Sitting of 19 January 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Drug Offenders
    Dr. Brian Iddon(Lab): What plans he has to increase the number of offenders with drug problems who enter treatment. [148323]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): Research shows that treatment for problematic drug users works. The number in treatment has increased by 41 per cent. since 1998–99 and waiting times have reduced, but they need to reduce further. We are investing more than £400 million through the criminal justice interventions programme to make sure that offenders with drug problems have and take every opportunity to benefit from that treatment. We are on course to meet our target of 200,000 problematic drug users in treatment by 2008.
    Dr. Iddon: What hope can my hon. Friend give my constituent, whom I shall call A? He served a short prison sentence and came out on 31 December. He is 32 and has been taking heroin for 16 years. He has already lost his brother to heroin and has a supportive family. This weekend, he was desperate to give up heroin and unsuccessfully tried cold turkey. We tried to get him emergency treatment but the doctor would prescribe only dihydrocodeine, the hospital did not want him and there is a three-month waiting list for the community drugs team. What hope can my hon. Friend give such people? Surely we need emergency treatment when people want to give up heroin.
    Caroline Flint: I agree with my hon. Friend. We need quick and effective treatment for people in that position. We are considering how we can improve matters, especially for those who serve short-term prison sentences. We have had several pilots for those serving short-term sentences and on remand, which is also crucial. The results will be available shortly and we shall consider how we can extend the pilots.
    My hon. Friend is right: we need to examine several issues. The other week, I had a meeting with
    1056
    representatives from the Department of Health and people in my Department about prescribing. We must do a job of education so that general practitioners are aware of the alternatives that should and must be available for people with specific drug use problems, especially with heroin.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd(PC): Given that more than 60 per cent. of all property crime is drug-related, would it not be cost-effective to invest even more in immediate treatment, to follow up the question of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon)? May I stress to the Under-Secretary the need for early discussions with her colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales, because there are fewer than 15 treatment beds for drug addicts in the whole of Wales?
    Caroline Flint: We are spending an additional £500 million, but we need to ensure that the money is well used. I hope to go to Wales and Scotland in the near future to speak to my colleagues about what they are doing. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to identifying drug use as a reason for committing crimes. The extension of our criminal justice interventions programme£arresting people on charge, and considering how we can further spread the net to cover early identification in the custody suite and follow that through into the courts, prison or community sentences£is one way of ensuring that health treatment runs alongside criminal justice interventions.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that voluntary sector organisations have a big role to play in combating the drug problem as well as other social problems? Does she also agree that if a council such as mine in Leicester is determined to make cuts in the voluntary sector, it is likely to make the specific problem and other social problems worse?
    Caroline Flint: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point that the voluntary sector provides a great deal of innovation and expertise. For a long time, especially under previous Governments, it managed without the help that the Government are providing today. Voluntary organisations can innovate, they have good practice and I encourage the expansion of their services.
    If my hon. Friend would like to see me about his specific point, I shall look into it. It is a question of partnership between the drug action teams, law enforcement, the national health service and GPs, and the voluntary sector. If the action proves effective and provides results, people should consider carefully before cutting such a service.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Department's statistics show that 149,000 drug users used some form of treatment centre last year, but British crime survey figures show that there were approximately 1 million hard drug users in the country That means that only 15 per cent. went into treatment. for 60 per cent. of whom the outcome was failure. Only 5 per cent. of the addict population were therefore successfully treated. What more can we do to improve that figure?
    Caroline Flint: My information is that there are 250,000 problematic—class A—drug users, who cause the most crime. The hon. Gentleman's comments are interesting. We are increasing access to treatment and, as I said earlier, we are on target to reach 200,000 people in treatment. It costs money, which we are putting in. Would his party match our investment in, and dedication to, tackling the problem? I believe that the answer is no.

