late March 2003. [155515]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: Our advice to British holidaymakers and other visitors with effect from 19 March 2003 was:
  "Terrorism: There have been a number of car bombs in the Limassol area and Nicosia over the past few years. Although the perpetrators have not been identified, these activities are restricted for the most part to in-fighting among the criminal fraternity."
  "But UK nationals should be aware of the risk of indiscriminate terrorist attacks, in all countries of the world, against civilian targets in public places, including tourist sites."
  "Cyprus is not directly affected by the situation in Iraq. We therefore see no reason for holiday plans to be changed. Please monitor the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website for updates to the travel advice for Cyprus, or contact Consular Section at the British High Commission in Nicosia."

  European Union (Criminal Injuries Compensation)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what schemes are available for UK citizens injured in(a) an EU member state and (b) an EU accession state to have access to criminal injuries compensation. [155804]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 9 February 2004,Official Report, column 1254W.

  Historical information about the amount of compensation paid and the number of applications received during one year under the state compensation schemes in each EU member state was given at paragraph 3.8 of the European Commission's Green Paper, 'Compensation to crime victims' (reference COM(2001)536) issued on 28 September 2001. The paper can be accessed via the Internet at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/off/green/index_en.htm.

  Chechnya
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of human rights abuses by Russian forces in Chechnya. [146684]

  Mr. Rammell
  We continue to be concerned over the human rights situation in Chechnya and consistent reports of human rights abuses. We are especially concerned over reports of rising numbers of disappearances and abductions. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 524W, for our most recent representations in this area.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Japan on the current human rights situation in(a) North Korea and (b) China. [155573]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are concerned about reports of serious human rights violations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and China. We have regular human rights dialogues with the Japanese Government both in Japan and the UK. The most recent round of talks took place on 30 January 2004. Human rights issues in both DPRK and China were raised in these talks. We are consulting closely with the Japanese on how to handle the question of North Korea at the forthcoming Commission on Human Rights, given the DPRK's failure to respond to the resolution passed there at the Commission's 2003 session.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many days on average his Department took in Session 2002–03 to give a substantive answer to a parliamentary question for ordinary written answer; and what the greatest number of days taken to answer such a question was. [155917]
  474W
  Hilary Benn
  In Session 2002–03, DFID was asked a total of nearly 2,500 parliamentary questions, the information requested is not held centrally and we are unable to provide it without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The effective handling of parliamentary questions is an issue to which my ministerial colleague and I attach great importance. We try to respond to parliamentary questions within the parliamentary deadlines whenever possible.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  House Prices (Seaside Towns)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the average house price was in each ward in each principal seaside town in England and Wales in the latest month for which figures are available, with figures for Welsh Seaside Town clusters disaggregated. [154933]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. My hon. Friend might be interested in viewing the property price data on the Land Registry's website. This provides average sale prices for properties in England and Wales down to postcode sector level for each county or unitary authority.

  Outstanding Debt (Preston Courts)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much outstanding debt is held in the Preston courts. [155403]

  Mr. Leslie
  Preston county court issued 4,472 claims for money in 2002 and 4,215 in 2003. All civil county courts have a computerised record system. The system, however, is unable to collate a figure to show how much debt claims have been issued for. As the debtor has to make the payment direct to the creditor there is no access to information of the value of debt outstanding to creditors within the court. The only way to access up to date information would be to extract the court files from Preston county court and to contact each creditor individually to ask how much debt is outstanding. This information could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  At the end of 2003, the total outstanding debt at Preston magistrates court for financial penalties was £1,631,433.00. This figure includes the Crown court fines, costs, Crown Prosecution Service costs, Legal Aid and compensation that is collected by the magistrates court. The figure does not include civil financial orders (maintenance, forfeiture of recognisance etc.) as no data is collected on civil matters.

  Postal Voting
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs on what evidence he based his decision that(a) Yorkshire and the Humber and (b) the North West region was suitable to pilot all-postal voting in the June elections. [155139]
  475W
  Mr. Leslie
  The European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, currently in Parliament, will allow pilots of innovative voting methods at this year's European and combined local elections. The Government asked the Electoral Commission to recommend where pilots should take place and the Commission published its recommendations on 8 December 2003.

  The Commission identified the North East and East Midlands regions as 'highly suitable' and 'suitable'. The Commission also identified four regions that 'could potentially be suitable', These were, in descending order of suitability, Scotland, Yorkshire and the Humber, the North West and the West Midlands. It regarded the remaining regions as 'not suitable'.

  The Government accepted the recommendations regarding the North East and East Midlands on 16 December. Other options were then carefully considered. An approach of holding discussions with electoral administrators in the potentially suitable regions was decided upon, to establish what their concerns were and whether or not these could be addressed.

  Scottish Returning Officers had written to the Commission expressing various concerns. While Government viewed these as being about the same practical issues that affect the other regions, and despite efforts to allay their concerns, the Returning Officers remained concerned about their capacity to ensure an effective election. As a consequence of these concerns about operational capability, the Government decided not to impose a pilot in Scotland.

  There has already been positive experience of all-postal pilots in local elections in Yorkshire and the Humber and the North West. Discussions with these regions showed that they were confident that successful pilots could be arranged for June and the North West in

  Years1

  1908–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Working provision

  Plans

  Plans

  Plans

  Science3

  Real (£ million) 2

  1 764.7

  1,798.6

  1,894.7

  1,944.9

  2,222.0

  2,349.0

  2,566.5

  2,810.8

  Percentage of total

  53

  38

  27

  29

  28

  40

  57

  53

  Innovation4

  Real (£ million)

  298.2

  287.5

  307.4

  303.2

  322.3

  333.0

  339.5

  354.3

  Percentage of total

  9

  6

  4

  4

  4

  6

  7

  7

  Enterprise5

  Real (£ million)

  166.8

  208.4

  293.8

  283.8

  423.4

  394.0

  348.7

  358.6

  Percentage of total

  5

  4

  4

  4

  5

  7

  7

  7

  Competition6

  Real (£ million)

  6.5

  8.7

  9.2

  10.5

  25.9

  26.5

  28.9

  29.5

  Percentage of total

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1Figures are shown from 1998–99 (the first year for which resource information was produced) to 2005–06 (the final year of the current Spending Review period).

  2Figures are shown in real terms at 2002–03 prices (using GDP deflators from the HM Treasury website) and as a proportion of total DTI expenditure (resource and capital), as listed on pages 190 and 194 of "Central Government Supply Estimates 2003–04 Supplementary Budgetary Information" (Cm 5797, May 2003), where a breakdown is available.

  3The figures from the Departmental Reports have been revised to ensure a consistent (resource) basis because prior to 2002–03 reporting of the Research Councils' expenditure was on a cash (grant in aid) basis.

  4Outturn not available for 2001–02 due to a change in the budget structure, so a 'working provision' is provided. Excludes "Office of Science and Technology" expenditure on space (except for 2003–04 plans, which include BNSC budgets transferring to the Science budget from 2003–04).
  476W
  particular had commenced work to prepare for a possible pilot. It was, therefore, decided that both of these regions should hold pilots, in addition to the two regions already announced.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Support
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding has been allocated by her Department to supporting(a) science, (b) innovation, (c) enterprise and (d) competition for each year between 1997 and 2007 in (i) real terms and (ii) as a proportion of the overall departmental budget; and if she will make a statement. [153534]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have invested heavily in the science and engineering base. In the current spending review period the science budget is growing at 10 per cent, year-on-year in real terms, building on the average 7 per cent. growth over the previous spending review period, and reaching just short of £3 billion by 2005–06. The recent announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his intention to develop a 10-year investment framework for science and investment, to be announced at the time of the next spending review settlement, signals the Government's continuing long-term commitment to science.

  Successive departmental reports have provided breakdowns and explanations of my Department's expenditure. However, figures can be provided only on a consistent (resource) basis from 1998–99; further, spending plans for 2006–07 have not yet been agreed, so figures are shown up to 2005–06 only.

  The following table is based on information published in the 1999 to 2003 Departmental Reports, where more details and explanations can be found:
  477W
  5Covers expenditure on Small Businesses and Enterprise (Small Business Service).

  6Expenditure shown for the Competition Commission and (from 2003–04) the Competition Service.

  Source:

  1999–2003 Departmental Reports (Cm 4211, March 1999; Cm 4611, April 2000; Cm 5112, March 2001; Cm 5416, June 2002; and Cm 5916, May 2003).

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 2 February 2004,Official Report, columns 642–43W, to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) if she will break down the staff in each grade by (a) regional and (b) national locations; and what percentage of the staff in each grade each represents. [154649]

  Ms Hewitt
  This information is not held centrally and therefore this information cannot be provided without disproportionate cost.

  EU Structural Funds
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) capital and (b) revenue expenditure was provided through (i) EU structural funds and (ii) by regional development agencies in each of the past seven years for each principal town in England and Wales, with figures for Welsh Seaside Town clusters disaggregated; and if she will make a statement. [155003]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: The information requested is not held either centrally or regionally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  EU Trade
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has made to European commissioners on the strengthening of multilateral trading systems; and if she will make a statement. [155151]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have spoken on several occasions to Commissioner Lamy on the need to strengthen the multilateral trading system, particularly in favour of the world's poorest countries.

  Since the WTO Ministerial meeting in Cancun last September, I have met Mr. Lamy in London and in Brussels and I have also spoken to him on the telephone on a number of occasions. The strengthening of the multilateral trading system is always high on our agenda.

  My officials remain in regular contact with the Commission, on issues relating to the WTO and the strengthening of the WTO multilateral trading system.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Export Credits Guarantee Department has been approached for political risk insurance claims by(a) ANZ Bank, (b) Standard Chartered Bank and (c) ABN Amro in relation to the Dabhol Power Company in India. [155011]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Yes.
  478W
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether(a) Kier International and (b) Whessoe have approached the Export Credits Guarantee Department for a claim in relation to the Dabhol Power Project in India. [155012]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No. We can find no record of such an approach.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Export Credits Guarantee Department will next produce a report on the comparison of export credit agencies; and if she will make a statement. [155655]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 24 February 2004]: ECGD is currently updating its research on the comparison of export credit agencies and hopes to be able to make its findings public in April.

  Gas Network System
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans she has to work with industry to extend the gas network system; [155893]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the use made of European structural funds in the extension of the gas network across the UK. [155894]

  Mr. Timms
  In May 2003, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced the establishment of a new Design and Demonstration Unit of private sector secondees to support the Sustainable Energy Policy Network. Among the activities being undertaken by the Unit, which is based in the Department of Trade and Industry, are pathfinder projects to extend the gas network to non-gas areas. The first of these, in Llay in North Wales, began in October 2003, and is now completed. Three other projects are currently in the process of being developed. In addition, during 2003, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets reviewed the charging arrangements for connections to independent gas transporters' (IGTs) networks. It is expected that, by allowing those providing connections to the existing network (known as "infill" projects) to charge a premium over Transco transportation charges, more IGTs will be encouraged to enter the infill market. Detailed information on the use of structural funds for individual projects is not held centrally by DTI. However, if my hon. Friend wishes to have information about a particular project, he should write to me, and I shall endeavour to obtain the relevant information. The Design and Demonstration Unit will be exploring whether the funds can provide support for the pathfinder projects that it is developing.

  Near Earth Objects
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's contribution to the funding of the Minor Planet Centre. [155361]
  479W
  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are not contributing to the funding of the US based Minor Planet Centre (MPC).

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to establish a British centre for near earth objects; and if she will make a statement. [155367]

  Ms Hewitt
  The British National Space Centre has provided funding for the UK Near Earth Objects Information Centre (NEO IC) in Leicester (see www.nearearthobiects.co.uk). There are no current plans to extend the scope of the Centre.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress in seeking partners to build in the southern hemisphere an advanced new three metre-class survey telescope for surveying substantially smaller objects than those now systematically observed by other telescopes. [155369]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are no plans to build a new 3m class telescope for this activity. This conclusion is reached in the light of the many opportunities that are now available for the use of existing facilities that are or will soon become available.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress in dedicating the one metre Johannes Kapteyn Telescope on La Palma to follow-up observations of near earth objects. [155371]

  Ms Hewitt
  It has not been possible to fund dedicated use of the Johannes Kapteyn Telescope. However, telescopes on La Palma have been used to observe Near Earth Objects and 20 per cent. of these were studied spectroscopically.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses in(a) London and (b) England applied for regional selective assistance in each year since it came into existence. [155514]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: The number of value of applications for Regional Selective Assistance made in London and England since 1972 are published in the Industrial Development Act 1982 Annual Reports, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  Sakhalin
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what account she will take of the potential impact on endangered grey whales in considering requests for export credit guarantees in connection with oil and gas extraction in the Sakhalin Island area; and if she will make a statement. [154967]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: The Government are aware of the potential impacts that the Sakhalin II project may have on the Western Gray Whales. I have written to Sakhalin
  480W
  Energy making clear the importance that we attach to ensuring that these are properly minimised and that the best scientific advice is being followed. In determining this, ECGD officials will be taking advice from recognised independent whale experts and will take into account the views of interested NGOs.

  I expect that details of the whale protection measures agreed with Sakhalin Energy will be published and that compliance with them would be a contractual obligation on the company. Qualified consultants would monitor compliance with these obligations on behalf of ECGD and the other lenders, should support be eventually agreed.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Fenestration Self-assessment Scheme
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 142W, on the Fenestration Self-assessment Scheme, whether the scheme requires its members to install lintels above windows. [156090]

  Phil Hope
  The Fenestration Self-assessment Scheme requires that all work carried out by its members should comply fully with the Building Regulations. Where the installation of lintels is necessary for such compliance then FENSA members should install them.

  Retail Stores (Extensions)
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when his Department will complete its research into the extent to which retailers are using internal extensions to expand their stores without planning permission; and if he will place a copy of the results in the Library. [154998]

  Keith Hill
  A survey of a sample of local planning authorities has been commissioned through the Government Offices to assess the extent of the issue and the possible consequences. While advanced, this work is not yet complete in a format which would enable it to be published, but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister hopes to be in a position to make the findings public in due course.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Incapacity Benefit
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of the population of England and Wales was claiming Incapacity Benefit on the latest date for which figures are available;(a) how many people in and (b) what percentage of the population of each ward in each principal seaside town in England and Wales receive Incapacity Benefit, listed in descending order, with figures for Welsh seaside town clusters disaggregated; and if he will make statement. [154958]

  Maria Eagle
  There were 2,378,900 people claiming Incapacity Benefit (including Severe Disablement
  481W
  Allowance) in England and Wales as of 31 August 2003. This accounts for 5.7 per cent. of the population over 16-years-old.

  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Source:

  DWP Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Hancock
  ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost is of running two systems side by side during the Jobcentre Plus rollout in(a)Hampshire and the Isle of Wight and (b) the South East region.[151536]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Hancock, dated 25 February 2004:

  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply direct to your question concerning the cost implications of running two systems side by side during the rollout of Jobcentre Plus, in the South East. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.

  The development of Jobcentre Plus is building on the high quality service already provided by social security offices and Jobcentres by delivering a single, integrated service to all people of working age, with a clear focus on work. It is a huge undertaking involving some 1,500 offices across the country. We have to make sure that our customers can continue to receive advice on work and benefits. Therefore we need to stagger the roll-out of the new service over a number of years. Throughout the period of national roll-out social security offices and Jobcentres will be working together to ensure that customers will still benefit from the excellent service we offer.

  Our plans for the roll out aim to ensure that the old services are replaced by the new services and that therefore there is no need to operate them side by side in any location. In fact as the roll out progresses we are looking to rationalise our estate and realise savings through a "merger dividend".

  This is one of the largest change programmes ever and given its size, we are bringing in changes across the four-year period 2002–06. This means, of course, within the South East region and the other regions/countries, we will have to run new services alongside old style services for this transitional period.

  Full details of the financial allocation for the roll out of Jobcentre Plus are available in the Departmental report (CM5921) a copy of which is in the library.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Medical Assessments
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many doctors have had approval to carry out assessments on behalf of the Department revoked in each of the last five years, broken down by location. [156058]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested has been recorded only since 2002, following enhancements to Medical Services' Medical Skills Database and the introduction of a new database in the Chief Medical Adviser's office. The available information is in the table.
  482W

  Numbers of doctors who have had approval to carry out assessments on behalf of DWP revoked

  Medical Services Unita

  2002

  2003

  Birmingham

  0

  1

  Bootle

  10

  0

  Bristol

  1

  0

  Cardiff

  5

  1

  Edinburgh

  0

  0

  Glasgow

  2

  19

  Leeds

  7

  4

  Manchester

  0

  0

  Newcastle

  0

  1

  Nottingham

  0

  0

  Sutton

  0

  0

  Wembley

  0

  14

  Total

  25

  40

  Source:

  DWP data.

  Pensioner Benefits
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the proportion of the value of means-tested benefits unclaimed by pensioners. [155468]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Precise information requested is not available. The DWP report, "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up", contains estimates of the additional amount of income support/minimum income guarantee, housing benefit and council tax benefit payable, if every pensioner took up their entitlement. For financial year 2000–01, the latest year for which information is available, it is estimated between £1.03 billion and £1.8 billion of these benefits were left unclaimed by the eligible GB pensioner population in private households. This compares with £7.70 billion claimed by this population; and represents between 81 per cent. and 88 per cent. of the total of amounts claimed and amounts unclaimed.

  The next edition of the report, covering 2001–02 will be published on 26 February; copies will be held in the Library.

  Note:
  Estimates of the amount of income-related benefits unclaimed are presented as ranges in which the true value is judged to lie. The ranges take account of various imperfections in the underlying data sources.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost to his Department of payments to employers in respect of statutory sick pay was in each of the last five years. [154882]

  Maria Eagle
  The Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) scheme is administered by employers as part of the National Insurance scheme. While employers meet most of the costs of SSP, they can, in certain circumstances, reclaim some of their costs from the Department.

  The available information is in the table.
  483W

  Estimated cost to the Department of payments to employers in respect of Statutory Sick Pay in the last five years

  Financial year

  Expenditure on SSP for DWP (£ million)

  1998–99

  30

  1999–2000

  32

  2000–01

  31

  2001–02

  33

  2002–03

  32

  Notes:

  Information is in real terms, 2003–04 prices and rounded to the nearest £1 million.

  Data for recoveries on SSP are currently under review and all published figures are therefore subject to revision.

  Source:

  DWP reports and accounts.

HEALTH

  Allergies
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking with respect to those suffering from allergies; and if he will make a statement. [155848]

  Dr. Ladyman
  It is the role of primary care trusts in partnership with local stakeholders to decide what services to provide for their populations, including those with allergies. They are best placed to understand local health care needs and commission services to meet them.

  The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) published their report, "Allergy—the unmet need: a blueprint for better patient care", on 25 June 2003. We welcome the RCP report and believes it is a useful contribution to the debate on how to improve national health service allergy services.

  The Food Standards Agency funds research on food allergy and intolerance, with particular emphasis on severe allergies, how they occur and what causes them. A large programme of research on food intolerance and allergy, costing around £1 million a year is on-going. King's College London is leading a £2.1 million European Community funded prospective study of the incidence and prognosis of allergy, allergic disease and low lung function in adults living in Europe. Also, the University of Manchester is leading a £1.2 million EC-funded investigation of the prevalence, pathogenesis, treatment and prevention of sun allergy across Europe. Sun-provoked skin reactions are one of the commonest forms of allergy.

  Brachytherapy Treatment
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer, 16 December 2003,Official Report, column 877W, to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), on brachytherapy treatment, by what date the Department will have decided whether the treatment referred to is a suitable topic for referral to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence as a technology appraisal. [154938]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is not yet possible to say when the Department will be in a position to consider brachytherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer as a potential topic for referral to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) as a technology appraisal.
  484W
  More evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of brachytherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer will be needed for the Department to be able to consider its referral to NICE. It is not yet known when current studies are likely to produce such evidence.

  Carbonated Drinks
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the dangers to young people's health of regularly drinking carbonated soft drinks. [155440]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: Carbonated soft drinks are a major source of added sugars in children's and young people's diets. It is recommended that they should be consumed sparingly, as part of a healthy balanced diet, to minimise the effect of dental caries and to achieve calorie intake compatible with maintenance of healthy weight.

  The Food Standards Agency and the Department of Health are in discussion with the vending industry and are taking forward projects to consider approaches in schools to achieve this recommendation.

  Child Health Surveillance Programme
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of(a) 8-year-olds, (b) 9-year-olds, (c) 10-year-olds, (d) 11-year-olds, (e) 5-year-olds, (f) 6-year-olds and (g) 7-year-olds were subject to height and weight monitoring in schools last year as part of the Child Health Surveillance programme; [155039]

  (2) which primary care trusts undertake weight and height monitoring of primary school age children at least every other year. [155040]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Height and weight measurements in early childhood form a part of the child health surveillance programme. The programme covers pre-school age children. Intervals between checks are determined by the primary health care team in the light of professional judgment. Height and weight monitoring after school entry is undertaken on a selective basis when there is concern about a child's health or growth. Information on the number and timing of these checks is not collected centrally.

  Child Poverty
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to achieve the Government's targets of(a) ending child poverty by 2020, (b) halving it by 2010 and (c) reducing it by a quarter by 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [154367]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Pond) on 12 February 2004,Official Report, columns 1590–91W.

  Chiropody
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in what ways eligibility criteria for chiropody waiting
  485W
  lists have changed in the last two years; and how many patients have been removed from waiting lists as a result of changes in eligibility criteria; [155869]

  (2) how many patients who were previously on chiropody waiting lists have been removed from these lists as a result of a change in the eligibility criteria for the waiting lists; [155449]

  (3) how the eligibility criteria for chiropody waiting lists have changed in the last two years. [155450]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answers 23 and 24 February 2004]: Primary care trusts, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, have the responsibility for improving the health of the community, securing the provision of high quality services, and integrating health and social care locally. They have the resources to commission services and to identify the number of professional staff that they need to deliver those services. This process provides the means for addressing local needs within the health community including setting eligibility criteria for chiropody/podiatry services. Information on waiting lists for these services is not collected centrally.

  Coronary Care
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many coronary angioplasties were undertaken by each NHS hospital trust in each of the last three years; and how many of these were(a) second and (b) third interventions. [154993]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the number of coronary angioplasties that were undertaken by each national health service hospital trust in each of the last three years has been placed in the Library.

  The figures are sourced from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health. Information on second and third interventions is not available.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many coronary artery bypass graphs were undertaken by each NHS hospital trust in each of the last three years. [154994]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the number of coronary artery bypass graphs that were undertaken by each national health service hospital trust in each of the last three years has been placed in the Library.

  The figures are sourced from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Haemophilia
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients with haemophilia there are in(a) England and (b) the South West; and if he will make a statement. [154578]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information provided by the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation shows that there are 5,019 haemophilia patients in England and 297 patients in the South West. These figures include patients affected by severe and mild haemophilia.

  Hepatitis C
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the rationale was for the decision to disallow compensation from the Hepatitis C ex gratia scheme for the dependants of those who died of the disease prior to 29 August 2003. [155536]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The underlying principle behind the Hepatitis C ex gratia payment scheme is to target available resources to help alleviate the suffering of people living with the virus. The payments are not designed to compensate for bereavement. The scheme's eligibility criteria reflect this, but were considered in the context of other demands on the health care budget.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2004,Official Report, column 1110W, on long-term care, whether the methodology used to arrive at this figure is the same as that used to cost the Government's own policies; and if he will place in the library a copy of the terms of reference given to the civil servants costing the policy. [155461]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The estimate of £1.5 billion is an updated estimate of the cost of free personal care for England. The methodology used to produce this updated estimate was identical to that used by the Royal Commission, except for two differences. The first difference is that the Royal Commission did not include an explicit allowance for costs of publicly funded care home residents. These costs are now estimated at £100 million and are included in the updated estimate. The second difference is that the updated estimate takes into account changes to the funding arrangements made by the Government since the Royal Commission produced its estimate. Had no account been taken, the updated estimate would have been higher. The main change is the implementation of free nursing care. Ministers gave no instructions or terms of references to civil servants concerning how the calculation of the updated estimate was to be made.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 30 January 2004,Official Report, column 559W, on long-term care, which specific benefits are referred to in point seven of the explanatory note; how the savings of under £200 million were calculated; and whether any of the 58,000 privately funded residents of residential care homes mentioned in the explanatory note were in homes with dual registration, and therefore entitled to free nursing care. [155966]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The social security benefits referred to in point seven of the note are attendance allowance and disability living allowance care component. These benefits cease to be paid after four weeks of local authority support. Disability living allowance mobility component does not cease to be paid and is not included.

  Estimates of the proportions of older privately funded admissions to care homes receiving these benefits were derived from tables 4.13 and 4.14 of the Personal Social Services Research Unit report, Self-Funded Admissions to Care Homes (available at www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rrep159.asp). These proportions

  487W
  were applied to the estimate numbers of privately funded care home residents to produce an estimate of the numbers of privately funded residents receiving these benefits. The estimated numbers were multiplied by the benefit rates to produce an estimated annual saving of under £200 million.

  The approach assumed estimates of 42,000 privately funded residents in nursing beds in nursing homes or dual-registered homes and 58,000 privately funded residents in residential beds in residential care homes or dual-registered homes. Reference to dual-registered beds was omitted from the note for simplicity. This means that none of the estimated 58,000 were assumed to be entitled to free nursing care. This assumption does not, however, affect the estimated saving on disability benefits since receipt of free nursing care does not trigger cessation of disability benefits.

  Masts
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines, other than International Commission Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection emission levels, are used by(a) the Health and Safety Executive and (b) OFCOM for the practical implementation of a precautionary approach to mast installations around sensitive sites [155872]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines is concerned with exposure to electromagnetic fields. The mobile phone industry has voluntarily agreed, as a precautionary measure, to comply with ICNIRP guidelines. The Government have also agreed that mobile telecommunications equipment should meet the ICNIRP guidelines as expressed in the European Union Council Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields
  (OHz300-Ghz) of 12 July 1999. No Government body uses any other more restrictive exposure guidelines.

  Medical Research (Animals)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 2 February 2004,Official Report, column 1129W, on medical research (animals), how much the Government contributed to the 2002 MORI poll. [155550]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Home Office each contributed £28,502 towards the cost of the research.

  Mental Health
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance on recommended procedures for control and restraint of mental health patients. [155630]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The anticipated publication date for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's (NICE) clinical guideline on the short-term management of disturbed (violent) behaviour in in-patient psychiatric settings is November 2004. NICE provisionally plans to consult on the first draft of the 488W
  guidance in April 2004. Full details of the provisional schedule for this guideline can be found on the NICE website at www.nice.org.uk.

  MMR
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children aged between five and 15 years developed(a) measles, (b) mumps and (c) rubella in each of the last 10 years. [152558]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data on comparable confirmed cases of measles, mumps and rubella are only available from 1995. The number of confirmed cases of measles, mumps and rubella between 1995 and 2003 are shown in the table. The information provided relates to the number of confirmed cases of measles, mumps and rubella in children aged between five and 14 years. Data on cases in children aged between 5 and 14 years is being provided, as this is the standard age grouping used in all surveillance reports.

  Number of cases aged 5–14 years

  Measles

  Mumps

  Rubella

  1995

  5

  14

  29

  1996

  14

  56

  31

  1997

  91

  100

  2

  1998

  12

  34

  5

  1999

  20

  229

  5

  2000

  23

  472

  4

  2001

  15

  419

  1

  2002

  88

  130

  5

  20031

  164

  248

  0

  1Provisional.

  Sources:

  1996–2002 Health Protection Agency website:

  http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/measles/data_reg_age.htm http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/mumps/data_reg_age.htm
  http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/rubella/data_reg_age.htm

  Obesity-related Deaths
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what methodology his Department used to estimate the number of deaths from obesity-related diseases; and if he will make a statement. [155157]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department uses estimates presented in the National Audit Office report on obesity: "Tackling Obesity in England"—report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. HC220 Session 2000–01: 15 February 2001.

  Podiatry
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will collect a sample of the discharge rates, whether complete or not, of NHS podiatry services, to enable the Government to estimate how many patients could reasonably be accepted into NHS foot care services. [155985]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: National health service foot care services are provided on the basis of assessed clinical need. Primary care trusts, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, have the responsibility for improving the health of the community, securing the provision of high quality services, and integrating health and social care locally. They have the resources to

  489W
  commission services, and to identify the number of professional staff that they need to deliver those services. This process provides the means for addressing local needs within the health community including the provision of chiropody/podiatry services.

  We are committed to reducing bureaucracy in the NHS and commissioning such a study would not be cost effective.

  Sexually Transmitted Diseases
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Health what the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases was in the areas covered by(a) the Greater Peterborough Primary Care Trust and (b) the Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire Strategic Health Authority in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by (i) HIV, (ii) Chlamydia, (iii) gonorrhoea, (iv) syphilis and (v) genital herpes; how many cases of each disease there were in the (A) under 19, (B) 20 to 25, (C) 25 to 35 and (D) 35 plus age group, broken down by gender; and what the percentage change was in each case in each of the previous five years. [154459]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally. However the available information from the Health Protection Agency has been placed in the Library.

  The data contained within these tables does not represent the prevalence of disease within this individual strategic health authority.

  Soft Drinks (Schools)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has made to the United Kingdom soft drinks industry about distribution of soft drinks in schools. [155811]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: No direct representations to the United Kingdom soft drinks industry about distribution of soft drinks in schools have been made.

  The Department of Health-led strand of the "Food in Schools" programme comprises eight pilot projects, which aim to ensure children have access to healthy food choices and drinks throughout the school day. In particular, the work on water provision aims to increase overall consumption of water by pupils in schools by making it more accessible. The healthier vending machines pilot challenges schools and the vending industry to make healthy options available in school vending machines, which includes the provision of healthier drink products.

  The results of all eight pilot projects will be brought together in a 'whole school approach' and made available to schools across England from the beginning of 2005 to assist them in providing a wider range of healthier foods and drinks for pupils.

  The Food Standards Agency has undertaken a pilot in schools on healthier drink vending, which will feed into the "Food in Schools" programme.

  SPIRIT Trial
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) by what date the National Cancer Research Network expects to have all 300 patients recruited for the SPIRIT trial; [154935]

  (2) what the status is of the SPIRIT trial into a cure for prostate cancer; [154936]

  (3) how many centres have been approved to enter patients in the SPIRIT trial; and when they will be receiving patients. [154937]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The SPIRIT trial received multi-centre research ethics committee approval in November 2003. Local research ethics committee approval is currently being applied for at the various centres that plan to participate. The trial is led by the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG). Any centre that wishes to participate must obtain United States federal-wide assurance, and investigators and research nurses must obtain membership of the ACOSOG. The trial team anticipates that six to eight centres in the United Kingdom will be approved by summer 2004, and that these centres will immediately start entering patients into the trial. The team is confident that 300 UK patients will be recruited before May 2007, which is the US target for completing accrual.

  Tendring Primary Care Trust
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on plans to close general practitioner surgeries in(a) Holland-on-Sea and (b) Great Clacton in Tendring Primary Care Trust. [155120]

  Dr. Ladyman
  It is this Government's policy, within the framework set out in the NHS Plan and the Shifting the Balance of Power initiative, to devolve funding decisions to the front line. It is now for primary care trusts (PCTs), in partnership with health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services, based on the specialised knowledge they have of the local community.

  The Colchester and Tendring Local Improvement Finance Trust project board is committed to significantly improve services and facilities in the area. Tendring PCTs plan is to develop one purpose-built health centre that will incorporate four local surgeries on one site in the local areas. Therefore, the surgeries are not being closed but re-sited.

  The proposal is to centralise services on the Kennedy Way site with two satellite surgeries; one in Holland-On-Sea and the other in Great Clacton. The distance from the existing practices to the proposed new centre is approximately one mile. The satellite facilities will provide services to those patients who are unable to travel.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation has been undertaken by Tendring Primary Care Trust regarding the proposed closure of general practitioner surgeries in Holland-On-Sea. [155121]
  491W
  Dr. Ladyman
  I am advised that Tendring Primary Care Trust (PCT) extended its original consultation period so that it ran from mid January 2003 to mid March 2003 in order for option appraisals to be undertaken. Public consultation meetings were held, consultation documents were circulated, an appraisal workshop was also held and the PCT corresponded with the public and local councillors.

  The PCT held an option appraisal day, which was attended by member of the public, resident associations, the Community Health Council and health professionals. The outcome of the option appraisal day was unanimous support for developing the Kennedy Way site.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what sites were considered by Tendring Primary Care Trust for its new headquarters; [155122]

  (2) what sites were considered by Tendring Primary Care Trust to replace general practitioner surgeries due to be closed in (a) Holland-on-Sea and (b) Great Clacton. [155123]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Tendring Primary Care Trust, in partnership with Tendring District Council and local estate agents, undertook an exhaustive search for a site best befitting the necessary criteria for a new health centre. The key criteria were:The site needs to be large enough for the proposed health centre, which means it has to be 1.25 acres.
  The site needs to be central within the Holland-on-Sea/Great Clacton area.

  Clacton and Holland-on-Sea

  Service cluster

  Includes:

  Central Clinical Services

  Security

  Essential Clinical Services

  General Practitioner services

  Nurse Practitioner services

  Nurse Led Services

  Chronic disease management

  Health promotion (expand family planning and sexual heath, diagnostics-visiting GP)

  Special provision for teenagers

  Vaccinations and immunisations

  Contraception

  Child Health

  Cervical Cytology

  Chronic Disease Management

  Diabetic services (more multidisciplinary team)

  Chiropody

  Eye

  Dietetics

  Podiatry

  COPD/Asthma

  Chromic management eye Diseases

  Optometry (multidisciplinary)

  Coronary Heart Disease

  Hypertension

  Diabetes

  Diabetic Retinopathy Screening

  Heart Failure Assessment

  Diagnostics

  Warfarin & DVT Monitoring

  One stop near patient testing

  Visiting echo

  Ultrasound

  Osteoporosis assessment

  Blood tests/phlebotomy

  ECG

  Future possibility of X-ray and Ultrasound

  (PACS)

  Health Promotion

  Prevention has close links with rehabilitation

  Smoking Cessation

  Teenage Advisory Clinic

  Information Zone

  492W
  The site needs to be available for immediate purchase.
  The site needs to be allocated for development within the local plan.

  Kennedy Way was chosen as the preferred option.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost is of the new surgery general practitioners centre in Kennedy Way, Clacton-on-Sea; and what proportion of the site will be occupied by primary care trust administration. [155124]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Tendring Primary Care Trust (PCT) is currently consulting staff, local councillors and residents' representatives on the range of services to be provided from the centre.

  The PCT's current estimated figure is £7 million for the health centre and PCT headquarters which it is currently estimated to be split as, £5 million for the health centre and £2 million for the PCT headquarters (these figures are subject to change according to the final service model adopted). The premises will then be leased through the Local Improvement Finance Trust over a 20 year period.

  In addition to general practice, additional services will be available from the new site. These are shown in the table. However, until the range of services to be offered is agreed and costed, the PCT is at present unable to define what proportion of the accommodation will be given over to PCT administration. However, the PCT estimates that the large majority of accommodation will be for healthcare provision.
  493W

  Clacton and Holland-on-Sea

  Service cluster

  Includes:

  Rehabilitation Services

  Post discharge stroke

  Musculo-skeletal assessment Falls Prevention

  Cardiac rehabilitation

  Heart Failure rehabilitation

  Musculo-skeletal clinic

  District Nursing Service

  Leg ulcer clinics (dermatology, vascular, district nurses)

  Community paramedics

  District Nurse Base

  Leg Ulcer Clinic

  Continence Clinic

  Equipment Store

  Health Visiting Service

  Health Visitor base

  Mental Health Services

  Substance misuse

  Community Psychiatric Services

  Child and Family Consultation Service

  CMHT

  Memory clinic

  Counselling

  Social Services

  Vulnerable adults

  Child Protection

  Social Worker Base

  Voluntary Sector

  Care Advisor service

  Shared resources

  Advisory Clinics

  Outpatient Service

  Ophthalmology

  Explore paediatric outreach

  Dermatology

  Neurology Outpatients

  Dermatology outpatients

  Care of the Elderly Outpatients

  Urology

  Community Dental Services

  Community Dental Services

  Audiology

  Hearing Tests

  Hearing Aid Clinic

  Podiatry/chiropody

  Podiatry/chiropody

  Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS)

  Base for PALs service

  Dispensary/pharmacy

  Integration

  Cafeé

  Café

  Children's Services

  Paediatric child health

  Occupational Therapy

  Physiotherapy

  Speech and language

  School nursing

  Disability nursing

  Children's outreach

  Children's continence services

  Nursery services

  Child protection

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the recommendation of Tendring Community Health Council was in the consultation on(a) moving the Primary Care Trust headquarters and (b) closing (i) Frinton Road Medical Centre and (ii) the Grove Lodge general practitioner surgery. [155125]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to close further general practitioner surgeries in the Tendring Primary Care Trust area after the proposed closure of Frinton Road Medical Centre and the Grove Lodge general practitioner surgery. [155126]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We have no plans to close general practitioner surgeries in the Tendring Primary Care Trust (PCT) area.
  494W
  However, we are advised that Tendring PCT states that these practices are not closing but relocating to a new purpose-built facility with a wider range of services being offered under the national health service Local Improvement Finance Trust.

  The local NHS has no plans to close practices in Tendring; and 75 per cent. of practices have been expanded with additional doctors and nurses, using personal medical services growth money.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds are being provided by Tendring Primary Care Trust to transport residents of Holland-On-Sea to the new Kennedy Way general practitioner surgery in Clacton-on-Sea; and for what period this funding is assured. [155127]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I am advised by Tendring Primary Care Trust that funding for transporting residents is currently under review.

  UK Medicines (Name Changes)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for implementing the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency awareness campaign for nurses about the recent name changes to UK medicines; and if he will make a statement. [154587]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The names of some medicinal substances are changing in the United Kingdom so that British approved names reflect recommended International non-proprietary names, where these currently differ. This action is being taken on the advice of the Medicines Commission and with the support of a wide range of interest groups. It will reduce the risk of confusion on the part of both healthcare professionals and patients arising from the availability on the market of some medicines using two different names.

  The name changes were published in the 2003 edition of the British Pharmacopoeia and became effective on 1 December 2003. From this date, licence holders for medicinal products using the old names were given 12 months to apply to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to update their licences to use the new names.

  We are committed to ensuring that all those who are responsible for prescribing, dispensing and administering medicines receive full information about the name changes and expect shortly to be in a position to issue detailed guidance and advice to healthcare professionals, including nurses.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern
  Ireland (1) what the latest estimate is of the cost of the Saville Inquiry; [155314]£

  £

  Period covered

  Payments made

  From

  To

  Note

  Counsel for the Inquiry

  Christopher Clarke

  3,721,971

  February 1998

  January 2004

  Jacob Grierson

  394,879

  July 1998

  December 2000

  Left the case in December 2000

  Cathryn McGahey

  1,078,130

  June 2000

  January 2004

  Bilal Rawat

  842,701

  June 2000

  January 2004

  Alan Roxburgh

  1,518,831

  May 1998

  January 2004

  Solicitors employed for the taking of witness statements

  Eversheds

  12,609,388

  June 1998

  August 2003

  Senior Counsel representing the families1

  Lord Gifford

  618,544

  October 1998

  September 2003

  Arthur Harvey

  767,362

  July 1998

  January 2003

  Michael Lavery

  549,880

  November 2000

  June 2003

  B J MacDonald

  507,683

  September 1998

  December 2002

  Left the case (as a junior) in September 2000 and rejoined the case (as a senior) in July 2001.

  P T MacDonald

  65,800

  April 1998

  June 1999

  Left the case June 1999

  Michael Mansfield

  561,711

  March 1999

  July 2003

  Eilish McDermott

  105,309

  March 2000

  June 2001

  Seamus Treacy

  701,073

  March 1998

  April 2003

  Having started as a junior in March 1998, became a senior counsel in September 2000

  Eoin McGonigal

  82,446

  October 2000

  June 2002

  Kevin Finnegan

  235,000

  July 1998

  May 2001

  Left the case in May 2001

  Senior Counsel representing NICRA

  Sir Louis Blom-Cooper

  419,389

  December 2000

  July 2003

  496W
  (2) which Departments will meet the costs of the Saville Inquiry; and in what proportion. [155315]

  Mr. Spellar
  The latest figure available to the end of December 2003 for the cost of the Inquiry is a total of £129.9 million. £103.7 million (80 per cent. of the total) of this falls to the Northern Ireland Office and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence advises me that his Department to the end of December 2003 has spent £26.2 million (20 per cent. of the total).

  The Departments which have incurred directs costs in connection with the Bloody Sunday Inquiry are the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence. The small amount of expenditure by a number of other Departments is de minimis.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many lawyers have been employed during the course of the Saville Inquiry; and what the latest estimate of the costs of employing lawyers during the inquiry is. [155316]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 544W and the follow-up letter I wrote on 11 February, the text of which is set out as follows.

  Letter from John Spellar to Mr. Gregory Campbell on 11 February 2004:

  Further to the part reply I gave to your recent written parliamentary question on 12 January 2004, Official Report, column 544W, I am now able to provide the detailed information you requested about payments made to each of the legal firms involved in the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. These payments include VAT and other disbursements where appropriate and so do not necessarily represent the amounts received by individuals.

  The following table provides the latest details of payments made by the Northern Ireland Office.
  497W

  £

  Period covered

  Payments made

  From

  To

  Note

  Junior Counsel representing the families

  John Coyle

  314,422

  September 1999

  February 2003

  Fiona Doherty

  164,273

  October 2000

  October 2002

  Ciaran Harvey

  472,145

  December 2000

  June 2003

  Richard Harvey

  445,270

  October 2000

  July 2003

  Brian Kennedy

  557,522

  July 1999

  March 2003

  Philip Magee

  83,175

  June 1998

  September 2000

  left the case in September 2000

  Kieran Mallon B1

  626,791

  March 1999

  May 2003

  Brian McCartney

  723,685

  October 1998

  November 2003

  Karen Quinlivan

  290,193

  March 1999

  July 2003

  Patricia Smyth

  328,719

  October 1998

  June 2002

  left the case in June 2002.

  Michael Topolski

  139,940

  November 2000

  June-2001

  Left the case in June 2001

  Mary McHugh

  219,877

  February 2002

  April 2003

  Junior counsel representing NICRA

  Paddy O'Hanlon

  230,151

  November 2000

  October 2002

  Solicitors representing the families2

  Barr and Co

  535,231

  February 1999

  September 2003

  Brendan Kearney and Co

  787,027

  July 1999

  July 2003

  Desmond Doherty and Co

  1,023,977

  November 1998

  November 2003

  Figure does not include fees for September 2003

  MacDermott and McGurk

  988,782

  November 1998

  November 2003

  Madden and Finucane

  6,707,182

  January 1998

  October 2003

  McCann and McCann

  573,912

  October 1998

  November 2003

  Figure does not include fees for July 2003

  McCartney and Casey

  1,001,358

  November 1998

  November 2003

  Solicitors representing NICRA

  Francis Keenan

  208,739

  May 2000

  June 2001

  Legal representatives for other witnesses

  Various solicitors and counsel

  2,539,645

  April 1998

  April 2003

  Figure includes payments made to more than 60 other solicitors and counsel

  1 In addition the following senior counsel have represented/are representing some of the families but have yet to submit fee claims: Declan Morgan and Reg Weir.

  2 Includes payments made in respect of witness statement-taking work

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has advised me that the following payments have been made to counsel and solicitors in respect of work for the Bloody Sunday Inquiry by his Department. £

  £

  Payments made

  Senior Counsel representing HM armed forces

  Edmund Lawson

  694,303

  Edwin Glasgow

  3,333,954

  Peter Clarke

  884,991

  Sydney Kentridge

  52,875

  Anna Worrall

  100,457

  Gerard Elias

  1,454,476

  Allan Green

  1,280,323

  Rosamund Horwood Smart

  343,589

  David Lloyd Jones

  900,734

  Lan Burnett

  218,431

  Philip Havers

  7,138

  Junior counsel representing MoD

  William Hoskins

  8,621

  Junior counsel representing HM armed forces

  Michael Hick

  253,895

  Gaby Bonham Carter

  186,395

  498W

  £

  Payments made

  Kristian Mills

  56,929

  Sam Grodzinski

  1,877

  Alan May

  299,009

  Andrew Hurst

  457,469

  David Bradly

  1,066,560

  Michael Bools

  768,525

  Nicholas Griffin

  1,043,690

  Thomas Quinton

  328,121

  Huw Davies

  279,496

  Nicholas Moss

  779,350

  Ian Leist

  779,202

  Alexander Milne

  259,934

  Stephen Requena

  88,161

  Bridget Petherbridge

  25,953

  Pamela Morrison

  76,199

  Solicitors representing HM armed forces

  Devonshires

  1,571,840

  Kingsley Napley

  1,227,718

  Payne Hicks Beach

  2,490,332

  Jacqueline Duff

  149,593

  Treasury Solicitor

  2,228,402

  A copy of this letter has been placed in the Library.

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last used a train in connection with his ministerial duties. [155168]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Within the UK, the method of transport used in the course of my official duties is determined by security advice from the police. Details are not disclosed for security reasons.

  Obesity
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether there is a Northern Ireland-based strategy to address childhood and adult obesity; and if he will make a statement. [156116]

  Angela Smith
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave on 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 166W.

HOME OFFICE

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  In advance of debate in the House later today, I am laying before Parliament, and making publicly available, a discussion paper "Counter-Terrorism Powers: Reconciling Security and Liberty in an Open Society". This paper also contains the Government's response to the Report of Lord Newton and his Committee into the operation of the ATCSA and in particular Part IV of that Act which concerns the detention pending deportation of foreign nationals suspected of terrorism. Alongside that as further background for the debate, I am also publishing the following update on resilience and civil contingency matters.

  Update on resilience and civil contingencies matters:
  In March last year I placed before the House a written statement, Official Report, Vol. 400, Part 354, column 72WS, setting out improvements in contingency planning that had taken place and announcing the next steps in improving our resilience, including progress in delivering Civil Contingencies legislation. Almost 12 months on, we have made considerable progress and have in place plans to cover a wide range of both civil emergencies and terrorist attacks. Such plans include the purchase of equipment, the identification and training of personnel, the preparation of policy guidance and crisis management arrangements, liaison with other nations, and exercises. There has been excellent co-operation across Government and the wider public service and I would like to place on record my thanks, particular to local authorities and the emergency services for their continuing hard work.