    Paedophiles
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What action he is taking to protect children from paedophiles operating on the internet. [148324]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): We have, in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, introduced a new grooming offence and risk of sexual harm orders to help to protect children from paedophiles who use the internet. Earlier this month, we launched the current round of our media campaign to raise awareness in children and their parents of how to use the internet safely. Through the Government's task force on child protection on the internet, we continue to work with law enforcement, industry and children's organisations on the issue. The police identify and target individuals and groups of offenders, both domestically and internationally. The National Crime Squad has implemented a database of seized images of child abuse, which is available to all forces to support investigations, and has developed a law enforcement website aimed at paedophiles looking for illegal images.
    Mrs. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she look carefully at the case of Michael Wheeler, a Cambridge resident who was recently convicted of grooming two young girls over the internet but who did not sexually abuse either of them until they had passed their 13th birthday? Will she examine ways in which penalties can be increased for people such as Wheeler? Many parents will be looking carefully at what the Government have to say on that.
    Fiona Mactaggart: The 2003 Act introduces a new grooming offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years, and allows prosecution where a paedophile travels to meet a child with the intention to commit a sexual offence following prior communications. In addition, the new provisions in the Act include tougher sentences for people who commit a sexual act with a child aged over 13 but under the age of consent. When those new powers come into force, there will be a very powerful mechanism to deal with cases such as that which my hon. Friend described.
    Mr. Mark Oaten: More than 18 months ago. the FBI gave the British police, under Operation Ore, the names of 5,000 individuals suspected of accessing and purchasing child porn. To date, 2,000 of those individuals have not been investigated and there have been only 200 convictions. Does the Minister share my concern that there has been a breakdown
    1058
    there, and will she confirm to the House today that the Government still intend those names to be investigated fully?
    Fiona Mactaggart:This is an operational matter, for which the police are responsible. There have been 277 convictions, and more than half the names passed on through Operation Ore have been investigated. The priority for investigation has been decided on the basis of risk assessment so that those who have access to children are investigated first. The Home Office has given extra resources to increase the number of forensic officers available to police officers, which is required if such cases are to be followed up.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Is the Minister aware of the comments made last week by her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who said that some local education authorities have misinterpreted his Department's guidelines on photographing children in schools? That has led my county council in Essex in effect to ban parents from photographing their children in nativity plays. Everyone wants there to be the maximum number of laws and rules possible to try to minimise paedophilic activity, but will the Minister have a word with her right hon. Friend because it seems unfair for parents to be deprived of the ability to photograph their children as a result of a misinterpretation of Department for Education and Skills guidelines?
    Fiona Mactaggart: I do not think that that is a problem, but I shall ensure that the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are clear. The problem might be naming children rather than photographing them, and I shall ensure that any advice that he gives is congruent with the advice that the Home Office offers through the police service.

    Crime Reduction (Morley and Rothwell)
    Mr. Colin Challen: What steps he is taking to reduce crime in Morley and Rothwell. [148325]
    The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): Leeds crime and disorder reduction partnership, which covers Morley and Rothwell, has benefited from more than £3 million of funding for local crime reduction initiatives in 2003–04. That includes £1.5 million from the building safer communities fund to tackle crimes such as antisocial behaviour, burglary, drugs, violence and vehicle crime, and almost £1.2 million from the basic command unit fund to tackle crime and to fund a dedicated monitoring officer with LeedsWatch CCTV scheme.
    Mr. Challen: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Following a meeting with my divisional police commander just before Christmas, I can say that the latest figures that he has are very positive, with most areas of crime falling. My concern is that we seem to be reaching a funding plateau after a 30 per cent. increase in Government funding for the police since 1997. The local precept may be set at a level that will not aid the

    1059
    recruitment of more police. Can we have a review of the wide variation among precepts across the country to get a better understanding of why some local people pay a lot more for police and get more policing than we do in West Yorkshire?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend is right that his local crime figures are extremely good: burglary down 26 per cent.; robbery down 37 per cent.; and vehicle crime down 33 per cent. Locally, the force is doing an excellent job, augmented by the community support officers who are now patrolling his streets. However, he raises the important issue of funding. We always recognised that this year's settlement would be difficult, but that is in the context of a 30 per cent. increase over the past three years, which has meant significant funding going into our police services right across the country. We have reviewed the formula to try to target our funds on the areas of greatest need. Although this year we have a flat-rate increase to cover inflation and pay settlements, we will be looking to see how we can target our funds on the areas of highest crime in future.

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Claire Ward: What plans he has to penalise parents who do not enforce antisocial behaviour contracts placed on their children. [1483261]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I was pleased to visit my hon. Friend in her constituency of Watford last Wednesday to see for myself the extent of the challenge and the way that the community is rising to it. The issue raised at that time is the one that we are addressing this afternoon: how do we ensure that the voluntary ABCs—acceptable behaviour contracts—are supported by parents? That is done, first, by giving support and advice and, secondly, by ensuring that there is proper enforcement. The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which was passed at the end of last year, enables us to introduce parenting contracts alongside contracts for the youngsters. If parents refuse to adhere to them and to support the police and the community, the youth offending teams can apply to the court for a parenting order. That would include not only the imposition of fines where appropriate, but the potential for a residential requirement, which would teach the parents how to parent.
    Claire Ward: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and say how grateful we are for his visit last week? On the issues that he has raised, it would be a good idea to link together the parenting orders and the acceptable behaviour contracts, but will he also consider an issue that was raised with him last week in my constituency about the need to make obtaining antisocial behaviour orders easier once an acceptable behaviour contract is in place and has not been adhered to? That would enable us to move on quickly to obtaining an ASBO, as well as having those parenting orders.
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I am very happy to look at that and to use the interim orders that are now available as a fast track to ensure that those who breach the voluntary contract know that there will be a rapid move to greater
    1060
    enforcement. A combination of diversionary activity and prevention with clear, enforceable rules will, I believe, help us to turn round the situation that so often bedevils communities where just a handful of young people are providing the wrong leadership and parents—some of whom are bewildered, some disinterested—are allowing that to happen. The combination of measures in the 2003 Act will enable us to take the steps necessary to ensure that we get this right.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Although the Home Secretary is clearly right in saying that parents should be made responsible for the behaviour of their children, does he think that acceptable behaviour contracts are working well? Can he tell us how many have been breached since they were issued?
    Mr. Blunkett: I cannot give an answer on the number that have been breached, but we have research, which we will publish in the next few days, from the early stages of the acceptable behaviour contracts that were run in north London. I think that it will show not only how they work, but how important it is to spread best practice so that we can learn the lessons very quickly. I hope that as part of the Together campaign and the new website, which we will be launching shortly, we can show people how things have worked in other areas, rather than having to reinvent the wheel.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: As my right hon. Friend has just acknowledged, if an antisocial behaviour contract does not work we need to progress to an antisocial behaviour order. Obviously, we need the police properly to enforce those orders. What guidance has he given to our police forces on the importance of enforcing ASBOs when members of the community report breaches of ASBOs to them? What support can be offered to the young people on those ASBOs once they go beyond the age up to which the youth offending service is responsible for them? I understand that the probation service cannot offer that support.
    Mr. Blunkett: There are two separate issues. The first is that we ensure—as we shall in the next few days—that every police force and every police officer is familiar with the law as it stands at the moment, following the passage of the Act; and that, above all, magistrates are familiar with, and use, the powers available to them in respect of breach. Often, the police bring forward evidence but magistrates are reluctant to take decisive action.
    The second issue is very separate. As part of the development of our policy, we need to ensure that the new criminal justice boards are able to join up the various agencies locally so that things work more effectively, rather than our constantly having to change the law.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does not the Home Secretary recognise that the police and local authorities in crime and disorder partnerships say that they still find antisocial behaviour orders very bureaucratic and time-consuming, and that even when

    1061
    someone is taken back to the courts for breach of an ASBO the police often find that all their hard work is wasted because the sentence is not sufficient for the breach? Local communities need better protection, not the bureaucratic system on which the Government continue to rely.
    Mr. Blunkett: We were perfectly honest about that. Two years ago, we indicated that the operation of ASBOs was too bureaucratic and time-consuming, so we changed the system in the Police Reform Act 2002 and last autumn, in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, we streamlined it both for interim orders and for streamlined fast track, including the use of the county court as well as the magistrates court. But, yes, the hon. Gentleman's second point is entirely right; indeed, it was the point I was making a moment ago. The hard work of the police and the community will come to nothing if breaches are allowed to go unpunished, which is why we need the co-operation of magistrates and district judges.