  Review of progress at time of last update:
  Since the outbreak of the foot at d mouth disease and the September 11 atrocity, we have been planning for larger-scale challenges and at the time of my last update to the House, substantial progress had already been made. A horizon scanning capability had been established within the Cabinet Office to anticipate and prepare for the potential impact of any large-scale incident, and this complemented the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee it providing assessments on domestic and overseas terrorist threats. Guidance had been published on decontamination of people following a Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear (CBRN) incident for use by the emergency services and other responders, and a UK national stockpile of countermeasures had been established before the end of 2001 including antibiotics, antidotes, and respiratory support equipment in strategic locations around the UK.

  In London, the London Resilience Forum had been established to drive forward the resilience agenda bringing together representatives from the emergency services, local government, military, transport, utilities, health sector and business. Substantial progress had been made, and plans for a range of contingencies now
  42WS
  exist including new pan-London command and control arrangements and a well-developed programme of exercises.

  Update of progress in the last 12 months to the present:

  Organisation:

  The programme of work to enhance the key generic resilience capabilities, co-ordinated within the civil contingencies secretariat in the Cabinet Office, remains the core framework through which the Government are seeking to build resilience across all parts of the United Kingdom. This centrally led programme constitutes an efficient and effective way of harnessing the expertise and resources that already exist within Government without duplicating or creating new structures. The programme has expanded in the past twelve months and now comprises seventeen separate workstreams.
  Central response
  Regional response
  Local response
  Essential services—DoH
  Essential services—DEFRA
  Essential services—HMT
  Essential services—DFT
  Essential services—DTI
  CBRN Resilience
  Assessment of risk and consequence
  Mass casualties
  Treatment of infectious diseases (human)
  Treatment of infectious diseases (animal & plant)
  Mass evacuation
  Warning and informing
  Mass fatalities
  Site clearance

  Work is progressing well on all fronts although inevitably some areas are more advanced than others not least because of the necessity to keep our plans under constant review to enable us to respond effectively to new threats and challenges. I and ministerial colleagues receive regular updates and reports on the progress of these workstreams and ensure that attention is focused where most required. We have also worked closely with the Devolved Administrations and clear responsibilities have been established so that the Devolved Administrations are able to undertake their own resilience preparations whilst ensuring that UK-wide resilience can be ensured.

  Preparedness of the Emergency Services:

  Under the New Dimension programme, 4,400 personal protective suits have been delivered, enabling fire fighters to decontaminate safely and effect rescues. Purpose-built decontamination vehicles are now coming into operation around the country and fire fighters are being trained in their use. The rolling training programme for police has seen over 5,000 officers trained and equipped in CBRN response and we are on target to have increased this to 5 per cent. of the police service by June.

  Every acute hospital and ambulance service now has a stock of personal protective suits, and is equipped with mobile decontamination units, to allow safe working and decontamination of patients. Some 3,200 protective

  43WS
  suits were provided for hospitals and 4,300 for the ambulance service. Of the 360 mobile decontamination units procured, 200 have gone to hospitals and 160 to the ambulance service. These units offer shelter, power and water management systems to NHS personnel who are decontaminating patients. In addition, a central stockpile of protective suits has been established and agreement reached with the Fire Service for support in the event of a need for mass decontamination.

  Since late 2002, senior ambulance staff have been participating in Joint Emergency Service CBRN Incident Commander Courses. All ambulance services in the UK will have received this training by April 2004. A cadre of instructors has also been trained to enable the local training of decontamination teams. Courses are being held regionally and about 180 trainers have successfully completed it to date. By early summer this figure will have increased to around 300.

  Considerable investment has been made across Government in providing equipment for the emergency services and will continue to be made in areas such as developing the urban search and rescue capability within the Fire Service, and improving first responders' ability to detect and monitor CBRN substances. The Office of Government Commerce now has a dedicated CBRN procurement team in place to ensure economies of scale, assist with equipment interoperability issues, and streamline procedures for our partners and contractors.

  Strengthening Regional Resilience:

  One of the capabilities added to the programme since last March focuses on developing new regional resilience arrangements to co-ordinate both planning for and responding to disruptive events. Since April 2003, Regional Resilience Teams have been operational in each of the Government Offices in the nine English regions. These teams have taken the lead in managing key relationships with local responders, communications between regional partners, and between the regions and government. Regional Resilience Forums. comprising representatives from key partners and agencies, now meet regularly in all the English regions.

  Health:

  The Department of Health, together with the NHS and other key stakeholders, has developed a national strategy for major incident planning at an operational level, with a supporting framework for the NHS. The document "Handling Major Incidents—An Operational Doctrine" was published on 7 January 2004 and builds on current guidance by setting out general principles to help the NHS develop its existing emergency plans to respond to new potential threats. Revised smallpox guidelines were published in December 03 and can be found on the Department of Health website:http://www.doh.gsi.gov.uk/smallpox/ keydocs.htm

  Civil Contingencies Legislation:

  In January this year we introduced the Civil Contingencies Bill into Parliament. The Bill, and the accompanying non-legislative measures, will deliver a single framework for civil protection in the UK to meet the disruptive challenges of the 21st century. The Bill is
  44WS
  separated into two substantive parts: local arrangements for civil protection (Part 1) and emergency powers (Part 2). Both parts of the Bill replace existing outdated legislation, notably the Emergency Powers Act 1920 and the Civil Defence Act 1948. The Bill has now completed its report stage.

  Key stakeholders have been involved in the policy development process including the Local Government Association, the Emergency Planning Society, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association and the Ambulance Service Association, They have played an important role in helping to shape the legislative proposals.

  A major public consultation of the Bill's proposals was carried out last summer. Around one half of local authorities and emergency services responded. The consultation exercise was supported by events held in each of the English regions and the Devolved Administrations, attended by over 1,000 civil protection practitioners. This was supplemented by attendance at national conferences and local events. The Government continue to consult widely as the Bill passes through Parliament. Regular bulletins on progress are sent to all civil protection professionals and a programme of outreach visits is eliciting views directly from individual local areas. The feedback has been very positive.

  Civil Contingencies Reaction Forces:

  Civil Contingency Reaction Forces (CCRFs) achieved full operating capability on target by 31 December. Fourteen CCRFs are now available to support the civil authorities as required providing both general and specialist support. Possible ways in which CCRFs might be used include assistance with evacuation, providing temporary accommodation and feeding facilities, and general logistical support. A programme of exercises between local CCRFs and the emergency services began in 2003 to test working together in an emergency.

  Co-ordinated Exercise Programme:

  Central to our work to develop resilience capabilities is a coordinated approach to exercises designed to test our responses to a range of major incidents including natural disasters and accidents. Over the last year we have brought together Government Departments, regional and local authorities, the Devolved Administrations, and agencies, to create a focused cross-government exercise programme. This exercise programme tests the emerging capabilities and highlights areas for further development. Training exercises are also an important part of counter—terrorism, as they ensure we are prepared to respond to any kind of terrorist attack. Three large-scale live counter-terrorist exercises are held each year, involving participants from central Government, police, agencies and the military. In addition, twelve table-top or workshop exercises arc held annually, carried out across the UK and involving the police, lead Government Departments, and emergency recovery agencies. The live exercise held at Bank Tube station in September last year was a good example of a multi-agency exercise designed to ensure that plans and procedures we have developed will be effective on the day. UK also took part in an international table-top exercise called Global

  45WS
  Mercury last autumn to test international communications between health agencies in the event of a smallpox outbreak.

  The current exercise programme includes the joint UK/US exercise in the Metropolitan Police Service area, mentioned to the House on 3 July. We will continue to carry out a range of exercises throughout the country, in particular, to validate emerging regional plans, and ensure civil emergency and counter-terrorist exercises are utilised to test our capability both to respond to and manage the consequences of a CBRN incident.

  Exercise Counter Balance:

  Under the CBRN Resilience Programme, the Home Office, in conjunction with the Emergency Planning Society, Regional Resilience Teams and Devolved Administrations has continued Exercise Counter Balance, a programme of CBRN training seminars originally run in 2002. The seminars continue to be delivered throughout the UK at local level and feature a combination of presentations, discussion groups and table-top exercises based around the response to a range of CBRN scenarios. The seminars provide the opportunity for local authorities. In particular, to give feedback on the revised CBRN guidance to local authorities published in August 2003. Eight of the twelve planned seminars have been delivered to date with the remainder due by May 2004. Participants have included representatives from Fire and Rescue Services, Government Agencies, Health Services, Local Authorities, the Armed Forces, Police Services, the utilities and the voluntary sector.

  Communications:

  Communication is a vital element in ensuring that we have the ability to respond to a crisis effectively and rapidly. Over the last year we have made considerable efforts to engage with those upon whom we will rely in the event of an incident. This has enabled us to make the best use of expertise not only from within central government but also from other organisations and sectors such as the business community and the voluntary sector. Examples of communication include working with the emergency services to develop the first responder role; engaging with health workers so staff are aware of what is required and trained to respond appropriately; and liaising with key contractors to ensure the necessary capacity and flexibility is available to deliver essential services. During a crisis, the media's ability to deliver factual information and advice will be essential. Thus News Co-ordination Centre facilities have been set up and there is close liaison with the media and press officers over emergency media arrangements both nationally and around the country.

  In London, the London Resilience Team hold regular meetings with the business community including senior representatives from umbrella organisations such as the Oxford Street Traders' Association. the British Bankers Association, and London Chamber of Commerce. Last summer, the National Association of Counter Terrorist Security Officers (NACSO), together with London First and the British Continuity Institute, published a booklet and CD-Rom entitled "Expect the Unexpected" providing continuity planning advice for business. This has been distributed to 44, 000 London businesses.
  46WS
  The British public, regrettably, are used to living with the threat of terrorism and have in the past demonstrated commendable resilience and common sense in dealing with it. We are, however, conscious that the new scale of potential attacks on our society pose new challenges. While it is necessary for us to limit the flow of information on our resilience planning for understandable reasons of security, we have made large amounts of information available on our government websites www. uk resilience. info/ and http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism. We plan over the next few months to be issuing further advice and guidance for the public.

HEALTH

  "Securing Good Health for the Whole Population"
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid)
  Derek Wanless has today published his report, "Securing Good Health for the Whole Population", which has been commissioned jointly by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and me. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The report makes recommendations to the Government on implementing cost-effective approaches to improving population health, prevention and reducing health inequalities, and advises on whether current action is consistent with the fully engaged scenario which was outlined in the first Wanless Report, "Securing Our Future Health: Taking A Long-Term View" (2002).

  The Government will address the report through the formal consultation on public health which will be launched next week and through the forthcoming White Paper on public health.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  Over the past year, there have been some significant breakthroughs in countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The United Kingdom has worked effectively with the United States in the case of Libya's programmes and in countering AQ Khan's network. We have played a leading role, with France and Germany, on the issue of Iran's nuclear programme. We have enforced UN Security Council Resolutions on Iraq. We have been active on the proliferation security initiative designed to interdict the passage of cargoes intended for use in WMD programmes. We support the six party talks in North Korea. All of this demonstrates effective multilateralism in action.

  I would like to set out for the House other steps we are taking and further proposals we will be discussing with our partners to deter, check and roll back WMD programmes in countries of concern, and to prevent WMD equipment and expertise falling into the hands of terrorists.
  47WS
  Proliferation security initiative

  The proliferation security initiative has developed well since it was launched in May 2003. Some 60 countries have indicated their support for it and their intention to apply its principles. There is more that we can do to extend its possibilities:
  we are working in the International Maritime Organisation to secure amendment to the Suppression of Unlawful Acts at Sea Convention, which will make it an internationally recognised offence to transport WMD, their delivery systems and related materials on commercial vessels. It is already an offence under the Chicago Convention of the International Civil Aviation Organisation to transport WMD on civil aircraft.
  agreements have been concluded in the past providing for the boarding of vessels which may be carrying drugs. We now plan to negotiate similar agreements with the main commercial flag states allowing for the boarding of vessels which may be carrying cargoes which could be used in WMD programmes. Shipping of the 10 largest commercial flag states covers some 70% of maritime trade. So with a relatively small number of such agreements, a large proportion of the world's shipping would be covered. The options available to the proliferator and rogue supplier would be reduced.
  we will consider with our partners whether new penalties should be introduced to deter air or shipping lines from seeking to transport such cargoes. Might the vessels and planes of any companies found to have engaged in such transport be denied landing or port rights around the world? Should we consider an international register of companies and individuals convicted of proliferation offences?
  we support President Bush's call to use Interpol and all other means to help law enforcement agencies work against the traffickers.
  within the EU, we see a case for Customs experts considering how to tighten regulations and practices, and how better to exchange information in order to prevent the trafficking of WMD.
  in the UK, we have begun work on the screening of traffic for the illicit movement of radioactive materials. This will eventually cover all air, sea and Channel Tunnel traffic-passengers, parcels, vehicles, freight and containers.

  Global Partnership

  Eighteen months ago, the Kananaskis G8 Summit established a Global Partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction. Under this initiative G8 leaders decided to support specific cooperation projects, initially in Russia, to assist the destruction of chemical weapons, the dismantlement of decommissioned nuclear submarines, the disposition of fissile materials and the employment of former weapons scientists. The United Kingdom announced that it would make up to $750 million available over 10 years for this work. The first report of work undertaken by the UK was published in December.

  Since Kananaskis, we have had the Iraq conflict and Libya's decision to dismantle its WMD programmes. Work is under way to develop a programme for the employment of former weapons scientists in Iraq. The UK has offered to help with a similar programme in Libya. We would like to see the Global Partnership expanded so that it is fully global in its geographical extent, and for the number of donor states to be expanded so that the target of $20 billion can become a floor rather than a ceiling.
  48WS
  The United Nations and Counter Proliferation

  An anomaly in the field of counter proliferation has been the lack of discussion since 1992 of proliferation in an overall sense by the UN Security Council. Following a proposal by President Bush last September, work is now under way on a resolution which will call on states to adopt tough national legislation to criminalise the possession, manufacture or trafficking of WMD, in particular for terrorist purposes; to develop effective export controls where these do not exist; and to maintain effective physical protection of sensitive materials. I hope the Council will pass this soon.

  We also believe that the Council should also consider establishing an appropriate follow-up mechanism, perhaps a counter proliferation committee, just as the Council's Counter Terrorism Committee was established in 2001.

  The European Union

  The European Security Strategy, adopted by the European Council in December, highlights the importance of work against WMD. The month before its adoption, the EU agreed that agreements with other countries should include a non-proliferation clause. We are working with our EU partners and the Commission to see this introduced a s new agreements arise or existing ones are renewed.

  Non proliferation treaty and International Atomic Energy Agency

  The non proliferation treaty obliges states party to enter into safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify that nuclear activities are and remain legitimate. Article IV of the treaty confirms states' rights to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

  But states which fail to comply with their safeguards obligations inevitably lose the confidence of the international community. The bargain which is at the heart of the treaty then called into question. We should consider whether such states should not forfeit the right to develop the nuclear fuel cycle, particularly the enrichment and reprocessing capabilities which are of such proliferation sensitivity. That does not mean that they would be deprived of the possibility of constructing and running civil nuclear power stations. These could still operate with fuel supplied by countries honouring their safeguards obligations. The fuel would be subject to agency monitoring while in the receiving country, and would be returned to the country of supply when spent. This would prevent a seemingly civil programme masking a weapons programme.

  Experience in recent years has shown the need for more wide-ranging agency inspections of national nuclear industries. The agency's additional protocol provides the basis for carrying out such inspections. It is important that all members of the international community adopt one. Suppliers of nuclear technology should increasingly see this as a key commitment when they judge export licence applications.

  The agency has done well to meet a growing verification workload within the constraints of its budget, but we should not ask it forever to do more

  49WS
  within the same resources. We may need seriously to consider further strengthening of its Safeguards Division.

  Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention

  The Government set out in a Green Paper in April 2002 ideas on how to verify compliance with the Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention. We continue to believe that we need a mechanism, possibly under the authority of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for investigating instances of alleged use and suspect biological weapons facilities. We will be putting forward proposals to follow this up at the next meeting of states party of the Convention in Geneva in July.

  Conclusion

  Countering proliferation remains as important today as it ever was. The part our intelligence services play in it is vital. We and they can be proud of what we have achieved over the past year. But we cannot let up. There is much work still to do. The proposals I have outlined are designed to assist that.

  Spring Supplementary Estimate
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departmental expenditure limit (DEL) will he increased by £60,035,000 from £1,708,768,000 to £1,768,784,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £34,778,000 from £795,600,000 to £830,378,000.

  Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-Voted

  Total

  Resource

  46,596

  1,524,729

  173,527

  1,698,256

  Capital

  13,439

  64,728

  5,800

  70,528

  Depreciation

  -25,000

  -124,194

  -6,800

  -130,994

  Total

  35,035

  1,465,263

  172,263

  1,637,790

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:
  A public expenditure survey (PES) transfer from the Home Office of £2,088,000 for European residence permits.
  A PES transfer from the Ho me Office of £740,000 for biometrics trials in connection with the issue of UK visas.

  An increase of £4,171,000 to fund increased contributions to international organisations subscriptions. A decrease of £2,783,000 in respect of an adjustment for overseas price movements.
  A PES transfer from the Cabinet Office of £500,000 in respect of Coalition Information Centre (CIC) costs.
  A PES transfer to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) of £300,000 in respect of the E-business programme.

  PES transfers from the DTI and Department for Transport totalling £134,000 (£67.000 each) in respect of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
  An increase of £5,725,000 in respect of increases in providing consular and visa services overseas.

  An increase of £27,149,000 in respect of increased Iraq related security costs.

  A PES transfer from HM Customs & Excise (HMC&E) of £806,000 and from the Home Office of £1,000,000 and £2,000,000 in respect of the FCO Afghanistan Drugs Plan
  50WS
  and an additional £122,000 from the Home Office to continue research techniques for identifying and measuring opium cultivation.
  A PES Transfer to the Home Office of £20,000 as a contribution to the Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO).
  A PES transfer from the Department for International Development (DFID) of £10,150,000 in respect of the remainder required to fund planned programme activity to the end of the financial year.
  Take up of end-year flexibility (EYF) of 18,215,000 from a combination of underspends on the 2002–03 conflict prevention departmental unallocated provision (DUP) and DFID and FCO conflict pool (CP) underspends.
  A PES transfer to DFID and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) of £11,000,000 and £2,000.000 respectively for the remainder required to fund planned programme activity to the end of the financial year.
  PES transfers to the Security and Intelligence Agencies (SIA) of £7,016,000 and £85,000 to reflect funding revisions for CP.
  PES transfers to the MoD of £1,800,000 and £1,200,000 to reflect funding revisions for CP.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:
  An increase of £9,000 in respect of an adjustment for overseas price movements.
  An increase of £9,751,000 in respect of increased Iraq related security costs.
  A PES transfer from the Home Office of £1,013,000 in respect of the setting up of a new visa regime in Kingston.
  A PES transfer from the Home Office of £912,000 for European residence permits.
  A PES transfer from the Home Office of £122,000 for biometrics trials in connection with the issue of UK visas.
  A PES transfer from HMC&E of £816,000 in respect of the FCO Afghanistan Drugs plan.
  A PES transfer from the DTI of £816,000 in respect of the E-business programme.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Directors' Remuneration, Contracts, Performance and Severance
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  My Department published a consultation document on 3 June 2003 seeking views on the extent to which further measures might be required to enable shareholders to ensure that any compensation paid reflects performance when directors' contracts are terminated.

  This statement explains how the Government intend to proceed in the light of the responses to the consultation document, including that from the Trade and Industry Committee "Rewards for Failure" HC 914 16 September 2003. I am grateful to the Committee and to all those who commented. A summary of the responses is today being placed on the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/cld/ published.htm and in the Libraries of both Houses. My Department are today also replying to the Trade and Industry Committee Report.

  This consultation generated a large response from a wide range of parties: institutional investors, companies, trades unions, accountants, remuneration advisers and many representative organisations. This demonstrates the high level of interest in this issue and

  51WS
  the concern, which I share, about cases where poor company performance is accompanied by excessive remuneration.

  That is why, before publishing the consultation document, the Government have already taken significant action, through the Directors Remuneration Report Regulations, introduced in 2002, requiring quoted companies to produce a detailed annual directors' remuneration report and to submit it to shareholders for approval at the Annual General Meeting. These Regulations give the UK a corporate governance framework for Directors pay which leads the world in terms of transparency and accountability. They have had an immediate impact in terms of increasing the focus on directors' remuneration by shareholders and promoting constructive dialogue between them and companies about remuneration strategy and practices.

  The full impact of the 2002 Regulations. however, cannot be measured after one year alone. For this reason, my Department will be commissioning a detailed assessment of compliance with the Regulations in the course of this year's AGM season, and an assessment of changes in remuneration practices.

  The challenge for remuneration committees and their advisers is to produce rewards packages, which tie pay and performance targets to the creation of long-term value for shareholders and are transparent to shareholders. All can agree that directors deserve high rewards for good performance but companies need to think creatively about the design of remuneration packages with those objectives in mind. Shareholders must be vigilant to ensure that situations where directors enjoy rich rewards whilst companies perform poorly and shareholders and employees suffer are challenged. The improved design of all aspects of Directors remuneration packages will play an important part in creating an environment where good businesses can prosper: businesses which produce goods and services of high quality; are honest and fair in their dealings with consumers, employees and suppliers and careful with their reputation; and thereby create sustainable long term value for their shareholders.

  Building on the Regulations, the consultation document set out a range of options for tackling the problem of excessive compensation payments made to directors who leave companies, which have performed poorly. The great majority of respondents considered that this was an area where the focus should be on promoting the take up and implementation of best practice. In particular, the responses demonstrated a good deal of support for reducing notice periods and the use of mechanisms such as phased payments and liquidated damages in order to reduce the problem of rewards for failure when contracts are terminated.

  I have therefore been very pleased to see the further development in recent months of guidance on directors' contracts, both by the Association of British Insurers and National Association of Pension Funds, and separately by the Confederation of British Industry. I welcome their contributions and commend them to remuneration committees and their advisers. Shareholders too have an important role to play in
  52WS
  holding boards to account for their policies in line with the code on activism agreed by the Institutional Shareholders' Committee.

  I have considered very carefully the question of whether to introduce farther legislation in this area and have concluded that this is not necessary at this stage. I agree with the conclusions of the Trade and Industry Committee report and the comments of its Chairman that "the recent examples of increased activism by institutional investors, and the promotion of best practice have the potential to remedy the situation. The Government should wait to see the effect of these developments before it considers legislative remedies".

  I have specifically ruled out legislation of the type introduced by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Archie Norman) n his Company Directors Performance and Compensation Bill. The overwhelming view of the respondents to the consultation was that this would be wholly unworkable in practice for a number of reasons: It would interfere with the operation of existing contracts; create a large degree of unnecessary uncertainty and complexity in the negotiation of new contracts; would be incapable of taking account of the wide range of recruitment circumstances; act as a deterrent to the recruitment of good quality directors, and could potentially lead to lengthy litigation which would be costly to shareholders.

  I will be paying close attention to developments over the next 12 months. I am clear that the best way forward is through the application and development of best practice in negotiating contracts, which deal with performance issues effectively. But if the monitoring which I am commissioning demonstrates that further changes to the Companies Act are required, I will not hesitate to take appropriate action in the context of wider company law reform.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Review of the Planning Enforcement System in England
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  I yesterday tabled an amendment to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that is currently being considered by the House of Lords as a result of the "Review of the Planning Enforcement system in England".

  The responses to the review supported our belief that the existing system of planning enforcement is basically sound, and does not need to be re-invented. That is not to say that there is no scope for improvements. We received a wide range of ideas and proposals on how to make planning enforcement more effective and better able to play its part in ensuring that people have confidence in the planning system as a whole. We will be publishing our full conclusion on the review later in the year.

  On particular proposal for new powers in the review generated a large amount of support. This was for a provision that would enable local planning authorities (LPAs) to issue a "temporary stop notice" at the start of unauthorised development, before an enforcement notice is served. Having carefully considered these views and the opportunity presented by this Bill to make such

  53WS
  changes—to give LPAs the opportunity to speed up the process of enforcement--I have decided to introduce an amendment to this effect.

  The amendment is intended to enable local planning authorities to issue a temporary step notice immediately upon the commencement of a breach of planning control. The proposed amendment differs from stop notices currently provided for in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 because it is n pt necessary to serve an enforcement notice at the same time and the proposed temporary stop notice will only have effect for 28 days at most. Local authorities will be able to stop breaches of planning control before the effects too great and will have a period of time to consider whether further enforcement action is appropriate, such as service of an enforcement notice with a related stop notice.

  E-Government
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope)
  The Government announced on 12 February that £220 million of e-Government funding is being allocated to support further local authorities. in England to e-enable 54WS
  their priority services by 2005. An additional £28 million is to be allocated to specific projects focusing on the national roll out of the National Projects and the take-up of e-services.

  This money should assist all local authorities to deliver our shared target of e-enabling all priority services by end of 2005. We are beginning to see the results of the various projects across the country and this funding gives local authorities the support they need to deliver further improved e-services for the people in their area. Local authorities have been developing and improving their services using IT to give their customers the modern services they want and need. This support will help them to continue to improve and increase the use their customers make of them.

  All local authorities will receive £500K over the next two years (£350k in 04/05 and £150k in 05/06 subject to submitting satisfactory Implementing Electronic Government progress reports). In addition to these flat rate payments, there will be extra non-financial help available to councils to help them meet the target.

  Copies of the press notice announcing this funding are available on the Office's website at www.odpm.gov.uk.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking ministerial visits to Paris and Manchester on Monday I March and Tuesday 2 March? I will also be undertaking an overseas engagement on Friday 5 March. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Motoring Offences: Custodial Sentences
2.37 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is the case that there are a greater number of persons held in prison convicted of motoring offences than those convicted of burglary.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, taking the most recent published statistics, on 30 June 2002, the number of offenders in prison sentenced for burglary was 9,152 compared with 343 for causing death by reckless driving and 2,319 for other motoring offences, including carjacking and drink-driving.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, which does not wholly surprise me. However, is he aware that, in 2002, 15,000 drivers and 10,000 burglars were sentenced to prison? In other words, 5,000 more people received custodial sentences for driving offences than for burglary. The number of drivers sent to prison to await trial has increased by more than 400 per cent since 1992. Does the Minister agree that most people are drivers and intend to drive well, and few people are burglars and have no intention of behaving well? Have the Government not got their custodial offences somewhat topsy-turvy?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is an interesting question, because statistics can be variously interpreted. The first thing to remember is that sentencing is a matter for the courts. We would all agree with and accept that. It is worth listing the range of serious offences that fall under the motoring category. They include: causing death by dangerous driving causing death by careless driving, causing death by aggravated vehicle taking, causing bodily harm by furious driving, dangerous driving and driving while disqualified. The largest number of people who suffer—or enjoy, depending on one's interpretation—a prison
226
sentence are those convicted of driving while disqualified, and they would have to have committed several offences before they were disqualified. It is therefore no great surprise that, in 2002, some 13,000 attracted a custodial sentence. A large number of people are going through our courts and are being convicted of very serious motoring offences that are subject to a custodial sentence.
The average custodial sentence for those convicted of a serious motoring offence is, in the end, 4.3 months. Therefore, the period of time that somebody spends in prison as a result of being convicted for a serious motoring offence is rather shorter than the period for which a burglar would be convicted.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the robust nature of his answer will be warmly welcomed by road safety campaigners everywhere who are concerned that the number of people killed on the roads still exceeds 3,500 a year, which is a national scandal? A large number of those people are killed as a result of the wanton action of criminals. If they subsequently go to gaol, then that is what must happen. Does he not agree that the sentences are commensurate with the scale of the offence?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I certainly hope that they are, because that is exactly why the courts are given such discretion. They have the authority to ensure that the appropriate sentence is meted out for the crime before them. When we devil away and look into the detail of the figures, that is the story they tell.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not clear from a Question yesterday that the number of people in prison is far too high, with damaging consequences for regimes and rehabilitation? Will the Government therefore issue guidance to try to minimise the number of remands in custody and maximise the use of non-custodial sentences for non-violent offenders?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government's policy intent is to ensure the independence of the judiciary. That is paramount when it comes to sentencing. It is certainly right that we have the Sentencing Guidelines Council and it is the Home Secretary's intention to ensure that we have a full range of penalties appropriate for the crime. That is exactly what we have provided. Since we came to office in 1997, we have extended the range of community penalties and sentences and improved the quality of supervision. Those things should give reassurance.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, how many road traffic offences carry the possibility of custodial sentences?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, looking at the list in front of me, I believe that there are in the region

227
of 12. I am happy to provide the noble and learned Lord with a fuller and more accurate statistic and I will try to list each category of offence.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, if the custodial options are so short, are they appropriate, save in cases of dangerous driving when death has occurred? Will the Minister not consider non-custodial options? In particular, will he have a word with the Sentencing Guidelines Council to ensure that people are not sent to prison for lesser offences?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, obviously prison is not an option for lesser motoring offences. However, the penalty must fit the crime. That is what we intend and that is the course of action that we have set ourselves by way of policy, which the public generally support.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I declare an interest as a magistrate on the supplementary list. The most common motoring offences leading to custodial sentences are driving without tax and, much more importantly, driving without insurance—driving while uninsured not just once, but repeatedly. In the right circumstances, no one is more in favour of non-custodial sentences than I am, but surely the prime duty of the law is to protect innocent people from death and injury.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Viscount's final point is the most important one. That is why the sentencing approach should ensure that there is certainty and that people in the wider community understand that if they break the law in a very serious way, in a way that endangers public safety, then they can expect to meet the full force of the law.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, would my noble friend advise burglars not to speed away from the scene of their crimes for fear of being caught by speed cameras?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that that makes some sense.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, did the figures that the Minister gave us include remand prisoners? Does he agree that people spend far too much time on remand? What steps are the Government taking to reduce that period of remand?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware that the number of prisoners on remand and held in prison is an issue of concern. The Government's intention is to reduce the period of time that it takes to bring people to court so that they can meet their sentence, as it were. I believe that it is important that we follow that course.

Iraq: Casualties
2.46 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in calculating the number of Iraqi casualties in the Iraq war; and when they expect to present an estimate to Parliament.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, since the start of operations in Iraq, the coalition has made every effort to minimise civilian deaths or injuries. The Government deeply regret any such casualties.
We have no reliable means of ascertaining the numbers of Iraqi civilian, or indeed military, personnel killed during the combat phase. Since the end of major combat operations on 1 May, 27 Iraqis have been killed in security incidents with UK forces, four have tragically died in road traffic accidents involving UK vehicles and six have died while in UK custody.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she agree that independent assessments of the numbers of civilians and Iraqi soldiers killed in the war vary from 15,000 to 50,000? If it is as difficult as the noble Baroness says to compile assessments of the numbers killed, why did the Government in their dossier on WMDs before the war publish an estimate of those killed by Iraq's chemical weapons? Surely if the Government are going to go on telling us that this war was to the advantage of Iraq and the world, the very least they ought to do is to make some calculation of those who are no longer able to express an opinion on that matter.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, on the issue of the difficulty of ascertaining the accuracy of numbers that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has acknowledged in his supplementary question, we know that NGOs have gone to enormous lengths to try to estimate numbers of casualties. Those results vary by over 100 per cent. This shows that it is not possible to say with any degree of accuracy how many civilians have died. For us, the bottom line is that we regret any civilian casualties and go to great lengths to avoid them. To count the number of civilians killed or injured would require us to be on the ground at the place and time. It is clearly impossible to achieve that, not least in respect of those killed during air operations. The accuracy issue will therefore remain a point of contention.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, however difficult it may be to reach a satisfactory and convincing conclusion on numbers, a real effort should be made by this Government and by that of the United States because, however unfair it may be, there is a view abroad that there is a deliberate policy of not

229
revealing the numbers, lest they prove embarrassing? Does my noble friend accept that however many people it was, they were people who were not consulted about the purpose of the war but who gave their lives in the cause that we espoused?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I agree with the last point that my noble friend made, but when it comes to trying to ascertain the number of civilians killed or injured in any operations involving UK forces, we go to great lengths to get some accuracy. However, it is very difficult to achieve that. We record all incidents in which UK forces are involved, but we cannot ascertain the number of fatalities that result. For instance, in some incidents such as ambushes or firefights, Iraqi injured or dead have often been taken away by their own compatriots. Also, when UK forces have been ambushed, they are often forced to withdraw before a count can be made.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I understand that the Minister has given us some figures on what is happening in the British sector. However, as the Coalition Provisional Authority has authority at present over the whole of Iraq and I understand that the British Government have some influence over the Coalition Provisional Authority, is any serious effort being made to maintain figures, or at least to get estimates from now on, about levels of civilian casualties across Iraq as a whole?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we can speak only for our own area of operation. I have given the House the figures involving UK forces, and I have also given it something of the process involved in trying to record as accurately as possible the civilians who have been killed or injured. We are not in a position to comment on fatalities caused by other coalition partners.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give the House the estimate that the Government presumably received on the eve of the coalition's invasion of Iraq of likely casualties on both sides resulting from the presence of weapons of mass destruction available for deployment within 45 minutes?
Baroness Crawley: No, my Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord that figure.
Lord Elton: My Lords—
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords—
Noble Lords: This side!
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I have from time to time raised the whole issue of compensation for Iraqi civilians injured or made victims of the war, and I have been told that there is no legal entitlement. However, if no WMD are discovered—and, indeed, if no WMD existed—does that not undermine the legal
230
justification for the war? Does that not therefore strengthen the case of Iraqi civilians for claims for compensation?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, my noble friend has raised the issue on many occasions and has taken a close interest in it. I cannot give her a positive answer on compensation during the combat phase but, so far as concerns the phase beyond 1 May, claims made by Iraqis for losses that do not arise in connection with combat operations are handled in accordance with the direction of the Coalition Provisional Authority. That provides for such claims to be dealt with by the country whose personnel are alleged to have caused the loss, consistent with that country's national law. Hence our policy is generally to pay compensation in circumstances where the loss would give rise to a legal liability under English law. All cases are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many casualties during and after the war have resulted from the use of cluster bombs?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord that figure. UK forces used only 68 air-delivered cluster bombs; they also used artillery-delivered cluster munitions. However, the sub-munitions dispensed have a secondary time-sensitive self-destruct mechanism to ensure that fewer unexploded sub-munitions are a consequence. The failure rate of those is estimated at around 1 per cent in test conditions.

Transport Developments and Land Values
2.54 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of a report that land values around Jubilee Line stations have increased by £13 billion, an element of such gains should be made available to fund new rail lines.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, at present land value increases are partially captured via measures such as developer contributions and business rates. The Government have no plans to impose new taxes on businesses or households for value uplifts associated with the existing Jubilee Line extension. The Government continue to keep funding options under review and will take account of any recommendations arising from the Barker review of property.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend's reply. Would he not agree that the enhancement of property value could be used to at least part-fund, if not wholly fund, Crossrail? Is it not right that the property industry should contribute something to the common good created by such new lines? Does he agree that it would be a good idea to set

231
up a task force with the Treasury, the ODPM and the Department for Transport to see how that could be delivered and help with the funding of Crossrail?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as my noble friend will know, a decision on Crossrail has not yet been made, but the Government have made it clear that a significant contribution would be expected from businesses that benefited from the development, in addition to any government contribution.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is ironic that, at the moment, many transport infrastructure projects do not go ahead because there is not enough finance publicly available? By using the increases in land values that accrue after a project has been built, transport improvements for the public would be gained at no cost to the taxpayer, and would provide an opportunity for wealth creation on the part of the current landowners.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there is something in what the noble Baroness says, but she will recognise that it is quite difficult to quantify the enhanced value of property from transport developments. We would certainly find that extremely difficult with regard to the original Question on the Jubilee Line extension. She will also know that attempts in the past to tax land enhancement values have proved very difficult.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government have no intention to introduce any stealth tax that might impose on homeowners who happen to live near a Tube station? Can he tell us why the decision on Crossrail has been so delayed, now by over a month?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government have no intention of introducing any stealth tax—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we certainly do not intend to introduce one on those fortunate enough to live close to Tube stations.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, would it not be fair to say that there is as much of a challenge here to financial arrangements in the City of London as there is to the public purse? Capturing the benefit of Crossrail to businesses from east to west through London requires the City of London to come up with imaginative ways to get those businesses to chip in to a big bond issue to help to finance the scheme. Although that is not an issue for the Government directly, it captures the same principle as that enunciated by my noble friend Lord Berkeley.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, constructive minds in the City are looking at the way in which funding could be provided for the development of Crossrail. All Londoners recognise—certainly the City recognises—the benefits that Crossrail would bring. Of course, no immediate proposals are on the table, and the Government are making it clear that until a proposal comes forward that is realistic in terms of the contribution from the City and from business, the question of a government contribution to the scheme remains on hold.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to answer the second supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Astor, which was on why the announcement on Crossrail had been so long delayed?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords. I apologise to the noble Viscount for inadvertently—it was inadvertent—failing to answer his second question. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the chance to do so now. The reason why no decision has been taken with regard to Crossrail is implicit in my answers so far in relation to Crossrail. The Government are saying that the project cannot be fully funded out of taxpayer-government funds. There has to be a realistic proposal of the contribution from the business community. When that emerges, we can make progress on Crossrail, which the whole House will recognise is a desirable development.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the greatest possible threat to Crossrail, a project that will require some public funding in addition to the private funding, would be any change of government that led to the election to office of a party committed to a moratorium on public expenditure?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall shock my noble friend by saying that I agree with him.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the Question, which is about increased land values following particular developments. Is not the answer that the Government ought, as a matter of urgency, to be revisiting the introduction of land value taxation? It is almost 100 years since your Lordships' House had a huge battle over this, and with terrible consequences in many ways. Perhaps I would look forward to such battles again.
Is it not the case that land value taxation would be a much better and fairer way of financing local government than the council tax and it would also, in many ways, allow a reduction in other taxes, such as income tax?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, a review of local taxation is being carried out by my honourable friend Nick Raynsford and his department. The noble Lord will recognise that the phrase used by Lloyd George in

233
1909 about the desirability of taxing the unearned income of land values has proved to be an extremely difficult concept to realise in the succeeding century.

Directors' Remuneration
3.1 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy with regard to excessive executive remuneration packages.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a Written Statement to Parliament about directors' remuneration, performance, contracts and severance earlier today. For the benefit of the House, I heave repeated this and copies have been placed in the Library and in the Printed Paper Office.
My right honourable friend announced that the Department of Trade and Industry will be commissioning an assessment of compliance with the Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations 2002 and changes in remuneration practices during the course of this year's AGM season. If this demonstrates that further changes to the Companies Act are required, the Government will not hesitate to take appropriate action in the context of wider company law reform.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, the Minister is an expert on remuneration, as a former general secretary of the Association of University Teachers, whose members are striking today in protest against the paltry offer made to them.
Does he not realise that the policy of the DTI on fat-cat pay since 1997 has been one of continued procrastination and that the issue remains a burning one? What hope has the Minister that the scrutiny unit that has just been announced will have British boardrooms quaking in their boots?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, it is most enjoyable to cross swords with a vice chancellor once again and I thank the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, for maintaining the traditions of Lord Dormand of Easington.
I do not accept that there have been real delays. First, a major Statement has been made today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State covering directors' remuneration, contracts, performance and severance. While accepting that all these matters are for companies and their shareholders, there is a proper analysis of the impact of the 2002 Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations to be made. It takes more than one year—more than one season—to obtain a proper and serious account of that.
234
Secondly, as they have been in operation for only one year, it was important that the method for assessing whether the second season made the predicted changes was given a fair chance.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that over the years many attempts have been made by both parties centrally to control wage earnings and price movements and that they have all failed? Does he further agree that the people best capable of deciding whether payment is excessive are the shareholders who put their money into the company and the board which is legally liable for the running of the company?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I acknowledge that there have been attempts to control pay and other matters and that in general they have not been successful. As I said in my Answer, this is plainly a matter for companies and their shareholders.
The reason we have regulation, and the reason regulation is so important, is that unquestionably there have been examples where failure has been rewarded disproportionately and success has not always been rewarded as generously. I do not believe that any decent society would tolerate that state of affairs for very long.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, how would the Minister react to a suitable amendment to the Companies Bill, now before this House, whereby all shareholders with a certain minimum holding had a legal responsibility, together with the board, to determine executive remuneration packages so as to ensure a wider responsibility for them?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, unquestionably, there are different arrangements in many companies for dealing with these matters. The regulations are full, initially following the listing principles for listed companies but have been extended in ways which everyone would accept are useful. Those methods and the operations of remuneration committees are now being examined after their first season. As I have suggested, it will be important to see how the second round of AGMs goes.
It is obviously open to any company to make arrangements which would extend consultation. Under the European directive that is likely to be ill force in due course, it may well be that others in companies will be able to express a view.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the fallacy contained in the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh—namely, that market forces create rapidly growing inequality of income—was that these are not market forces but are remuneration committees of joint stock companies which give each other the top percentile of the best performing companies? Trade unions do not do that. Trade unions are now in the market in a way in which companies at the top end are not. That is the matter that needs to be investigated, as was implied in the

235
reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, when this question was last raised by our late lamented friend, Lord Dormand of Easington.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Lea about the distinction between directors' pay and the pay of most employees. However, what goes to the heart of the Question, and the reason it was put in this way by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and others who have taken part, is the fact that everyone wants to see an effective link between performance and pay—an effective link which ensures that poor performance and failure are not rewarded by excessively high pay. I fear that some remuneration committees appear to be guided not so much by the wisdom of Solomon as by the avarice of the Temple money lenders.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, given that the usual answer we receive from the Government Front Bench on this question is that it is for the shareholders of the company to decide, have shareholders been consulted about the new regulations announced today?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I can confirm that there has been widespread consultation. The reports of the consultation are with the reports of the papers lodged this morning. If it is helpful to the noble Baroness, I can, in a way I could not in answer to a Question, give a more detailed breakdown of the nature of the responses and the spread of them, which I believe are most interesting.