    Mr. Mike Hall: If he will make a statement on the role of local communities in tackling antisocial behaviour. [148327]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): That follows on neatly. I could have chosen the questions myself; although just to make it clear, we do not choose the questions ourselves— otherwise the headline tomorrow morning will be, "Government take over Question Time".
    My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise that question. It is critical to mobilise the community and for the community to be part of the solution, in terms of prevention and intervention with young people and by reporting, supporting and backing the police and the courts in doing their job. That is absolutely vital. Where that works best, it is because the community is part of the solution.
    Mr. Hall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Since 1997, the Government have put a huge amount of legislation in the statute book to allow the police and local authorities to tackle antisocial behaviour. There have been several successful ASBOs in my constituency, and I should like to see more. I have a specific question about off-licence sales to young people, which seem to be the root cause of a huge amount of antisocial behaviour: what will the Government do to try to tackle that problem?
    Mr. Blunkett: I think that we all accept that there is a very real challenge—arising both from sales to under-age consumers and from the binge drinking that often goes alongside it. In the antisocial behaviour strategy, which we shall publish by the spring, we shall seek the co-operation not simply of local communities, off-licences and supermarkets—where there is a growing trade—but of the industry itself. In the end, the golden goose will be cooked and, if we do not get a grip on this increasing problem, we shall obviously face increasing demands for draconian action on the sale and availability of alcohol. If we are not to go down that road, we must expect all those involved to play the game by being part of the solution.
    Bob Spink: What advice will the Home Secretary give to my constituents who are threatening this week to set up vigilante groups, to go out on the streets to deal with exploding youth antisocial behaviour, and who need to deal with very low levels of policing locally? What advice will he give to the local police who refuse to attend a public meeting that I am calling to seek solutions with the public and the police to those very problems?
    Mr. Blunkett: I have had a funny day, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for reflecting for a moment on exploding youths—something that we have not yet legislated against.
    The truth is that the hon. Gentleman is entirely right to suggest that there is a major challenge, and it is not just up to the Government, but up to all of us to get this right and to provide the enforcement powers for both the police and the courts system. As I have said already this afternoon, we need quite supportive and then, if necessary, draconian powers in relation to parents and a link-up between youth offending teams, the Youth Justice Board and the new Connexions service, so that we can see the two-handed approach actually working in practice.
    Ms Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great problem of policing antisocial behaviour in town centres, in particular in Northampton, as a result of late-night drinking? How might he get the local business communities, particularly the entertainment industry, to take some responsibility—possibly including bearing some of the costs—for policing that type of activity?
    Mr. Blunkett: This links neatly with the previous question because, if we are to have a system where people do not take the law into their own hands, those who are part of the problem ought to be part of the solution. The best practice that we have across the country—whether in Manchester or York—is where licensees and those providing entertainment and alcohol are prepared to contribute, with the police, to the cost and the enforcement itself. Of course, street wardens and community support officers, paid for jointly by the local authority, and the police service funded from the Home Office, can ensure that we have our own vigilantes, rather than communities having to set them up themselves. I challenge, and will do so in the months ahead, industry, licensees and those involved who are making a lot of money from entertainment to take on that challenge and to be part of the solution.
    Mr. James Paice: The tendency to take the law into one's own hands—or for communities to take it into their own hands, to which the Secretary of State rightly refers—is born of immense frustration, as I am sure he will accept. Communities feel let down that neither the police nor the criminal justice system seems to be able to commit the resources necessary to deal with antisocial behaviour. But does he understand that, after a case where a community has finally given vent to its frustration, patience has snapped and people have taken the law into their own hands, that frustration turns to deep anger when they find that the police and the

    1063
    criminal justice system bend over backwards to track down and prosecute those members of the public whose patience has snapped, and far more effort is put into that prosecution than into prosecuting the antisocial behaviour that caused the original problems and the frustration? Is the Secretary of State concerned that political correctness is taking too big a role?