War Crimes: Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic
3.9 p.m.
Lord Russell-Johnston Lord Russell-Johnston asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken following the statement by the Chief Prosecutor at the Hague that she has evidence that the indicted war criminals Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic have found sanctuary in Belgrade.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we cannot confirm that Karadzic or Mladic are in Belgrade. We believe it is essential that all countries in the region co-operate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and that Serbia and Montenegro need to do more to bring indictees to justice.
The UK, with the international community, continues to exert pressure on Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia Herzegovina to hand Karadzic and Mladic to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, although I am beginning to
236
think that if Karadzic and Mladic had been bank robbers, they would have been caught years ago. Did the Minister read the article in the International Herald Tribune, in which Misha Glenny, the well known Balkan commentator, alleged that Britain was highly critical in private of the public pursuit of those people by Carla Del Ponte? Will she please tell me that that is not true? Secondly, to make it absolutely clear, will she take the opportunity offered by this Question to pay tribute to the work of that honest and resolute lady?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I say immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, who has taken a great interest in that area of the world, that we are very supportive of the chief prosecutor and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Let that be absolutely clear. We have great commitment to and energy in pursuing the indictees who are still at large. From his interest in the matter, the noble Lord will know that 94 indictees have appeared before the ICTY and that 20 now remain at large. Having myself been in Bosnia during the Bosnian war, I do not need convincing of the importance of apprehending those two people and the other indictees at large. I hope that I can give the noble Lord some reassurance in that SFOR has increased the intensity and frequency of its operations to break Karadzic's network in Bosnia-Herzegovnia.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the chief prosecutor is clearly a resolute lady and her work should be fully supported, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, said. However, might there not be a case for someone passing to her a quiet and respectful hint that it might be wiser first to secure the apprehension and bringing to justice of those unsavoury individuals before making too many statements about their possible whereabouts? That seems unhelpful in tracking them down.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we indeed continue to support all the efforts being made. The result of the energy invested by the chief prosecutor in apprehending those indictees is that, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, SFOR has increased the frequency and intensity of its operations—both the operations that it pursues under intelligence received and its day-to-day operations. We have shown our support for the tribunal by ensuring that the EU-wide visa ban includes nine further individuals this February. All in all, we are working at top whack with our international partners to ensure that those indictees are brought to book.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Baroness find a better, more suitable word to use than "indictee", or is that Civil Service jargon?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, that is legal, as opposed to Civil Service, jargon. We know who we are talking about: those who have been charged with war

237
crimes and, in the cases of the two individuals referred to in the original Question, two men who have both been charged with two counts of genocide.
Lord Richard: My Lords, now that Mr Justice May has had to withdraw from the trial of Mr Milosevic, what is the Government's view about what should happen?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question—sincerely. I am aware from the press statement by the ICTY president that Judge May is to resign on health grounds. That should not unduly disrupt the trial. I use this opportunity to pay tribute to Judge May's outstanding performance, as widely acknowledged by the international judicial community.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Earl Peel set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Vinson to two hours.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Countryside
3.15 p.m.
Earl Peel Earl Peel rose to call attention to the situation in the countryside in the light of the rural White Paper; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as an owner of land in the north of England that is largely subject to tenancy.
The rural White Paper was published in November 2000 by the then mighty Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Since then the former has been reduced to less obese proportions and the latter has disappeared without trace. Subsequently, we witnessed in 2001 the birth of Defra and, as of the other day, a review of the White Paper by the Secretary of State, Mrs Beckett.
However, to further complicate matters, the Government have commissioned a review of rural delivery by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, which can, I believe, only be viewed as an indictment of how ill-thought-through was the planning of the new department. On top of that, we are witnessing a major reform of the common agricultural policy, which is one of the most fundamental changes ever experienced in agriculture. The Secretary of State has just announced how she intends to implement those changes. During that turbulence, agriculture has lurched from crisis to
238
crisis, with plummeting farming incomes, huge job losses and, of course, the crisis of foot and mouth disease, which literally tore the countryside asunder.
I should say from the outset that I, along with most other commentators, wholly welcomed the fusion of MAFF—so totally discredited after the foot and mouth epidemic—with responsibility for the rural environment. They are natural bedfellows and cannot be effectively separated if we are to have a cohesive rural policy.
Another major commitment in the White Paper was CAP reform and the decoupling of support from production. Again, that move had overwhelming support, ensuring that those in the business of food production should gear themselves to the marketplace, thus allowing the continued support from public funds—still very considerable—to be channelled into sound environmental management.
However, delivery of those new policies is complex and I am bound to say that I find it peculiar, to say the least, that England is taking a different route from all other countries in the United Kingdom. Of course, the principle of decoupling is to be welcomed, but the route adopted by the Secretary of State is bound to have a hugely damaging effect on efficient dairy and beef producers. Taking the special disadvantaged area boundary as the dividing line between the two areas could well bring about the demise of English suckler herds within those SDAs.
With those area payments are attached cross-compliance conditions, which will demand certain environmental standards. How those will operate is crucial. The conditions must be clear to farmers, land managers and those whose task it is to conduct the monitoring. Who will have the responsibility is uncertain, but we cannot expect civil servants to be given the power of objective measurement, unless the parameters are clearly defined. It is also important that the conditions imposed on our farmers remain pretty constant with those in other EU countries to ensure that British farmers and growers are not placed at a competitive disadvantage.
Furthermore—and it would be disingenuous of me not to mention Sir Don Curry's considerable input into current rural policy formulation—how will the implementation of the level entry scheme, one of his main recommendations for further environmental enhancement, dovetail with the cross-compliance conditions attached to area payments? Will the two schemes be the responsibility of different agencies? I suggest that the cost and confusion could be considerable if not.
I would like to add something at this stage about the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. I do not propose to dwell on these as they are complex and a subject for a separate debate. But if the Government do accept his basic principles in that the formulation of rural policy and its delivery are to be separated, it strikes me as essential that that part of the Countryside Agency which is responsible for rural proofing be retained in order to act as the overarching link between the two objectives. I

239
entirely agree, however, that there must be a big push to streamline rural delivery, as at the moment it is far too confusing.
The new challenges facing those who make their living from the land, and whose responsibility it is to manage the environment, are demanding to say the least. Any new order creates concern—and the task of government in setting the right framework is equally demanding. But the key to success is, I believe, mutual understanding and trust. Here I feel that the Government have forced rural communities on to the back foot, and they have lost the confidence of so many.
European directives have been gold plated and forced through without proper consideration of their true impacts. There is the constant threat of anti-hunting legislation, which has gone deep into the heart of so many rural communities. There was the ham-fisted and irresponsible way that the Government handled the Animal Health Act after foot and mouth, which with more consideration could have had the support of the farming community. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act, the effects of which are still to be felt, showed a lack of practical common sense and was forced through on the back of political dogma. The draconian powers of compulsory purchase under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill shows a gross insensitivity towards those who own land. The potential effects of regional assemblies, if successful, include virtually disenfranchising those who live and vote in rural areas.
On the first page of the White Paper, Mr Prescott claims that some want to drive a wedge between town and country. Well, he certainly seems to be setting the perfect example.
We all welcome the recognition of the importance of economic vitality in rural areas expressed in the White Paper. I am particularly glad that the Government have accepted the principles of broadband.
Rural Britain is changing and it is changing fast. Agriculture no longer dominates in the way that it did, even though I remain confident that the production of food, and the management of the countryside—so vital for the ever-important tourism business—will remain the bedrock of rural society. But the future must embrace new opportunities and new enterprises, as well as encouraging the old.
The rural White Paper review acknowledges that there have been real difficulties in coming to a workable definition of "sustainable development".
The current planning guidance PPG13 states:
"in rural areas, locate most development … in local service centres, which are designated in the development plan to act as focal points for housing, transport and other services, and encourage better transport provision in the countryside."
That is all very well. But many local planning authorities have interpreted this demand for traffic reduction as a reason for refusing sustainable rural development. There is no way that we can have a thriving rural economy without some measure of traffic generation, particularly when there are no alternative modes of transport.
Furthermore, and in addition to addressing this fundamental issue, I would like to see a whole culture change in the attitude of planners, when they actually begin treating people more like clients, and start serving the community in a more positive and helpful fashion. But, clearly, the first stage is to have a more realistic rural planning guidance that is not moulded around urban conditions.
I have just mentioned housing and, of course, the shortage of affordable accommodation has now become a crisis in many rural areas. Although recognised in the White Paper, since 1997 there has been a steady decline in new affordable accommodation in settlements with fewer than 3,000 inhabitants. Indeed, homelessness in rural areas has soared by 13 per cent since the Government came to power.
There is a real need for new thinking and new initiatives, and I urge the Government to enter into dialogue with organisations such as the CLA—and I declare an interest as a member of that organisation—whose members can help to deliver, and whose recent report on housing and the rural economy details the real impediments to securing a better prospect for rural people.
I turn to the police. Clearly, effective crime prevention is a hallmark of any civilised society. This is important, not simply in terms of protecting those that already live in rural areas, but also in encouraging new businesses and jobs. Reported rural crime has increased by 5 per cent in the past year. According to police authority figures, police numbers and funding have decreased in many rural areas. It is an astonishing fact, but over 50 per cent of rural businesses and 75 per cent of farmers have been victims of crime during the past five years. That is unacceptable. Indeed, to see a policeman on foot in any rural area has become a rarity: you stop, you take note, you look at him. But we must not forget the considerable psychological effect that this has on those who live in isolated areas, or by themselves.
I have no doubt that the most significant reason for this wholly unsatisfactory situation was the removal of the old tied police accommodation, brought about, I fully acknowledge, under a Conservative administration. Perhaps we should seriously consider restoring this system, thus ensuring that the police become, once more, an integral part of the communities that they serve.
Back in 2000, the Government responded to the ever-increasing wails of anguish being uttered by the farming community about the mounting burden of red tape. That is an issue that my noble friend Lord Vinson will be addressing later. As in most cases when the Government are in doubt about something, they turn to the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. He duly produced his report Environmental Regulations and Farmers. The noble Lord came forward with 21 specific recommendations but, to the best of my knowledge, none of these has been implemented by the Government. No doubt the Minister will put me right if I am wrong on this point.
The rural White Paper gives extensive coverage to environmental matters, including biodiversity objectives—and quite rightly so. What is notable,

241
however, is that the whole thrust of the policies revolves around what the Government and their agencies and the large NGOs can do, implying that the private sector plays no part.
In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, there are plenty of examples where the government agencies and the large NGOs have notably failed in their objectives.
For example, there is no mention of the considerable contributions that field sports have made, both in maintaining and enhancing habitats and ensuring the well-being of many species. In the north of England, the areas that have been designated as sites of special scientific interest have largely been on land that has been managed for shooting.
In conclusion, 30 per cent of England's businesses are in rural areas, thus making a hugely important contribution to the GDP. Yet metropolitan areas receive an average of 20 per cent more of standard spending assessment. That speaks for itself.
There are some excellent schemes both in the public and the private sector which have helped to encourage the survival of, or indeed the enhancement of, general rural services. But by and large—and here I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskins—the key to their survival is use, and the key to use is businesses, jobs, and affordable housing.
I have no doubt that those who farm, manage land and run businesses in rural areas will continue to rise to the new challenge ahead. But the Government must start showing a greater appreciation of those who live and work in rural areas, and start governing and legislating accordingly.
I beg to move for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate; I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Peel, on initiating it. We are debating a massive topic today. The noble Earl has mapped out the current situation, particularly regarding the rural White Paper and some of the reforms taking place. I shall try to build on that in relation to specific aspects of rural life, referring in particular to the situation in the farming industry, the rural infrastructure and the threat of bovine TB and its impact on rural communities.
I declare an interest as the former MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, the most rural constituency in England and Wales. At 87 miles long and 45 miles wide, it is a continent rather than a constituency, but I know it well. I am also president of the Brecknock Federation of Young Farmers, which, although not in England, puts the problems of young people living in the countryside very much to the fore. I shall try to approach this debate in the context of England, as I realise that agriculture in Wales is devolved, and rightly so.
I shall look first at the current viability of farming. In macroeconomic terms, farming constitutes only 1 per cent of the UK GDP; but if one considers the value
242
added to the industry by food manufacturing, for example, it constitutes almost 10 per cent of GDP. That tells a story in its own right; the primary producers get only 1 per cent of the GDP and those that add on the value get another eight per cent or so. Six or seven years ago the output of farming was worth about £3 billion; it decreased to around £1.5 billion about three years ago and has now risen to just over £2 billion. During that period margins on farms have been cut to the bone. Taken together with the foot and mouth outbreak, the impact on the welfare of farming families has been very considerable.
Average farm incomes have increased from around £9,000 about two and a half years ago to the present rate of around £16,500. Incomes on many farms had been below the national minimum wage. The situation is better now but incomes are not as good as they were in the late 1990s. The situation is particularly poor in lowland livestock farms and for milk producers. Incomes of milk producers in the past 12 months have increased by only around 1 per cent, which is a reflection of the terrible price of milk; the fact that it has been used often as a loss-leader; and that there is a very poor marketing arrangement for it at present.
The other factor that must be taken into account is that on many farms up to 50 per cent of income now comes from diversification. The increased importance of the tourism industry, in particular, which is now worth many billions of pounds, was shown starkly at the time of the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001, when it was identified as being far more valuable as a source of income then the farming industry itself. That tells a story; the synergy between agriculture and tourism should never be underestimated.
I am particularly concerned about the exit of young people from rural areas. The noble Earl touched on one or two very important aspects, not least housing. I am concerned about the importance of sustaining young people in the countryside and in farming. I make no apology for quoting again that the average age of farmers is around 57 years old. I speak as a former member of staff of the Welsh Agriculture College and as president of a federation of young farmers. The closure of entire agricultural colleges and university departments of agriculture that has occurred during the past 10 years or so reflects a depression in the farming industry. Advisory services should be reinstated with links to university and college agriculture departments, as they were a long time ago and still are in Scotland. There should be a link between advice and education as a lifelong experience. It is a lifelong learning curve that never stops, so such communication must continue.
The common agricultural policy reforms should be broadly welcomed. The decoupling that has taken place between subsidies and production into a single farm payment should be welcomed. The problem is how it should be best administered, which is a problem in its own right. The noble Earl referred to problems in cross-compliance with environmental factors. We now see a diversification of how that will be applied in England—mainly on an area basis, although it is a hybrid scheme—compared to Wales and Scotland,

243
where it operates on a historical basis. I shall not discuss the technicalities, but my party and I are interested in considering how best to support family farms, particularly small ones.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, has outlined the problems in England, which have an impact on family farms, particularly on an area basis. The historical basis actually benefits small family farms. Will the Minister say whether the matter will endure in the long run, or will he be forced to change it in the medium term—by 2008 or so—and will the whole policy have to be applied on an area basis? I have seen that question put in the agricultural press and do not know the accurate answer.
The problem of product prices and the activities of supermarkets needs much investigation. All I will say is that the decision by Stephen Byers, when he was Minister in the other place, on the marketing of milk, particularly milk co-operatives, and the share of the market that they should have was very unsatisfactory and should be revisited. It does not make sense that milk co-operatives in the Netherlands and other countries in the European Union, for example, can operate with 80 per cent of the market share, whereas here it is below 30 per cent. That cannot be right.
The rural infrastructure, to which the noble Earl referred, is very important. Services in rural areas have declined enormously, which has brought genuine hardship for old and young people in particular. I shall not go into much detail, as the issue will be referred to later.
I am particularly concerned about the crisis of bovine tuberculosis in the countryside. I do not know what is behind a Defra leaflet that advised that farmers and farm workers should consult their GPs if they have bovine TB on their farms. That is a very alarming statement. I believe that there is only one answer as far as eradicating TB is concerned. I am talking about eradication—not trying to live with TB, which is unacceptable. Badgers and cows and cattle should be equal. If they have got TB, they should be controlled. That must be our aim.
We need an answer on whether the rural delivery review now supersedes the rural White Paper for England. Some of the Government's proposals are in line with the Curry report. Many years ago, I took a soil sample on Don Curry's farm in Northumberland. You cannot get nearer the grass roots than that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I remind all noble Lords that if everyone speaks for two minutes over their time, the Minister will have four minutes to reply.
3.41 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I join in thanking my noble friend Lord Peel for the way in which he introduced this debate and has given us the opportunity to speak on this subject. I declare an interest as the chairman of the South East Rural Affairs Forum, as well as being a farmer in Hampshire.
244
The review of the rural White Paper reminded us that the White Paper's aspirational view was based around sustainable development, which means a lot of different things to different people. It is important when we are assessing to what extent sustainable development—which everyone welcomes as a concept—has been delivered or is being delivered by successive rural policies, that we test these policies against economic developments, environmental impact, environmental enhancements and social implications. The review does not always help us to tease out these aspects of sustainable development.
For example, in the chapter headed, "A Protected Countryside"—not a good title, I fear; it speaks to me of protection rather than enhancement—the executive summary on restoring and maintaining wildlife diversity and the natural environment refers to just two objectives: the improvement of river quality, with which I have no quarrel, and conversion to organic management.
I have nothing against organic farming. It is clearly important that it be promoted, because there is a market for organic produce, and it should be met. Nevertheless, it is rather hit and miss as a way of maintaining wildlife diversity. Organic farmers on the whole tend to farm rather more benignly than the average farmer, but if we wish to deliver wildlife diversity, we must target that as a precise objective. I doubt if going for something that clearly is far from helpful in terms of social cohesion is necessarily a helpful measure. When we are talking about sustainable development, we should remember that social inclusiveness, landscape, house prices and quality of life in the countryside are all equally important. If anyone has any doubt about whether organic farming automatically delivers the best of natural wildlife benefits, one only has to look at who wins environmental awards such as the Silver Lapwing Award, which is by no means invariably won by organic farmers, and there is no reason why it should be.
Let me move to the social implications of rural policy. The report, particularly the appendices, demonstrates that levels of rural homelessness have increased since 1992. It used to be 11.8 per cent of the national total; in 2000 it was 18.8 per cent of the national total, which is the last figure that I could glean from the tables referred to on page 28. Housing prices in rural areas are up 17.2 per cent in one year, compared to 14.8 per cent in urban areas. In my region of the south-east we have the most acute affordability problems with the ratio of mortgage cost to household income being much higher than in most other regions. The Housing Corporation's rural programme has not delivered the target set out in the rural White Paper of 9,000 affordable homes annually in rural areas. Many would have said that that target was anyway an unambitious one.
It must be accepted by these Benches that the right to buy has played a large part in contributing to the housing problem. There must be stronger limits. There is also clearly a problem in respect of those who wish to conserve landscapes and local opposition at the price of social inclusiveness. Above all, there is the problem, that is true of both urban and rural areas, of high construction costs. It is a remarkable and sad fact

245
that to build in this country, whether in urban or rural areas, costs more than elsewhere. In the countryside, where for perfectly good reasons of landscape, conservation of the environment and the like, all we seem to do is make even affordable houses even more expensive.
For example, in my area of Hampshire, where an enlightened affordable scheme was put in place and the land was free, thanks to planning gain, the local water company took the opportunity to say that since the water supply in the village was inadequate—probably because a lot of people had built Jacuzzis, swimming pools and the like—the cost of providing a better supply to that village would be added to the cost of the affordable housing scheme. The affordable housing scheme was nothing like the cost that it should have been. It certainly compared most unfavourably with housing schemes that could be constructed to high environmental and energy standards, were there to be much more research and development put in at a national level on how we could remove some of these construction costs. It would be of enormous benefit to rural areas and a great benefit to the nation as a whole.
Another example of lack of social cohesiveness and lack of ability to deliver to the minority—although it is a large minority submerged in rural areas, particularly in my area of great affluence in the south-east—is that some 20 per cent who are far from affluent are living at or below poverty levels in great social deprivation. On page 33, paragraph 17, the review refers rather feebly to a pilot scheme to develop post office one-stop-shops for access to a wide range of government information. This was abandoned because it was not thought to be good value for money. We had a look at this on our Rural Affairs Forum in the south-east, and we agreed with the assessment that it was not good value for money in that the amount of information available was limited. It was, however, welcomed by the people who accessed it.
We had a look at an alternative scheme from a not-for-profit organisation, StartHere, which gave a far wider range of services on health information, housing, education and social issues, together with all the information that the Government might wish, and we thought that it was excellent. It needs a champion. It is being championed in some urban areas and in the Scottish Executive, but Defra has not shown much enthusiasm for it. I hope that, if Defra, which is the lead agency in rural areas, is serious about delivering social cohesiveness, it will look at StartHere again, and recognise that what was tried by the Post Office in Loughborough, but dropped because the Post Office did not think that it met its requirements, could provide what people are looking for at a modest cost.
Rural policies must be seen not just to enhance the countryside and protect the values that make the countryside so attractive to those of us lucky enough to live in it, but must recognise the serious social issues that arise from the inability of so many people in the countryside to live alongside an affluent community. I am not sure that the rural White Paper that we are discussing today has yet addressed the serious issue of social divisiveness.
3.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, I, too, want to thank the noble Earl for initiating this debate, and for his comprehensive introduction. The future of the countryside is a matter that affects us all, for wherever we live we are to a greater or lesser extent influenced and shaped by the countryside. My own formation goes back to a childhood in Dorset and a school in Derbyshire that had its own mixed farm, where I learned many skills of animal husbandry, which I confess that my present role does not often allow me to exercise. Like most bishops, I serve a diocese that embraces both urban and rural communities. As often as my duties allow, I have lived in Upper Weardale in County Durham, where we have had a home for 20 years.
As the review of the rural White Paper reminds us, one of the significant principles that the Government sought to implement was,
"a commitment to provide equitable access to public services regardless of where people live".
That is a laudable objective. The review also pointed out that the sister document, the urban White Paper, had a strong emphasis on the Government's regeneration agenda. Therefore, in the review's words, the two papers,
"had different, but complementary perspectives".
That comment prompts me to ask whether the level of delivery and the aims of the Government's rural policy would have been different if there had been an equal emphasis on regeneration in relation to the countryside. That is not just a semantic or theological question. The Rural Evidence Research Centre has emphasised the point that the ward-based indices of multiple deprivation tend to hide the heterogeneous nature of rural areas, where there are pockets of genuine and deep deprivation in more affluent and environmentally attractive contexts.
Birkbeck College's paper also reminds us that, in the remote areas—particularly in the north-east and south-west—there are clear signs of socio-economic disadvantage. It says that such areas are characterised by lower incomes, higher unemployment, relatively disadvantageous industrial structures and a poorer skills base. In addition, they have higher proportions of elderly residents and slightly lower levels of car ownership. The paper concludes that those factors combine to increase the risks of economic and social exclusion, affecting areas that contain more than one in 10 of the national population.
For people in such areas, regeneration is as live an issue as accessibility. A couple of years ago in Upper Weardale, Lafarge closed the Eastgate cement works, a major employer in the dale. The district council produced an imaginative plan for the regeneration of the village and the site. It sought to create a community with a welcome emphasis on energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable development. Regrettably, we have yet to see any tangible results, but I applaud the emphasis on the regeneration of that community. It was threatened with decay because of the closure of the works. That is not the only example in our country.

247
Regeneration in the rural areas must, as others have reminded us, embrace the farming community that, for centuries, has shaped our landscape. The work that the Rural Regeneration Unit has done in Cumbria and other areas has shown the way in providing a means to increase farm gate prices by promoting local produce. As many noble Lords will know, the Rural Regeneration Unit has, since its launch in March 2003, demonstrated its ability to translate public policy into action at the grass roots. It has sought to ensure a sustainable future for rural communities by promoting food co-operation in Cumbria, bringing together farmers and disadvantaged local communities, providing food at prices that benefit both parties by cutting out the distribution chain. There is a similar scheme in Wales, with the commitment of the Welsh Assembly. It has also taken over the British Food Fortnight from the Countryside Alliance. With matched funding from Defra, it has devised the first national marketing and promotional campaign for the game meat industry and so on. Together with the unit's Kids in the Countryside programme, such schemes contribute significantly to rural regeneration.
In July last year, the Bishop of Hereford hosted a seminar on farming and the catering trade. It highlighted the benefits of linking local caterers with local sources of production. The recently published report called for levels of bureaucracy appropriate to the scale of the operation, often a problem for local suppliers and specialist units, including local abattoirs. It also called for government and the public sector to support the local sourcing of food in their catering procurement. My diocese joined its neighbours in East Anglia to promote a seminar on the issues facing the sugar industry, an important contribution to the fenland economy.
Those examples bring me, secondly, to the role of the Churches in the countryside, particularly in the delivery of the aspirations in the rural White Paper. The Church continues to play a vital part in rural community life throughout the country. In a previous debate, I mentioned the work of the Addington Fund during and after the foot and mouth disease crisis, but our contribution is wider than that. The Churches remain the largest voluntary network in the country, but their role is often unrecognised and unquantified. In Defra's work on community capacity building and the voluntary sector, we are scarcely mentioned.
Yet, in spite of the financial and other pressures that are causing a significant change in the pattern of our ordained ministry in rural areas, churches are often the only public building remaining in a village. Their adaptation to provide much-needed meeting space for many community groups is thoroughly to be welcomed and encouraged, and it is happening. In some cases, the Church has also made the valuable contribution to a community of assisting with keeping open a post office. It may be staffed by a non-stipendiary priest or a lay reader, drawing some financial support from the Church community. Furthermore, faith—not only the Christian faith—is a large contributor to the motivation to volunteer. If the Government's desire to see more
248
services delivered by the voluntary sector is to be met, they would be wise not to neglect the Churches' existing networks.
Churches can have a significant impact on economic development—for example, via church tourism. Projects in North Yorkshire, where 250 churches participate, East Anglia and elsewhere are good examples of partnerships involving the Churches that benefit the local economy. Hidden Britain Centres, a sustainable tourism project, encourages churches to take the lead in a community in the sensitive development of tourism. Following the pilot project in Cumbria, six centres are now up and running throughout the country. Ecumenical working among Church and faith leaders has ensured Church representation on local strategic partnerships and regional and national rural affairs fora and other bodies. It has also contributed to the Market Towns initiative and Vital Villages.
Regeneration in our countryside remains a shared aspiration. As the review of the rural White Paper indicates, the Government have achieved several of their targets already. However, if we are to maintain a vital and vibrant countryside, we must address the further issues of genuine deprivation and the need for regenerative policies in the remaining pockets of social and economic exclusion. That requires a sense of partnership between government and our rural and agricultural communities. The Churches are keen to play their part. Although we face our own challenges, we are there, and our established network has much to contribute to the future prosperity of rural communities.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the remarks about regeneration in the countryside that the right reverend Prelate has just made. I hope that he will forgive me if I pursue a different aspect of regeneration. I welcome the opportunity that my noble friend Lord Peel has given us, and I congratulate him on the wide-ranging nature of his speech. I declare an interest as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board.
Looking at the list of Defra Ministers, I was interested to see that, under the Secretary of State, Alun Michael declares himself Minister of State for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality; Elliot Morley is Minister of State for the Environment and Agri-Environment; and Ben Bradshaw is Minister for Nature Conservation and Fisheries. Agri-environment, local environmental quality and nature conservation are the matters on which I shall dwell this afternoon. They are especially important on the South Downs, where I have lived, and in other areas of outstanding natural beauty, such as the Cotswolds and the Chilterns. We have working farms on poor soil. Sheep is the traditional farming product. We have a beautiful countryside. We have 32 million tourist visits a year, over twice the figure in the Lake District, and 2,000 planning applications, many from those wishing to enlarge their stables in order to encourage the keeping of more ponies and horses, or to turn their stables into houses.

249
It would be good if we could see more profitable farming coupled with wider unploughed margins around the fields, with the return to the South Downs of wild flowers and types of orchids which have disappeared. But what do we get from the Government? Over the past six or seven years, we have had an enormous number of speakers stating that they love and understand the countryside. The Curry report was a new look at farming. I agree with much of the Haskins report—it is a great pleasure to see the noble Lord present today. The report pointed out the inadequacies of Defra and suggested major changes in the way grants and subsidies should he delivered to the countryside.
We have had the nonsense of the Hunting Bill. Quite frankly, the Government lost their nerve in the Commons. They went for a total ban on hunting. That, in turn, was totally against the sympathy and traditions of the countryside. At present we see the budgets of Defra and the Countryside Agency being cut severely for the financial year ahead. Above all—my noble friend Lord Peel spoke about this in some wise detail—we have the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy with its intention of moving from mass cross-subsidy under Pillar 1 to agri-environmental schemes improving landscape and the countryside under Pillar 2.
What does decoupling mean to the small or medium-sized farmer who farms 200 to 500 acres? Has he really to change his ways? Does he know whether he will be better or worse off at the end of the day? So where does all the talking over the past few years about agri-environment, and so on, lead to? We have had many speeches, reports and visits from perhaps five NGOs where one was sufficient previously. But there are no clear decisions, action or money. Money is extremely important not only to the South Downs where I live but also to other areas of outstanding natural beauty. It is particularly important to us because, some four years ago, the Government announced at the Labour Party conference in Brighton that we were to be turned into a national park. The idea underlying that was to return the land on the Downs to the people. Great expectations have been aroused inevitably by the prospect which is subject at present to a major planning inquiry. Dreams are being dreamt: the stone curlew will return; the bee orchis will again be seen widely; sheep farming will become profitable; footpaths will be extended. Where is the money to do all that coming from? As chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board which may become an embryo body that will turn into a national park authority, no one has given me a budget or indicated how the national park will find new money to fund all these new, good activities. There is no point in becoming a national park unless more money is available to help working farmers to improve the landscape, widen the bridle paths, create conservation areas where birds, butterflies and rare flowers can flourish and deal with the problem of parking the cars of tourists who visit us.
Agri-environment has become a buzz word—a strapline—but it has to be backed by hard cash and positive schemes which encourage the farmer and the
250
neighbouring community to work for a better environment. As my noble friend Lord Peel said, to put into effect the changes in the common agricultural policy will be a massive challenge. The Secretary of State has published guidelines but, as has been said today, those often raise more questions and problems than they solve.
We have had speeches and sympathy but lack of implementation. We need clear, well financed policies which will improve conservation and the enhancement of our countryside if we are to move forward. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will give us a flavour of what policies the Government have in mind.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I feel privileged to support my noble friend Lord Peel. The situation has been debated many times but never more importantly than at this time.
As has been stated several times, we all recognise that the countryside is a national asset for rural communities and is enjoyed by many visitors. We all have a responsibility for maintaining the quality of the landscape and it is essential that we keep a fair balance between protecting the environment and sensible rural development.
Our major challenge in the 21st century is the effective stewardship of the land. I hope that in his response the Minister can tell us what actions will be taken or what plans Defra has in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Haskins—we are delighted to see him in his place—who stated in his Rural Delivery Review in October 2003:
"My underlying premise is that the existing arrangements for delivering Defra's policies are incapable of coping effectively with the changes that lie ahead whilst delivering value for money for the taxpayer".
He went on to say:
"Too many organisations are involved in rural delivery, resulting in confusion"—
about the role of rural delivery and, above all, those dealing with land managers. He concluded:
"Many of the difficulties are due to long-standing cultural and institutional problems, highlighting the need for greater devolution and the separation of responsibility for policy and delivery as being at the heart of the necessary reforms".
I ask the Minister, therefore, how much of the detailed blueprint will be retained.
I declare an interest. It may be appropriate to follow my noble friend Lord Renton. I declare an interest as president of one of the 41 AONBs in England and Wales. In the Cotswolds, the largest AONB in the country covering an area of 790 square miles, 78 miles from north to south, we represent 34 local, regional and national organisations representing local people, local authorities, tourist bodies and wildlife and heritage groups. About 200 voluntary wardens care for footpaths and other features—not least in assisting the police on rural crime. That is what we call the bottom—up approach, an approach which brings together partners concerned with conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area. Plans are

251
being put forward for a conservation board to pursue two purposes as set out in the CROW Act. This is a good example of sensible and practical devolution. Rural communities have to be local and community-driven within a coherent framework that encourages them to be more self-reliant and removes the stranglehold of red tape and unnecessary controls on rural businesses.
Farming is at the centre of rural areas. Again, I declare an interest as a farmer following generations of farmers, whose motto was and still is,
leave the land in a better shape than you found it".
J F Kennedy said that change is the law of life. On the issue of change, does the Minister agree that 56 per cent of farm businesses have some diversification, that 15 per cent of rural businesses are related to farming, and that 575,000 rural businesses in England are related to agriculture in one form or another? So it is a myth to believe that only 3 per cent of the population in the countryside try to make a living from British agriculture.
Let us recognise that farming is everyone's business. As we decouple payments from production, intervention ceases to be a realistic option and the market place must be at the centre of the decision-making process. Two weeks ago, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, repeated the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State on reform of the CAP and implementation of a single farm payment scheme in England. Following that Statement, farmers and growers have had time to reflect and consider the options for reform and how the radically reformed CAP fits their business. It is essential to keep a fair balance between protecting environment and rural development. This CAP reform fits some businesses better than others.
At the weekend my telephone was red hot with farmers telephoning from all over the country expressing their concern or trying to work out the effect that this is having on their own businesses. Of course, there are serious winners and serious losers. Redistribution will be a feature that will cause massive disruptions of the English livestock farming scene, as recognised by the noble Earl.
The fact that a different system exists in Scotland and Wales will cause tangible disruption to trade. Consequences will be reduced confidence, especially by those younger people wanting to find a foothold, and destabilisation of the critical mass necessary to maintain upstream and downstream businesses. Unless action is taken, the result could be fewer beef animals, less dairying and more sheep, with market forces creating low prices due to the upset of supply and demand expectations.
Many people who farm in disadvantaged areas will lose out. Dairy farmers have been waiting for this reform hoping that it will return some confidence to the dairy sector. But estimates show that phasing out the historic payments and moving to regional payments by 2012 will result in a drop in income of some £14,000 on many of the smaller units. The Milk and Dairy Council estimates that prices could fall by more than 4p a litre as intervention prices are reduced.
252
Therefore, I hope that the Minister can assure us that there can be a revision of milk pricing, recognising that many producers are relinquishing dairying, including my own son, as businesses become so unprofitable. The Secretary of State said in her Statement on package reform that one single payment simplifies the present system of support, which was the intention of Commissioner Franz Fischler, as he stated last week in this country. He accepts that one size cannot fit all but recognises that splitting the country into regions brings with it many complications.
This radical package follows a long period of crisis, which was fully recognised in the Curry Report. Foot and mouth clearly showed that the English countryside is vital for more business than farming. Development in the farming and food industry is lagging behind changes in consumer lifestyles and purchasing habits. Health experts tell us that we are stocking up problems through poor nutrition. European products have been more competitive, thus reducing our own export opportunities.
One of the main reasons is the weakness of the euro and the strength of the pound. Losses in support payments over three years are calculated by the NFU to be more than £1 billion. Farmers would have saved in interest payments a further £600 million if the exchange rate had been on a par with the euro-zone. In 2002, we received £2 billion from the European Community in support payments. Yet, it is paid in euros.
With the loss of this market, pressure from imports from Europe and countries where labour is cheap and where standards of production are lower, we face a reform of the CAP, which is seriously overdue, from a lower base than our main competitors. Farmers and taxpayers should welcome the commitment by government, but it must be fully and fairly fulfilled in practice. Many farmers would agree to move to a removal of government intervention altogether if they had the same system of import controls as New Zealand, Australia and many other countries. That is the issue facing the World Trade Organisation. I hope that the Minister can assure us that some of these issues will be reconsidered in recognition of the inequality of support across the country and a very unlevel playing field.
4.16 p.m
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for his superb and concise introduction to this important subject. I must, as always, declare an interest as someone who tries to farm north of the Border. As such, my farming business is not affected by the rural White Paper that we are debating today.
I have never much liked reports of any kind; that is, I suppose, due to the appalling ones that I used to get at school. Today, I often wonder whether they are worth the paper that they are written on, although I accept that this report has no doubt occupied the minds of a long line of distinguished civil servants. The review of the White Paper, Our countryside: the future,

253
is beautifully presented, easy to read with some lovely rural pictures. But what is it trying to tell us? How much do all these reports cost to produce and, dare I ask, who reads them? Surely, what people want is action and not a constant flow of academic ideas, many of which in the real world are impractical.
Can the Minister indicate precisely what Defra will do with the Haskins report? How does it in reality relate to Defra? Despite Monday's press release, when will we see the appropriate legislation? What relationship will there be between the Haskins report and the "refreshed rural strategy", as announced by Alun Michael? For the sake of the countryside, let us hope that it really is refreshing and not just another attempt to paper over the cracks; for those cracks are very real indeed.
The powerhouse of the countryside has to be a healthy, sustainable and profitable agricultural industry. One must not forget that farmers are a complete hostage to so many factors outside their control. They are out in all weathers, and they cannot farm from nine to five, whether they are arable, livestock or dairy farmers. The right weather at the right time is all-important to yields and, of course, to quality.
It is impossible to prepare accurate budgets for agricultural products without knowing what the costs are to grow, harvest, dry and, more importantly, what, at the end of the day, those crops will be worth. No other business has to operate under such uncertain conditions. It discourages investment, especially bearing in mind the long turn-around period between investment and yield in the farming world. To change or expand an agricultural enterprise takes careful long-term planning. When I used to make biscuits, we could produce a new product and market it within weeks. In farming, new products can take years to introduce.
I would like for a moment to quote some statistics which I hope will emphasise the real plight of the farming community. In 1982 wheat was selling for £114 a tonne; 20 years later the gross figure paid to farmers was £62—a drop of 52 per cent. The farm gate price of malting barley has dropped 38 per cent and yet the price of a nip has gone up by 116 per cent. Wages in the agricultural sector have risen by 179 per cent and yet the number of hours worked has decreased by 3 per cent.
I too am worried about the future, particularly when one recalls a recent frightening headline: "Mass exodus from UK arable". It went on:
"As much as a quarter of the UK arable land could be removed from production as a result of the MTR according to a new study".
That is well over 1 million hectares—1 million. With such an exodus, nobody seems to have thought of the added costs of social security and housing benefit for the thousands who will undoubtedly be made redundant all the way down the agricultural chain. The deficit to our balance of payments is frightening, as undoubtedly we will have to import more of our food, as headlined by this week's Farm Business Magazine.Surely any economist with the minimum amount of intelligence would say that this was utter madness.
254
Red tape is strangling many rural businesses—as the noble Earl mentioned—and legislation for the countryside seems far more stringent than in urban situations. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Vinson. will clarify this point later.
The farming industry does need access to the skills of workers from other parts of Europe, including the 10 accession states. Although I understand why the Government have decided to introduce regulations to limit the availability of benefits to workers who come to the UK seeking work, it must be of concern that there will apparently be an onus on employers to seek to verify that workers have registered. It appears that workers will have to register with the Home Office not only when they have found a job but also each and every time that they move jobs.
Given the short-term seasonal nature of much of the work in the agricultural and horticultural sectors, there is a risk that the new requirements will make it much more difficult for farmers and growers to have access to bona fide skilled workers. Will the Minister give an assurance that the particular requirements of agriculture will be fully taken into account in the drawing up of the new regulations?
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would be surprised if I did not mention biofuels, but today I would like to place on record how pleased the farming industry was with his sympathetic understanding for Amendment No. 113ZB to the Energy Bill, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and introduced so strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in Grand Committee on 12 February. I gently remind the Minister that the Budget is but three weeks away. I too am concerned about the MTR and the different guidelines and rules for the different countries within the United Kingdom, especially as I live so close to the Border and have friends whose farms are in two different counties, let alone two different countries.
My noble friend Lord St John of Bletso recently introduced a debate on Broadband. It was interesting to note that all the speakers prior to the wind-ups were elected Peers, and today 64 per cent of the speakers are elected Peers. Sadly, I am computer illiterate, to my shame, but do not live in the back of beyond; everyone is longing to be able to get Broadband and only this morning I was told it will be a long wait and expensive if and when it comes.
The right honourable lady Mrs Beckett, in her keynote speech on 4 November last year, said:
"Our goal must be to establish sustainable rural communities".
I am sure that we all agree with that, but putting words into practice is far from easy.
Sustainability is a three-legged stool: environmental, social, but most important of the three legs is economic. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and his Defra colleagues, will do all they can to give a major boost to the rural economy. I believe that it is vitally important for those of us involved in the countryside so that we can pass it on with pride for future generations, for the benefit and enjoyment of the nation as a whole.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peel for giving us the opportunity for this debate. My contribution will be limited to asking the Government two specific questions.
The first, on which I received a Written Answer from the Minister, concerns Countryside Stewardship payments. I declare my interests as a farmer and member of one of the Countryside Stewardship Schemes. My Written Question asked when farmers would receive increased Countryside Stewardship payments following the rise in grain prices on the "income foregone basis".
Any of your Lordships who are in a CSS will remember that payments were substantially reduced three years ago to all farmers in CSS who had established grass margins around their arable fields; I guess that is the majority of farmers who are in a CSS. This reduction in payments, we were told, was based on the "income forgone" principle; that is, that notional income from grain sales forgone by putting margins into grass should be repaid. That seems fair; I have no quarrel with that. When grain prices kept falling I understood the logic, even though I was disappointed at getting a smaller cheque than I had looked forward to.
But fairness cuts both ways. Grain prices have now risen and the relevant Countryside Stewardship payments should surely rise with them, hence my Written Question to the Minister. But I was a little disappointed. He said in his reply:
"Payment rates for both countryside stewardship and the proposed higher level environmental stewardship scheme, which will replace it, will be reviewed in the light of the introduction in 2005 of the single farm payment as part of CAP reform".—[Official Report, 29/1/04; col. WA 58.]
I am not sure what that means. I was not asking about future schemes but about the current one, and specifically whether this year's CSS payments will take full account of the rise in grain prices; that is, the payments due in the autumn. If the Minister cannot answer today, perhaps he will write to me and place a copy of his letter in the Library.
My second point also deals with a matter that I have raised previously—small business rates. As noble Lords know—my noble friend Lord Peel and the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, both referred to this matter—many farmers have diversification schemes. I declare my interest as a serial diversifier. Like many farmers, I have converted some of my farm buildings into offices and small workshops. In doing that I believe we are doing what the Government want. We are providing the opportunity for individuals and small businesses to get a start, to establish themselves at a ludicrously low cost.
I have a very mixed bag of enterprises, most of them one-person bands: a clockmaker, an olive oil importer, an upholsterer, a furniture repairer, a brewer and even an arts and crafts person who sells art by the square metre—never mind the quality, buy it by the size and you pay accordingly. They all make a living and some have taken
256
on local people to help them; the most successful, a metal polisher, employs 12 people. But most are sole traders and are financially fragile. They are always on the edge.
We have quarterly meetings, and the first thing they say—after the routine question of whether I will continue grinding the faces of the poor—is, "Can't you do something about the rates? The rates are killing us". I have huge sympathy with that; the rates are virtually equivalent of the rent I charge them, yet they get absolutely nothing for those rates: no rubbish collection; no sewerage; no lighting; no street cleaning; no road repairs; nothing. If there is a theft or burglary, they may be lucky to get a letter from the police asking if they want counselling. That is all. But they are currently charged the full business rate of 43 pence in the pound. That is grossly unfair. These businesses are fragile. Dumping a four-figure bill on them for non-existent services is the last thing they need.
I know that the Government are seized of the issue and have taken steps to improve matters, so I emphasise that I am not attacking the Government here. I come not to bury Caesar, but to praise him. The problem appears to lie in the new jargon word, "delivery". A Green Paper published in 2000 contained proposals for rate relief for small businesses. This was followed in December 2001 by the local government White Paper entitled Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services, which confirmed that the Government intended to introduce a small business rate relief scheme, as was broadly outlined in the paper. Relief of up to 50 per cent was to be allowed for properties up to £3,000 rateable value, declining on a sliding scale of rateable value up to £8,000, at which point there would be no further relief.
I think that the Government got that absolutely right and I congratulate them on what they have done. The measure will be of enormous help to small businesses at a time when they most need it. I also believe it right that this valuable relief was granted to all small businesses, not simply those that are farm-based.
But—and I am afraid that, as was the case on my previous point, there is a "but"—while the Local Government Bill received Royal Assent in September last year, it appears that the part of the Act dealing with rate relief for small businesses—Section 61 in Part 5, to be precise—is not yet in force. It appears that only part of the Act came into force on Royal Assent on 18 September last and that Part 5 still requires a commencement order before it becomes operational.
Can the Minister clarify the position? If Part 5 of that Act is not yet in force, can he tell the House when it will come into force? After all, we are four years on from when the proposal was first floated in the Green Paper. I repeat, the Government deserve praise for putting this provision into the Act because it will make a real difference to small businesses. But how long will they have to wait before the good intentions are translated into effective action?
4.32 p.m
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, as an arable farmer with my pastures rented, my involvement with foot and mouth disease was limited. I watched the

257
proceedings with a critical eye for indications of how the Government would be likely to deal with any future agricultural emergency. The total direct and indirect costs of FM D to the countryside were between £9 billion and £10 billion—for just one livestock disease.
Also during the past four years we have seen swine fever, potato blight and rhizomania on root crops, and blackhead in turkeys. All are highly infectious diseases requiring destruction of the animals infected and cleansing of the fields involved. And that is not to mention the exploding crisis of tuberculosis. It is expected that over 18,000 cattle will be slaughtered this year, marking a 25 per cent increase on last year. The Government expect tuberculosis to cost £2 billion over the next 10 years.
The Government's efforts at controlling major agricultural disease to date have been rather less than reassuring. With other nasty diseases on the horizon, the countryside has every right to be jumpy.
On 25 March 2003 Defra published two documents, the Action Plan and a risk assessment by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. The Action Plan, aimed at tackling illegal meat imports, made various improvements to the rickety old system. However, those who work in this area say that there are still major problems.
At ports of entry, Customs and Excise is responsible for illegal meat, while port health officials deal with legal meat. There is no link between the two. Once in the country, responsibility lies with local environmental health authorities. Environmental health officers have the power of seizure but not of arrest, and the police will not arrest for a food crime. What a pickle. Currently, the Government are wasting money supporting all these agencies without cohesion and communication. Should Customs, the revenue protection and smuggling agency, be responsible for the health of the nation as well? Should there not be one properly funded and dedicated new agency responsible for both port and inland health in food products?
Among other things, the risk assessment undertaken by the VLA estimates that each year, on average, some 7,500 tonnes of illegal meat is brought into the UK. It also estimates that 95 kilograms of such meat is contaminated with the FMD virus. At present, seized meat is destroyed immediately and no testing for disease takes place. Is this wise?
The VLA also estimates that each year, on average, 175 grammes of infected material is digested by susceptible livestock, which has been calculated to cause an outbreak of FMD every 130 years. No testing is needed here because we have already had two outbreaks during the past 50 years.
The assessment suggests that the method of entry is in air passengers' personal baggage. Blood trails in airport terminals provide a good clue. Furthermore, legally imported meat has an even greater chance of infecting livestock. So what is the VLA's estimate of the risk of legally imported meat being infected with FMD?
258
In March 2003, responding to me in a Written Answer, the Minister stated that,
"prosecutions are an important aspect of deterrence which we would like to see used where there is clear evidence of a serious breach in the rules".—[Official Report, 4/3/03; col. WA 106.]
To date, it seems that a suitcase stuffed full of dripping meat being brought into this country is not considered serious. Paul Rainbird, a senior Customs and Excise official, is reported to have commented this month to John Healey, the Minister responsible for Customs, that illegal meat imports can be compared to a UK tourist taking a packet of biscuits on holiday. So that is all right: a suitcase full of illegal meat cannot be serious. Perhaps someone of importance and with common sense could tell Paul Rainbird that biscuits do not carry serious diseases such as Ebola or FMD. Could the Minister say what is "serious"?
Why should people worry about importing illegal meat? No one is being fined or imprisoned and no serious deterrent is being used. At a bushmeat conference held in December last year, African representatives stated that part of the reason for illegal meat imports is due to the smugglers not being frightened of facing a conviction if they are caught in the UK.
But the danger is not solely from unintentional infection. The Veterinary Record for March 2003 contains an editorial on the threat of bioterrorism in the shape of intentional food contamination. How can we find out about and prevent such an incident if our border arrangements are lackadaisical about illegal meat importation, and when illegal meat that is seized is not tested'?
The same editorial refers to the seriousness with which the bioterrorism threat is being treated in the USA. In 2003, the US National Institutes of Health, the leading government agency in biomedical research, was due to receive almost 1.75 billion dollars' worth of the planned investment into countering bioterrorism. The US has taken this issue extremely seriously, apparently unlike the UK.
In a recent response, the Government would say only that they are considering a wide variety of potential scenarios within the risk assessment of terrorist attacks. That is not very reassuring. Should we not follow the lead of the US and take seriously the massive dangers surrounding the importation of illegal meat? I support the actions taken by the US. I do not support the Government's lackadaisical attitude towards our national agricultural security. One cannot blame the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, for referring to Defra as a "dog's dinner of the highest order".
4.39 p.m
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to discuss rural matters and I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Peel, on initiating the debate. The recent publication of the review of the Rural White Paper—Our countryside: the future—and the independent work of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, in reviewing rural delivery, presents us with an opportunity to do three things: to celebrate the success of what is working, to assess the challenges, and to work out how

259
best to move forward. The idea that this Labour Government are not interested in or committed to improving life in rural communities is simply not borne out by the progressive interventions and care that has been taken to make those interventions effective. I believe that it is a shame that the noble Earl returns to that old, so-called urban/rural rivalry and debate. We should have moved on from that by now.
I should like to speak about several parts of the review: access to and the care of the countryside; enterprise in rural communities; and the importance of the sensitivity of rural poverty programmes. Many of us, especially supporters of the Ramblers' Association, wish that the progress to implement the Countryside and Rights of Way Act had been more rapid. However, I accept that it is very important that extended access has to be the result of a sensitive and fair process. I welcome the fact that this programme will be completed by 2005.
This House amended the CROW Bill to include a commitment to the implementation of the biodiversity strategy and the Act strengthened the conservation and management of areas of outstanding natural beauty. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, championed many of those changes and, I am pleased to say, the Government eventually accepted the proposals that she made.
I am particularly interested in the commitment in the review to rigorous evaluation of the new programmes and how they will work. The review sets some rather hard targets for the improvement of SSSIs in England of 100 per cent by 2010. Some years ago, when I served on a European Union sub-committee in your Lordships' House, we explored the issues, partly under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. We looked at the state of SSSIs and expressed our dismay at the dishevelled and sorry state of many of them. I note from the graph in the review document that by March last year all areas had been assessed and that over half had been improved.
I also welcome the fact that the UK is beginning to contribute effectively to the European Union's Natura network through the designation of further sites. SSSIs are affected by a wide range of complex factors. Although it will take time to deliver results, I believe that the review is right to note that greater effort is required, but that much progress has been made.
I turn to the issue of rural enterprise and in particular to the importance of Defra working effectively with regional development agencies, government offices, local government, the Rural Affairs Forum and the voluntary sector to define new mechanisms for delivering services to rural communities and supporting the 30 per cent of businesses in rural areas. I have a particular interest in social enterprises, community enterprises and cooperative enterprises. I declare an interest as the unpaid chair of the Social Enterprise Coalition. That organisation has made the development and growth of rural, social and community enterprises a major priority. By bringing together social and community enterprises across the UK, we hope to challenge some of the lack of coherence among the business support that is available
260
through the Small Business Service, regional development agencies and other mechanisms. Our experiences very much echo the findings of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. I particularly welcome the frank assessment contained in the rural White Paper review document which recognises that there are real challenges in improving support to rural businesses.
There is a requirement to improve the understanding of the needs of rural businesses and how best they can be delivered. When a local social entrepreneur or a group of local people want to establish a community enterprise, a co-operative business or want to buy out the local pub which is being closed down—as happened in Hesketh, where the community now owns the pub and the brewery attached to it, or in Lock Fyne where the community owns Loch Fyne Oysters or a group of which I heard yesterday in Cumbria that wants to run and own its village school) it is important that the new and more coherent ways of delivering support for rural businesses, promised by the review, provides the expertise and training that such enterprises require.
Last September the Social Enterprise Coalition brought together many of those who are supporting social enterprises in the countryside. We estimate that up to 36 per cent of our members trade and operate in rural areas. The pleas that came from them about co-ordination of services, training, management expertise and funding, absolutely echo the findings of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, and the commitments in the review.
I believe that the Government's stated first priority in the review, which is to focus interventions and resources on areas and on people who need them most and to target those resources effectively, is absolutely right. It is clear that to deal with poverty in rural areas—a matter to which the right reverend Prelate alluded—one must deal with poverty in small pockets that are widely spread. That requires programmes that have detailed knowledge and are designed to deliver in an appropriate fashion.
NCH, the children's charity with which I had a close association some years ago, works with the Countryside Agency to try to provide blueprints about how those kinds of programmes may best be delivered. We can see that the enormously successful Sure Start programme, which operates in many urban areas, has been doctored and adapted so that it is available across rural communities.
I close by saying that the commitment made in Chapter 5 of the review—a chapter entitled "A Vibrant Countryside"—speaks of,
"a … countryside which can shape its own future and whose voice is heard by government at all levels".
I say hurrah to that.
4.46 p.m
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Peel for tabling this Motion and for his very thoughtful speech. First, I declare an interest as a landscape contractor, working in the Cotswolds. I am fortunate to live there—an area of outstanding natural

261
beauty, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Plumb. If one is lucky enough to be able to afford to live there, it is a great place to live.
Difficulties arise for those taking the first step on the property ladder. How can a skilled worker earning, say, £8 or £10 an hour afford to get into the market unless he has an enormous deposit to put down on a property? People may say that the Cotswolds is an exceptional area, but every area has its exceptions. A two-bedroom cottage in the Cotswolds, in an outlying village, costs a minimum of £200,000.
As my noble friend Lord Selborne said, housing associations are doing a great job, but they cannot keep up with demand. That lack of supply feeds housing inflation. What else can be done? The Government have the Starter Homes Initiative. They do their bit, but perhaps more discretion should be given to those determining who is a key worker so that the scheme can be widened.
I note that there is to be a reduction in the discount on council tax for those with second homes. I do not believe that that will affect those purchasing properties, but it may raise a few more resources for local authorities. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House how much it is estimated that that will raise.
Education of the rural workforce is another important point. At the moment the rural skills centres, at such places as the Royal Agricultural College and Hartley College, provide a very useful service in providing skills courses, but red tape still manages to get in the way. Would the Minister clarify the position relating to the recognition of the ROLO and Lantra qualifications? Although they are recognised by the Health and Safety Executive, they are not recognised by the main contractors' group through the CITB. That means that workers with ROLO and Lantra qualifications cannot work on sites under the control of the main contractors' group. I realise that the Minister may not be able to answer that question off the top of his head, but perhaps he could write to me.
A more desperate situation is that of school leavers who come into the workforce with few skills. More worrying still is the lack of reading and writing skills in school leavers and among the adult population. That should be made a priority.
Another area of concern is the emphasis on forestry. When I was at college 20 years ago the emphasis was primarily on quality timber, followed by conservation and leisure. That has now been reversed. In the lowland environment a great deal of broadleaf woodland has been planted, but with little softwoods. During the planting season this year the only conifers we have planted are those in landscaping schemes around large country houses, which also happen to be second homes.
According to a recent article in a trade magazine, all that seems to be growing at the moment is rather expensive firewood; we are not looking to growing quality timber, both softwood and hardwood. We are now fourth in the list of importers of round wood behind China, Japan and the USA. I feel that we
262
should promote the planting of more softwoods. I am not talking about the enormous blocks of softwood that received such appalling publicity in the 1970s and 1980s; I am talking about promoting the planting of softwoods in small blocks, whether as nurse crops or to vary the landscape. This will also help conservation.
It has also been established that mixed woodland copes better with global warming. It is able to handle the effects of the extremes of weather; it helps to stabilise ground water; it increases holding capacity and reduces run-off.
Many interesting issues have been raised in the debate. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
4.51 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Peel on introducing this important debate today. He has always been an acknowledged expert on, and a stalwart supporter and defender of, the countryside and those who live and work in it. He deserves our congratulations.
I shall be brief. I should like to demonstrate the economic and environmental contribution that the aggregates industry makes to the countryside and its economy. I declare an interest as the owner of a major limestone quarry situated in the Staffordshire moorlands on the periphery of the Peak District National Park.
Minerals are an important natural resource. The United Kingdom is fortunate that its geology allows us to be largely self-sufficient in our supply of aggregates. There are some 1,300 quarries supplying crushed rock, sand and gravel. Ninety per cent of this material is used for construction purposes, with 10 per cent for a wide range of other uses ranging from glass-making to antacids, from pills to chocolate soft-centres.
The benefits of using these minerals are apparent. They are used whenever we build a patio, repair our roads and railways, build a new school or hospital, or embark on a major national project such as the Channel Tunnel rail link. As well as providing for a national need, these quarries and associated manufacturing plants bring direct benefits to local communities, and because of the very nature of where the vast majority of these quarries are sited, especially to rural communities.
The 1,300 current aggregates quarries, which are mostly located in rural areas, support some 40,000 jobs. These jobs range from the southern part of Cornwall to the far northern tip of Scotland. At a time when traditional sources of employment such as agriculture are declining, these jobs are a most important part of rural life and vital to the rural economy.
But it is also important for local communities that the industry operates as sustainably as possible and that after-care of former quarries is carried out to a high standard, sympathetically and to the benefit of the locality. There exists, of course, a rigorous regulatory system operated through local minerals planning authorities—generally the local councils—and bodies such as the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive.

263
In recent years the operating standards of the industry have continued to improve. In 2002, only two out of 1,468 serious pollution incidents—which equates to 0.13 per cent—affecting air, land and water, recorded by the Environment Agency, were related to aggregate extraction. All reputable operators appreciate the need to work constructively with local communities.
Key sustainability improvements in the industry include the quality of the land restoration carried out. More than 700 sites of special scientific interest have their origins in mineral extraction. There is a high level of recycling. Twenty-four per cent of aggregates supply in Great Britain is from recycled sources, such as construction and demolition waste, ensuring that all aggregates resources are used efficiently. It is estimated that this recycling rate is three times higher than the European average. It is commendable.
In conclusion, it is important for countryside policies to reflect the real need of real communities. Quarrying and associated activities provide wide-ranging employment opportunities in rural areas—often in areas where very few other opportunities exist—and therefore produce income for local people and businesses, as well as supplying products of national and local importance in an increasingly sustainable manner.
I am aware that in the near future Her Majesty's Government will issue a consultation paper reviewing mineral planning policy. I impress on the Minister and his colleagues that this consultation must recognise the economic, social and environmental value of the quarrying industry to rural communities and to the countryside in general.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for introducing the debate today. It is very topical as the agricultural industry digests the ramifications of the Statement of 12 February on the system of single farm payments and before the publication of the refreshed rural strategy during the spring. I declare an interest as a dairy farmer in Cheshire, a director of Dairy Farmers of Britain milk co-operative, a member of the Cheshire Rural Recovery Board, a member of the NFU and chairman of the Cheshire branch of the CLA.
The countryside accounts for 80 per cent of the area of England and Wales, 23 per cent of its population and 30 per cent of its jobs in manufacturing and services. It is the start of the food chain and its prosperity is reflected both upstream to the supply trade and downstream to processing.
The announcement on 12 February takes CAP reform forward. The fundamental decision to decouple subsidy payments from 2005 and to ensure that all land is included to meet sustainable environmental benefits has been welcomed. My noble friend the Minister is to be congratulated on the imaginative dynamic change that will unfold from historical production support to geographical support.
264
Nevertheless, there will be losers and gainers under the redistribution but generally the livestock sector, especially dairy and intensive beef—many of whose farmers will have invested in efficiency measures recently—will lose out. Furthermore, if they are located within the severely disadvantaged areas they will suffer from the reduced level of support. I know that the National Beef Association has examples where predominantly suckled calf breeding farms in the fringes of the SDA line face a 55 to 75 per cent difference between the historical coupled subsidy income and the flat rate SFP received from 2012. Livestock systems will be under severe threat as the SFP is larger than any expected profit.
This is of concern as the western side of England is naturally suited to livestock farming, which has a further reach into the rural economy through feed mills, auction marts and so on. Can my noble friend indicate how far those disadvantaged can be helped? For example, can the SDA line be split between above and below the moorland line? Can my noble friend give any indication when entitlements regarding applications to the natural reserve will he published for those under transition, and whether this will include provision for exceptional hardship?
The debate will naturally develop with the standards of environmental practice required under cross-compliance. Under present stewardship schemes, there is a poor take-up from the livestock sector as most livestock farmers, especially dairymen, judge it as inadequate in terms of reward for quite disruptive procedures, and yet intensive dairying has a huge contribution to make to improving environmental sustainability. In considering good agricultural practice and cross-compliance, can my noble friend indicate that procedures in relation to livestock farms will be reassessed, especially in regard to including more positive encouragement?
There is further concern that differing models will be adopted between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Can my noble friend clarify that there will be a consistent approach both within the UK and between the UK and Europe so that farmers and growers are not placed at a competitive disadvantage?
The changes in support mean that agricultural production must become market focused, not subsidy based. Many operations will be in deficit and unprofitable without support. The implication is that, for British produce to exist in the future, it will have to be paid for. No longer can food markets expect produce to be available at whatever price is offered. The milk co-operative, Dairy Farmers of Britain, responsible for some 20 per cent of England and Wales milk production through its members, has set itself an ambitious strategy to deliver real change in the dairy sector.
The rural economy is characterised by a greater proportion of small and self-employed businesses than in towns and cities. Agriculture is no exception to this and has been taking advantage of rural regeneration schemes. In the north-west, the Northwest Development Agency among others is to be commended for its rural recovery programmes. As part of that, Cheshire has been

265
allocated £11 million to spend between 2002 and 2008. Cheshire has identified key flagship projects to aid regeneration. In partnership with Business Link, it is setting up a rural enterprise gateway, located at Reaseheath College, to help rural businesses assess opportunities, retrain and establish themselves through the planning system into new operations.
Secondly, it is focusing on market towns and villages to recreate them as rural hubs. Thirdly, it has identified key aspects of Cheshire, such as gardens and waterways, and will be helping them to develop as key features in the tourism sector. The interplay between agriculture and tourism was clearly identified during the disastrous foot and mouth outbreak. At a turnover of £16 billion in England and Wales, rural tourism far exceeds agriculture in headline importance.
Rural recovery programmes focus on rural entrepreneurship. The Country Land and Business Association, with Defra funding, has set up a programme of courses entitled Enterprise Works, with a three-year target of 20 new business start-ups. That figure has already been exceeded, with 70 courses already oversubscribed. The countryside is awash with potential entrepreneurs, who must be encouraged as the new heartbeat of the rural economy. Those entrepreneurs need to operate on an equal basis. Rural broadband is a key element in establishing rural areas as competitive locations for business. The Government, along with BT, are to be congratulated on the drive to enable all areas to have access to broadband by 2006.
Finally, new access to the countryside is developing. Mapping under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is progressing to its conclusion. In January this year, my right honourable friend the rural affairs Minister in the other place announced that the new public right of access is to be brought forward and rolled out in stages, region by region. The lower northwest is to be one of the new areas, the first to be available from September 2004. That will prove to be an ambitious target, as a conclusive map for the area covering Lancashire, part of Cumbria, parts of North and West Yorkshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Cheshire as well as parts of Staffordshire and Derbyshire is yet to be published. How will the public know about the areas for access if the Ordnance Survey maps are yet to be finalised? Will my noble friend give an assurance today that enough resources will be made available and everything will be ready on time?
The new Countryside Code has yet to be published. Local authorities are severely underfunded to undertake the additional work that is clearly needed. I must stress to my noble friend that these are pressing matters. The countryside continues to change. Problems have been recognised, much has been done and more is needed. I commend the policies being undertaken.
5.4 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. His last comment was that the countryside is awash with new entrepreneurs. I am not sure that I would go that far, but it is certainly a theme that I wish to address.
266
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peel for introducing this debate, which is on the situation of the countryside in the light of the Rural White Paper. The situation in the countryside will be exactly the same before the White Paper and after it. I am pretty cynical about the ability of the Government. I cannot criticise them for a lack of enterprise, initiative or energy. The time it takes to produce these telephone directories on the subject is indication enough of a measure of industry. However, they bear a startling resemblance to some that I published, with the same pictures of rural post buses, voluntary post offices and the various rural initiatives with which I once sought to arrest the decline in country services and the quality of life in the countryside, to which noble Lords have drawn attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and I were in the House of Commons together. I apologise for not knowing for how many years. I have watched my own largely rural constituency face such challenges over 30 years—the irresistible forces that seemed to be at work. We faced appalling challenges in trying to sustain agriculture as a key engine of employment and economic survival in the countryside. The continuing decline in employment was progressive over those years. It was partly because of productivity, but partly because of the declining state of agriculture.
There has been enormous pressure on the family farm. We would all love to see the romantic concept of the family farm, which continues generation after generation. I remember two years ago standing in Nether Stowey in Somerset—which the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, will know well. A very experienced farmer pointed towards the Quantocks hillside, at farms of 200 or 300 acres. He said, "In 10 years' time, there will not be a single farm of less than 1,000 acres". Three years later he revised that forecast to closer to 2,000 acres, if those farms are to be viable, agricultural units.
Just down the road is what used to be an agricultural college. It now has hardly any agricultural courses. Now it has courses about municipal parks and a course on green-keeping for golf courses. Those are enterprising initiatives to find alternative activities because, sadly, of the tremendous decline in demand for agricultural courses. We all know the sad statistic of the average age of farmers in this country and the percentage of farmers who have no successors for the active, energetic, hard-working and, at times, arduous work that farmers have to undertake.
As we increasingly look at what can be seen as palliatives—environmental support and turning the countryside into our nation's parkland—we cannot avoid the conclusion that, unless we can re-establish that engine of economic justification, the future for the countryside will be challenging indeed. Nothing is free of that. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, mentioned forestry, which was not mentioned by other noble Lords. I read the recent Forestry Commission report, published under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere—a colleague in this House. I read all the various pages about access,

267
biodiversity and environmental sustainability. Until I got to the end I hardly found anything about timber production.
We face further pressures, which grew throughout the time that I mentioned, but are now accelerating. I must tell the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, something about globalisation and the globalisation of imports. We know about agricultural produce. One can walk into any supermarket and, regardless of the season, products are available—anything one could want—which come from some quarter of the world in which it happens to be in season. Such are the challenges that we face. I should warn him that I went to a recent exhibition about stone. I found that, if one wished to surface a patio, one could now get a competitive supply not only form India, but from Afghanistan. Even something as bulky and unsuitable for long-distance transport as stone threatens our own domestic industry.
At the moment, the purchasing power of the supermarkets is a challenge continually faced by home agriculture. Very shortly, we shall face the expansion of the European Union and the greater challenges that that will pose. We know that farming is like a manufacturing industry. Parts of it are labour-intensive and those areas will face enormous pressures from imports from eastern Europe and the rest of the world. That will not happen immediately, and there will be certain transitional arrangements, but it is a great challenge.
In that situation, I shall add to the depressing list. Other noble Lords have referred to housing. The housing situation is becoming much worse. It is the background to the huge rise in house prices. By its nature, housing in the countryside, in rural areas, is very much in demand. The Cotswolds have been referred to. I know them well and live in the Cotswold AONB. It now seems to be a given that a house bought at a price at which some local person might have competed for it is immediately doubled in size by some massive extension which puts it completely outside the reach of a local person next time round.
As a former chairman of the English Rural Housing Association, I noticed that there was a brief from the CLA which referred to the opportunity for using exception sites, which the English Rural Housing Association strongly supported. Moira Constable, who some noble Lords may know, has been very active in this field. The opportunity is taken to build small numbers of houses on those sites, which can be restricted to local people, perhaps being available under shared ownership schemes, to give them some chance of continuing to live in the countryside. We knew the challenge of second homes, but if other homes are now extended beyond people's reach, it is a very serious challenge indeed.
So, in this situation, am I totally pessimistic? Do I see nothing but an inevitable, irresistible drive towards the decline of the countryside? I do not. My hope is based on the initiative, the entrepreneurial capabilities, of people if they have the chance, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. But their voices must be heard. I had
268
not thought about the introduction of RDAs to the same extent as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, who said that it is virtually the disenfranchisement of local people. I noticed that the voices of local people and rural communities were always liveliest in district councils, became slightly more attenuated in county councils, and in RDAs, with the major conurbations being contained within them, it will be very hard indeed for their voices to be heard.
If people have to find their own solutions, there are initiatives, there are opportunities and it is up to them. Thirty years ago, I was asked to chair a conference of the Rural District Councils Association about transport in rural areas. That led to initiatives such as the post buses. I said—and I do not often remember what I said 30 years ago—that, at a time when there was the least public transport in villages, there was more transport in villages than there had ever been. That is an illustration in relation to transport of the way in which co-operation and constructive effort by local people can help them to meet their own opportunities. In my own constituency we had volunteer post offices, we had a butcher's shop that was a butcher's shop and a post office, we had opportunities and the ideas of local people.
The rule for government—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins—is to listen to local people, to give them opportunity and local delivery. MAFF was and Defra is too centralised. We live in a world of "regulationitis". I call it "health and safety disease". Every regulation has a good point behind it. But the overriding duty of Ministers is to look at the totality, to see what it adds up to and to try to ensure that we produce an environment for people in the countryside. Then the entrepreneurs, whether they are in farming or in other activities, will have a chance to get support to enable them to survive and make a future.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for giving us the opportunity for this debate this afternoon. It has become a debate between those who see the glass as half-empty and those who see the glass as half-full. I feel that the second half of the debate was more in the category of the glass half-full, which has allowed us to end on an optimistic note.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough started the trend by talking of local produce. The theme was taken up by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, who talked about quarrying, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who talked about social enterprise and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, who talked about wood and the shame that there is no domestic production. Like the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, I noticed with dismay that the Forestry Commission's splendid publication did not mention timber production as a useful product.
The theme that has run through the debate this afternoon may give the Government pause for thought. I found their review of the rural White Paper helpful. I noticed that, when it comes to local production—I refer noble Lords particularly to paragraphs 60 and 61—they

269
have concentrated around regional food initiatives, which are about the more extraordinary or special products that are marketed in a particular way, often for export. They have not concentrated enough on ordinary produce and products for ordinary people living locally. I know that the Minister has championed some local procurement efforts and I am surprised that they are not reflected more strongly in the review. This is an area that needs another look from government.
Food from Britain has taken the lead in. for instance, promoting local food but its expertise is in specialist producers. It has a very strong producer interest. For example, in the south-west the rural development agency has given the lead to a private-sector organisation that is entirely producer-run. This means that the interest in developing a market for, for example, health, building on the Government's work with local schools and hospitals and their interest in local food, is missing from the equation at the moment. That area needs substantial further thought.
I especially welcome the emphasis on social enterprise this afternoon. That is where the future of rural areas lies. They have a terrific rural land base, which, at the moment, is in a state of flux. This afternoon, noble Lords have emphasised the difficulties that farmers and growers will face in the reform period of the CAP. Given that, it is particularly important that there is one place where farmers and growers can go for advice on how to deal with the forthcoming changes and how they may best access the markets that, if they are given sufficient advice and help with marketing and training, they will find locally, regionally and nationally. That area of work for the Government needs to be emphasised particularly.
I was also interested in a theme that came through very strongly about the changing framework that rural areas have faced. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, for his 30-year view. I of course have a much shorter view, but it was only in 1999 in this House that we had a debate on the changes that rural areas were about to face with the introduction of rural development agencies, the abolition of the Rural Development Commission, and the setting up of the Countryside Agency. As a House, we expressed a lot of concern that that would mean great change for those in rural areas. We also expressed our hope that it would mean more streamlined delivery and a much simplified regime.
As we know in retrospect, that was not the result of those changes. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, has done us a service in laying out the options for a better way forward. In his report, he talks about the fact that local authorities and partnerships should assume the main responsibility for the delivery of schemes and services to rural communities. I am glad that he said that, but I would go further than him. They should assume the main responsibility as the local elected bodies not only for the delivery of schemes and services, but largely for their design.
That issue has stymied development in rural areas time after time. Successive governments have been very keen to lay down a central pattern for the way in which the services should be delivered, which has been
270
taken on wholesale by rural development agencies. They themselves have very little rural focus. It was very strongly argued in this House that they should have even one board member with special responsibility for rural areas, and they perhaps have one such member. If the Government feel that rural development agencies are the right bodies to design services for their regions, I ask them to think again.
Local government is the right place for the design of those services. I was quite surprised at the strength of the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, on planners. They largely enact the local and national policies laid down by central government or councillors. It is often forgotten that the local planning officers merely enact policies that others have laid down. I am sure that they do not always get things right, but it is more incumbent on those elected to make sure that they lay down the sorts of policies that then become enacted in the right way.
If we are to address any of the issues about which noble Lords have talked so eloquently this afternoon, local entrepreneurs and local people must design services for which they see the need in their region and which can support local businesses and the local environment within a very light-touch regulatory framework. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, described the three-legged stool of sustainability, and I agree with him on that. He suggested that the economic leg should be much longer but, of course, if one leg is much longer than the others, that results in a very unbalanced and tippy stool. We have to make sure that we get all three legs the same length.
Social divisions have become much sharper in the countryside, another fact referred to by noble Lords. There is no quick fix for that. I recognise very much what was referred to on the issue of affordable housing. That was the other theme that ran through the debate, and it is a critical issue. As my noble friend Lord Livsey said, we will not have young people in the countryside unless they can afford the housing. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, that exception sites can prove one way forward. The experience of many homeowners who went into shared ownership schemes in the 1980s and early 1990s was very difficult, so I am not sure that I could recommend that as a way forward. However, I ask the Minister to say what the Government are doing with regard to both exception sites and affordable housing schemes.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I would like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Peel for instigating the debate, which has produced a wide range of issues this afternoon. I also remind the House of our families' farming interests and my interest with several rural groups—the NFU, the CLA, the National Trust and many others.
Last year, we had a debate in June on the state of the countryside instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, the rural delivery review by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, and Defra's autumn performance report on 2003, and now we have the review of the rural White Paper. That is

271
an amazing amount of words, as mentioned by others, and follows an alarming expenditure of time on consultation, discussions, drawing conclusions and committing the whole thing to paper. Yet there is still a palpable feeling in the countryside that little is going right. My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry said that there were no clear decisions, action or money, which is reflected in several areas where I have been lobbied. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked what happens next, a subject to which I shall return.
One tangible effect has been the drain on farmers and farm labourers from the land, and the migration of young people to towns and cities in search of jobs and a place to live that is affordable and does not mean sharing their lives by living with their parents at home. All that has taken its toll on the countryside. In addition, the rise in crime on rural properties and the increasing proportion of road accidents on rural roads is alarming. So too is the increase of litter on our rural roads, the fly-tipping in the lanes, gateways and fields, and the burning of vehicles anywhere that is not easily overlooked. The case of fly-tipping is extremely important, because the Environment Agency said in its recent pamphlet that it rose by 20 per cent in 2003.
The review of the White Paper contains plenty of statistics concerning delivery or the lack of it, against the target set only three years ago. It in some ways excuses Defra's inadequacies. There are no central statistics; there was not, and there still is not, a robust definition of what is rural or urban; and there is no clear understanding of priorities. Only today, I received a written reply from the Minister informing me that he cannot tell me how many consultants and professional advisers are employed by Defra. Yesterday, I was told that the fallen stock scheme is to be postponed until the autumn or even November. As that is caused by the Government's inability to sort out the state aid problems, will the Minister assure the House that the rules governing the disposal of fallen stock will be applied with a light touch, which was originally the suggestion? Will his department issue guidance to local authorities, which actually implement such light touches?
On the question of fallen stock, I would like to refer to the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. Disease control is hugely important, and the lack of it is of worry not only to those who look after livestock, but to those who have no association with livestock. My noble friend suggested that too many departments overlapped and in some cases did not talk to each other at all. I hope that the Minister will explain briefly where the Government intend to go on that.
I turn to crime. Last week, the NFU Mutual, which is the largest insurer of farmers and rural businesses, reported a steep rise in claims of burglary, theft and damage to property. The feeling of violation caused by such acts goes in deep and results in increased expenditure of time and money in trying to protect possessions necessary to carry on rural business.
272
There is real anger that throughout the country the police are being centred in towns. Village police stations have been closed and telephone calls are dealt with miles away. Those in charge insist that the result is more cost-effective and that modern technology removes the need for local knowledge. I must say that that is not shared by those who live in rural communities.
There is also bewilderment and anger at the way in which access to the countryside has been handled. Most people who do not live in rural areas believe that the Prime Minister has given them the right to roam wherever and whenever they please outside towns and cities. They have no concept of crops or, sadly, of livestock. A field of young corn is very different from a type of grass. Very young animals are cute, but there is no understanding of the levels to which their mothers will go to protect them. Sometimes, farmers who try to explain the difference and the dangers are liable to receive some rough language—if not something stronger.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred to greater access. We all welcome greater access, but walkers must have a clear understanding of those who maintain the land. We do not want aggravation. Is the Minister confident that the recent slippage in preparing for open access, particularly in the north-west and the south-east, will be remedied in time, or are the Government considering delaying its implementation? The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, questioned whether money was available and the timing was right.
Last week on the airwaves there was news that contracts would free up GPs from doing night work. Could the Minister explain the replacement service that will be operated in rural areas? Will a GP who is close by provide cover, or will it be provided by a national call centre? We have no idea what will happen and we need to have confidence in the new system. It is one thing being ill in an urban area where other doctors are around, but another in a rural area where there is only one doctor, probably several miles away.
Several noble Lords—my noble friends Lord Selborne, Lord Peel, Lord Courtown and Lord King—highlighted the problem of housing. I, too, want to touch on affordable housing in particular. It is a disgrace that in the so-called "nice" areas of the countryside hidden homelessness has risen from 11.8 per cent to more than 18 per cent. My noble friend Lord King in particular mentioned smaller houses being extended. I am worried about small cottages which house independent families being bought and knocked together to displace two or even three families in order to house only one. That is a tremendous challenge for the future. I agree with my noble friend and others who question whether the RDAs are the way to make a success of any future housing policy.
On planning, the Government must be well aware of the fact that they must give clear guidance to local authorities to define and endorse the wider meaning of "sustainability". If not, we risk misinterpretation and inconsistency in different areas of the country. I have previously given examples of that.

273
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough talked about post office closures and the roles of the churches. I have for some time campaigned on behalf of post offices and of the need for them to be maintained. The Minister may bring me up to date, but I know that they continue to close at an alarming rate.
I cannot leave the debate without finally returning to the CAP review. It is the most important event in agriculture at the moment. The noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Palmer, and my noble friend Lord Peel, spoke about that. My noble friend Lord Plumb questioned whether redistribution and different systems would cause great difficulty between those who farm in England, Wales and Scotland. I support what he said because he was right.
Also in that context, could the Minister say more about yesterday's announcement on the joining together of English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the rural development services? We have heard only the announcement and we have no idea how it will work.
In conclusion, I thank my noble friend for making the debate possible. I am one whose cup is half full. I believe that there are opportunities out there, but the Government have many questions to answer. They need to free up people to get on and make their businesses a success.
5.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whiny): My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for initiating the debate and I thank all noble Lords for their detailed participation. They made a wide range of points, not all of which, I regret to say, I shall be able to answer.
The Government's position has been clear. In the rural White Paper, we gave a commitment and we have reviewed the White Paper. The general direction of policy arising from that review demonstrated a number of significant achievements. There has been a general view that the vision established in the White Paper was accepted by a large swathe of individuals and organisations in rural areas. Good progress has been made on many of those commitments, but many challenges remain. With varying degrees of welcome and grace, today's contributions reflected that.
There is also the question of whether the policies are right. Broadly speaking, the review indicates that they are. Then there is the issue of delivery, which my noble friend Lord Haskins addressed in his usual forthright and trenchant manner which the department has fully taken on board. There is a need to rationalise the means of delivery; to ensure that entrepreneurs and others within rural areas are aware of the structure of the schemes and regulation. It can be greatly confusing, as the report amply indicates. There has also been a move to regionalise and localise some of the deli very and decision-making.
That is a massive task in terms of government machinery, parts of which we have begun and parts of which we announced only yesterday in relation to the integrated agency which will oversee the land
274
management responsibilities, regulations and schemes. It will take in almost the whole of the current work of English Nature; a large part of the work of the Countryside Agency; and the rural development service work in support of agri-environment schemes. Other grant schemes are currently located within the central department.
The Government have therefore embarked on a major step and clearly it will ultimately involve legislation. But already we can rationalise our delivery to a significant degree along the lines the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, recommended to us. We are addressing major delivery issues and we are facing up to many of the major problems within rural areas.
One of the problems of the debates is that there is no clear definition of "rural" as against "urban", as the noble Baroness said. That is of course true, but it is largely because there are huge differential problems in different parts of what we broadly call "rural Britain". Some agriculture remains the dominant factor, or the driver, of economic and social activity. In others, we are talking about a similar pattern of life and employment to those of urban areas. Many people living in those villages and smaller towns work in larger towns or retire from larger towns.
By and large, the range of prosperity in rural Britain is pretty wide. Much of rural Britain is more prosperous than much of urban Britain. There are remoter rural areas, even in England, which have particular problems but, in general, the countryside—rural Britain—is sharing in the general prosperity and, to some extent, is doing rather better than many parts of urban Britain. We must address those different problems. That is one reason why my noble friend Lord Haskins said that we had to localise and bring delivery of schemes, support and policy closer to the people.
Many contributions focused especially on agriculture. We have recently announced our decisions on implementation of the radical change in common agricultural policy. There has been welcome for the principle of the change—in particular, the principle of decoupling. The principle of decoupling will give agriculture here and across Europe a means to get away from dependency on production-related subsidy. That often leads to production that may not strictly be overproduction but produces things that the market does not especially want or for which it is not prepared to pay a sufficient price to maintain what we all want: a profitable agricultural sector.
Now, significant support will remain under the common agricultural policy for people who farm and manage the land, but it will not be linked to what they produce on that land. In other words, farmers will be left to direct their activity—their production and their whole economic enterprise—to what the market really wants. They always claim that they would love to do that. Many of them find difficulty moving from a dependency on subsidy to a dependency on what the market wants, but they are making valiant efforts to make that change and some are clearly well down that road already.

275
They will complain about aspects of the new system and about regulation. As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, mentioned at the beginning of the debate, my noble friend Lord Haskins also addressed that problem and gave 21 recommendations. I can tell the House that 14 of those recommendations are being acted on and Defra is involved in a much wider range of rationalisation of regulations—in environment as well as strictly in agriculture. One of the main recommendations of the Curry commission was that we must approach regulation in a more holistic manner.
As one noble Lord—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord King—said, regulations may be individually justified but, when we consider their totality, they inhibit the proper operation of enterprise and the environmental and safety outcome that we want. By moving to a whole-farm appraisal, whole-farm planning and whole-farm management, we will adopt a much more holistic approach in which regulation is carried out in a more sensible, whole-farm, whole-enterprise manner, rather than farmers in many cases having to deal with 17 different regulators or sets of regulation.
It will take time to move towards that position, but it will be easier to do so when we move to a single farm payment, rather than the whole range of additional regulations—over and above those that may be desirable for environmental, welfare or safety reasons—that are attached to forms of the 21 regimes in the common agricultural policy that we are replacing. The move during the next eight years to a single farm payment based on area rather than production, on not an historic basis but one related to the quality of management of land for agricultural and environmental purposes, will also allow us to move to a better system of regulation.
So there is a lot to be gained here. Various noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Grantchester probably put it the most crudely and straightforwardly—said that there will be huge winners and huge losers. Yes, there will he winners and losers; there would be however we implemented the proposals. But if we had chosen to stick with an historic system, the worst system would be to try to freeze in aspic a method and pattern of farming that related to 2002 and to continue paying support systems on that basis for another 10 years. That is unjustifiable, so we decided to move away from that system—not overnight but over a period of eight years, so that farming can adjust to the new system.
Over those eight years, some forms of farming will benefit more than others compared with the historic system. However, in a sense, that creates something closer to a level playing field, rather than the opposite, as the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, suggested, than has existed in the past. The vast distortion of the 21 regimes differentiated hugely between farmer and farmer.
To have frozen that system in 2002 and continued it until 2012 would have led not only to a distortion based on history, not reality, but to an extremely
276
uneven playing field. We are trying, for the benefit of farmers, the profitability of farming and the environment, to create a level playing field, so that any area in England has roughly the same level of support. There is a differentiation here. We found that if we dealt with the whole of England as a single entity, the winners and losers became greater, as did the shift. That would be hugely disruptive. If the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, had referred to that in that context, I should have accepted it. However, having considered the SDA area, which was already being treated somewhat differently, and removed it from the rest of England, we have a viable system with less distortion and immediate disruption.
Nevertheless, there will be winners and losers. We must consider those sectors that will lose—including, as was mentioned several times, the dairy and beef sectors, especially those on the edge of the SDA area. However, frankly, the main problem of the dairy sector is not the result of the current, not yet completed, agricultural reform nor of the new one that we are imposing on top of it. It is a severe structural problem that needs addressing as a food chain issue. The Government are engaged in that with various elements within the sector—with some difficulty, I must say; but we need structural change in dairy farming.
That creates the possibility of agriculture delivering the environmental public goods, in return for what continues to be by far the biggest subsidy that we give to any industry, while at the same time basing its activities on what the market—not only the national but the international market—really wants. The noble Lord, Lord King, was perhaps a little pessimistic in his early remarks about our ability to compete. If we are involved in the right areas—high-quality, high value-added areas in which we have a natural comparative advantage—English agriculture can be competitive.
That will not involve every area. We need to contribute to the freeing up of world trade in general, in a way that will take time but will not be too disruptive of European agriculture. We cannot go on subsidising, supporting and protecting European agriculture against world trade, but we can provide the basis for our agriculture to be competitive in those fields where it can compete.
If I may, I shall move on from agriculture. Although other questions were raised about it, I shall have to answer them in writing. The totality of the rural community depends for a sustainable social and economic basis on a much wider range of activity than agriculture. Much of it depends on the state of the countryside—much of which is delivered by agriculture—but the tourist industry is now by far the biggest rural industry and depends on the landscape looking good and bringing people in. Much of the quality of life of rural England depends on the landscape, but the economic activity is very different.
We therefore need to encourage firms of all sorts, large and small, to locate their businesses in rural areas. We also need to ensure that those working for those firms can afford to live in those areas. Several

277
noble Lords said—I think that the right reverend Prelate said it first, but so did the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, the noble Lord, Lord King, and many others—that the housing situation in many rural areas is a serious problem.
It is a problem in price and quantity. Some of that is due to movement into rural areas by people who previously made sufficient money outside those areas to move there, which raises the price for locals.
It is also a question of quantity, because there has been insufficient building of affordable housing—or, indeed, any housing—in many rural areas. Some of that is due to planning problems and the constraints that local planning authorities—rather than national planning policy—tend to put on housing developments in rural areas. It is important that rural housing is addressed as one of the key issues for regeneration and prosperity, as it will allow people to live a high-quality life in rural areas. We have almost doubled the funding for affordable housing, increased the housing corporations' rural targets and given greater encouragement to local authorities and housing associations in rural areas. But we recognise that significantly more needs to be done in the areas of housing provision and planning guidance. Local authorities and the housing market have a big role to play here.
Some of the problems go beyond housing. The right reverend Prelate referred to social inclusiveness and the need to recognise that there are serious social problems in a number of rural areas. In many ways, inequality in rural areas is worse than in many urban areas. We need to address those problems through access to services and, in particular, by retaining services in villages. Innovative ways may be used to do that, such as using the post office—which may otherwise be facing closure—the pub, the garage or the village shop to provide the basis for a range of services instead of its original function. A lot of initiatives are dealing with that.
The rate relief that has been provided to small businesses will also help with that. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby be Broke, that the full effect of that rate relief will come in on 1 April 2005. Financial year planning means that that is the earliest we can bring it in on a mandatory basis. That answers his question. It is an important contribution to ensuring that there are motivations for rural businesses to move in—or stay in—areas of rural Britain.
We need to attract not only permanent inhabitants to remain in rural areas, but also temporary visitors such as tourists. In some parts of the House there is a reluctance to recognise that that depends on better access, as my noble friend Lady Thornton emphasised. The CROW Act provides the basis for that. Some of the mapping issues involved have proved complicated, as we envisaged when it was debated in this House, but we are getting on with it.
To answer other questions, we are providing the resources for that to happen. We will not move to the full implementation of access until it is clear that we can do so. We are confident that we can meet the
278
timetables that we have set out. But the full effects of the CROW Act will involve a long period of regional roll out. If access is properly managed and resourced, then we can provide a further contribution to rural revenue, and also a means by which the urban and rural communities can mix more effectively and reduce misperceptions on both sides.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I raised the point that people out there have the expectation that access is now. What are the Government doing to convey the fact that it will be rolled out and that it is not possible over all the country at the moment because it is causing difficulty between landowners and those who want to go walking?
Lord Whitty: Difficulties between landowners and people who want to go walking are not entirely new. I recall that some of the confrontations that were referred to would have occurred without the CROW Act.
Nevertheless, it is important that the information gets down the line and it is part of our engagement with local authorities, national parks and local access fora to ensure that more and better information is made available.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, emphasised the need for retaining skills in rural areas. We have just completed a review of the skills needed in rural areas, and that will be published shortly. He should keep his eye open for that. It is an important dimension of our activities.
I am reaching the end of my time and there are clearly a significant number of questions which have yet to be addressed, many of which I will need to write to noble Lords on. The rural White Paper strategy—and its further refreshment, as we have referred to it—presents a clear way in which the Government will support rural enterprise, address the social, environmental and economic problems of rural areas, and do so in a way that is sensitive to each particular locality, and is not entirely dictated nationally.
There is a slight disconnection between those who say that they welcome the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, in devolving issues, but at the same time argue that there should be no inconsistency. We do not want too much inconsistency, but there are different solutions for different parts of the country, different landscapes, different communities and different patterns of work.
It is important that all aspects of government recognise that, including the planning systems, the RDAs and all the schemes for rural delivery that come under Defra. It is also important—and here I take issue with some noble Lords—that all three pillars of sustainable development are respected. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, graphically demonstrated that she was a milkmaid in her youth. Equal emphasis is needed on all three.
We have a system where we clearly need money and revenue to go into rural areas, but we need the environment to be maintained in order to retain the

279
attractiveness of those areas and the quality of life within them. We also need social cohesion and social inclusiveness, otherwise the economic enterprises will not flourish.
All three elements of sustainable development are there in our policy for rural areas, and the way in which we are trying to deliver them follows through the careful and clear recommendations of my noble friend Lord Haskins. Fuller details of those will be revealed as we go on, but the general direction is clear both from his report and the Government's commitment to the principles set out within it.
My thanks again to the noble Earl and to all who participated in the debate.
5.58 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I thank everyone for taking part in the debate. As is always the case when we discuss these matters in your Lordships' House, there is a wide range of interests and opinions. We have covered as many subjects as I would have expected. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury surprised me by mentioning aggregates, but why not? It is a perfectly legitimate topic, and his points were extremely well made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, accused me of raking through the coals of divisions between rural and urban areas. The issue is not of my making. If I go down to "The Blue Lion", the local pub in East Witton, I find that the issues that I have raised are being talked about every day by country people. They are deeply concerned by some of the legislative procedures that have been introduced by the Government which affect their everyday lives. I am not making it up. The points that I raised were to illustrate that if we are to have a successful union between government and rural people—and that is the way forward—then those who legislate must understand the minds, workings and traditions of those who live and work in the country. That is the point that I was trying to make.
We have discussed a great range of subjects. The one that has blossomed to the fore is housing. Seven or eight noble Lords have mentioned that. I was grateful that the Minister acknowledged this. I think that he said that the Government would look at ways to develop in more imaginative ways. That will be required. It is not just a simple question of finance; we must find new land available for housing, as my noble friend Lord King said. That is perhaps the key.
The other point that evolved from the debate was the question of regional regeneration. Quite a number of noble Lords mentioned specific cases. I have noticed quite often when reading rural documents and listening to debates that many initiatives come forward from both the public and private sectors but the two never seem to get together. We must try to unite those good ideas so that we do not waste time and resources and have a more effective means of developing the notion of regeneration, which is the whole secret of the countryside.
280
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am also grateful to what I may call the Minister of the Back Benches who sat through the entire debate. His role in the rural debate is as important as that of the Minister, from what I can see, so I am extremely grateful to him for listening to our remarks.
The Minister started by talking about significant achievements, but then he stopped, so we did not hear what they were. I shall leave that up to noble Lords' imagination. He at least acknowledged that there were weaknesses, for which I am grateful. On agriculture, he said that there were big winners and big losers. I suggest to the noble Lord that the route that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State has pursued will result in marginal winners but very big losers, particularly in the beef and dairy sectors. It speaks volumes that the Minister's noble friend behind him made the criticisms that he did about the route that the right honourable lady has taken.
I have said enough. I share the optimism of my noble friend Lord King for the future. I believe that the rural community will rise to this tremendous challenge. New businesses will develop, and I firmly believe that farming will remain the bedrock of the rural community. We must make certain that it does, as I could not begin to contemplate the very notion of not having farmers managing the land, bearing out the experience that has come through from generation to generation. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Regulation
6.2 p.m.
Lord Vinson Lord Vinson rose to call attention to the unintended consequences of regulation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, none of us here today is against sensible regulation. The object of this debate is in no way to prevent regulation but to try to make certain that we can create a regulatory framework that is, above all, proportional to the mischief that it attempts to correct, and is applied intelligently and realistically. Should it have consequences that were not intended or anticipated at the time at which the regulation was introduced, at least it is rectifiable so that overall it does as it was intended to do—more good than harm.
In that aim I am sure that we would be supported by those many inspectors and officers whose task it is to interpret and execute often ill-drafted and ill-considered laws that they know in their heart of hearts are inappropriate. They, too, want better regulation.
Throughout this debate I expect that we will hear many horror stories of where regulation appears to have gone wrong and where European Union legislation, in particular, appears to have been gold-plated as it is interpreted into English law.
It is perhaps not widely understood, but the whole basis of continental law is very different from our own. Broadly, under British common law everything is allowed except that which is disallowed. Here the law is enforced mandatorily. Under European law, broadly

281
nothing is allowed except that which is allowed, so in order to make a law workable—because it virtually covers everything—it must be interpreted flexibly. It is often framed in a way that is broadly indicative; so much so that our lawyers find that unsatisfactory and hence tighten the meaning when drafting it into English law. It is thus so much harder for our law enforcers to exercise a sense of proportionality than it is for their continental equivalents.
That point could be met if, when drafting laws, we state that their interpretation should likewise be exercised proportionately and realistically. The problem is that through successive EU treaties, and the associated treaty of human rights, an ever-tightening network of restrictions and regulations has been constructed that inhibits common sense and adds unnecessary costs.
A timely example is the review of the Working Time Directive. I see no clamour from the workforce for more than the existing voluntary arrangements where most people can choose to work what overtime they wish in a free country. The unintended consequences of a mandatory short week would not be to keep people in jobs but rather to deny them. It is essential that we keep the opt-out and do not narrow its definition.
Overtime in all businesses is the essential mechanism that helps to bring supply and demand together. Existing staff can work overtime to meet peaks in demand. If that demand continues then at that point the firm reduces overtime and takes on new staff. Without overtime it loses custom. The unintended consequence of a mandatory shortened week would be a rise in unemployment, particularly in youth unemployment, exactly as has happened in France. Earlier this month the problem was recognised by the Dutch Deputy Prime Minster, who said that Europe's economic growth can be raised only,
"by lining the myriad of [regulatory] barriers",
and
"that the enterprise sector is tied down by red tape".
We are not alone.
It is for that reason that regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) are so vital. However, many of them carry little conviction because the department attempting to carry them out in a hurry turns to the easiest source—very often, the regulatory authority that is to apply them. That is like asking a barber if you need a haircut. If the impact assessments are to fulfil their purpose, time must be taken to consult, in particular, smaller firms and businesses, where the real impact will be felt.
In another place Mr Archie Norman MP is introducing the Regulatory Impact Assessment Audits Bill, the very sensible purpose of which is to try to make certain that RIAs have been correctly done by an impartial body. As often as not, they are regarded as a chore by the department concerned, produced grudgingly and, to quote the Social Market Foundation report,
"crafted with as little information as possible".
282
There is a pressing need for impact assessments to have an ex post proper validation to restore confidence in the process.
In the first place we introduce too many laws. Over the past few years there have been 27,000 items of legislation covering 97,000 pages of instruction. It is never wrong to be reminded that Dean Swift, in his allegory Gulliver's Travels, was attempting to tackle the same problem. He said of Gulliver:
"No one silken thread held him down, but a thousand made him immobile".
We need to start cutting those threads.
The economic cost to this country is enormous. The British Chamber of Commerce has estimated that £20 billion worth of extra regulatory costs were placed on organisations over the past five years. But the problem is not just one of making more appropriate regulation but also of unscrambling existing regulation where it has become inappropriate. In particular, it is difficult to unscramble safety legislation; one can be so easily accused of not caring whether somebody is killed or injured.
In our safety-ridden society we are advised that decisions are best based on the precautionary principle. In effect, that enables any authority to abandon the concept of risk assessment and balanced judgment based on proportionality. Precaution is so much easier to justify than proportion. The avoidance of risk does not have to be justified, because who can be brave enough to challenge publicly the concept of putting safety above all else? Thus the precautionary principle stifles rational scientific debate regarding the nature of risk and is often nothing more than the cloak for intellectual cowardice.
A classic example is aircraft lifebelts. I have checked and found that not once in the past 25 years had lifejackets been fitted prior to an accident on a passenger aircraft. Even if they had been, I doubt whether they would have had much practical good, because a jumbo jet hitting the water at any speed would disintegrate and sink rapidly. There is an inherent risk in aircraft—thank God they have a fantastic safety record. The demonstration fitting of lifejackets does nothing, except perhaps to comfort passengers or to cause them concern. Nobody has yet had the courage to suggest that that useless safety charade should be discontinued.
At the other end of the over-regulatory scale, Sir John Stevens was prosecuted when one of his constables was injured while chasing a criminal across a roof. Our police chief was forced to waste weeks of his time defending a case that the judge subsequently said should never have been brought. The unintended consequence of this action was that the real criminal problems of this country did not get the attention that they deserved. More damagingly, our own Health and Safety Executive was seen to be publicly encouraging the culture of blame. The whole episode was an appalling waste of public money and the then chairman of the Health and Safety Executive should have resigned.
It should be possible to check the excessive zeal and lack of common sense of some of our regulatory authorities. As the Romans used to say, "Who will

283
judge the judges?" Would it be possible to extend the powers and resources given to the Audit Commission so that it had time to audit regulatory effectiveness and to hold such bodies to account?
The Better Regulation Task Force does valiant work, but it is like matching David against Goliath. It certainly needs more clout and a wider remit in all departments, particularly over pre-legislative scrutiny and RIAs. Its power would be substantially reinforced if there was a Standing Committee on deregulation, probably composed of Members of both Houses. I would welcome the Minister's views on this. I am not suggesting that the Government are not conscious of the problem. At least employment regulations are now co-ordinated to appear on two days a year. This should be made to apply everywhere, but more importantly, the Government should attempt to stem the flood of regulation in the first place.
We live in an increasingly safety-conscious age, a litigious age. Sadly, many lawyers who used to run their practices with an ethos of what is good for society—pro bono publico—now do so wholly to exploit the system under the maxim, "Where there's blame, there's a claim". An increasing number of lawyers, like leeches, bleed the rest of us white. I often wonder, too, whether some of our judiciary understand that it is not just an insurance company who pays, but ultimately their fellow citizens. Many people feel that somehow society must reverse this ethos of blame.
The examples of over-regulation, litigation and its consequences are unlimited. We all know how the well intentioned regulation on canoe sporting clubs, as a consequence of the Lyme Regis tragedy, has closed down most of the amateur canoe clubs in this country that gave such wonderful outings and fun to so many school kids. Only this week in my local town the cub scout group is closing. It had been run for 20 years by the most delightful vicar and his wife, who now say that they simply cannot afford the cost of registering with the Criminal Records Bureau and the 21 sessions of retraining to be able to carry on. Sadly, they can find no one else who wishes to take on the responsibility, compliance costs and hassle.
Likewise, only this week the second biggest teaching union, the NASUWT, advised its 200,000 members not to take children on school trips:
"It is highly regrettable NASUWT has been forced to advise members against taking school trips. When something goes wrong, the leader bears legal responsibility—an accident is no longer treated as an accident. It leads to lengthy enquiries by the police, the local education authority and the Health and Safety Executive".
This is a classic case of the unintended and malign consequences of over-regulation.
I shall not attempt to blame obesity solely on safety precautions, but if one makes school playing fields and sports activities subject to too much safety regulation, those who might have been team leaders and instructors and who would have happily given their time free, now walk away from an over-litigious task. Over-regulated sport equals no sport. In an effort to
284
prevent minor tragedies, we undermine major benefits. We must make it perfectly normal for laws to be readjusted in the light of circumstances, or to be abolished where necessary. If we could make the implementation of sunset clauses a wholly natural process, it would begin to chip away at the tide of overdone safety and other regulations that are unnecessarily damaging our society.
However, the problem is wider than that. It is damaging the whole concept of personal self-reliance. If we are encouraged to believe that it is never our fault and always somebody else's, that we are not responsible for our own actions, that it is the fault of the society in which we live and not we ourselves, that it is the seller's fault and not ours, we undermine the whole basis of our historic laws. If we substitute caveat vendor—let the seller beware—for caveat emptor—let the buyer beware—we reverse the whole concept of blame by denying responsibility for our own actions.
If all matters are defined in detail in legislation, people will spend their time and effort working out whether what they are proposing to do falls within, or can be made to fall within, the law. Surely, we want a society where people should be asking themselves whether what they are proposing to do is something which in principle they ought to do or ought not to do. Apart from the economic consequences of excessive regulation, the greatest unintended consequence is that the denial of personal responsibility becomes embedded in our culture. The road to national decline is paved with well intentioned regulations. I hope that this debate will help to reverse that trend. I beg to move for Papers.
6.16 p.m.
Lord MacLaurin of Knebworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Vinson for introducing this debate. I speak as chairman of the Vodafone group. It would be hard to think of a better example of innovation and enterprise in the United Kingdom over the past two decades than the mobile phone industry.
There are now 51.5 million mobile subscribers in the United Kingdom enjoying a wide array of mobile services that nobody could have imagined five years ago—that is 87 per cent of the people in this country. There may not be many Members of your Lordships' House experiencing the joys of customised ring tones, but millions of people do. The industry stands on the verge of another technological revolution as the next generation of services—the third generation—is rolled out.
The UK mobile companies are world leaders in the industry, and most of this was achieved without specific regulation. The Government initially had to award radio spectrum to the operators, but then largely left them to get on with it. They did that most successfully on any measure, from the number of customers to the value created for the British economy. Of course, the market economy must be built on the foundations of a solid legal and regulatory framework. I want to focus on the trend towards

285
regulations that are specific to a particular sector or industry, as opposed to the basic rules governing the function of the economy.
We need to be much clearer about what circumstances justify this kind of specific regulatory intervention and how the impact of those interventions is assessed. We are now seeing more regulatory attention focused on mobiles. Perhaps it is the very success of the mobile industry that has attracted this attention. I will talk about some of our specific experiences and make a few observations arising from them about the real motives for regulation.
The industry faced one of its biggest challenges when the Government decided to auction the last hatch of radio spectrum, which resulted—to the surprise of many, including I suspect the Chancellor himself—in the industry paying over £20 billion to the Exchequer. It is hard to see how this intervention assisted the industry or its customers. It has taken several years to recover from the financial consequences. The Government's stated intention in designing the auction was to ensure that spectrum was allocated more efficiently than in the past, but it is reasonable to ask whether it was not simply a slightly more sophisticated form of windfall tax on past profits.
While people in the industry could be expected to have a better idea than civil servants about how profitable their business would be over the long term, no one could escape the innate uncertainty about a new technology or indeed about the future of the economy. The auction moved all these general risks on to the mobile phone operators.
Additional regulation has often been called for by competitors of the mobile operators rather than by their customers. Although regulators invariably claim to act on behalf of and in the interests of consumers, complaints from customers are often not the driving force. What is more, the immediate effect of additional regulation is often to protect particular competitors in the market. In particular, it favours those who may be better armed with advocates and lobbyists than with commercial acumen. As the Director-General of Fair Trading noted in a recent lecture, a competitive market will often protect consumers more effectively than additional regulation. That is especially true in an industry such as mobile. When the technology and consumer demands shift rapidly, it is all but impossible for regulators to keep up with the pace of change.
Arguments in favour of further regulation typically focus on potential benefits that are short-term and narrowly defined. It might be easier to quantify them in that way, but it leaves out of the reckoning the accumulated long-term costs, perhaps spread widely over all consumers. They will often be large—87 per cent of people in this country are mobile users—but they may be difficult to quantify. Without taking them into account, there cannot be a proper cost-benefit analysis of any regulatory proposal. The need has been recognised recently by the Dutch, Irish, Luxembourg and UK Governments for better impact assessments of regulatory proposals at the European level. We must apply the same lesson at home.
286
If we are not careful, we will eventually drown enterprise and innovation in a sea of piecemeal regulation. We need to continue to work hard to ensure that regulators take the long-term view and take account of the interests of all consumers. From that perspective, detailed intervention in a particular sector will not look like the obvious answer to every problem.
What should regulation accomplish? We should be very clear. It is right to be concerned about fairness and affordability, but such issues are properly addressed by elected representatives, rather than by unelected regulators. Otherwise, there is a real danger that regulators could become unduly politicised. We rightly have a system of transfers and reliefs that are intended to ensure that the most disadvantaged members of our society have access to the basic requirements of participation in a civilised society. For the most part, we do that without a detailed set of regulations for every individual industry. So I hope that Ofcom and the other industry regulators take a more pragmatic approach to regulation.
The test for the specialist regulators should be: "What would he the result, if I were to apply the measures that I am proposing for my narrow area to the rest of the United Kingdom economy?". After all, most parts of the economy do not merit a specialised regulator. Most industries safely fall under the ambit of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission. Regulators who focus on one narrow area need to remember that competition is never perfect in any industry, but that it is often better than the alternative of detailed regulatory scrutiny. Of course, the authorities need to take action against monopolies. Indeed, the UK pioneered incentive regulation of the former state monopolies. The Enterprise Act 2002 has made the competition regime in the United Kingdom one of the most stringent in the world. That will boost enterprise and innovation, but we threaten our economy if we do not check the creep of regulation to markets that are, in fact, formidably successful and competitive.
The growth in regulation has been considerable. The combined operating costs of Ofwat, Ofgem and Oftel were £42.6 million in 1996–97. Those costs were up by a further 65 per cent by 2002–03. We must scrutinise regulatory budgets, but I have some sympathy with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, the chairman of Ofcom, when he says that good regulation does not come cheap. That is an important point: the focus should be on the quality of regulation, not just the cost.
The judiciary should have an increasingly important role to play. For too long in this country, regulators have been subject to review only on procedural aspects of the case under judicial review procedures. The regulators are invariably well advised. The new Communications Act, considered in this House last year, at least introduces appeal rights on the merits and substance of the matter at issue. These will be complex and difficult cases, requiring expertise in finance and economics as well as the law. It is important that the

287
courts or the Competition Commission, as the case may be, engage fully in such matters and are fully aware of the broader consequences.
Some regulation is absolutely essential to a properly functioning market economy, but we must be wary of the assumption that regulators can be relied upon to improve on the market in terms of social and economic outcomes. We need to check the creep of intervention in specific sectors and ensure that the potential costs of regulation are weighed against the benefits. Enterprise has served this country very well. We must continue to provide it with the freedom that will allow it to thrive.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wonder whether I could draw to noble Lords' attention the fact that the timing for this debate is extremely tight. There is absolutely no time to spare for people to speak beyond their time.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, on moving the Motion and thank him for doing so. However, I must say to the noble Lord that the purpose of regulation is not only to achieve a level playing field but to reflect the values and aspirations of our society. I do not agree that regulation overwhelms our society and undermines our economy. If that were true, the least-regulated countries would be the most successful, and people would move to the least-regulated countries, such as Nigeria. The fact is that the G8 economies are the most successful and they are the most highly regulated, but most people want to live in those countries. Perhaps, the first unintended consequence of regulation is that it is good not only for our society and quality of life but for the economy.
I shall give your Lordships an example. A study arising from the European Union's water resources framework directive by the Department of the Environment concluded that the amenity benefits could total £1.9 billion in England and Wales alone from the improved water. In addition, there could be benefits to anglers of £706 million. The unintended consequence of higher environmental standards is that they provide incentives for companies to be more efficient and to cut waste. Indeed, a recent report by Imperial College and the Fabian Society concluded that the actual cost of compliance was therefore much lower than the cost of simply abating the pollution. If the benefits are taken into account, the cost could even prove to be negative. The market in carbon emissions is having exactly that effect. Without being prescriptive, it encourages companies to change their processes to become more efficient and, therefore, less polluting. That saves time and money and protects the environment. Is that an unexpected consequence of regulation?
That leads me to another consequence of regulation. Because high standards make a country a more attractive place in which to live, the means of achieving those high standards has given rise to whole new industries, creating a new and growing sector of the economy. I declare an interest, as honorary president
288
of the Environmental Industries Commission, which is a group of 250 UK companies that deliver higher environmental standards through engineering, technology and innovation.
That does not mean that more regulation is good: it means that regulation must be right, as the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, said. It must be balanced. It must reflect the aspirations of our community. It must have reasonable lead times. Many of our regulations come from Europe. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, about the red tape and bureaucracy involved. There is some justification in that. The justification arises in part because we have a culture in this country of ensuring that the law is obeyed. It is an honourable and sensible culture to which we are all committed. It is because of that attitude that we insist on implementing regulations to the letter. As the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, said, as regards European regulations we call it gold plating. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of this. In trying to identify and minimise unnecessary excess he has asked companies to write to him stating which European regulations they find offensive and unreasonable.
The Government have also asked Sir Peter Gershon to report on how the administration of regulation can be eased and the costs reduced. I congratulate them on that. According to the Financial Times report last week there are some sensible proposals on the horizon. Sir Peter recognises that it is particularly irritating for companies to send similar data and information to several government departments when they could obviously share the information. It is equally irritating to be inspected by two or more regulatory organisations when obviously one visit could take in two or more regulators. He is considering, therefore, how forms, visits and data should be co-ordinated so that each serves a number of purposes.
However, more can be done. Obviously firms and organisations which comply and work to high standards need less regulation than "cowboys" but the law does not allow for that flexibility. We now have a much greater awareness of corporate responsibility. Regulators should recognise that and perhaps take a risk with companies and organisations which show a high degree of responsibility. They should listen to organisations which say, "This is what we believe in; this is our culture; there is no need to regulate us, we shall do it anyway".
It is to be hoped that Sir Peter Gershon will tell us how regulation can be more streamlined and made more effective. It is to be hoped that the outcome, unexpected or not, will be not only a decrease in the cost of compliance but also an increase in the efficiency of our regulation, leaving more money for front line public services.
In the meantime we cannot afford to ignore regulations from Brussels. I give one further unexpected result. Because of the political sensitivity of some of the regulations we often tend to be late in implementing them. It is an understandable attitude. But those countries which move to implement regulations early also encourage the development of the technologies needed to meet those higher standards. They then sell

289
those technologies to other countries as they catch up. For instance, when we finally decided to implement the regulation regarding the disposal of fridges and the dangerous gas in them we had to buy the technology to do so from Germany. However, we were quick to accept the regulations regarding aircraft noise and Rolls Royce developed the Trent 600/900 engine to more than satisfy the regulations. As a result, about one-third of the world's passenger aircraft now fly using those engines. Is that an unintended result of regulation?
A Private Member's Bill was introduced in another place on 4 February which allows business, individuals and public bodies in Britain to seek a declaration by the courts that regulations from Europe are ineffective here if their provisions go beyond the basic minimum required by Community law. The unintended consequence will be that our quality of life will scrape along the bottom; it will be minimalist. Our economy will suffer as we accept lower standards; and Britain will gradually become a less attractive place in which to live and work. I hope that noble Lords will join me in opposing the Bill when it comes before us.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, as usual the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, makes his points in a very reasonable manner. The time for good intentions has long since passed. That is why I congratulate my noble friends Lord Vinson and Lord MacLaurin on making the point that tough measures must now be taken. My noble friend Lord Vinson is right in drawing the Government's attention to the wisdom of having a Standing Committee. I do not think that Parliament does a good job in reviewing, or even in being able to change, regulations. The sooner we can reform the practices not only of this House but also of another place the sooner we shall make progress.
I wish to draw noble Lords' attention to some statements made over the past five years by public servants who are to be congratulated on their battle against the flood of regulation under this Government. They are beginning to realise—there are some indications that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor realise it—that steps must be taken not only to reduce the current burden but to stem the flow. Rather than asking the Minister to respond at the end of the debate—I have learned to do this from hard experience in this House—I shall go straight to the Table Office to put down five questions. Rather than trespassing now on the Minister's time, I may receive in due course a more considered and comprehensive answer.
First, I refer to the Better Regulation Task Force. I pay tribute to the chairman, David Arculus, Theresa Graham and their colleagues in what they seek to do. Theresa has been a member of that task force under both administrations and I pay tribute in particular to her. My first question is this. When will the task force report on the results of its investigation, which is welcome, into whether the European Commission is doing enough to stem the tide of unnecessary business regulation? I think that we all know the answer in principle but some detailed comments from the task force when it reports will he much appreciated.
290
I draw your Lordships' attention to the report of the Better Regulation Task Force published in October 2003, headed Independent Regulators. It states:
"We question whether even Ministers could be certain that they know of all the independent regulators that surround their Departments. The regulated also expressed concern. This is obviously a situation that cannot be allowed to continue".
Neither the Better Regulation Task Force nor Ministers can tell us definitively how many regulators there are. The task force makes 14 recommendations. My second question will be this. What progress has been made in dealing with those 14 recommendations?
The Audit Commission's report, Strategic Regulation: minimising the burden, maximising the impact, is excellent. It says that the burden of interference with local authorities and other public bodies has got to an intolerable pitch and that more strategic regulation is required. The report states:
"The current system of regulation of public services is fragmented and there are legitimate concerns about the cost, value and accountability of regulation. This presents a significant challenge to regulators".
Therefore, I shall ask the Minister what progress has been made in that regard.
In November 2003, the National Audit Office published a report entitled Success in the regions. Your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology has published a report on the relationship between the regional development agencies and the science base, and the over-regulation and direction by central government departments of what the RDAs seek to do. On 19 November, in summarising the National Audit Office report, the Financial Times, said:
"Over-interference from Whitehall is undermining efforts to stimulate regional economies by forcing agencies to waste time and money responding to civil servants' demands".
My question to the Minister is: have the DTI and, in particular, the Treasury, paid attention?
My penultimate piece of evidence, to which the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred—I think his references were correct—is the work by Sir Peter Gershon. We have not seen his report. Perhaps the Minister may tell us when noble Lords will have sight of his report. On 17 February, Sir Peter is quoted in the Financial Times as concluding that,
"regulation and oversight is overdone to the point where it is counter-productive and threatens the government's most cherished goal—improved public services".
How right Sir Peter is.
In conclusion, today I read in the Financial Times a report of what the Prime Minister said yesterday. My heart rose, not sank. I only hope that the Prime Minister means what he said. On government efficiency, the Prime Minister is reported as announcing,
"a review of regulation in both the public and private sectors saying 'we have to change the whole approach to risk'".
My noble friend Lord Vinson put his finger on that problem. We are averse to risk in the public sector. I am sure that both Ministers and civil servants should ask themselves: "Do we really need to regulate in particular instances? Can we not trust the people? Can we not allow individuals to make sensible and

291
responsible decisions for themselves?". If we pursue that policy, we are on the right road to deregulating this society.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Freeman who had such experience of this topic when in government. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Vinson on the exhilarating way in which he introduced the debate today. I share his view that most regulations are designed to solve a problem, to remedy a deficiency. They answer a genuine need and therefore deserve serious consideration.
There are two major exceptions to that rule. The first is what I call the knee-jerk reaction to one-off events. The "something must be done" reaction following short-term public pressure. I am afraid that I do not exclude my own party from any blame in this regard when it was in government. For example, the Dunblane tragedy was appalling. But I am very doubtful about what the regulations that followed Dunblane did to inhibit gun crime generally. Currently, no doubt, the Government are under pressure with regard to the cockle-pickers in Morecambe Bay. It is another terrible personal tragedy, but no doubt it will lead to the Government coming under pressure to produce some special regulations to cover that one-off event. So, first, we have knee-jerk reactions.
Picking up the point made by my noble friend Lord Freeman, the second exception is the command and control wish to centralise more power to enable Whitehall or the authorities to interfere, pry and control. I am afraid that this Government are very susceptible to command control ideas.
So much for how we add to regulations: what about subtracting from them? That is a much less easy task and we are much less good at it. There appears to be no overview or cross-departmental view of regulatory burdens: there is duplication, overlap, inconsistency and, sometimes, outright opposition between regulations from different departments. There is no consideration of the overall effect; the straws on the camel's back. Individual regulations of themselves may be beneficial, but taken as a whole they are extremely detrimental. As Archie Norman MP raised in another place, there is no subsequent reassessment.
Some regulations ab initio prove ineffective or even useless. But, overall, regulations, like most things in this world, have a shelf life. Their value wanes as society changes, but they are left in existence. Officials warn Ministers against removal because of the political danger of unexpected events. I regard them as barnacles on the ship of state. A single barnacle would be no problem, but we have hundreds of barnacles now and they are causing extreme and increasing damage.
Perhaps I may give a couple of short illustrations. I accept that they are trivial examples, but the burden of regulation is about the cumulative effect of triviality. It is not about a great clash of ideas. It is just the steady
292
encroachment of octopus tentacles. My first example is from the Environment Agency. For many years my family has rented a short stretch of trout stream at Malmesbury, North Wiltshire, into which every year we put about 120 brown trout. Under Section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, we have to apply for an application to introduce those fish, which is absolutely fair and perfectly reasonable. New stock being introduced must be wholesome.
Each year, I used to telephone Mr Steve Thomas, a delightful man at Bridgwater, to ask for a form that I could fill in and return to him. Two years ago, he told me that he was no longer able to send me a form because new regulations required a central register to be maintained, which was run from Peterborough. So I called Peterborough. I pressed buttons one and two and listened to some Mozart. I pressed button three and listened to some more Mozart. Finally, I reached a lady who told me that the forms could not be sent in response to a telephone call. I had to write in for a form. Why? That is because the register required a formal application.
I sent in a letter requesting a form; the form came back to me. I sent the completed form off. The lady wrote back saying that she had received my form and was pleased to tell me that,
"It has been passed to Steve Thomas … for determination".
That is five or six letters where two used to suffice.
Letters probably cost about £10 to £15 each. My trout application is now costing me and/or the state £45 to £60 more than it did two years ago. Will this break my bank or the Environment Agency's bank? Of course it will not. But that is one of hundreds of thousands of examples around the country that are driving people crazy because of the waste of effort and the huge economic drag on our prosperity.
The second example is about money laundering and NCIS. I am the director of a building society and I am chairman of its audit committee. It is a blue-collar society in the West Midlands. We have to follow strict guidelines on money laundering and we have a money laundering officer. Of course, we are content to do that because we want to help the fight against crime, although since most of our returns are for sums below £200, I am not sure that much money is being laundered.
In the 12 months to 30 September 2003, we sent 173 referrals to NCIS. What response have we had? The answer is, absolutely none. We are a small society. NCIS must be getting hundreds of thousands of reports. Does anything ever happen to them'? At the last meeting of the committee, I asked whether NCIS could be approached to tell us how we were doing. As recorded in the minutes of the meeting, NCIS was prepared to say only that,
"A conversation with NCIS officers suggests that if there were an issue with report quantity or quality the Society would have been advised".
So we have absolutely no confidence that those reports are being used in any meaningful way. It is just form filling and box ticking.
In my last minute, I should like to offer some suggestions about how we might improve matters. I share the view with other noble Lords that we will not

293
be able to unpick regulation. First, we need to stop gold-plating; that is, adding regulations on top of what is required from Brussels. As my noble friend Lord Vinson said, we definitely need to insert sunset clauses in all regulations. We need to find ways of providing opt-outs for very small businesses and so encourage entrepreneurial activities. As many noble Lords have said, we need to initiate a sensible discussion about risks and the limitations of personal responsibility.
My noble friend Lord Vinson referred to air safety. I should like to refer to rail safety. Over the past 10 years, passenger miles have increased by more than 25 per cent, and I understand that more people are travelling by rail than at any time since 1950. During the past 10 years, according to a Written Answer from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, in no single year have passenger fatalities on the railways exceeded 20, oilier than in 1999–2000 when there were 40. That should be compared with the hundreds of deaths every year on our roads. Are we actually having a sensible debate about risk and the relative risk of different forms of travel?
Whatever is the case, we urgently need to consider radical steps if we are not to dent our economic prosperity by strangling ourselves in red tape.
6.50 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I was particularly struck during the course of this debate by the importance of your Lordships' House as a pre-emptive filter for unintended consequences. My mind went back to legislation with which the Minister and I were involved—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. It came from the House of Commons with a glowing report from that Chamber, but had it been enacted as it arrived here, the consequences for the e-commerce industry in this country would have been absolutely devastating. Those consequences were only picked up here.
I was also struck by our difficulties in amending secondary legislation; that is, individual regulations faced with a nuclear option of forcing a confrontation and throwing a regulation out, as opposed to making some minor change.
We are not really talking here about regulating new forms of human endeavour. My noble friend Lord MacLaurin talked about the mobile phone industry. Clearly that had not been envisaged before and required some regulation, but generally we are talking about regulating areas such as agriculture, building and trading, which have been around for centuries. So all that we are doing is increasing the volume of regulation and putting less importance on prioritisation. If the statute book continues to grow at the rate that it is, the public will begin to lose confidence in the regulations. Regulations can work and be supported only if those who are being regulated—and those who have to impose regulations—believe to some extent, even grudgingly, that the rules are worthwhile.
I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Vinson refer to travel safety; indeed my noble friend Lord Hodgson talked about rail travel. In our
294
debates we are in real danger of focusing on rail fatalities and chasing people on to the roads—which in terms of death are more dangerous by a factor of at least 100.
I am concerned about the ratchet effect here. We have the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act—the Government have the power at their disposal to get rid of unwanted regulation. I offer the Minister the opportunity to inform the House how that is going. How much regulation has been amended by this route? What does that represent as a percentage of the statute book? What is the net position regarding new regulations that are introduced versus existing regulations that are removed? I suspect there might he some imbalance.
Transport safety is not all bad. In one very good example, the Civil Aviation Authority has delegated certain powers to a small group known as the Popular Flying Association for the regulation of small vintage home-built aircraft. That works very well. It is staffed by enthusiasts and is a good example of how you do not need more legislation in order to keep high standards of safety.
There is a gap between the rhetoric about deregulation from this Government and the reality. We have recently read stories of "Brown battles against EU red tape", but I am not sure that the better regulation that we have heard is the objective of the Government is necessarily the whole case. We need less and better regulation. I would put considerable emphasis on the volume of legislation and support proposals for more sunset clauses.
There is also an opportunity for the Minister to give some figures. We have heard the figure quoted that the British Chambers of Commerce estimate the cost of new business regulation since 1998 as over £20 billion. The Government dispute that figure; let us hear what the Government believe the actual figure is. They must know, because presumably they have undertaken regulatory impact assessments. The £20 billion does not even include the £10 billion of the national minimum wage, which I understand is the Government's own figure.
We know a lot of this pressure for regulation comes from Europe and I will leave that issue to others, but I believe that there is a feeling deep within the heart of this Government that legislation on its own can cure problems of society. If there are too many low-paid workers, we should legislate to increase their pay and we will all be happy. If there are concerns about imbalance in society, we should impose social engineering regulations on university undergraduate selection. We heard at Question Time today that if there is disparity between shopfloor pay and the boardroom, that can be solved with legislation as well. But of course it cannot: there are no net gains to be made just by regulating to make people richer or better off, or to enable them to work less.
We need to look in more detail at these regulatory impact assessment procedures, and to question whether this process is taken seriously by the Government. What role does the Department of Trade and Industry have in

295
defending the interests of business? People are often concerned about the DTI and wonder what it is for. It does perform a number of valuable functions, but surely one of these functions is to act as an advocate for business when regulations are brought forward. Can the Minister give us good recent examples of the DTI reining in regulatory departments? Are the Government adhering to their own rules?
The British Chambers of Commerce study of the national minimum wage RIA found that no alternative options were being reported; the question of who picks up the cost of enforced wage rises was not discussed; there was no overall summary of costs and benefits. Despite that, the sponsoring Minister at the time, Mr Stephen Byers, signed that he was satisfied that the balance between cost and benefit is the right one in the circumstances. That is a weak assertion and apparently made on the basis of very limited information. The Government must show that they are not just going through the motions.
I would like to know how many regulations have failed to proceed because of an unacceptable RIA. The BCC study found only 11 cases over four years where that has happened. Is that the case? It is important information.
How do the Government monitor the efficacy of the RIA procedure? It is important to note that in this BCC study, 68 per cent of its respondents believed that consultation operates poorly and the majority of respondents stated that the consultation process had little impact on the final regulation.
My noble friend Lord Vinson talked about the importance of personal responsibility and I echo that. I recall the arrangements made to introduce contingency fee arrangements. The original purpose—while outwardly to broaden access to justice—might have had something to do with trimming the legal aid bill. But the result is that we get ambulance-chasing spurious claims and spiralling insurance costs in a litigious society, such as that which destroyed whole industries—including the light aircraft industry in the United States—until it was corrected.
I urge the Government to think twice before calling on a parliamentary draftsman.
7 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, from the Cross Benches I should like to congratulate my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, on the Tory side on his splendid opening speech. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, as the only occupant and spokesman on the Labour Benches.
The phenomenon of regulation is nothing new. The 19th century saw the introduction of extensive regulation in factories, banking, weights and measures, sale of goods, the adulteration of food, private contracts and much more. What is new is the scale of unchecked and indiscriminate regulation to restrict competition. It is yet another example of my favourite word these days, which is "inordinacy". That term suggests the temptation to take everything to excess.
296
An example that today would be widely accepted but which was much contested a few years ago is that of the Shops Acts. Here was a complex rigmarole of regulations on hours and days, opening and closing times and so forth. The intentions were benevolent in that they sought to prevent the exploitation of shop workers, but the consequences were wholly baneful. They froze competition and delayed the revolution in retailing which has extended choice not only to shoppers but, no less, to shop workers themselves.
A regulatory framework is necessary, but it must not swamp competition. Regulation is inevitably restrictive and unproductive. In contrast, competition is progressive, enterprising and dynamic. It is said that the trouble with competition is that it is not perfect according to textbook theory. However, it is one thing to provide guidelines, but quite another matter to bury competition beneath extensive uniform standards. I searched for a homely analogy and found that of the motorist. He will accept the Highway Code, speed limits, even congestion charges and perhaps the occasional speed camera, but he will not accept the Minister getting into the driving seat.
Why has regulation mania grown like Topsy over recent years, especially in the labour market? According to a recent Hobart Paper on employment tribunals by Professor Shackleton, the direct administrative costs total around £1 billion per year. However, the total cost of our compensation culture dwarfs that sum. Various estimates range from £5 billion according to the British Chambers of Commerce, £6 billion according to the Institute of Directors and an impressive £10 billion according to the Institute of Actuaries, including a steep rise in premiums for employers liability insurance. My first question to the Minister is this: what is his best estimate of the cost of regulations in the labour market?
My second question is this: who pays the cost? Economic analysis shows that firms faced with a new levy or tax seek to shift the cost forward to customers in higher prices or backward to workers in reduced employment. If competition makes it impossible to escape the cost, it falls on profits, which means that investors will put up less capital for future expansion. Which of those damaging effects does the Minister prefer? Does he prefer higher prices to cover the cost, does he prefer lower employment, or does he prefer contracting businesses? Or does he prefer to dwell in Tommy Cooper's make-believe world where costs simply vanish—just like that?
There are several reasons why this costly mountain of regulation has grown. One is that regulations are cheap for governments because they do not have to meet the costs of compliance. Another reason is that while the apparent benefits of regulation are concentrated and highly visible, the costs are widely dispersed, delayed and obscure. Thus in the short run, trade unions stand to gain from regulation favourable to their members. It pays them to invest heavily in organising and lobbying for government favours without concern for the long-run damage, even to their own members. Since governments do not pay the bill,

297
weak Ministers have no incentive to resist the constant pressure for more regulation. In any case, Ministers crave popularity.
The wider, deeper and longer-term unintended consequence is that costly job protection may end up costing jobs. If a restricted, rigid labour market prevents firms responding flexibly to the constant challenges of change in a global economy, British firms will lose out further to foreign competition. Thanks to radical liberalisation by the Tories after 1979, we forged ahead of France and Germany. Today their highly regulated economies have condemned them to massive unemployment and stagnation. Yet our head-in-the-clouds Prime Minister boasts of a campaign to liberalise restrictive economies in Europe while his colleagues yield to every pressure to restrict and rigidify the labour market at home.
The reckless increase in British regulation is encouraged, even incited, by the various commissions on equal pay, minimum wages, conditions at work and various forms of discrimination—real or imagined—relating to race, sex or age. Applications to tribunals more than doubled from 38,000 in 1985 to 80,000 in 1997, and rose again to 130,000 by 2002. This explosion of grievances is encouraged by absurdly inflated and well-publicised jackpot awards to lucky winners.
The full costs and consequences of regulation extend far beyond higher prices, lower employment and reduced investment. Most hidden of all costs are the daily frustration, hassle and distraction of complying with ever-increasing regulations and their frequent changes. Do Ministers simply not care that this inordinate legislative activism has already driven many small, defenceless businesses to the wall? Our complacent Chancellor may shrug off such warnings with the constant refrain, "Behold! The economy is doing fine". I believe that he once studied economics, so I shall remind him of an old Liberal adage: what gives regulation the illusion of working are the freedoms that regulation has not yet destroyed. A strong economy can bear much mischief, but this progressive process renders effort and enterprise ever weaker and less able to bear the increasing burdens.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, if I had a little more time in which to speak I would add to the stories told by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, but I welcome the opportunity to support my noble friend Lord Vinson in drawing attention to the unintended consequences of regulation. I could speak at considerable length in exploration of the myths alleged to have come from Brussels—from bananas to double-decker buses—but I take seriously the question of the effect regulation has had on competition through misinterpretation and misrepresentation. Reports on regulatory issues and on the cost of inappropriate regulation are enormous.
It will not surprise noble Lords to learn that I take a more earthy approach to this problem and to the effects of regulation on the land, farming and farmers, as well as on the wider countryside.
298
There are several motivations for inputs into agriculture, such as dangers to the health of farmers and farm workers, the effect some products may have on consumers and hazards to the environment. Restrictions are put on the use of some chemicals and seed imports are banned from countries with seed-borne diseases.
Regulatory systems may also monitor the quality of inputs that are sold to ensure that they are unadulterated and correctly labelled. But I have to say that, as we look around the world, the mind boggles when we consider the problems facing the World Trade Organisation when formulating regulatory reform in developing countries, taking into account both over and under-regulation.
Many of the current systems have difficulty in adjusting to the rapid technical change in agriculture and to the growth of private input trade. Therefore, I shall take three examples of what I consider to be poor, good and inappropriate regulation, three examples of what I consider are the worst aspects of regulations in agriculture, of which I could name many.
First, the nitrates directive is a classic case under which huge amounts of money have been spent in implementing the standard, which is widely regarded as scientifically flawed. The Government have been forced by the threat of infraction proceedings by the European Community into an implementation approach that could have been achieved in a much more sensitive way. A light touch could have been taken with fewer adverse implications for the management of and the costs to farm businesses involved.
Secondly, there is the animal by-product directive under which it has been unlawful to bury fallen stock since last May. That is another example of very poor handling—indeed a fiasco—resulting in a last minute rush of domestic regulation, which was much delayed, with the risk that the United Kingdom would be in trouble with Brussels again for failing to implement the directive effectively.
Thirdly, the Government have accepted that fly-tipping is a scourge on the environment. Some time ago the regulations proposed included the idea of charging occupiers of land to clear up waste that is tipped on their land—I speak from personal experience—only because they are sitting-duck targets, as it is more difficult to catch the perpetrators. Regulations should be directed at the guilty, however difficult they are to enforce, but not at the innocent party who can be easily imposed upon. Fortunately common sense seems to have prevailed as Alun Michael in another place said yesterday that although the Government want more robust powers under the Environmental Protection Act for clearing waste from land, it is not, after all, planned to remove the defence for landowners and occupiers who have not knowingly caused or permitted fly-tipping to take place.
I have one example of a good regulation—I give only one because I could only think of one. Like other small businesses in general, farmers are hardly looking for new regulations. But there arc circumstances where appropriate regulation has its place. I support the Sheridan Bill, which I understand will be debated in

299
another place on Friday and which will introduce a statutory scheme for regulating gangmasters. That is an appropriate theme to consider at the moment. Farmers and growers need a flexible source of skilled labour but it is recognised that some gangmasters abuse and exploit their workers. The law needs to be cleaned up and nothing short of changing the law to bring the situation under better control will be adequate for the task.
On inappropriate regulation, my noble friend Lord Vinson's debate focuses on the unintended consequences of regulation. There is an instinctive tendency among legislators to reach for new laws to tackle issues that they believe need to be controlled or regulated. Usually such new laws are concerned with stopping citizens from doing things that otherwise would be unlawful. Obviously, society requires such measures in relation to criminal activity, like theft and assault of a person, but they are much less persuasive in regulating businesses.
The RSPB among others has campaigned for a tax on pesticides because it believes that farmers use too much of them and that there is a direct link with the decline in the populations of farmland birds. Imposing taxes on pesticides would be bound to have unpredictable results. It would be no more likely to result in benefits to the environment than would slapping tax on hamburgers and other fatty food lead directly to a decline in the nation's level of obesity. I can speak! A much better approach is to involve farmers in partnerships, which will result in crop protection management plans that will deliver far more benefits for wildlife and the environment generally than the blunt instrument of tax.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I was, perhaps rather unkindly, amused by the completely justifiable attack of my noble friend Lord Freeman on over-regulation. I wondered whether he was quite so keen on it when he was in Cabinet. Those in Cabinet are always tempted to regulate and those outside government are tempted to do a lot of kicking.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, my noble friend may have forgotten that in Cabinet I served as the Minister responsible for deregulation.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, that means almost certainly that it did not work. That was a friendly, gentlemanly tease. The problem of regulation is nothing new. John Masters' book, Bugles and a Tiger, is about how an officer had to travel across half of India to arrest someone who had stolen the mess funds. He had to fill in a form and finally, in exasperation, the clerk at Indian army headquarters asked why the officer did not take his horse as he was a field officer and why had he not applied for the money to bring it back. That was carrying regulation too far. Gulliver's Travels has also been quoted so the problem is nothing new.
300
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, had the situation half right. I completely agree with him. He said that the rule of law and security of property are essential to both human and economic progress. That goes without saying. Society cannot have those things without the rule of law. Therefore, good regulation is a friend and an ally. Too much and bad regulation is the enemy. It is the "too much and bad regulation" that some of us find so irritating.
Of course, we do not wish to go back to the casualty rates that Brunel had when he built his first tunnel under the Thames. They were appalling. We must have health and safety regulations; we must have regulations to ensure that people do not drown casually because no one has carried out a proper survey. No one argues about that. But do the police have to dress up as road-menders because it might be unsafe for them to go out at night? They all wear yellow jackets. The excuse of health and safety comes tripping off the tongue and it is an excuse for doing nothing under certain circumstances.
I believe that when the Better Regulation Task Force was set up the number of regulations passed was something like 2,500 a year; it is now over 4,500 a year. I can give two or three examples. The asbestos regulations failed to differentiate properly between blue and brown asbestos on the one hand and white asbestos on the other. We have a totally fatuous regulation for horse passports solely because the French army had to eat them in the retreat from Moscow and acquired a taste for horse meat. The cattle and sheep movement orders have become more and more complicated.
My solicitor, to whom I have gone for the past 20 years, has asked me for my passport, a photograph of me and an electricity bill so that he can show the Financial Services Authority that he and I have not been money laundering for the past 20 years. Such regulation is fatuous.
I had reason to go into hospital the other day and on the consent form there was a section asking for my racial origins. The kind of thing that had to be ticked was whether I was Welsh black, English black or Friesian—sorry; those are cows. I could not be bothered to fill it in. I am waiting for someone to write to me asking why I did not fill it in to which I shall say that I could not be bothered. Such matters go on and on.
It is all very well for noble Lords to complain about over-regulation, but we have to expect that 80 per cent of English regulations now are passed in Europe and we have no choice but to accept them. At least with the 20 per cent that remain we can change them. Changing a European regulation is almost impossible. The acquis communautaire makes it almost impossible to change them.
The nitrate directive has been mentioned. Fly-tipping has been mentioned—but, of course, fly-tipping will increase if you put a land-fill tax on it. It follows as night follows day that if you make it more difficult and more expensive, the wide guys will go round the corner and dump it on my property or the property of my noble friend Lord Plumb.

301
I have a reference to health and safety in my notes. A pancake race had to he cancelled the other day because of worries about the public liability of children and women flipping pancakes. What kind of society are we becoming when we are so worried about women flipping pancakes?
I also note, with encouragement, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister go around Europe lecturing others on the need for less regulation and a freer labour market. I cannot remember the chapter and verse and in which gospel it is, but they should read the parable about motes and beams. If they are going to lecture others they should start by trying to cleanse the Augean stable of British regulation.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, on introducing the debate. While there is nothing new in the concept of regulation, as a number of noble Lords have said, we are undoubtedly more regulated than ever before. While there is nearly always a good case for regulation in principle, there is a growing sense that its volume and extent is increasingly disproportionate to the problems that regulations seek to tackle. As a result, they are often ineffective and counter-productive.
We all have our favourite nonsenses. Like the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, one of mine relates to money laundering. I have been working as the trustee of a charity for 25 years this year, using the same firm of solicitors to act for the charity. I now want the solicitors to conduct another piece of business b
but, before they will even begin to accept me as a client. I will have to submit a passport and a utility bill. Among the many other nonsenses involved, they say apologetically that the regulations on money laundering contain no de minimis limit. So anyone can be covered by this. It is a clear nonsense.
Another area of nonsense is employment law, where far too many restrictive regulations are in place. One was referred to by the press at the weekend. A recruitment company was having great difficulty with the NHS because every nurse supplied to it by the recruitment company was newly required to provide 27 pieces of paperwork to prove that they had the relevant qualifications to do the job. Not surprisingly, not every nurse had the paperwork, although many of them were already working at the hospital. Before Christmas, the recruitment company bought a turkey for every nurse on its books in an attempt to get them to fill in the paperwork—but even that failed. Several hundred experienced nurses are now in jeopardy of having to leave their employment because they cannot find 27 pieces of paper relating to their entire employment history.
The area of health and safety has been mentioned. My particular nonsense in this regard concerns the issue of church picnics, a subject in which my wife is heavily engaged. Under the law, it is now impossible to ask people to bring to a picnic food that they have made themselves; it all has to be pre-packaged. As a
302
result, the whole character of a picnic has changed. You are opening supermarket packages of food rather than benefiting from the cooking and preparation of individual members of the picnic. That again is a nonsense.
The underlying theme in relation to health and safety and some employment legislation is that the concept of the accident is no longer acceptable. "There is no such thing as an accident", is increasingly the cry. More and more there is a blame culture when anything goes wrong, and there has been a huge growth in heavily advertised litigation. This has many unintended and unsatisfactory consequences, not least of which is that it deters volunteer leaders of community activity at a time when community activity is under threat from a whole raft of changes within society.
An area of regulation which, surprisingly, has not been mentioned concerns targets and inspections in the public sector and the vast plethora of additional tax legislation introduced within the past six years. It is hardly surprising that there is a sense that the regulation and inspection of the public services is so serious that the improvements to which the Government are rightly committed—and which we all hope will be successful—are in many cases being delayed and jeopardised because of the straitjacket in which those attempting to improve public services find themselves.
I agree very strongly with the comment of Sir Peter Gershon, reported last week, that an entire industry based on regulation desperately needs to he rationalised. I should love to be able to talk about the Gershon report today but, as has already been mentioned, the Government authorised its leak to one newspaper on 16 February with the sole purpose of upstaging the publication of the Conservative Party's public expenditure plans. A selected journalist was encouraged to publish extensive details of the proposals, yet Parliament and the country are still denied access to the report. In my view, such a cynical use of information and disregard for Parliament is typical of the Government and brings them and the parliamentary process into disrepute. I echo the call that has already been made that the Gershon report—in whatever form it was leaked to the Financial Times—should now be published in full.
How have we got into this mess on regulation and how can we get out of it? As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, we have event-driven regulation—the concept that something has to he done. In one sense, while there may be a case for the licensing of gangmasters, the gangmaster responsible for the death of the cockle pickers was breaking umpteen pieces of legislation already; the MP for Morecambe raised the issue. The problem was not that there was no regulation but that it was not being enforced.
A second problem is that when it comes into force it is a kind of belts and braces regulation which, if followed, would virtually eliminate the activity it seeks to regulate. This raises a whole raft of problems. The

303
noble Lord, Lord Vinson, tellingly made the point about the proportionality of the cost and benefit of regulation, which is often completely out of kilter.
Flowing from that is the impossibility of monitoring regulation. There is too much of it and the monitoring is ineffective. Returning to the issue of the cockle pickers, there simply were not enough people in that part of the country able to be deployed to look into what was going on. The more regulation we have and the more detailed it is, the more we lose track of the main issues and get bogged down in the detail. If we were to monitor the regulation properly, virtually every second person would need to be a regulator.
What happens when people break regulations? How are they treated? Enron, for example, largely followed the reporting and accountancy rules. It was all there in the annual report but it was very difficult to spot. Its officers did what they did because they thought they could get away with it. There is a real issue about ensuring that the punishment fits the crime in regulated areas. Otherwise, there is no adequate incentive for people to follow regulations in the first place.
Finally in terms of how we got into this position, there is the complicated additional layer of regulatory burden that has undoubtedly flowed from our membership of the EU.
I commend to noble Lords who have not read it the section on regulation in the government document published earlier this month, Advancing Long-Term Prosperity: Economic Reform in an Enlarged Europe. It points out that the IMF has concluded that improvement in the EU regulatory framework could deliver a 7 per cent increase in EU GDP in the longer term, and sets out what the Government are going to do about it, some of which is laudable. For example, I welcome the plan on regulatory reform that the finance Ministers of this country, Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg have signed in order to boost regulatory reform during their four presidencies, and some of the specific things that they are committed to do. However, if the Chancellor is going to put this at the centre of his personal agenda, he needs to go to the meetings, which he consistently fails to do. It is no use making speeches in Westminster, but not turning up to ECOFIN and then expecting Europe, having been lectured by him, to do what he wants.
There must also be a change in the Government's mentality. Some of the Gershon arguments are strong, to the extent that I understand them and have seen them, and the Prime Minister apparently agrees. The Gershon argument for reducing compliance costs and increasing penalties sufficient to change corporate behaviour is a sensible idea. At the end of the day, determined people will always attempt to evade any regulation. The answer is not to regulate human activity out of business, but to get a better balance between risk-averse box-ticking, effective investigation and effective penalties.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords,
"We must get rid of the red tape that comes out of Brussels that is throttling business in Europe".
Those are not my words, but those of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Patricia Hewitt, speaking on "Newsnight" on 18 February. In my astonishment on hearing those words from that particular source, I thought how appropriate they were for the debate that my noble friend Lord Vinson has initiated so very well today, and for which we are most grateful, especially for pointing out that one great, unintended consequence is the denial of personal responsibility that is becoming embedded in our culture. That is something that not many of us have ever thought of as an unintended consequence.
I could hardly believe my ears when I heard a Secretary of State of one of the four major departments in the Government complaining about red tape. This is a Government headed by a Prime Minister who, figuratively, did not even wait to perform the dramatic taking off of his jacket when he entered Number 10 for the first time before he signed up to the Social Chapter. The regulations coming out of Brussels, time and time again, are gold-plated by this Government, making the regulations and the directives impact more heavily on our businesses and citizens than they do on our neighbours on the mainland. This Government can do nothing when, far from gold-plating regulations or even making a pretence of performing their minimum obligations, our European partners simply ignore regulations when it does not suit those countries to comply with them.
Let me remind your Lordships, for example, of the way that French farmers are allowed to blockade the Channel ports whenever they are in dispute with their own government—a frequent occurrence—or when they want to prevent imports of British lamb or beef, or the way that the French and Germans simply ignore fiscal rules about government borrowing in the so-called Stability Pact, which they themselves imposed on the euro-zone.
It is not just over the effect of over-regulation from Brussels that Mrs Hewitt should be directing her newly discovered ire. Only 40 per cent of the new regulations introduced since 1998 emanated from Europe. The remaining 60 per cent were home grown. If there were an Olympics for regulation and control, the Government would surely win the gold medal.
Of course, I agree with my noble friend Lord Hodgson that the problem did not start with this Government, but it has certainly become worse. There were 3,990 new regulations in 2003. The record was in 2001, when Whitehall spewed out 4,621 new regulations and then, exhausted by its labours, the numbers were reduced to a mere 3,839 in 2002. However, as I pointed out, they were again on an upwards trend last year. In the six full calendar years of this Labour Government, there have been a total of 23,322 new regulations—almost 15 every working day.
There are two other figures. This flood of regulation is 53 per cent higher than was the case under the last Conservative government, and the cost to business is

305
estimated by the CBI to be up to £15 billion a year. I refer to those two figures, because I last quoted them during Questions on 11 February.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving the way. She may have been unwell, but we did have a debate on regulation some months ago. It was revealed that nearly half the regulations that she has told us about relate to things such as bus timetables and digging holes in the road. They are called regulations, but they are purely formalities.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, they are certainly regulations. I forgive the noble Lord. I will not answer him in any detail, because this is a timed debate.
At the time when I quoted those two figures, the Minister dismissed them as being,
"a contentious assumption, which is totally in dispute"—[Official Report, 11/2/04; col. 1100.]
But the figure that I gave for the number of new regulations came from Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the figure for the cost to business came from the CBI. Of course, they may be in dispute, but perhaps the Minister will tell us what he believes the figures for the number and cost of regulation to be.
It is not just the quantity and cost of regulation that is the issue. It is the mood created by the environment of regulation with which we are afflicted at a rate of 15 new ones every day. Many of them are regarded by the public as nit-picking, pettifogging and nannying to the extent of treating the public as irresponsible children.
It is not just in Whitehall that regulations and laws are gold-plated and applied without a modicum of common sense. The Data Protection Act 1998 is accepted by everyone as a necessary protection from the over-intrusive invasion of reasonable rights of privacy. However, Humberside police destroyed relevant intelligence on Ian Huntley, allowing him to get a job that he should never have had. We see from today's Daily Telegraph that the Data Protection Registrar has told the Bichard Inquiry that the Humberside police's decision,
"to delete intelligence of such obvious value … was astonishing".
Meanwhile, the Association of Chief Police Officers will tell the same inquiry—and I quote from the newspaper report—that,
"the Information Commissioner has demanded that police forces delete convictions for violence and sexual assault from computer and intelligence files in the interest of data protection and civil liberties".
ACPO accuses the Information Commissioner of,
"undermining the safety of children".
While this unseemly squabble was going on, two very unfortunate children died.
Whoever was right in this particular case, who could and would have complained if the material held had been retained? British Gas cut off the heating to an elderly couple, Mr and Mrs Bates, but did not notify local social services early enough for something to be done to help them, because it was decided that that
306
would be a breach of the Act. The couple both died from hypothermia. Who would have complained if the clerk who made the cutting-off decision had picked up the phone and told the local council?
Last week we read that Okehampton was on the brink of having to cancel its traditional pancake day race because of the cost of insuring the children. I am happy to tell my noble friend Lord Onslow that fortunately, at the last minute, the event was saved by a former pupil who is now an insurance broker and found a more realistic premium.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, that is the first really good news that I have heard in this House for a very long time.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I hope that the Chief Whip sitting on the Government Front Bench will forgive me if I finish a couple of moments later.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank noble Baroness for the promotion, but there was no vacancy.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, that farcical decision to cancel is blamed on the current compensation culture that we are importing from the United States of America. However, if insurance companies simply stood and fought speculative claims, the ambulance chasers to whom my noble friend referred in his speech, who incessantly advertise on television, would soon stop. My noble friend Lord Goschen also mentioned them.
It is the stupidity of applying the Data Protection Act and other laws and regulations instead of applying a modicum of common sense—hounding market traders who want to sell bananas by the pound rather than the kilo, for example—that creates this nit-picking atmosphere and the attitude to which I referred. Only today, the same paper reported that the traders' case had been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights. So common is the phenomenon of blindly enforcing petty regulations that the latest edition of the Oxford English Dictionary now recognises the word for it. "Jobsworth" is in the dictionary: "It's more than my job's worth to do this or to do that". One of our local councils fined a resident with a valid parking permit because it had fallen off his windscreen. My own local council—Conservative controlled, I am sorry to say—has just sent me a leaflet warning me that if my car overhangs my parking bay, I may be fined. Are all these people crackers?
This debate is about the unintended consequences of regulation. Despite the somewhat philosophical title that my noble friend has chosen, and because of the examples that he and other speakers have given of the consequences of some regulations in the course of the debate, I am not prepared to acquit the Government of responsibility for all the financial and economic damage, the damage to employment and the effect on the moral attitude of officialdom caused by the never-ending stream of regulations that they issue.

307
At law, we hold everyone responsible for the natural consequences of their actions. It is not as if the Government have not been told of the damage they are causing. We have repeatedly told them from this side of the House; the CBI has told them; the Institute of Directors has told them; the British Chambers of Commerce has told them; the Federation of Small Businesses has told them. Innumerable trade organisations, think tanks, economists and pressure groups have told them. How many times do the Government have to be told of the danger?
In his speech seeking leave to introduce his Bill, my honourable friend in the other place pointed out numerous deficiencies in the present system of regulatory assessment. Several of my noble friends have mentioned that this evening. However, it is a matter of regret to my noble friend, and to me, that the Bill has little, if any, chance of reaching the statute book under the procedure of the other place. However, I join my noble friend in, as he indicated, sincerely hoping that the Government will take the objects of the Bill to heart and that they will voluntarily ensure that they receive full and accurate information of the probable effects of what they do every time a Minister signs his name to an order that has the full force and effect of law. Lastly, but by no means least, I hope that they will stop ignoring and denying the consequences, unintended or otherwise, of each and every regulation that they make.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I join in the general congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, on the way in which he has brought forward this Motion and has focused an important debate on the issue of regulation. There have been many interesting and good points made during the course of the speeches. It would be invidious to dwell on too many of them.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, was right to say that regulation should be about proportionality. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, had a good point when he complained about gold-plating, which was a theme that came up on a number of occasions. I liked the question from the noble Lord, Lord MacLaurin, about what regulation should accomplish. It is the right question in the right circumstances. I really enjoyed the trout story of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I think that it was the best of the favourite nonsenses regaled by noble Lords this evening, and is a story well worth retelling.
I also enjoyed the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. I thought that they were balanced in many respects and that he was right to say that there is poor, good and, sometimes, inappropriate regulation. I think that we are all well aware of that. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is right to say that sometimes we live in a society where there is a denial of personal responsibility. In looking at regulation, that is a very important issue as well.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is undoubtedly right when he said that there was nothing new in this debate. He then gave us chapter and verse about why that is the case. I was very grateful to the noble Viscount,
308
Lord Goschen, for taking my mind back to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and all that it brought forward in its time. I thought that he put his finger on the core of the debate when he rightly said that good regulation requires public confidence. I think that we all agree with that. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, with his vast experience in government, was right to say that in some ways our concerns about regulation are a reflection of the fact that we live in a risk-averse society.
All of those were important and well-made points. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Government's progress on the better regulation agenda. This Government and previous governments have all been concerned about regulation and the way in which it develops. After all, it was a Conservative administration who introduced the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and, in some ways, started and inspired this whole debate—a debate that the Government have continued.
This debate takes place against a backdrop of a strong and stable economy. Employment is at record highs, unemployment is at its lowest for more than 30 years, inflation is low and stable, and interest rates are at levels not seen since the 1950s.
The Government's approach to regulatory reform has contributed to this record of success. The UK is at the "forefront of regulatory reform". They are not my words, but those of the OECD. The World Bank's "Doing Business in 2004" survey named the United Kingdom among the top 10 countries out of 130 with the least regulation. Other countries included Australia, Denmark and the United States. The Economist ranked the UK top of the 1997–2001 Entrepreneurial Framework Index of 60 countries that are low on red tape, with Switzerland coming second and the US coming third. An OECD review of the EU found that the United Kingdom has almost the lowest administration cost and fewer regulations for entrepreneurs than any other EU country.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, put his finger on the benefits of regulation. I thought that it was very illuminating that he referred to the positive consequences of regulation in creating new markets. Some regulation will always be necessary and desirable. Effective and well focused regulation can play a vital role in correcting market failures, promoting fairness and ensuring public safety. Sometimes we might get irritated with the health and safety culture but we all recognise the importance and value of health and safety legislation and regulation.
For those reasons, the Government are not going to apologise for introducing the first ever national minimum wage, which has raised the incomes of more than 1 million people in poverty, the right to four weeks' paid holiday and improved maternity and paternity leave arrangements. At the beginning of the debate about the national minimum wage, I can remember that we were told that it was going to cost a million jobs in the UK economy. That never transpired and is not likely ever to be the case. We are

309
not going to apologise for seeking to use regulations to protect the environment, to eliminate discrimination and to promote opportunity for all.
Our aim in doing all of this must be to minimise the burdens of compliance for business and the voluntary and community sectors, while ensuring that workers, consumers and the environment are protected. The potential effects of regulation must be fully thought through so that policy meets its purpose and does not end up causing more harm than good.
New regulations should only be introduced when other alternatives have first been considered and rejected and where the benefits justify all the costs, direct and indirect. We are committed that where regulations or alternative measures are introduced, it should be done in a light-touch way. Any policy intervention, and its enforcement, must therefore meet the five principles recommended by the Better Regulation Task Force in 1997. Let us remind ourselves what those principles are: proportionality, which was discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson; accountability; consistency, which we all wish to see; transparency; and targeting.
To ensure that these principles work in practice, in 1998 the Government committed themselves to ensuring that no proposal having an impact on business, charities or the voluntary sector, should be considered by Ministers without a regulatory impact assessment being carried out. Compliance with this process is now nearly 100 per cent, up from 55 per cent three years ago. The Government are committed continuously to improve the quality of RIAs. We have already asked the independent National Audit Office to help to vet the quality of regulatory impact assessments, to bring the measure of independent that Archie Norman is seeking in his Bill in another place.
We recognise that, even where a policy proposal would meet its objectives, there may be wider impacts and unintended consequences that outweigh the benefits of action. That is why the impact assessment must include not only the obvious costs and benefits of the proposal, but also the wider economic, social and environmental impacts. The Government are committed to ensuring that regulatory impact assessments consider all the potential impacts of regulation, including the potential unintended consequences. Only if the benefits of each action outweigh all the costs of doing so should a proposal go forward.
Those who would be affected by a proposed regulation can often add a perspective that might not otherwise have been considered. That is why we have introduced a minimum 12-week consultation period for all proposals that require an impact assessment, allowing the relevant stakeholders to contribute to policy development and flag up any potential unintended consequences of particular proposals before a final decision has been taken.
In bringing in measures, we therefore ensure that we listen to the views of business and meet its concerns. For example, the CBI noted that,
"the Government's minimum wage legislation has not created an excessive burden because of good consultation".
310
We will keep listening. The CBI is to be congratulated on that observation. The Government recognise that there can be uncertainties over the potential impacts of a regulation, such that even if on the balance of probabilities it appears justified beforehand, in practice it is not. That is why each regulatory impact assessment must discuss how the effectiveness of regulation is to be reviewed. We are also making use of new powers introduced in the Regulatory Reform Act to scrap unnecessary legislation.
In addition, we are making greater use of sunsetting clauses—specifying a particular date when a piece of legislation or regulation will expire—where appropriate. Sunsetting clauses have been included, for example, in the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 and the Terrorism Act 2000. I know that there have been calls from opposition parties to introduce sunsetting clauses for all new pieces of legislation and regulation. However, such clauses will not always be justified. A blanket commitment to them would introduce unnecessary uncertainty for business and impose unnecessary demands on parliamentary time.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, time is running out and I am rather anxious that the Minister makes a specific reply to some of the points put to him. At the moment, he does not seem to be getting there. Specifically, I wrote to him about and raised in my speech whether it would be advantageous to look at the possibility of setting up a deregulation Standing Committee of both Houses. That would give a wonderful backbone to the better regulation unit, and give it a friend in court, so to speak. I know that it is a fairly novel idea, but I have given him a chance to think about it and I wonder whether he has.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Indeed I have, my Lords, and I shall come to the point.
We are trying to ensure that we look at the issues on a case-by-case basis and that each regulation has a clear reviewing mechanism in place. As well as ensuring that any regulation is strictly necessary and reviewed systematically, the Government are committed to reforming existing regulation. The Regulatory Reform Act 2001 brought in new procedures for scrapping outdated legislation, and last December we published our action plan. It details 650 deregulatory and simplification measures that the Government will deliver, a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen.
Since the launch of the original version of the plan in February 2002, more than 240 reforms have been delivered. We have already delivered: licensing reforms which increase flexibility over opening hours, saving business in the order of £1.9 billion in the first 10 years" business tenancy reforms modernising procedures for renewing or terminating business tenancies, saving businesses approximately £6.5 million a year in court costs alone; and removal of limits to the number of partners in a firm, estimated to save around £10,000 per relevant partnership.

311
There is much more that we can and must do, however. Looking ahead, in the private sector we plan, for example, to modernise and streamline the planning processes; make it easier for business to obtain the patent protection essential to protect innovation; comprehensively reform company law, in order to meet the needs of business today; reflect the particular needs of small businesses and create an internationally competitive framework for all UK business; and rationalise government information requests to farmers, in the whole farm approach project, significantly reducing overlapping bureaucracy.
We are also pushing the reform agenda across Whitehall. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who said that there needed to be a cross-Whitehall approach, and we entirely agree. We are establishing the panel for regulatory accountability, which will be made up from business and ministerial representation. The Regulatory Impact Unit in the Cabinet Office is there to assist. We have also set up the Small Business Service, which acts as a voice for small businesses within government. And, of course, we set up the Better Regulation Task Force, an independent body with a broad membership. The Government have accepted many of its recommendations, including the introduction of common commencement dates for all changes to employment regulation.
We have appointed a Minister for regulatory reform in each department, so that each department is advised on and understands the impact of measures that it seeks to bring forward. We have established a network of departmental boards responsible for promoting better regulation.
The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, raised the issue of perhaps creating a joint parliamentary committee comprised of Members of both Houses. It is an interesting idea and I certainly do not dismiss it out of hand. However, we already have the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, and the House of Commons has its own Regulatory Reform Committee. Those two bodies carry out important work in the area. The importance of that work is respected and acknowledged, not least because, certainly so far as the Delegated Powers Committee is concerned, the Government are almost bound to acknowledge and bow towards its recommendations.
As many speakers said, an increasing proportion of regulation affecting this country originates in Europe. The Government want to ensure that European legislation is subject to the same level of scrutiny as British legislation. That is why we welcomed the European Commission's action plan for better regulation, published in June last year. Specifically, the plan committed the Commission to publishing 42 regulatory impact assessments in 2003, reducing existing legislation by 35,000 pages by the end of 2004 and creating a minimum consultation period of eight weeks.
312
The Government will continue to push for further improvements. The forthcoming Irish, Dutch, British and Luxembourg presidencies are proposing a joint initiative to drive forward regulatory reform across the European Union. Government guidance also aims to ensure that transposition of EU work is done as simply and easily as possible to avoid "gold plating", to which many noble Lords have objected.
I now want to turn briefly to the public sector. Improving public services is the Government's top priority. Better regulation can help to deliver public service. Clearer national targets and rigorous performance management systems are essential parts of driving up standards, but we also need to ensure that we minimise the bureaucracy that those impose, and strip away unnecessary burdens wherever possible.
The Government are pursuing that agenda through, for example, earned autonomy for highly performing hospitals. Three-star trusts can now set their own management cost limits without being monitored by the department or the strategic health authority. Foundation trusts will be freed from Whitehall control, and run instead by local communities and frontline staff.
We are also reducing the number of statutory plans and targets that the public sector has to produce. For example, in the National Health Service we have devolved 75 per cent of funding direct to primary care trusts, and have halved the number of targets that trusts will face from 108 in 2001–02 to 44 this year. By 2003, there had been a 65 per cent reduction in the volume of information returns that the Department of Health required, saving nearly 30,000 man-hours over the past three years. The Health Secretary, John Reid, announced on 10 February a further drive to reduce the number of targets and increase focus on the quality of patient care.
The Government are acting to remove unnecessary burdens from frontline staff, including through Making a Difference reports—and they are making a difference. Nurses, for example, can now request tests and investigations. Patients can now be dispensed 28 days' worth of medicine instead of seven days' worth, and re-registration of nurses returning to practice is now quicker. All such examples show what can be done when we decide to attack the burdens of bureaucracy and move towards forms of deregulation.
I would like to summarise the Government's case on the debate. The Government are committed to regulating only where necessary and only where the benefits of doing so justify the costs. Every proposal having an impact on business must have an RIA which must consider all of the wider costs and benefits, not just the most obvious, as well as the alternatives to regulating. This system helps to ensure that all potential consequences of regulation, intended and unintended, are considered when deciding whether to proceed with a policy proposal.
In addition, the 12-week consultation period ensures that those who will be affected by the proposal have the chance to feed in their views and raise concerns about any potential unintended consequence of the kind we

313
have heard today. We are, as a government, committed to listening to business and minimising the burden that regulation places upon businesses. The Government are committed to reforming existing regulation, whether it is outdated or failing to achieve its policy objective. We are drawing on the expertise of both the private sector and front-line public sector staff in seeking areas for reform. We are also drawing on the expertise of private-sector secondees and the independent Better Regulation Task Force.
This comprehensive strategy for better regulation is recognised by the World Bank, the Economist, and the OECD as among the world's best, with the United Kingdom at the forefront of regulatory reform. It is this strategy that has helped to make the United Kingdom one of the best places in the world to do business, contributing to our enviable record of record employment, low inflation and interest rates and the longest period of economic expansion on record.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, time is up and I want merely to thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I thank the Minister, after a long day, for listening so attentively. I am sure he is impressed by the level of expertise and experience of regulation, over-regulation and unnecessary regulation. I hope that the debate generally will raise the whole level of the regulatory framework in this country greatly to the benefit of its citizens. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

European Union: Taxation
8.2 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether direct taxation has been ceded to the European Union under the existing European treaties.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I trust we all agree that control of taxation is fundamental to the sovereignty of a nation. In other words, our democracy is not worth much if we cannot elect and dismiss the people who levy our taxes—our Members of Parliament or, more precisely, our Members of the House of Commons. This seems to me to be such an historic and acknowledged assumption that I must ask the Minister whether the present Labour Government agree with it. I will not ask him many questions tonight, but I should be grateful if he would answer that one.
The purpose of the debate is to discover to what extent this fundamental part of our democracy may have already been ceded to the qualified majority vote in Brussels and to the Luxembourg Court. The Motion does not call for an assessment of what the situation might become if we signed up to the draft new constitution for Europe, which as your Lordships know is on the back-burner under the Irish presidency of the European Union and looks likely to re-emerge by the end of this year under the Dutch presidency at the latest.
The draft constitution explicitly envisages Brussels taking control of direct taxation, which is why the Prime Minister made tax one of his famous red lines in the stalled negotiations last December. So this debate is also partly to ask how much point there is in the Prime Minister's red line on tax, if it has already been potentially given away to Brussels.
I propose to deal with the Question under three broad headings, as the Minister knows, because, given the density of the subject, I volunteered them to his civil servants this morning. I shall start by explaining how the Commission and the Court can use clauses in the treaties to achieve an aim which may appear to be frustrated under more specific clauses. I shall then give examples of where the Court is already clearly encroaching on the nation states' prerogative to decide matters relating to corporation tax, and I shall finish by identifying clauses in the present treaties which would already allow Brussels, supported by the Court, to take control of all direct taxation, both corporate and personal.
Before any of your Lordships think I am being fanciful, let me clarify at once that I am not saying that Brussels is about to use this power in the near future. I am saying that the power is there, hidden in the existing treaties, to be used at a time when EU integration has progressed a bit further; at a time when Brussels feels it can get away with using it.
So, first, the contention that Brussels and the Court use hidden clauses in the treaties to achieve an aim which may appear to be frustrated under more specific clauses or prohibitions. I can do no better than to remind your Lordships of how the Working Time Directive, or 48-hour week, was deceitfully imposed upon the United Kingdom.
The 48-hour week was a central aim of the EU's social chapter, over which Brussels was keen to take control in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. The Conservative government of the day was opposed to the social chapter in general and to the 48-hour week in particular. It therefore only agreed to the Maastricht Treaty as a whole provided that the UK was allowed to opt out of the social chapter. The treaty was duly signed on that understanding, but the Commission had a trick up its sleeve in the shape of Article 118a of the TEC. This article governed the health and safety of workers and had been introduced under unanimity in the earlier Single European Act that was made subject to the co-decision procedure at Maastricht; in other words, after Maastricht, we could be outvoted on matters relating to the health and safety of workers.
So the Commission asserted, despite our objection, that the 48-hour week was a proposal covered by health and safety at work and that it should apply to the UK. The Court as usual agreed, and so the UK was forced to accept the Working Time Directive after all.
I suppose it is just conceivable that some of your Lordships may think that this version of events is the usual Euro-sceptic negative scare-mongering. So I fear it is worth placing on the record in your Lordships' House, for the first time, a letter written on 12 November 1996

315
by the Prime Minister, Mr John Major, to the President of the Commission, Mr Jacques Santer. The letter goes as follows:
"Dear Jacques,
"My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of State and Government also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht.
"However, in its judgement today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118a is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act. This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118a.
"This is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied.
"The United Kingdom will therefore table amendments in the Intergovernmental Conference to restore the position to that which the United Kingdom Government intended following the Maastricht agreement. Those amendments will be aimed at both ensuring that Article 118a cannot in future be used in ways contrary to the United Kingdom's expectation, and dealing with the specific problem of the Working Time Directive.
"I attach the utmost importance to these amendments and I shall insist that they form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not see how new agreements can be reached if earlier agreements are being undermined.
"Meanwhile, I urge the Commission to refrain from making proposals under Article 118a that properly belong under the other Member States' Agreement on Social Policy.
"I am sending copies of this letter to Heads of State or Government of European Union Member States.
"Yours sincerely,
"John Major".
I submit that that letter is one of the most important documents in the history of our relations with the European Union, about which it says so much. The inter-governmental conference to which Mr Major referred was the IGC leading up to the Treaty of Amsterdam. By the time that treaty was signed at the end of 1997, the Conservatives had lost a general election and a new Labour Government signed up to the treaty and to the social chapter. So Mr Major's letter became somewhat academic, but I trust that it serves to prove my point: that the Commission and the Court are very capable of using unexpected clauses in the treaties to advance their ambitions. I remind your Lordships that the Working Time Directive is much in our thoughts today.
How does that apply to direct taxation'? The obvious tax provisions of the European treaties are contained in Articles 90 to 93 of the TEC and appear at first sight to offer some comfort. Indeed, Article 93, which the Government never tire of reading out when pressed on the subject, states that there must be unanimity in the Council to adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation. So we have retained the veto over indirect taxation. But the
316
treaties are largely silent on direct taxation; and they certainly appear to be silent on corporation tax and income tax.
Or are they? Have the Commission and the Court got another card up their sleeves? It would appear that they do, but that card is not to be found in the obvious place in the treaties, under tax provisions. It is to be found instead in the clauses which bring about the single market and specifically in the articles which ordain the four fundamental freedoms—being the free movement of persons, services, goods and capital and the right of establishment within the EU. Those freedoms are enshrined in Articles 39 to 60 of the TEC, which are often referred to as the anti-discrimination clauses: one EU country cannot discriminate against others to its advantage. Like all single market legislation, that whole area is subject to the qualified majority vote, so we do not have a veto here.
Of those clauses, there is one, Article 43, concerning the right of establishment, which is being used by the Commission and the Court to interfere in national corporation tax. Their basic long-term aim seems to be to eliminate the different tax regimes of the nation states and incorporate them into a single corporation tax regime—to be followed, I fear, by a harmonised personal tax regime, to which I shall return—all of it eventually under the benign control of Brussels. They justify that basic aim by saying that it is necessary for the completion of the single market; that we cannot have what they claim to be the benefit of a level playing field in the single market if we have different tax regimes all over the place. Hence the need for harmonisation and eventual central control.
For your Lordships to appreciate how dense and tenuous is the case for the Commission's and the court's interference in corporation tax, I fear that I should quote from Article 43. It states:
"restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State shall be prohibited. Such prohibition shall also apply to restrictions on the setting of the agencies, branches or subsidiaries by nationals of any Member State established in the territory of any Member State.
"Freedom of establishment shall include the right to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons and to set up and manage undertakings, in particular companies or firms",
and so on.
Once again, I must apologise for quoting Euro-speak in your Lordships' House. I hope that your Lordships will agree that, as usual, it is numbing stuff—as it is always intended to be. But, from that verbiage, the Court has taken the power in some 80 cases so far to find in favour of company tax payers and against their national governments, on the ground that their national tax laws restricted freedom of corporate establishment. Thus, the Court found against Her Majesty's Treasury in a recent case brought by ICI, which claimed group relief for losses incurred by overseas subsidiaries, and in the Hoechst/ Metallgesellsehaft cases, which put paid to our requirement for UK subsidiaries of overseas parent companies to deduct advance corporation tax from their dividend payments upwards. Those two cases alone are estimated to have cost the Treasury about £2 billion. Can the noble Lord confirm that figure?
Whatever the noble Lord's answer, to which we look forward, that strategy of the Commission and the Court has become big business for our large accounting firms and their international clients, whom they are advising how to benefit from it. Those firms confirm what I have been saying, so your Lordships do not have to believe me.
For instance, last March, Ernst & Young issued a report entitled, Damned if we don't? How EU law is challenging and changing the EU tax system, which identified the Court's determination,
"to align the tax treatment of businesses throughout the EU … basing its position on the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty".
Or, as Mr Peter Corcoran wrote in Deloitte's World Tax Advisor report last August:
"Direct taxation was not originally a priority for the EU … It has been viewed by the member states as national business, and as one of the last bastions of sovereignty for member states … Nevertheless, the ECJ has embarked on a course to ensure that the fundamental freedoms of the EC Treaty are respected in the area of direct taxation".
As an international UK businessman, one is tempted to welcome a regime that allows one's profits to arise in convenient tax regimes. I am sure that my finance director will not be altogether amused if he reads what I have said so far. But as a resident in our comparatively low tax regime—not to mention as a child of our democracy—one must be deeply worried as one contemplates the obvious development of the Commission's and Court's ambitions. It is clear that they will continue to widen their judgments against national tax authorities until the nation states concede a common corporation tax policy.
As Mr. Frits Bolkestein, the EU's commissar for the single market said recently:
"The concept of a common consolidated tax base for EU-wide activities of companies … is ultimately the only means of tackling the various tax obstacles in the Internal Market 'in one stroke'".
Can the Minister tell the House what, if anything, the Government think they can do about this situation, and whether they intend to do it?
Finally, I come to my contention that the treaties already contain a clause which potentially cedes control of all taxation, including personal taxation, to Brussels.
This provision is Article 44(2)(h), and it appears in the next Article to the one that I have quoted above, in the same chapter on the right of establishment. It is therefore subject to the same wide and imaginative interpretations as its predecessor.
In order to spare noble Lords more Euro-speak at this time of night—I am sure that one dose is enough—I will paraphrase the key parts of Article 44 as follows: in order to attain freedom of establishment, the Council and Commission shall issue directives, in particular by satisfying themselves that the conditions of establishment are not distorted by aids granted by member states. They can therefore rule out "aids granted by member states"—those are the key—words if they think that they are discriminatory or to the advantage of one member state against the others.
When I first read those words some 12 years ago, I assumed that the word "aids" meant things like government aid to British Steel, or perhaps Air France, that sort of thing. Now I know better. Now I know that the word "aids" can mean anything that the Luxembourg Court decides it means. I fear it could mean our entire direct taxation system, including personal tax, if the Court agreed that that was causing distortion to the single market, perhaps by enticing a larger share of inward investment into this country, or by making the UK a more attractive place for the very rich to live in, with consequent advantage to our economy.
As I said at the beginning, I do not pretend that Brussels will consummate this power in the near future. I merely suggest that the corrupt octopus already has a tentacle around our entire taxation system, which it will tighten when the victim can no longer escape.
I end where I started. These decisions are not taken by the House of Commons, by those whom the British people can elect and dismiss. They are taken in Brussels and Luxembourg, and this Parliament must rubber stamp them on pain of unlimited fines. And worse is surely to come.
I do not know how the people will react when they discover that this vital part of their democracy—of their sovereignty—has been taken from them. But I imagine they will want to know how the Government intend to give it back to them.
I look forward to the noble Lord's enlightenment in that regard.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not spend the bulk of my speech commenting directly on the speech given by noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, but I will make one or two comments about it.
First, the idea that there is a hidden clause in any EU treaty is, frankly, risible. The whole EU spends its Lime looking through the treaties. There are copies of them in our Library. I do not believe that there is anything hidden.
As for the language in which they are written, we have just had a debate on regulation. Does anyone argue that EU regulation is somehow more difficult to understand than the extraordinary language in which all parliamentary drafting takes place? This is another fear that the noble Lord seeks to raise and it is completely unjustified.
The noble Lord referred to Article 93, and pointed out that as far as indirect taxation was concerned, changes require unanimity. He then said that there was no such article relating to direct taxation. Direct taxation is not covered by the treaty, so there is no Community competence in it. It is therefore hardly surprising that there is no equivalent article to Article 93.
The points that he made about the long-term consequences of Articles 43 and 44 were overdone. Major degrees of harmonisation of direct taxation

319
within the EU will happen only if there is a political will for it within the EU—if a large majority of member states wish it to happen. There is no sign that this is the view across the EU, leaving aside the view of this country. The noble Lord raises fears that are completely unjustified.
My final point—and it is a point that has been made before in response to the noble Lord's comments—is that many of us find his reference to EU high officials as commissars offensive. Personally I find that description of Frits Bolkestein, a free-market liberal, both offensive and ridiculous. It does nothing to the level of our debates when the noble Lord continues to use that kind of language.
What is worthwhile discussing in your Lordships' House as a serious economic issue is how far tax levels and structures within a single market can diverge and should be encouraged to do so without jeopardising the free movement of goods, labour and capital, and without causing serious market distortions. The noble Lord referred briefly to indirect taxes, in particular excise duties. At present, the extremely disparate rates of indirect excise duties in the UK and much of continental Europe, particularly in wines, spirits and cigarettes, have led to levels of smuggling into this country not seen for more than 250 years. That has been extremely damaging to UK businesses. It is now decreasing somewhat as duties rise on the Continent, most notably with the French decision to make very significant increases in tobacco duty. But in the absence of such voluntary coming-together of duties, there is a strong argument from the viewpoint of UK domestic industry for at least greater European co-ordination of indirect tax levels, even if there are no formal harmonisation plans, which I do not support.
EU decisions on direct taxes have already had extremely significant consequences. For example, the decision to allow the Irish, particularly the International Finance Centre in Dublin, a zero corporation tax rate, a derogation that they were given for a short period, had a very big impact in attracting financial services investment to Dublin. The impact was such that prosperity in Ireland has allowed the Irish to reduce corporation tax to a very low level so that it is still worthwhile for all the footloose companies that moved into Dublin to remain there.
That single tax change, more than any other single change, except possibly the common agricultural policy, has led to an extraordinary level of growth in the Irish economy, which, for good or ill from our point of view—it has taken investment and activity away from the UK—has happened under existing EU legislation. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, thinks that that has been a positive development, and whether, had there been greater co-ordination on corporation tax matters across the EU, that change might not have happened and a single corporation tax decision would not have had such a big impact.
I had thought that the noble Lord would talk to a greater extent—although he referred to it in passing—about the alleged suggestion that some member states
320
would move to harmonise the base of corporation tax, not the rate. That issue was covered in an article in the Financial Times on 21 and 22 of this month. Frits Bolkestein, in an interview to Le Monde, said that the Commission sought to draw up proposals under the in-house corporation rules for a group of countries to harmonise the bases on which corporation tax was charged.
That potentially significant development is worth discussing rationally to see how it might affect UK business. To a certain extent, international harmonisation of accounting standards means that the way in which companies will report their activities will be more closely aligned. From that it is a relatively small step to have a harmonised base of corporation tax. That would bring with it some benefit to business, because it would mean that companies operating across all EU countries would not need to establish subsidiaries in each single one for corporation tax purposes. There would be significant benefit for large companies. I am not saying that that is an overriding argument but it is one worth having.
The point that Bolkestein makes on the consequence of such a move for tax rates is valid. He argues that the first consequence of such a change might well be that a common system by making the system more transparent would reveal hidden disparities in the way in which the tax base was currently calculated. He argued that in a second period thanks to tax competition, tax rates would move close to each other once again. What we have seen in any event in the EU is that corporation tax rates have been lowered, because member states have realised that it is to the advantage of their industries not to overtax them against other member states. There has been something of a common movement in the EU without any new powers going to the Commission, the European Court, or to anybody else.
As far as income tax is concerned, there is no serious politician in Europe who is now arguing, or has argued recently, that income tax should be levied on a harmonised basis. That being the case, while, as always, there is merit and interest in discussing some of these issues on a theoretical basis, we should not believe that there is any movement, pressure, impetus, or push in Europe to see a harmonised income tax base or any suggestion that the Commission, the Parliament, the member states, the Council or anybody else wishes to see this in the foreseeable future.
8.26 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch has raised an important issue with his Question this evening. I am sure that the Minister will say later this evening that direct taxation has not been ceded to the EU, and that was the burden of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. In a narrow, technical sense, that may well be correct. However, I believe, like my noble friend, that the substantive position is that direct taxation, or elements of direct taxation, have already been ceded. The position is now getting serious, and we are already part-way down a slippery slope. Unless the Government act with some determination, of which

321
we have seen no sign yet, we will end up with UK taxation becoming subsumed more and more in the tentacles of the EU. That could well harm British taxpayers.
It might seem something of a surprise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a veritable master of the stealth tax, has failed to spot the arrival of the even more deadly EU taxation by stealth. The truth is that despite the rhetoric of not ceding sovereignty over direct taxation—I will leave the Minister to wheel out the standard government quotes—the Chancellor has already accepted that EU control over at least part of our direct taxation is a fact of life. There is no other explanation for his Pre-Budget Report announcement that in response to the Lankhorst case in Europe, legislation will be introduced from April this year to require arms-length pricing arrangements within groups of companies.
Let me digress for a short while on this proposed legislation, because it can be portrayed as a minor adjustment to our tax rules, but that is simply not true. All of the companies that I am involved in are now embarked on expensive exercises to identify and price all of their UK intra-group transactions. Tens of thousands of pounds are being spent on advisory fees. That just establishes the base line; tens of thousands more pounds will be spent every year by many companies in changing arrangements, changing systems and implementing new record-keeping requirements. I hate to think what that will add up to across the corporate sector. It will be yet another regulatory burden imposed by the Government, and the UK economy will benefit not one iota. We should not be beguiled by the Government's assertion that only the largest companies will be affected by the new tax law. In practice, only the smallest will escape the net.
The purpose of the debate is to consider not the specifics of our latest submission to EU control but the principles. For a long time, there have been good reasons to be afraid of the EU's designs on the tax systems of member states. An excellent pamphlet of 2001 entitled European Tax Harmonisation by Theresa Villiers, a Member of the European Parliament, has a seven-page annex of quotations that should chill the heart of all but the most extreme Europhile. States that have chosen to join in economic and monetary union will face the biggest challenge. For example, Commissioner Solbes put it succinctly when he said:
"Member states cannot be allowed to pursue whatever tax and spending policies they want after joining the euro".
That is another good reason for staying out of the euro.
Keeping our monetary policy independence will not guarantee fiscal independence. For example, in 2001, the Commission said:
"It remains the Commission's view that a move to qualified majority voting at least for certain tax issues is indispensable".
The Commission repeated that view last year in its formal opinion on the proposed constitution. As has already been said this evening, Frits Bolkestein is pursuing another approach to harmonisation. Last
322
week, he was quoted as saying, "The moment is right". The "moment" in this case being right for the harmonisation of several countries. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who said that, following the move to some form of accounting harmonisation, it is only a small step to harmonising the tax base. It is a big step, and we should want no part of it.
Ms Villiers's pamphlet does not simply repeat quotations from the usual suspects at the Commission. She includes politicians from France and Germany, the very countries to which our Prime Minister is now trying to get close in Europe. Do we know what game they are playing? Back in 1997, France's Europe Minister, Pierre Moscovici, said:
"we need to move towards fiscal harmonisation. It won't happen immediately but we are talking 5 or 10 years' time".
They are playing a long game. I am not convinced that our Prime Minister has a long game in him.
Ms Villiers also notes how spin has been allowed to mask the real agenda. In 1998, Oskar Lafontaine, then German Finance Minister, said:
"our English friends have asked us not to use the word 'harmonisation' and instead use the word 'co-ordination' ".
I wonder which English friends those were—almost certainly the Prime Minister and possibly even the Chancellor. I hope that, when the Minister replies this evening, he will confirm that, if he uses the word "co-ordination", it is not euro-code for "harmonisation" or something worse.
There are significant threats. We have had a reprieve—perhaps only temporary—from the proposed European constitution. I will not delve into the dangers that lurk there. Even the Prime Minister has said that tax harmonisation would be a "fundamental change". Will the Minister confirm this evening that, if tax harmonisation were suddenly to appear in some resuscitated European constitution, there would be no question but that the constitution would be put to a vote by way of referendum in this country?
There are threats beyond the constitution. The most important is that posed by the European Court of Justice, using the treaty provisions, as my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch pointed out. The European Court of Justice does not directly impose fiscal policies, but, under the guise of enforcing the fundamental freedoms in the treaty about which my noble friend spoke, the court has steadily achieved the ability to interfere in the tax policies of nation states. I do not believe that any signatory to the treaty would have anticipated Article 43 which prohibits restrictions of the freedom of establishment could have been used as a Trojan horse to attack the autonomy of member states in relation to tax. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that the language of the treaties has not been hidden: that is indeed the case. But I do not believe that the way in which the language could he used was appreciated until relatively recently. Over the past 10 years or so, we have seen a number of cases, starting with the ICI-Colmer case—I declare an interest as a director of ICI—which have started the process of moving into member state autonomy.

323
In 1999 the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on European Communities reported on taxes in the EU. In that report a single paragraph of analysis related to the possible role of the European Court of Justice. That did not identify the grave danger to the UK which is now posed. I wonder whether that committee would be so unconcerned today, given the more recent cases. I venture to suggest that the committee might like to revisit the issue.
The Government seem not to regard the territorial ambitions of the ECJ as a big issue. We have already seen the introduction of transfer pricing rules following the Lankhorst case even though there is a patent detriment to British companies. Accountancy firms have identified a raft of other UK tax rules which now look vulnerable. It could be only a matter of time before the European Court of Justice catches up with them too.
My question to the Minister is this: do the Government care whether or not the ECJ slowly eats away at our tax competence? We may not be faced with full blown tax harmonisation which the Prime Minister has declared a fundamental issue. But the list of tax arrangements which could fall foul of the ECJ is very long indeed. At what point would the Government regard the loss of our tax autonomy as fundamental? Will the Government stand by and let the Court increasingly dictate our tax rules?
There are other threats to our freedom to devise our tax system. In particular, the Code of Conduct on Business Taxation, drawn up in secret proceedings, represents a cause for concern. This is not for any attacks to date on our tax system but because our active participation in the code is predicated on tax competition between member states being harmful. We on these Benches do not accept that proposition and believe that it is only a matter of time before the code is taken in more ambitious directions which could well harm the UK. The Government have not even called for the group which produced the code to be dismantled. Instead, the Paymaster General, who chaired the group, told your Lordships' Select Committee in 1999 that "its work will never be finished".
We should be afraid; we should be very afraid. We are well on the way to losing control of direct taxation. If the Government do not act decisively and quickly, our valued national freedom of control over our own direct taxes will disappear. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that decisive action is indeed on its way.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it has been a stimulating debate introduced with his usual panache by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, to whom we are grateful. There were relatively few participants. Nevertheless, important issues have been covered. I shall concentrate overwhelmingly on the issues which have been raised with regard to direct tax matters, the subject of the debate.
324
In passing, I must say that I find it a little difficult to take from an Opposition spokesman the concept that the Prime Minister, the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have no long game in them; that, from a party involved in boom and bust during the years it was in government. When we produce an economy with some solidity of achievements in terms of low interest rates, low unemployment, significant consistent and economic growth over years, to say that this Government are not capable of a long game seems to have an element of effrontery about it. But we are not here to mix issues of general economic policy. We are here to talk about the issues that exercise the noble Lord with regard to direct taxation.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asked whether direct taxation has been ceded to the European Union under the existing EU treaties. The implication of the question is that direct tax policy is an important part of national sovereignty. It has a vital role to play in our social and economic well being. Of course, I agree with him.
It is precisely because of the importance of tax issues that the Government are committed to a modern and fair tax system that encourages work, saving and investment, keeps pace with developments in business practice and the global economy, and raises sufficient revenue to fund the Government's objective to build world-class public services. Those are ambitious objectives, but through the changes and reforms that we have introduced we are achieving them.
We are making significant progress with regard to cardinal points in the economy. We compare well with our European neighbours and other significant countries. It is clear that power over direct taxation has not been ceded to the European Union. The Government are using their authority to deliver radical reform within the framework of their participation in the European Community.
Maintaining control over our own tax system is, in particular, key to pursuing the kind of tax competition between states that globalisation demands, and which is an essential element of the Government's economic reform agenda. Such tax competition can encourage innovation and thus make more efficient ways of raising revenues. It can help to cut through bureaucracy and reduce compliance costs.
Competition between states, each controlling their own tax policy, recognises that countries have different preferences for how to structure their tax system; preferences that often reflect long-standing national values. Clearly, we fit into exactly that pattern. That is why the Government are quite clear—as repeated on many occasions—that they are not prepared to see tax harmonisation with regard to direct taxation.
We reject direct taxation harmonisation. The one-size-fits-all solutions are a barrier rather than a spur to global competitiveness. The global flow of capital, and the global sourcing of goods, are fatally undermining the old flawed assumptions that a European single market must be followed by European tax harmonisation.

325
In relation to a harmonised tax on savings, the Government took action two years ago and succeeded in ensuring that we protect our very important position with regard to saving. When recognising the importance of investment strategies in the City, the Government took action to protect them, clearly using their willingness to operate a veto in that area and to achieve a solution based on agreement that protected our essential interests.
It is right that the Government continue to resist any schemes for harmonised direct tax and right that they have made a manifesto commitment to maintain the UK's tax veto in the European Union. Taxation is, and will remain, a key component of national sovereignty. We are at one with the noble Lord when he stresses the importance of that. But national sovereignty on direct tax is not entirely unconstrained, and nor should it be.
The Government recognise that in some areas we need international standards. Such standards ensure that British businesses can trade freely across borders without facing unfair discrimination or the risk of double taxation. They ensure that tax competition is fair and above hoard. That is why Ministers from OECD member countries first agreed in May 1996 to co-operate to combat harmful tax practices. The UK has been closely involved in the OECD's work in that area ever since, helping to produce recommendations and guidelines that identify potentially harmful practices and encourage their "rollback". I am surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested, I think, that there was something remiss about that behaviour.
The issue developed with regard to the code was one that was chaired by a British Minister, the Paymaster General. Over a number of years it has been involved in making significant progress towards reducing unfair practices that inhibit growth and the development of fair competition.
All markets, and particularly those operating across borders, need some rules if they are to deliver the benefits that we know competition can bring. As in trade policy or competition policy, so too in the field of taxation, some international standards and co-operation are needed if we are to achieve the full benefits of liberalisation. So whereas I accept entirely the importance of the issue that the noble Lord raised, I disagree that our national objectives and the enhancement of our national sovereignty can be delivered on the basis of unilateral isolated "little Englander" action. Not so.
We need an international framework in which to play our part, in which to influence from a position of considerable authority. We need to work with our international partners within the OECD and the European Community. This is surely unsurprising in a successful single market. After all, this is a market, as the noble Lord will recognise, where 3 million jobs are at stake in terms of the UK's relationship to the market. It is a market in which 55 per cent of our trade is with the European Community. Millions of British consumers benefit from lower prices and more choice as a result of us being members. For this single market to function, and for UK business and consumers to
326
benefit, it must be based on rules and the impartial application of certain fundamental freedoms set out in the treaty.
As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, clarified for me, the position is one in which although there are European rules necessary in the treaty, there is no explicit competence to legislate on direct taxes, nor is there any serious political intent to produce harmonisation with regard to income tax. I do not need to go into this issue further because I am grateful to the noble Lord for having clarified those issues successfully earlier in the debate.
However, there are a number of issues which we need to look at with care. I want to comment on the question of legal judgments. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, identified legal judgments that have significant financial implications for this country. I did not recognise the global figure which he presented, which ran, as I recall it, into billions; it may have been 2 billions. That figure is more than 1 billion so I am entitled to add the plural "s" to billion! As far as our figures are able to identify the issues now, we have settled claims from a number of companies related to judgments from the European Court of Justice to a value of £183 million. There are unsettled claims estimated in the region of £250 million.
I am not in a position to do what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, can do. His representation today was even more far-sighted than we are used to from him. Mini caveats introduced into his speech were about his talking about not the "here and now" or even the immediate future but about that which might be implicit in the treaty over a very long period. I can respond by saying only that I would put his figure of £2 billion into that category. I am not able to predict how costly judgments might be in the future and I certainly cannot quantify them.
I turn to the particular cases that were identified. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred to the Hoechst/Metallgesellschaft judgment. The decision in that case was reached subsequent to our own decision to abolish advance corporation tax. I cannot enter into discussion on the particular case because some claims are still outstanding, but it is clear that we were bent upon reforming and changing the position with regard to ACT. In fact, the decision from the European Court of Justice produced some costs against past practice.
The European Court of Justice has a certain role to play in determining when and how the law governing the concept of the single market should be applied and interpreted. Some noble Lords have suggested that the power of the ECJ to consider aspects of direct tax policy in and of itself presents proof that we have ceded sovereignty in this area. I do not agree with that interpretation. The primacy of Community law over national law in the areas covered by the treaty is a well-established and necessary principle of the European Union and is integral to its operation. The alternative, in which presumably we would have a Union with member states free to choose not to apply the rules, would destroy the whole concept of the single market.
However, that does not mean that we cede to the European Court of Justice primacy over our national taxation. Let me make the most obvious point. All

327
cases appearing before the European Court of Justice are brought by national organisations. The European Court of Justice does not originate the cases, they come from within nation states. So it is national courts that create the problem by referring to the ECJ. Despite our limited time, I shall give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, we have several minutes were we to need them. Does the Minister agree that the Commission itself can bring cases in the European Court of Justice?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is true, but the cases quoted this evening were all referred by national courts. The noble Lord cannot make the bogey look too great in circumstances where all the instances quoted were reflections of national will.
The noble Lord raised the issue of problems regarding state aid. Let me say that I do not think that the UK has been prevented from doing what it wants to do on taxation as a result of these matters. When we set out to reform stamp duty there was a delay because we wanted to be reassured that there were no implications concerning the definition of the use of state aid. But the Government introduced stamp duty reforms on the basis of their own principles, and that is reflected in our present position.
This has been a stimulating debate, as are all debates originated by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I am grateful to him. However, let me make it absolutely clear once again that we do not believe that we have ceded control over direct taxation to the European Union. The position is governed by the veto. We do not hesitate to say that we are committed to that position. We shall continue to insist on tax unanimity and we shall argue both in the EU and internationally for fair tax
328
competition and against damaging harmonisation. But we shall also continue to co-operate with others where it is in the best interests of this country to do so. In a global economy it is essential that we have a framework for co-operation as well as competition. To refuse to co-operate, to opt out and to leave others to dictate the international agenda would be to sell short the world economy and, much more crucially, would adversely affect Britain's economic interests. We do not intend to do that.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
A message was brought from the Commons that they have made the following orders:
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.
House adjourned at five minutes before nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Public Audit (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
  (Second Day)
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff) in the Chair.]
  Clause 20 [Fees for Audit]
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 37:
  Page 16, line 32. at end insert—
  ( ) The scale or scales of fees must be calculated to recover no more than the cost of the audits to which the scale relates."
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 37 would insert a new subsection into Clause 20, which sets up fee scales for local government audits in Wales. The amendment says that the fees must not exceed the profit of the audit. This is a probing amendment, designed to find out how the system will work in practice.
  As I understand the Audit Commission arrangements, there is a scale of audit fees that applies for all audits. The bodies pay the audit fees into the centre, after which they are passed on to individual auditors, whether in the private sector or in the Audit Commission. A margin is kept at the centre to fund and effect the technical support costs of dealing with local government audits. Will that situation apply in Wales, with a surplus over the costs of the individual auditors going towards funding the central technical costs? How will the level of that compare with English audits, given that the scale of operation in Wales will be much smaller and there will probably not be a different size of technical function? Will there be a higher level of cost in Wales because of the new arrangements involving separate audit? Have any calculations yet been made of the costs under the new arrangements compared with those under the existing arrangements? I hope the Minister will be able to shed some light on these matters. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I recognise the probing nature of this amendment. The Auditor General for Wales, as now, will broadly seek to balance income and expenditure. The reason why we would not be able to accept the amendment is that it would ensure that the Auditor General resets fees calculated to recover no more than the actual costs of the audit. I think the noble Baroness will recognise that there are other costs which are legitimate.
  GC 116
  The proportion of the fee income derived from the scale of fees would be used to fund the undertaking and promotion of economy, efficiency and effectiveness studies. Other studies are to be undertaken under Clauses 41 and 42.
  Fee income would also be needed to make the Auditor General's central administrative costs relevant to his local government audit function, including the costs of negotiating and maintaining contractual arrangements.
  The clause represents a continuation of the fee-setting arrangements already in place in respect of local government audit in England and Wales. The arrangements, as the noble Baroness knows rather better than I do, are tried and tested, and the clause ensures that they will continue to be subject to full consultation with local government and other interested parties.
  At present, I understand that the Audit Commission retains a percentage of its gross audit and inspection fee income to cover its central administrative costs and its economy, efficiency and effectiveness study costs. The charging arrangements are tried and tested, and Welsh local government did not raise any concerns over the intention to preserve them during the process of consultation in pre-legislative scrutiny.
  Baroness Noakes: Can the Minister say anything about any calculations to be made about the cost levels that might apply under the new arrangements, given that they are in a new organisational structure?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that additional point. This will be a matter for the Auditor General to decide in terms of the margin. I believe that, at present, the margin is about 9 per cent in respect of the Audit Commission. Although costings have not yet been fully carried out, we would expect it to be within a similar range.
  Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 20 agreed to.
  Clause 21 [Fees prescribed by Assembly]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Noakes: Clause 21 is curious and, I suggest, possibly unnecessary. Clause 20 provides that the Auditor General will prescribe the scale or scales of fees payable following consultation. I should have thought that that consultation, which involves both local authorities and bodies of accountants, would be sufficient. Subsection (4) states that they must pay, although it is probably inconceivable that they would refuse to do so.
  However, Clause 21 contains provision for the Assembly to prescribe alternative or substitute scales—again, following consultation. What is the point of this clause? No real reason is given for this formulation. We believe that the clause may not be wholly innocuous because it may encourage dissension and make

  GC 117
  agreement under Clause 20 more difficult because of the reserve power under Clause 21 which can be brought into effect.
  The Explanatory Notes talk about the Assembly considering the scales to be excessive or about there being a conflict of views. But, if that is the case, it cannot seriously be suggested that the Auditor General should, in effect, be compelled to carry out work for less than the costs that he thinks he should recover. Therefore, we find it difficult to see what proper place Clause 21 has in the Bill.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: This is not a new power that is being conferred on the Assembly. The Assembly already has the power to prescribe fees under Section 7 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, together with the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999. Clause 21 preserves the status quo. It would be open to the Assembly to exercise the power if, for example, it considered the scale of fees set by the Auditor General for Wales to be excessive or if there were an impasse between the Auditor General and local government on this issue. In doing so, the Assembly would be required to consult the Auditor General, associations of local government in Wales and any bodies of accountants which appeared to be appropriate.
  Exercise of the power would not in any way compromise the constitutional independence of local government. The fact that it is a failsafe provision and has not as yet, in practice, been used by the Assembly should not devalue it as a safeguard.
  Apart from eliminating that safeguard, deletion of the clause would remove an important mechanism for dispute resolution. It would not be appropriate to take away a statutory power already conferred on the National Assembly. The Welsh Local Government Association did not raise any concerns on this clause during the periods of pre-legislative scrutiny or public consultation. Therefore, on that basis, I can reassure the noble Baroness with regard to her concern.
  Baroness Noakes: Perhaps I may raise one question with the Minister. My concern was not the constitutional position of local government but the position of the Auditor General for Wales and whether or not he would, in effect, be compelled to do the work for less than the costs that he would incur, including the central cost to which the noble Lord referred earlier.
  If the Assembly sets a lower fee-scale for local authorities, does that mean that the residual costs will be within the budget for the Auditor General for Wales and will therefore, in any event, be picked up by the Assembly? What happens to the costs that are not recovered on local authority audits? That is my question.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: The National Assembly could not set the fees too low. Under Section 93 of the
  GC 118
  Government of Wales Act it must make up any shortfall between the Auditor General's fee income and his expenditure.
  Baroness Noakes: That is, indeed, the assurance I sought. I shall not oppose the Question that Clause 21 stand part.
  Clause 21 agreed to.
  Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Consideration of reports in public interest]:
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 38:
  Page 18, line 24, leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and insert "those listed in section 12(1)"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 38 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 51. These amendments concern the various lists of bodies that appear in the Bill. Amendment No. 38 applies to Clause 24 and public interest reports. It deletes the four bodies currently listed in subsection (3) and replaces them with the nine bodies listed in Clause 12(1).
  When a Clause 24 report in the public interest is made, the body concerned must consider the report as soon as possible, but that refers to only the four kinds of bodies in subsection (3). The additional bodies are covered by the procedure in Clause 25. The real point of tabling the amendment is to ask why we have that differentiation. Given the replies that we have received in the past, I suspect that that is more to do with previous legislation than with any point of principle and may, indeed, represent a further area where rationalisation of the Bill could usefully be carried out.
  Amendment No. 39 is the obverse of Amendment No. 38 and poses in another way the question why there is different treatment for the four types of bodies. Amendment No. 51 is on the same theme. It proposes to add the four bodies in Clause 24(3) to the relevant bodies whose performance standards are covered by Sections 47 and 49. We are probing why those bodies are excluded from the list at this stage. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: First, the one-month deadline is consistent with the existing position. It is a tougher provision than "as soon as practicable". It is imposed on the larger bodies because we think we have the right to make those demands upon them. They have the administrative support to enable them to meet such requirements in ways in which it might be thought possible for the smaller local government bodies, for example, port health authorities, internal drainage boards and so forth. For those bodies, "as soon as practicable" will apply because one month might be too rigorous a deadline for them to meet. The one-month deadline for the larger bodies is consistent with the tighter timescale introduced on an England and Wales basis by the Local Government Act 2003. Prior to that it had been four months but that Act reduced it to one month. We are enforcing this rigour in Wales consistent with that position.
  Amendment No. 51 would also impact on the smaller local government bodies set out in Clause 12(1). The amendment would extend to them the requirement to

  GC 119
  comply with the provisions in respect of the publication of information relating to performance standards set out in Clauses 47 to 49. We believe that this would risk imposing an unnecessary burden on bodies with a very limited range of functions and where comparison may in any event be difficult and not particularly informative as to performance.
  We contend that extending the scope of the performance standards provisions in the Bill should be at the discretion of the National Assembly. As currently drafted, the clause gives the Assembly the power to add to the list of bodies not currently within the provisions of Clauses 47 to 49. On that basis I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply, which certainly explains how the current Bill has been drafted. I shall confine myself at this stage merely to remark again that it is a pity that an opportunity has not been taken to consider all these areas afresh instead of copying the existing legislative pattern. Just because a body is small does not mean that it should be excused from responding on a rapid basis where a public interest report is concerned. So, I am not sure that a less stringent regime is necessarily desirable for smaller bodies. However, this is part of a general regime that we have debated and doubtless will debate again in the context of the Bill. For today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Procedure for consideration of reports and recommendations]:
  [Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
  Clause 25 agreed to.
  Clauses 26 to 29 agreed to.
  Clause 30 [Inspection of documents and questions at audit]:
  3.45 p.m.
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 22, line 25, leave out "an interested" and insert "a"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 40, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 41. Both of these amendments are probing amendments in relation to Clause 30, which deals with certain inspection rights which apply during audits of local government bodies.
  Subsection (1) allows what is referred to as "an interested person" to inspect the accounts to be audited and related documents. My amendment would delete "an interested person" on a probing basis and replace it with "a person". The amendment seeks to probe who the "interested person" is. Subsection (2) refers to local government electors and so the "interested person" is presumably someone other than a local government elector for the area. I hope that the Minister will explain who these people are and why Clause 30 has the rights of apparently different groups embedded in it.
  The rights to information and documents in Clause 30 do not apply to "personal information" which is defined in subsection (4) in a very restrictive way. Basically, personal information is the fact that a person is employed by the body and/or paid by the body in respect of an employment by someone else. I paraphrase but that is the drift. My Amendment No. 42 says that personal information includes but is not restricted to that information.
  I am quite sure that electors and others should not have unrestricted access to personal information but this definition seems to allow them to have access to all kinds of personal data such as age or marital status, home addresses and so on. Being restricted to employees, it appears to allow access to personal data about applicants for council tax benefit or grants, including means tested data. I could go on.
  The Explanatory Notes at paragraph 76 note that the right to information may also be restricted by the Data Protection Act. If that is the case—and, of course, that Act would cover the information that I have mentioned—it seems to me to be unsatisfactory that this Bill makes no reference to that Act and appears on the face of it as if there were very considerable access rights available to electors and others. I am trying to find out why the Bill has been drafted in this way. It appears to raise hopes regarding obtaining information but you find out only by referring to the Data Protection Act—which is not mentioned in the clause—that that information may be restricted. I hope that the Minister will deal with those points. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I approach this amendment with a certain circumspection. I remember a certain police authority getting into difficulties interpreting what information needed to be passed on. I am conscious of the fact—as I think we all are—that we need to tread carefully with regard to the provisions of the Data Protection Act. The noble Baroness will forgive me if I stick fairly closely to the brief which I have, which I hope will deal with the points she made.
  The intention is to exclude vexatious persons who are making trivial and frivolous approaches for information, but not to cut out anyone who has an interest, including an individual elector. The Bill does not exclude a local taxpayer or a local resident because they clearly are likely to have an interest in the information. The clause as drafted enables such persons to inspect or make copies of documents relating to the accounts at an audit of a local government body. It also gives a local elector or his representative the right to question the auditor about the accounts.
  In practice, the reference to an "interested person" is very unlikely to represent a practical impediment to a person wishing to exercise a reasonable right of inspection. However, the terminology in the Bill would entitle the local government body auditor to withstand the entreaties of an individual or body whose requests were of a vexatious or frivolous nature.

  GC 121
  Amendment No. 41 would widen the definition of "personal information" to which a person is not entitled in an inspection of the accounts or related documents or in questions to the auditor. We are not quite clear that the amendment would give an accurate definition of who was included and who was not, and we believe that it could lead to confusion and misunderstanding. Much of what a lay person would consider "personal information" will be protected by the Data Protection Act 1998. I do not believe that additional protection by third parties is necessary in the context of the Bill.
  I hope that on that basis, the noble Baroness will feel that I have covered the issues on Amendment No. 40. On Amendment No. 41, the Data Protection Act 1998 relates mainly to information held electronically. Subsection (5) goes wider to cover information held in manual form also.
  Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply and will consider it carefully. I accept that the Data Protection Act 1998 is limited in scope in that respect. I was questioning whether the way in which the measure was drawn was adequate to alert people to the information that they could or could not have.
  I shall consider what the Minister said on the question of "vexatious" requests. I find it rather curious drafting that to eliminate a vexatious person one drafts the other way around to allow an "interested person"—the implication being that almost anyone could apply, but to be deemed not interested is equivalent to being vexatious. That is a rather curious way in which to approach the construction of a statute.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I have listened closely to the remarks of the noble Baroness. I can only plead the obvious point in defence that she may not be entirely happy with the drafting, but the effect is to go as wide as possible—wider than the individual elector. If the person came in with serious and proper intent, the obligation would be to provide that information. If we are erring, the error is in being as open and accountable as possible. I shall just have to accept the fact that the noble Baroness is not entirely happy with the drafting.
  Baroness Noakes: I shall consider those points further and shall read carefully in Hansard what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
  Clause 30 agreed to.
  Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.
  Clause 33 [Advisory notices]:
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 24, line 14, leave out "(an "advisory" and insert "(a "warning"
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment will not take long to debate. It amends subsection (1) so that an advisory notice is called a "warning notice". The
  GC 122
  description "advisory notice" for what is, after all, a rather dire warning that the body is about to incur unlawful expenditure or commit some other unlawful act, as set out in subsection (2), is, to say the least, euphemistic. I know that it derives from other legislation; that is one of the problems that we have had in considering the Bill. However, surely it is time that we changed nomenclature and called a spade a spade. Warning notices might even make the authorities more alert. Is there any reason for the retention of the coy "advisory" language? Would the Government consider changing it? I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: Clause 33 enables an auditor of a local government body to issue an advisory notice if he has reason to believe that the body or an officer of the body is about to take or has taken a decision or course of action that is or would be illegal, or is about to enter an unlawful item of account. Amendment No. 42 would seek to change the name of such a notice from advisory to warning. In all other respects we would have the same provision.
  I think that "advisory" is the most appropriate description of the notice and its purpose. A notice can be issued, if circumstances dictate, to inform a body that it has acted illegally. In this context, to describe it as a warning when the event has already happened might not be entirely appropriate.
  From the wider standpoint I am of the view that the word "advisory" probably more accurately reflects the relationship between auditor and client, where the former is a source of advice and assistance to the latter rather than providing the scrutiny function.
  The word "advisory" is a more fitting description of the nature of the notice and I believe reflects the positive nature of the relationship that exists between most auditors and the bodies to which they are appointed. Therefore, I prefer "advisory" to "warning".
  Baroness Noakes: The Minister was almost persuasive until he got on to auditors being advisers, which they most certainly are not. They are not there to be advisers; they are there to carry out the rigours of public audit. But I take the earlier part of what the Minister said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 33 agreed to.
  Clauses 34 to 36 agreed to.
  Clause 37 [Extraordinary audit]:
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 43:
  Page 27, line 9, leave out "a local government elector" and insert "five or more local government electors"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 43 is a probing amendment to Clause 37, which deals with the situation when an extraordinary audit may be called. That can be done by the Auditor General or if he has had an application from a single local government elector which he would have to consider.
  Application by a solitary elector is all very well and could be genuine, but this provision could result in vexatious or time wasting applications. If an elector

  GC 123
  thought that an extraordinary audit was required, it seems that that elector would be more carefully listened to and could be entitled to more airtime if he or she was supported by four others of the same opinion, which is what this probing amendment proposes.
  Perhaps the Minister could explain the rationale for exposing the Auditor General to the opinions of single electors which could be on single-issue matters of no concern to the wider community. Will he say whether this single elector ability has proved necessary in England or, indeed, Wales prior to the Bill, to allow the right kinds of issues to be raised, or whether it has proved to be vexatious? We want to get this issue right for Wales. I beg to move.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: While it could be argued that the increase in threshold may eliminate applications of a frivolous or vexatious nature, it could of course equally deprive one or two people who have a genuine case of the right to apply. There have been instances where one or two individuals requested an extraordinary audit with the result of illegal expenditure being identified. I am looking for a precise instance to give to the noble Baroness. I do not have one immediately to hand, but I may have one shortly. If so, I shall of course quote it. But we contend that it has been used. On one or two occasions there have been instances where two people have presented a proper case.
  The danger of course is that the amendment would limit this right. The power to direct an extraordinary audit is after all a discretionary one, so the Auditor General could decline an application from whatever number of people, if he thought it was not soundly based. In principle, I feel that the amendment would limit the public's right to make legitimate representations. I had hoped to consolidate my case with a dramatic and significantly —
  Baroness Noakes: The Minister may be in luck.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I have one to hand: the Blaenau Gwent Council. Two local government electors made a request for an audit and their request was found to be entirely legitimate and their position upheld.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may intervene briefly in this dialogue. I am not surprised that that resulted in an audit. It seems that the Bill as drafted is sensible. It does not require the Auditor General to conduct the audit; it is discretionary. If he exercises that discretion improperly there is always the remedy of judicial review of which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, does not think very much, but which we think is a very important safeguard, particularly in other legislation that is about to come before the House.
  Baroness Noakes: I am not sure what that final barbed comment was about. Let me say that I recognise entirely that the audit is at the discretion of the Auditor General. The purpose of the amendment
  GC 124
  was to avoid the Auditor General having to consider vexatious claims. But I am reassured by the Minister's provision of a real live example that the provision is needed in practice. I beg leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 37 agreed to.
  Clause 38 agreed to.
  Clause 39 [Accounts and audit regulations]:
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 44:
  Page 28, line 18, at end insert—
  "( ) Any regulations which are within subsection (3)(b) shall not be made unless a draft of the regulation has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament "
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 44 adds a new subsection to Clause 39, so that any regulations made under the clause which create an offence must be subject to the affirmative procedure requiring the approval of each House of Parliament.
  Clause 39 deals with accounting regulations. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I shall not be delving into the intricacies of local government accounting. My concern is that the regulations can create a criminal offence of non-compliance with the regulations, and that this creation of a criminal offence is made only by regulations made by the Assembly without any parliamentary procedure.
  I could argue that criminal sanctions are inappropriate for the infringement of accounting regulations; and I hope that the regulations when brought forward do not create many such offences. But I feel that criminal offences should have a proper parliamentary scrutiny.
  We have been told several times throughout our consideration of the Bill that the local government arrangements are designed to mirror the equivalent arrangements under the Audit Commission Act; and Clause 39 indeed mirrors Section 27 of that Act. But my point is that the regulations themselves may differ and the Assembly could create a criminal offence where none exists in England. One of the principles the Minister told us about on Monday was that there should be equivalence—especially as regards the criminal law—between England and Wales. That is an additional reason why we believe that Parliament has a positive duty to be involved in the regulations made under this section.
  I believe in general that we should be wary of allowing criminal offences to be created by way of subordinate legislation. In this particular case, with the Assembly creating offences where none might exist in England, I hope that the Government might he prepared to reconsider. I beg to move.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am waiting with some relish to hear the Minister declare in principle that there should be a different criminal offence in Wales from the one in England. Having said that, I strongly oppose the amendment. The power to make regulations has been devolved to the Assembly, and it is the Assembly's business to make such regulations as it thinks fit following the consultations that are provided Our

  GC 125
  position is that, if the amendment were agreed to, the powers would be taken away from the Assembly and there is no justification for that.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to both Members of the Committee but I am more grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for his critical argument. The simple fact is that, as he said, the amendment would restrict a power which the National Assembly already has by virtue of Section 27 of the Audit Commission Act and the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999. Accounts and audit regulations allow for a different approach between England and Wales in interpreting noncompliance as an offence between England and Wales. To date, the approach has been consistent on a cross-border basis.
  Before making any such regulations, the Assembly would be required to consult the Auditor General, local government and the accountancy bodies. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I believe that it would be extraordinary if, in this fairly modest Bill, we ripped away from the National Assembly a power which it already has, and I wonder whether the noble Baroness will press matters that far.
  The key principle here is that the Assembly's existing ability to make regulations should not be restricted by the Bill. The Assembly has wide powers in relation to local government finance in Wales and it is appropriate that they should include the power to decide what is and is not an offence in the context of the preparation of local government accounts.
  If there was a hint in what the noble Baroness said that my stance on this amendment might be contrary to my stance on other criminal provisions in the Bill, perhaps I should take up the kind invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and seek to clarify that as best as I can.
  The subject matter of the Bill is not a devolved issue. Therefore, the decision on what conduct should constitute a criminal offence in that context is for the UK Government. The UK Government are not prepared to create an inconsistency in the Bill by decriminalising for Wales conduct which would constitute a criminal offence in England. That is the basis of our position.
  Baroness Noakes: I am mystified by that response—
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: Speechless.
  Baroness Noakes: For the first time. I am mystified by that response because it seems to me that Clause 39 allows precisely for the result that the Minister said the Government were not prepared to allow, but perhaps I missed something.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: I believe that the word which the Minister should emphasise is "conduct"—that is, conduct which is criminalised in England should be criminalised in Wales. A certain criminal
  GC 126
  offence is created, as I pointed out on Monday, but it means that the same sort of conduct will be criminal in both jurisdictions.
  Baroness Noakes: But would it not be the case that the Assembly could pass regulations which do not create criminal offences for certain conduct—for example, non-compliance with certain accounting regulations—which, in England, could constitute a criminal offence? In relation to Wales, the Assembly could do things differently. That is my point and that was the source of my mystification. It seems to me that the clause allows precisely the result that the Minister said he was not prepared to allow.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to both Members of the Committee. Once again, I was seeking to identify an underlying principle in the Bill. The Bill is concerned with the role of the National Assembly and the role of the Auditor General in relation to their respective functions. But the constant theme throughout the Bill is that, so far as concerns conduct, there should be a consistency of treatment on either side of the border.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Baroness is quite right in saying that the regulations may not make the same provision in England and Wales. Breach of the regulations in England would be a criminal offence as would breach of the regulations in Wales, but it does not mean to say that the conduct will he the same under the regulations. It depends upon the way in which the regulations are structured.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I have no direct legal expertise and certainly nothing remotely like that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I am grateful to him for clarifying something which I was obfuscating. I hope the noble Baroness will recognise that the way in which this has just been expressed is exactly the intention behind the Bill.
  Baroness Noakes: I shall have to take this away and think about it very carefully in a quiet room somewhere.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: With a towel!
  Baroness Noakes: Yes, with a towel around my head, to try to understand what both noble Lords have said on this point. I confess that I remain troubled by the answers I have received thus far. However, I shall not delay the Committee further today and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 39 agreed to.
  Clause 40 [Documents relating to police authorities]:
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 45:
  Page 28, line 34, leave out "for a police" and insert "or a fire authority for a combined"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 45 amends Clause 40 and seeks to bring fire authorities into the same bracket as the police in the event of a report in the public interest being issued by an auditor.

  GC 127
  I am not sure that the wording of the amendment is correct. I think that my noble friend Lord Roberts was trying to insert the words of the amendment after the words "for a police area in Wales", not trying to delete those words. I hope that that has not confused the Minister as it did me when I came to prepare for the amendment.
  The point is that the amendment seeks to anticipate the effect of the Bill yet to be passed that will change the organisation of the fire services and increase their scope and importance. It seems to us to be important that the powers of the Auditor General properly reflect that. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: We consider that there is a clear distinction of some import between police authorities and fire authorities and that is why there is a difference in the clause.
  The membership of police authorities is only partially made up of elected members from their constituent local authorities. Half the membership of police authorities comprise magistrates and independent members, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware. Police authorities also have their own separate funding arrangements within the annual Welsh local government revenue settlement and they receive revenue funding through Home Office police grant.
  On the other hand, fire authorities wholly comprise elected members from their constituent local authorities. They also precept on their constituent local authorities for funding. There is therefore no reason why the procedure for dealing with public interest reports should differ from that set out in the Bill for any other wholly elected local government body set out in the Bill. Fire authorities, like their constituent local authorities, are responsible to their local electorate.
  Baroness Noakes: I am grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 40 agreed to.
  Clause 41 [Studies for improving economy etc in services]:
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 46:
  Page 29, line 12, at end insert—
  "( ) for improving the quality of performance in the discharge of these functions and the provision of services by local authorities in Wales"
  The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 46, which adds to the studies that the Auditor General may undertake under Clause 41—those for improving the quality of performance by local authorities. The existing clause talks about economy, efficiency and effectiveness and about financial or other management. Those are fine, but it is quality that matters ultimately to the local recipients of services.
  It may be argued that "quality" is already included under Clause 41, but it does not mention the word—that is particularly important regarding the way that
  GC 128
  local services are used. Our amendment gives a direct expression to the need to focus on quality of performance. I hope that the Government will think that is a good idea. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: The amendment is constructive, but we are not convinced that it is necessary. The studies envisaged by the amendment could already be undertaken under Clause 41(3) which enables the Auditor General to undertake or promote studies, other than those set out in Clause 41(1) and (2), relating to the provision of services by local government bodies in Wales.
  We have already stated in the Bill the scope for the Auditor General to undertake and promote studies of such a significant and wide-ranging nature. We do not see that anything is added by the amendment at this stage.
  Baroness Noakes: I am grateful to the Minister for that. We would prefer to see "quality" on the face of the Bill. This formulation is time-honoured. I accept that and the emphasis has shifted in today's world to looking much more at quality issues. However, I am prepared to take the Minister's assurance that the quality of performance is unambiguously covered by Clause 41 and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 41 agreed to.
  Clause 42 agreed to
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 47:
  After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
  "COMPARATIVE STUDIES
  (1) Studies carried out under section 41 or 42 may include comparative studies involving local government bodies in England if the Auditor General for Wales considers it desirable to do so for the purposes of his analysis of local government bodies in Wales.
  (2) If local government bodies in England are to he included in any study under section 41 or 42, the consultation mentioned in sections 41(5) and 42(3) shall also include the Secretary of State and the Audit Commission."
  The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 47, which inserts a new clause after Clause 42—and I will also speak to Amendment No. 71. The new clause inserted by the amendment would allow the Auditor General for Wales to extend his value for money studies to English local government bodies, provided that he consults the Secretary of State and the Audit Commission. That is to ensure that the Auditor General for Wales can harness the full power of comparative studies when it appears to him that confining himself to Welsh local government bodies would not give a comprehensive analysis.
  The effect of various amendments in Schedule 2 to the Audit Commission Act is that the Audit Commission in England will be able to include Welsh bodies in its studies. That seems eminently sensible provided that the inspection burden on Welsh bodies is not excessive. But there is no corresponding power for the Auditor General and so he must look only at Welsh bodies when carrying out comparative studies.
  In practice, much will be capable of being achieved by co-operation between the Auditor General and the Audit Commission, but the Bill is ambiguous on co-operation. Under Clause 43 the Auditor General must co-operate with the Audit Commission when carrying out value for money functions under Clauses 41 and 42. The corresponding co-operation duty on the Audit Commission applies to the Audit Commission's equivalent functions. But neither requires one to co-operate with the other to assist with the other's value for money functions. So, Wales co-operates with England on Welsh studies and England co-operates with Wales on English studies, but England does not have to co-operate with Wales on Welsh studies—or vice versa.
  The Audit Commission does not really need that co-operation from the Auditor General because it has power to cover Welsh bodies itself. But the Auditor General does not have the equivalent power, which is why I have tabled the amendment. If the Auditor General does not have that power, the quality of his value for money work in Wales may well be constrained by the willingness of the Audit Commission to give sufficient priority to concerns that exist in Wales, but which perhaps do not exist in England. I do not believe that that is a sound basis for proceeding.
  Amendment No. 71 is an alternative amendment to ensure that if the Auditor General does not have powers to include English bodies in his studies, then at least the Audit Commission must have a positive duty to co-operate in respect of the Auditor General's functions under Clauses 41 and 42. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: We do not consider Amendment No. 47 to be necessary because there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Auditor General for Wales incorporating into his studies for comparative purposes data collected by the Audit Commission on English authorities. The information will be readily available. The Act requires the commission to publish the results of its studies. Equally, the commission will value data collected and held by the Auditor General on local government bodies in Wales for comparative purposes.
  The Audit Commission retains the power under the Audit Commission Act to undertake cross-border studies in respect of local government bodies in England and Wales. In doing so it has to consult the Auditor General and take account of any relevant work done or being done by the Auditor General.
  The expectation is that the cross-border work will involve joint working between the Auditor General for Wales and the commission. The co-operative provisions in the Bill are designed to achieve that. But the Bill does not make cross-border working mandatory because we do not wish unnecessarily to fetter the Auditor General and other audit and inspection bodies in progressing work and, as a result, have a restrictive rather than a facilitative effect.
  Under the arrangements in the Bill I believe that the Auditor General will have access to information which the noble Baroness identified; namely, information
  GC 130
  relating to English local government bodies, without specifically undertaking studies in respect of them. It is because we think we have provided for cross-border working without making it mandatory but where it would suit the purposes of the Auditor General in his work that we consider it is not necessary to accept an amendment that would change that basis.
  Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, that presumes that data already exist, as collected by the Audit Commission. I am sure that the Auditor General will have access to data that exist. However, my point is that the Auditor General for Wales may well wish to examine things which the Audit Commission has not examined in relation to English bodies. Without either the power to examine English bodies or the ability to require the co-operation of the Audit Commission, audits in Wales could be impoverished compared with audits in England. In England, if the Audit Commission wants to carry out studies which include comparative data from Wales, including, I assume, data which do not already exist, it can do so. It is wrong in principle that we should create in the Bill essentially a lower quality examination for Wales.
  In practice I accept that with good will and co-operation the Audit Commission and the Auditor General will work together harmoniously. But we should not preclude the possibility that what would be a high agenda item for Wales would he a very low agenda item for England. There could be instances where, to produce a quality result for Wales, we would need to go further. I do not believe that this is one of the issues where we are wedded to existing legislation. I think that the Government even have a little wriggle room. I hope that the Minister will consider this further. I do not think that the answers he has given today have been adequate. I do not know whether he wants to say any more at present.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to extend my remarks briefly. The main purpose of the duties in Clause 43 is to produce a regulatory burden on the bodies' studies. We consider that the duties as drafted achieve that. As to co-operation for the purpose of assisting a fellow audit body—the Auditor General for Wales or the Audit Commission, as the case may be—which I believe was the burden of the remarks of the noble Baroness, we do not think it is necessary to make that a statutory duty. The power to co-operate for the benefit of either is contained in Clause 2 but it is on the basis of a framework in which co-operation can take place. We do not think that we need to make this statutory, which would be the effect of the amendment.
  Baroness Noakes: I shall consider carefully what the Minister has said, but, looking briefly at Clause 2, I do not believe that it adds anything to what we have already said. I remain of the opinion that the Auditor General for Wales will be in a worse position than his counterpart in England as regards his ability to carry out studies that are relevant to Wales; and that he, unlike the Audit Commission, is reliant on the good will of the other party. The Audit Commission has

  GC 131
  greater powers to extend its scope of review. I shall, as I said, consider carefully what the Minister said, but I think that I shall want to return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 43 agreed to.
  Clause 44 [Studies at request of local government bodies in Wales]:
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 48:
  Page 30. line 28, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 48 would delete subsection (2) from Clause 44. This clause deals with studies made at the request of local government bodies with a view to making recommendations to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Subsection (2) states that before making the request, the local authority must consult "associations of employees"—which I assume means the local trade union. My question is whether or not that is premature. I would understand if employees were consulted after the results of the study were known or if their job prospects were affected—indeed, that is what both labour law and good labour relations would require—but to consult the unions before a study, and to consult them regardless of whether the study potentially affects employees, seems to me both unnecessary and potentially harmful, not least to employees who might be needlessly worried and disturbed.
  It seems that the provision makes it unlikely that a local authority would seek the help of the Auditor General in improving its value for money. If the choice is between private sector consultants whose work can be carried out without prior consultation and the Auditor General, whose work has to be consulted upon, there clearly is an unlevel playing field. I am surprised if the Government's policy is to favour the use of private sector consultants over the Auditor General. I shall be interested in the Minister's response. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: We think that, as drafted, the Bill seeks merely to continue existing practice. The amendment therefore seems to be a step backwards. It could seriously impede the conduct of a study and consequently devalue the results. Any absence in the Bill of any requirement to consult would be in stark contrast to existing practice in England. I think that that would give rise to some concern in Wales. The measure gives employee organisations the opportunity to express views that would be valuable to the conduct of the study even if the association, whatever it was, had concerns over its conduct. After all, such concerns may themselves be informative to the study being conducted.
  I say to the noble Baroness that consultation with an association even when it may not necessarily agree with what is going on is rather more positive than no consultation at all. All we are doing in this clause is to seek to continue existing practice.
  4.30 pm
  Baroness Noakes: Existing practice favours using outside consultants rather than the Audit Commission at present and the Auditor General in future. The clause seems to be there for political correctness more than anything else. We should be removing barriers to using the expertise of the Auditor General to wider effect. However, if it is the Government's policy to discriminate against the Auditor General, we will not stand in their way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 44 agreed to.
  Clause 45 [Benefit administration studies for Secretary of State]:
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 49:
  Page 31, line 7, leave out "may" and insert "must"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 49 replaces the word "may" with "must" in Clause 45(6). It would require the Secretary of State to publish a benefit administration study which is to be carried out under the clause.
  We do not understand in what circumstances the Auditor General might carry out a benefit administration study which was not published. It goes without saying—although I regret saying it—that the Explanatory Notes are completely silent on this matter.
  It seems to me that if the Secretary of State asked for a study into benefit administration, there could be no valid reason for not publishing the outcome. Or, if the Secretary of State did not want to publish, it would be more likely that he would be influenced by political considerations in deciding whether to publish. That is why we think that obligatory publication would be better than some form of discretion. Alternatively, if there were good reasons for publication, we would be content to leave the discretion with the Auditor General. However, we do not think that the discretion on publication should be left with the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: As the noble Baroness indicated, the amendment would remove any discretion about whether a report should be published. I put it to the Committee that there is need to consider the contents and circumstances of any study which might be undertaken. A report might, for instance, include information that might be helpful to those bent upon fraud in highlighting a weakness in the benefit system. It might contain highly confidential information or it might actually identify individuals.
  We recognise that it is most likely, in practice, that such reports will be published, and, indeed, they are. The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate publishes reports, although there is no requirement on it to do so. To accept the amendment would make it an absolute requirement to publish any report. Given the rather more detailed nature of the studies that may be undertaken in Clause 45, the potentially sensitive content to which I referred, and the fact that the study could relate to a single individual authority, we are

  GC 133
  merely seeking to preserve some element of discretion where the norm would certainly be that such reports were published.
  Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for saying that the norm would be for such reports to be published. I shall reflect on what he has said and on whether between now and Report we should consider an alternative formulation involving discretion to the Auditor General. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
  Clause 45 agreed to.
  Clause 46 [Performance standards relevant bodies]:
  [Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
  Clause 46 agreed to.
  Clause 47 [Publication of information as to standards of performance]:
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 52:
  Page 31, line 42, at end insert "and may include references to standards of performance achieved by similar authorities outside Wales"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 52 deals with the publication of standards of performance by local authorities under Clause 47. It would enable comparisons to be made between the standards prevailing among Welsh authorities and similar authorities elsewhere in the UK. We believe that that would be desirable because it would give access to a greater pool of comparative data. I am not sure that the Auditor General is prevented from doing this under the Bill, but the amendment would put the matter beyond doubt. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: The normal position of the Committee thus far is for the noble Baroness to make a slightly longer speech and for my response to be somewhat briefer. On this occasion, however, she gets full marks for brevity and I shall have to give a slightly extended response as this is, as she will recognise, quite an important issue.
  After wide-ranging consultation, the Audit Commission concluded that it would not exercise its powers under Sections 44 and 46 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 to require the publication of performance indicators. That was in recognition of the fact that it would be best to focus on the development of statutory best value performance indicators set by the National Assembly under the Local Government Act 1999. The commission has worked with the Assembly in developing a robust performance management framework for best value. The commission retains the power to require publication, however, and I understand that it will keep the position under review. It is appropriate to retain the powers for the Auditor General under the Bill in order not to close off future options.
  Amendment No. 52 could oblige local government bodies in Wales to publish information that would facilitate a comparison between their performance and
  GC 134
  the performance of similar authorities outside the Principality. It could also raise ambiguities over what a particular local government body regards as being a similar authority.
  It would be open to the Auditor General for Wales to publish his own comparison in the form of Section 41 studies. That could certainly include comparative information available on English or other local authorities which, on an objective basis, are considered to have similar profiles.
  Under Clause 6 of the Local Government Act, best value authorities must publish an annual performance plan—now known in Wales as an improvement plan. The same requirement applies in England. The publication of such plans would allow cross-border comparison if authorities chose so to do. For that reason, I do not consider that the amendment would achieve what I believe to be its intended objective of facilitating objective and meaningful comparison of information relating to standards of performance.
  I have spoken at some length, but, I hope, to good effect. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the position as identified in this contribution.
  Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply, which will benefit from greater study on our part. What he said sounded extremely interesting and seemed to cover the substance of the amendment, but I should like to consider it carefully. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 47 agreed to.
  Clause 48 [Permitted methods of publishing information under section 47]:
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 53:
  Page 32, line 33, at end insert—
  "( ) The relevant body may publish the information electronically in any way which is accessible by local government electors of the body."
  Te noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 53 deals with Clause 48, which concerns the methods of publishing information about standards and performance under Clause 47. I hear what the Minister says about this provision not being used at present, but since it will be held in reserve, it is important that we get it right.
  Amendment No. 53 would insert a new subsection to allow local authorities to publish the information electronically. I find it curious that Clause 48 is drafted without regard to the electronic age. I am aware that it is modelled on the Audit Commission Act. It is surprising that that Act, which is only about five years old, does not refer to electronic publishing. We are often told by the Government of their commitment to the electronic age, e-government and so on. Yet in a Bill which should pass into law in 2004, the Government are drafting legislation as if we had not moved on from the printing presses.
  For the purposes of today's debate this is a probing amendment, but I feel that the underlying subject matter merits very serious consideration. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: We are in danger of being at crossed purposes. We agree about the objectives. We believe that within the framework of the Bill the amendment is not necessary because electronic publication is permitted.
  The danger with the amendment is that it appears that it rules out other forms of communication. We certainly would not want to have electronically transmitted information at the exclusion of all other forms. I am sure that the noble Baroness does not intend that, but the amendment would have that effect. Even if I have misinterpreted the noble Baroness's amendment, I assure her that I am on her side. I assure her that the Bill provides the opportunity for e-mail and the Internet to be used. We do not need an amendment to this clause in order to do that.
  Baroness Noakes: I shall accept the Minister's assurance that electronic methods are covered by Clause 48. I confess that, after looking again briefly at Clause 48, I still see it drafted wholly in terms of the written word and not the electronically published word. Because the Minister seems so certain, I shall take the issue away and look at it again to see how my amendment sits alongside what he has said. I record for today that I am mystified by his response and may well want to return to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 48 agreed to.
  Clause 49 [Directions under section 47]:
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 54:
  Page 33. line 24, at end insert—
  "( ) the Assembly,"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 54, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 55. Under Clause 47, the Auditor General will give directions to local authorities in Wales about publishing their performance standards. Before issuing a direction imposing a new requirement, under Clause 49(3) the Auditor General must consult associations of relevant bodies and any other persons that he thinks fit.
  Amendment No. 54 requires the Auditor General to consult the Assembly. The Auditor General may well conclude that he wants to consult the Assembly—I hope that he would do so—because it has a clear interest in the publication of performance data. We believe that there should be no ambiguity about this and that the Assembly should be consulted.
  Similarly, when the Auditor General publishes his direction under Clause 49(6), Amendment No. 55 will ensure that a copy is laid before the Assembly.
  I do not consider that these amendments violate the constitutional position of local government in Wales. They are designed to recognise that the Assembly will have legitimate interests in the performance of local
  GC 136
  government in Wales and therefore should be explicitly within the processes that are envisaged under the Bill. On that basis, I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: The publication of performance standards information is essentially a matter for the Auditor General and local government in Wales. There is no requirement on the Audit Commission to consult the National Assembly for Wales under the present arrangements. Local government might consider it an encroachment on its constitutional independence if, in fact, such a report were given to the Assembly.
  The information which the Auditor General considers should be the subject of a direction can be informed by studies that he is required to undertake or promote under Clause 41. As the noble Baroness said, under Clause 49(3) the Auditor General would be required to consult any persons he thinks fit, other than the associations of relevant bodies, before imposing a new publication requirement. This could, of course, include the Assembly but there is no cause to impose a specific duty for him to do so.
  A requirement to lay a copy of any direction before the Assembly would run counter to other measures relating to the Bill that underpin local government's independent democratic accountability, which we discussed extensively on a previous occasion. There is no requirement on the Auditor General, for instance, to lay a report on the financial audit of a local government body before the Assembly. Under Clause 49(6) the Auditor General is in any event required to publish a direction in order to bring it to the public attention. Therefore, I believe that the issues of public awareness and public information are covered so far as the work of the Auditor General is concerned. However, to include the Assembly in the measure would have significant implications so far as local authorities are concerned. On that basis I do not feel able to accept the amendment.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for giving the Government's reasons for resisting the amendment. We consider that the Assembly has a legitimate interest in local government, local government performance and perhaps even local government financial audit too. The Minister raised the interesting question of whether or not there ought to be a different information stream to the Assembly. However, on the basis that nothing would prevent the Auditor General consulting the Assembly—we can trust the good sense of the Auditor General in that regard—and that nothing would prevent him, in interpreting his requirement to publish the direction, ensuring that that was drawn to the attention of appropriate members of the Assembly, we are content with the Minister's response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
  Clause 49 agreed to.
  Clause 50 agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Best value audit and inspections]:
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 63:
  Page 43, leave out lines 26 to 32.
  The noble Baroness said: I shall be extremely brief. Paragraph 3 of Schedule I inserts a new Section 2A into the Local Government Act 1999 to deal with the Welsh dimension of best value audit. Our Amendment No. 63 proposes the deletion of subsection (4) of new Section 2A.
  This is a probing amendment to find out exactly what the Government have in mind. Clearly, they intend to disapply or exempt from a functional duty certain best value authorities. The probing amendment is designed to ask the Minister to give us an example of how that might work in practice in Wales. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: As the noble Baroness said, the measure would limit the powers of the Assembly in a certain way. She will not be surprised if I therefore resist the amendment. Its effect would be to take away a power which the Assembly already has under the Local Government Act 1999. This is not, as I understand it, an exemption in the context of a relaxation of the best value authority's responsibilities. The power would be exercised if the Assembly had fundamental doubts about the exercise of a function by a best value authority and was contemplating making alternative arrangements. The Assembly has not used the power but that does not detract from its validity. We want to retain the power and we do not think that we should remove a power which the Assembly already has.
  Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. I had understood that subsection (4) would have the effect of taking a body outside the ambit of best value. My probing amendment is to find out why that would happen in relation to a particular function or functions. I am not sure I understood what the Minister said in response to that.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I was indicating that the power which would be taken away by the amendment would be exercised only if the Assembly had fundamental doubts about the exercise of the functions by a best value authority. The power has not been used, so I cannot quote an example to her. However, we want to preserve that power—it is one which the Assembly already enjoys under the Local Government Act. That "reserve" power has validity and might be used in exceptional circumstances in respect of a best value authority when the Assembly has fundamental doubts about what is happening.
  Baroness Noakes: I will need to consider carefully the Minister's comments. It seems that having doubts about performance would be more likely to leave an authority within the best value framework, so that all that could be exposed and explored through the best value process. Having doubts about performance would seem more likely to leave a body within that
  GC 138
  process. So, I am unsure about the Minister's response, which I will carefully consider between now and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 64:
  Page 45. line 15, leave out "and (3)" and insert "to (9)"
  The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, who is again unavoidably absent through illness, I move the amendment standing in his name. The amendments correct the fact that the draft Bill inadvertently resulted in the full provisions for consultation, approval and revision set out in Clause 16 not being applied to the code of practice in respect of best value audit. I can see from the amendments that have been tabled that our weaknesses were about to be exposed by Opposition amendments, and the government amendments have been tabled to recognise our weakness. The amendment reflects the fact that approval of, and consultation on, a draft code are dealt with in the full provisions of Clause 16. I beg to move.
  Baroness Noakes: Amendment No. 65, standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Roberts and myself, is substantially the same as Amendment No. 64 and we therefore support the Government's amendment. We believe that we tabled ours first and the Government followed us. However, we will not dispute that—we welcome it.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
  Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 66:
  Page 45, line 24. leave out from "Before" to end of line.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 67:
  Page 46, line 1, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Assembly"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 67, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 68 and 70, which are probing amendments. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 inserts a new Section 10A into the Local Government Act 1999 to deal with best value compliance work by the Auditor General for Wales. But the new section talks in terms of the Secretary of State giving directions to the Auditor General. The simple question posed by my amendments asks why the new section refers to the Secretary of State and not the Assembly. Is the Assembly to have no say in those best value inspections? What role does the Secretary of State have, and which Secretary of State is it?
  I have tabled the amendments in relation to paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 They also apply to other paragraphs in the schedule—for example paragraphs 13 and 16. But, for the sake of simplicity in our Grand Committee debate, I have confined myself to paragraph 9 alone. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: Once again, we are of one mind in terms of intent. In her amendment, the noble Baroness seeks to replace the Secretary of State with the Assembly in respect of a direction for the Auditor

  GC 139
  General to conduct a compliance inspection on best value, a consultation with the Auditor General in advance of giving such a direction and the issue of guidance on best value. The amendments are not necessary as Section 29 of the Local Government Act 1999 already substitutes the National Assembly for the Secretary of State in respect of Part 1 best-value provisions. Therefore, the responsibility lies with the National Assembly and not with the Secretary of State.
  Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall merely remark that it is an extraordinarily convoluted way of drafting into the Bill that the Assembly and not the Secretary of State has power in this respect. That is part of the complexity of amending prior legislation. However, I am grateful for the explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 69:
  Page 46, line 8, leave out ", and in deciding whether to do so,"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No 69 would delete the words,
  "and in deciding whether to do so",
  from subsection (4) of new Section 10A of the Local Government Act 1999, as inserted by paragraph 9 of Schedule 1.
  The subsection reads oddly in this context, probably because the Auditor General has a dual role. Under subsection (2), he may be subject to a direction from the Secretary of State, who has consulted him under subsection (3) about the appropriateness of it. The direction, with which he must comply, will be to carry out an inspection of a best-value authority in relation to specified functions.
  Subsection (4) deals with the inspection itself, and it is strange to read that the Auditor General still has the choice implied by the phrase,
  "in deciding whether to do so"—
  that is, to carry out an inspection. How can he have such a choice when he is under a compulsory direction? I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: Amendment No. 69 would mean that the Auditor General would not be required to have regard to a recommendation by a best-value authority's auditor or Assembly guidance in coming to a decision on whether to undertake an inspection of a best-value authority's compliance with the best-value requirements set out in the Local Government Act 1999. He would, however, be required to have regard to them in undertaking an inspection. I believe that it is equally appropriate for him to take account of an auditor's recommendation and guidance in coming to a decision on whether to undertake an inspection, as is currently the case. That is why we do not consider the amendment to be appropriate.
  Baroness Noakes: I had anticipated that the Minister would say that. I refer to the dual role
  GC 140
  whereby the Auditor General can choose whether or not to carry out an inspection under subsection (1) or be directed under subsection (2). I should like to leave the Minister with the thought that in subsection (4) the word "and" would be better replaced with the word "or" so that the subsection would read:
  "In carrying out an inspection, or in deciding whether to do so".
  That would reflect the fact that different things are being carried out under different parts of this new subsection. I believe that the drafting is ambiguous because of the way in which the issue is constructed. However, this is a matter for parliamentary counsel. I hope that the Minister's officials will put that point to parliamentary counsel and perhaps we shall be able to return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
  Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 51 to 53 agreed to.
  Clause 54 [Restriction on disclosure of information]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 54 shall stand part of the Bill?
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Noakes: The Minister will see that we have plenty of time left in Grand Committee to debate Clause 54 stand part, as we have reached this point well ahead of my target time—which I am sure he will be pleased about.
  This is probably the most contentious part of the Bill. We believe that the clause, with its presumption against disclosure of information and criminal sanctions for non-compliance has no part in a civilised audit regime. We are not alone in this—the clause was disliked by the Welsh Affairs Committee in another place and the Assembly committee in its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. The committee in another place recommended its deletion and the substitution of a protocol for the clearance of the factual contents of local authority reports in consultation with those involved. That is the kind of procedure that the Auditor General is well versed in using.
  We have since had the Government's response to the committee's report, to the effect that they have given careful consideration to the recommendation and come to the conclusion that the clause should be retained, with the only reason given being consistency with the Audit Commission arrangements in England. We have debated that rationale—or non-rationale—on several occasions in our Committee, and I believe that the Government's arguments have got thinner and less convincing as we have gone through the Bill.
  The Government's position runs counter to devolution, which I believed—although I am not an expert on devolution—was supposed to allow Scottish and Welsh people to do their own thing, even if that means that there is a difference between them and the rest of the UK. The general practice has been to allow such differences to emerge—but not in this case.

  GC 141
  Much has been made of the criminal sanctions in the clause and the potential inconsistency in criminal law between England and Wales, which we have already discussed. The same point could not be made in respect of Scotland, because there are already inconsistencies between Scottish and English criminal law. We have already exposed in Committee the fact that the Bill itself, in Clause 39, opens up the possibility that criminal sanctions will diverge between Wales and England. Therefore, we do not regard it as an argument of principle.
  The thrust of the clause is to restrict disclosure of information; indeed, that is its title. We are here dealing with local democratically elected authorities that are accountable to their electorate. The instinctive reaction is that the conduct of their affairs should be open and above board. Of course, there are items such as personal and social security data and criminal investigation material that should be handled with great care. However, common sense and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 should see to that. Those matters do not warrant the inclusion of a blanket restriction on an auditor. Such a restriction implies that the body has something to hide from the public and must be protected. That is why the press and the unions have such an interest in the clause, as they see it as a way of silencing whistle blowers. I understand that the Auditor General himself has no desire for the clause, and I urge the Government to accept its deletion. I beg to move.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: We fully support the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and her party in seeking the deletion of Clause 50—or Clause 54, as it now is. I called it Clause 50 because that is how it was originally drafted, and I am looking at the Government's response to the fifth report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, in which the Government set out their reasoning for retaining it. We were told about that at Second Reading, when I made a very long speech on this point, which I do not propose to repeat today.
  In giving their reason for not deleting the clause, the Government said:
  "As a consequence there would be potential for the disclosure of the same information being treated inconsistently for the purposes of the criminal law in Wales and England. The Government is of the view that such a situation would be inappropriate and that any future consideration of the disclosure issue should be on an England and Wales basis. For this reason it does not propose to delete the provision from the draft Bill".
  Earlier this afternoon we debated a situation in which there will be different criminal laws in England and Wales. As soon as we pass regulations—as the National Assembly is fully entitled to do—and apply criminal sanctions in breach of those regulations, we create a separate body of criminal law in Wales. The Government do that consistently in the Bill and do it also in the National Assembly, where their own party is in power. Therefore, it is no principle on which to base a Bill that effectively squashes the Auditor General's reports relating to local government issues. The measure gives an
  GC 142
  opportunity to a local government that is embarrassed by the contents of a report to withhold those contents from the public. That is absolutely unacceptable.
  I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to lead the way in getting rid of these provisions, which were introduced via another party's government in 1972—the rationale for which I have not yet been able to discover—and introduce a modern system of auditing which allows the public to know what is going on in local government.
  I have received correspondence from people in Flintshire and in the Rhondda, Cynon, Taff area who are concerned with matters within their authority area, which I do not propose to go into. They feel that this clause provides an opportunity for squashing full public discussion on contentious issues in those areas. Accordingly, we hope that the Government will give the Committee some comfort on this matter before we reach Report, when, if necessary, we shall do all within our power as a party to remove it from the Bill.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: It is clear that this issue presents probably the greatest controversy in the Bill. I want to set out the Government's position. I am happy to indicate both to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that I hope to conclude on a reasonably constructive note while, at the same time, making clear why we have taken this position in the Bill.
  There is no new bar on disclosure of information in respect of Wales, although some have portrayed the issues in those terms. Clause 54 is equivalent in its effect to Section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998. In Clause 54 the Bill simply preserves the existing arrangements in both England and Wales.
  The noble Lord commented on opportunities for a different approach in legislation and indicated a more modern system of auditing for local government. However, at this point I reflect that the Bill should not tread on any corns because it merely consolidates the existing position.
  A person—an auditor, a member of staff of the Auditor General for Wales or anyone else who had managed to get hold of the information—in either England or Wales who disclosed without good reason information in contravention of the exceptions set out in Section 49 (2) would be guilty of an offence that could result in a term of imprisonment. If the Bill were to be enacted without this clause, the same action in Wales would not be an offence.
  I am aware of the extent of opposition to Clause 54. That was identified by the noble Baroness and, indeed, by the noble Lord. However, it would be incongruous for the same act of disclosure to result in a prison sentence of up to two years in England and not be an offence in Wales. As I said in debates on earlier amendments, the Government are not prepared to create such an inconsistency in primary legislation. It is the Government's view that any consideration of the appropriateness of criminal sanctions in primary legislation should be undertaken on an England and Wales basis and should not be dealt with piecemeal.

  GC 143
  Section 49 of the Audit Commission Act is one of a large number of statutory bars to the release of information that is being reviewed at present by the Department for Constitutional Affairs under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. My understanding is that the recommendations of that review are likely to be published in the autumn and implementation of the recommendations would be likely to begin next year.
  I have listened very carefully to the strength of feeling expressed by noble Lords both today and, as has been indicated, on Second Reading. I remain of the view that consistency in the application of the criminal sanctions is the key issue. However, I shall give further consideration to the matter within the context of the review to which I alluded and report back to the House.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: If I may, I shall respond first. The Minister said that this is no new bar. It is a discredited bar. It is discredited in Wales. It is for that reason that this section has been condemned by the Welsh Grand Committee, the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Auditor General himself and, most importantly, by the National Assembly. I refer specifically to local authority in Wales. We have had our problems. A bar of this kind cannot remain any longer. I should like to quote what was said by the Assembly Member from Montgomeryshire, Mick Bates, in the debates in the National Assembly. He said:
  "Deleting Clause 54 will enhance our ability to govern in the sunshine rather than in the shade".
  In Wales, in certain local government areas, there has been far too much shade.
  We will maintain our opposition to this clause throughout these proceedings. While we thank the Minister for his generous words at the end, we hope that that will be very productive at Report stage.
  Baroness Noakes: We sympathise with the Minister for trying to defend the indefensible. Had he not concluded with the words that he did, we should be leaving this Grand Committee with a rather unpleasant end to our debate. The Minister said that he will report back to the House and I hope that he will do so at Report stage. We shall certainly want to debate this again then.
  There is probably little more that we can do today. We are quite prepared to leave a difference between England and Wales. However, if the Government want to find a way of removing England from this ludicrous provision, we would fully support them. This provision does not sit alongside a proper audit regime for today. As far as I am aware, the Government have no support from anywhere for so doing. For today, however, we will not press the issue.
  Clause 54 agreed to.
  Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to.
  Clause 57 [Orders and regulations]:
  Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 56:
  Page 37, line 28, leave out "the Secretary of State or"
  The noble Lord said: I am moving Amendment No. 56 and speaking to the other government amendments in this group on behalf of my noble friend. These are minor and technical amendments, which address a point identified by this House's Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, although it was not noted in its report. As originally drafted, the clause contained unnecessary references to order and regulation-making powers conferred on the Secretary of State in respect of Part 2 of the Bill. Part 2 comprises provisions relating to local government in Wales and does not confer any order or regulation-making power on the Secretary of State. The amendments are intended to clarify that position. I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Baroness Noakes: I have just one question for the Minister, on taking the Secretary of State out of this part of the Bill. It relates to Clause 16, which sets up the audit code of practice, which will still be subject to an annulment by either House. We debated that matter on our first Committee day, when the Minister said:
  "It is appropriate that … Parliament, should it wish, also has the opportunity to scrutinise the code and comment on it".—[Official Report, 23/02/04; col. GC53.]
  I should be grateful if the Minister could explain whether the effect of the noble Lord's amendment to Clause 57 is in conflict with the provisions in Clause 16.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am not sure that I can explain, but I can certainly state that it is not in conflict. It does not have any effect on Clause 16.
  On Question, amendment agreed to
  Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendments Nos. 57 and 58:
  Page 37, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
  Page 37, line 35, leave out "the Secretary of State or"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 59:
  After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
  "PREVENTION OF UNLAWFUL EXPENDITURE
  If the Auditor General for Wales has reason to believe that a Welsh NHS body or an officer of such a body—

  (a) is about to make, or has made, a decision which involves or would involve the incurring of expenditure which is unlawful;

  (b) is about to take, or has taken, a course of action which, if pursued to a conclusion, would be unlawful and likely to cause a loss or deficiency,

  he shall refer the matter forthwith to the Assembly."
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 59, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 60, which is grouped with it. Both amendments concern the audit regime for NHS bodies in Wales and add new clauses to the Bill.
  The scheme of the Bill is to mimic the existing English local authority audit provisions for Wales, albeit under the control of the Auditor General rather

  GC 145
  than the Audit Commission. But for health bodies the new regime is to give audit responsibility more fully to the Auditor General and not to mimic the existing arrangements. We have no problem with that.
  However, in achieving that, the purpose of the amendments is to question whether the baby has been thrown out with the bath water. Under the existing audit regime there are provisions which allow the health body auditor to act if he believes that unlawful expenditure is about to be incurred; and the auditor can carry out extraordinary audits if he thinks that something needs to be looked at. The Secretary of State can also call for an extraordinary audit. These provisions allow the auditor to act outside the cycle of the annual financial audit and he can stop problems before they get out of hand. They are useful provisions to be held in reserve but they do not feature in the Bill for health bodies, so we are setting up differences, not only between England and Wales—the Minister might like to note that—but between health bodies and local authority bodies in Wales.
  Therefore, Amendment No. 59 is a version of Section 19 of the Audit Commission Act and Amendment No. 60 is a version of Section 25 of that Act. There are equivalent provisions for local government in Clauses 33 and 37 of the Bill. My amendments would restore the current position for health bodies. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: We do not consider that Amendment No. 59 is necessary, but I shall give, I hope, significant reasons for making that bold statement. Clause 60 gives the Auditor General statutory responsibility for the financial audit of Welsh National Health Service bodies. His statutory responsibility would be the same as it now is for the National Assembly and its sponsored bodies. The audit process that applies would also be the same.
  An item of unlawful expenditure would result in a qualification to an NHS body's accounts, as it does now to the other bodies for which the Auditor General has statutory audit responsibilities. He would publish a report in respect of the qualification and lay the report before the National Assembly. In accordance with its standing orders the National Assembly Audit Committee would meet to consider the qualification. In doing so it would take evidence from relevant officials with financial accountability responsibilities. The committee would issue a report with its conclusions and recommendations to which the Assembly government, in liaison with the NHS body concerned, would be required to respond within a set timescale—currently 30 days.
  Any potential unlawful expenditure or unlawful decision would as a matter of course be brought to the attention of the NHS body's accounting officer and the National Assembly's accounting officer for the National Health Service in Wales.
  Amendment No. 60 is also unnecessary, because the Bill gives the Auditor General statutory responsibility for the financial audit of Welsh National Health Service bodies. As such, he could have access to an NHS body at any time. I heard what the noble Baroness said—that the
  GC 146
  problem was that he might be constrained. But he would have access to an NHS body at any time for the purpose of undertaking a financial audit or an economy, efficiency and effectiveness examination. If his audit or examination resulted in his having concerns over financial accountability or value for money issues, it would be open to the Auditor General to publish a public interest report under new Section 96A of the Government of Wales Act 1998, as provided for in Clause 2 of this Bill. He could lay a copy of the report before the National Assembly.
  The Assembly Audit Committee proceedings I described with regard to Amendment No. 59 would then be followed. The proposal that the National Assembly should have the power to require that the Auditor General undertake an extraordinary audit would not he consistent with the convention that the National Assembly should not have the power to require the Auditor General to do anything, or indeed to refrain from doing anything, in respect of bodies for which he is the statutory auditor and for which the Assembly has funding responsibilities. This convention is a cornerstone of the Auditor General's statutory independence. It is on that basis that I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Noakes: I am grateful for the Minister's response, and I shall carefully consider what he has said.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 59 was to avoid the possibility of having to rely on the ex-post nature of a financial audit—the qualification of a set of accounts many months after the end of the financial year, which could put about 18 months between an unlawful act and a report. That is too long.
  I shall consider carefully what the Minister said about Clause 2, and whether that creates a sufficient platform for the Auditor General on which to work. I shall also consider carefully the Minister's comments about whether the Auditor General's independence would be impaired by the Assembly being able to require him to carry out an extraordinary audit within the terms of my Amendment No. 60. I am not convinced that that impact impairs the independence, because there are other requirements in the Bill which allow the Assembly to require certain matters to take place—for example, in relation to local authorities, which we have been debating for most of the afternoon. While I thank the Minister for his reply, I am not 100 per cent convinced that his reply deals with the points that I raised. However, I shall consider the matter carefully between now and Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
  Clauses 61 to 64 agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  [Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Clauses 65 and 66 agreed to.
  Schedule 3 agreed to.
  Clause 67 [Local government bodies in Wales]:
  Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 61:
  Page 40, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Baroness said: We come to the end. In moving Amendment No. 61, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62. These are probing amendments. Amendment No. 61 would delete subsection (2) from Clause 67. which deals with transitional provisions.
  The purpose of the amendment is to discover how long the current appointments of auditors of local authorities under the Audit Commission Act will run before new appointments are made under Section 13. I understand that some appointments run until 2007. My question to the Minister is whether steps are being taken to ensure that those appointments cannot be extended still further and so frustrate the purpose of the Bill, which is to put the Auditor General in the driving seat on local authority audits in Wales.
  Amendment No. 62 is a mirror amendment dealing with the appointment of NHS auditors under Clause 68. Here, the concern is even greater, given the apparent desire to move more wholeheartedly into a new model for the audit of NHS bodies in Wales under the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Baroness is right to look at transitional arrangements to see how long they are meant to obtain and to consider their impact. Clauses 67 and 68 make provision for arrangements made by the Audit Commission for the appointment of auditors for local government bodies and NHS bodies in Wales to remain in force when the Public Audit (Wales) Bill comes into force. They would continue in force until the terms of appointment expired. With regard to the crucial question which the noble Baroness addressed to me, the current framework contracts extend to 2007 and would end then.
  Baroness Noakes: The crucial words being "and would end then.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: Yes. I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I have been grateful to her for two days during this Committee stage and I shall end on a
  GC 148
  note of gratitude. It would be for the Auditor General for Wales to decide whether to extend the contracts, but he would have to make a decision in 2007. The arrangements are meant to end at that time and he will then be involved in making the decision. As ever, I stand corrected by the noble Baroness's sotto voce intervention.
  We believe that this is a sensible and pragmatic arrangement. It provides the client bodies with some continuity and avoids contractual difficulties, which may arise through early termination of appointments. I understand that the noble Baroness tabled these amendments, quite properly, in order to test where we stood and to see whether we had thought through these issues. She has certainly tested me on where I am and whether I had thought these matters through. I hope that I have given her some assurance at this late stage.
  Baroness Noakes: We finish this Grand Committee on the best of notes. I am perfectly satisfied with what the Minister said in response to the amendment.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may congratulate her on the hard work that she has put into the consideration of the Bill. I have been a silent spectator for much of the time but an admiring one.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I imagine that such sentiments can be expressed only from the Opposition Benches but I rise, too.
  Baroness Noakes: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 67 agreed to.
  Clause 68 [Welsh NHS bodies]:
  [Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
  Clause 68 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported with amendments.
  The Committee adjourned at half past five o'clock.

  Police Service of Northern Ireland: Relevant Non-conviction Information
  Police Service of Northern Ireland: Relevant Non-conviction Information
  Poultry Imports
  Poultry Imports
  Government Information Technology Projects
  Government Information Technology Projects
  Railway Rolling Stock
  Railway Rolling Stock
  Museums: Funding
  Museums: Funding
  Constitutional Reform
  Constitutional Reform
  Fire and Rescue Authorities: Risk Management Plans
  Fire and Rescue Authorities: Risk Management Plans
  Computer Hackers: Sentencing
  Computer Hackers: Sentencing
  Terrorist Offences: Arrests
  Terrorist Offences: Arrests
  Afghan Hijackers: Immigration Status
  Afghan Hijackers: Immigration Status
  Midwifery Students
  Midwifery Students
  Cockle Fishing
  Cockle Fishing
  Access Rights: Local Signage
  Access Rights: Local Signage
  Defra: Budget
  Defra: Budget
  Wild Boar
  Wild Boar
  Animal Imports: Live Wild Caged Birds
  Animal Imports: Live Wild Caged Birds

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  Over the past year, there have been some significant breakthroughs in countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The United Kingdom has worked effectively with the United States in the case of Libya's programmes and in countering AQ Khan's network. We have played a leading role, with France and Germany, on the issue of Iran's nuclear programme. We have enforced UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq. We have been active on the Proliferation Security Initiative designed to interdict the passage of cargoes intended for use in WMD programmes. We support the six-party talks in North Korea. All of this demonstrates effective multilateralism in action.

  We would like to set out for the House other steps we are taking and further proposals we will be discussing with our partners to deter, check and roll back WMD programmes in countries of concern, and to prevent WMD equipment and expertise falling into the hands of terrorists.

  Proliferation Security Initiative

  The Proliferation Security Initiative has developed well since it was launched in May 2003. Some 60 countries have indicated their support for it and their intention to apply its principles. There is more that we can do to extend its possibilities.

  We are working in the International Maritime Organisation to secure amendment to the Suppression of Unlawful Acts at Sea Convention, which will make it an internationally recognised offence to transport WMD, their delivery systems and related materials on commercial vessels. It is already an offence under the Chicago Convention of the International Civil Aviation Organisation to transport WMD on civil aircraft.

  Agreements have been concluded in the past providing for the boarding of vessels which may be carrying drugs. We now plan to negotiate similar agreements with the main commercial flag states allowing for the boarding of vessels which may be carrying cargoes which could be used in WMD programmes. Shipping of the 10 largest commercial flag states covers some 70 per cent of maritime trade. So with a relatively small number of such agreements, a large proportion of the world's shipping would be covered. The options available to the proliferator and rogue supplier would be reduced.

  We will consider with our partners whether new penalties should be introduced to deter air or shipping lines from seeking to transport such cargoes. Might the vessels and planes of any companies found to have
  WS 26
  engaged in such transport be denied landing or port rights around the world? Should we consider an international register of companies and individuals convicted of proliferation offences?

  We support President Bush's call to use Interpol and all other means to help law enforcement agencies to work against the traffickers.

  Within the EU, we see a case for Customs experts considering how to tighten regulations and practices, and how better to exchange information in order to prevent the trafficking of WMD.

  In the UK, we have begun work on the screening of traffic for the illicit movement of radioactive materials. This will eventually cover all air, sea and Channel Tunnel traffic—passengers, parcels, vehicles, freight and containers.

  Global Partnership

  Eighteen months ago, the Kananaskis G8 summit established a global partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction. Under this initiative G8 leaders decided to support specific cooperation projects, initially in Russia, to assist the destruction of chemical weapons, the dismantlement of decommissioned nuclear submarines, the disposition of fissile materials and the employment of former weapons scientists. The United Kingdom announced that it would make up to 750 million dollars available over 10 years for this work. The first report of work undertaken by the UK was published in December.

  Since Kananaskis, we have had the Iraq conflict and Libya's decision to dismantle its WMD programmes. Work is under way to develop a programme for the employment of former weapons scientists in Iraq. The UK has offered to help with a similar programme in Libya. We would like to see the Global Partnership expanded so that it is fully global in its geographical extent, and for the number of donor states to be expanded so that the target of 20 billion dollars can become a floor rather than a ceiling.

  The United Nations and Counter Proliferation

  An anomaly in the field of counter proliferation has been the lack of discussion since 1992 of proliferation in an overall sense by the UN Security Council. Following a proposal by President Bush last September, work is now under way on a resolution which will call on states to adopt tough national legislation to criminalise the possession, manufacture or trafficking of WMD, in particular for terrorist purposes; to develop effective export controls where these do not exist; and to maintain effective physical protection of sensitive materials. We hope the council will pass this soon.

  We also believe that the council should also consider establishing an appropriate follow-up mechanism, perhaps a counter-proliferation committee, just as the council's Counter-Terrorism Committee was established in 2001.
  WS 27
  The European Union

  The European Security Strategy, adopted by the European Council in December, highlights the importance of work against WMD. The month before its adoption, the EU agreed that agreements with other countries should include a non-proliferation clause. We are working with our EU partners and the Commission to see this introduced as new agreements arise or existing ones are renewed.

  Non-Proliferation Treaty and International Atomic Energy Agency

  The Non-Proliferation Treaty obliges states party to enter into safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify that nuclear activities are and remain legitimate. Article IV of the treaty confirms states' rights to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

  But states which fail to comply with their safeguards obligations inevitably lose the confidence of the international community. The bargain which is at the heart of the treaty is then called into question. We should consider whether such states should not forfeit the right to develop the nuclear fuel cycle, particularly the enrichment and reprocessing capabilities which are of such proliferation sensitivity. That does not mean that they would be deprived of the possibility of constructing and running civil nuclear power stations. These could still operate with fuel supplied by countries honouring their safeguards obligations. The fuel would be subject to agency monitoring while in the receiving country, and would be returned to the country of supply when spent. This would prevent a seemingly civil programme masking a weapons programme.

  Experience in recent years has shown the need for more wide-ranging agency inspections of national nuclear industries. The agency's additional protocol provides the basis for carrying out such inspections. It is important that all members of the international community adopt one. Suppliers of nuclear technology should increasingly see this as a key commitment when they judge export licence applications.

  The agency has done well to meet a growing verification workload within the constraints of its budget. But we should not ask it forever to do more within the same resources. We may need seriously to consider further strengthening of its safeguards division.

  Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention

  The Government set out in a Green Paper in April 2002 ideas on how to verify compliance with the Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention. We continue to believe that we need a mechanism, possibly under the authority of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for investigating instances of alleged use and suspect biological weapons facilities. We will be putting forward proposals to follow this up at the next meeting of states party to the convention in Geneva in July.
  WS 28
  Conclusion

  Countering proliferation remains as important today as it ever was. The part our intelligence services play in it is vital. We and they can be proud of what we have achieved over the past year. But we cannot let up. There is much work still to do. The proposals we have outlined are designed to assist that.

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  Subject to parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office departmental expenditure limit (DEL) will be increased by £60,035,000 from £1,708,768,000 to £1,768,784,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £34,778,000 from £795,600,000 to £830,378,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  46,596

  1,524,729

  173,527

  1,698,256

  Capital

  13,439

  64,728

  5,800

  70,528

  Depreciation*

  -25,000

  -124,194

  -6,800

  130,994

  Total

  35,035

  1,465,263

  172,527

  1,637,790

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  A public expenditure survey (PES) transfer from the Home Office of £2,088,000 for European residence permits.

  A PES transfer from the Home Office of £740,000 for biometrics trials in connection with the issue of UK visas.

  An increase of £4,171,000 to fund increased contributions to international organisations subscriptions.

  A decrease of £2,783,000 in respect of an adjustment for overseas price movements.

  A PES transfer from the Cabinet Office of £500,000 in respect of Coalition Information Centre (CIC) costs.

  A PES transfer to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) of £300,000 in respect of the e-business programme.

  PES transfers from the DTI and Department for Transport totalling £134,000 (£67.000 each) in respect of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

  An increase of £5,725,000 in respect of increases in providing consular and visa services overseas.

  An increase of £27,149,000 in respect of increased Iraq-related security costs.

  A PES transfer from HM Customs and Excise (HMC&E) of £806,000 and from the Home Office of £1,000,000 and £2,000.000 in respect of the

  WS 29
  FCO Afghanistan drugs plan and an additional £122,000 from the Home Office to continue research techniques for identifying and measuring opium cultivation.

  A PES transfer to the Home Office of £20,000 as a contribution to the Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO).

  A PES transfer from the Department for International Development (DfID) of £10,150,000 in respect of the remainder required to fund planned programme activity to the end of the financial year.

  Take up of end-year flexibility (EYF) of £18,215,000 from a combination of underspends on the 2002–03 conflict prevention departmental unallocated provision (DUP) and DfID and FCO conflict pool (CP) underspends.

  A PES transfer to DfID and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) of £11,000,000 and £2,000,000 respectively for the remainder required to fund planned programme activity to the end of the financial year.

  PES transfers to the Security and Intelligence Agencies (SIA) of £7,016,000 and £85,000 to reflect funding revisions for CP.

  PES transfers to the MoD of £1,800,000 and £1,200,000 to reflect funding revisions for CP.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

  An increase of £9,000 in respect of an adjustment for overseas price movements.

  An increase of £9,751,000 in respect of increased Iraq-related security costs.

  A PES transfer from the Home Office of £1,013,000 in respect of the setting up of a new visa regime in Kingston.

  A PES transfer from the Home Office of £912,000 for European residence permits.

  A PES transfer from the Home Office of £122,000 for biometrics trials in connection with the issue of UK visas.

  PES transfer from HMC&E of £816,000 in respect of the FCO Afghanistan drugs plan.

  A PES transfer from the DTI of £816,000 in respect of the e-business programme.

  Resilience and Civil Contingency
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has, in advance of debate in another place later today, laid before Parliament, and made publicly available, a discussion paper Counter-Terrorism Powers.. Reconciling Security and Liberty in an Open Society. This paper also contains the Government's response to the report of Lord Newton and his committee into the operation of the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act and in particular Part IV of that Act, which concerns the detention
  WS 30
  pending deportation of foreign nationals suspected of terrorism. Alongside that as further background for the debate, we are also publishing the following update on resilience and civil contingency matters.

  Update on resilience and civil contingencies matters

  In March last year the Home Secretary placed in another place a Written Statement setting out improvements in contingency planning that had taken place and announcing the next steps in improving our resilience, including progress in delivering civil contingencies legislation. Almost 12 months on, we have made considerable progress and have in place plans to cover a wide range of both civil emergencies and terrorist attacks. Such plans include the purchase of equipment, the identification and training of personnel, the preparation of policy guidance and crisis management arrangements, liaison with other nations, and exercises. There has been excellent co-operation across government and the wider public service and we would like to place on record my thanks, in particular to local authorities and the emergency services for their continuing hard work.

  Review of progress at time of last update

  Since the outbreak of the foot and mouth disease and the September 11 atrocity, we have been planning for larger-scale challenges and substantial progress had already been made. A horizon scanning capability had been established within the Cabinet Office to anticipate and prepare for the potential impact of any large-scale incident, and this complemented the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee in providing assessments on domestic and overseas terrorist threats. Guidance had been published on decontamination of people following a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) incident for use by the emergency services and other responders, and a UK national stockpile of countermeasures had been established before the end of 2001 including antibiotics, antidotes, and respiratory support equipment in strategic locations around the UK.

  In London, the London Resilience Forum had been established to drive forward the resilience agenda, bringing together representatives from the emergency services, local government, military, transport, utilities, health sector and business. Substantial progress had been made, and plans for a range of contingencies now exist including new pan-London command and control arrangements and a well-developed programme of exercises.

  Update of progress in the last 12 months to the present Organisation

  The programme of work to enhance the key generic resilience capabilities, co-ordinated within the Civil Contingencies Secretariat in the Cabinet Office, remains the core framework through which the Government are seeking to build resilience across all parts of the United Kingdom. This centrally led programme constitutes an efficient and effective way of harnessing the expertise and resources that already

  WS 31
  exist within government without duplicating or creating new structures. The programme has expanded in the past 12 months and now comprises 17 separate workstreams.

  Central response

  Regional response

  Local response

  Essential services—DoH

  Essential services—Defra

  Essential services—HMT

  Essential services—DfT

  Essential services—DTI

  CBRN Resilience

  Assessment of risk and consequence

  Mass casualties

  Treatment of infectious diseases (human)

  Treatment of infectious diseases (animal and plant)

  Mass evacuation

  Warning and informing

  Mass fatalities

  Site clearance

  Work is progressing well on all fronts although inevitably some areas are more advanced than others, not least because of the necessity to keep our plans under constant review to enable us to respond effectively to new threats and challenges. The Home Secretary and ministerial colleagues receive regular updates and reports on the progress of these workstreams and ensure that attention is focused where most required. We have also worked closely with the devolved administrations and clear responsibilities have been established so that the devolved administrations are able to undertake their own resilience preparations whilst ensuring that UK-wide resilience can be ensured.

  Preparedness of the Emergency Services

  Under the New Dimension programme, 4,400 personal protective suits have been delivered, enabling firefighters to decontaminate safely and effect rescues. Purpose-built decontamination vehicles are now coming into operation around the country and firefighters are being trained in their use. The rolling training programme for police has seen over 5,000 officers trained and equipped in CBRN response and we are on target to have increased this to 5 per cent of the police service by June.

  Every acute hospital and ambulance service now has a stock of personal protective suits, and is equipped with mobile decontamination units, to allow safe working and decontamination of patients. Some 3,200 protective suits were provided for hospitals and 4,300 for the ambulance service. Of the 360 mobile decontamination units procured, 200 have gone to hospitals and 160 to the ambulance service. These units offer shelter, power and water management systems to NHS personnel who are decontaminating patients. In addition, a central stockpile of protective suits has been established and agreement reached with
  WS 32
  the Fire Service for support in the event of a need for mass decontamination.

  Since late 2002, senior ambulance staff have been participating in joint emergency service CBRN incident commander courses. All ambulance services in the UK will have received this training by April 2004. A cadre of instructors has also been trained to enable the local training of decontamination teams. Courses are being held regionally and about 180 trainers have successfully completed it to date. By early summer this figure will have increased to around 300.

  Considerable investment has been made across government in providing equipment for the emergency services and will continue to be made in areas such as developing the urban search and rescue capability within the Fire Service, and improving first responders' ability to detect and monitor CBRN substances. The Office of Government Commerce now has a dedicated CBRN procurement team in place to ensure economies of scale, assist with equipment interoperability issues, and streamline procedures for our partners and contractors.

  Strengthening Regional Resilience

  One of the capabilities added to the programme since last March focuses on developing new regional resilience arrangements to co-ordinate both planning for and responding to disruptive events. Since April 2003, regional resilience teams have been operational in each of the Government Offices in the nine English regions. These teams have taken the lead in managing key relationships with local responders, communications between regional partners, and between the regions and government. Regional resilience forums, comprising representatives from key partners and agencies, now meet regularly in all the English regions.

  Health

  The Department of Health, together with the NHS and other key stakeholders, has developed a national strategy for major incident planning at an operational level, with a supporting framework for the NHS. The document Handling Major Incidents—An Operational Doctrine was published on 7 January 2004 and builds on current guidance by setting out general principles to help the NHS to develop its existing emergency plans to respond to new potential threats. Revised smallpox guidelines were published in December 2003 and can be found on the Department of Health website: www.doh.gsi.gov.uk/smallpox/keydocs.htm

  Civil Contingencies Legislation

  In January this year we introduced the Civil Contingencies Bill into Parliament. The Bill, and the accompanying non-legislative measures. will deliver a single framework for civil protection in the U K to meet the disruptive challenges of the 21st century. The Bill is separated into two substantive parts: local arrangements for civil protection (Part 1) and emergency powers (Part 2). Both parts of the Bill replace existing outdated legislation, notably the

  WS 33
  Emergency Powers Act 1920 and the Civil Defence Act 1948. The Bill has now completed its Report stage.

  Key stakeholders have been involved in the policy development process, including the Local Government Association, the Emergency Planning Society, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association and the Ambulance Service Association. They have played an important role in helping to shape the legislative proposals.

  A major public consultation of the Bill's proposals was carried out last summer. Around one half of local authorities and emergency services responded. The consultation exercise was supported by events held in each of the English regions and the devolved administrations, attended by over 1,000 civil protection practitioners. This was supplemented by attendance at national conferences and local events. The Government continue to consult widely as the Bill passes through Parliament. Regular bulletins on progress are sent to all civil protection professionals and a programme of outreach visits is eliciting views directly from individual local areas. The feedback has been very positive.

  Civil Contingencies Reaction Forces

  Civil contingency reaction forces (CCRFs) achieved full operating capability on target by 31 December. Fourteen CCRFs are now available to support the civil authorities as required providing both general and specialist support. Possible ways in which CCRFs might be used include assistance with evacuation, providing temporary accommodation and feeding facilities, and general logistical support. A programme of exercises between local CCRFs and the emergency services began in 2003 to test working together in an emergency.

  Co-ordinated Exercise Programme

  Central to our work to develop resilience capabilities is a co-ordinated approach to exercises designed to test our responses to a range of major incidents including natural disasters and accidents. Over the last year we have brought together government departments, regional and local authorities, the devolved administrations, and agencies, to create a focused cross-government exercise programme. This exercise programme tests the emerging capabilities and highlights areas for further development. Training exercises are also an important part of counter-terrorism, as they ensure we are prepared to respond to any kind of terrorist attack. Three large-scale live counter-terrorist exercises are held each year, involving participants from central government, police, agencies and the military. In addition, 12 table-top or workshop exercises are held annually, carried out across the UK and involving the police, lead government departments, and emergency recovery agencies. The live exercise held at Bank Tube station in September last year was a good example of a multi-agency exercise designed to ensure that plans and procedures we have developed will be effective on the day. The UK also took part in an international
  WS 34
  table-top exercise called Global Mercury last autumn to test international communications between health agencies in the event of a smallpox outbreak.

  The current exercise programme includes the joint UK/US exercise in the Metropolitan Police service area. We will continue to carry out a range of exercises throughout the country, in particular, to validate emerging regional plans, and ensure civil emergency and counter-terrorist exercises are utilised to test our capability both to respond to and to manage the consequences of a CBRN incident.

  Exercise Counter Balance

  Under the CBRN resilience programme, the Home Office, in conjunction with the Emergency Planning Society, regional resilience teams and devolved administrations has continued Exercise Counter Balance, a programme of CBRN training seminars originally run in 2002. The seminars continue to be delivered throughout the UK at local level and feature a combination of presentations, discussion groups and table-top exercises based around the response lo a range of CBRN scenarios. The seminars provide the opportunity for local authorities, in particular, to give feedback on the revised CBRN guidance to local authorities published in August 2003. Eight of the 12 planned seminars have been delivered to date with the remainder due by May 2004. Participants have included representatives from fire and rescue services, government agencies, health services, local authorities, the Armed Forces, police services, the utilities and the voluntary sector.

  Communications

  Communication is a vital element in ensuring that we have the ability to respond to a crisis effectively and rapidly. Over the last year we have made considerable efforts to engage with those upon whom we will rely in the event of an incident. This has enabled us to make the best use of expertise not only from within central government but also from other organisations and sectors such as the business community and the voluntary sector. Examples of communication include working with the emergency services to develop the first responder role; engaging with health workers so staff are aware of what is required and trained to respond appropriately; and liaising with key contractors to ensure the necessary capacity and flexibility is available to deliver essential services. During a crisis, the media's ability to deliver factual information and advice will be essential. Thus news coordination centre facilities have been set up and there is close liaison with the media and press officers over emergency media arrangements both nationally and around the country.

  In London, the London Resilience Team holds regular meetings with the business community, including senior representatives from umbrella organisations such as the Oxford Street Traders' Association, the British Bankers Association, and London Chamber of Commerce. Last summer, the National Association of Counter Terrorist Security Officers (NACSO), together with London First and

  WS 35
  the British Continuity Institute, published a booklet and CD-Rom entitled Expect the Unexpected providing continuity planning advice for business. This has been distributed to 44,000 London businesses.

  The British public, regrettably, are used to living with the threat of terrorism and have in the past demonstrated commendable resilience and common sense in dealing with it. We are, however, conscious that the new scale of potential attacks on our society poses new challenges. While it is necessary for us to limit the flow of information on our resilience planning for understandable reasons of security, we have made large amounts of information available on our government websites www.ukresilience.info/ and www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism. We plan over the next few months to be issuing further advice and guidance for the public.

  Planning Enforcement System
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I yesterday tabled an amendment to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that is currently being considered by the House of Lords as a result of the Review of the Planning Enforcement System in England.

  The responses to the review supported our belief that the existing system of planning enforcement is basically sound and does not need to be reinvented. That is not to say that there is no scope for improvements. We received a wide range of ideas and proposals on how to make planning enforcement more effective and better able to play its part in ensuring that people have confidence in the planning system as a whole. We will be publishing our full conclusions on the review later in the year.

  One particular proposal for new powers in the review generated a large amount of support. This was for a provision that would enable local planning authorities (LPAs) to issue a temporary stop notice at the start of unauthorised development, before an enforcement notice is served. Having carefully considered these views and the opportunity presented by this Bill to make such changes—to give LPAs the opportunity to speed up the process of enforcement—I have decided to introduce an amendment to this effect.

  The amendment is intended to enable local planning authorities to issue a temporary stop notice immediately upon the commencement of a breach of planning control. The proposed amendment differs from stop notices currently provided for in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 because it is not necessary to serve an enforcement notice at the same time and the proposed temporary stop notice will only have effect for 28 days at most. Local authorities will be able to stop breaches of planning control before the effects become too great and will have a period of time to consider whether further enforcement action is
  WS 36
  appropriate, such as service of an enforcement notice with a related stop notice.

  Directors' Remuneration
  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 (Ms Patricia Hewitt) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  My department published a consultation document on 3 June 2003 seeking views on the extent to which further measures might be required to enable shareholders to ensure that any compensation paid reflects performance when directors' contracts are terminated.

  This Statement explains how the Government intend to proceed in the light of the responses to the consultation document, including that from the Trade and Industry Committee (Rewards for Failure, HC914, 16 September 2003). I am grateful to the committee and to all those who commented. A summary of the responses is today being placed on the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/cld/published.htm and in the Libraries of the House. My department is today also replying to the Trade and Industry Committee report.

  This consultation generated a large response from a wide range of parties: institutional investors, companies, trades unions, accountants, remuneration advisers and many representative organisations. This demonstrates the high level of interest in this issue and the concern, which I share, about cases where poor company performance is accompanied by excessive remuneration.

  That is why, before publishing the consultation document, the Government had already taken significant action, through the Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations, introduced in 2002, requiring quoted companies to produce a detailed annual directors' remuneration report and to submit it to shareholders for approval at the annual general meeting. These regulations give the UK a corporate governance framework for directors' pay which leads the world in terms of transparency and accountability. They have had an immediate impact in terms of increasing the focus on directors' remuneration by shareholders and promoting constructive dialogue between them and companies about remuneration strategy and practices.

  The full impact of the 2002 regulations, however. cannot be measured after one year alone. For this reason, my department will be commissioning a detailed assessment of compliance with the regulations in the course of this year's AGM season, and an assessment of changes in remuneration practices.

  The challenge for remuneration committees and their advisers is to produce rewards packages which tie pay and performance targets to the creation of longterm value for shareholders and are transparent to shareholders. All can agree that directors deserve high rewards for good performance but companies need to

  WS 37
  think creatively about the design of remuneration packages with those objectives in mind. Shareholders must be vigilant to ensure that situations where directors enjoy rich rewards while companies perform poorly and shareholders and employees suffer are challenged. The improved design of all aspects of directors' remuneration packages will play an important part in creating an environment where good businesses can prosper: businesses which produce goods and services of high quality; are honest and fair in their dealings with consumers, employees and suppliers and careful with their reputation; and thereby create sustainable long term value for their shareholders.

  Building on the regulations, the consultation document set out a range of options for tackling the problem of excessive compensation payments made to directors who leave companies which have performed poorly. The great majority of respondents considered that this was an area where the focus should be on promoting the take-up and implementation of best practice. In particular, the responses demonstrated a good deal of support for reducing notice periods and the use of mechanisms such as phased payments and liquidated damages in order to reduce the problem of rewards for failure when contracts are terminated.

  I have therefore been very pleased to see the further development in recent months of guidance on directors' contracts, both by the Association of British Insurers and National Association of Pension Funds, and separately by the Confederation of British Industry. I welcome their contributions and commend them to remuneration committees and their advisers. Shareholders too have an important role to play in holding boards to account for their policies in line with the code on activism agreed by the Institutional Shareholders' Committee.

  I have considered very carefully the question of whether to introduce further legislation in this area and have concluded that this is not necessary at this stage. I agree with the conclusions of the Trade and Industry Committee report and the comments of its chairman that "the recent examples of increased activism by institutional investors, and the promotion of best practice has the potential to remedy the situation. The Government should wait to see the effect of these developments before it considers legislative remedies".
  WS 38
  I have specifically ruled out legislation of the type introduced by the honourable Member for Tunbridge Wells (Archie Norman) in his Company Directors' Performance and Compensation Bill. The overwhelming view of the respondents to the consultation was that this would be wholly unworkable in practice for a number of reasons: it would interfere with the operation of existing contracts; it would create a large degree of unnecessary uncertainty and complexity in the negotiation of new contracts; it would be incapable of taking account of the wide range of recruitment circumstances; it would act as a deterrent to the recruitment of good quality directors; and it could potentially lead to lengthy litigation which would be costly to shareholders.

  I will be paying close attention to developments over the next 12 months. I am clear that the best way forward is through the application and development of best practice in negotiating contracts which deal with performance issues effectively. But if the monitoring which I am commissioning demonstrates that further changes to the Companies Act are required, I will not hesitate to take appropriate action in the context of wider company law reform.

  Wanless Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  Derek Wanless has today published his report, Securing Good Health for the Whole Population, which has been commissioned jointly by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and me. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The report makes recommendations to the Government on implementing cost-effective approaches to improving population health, prevention and reducing health inequalities, and advises on whether current action is consistent with the fully engaged scenario which was outlined in the first Wanless report, Securing Our Future Health: Taking A Long-Term View (2002).

  The Government will address the report through the formal consultation on public health which will be launched next week and through the forthcoming White Paper on public health.