    Mr. Blunkett: Political correctness and political opportunism seem to go hand in hand, in equal measure—I should know because I have been probably the least politically correct member of the Government Front-Bench team—and I am absolutely clear that the police and the criminal justice system's job is to pursue criminals, not those who are trying to defend themselves. That is why, in the Criminal Justice Act 2003—apparently unbeknown to the BBC and others—we amended the law unanimously. We all agreed that it was sensible to ensure that people protecting their own homes could not be sued and did not face people getting legal aid to make their lives a misery. I should like the BBC, just occasionally, to tell what has been done, not just what they do not know about.

    National Offender Management Service
    John McDonnell: What the cost will be during (a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05 of establishing the national offender management service at (i) national and (ii) regional levels. [148328]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): The costs of establishing the national offender management service have yet to be finalised, but the costs of setting up the implementation team will be met from existing budgets.
    John McDonnell: What mechanism will be put in place to overview the implementation of the new service so that the burdens and costs do not fall on front-line staff and detract from front-line service delivery? Given that there have been budgetary problems at the London probation service over the past three years, will my hon. Friend meet me and London colleagues to discuss the implementation of the new service within the London region?
    Paul Goggins: Martin Narey has been appointed as the chief executive of the national offender management service and I will chair the service's board to oversee the implementation of the new approach. Far from drawing resources away from the front line, the whole purpose of the service is to make more resources available to the front line. The organisation will begin with a budget of £3.2 billion, which is £900 million more in real terms than was spent on prisons and probation in 1997. My hon. Friend requested a meeting, and I will, of course, be delighted to meet him.
    David Davis: Is it not the case that the biggest financial effect of the creation of the national offender management service is that it will act as a smokescreen for a massive U-turn by the Home Office on prison and sentencing policy? How much money will the strategy of replacing 13,000 prison sentences and 60,000 supervision orders with fines save
    1064
    the Home Office in the coming year? Does the Minister really think that a policy that leaves thousands of criminals at large on the streets represents a sensible way of saving money?
    Paul Goggins: Let me make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that there has been no U-turn in relation to sentencing policy. Indeed, we will make available about 80,000 prison places, which is certainly far more than his Government left in place in 1997 and 3,700 more than is the case now. There is no question of a U-turn. Those places will be there and available to be used as appropriate. However, we want to ensure that custody and community sentencing are tightly focused on the right people, and the national offender management service will enable us to do that.
    David Davis: Much of the money that is spent on the Prison Service was put in place by us—or certainly the plans were. As for the notion that there has been no U-turn, the Minister clearly has not read the Carter report, which we set up and was the precursor to the national offender management service. On page 2 of his report, Carter complains that as many as half of all burglars go to jail on first conviction, but presumably that figure will reduce under the new regime. Does the Minister really believe that more than half of convicted burglars should go free?
    Paul Goggins: A rather interesting statistic is that people committing motoring offences are four times more likely to receive a custodial sentence than they were before. In relation to the legacy that the right hon. Gentleman's Government left behind, I made it clear that we are now spending—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Minister reply.
    Paul Goggins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are now spending £900 million a year more in real terms than we were when the right hon. Gentleman's Government left office. That means that 11,000 additional staff are in the prison and probation services, working to an objective—which I hope he shares—of reducing the reoffending rates of those in our correctional system.
    Mr. John Denham: Is my hon. Friend aware that I welcome the new system? It will be an improvement on that suggested by the Conservative party, which wants people to go to prison just long enough to lose their jobs, homes and relationships. Therefore, they will be guaranteed to come out and reoffend. He will be aware that a key aspect of the service will be better education and better liaison with work and job opportunities and housing at a local level. Will he therefore tell me how the new system organised regionally will be able to work most effectively with local authorities, which is where the test cases will be when prisoners are released from custody?
    Paul Goggins: My right hon. Friend has put his finger on a couple of important points. The fact that short-term prison sentences are often disruptive and take people away from their homes and their jobs does not help to keep them out of trouble in the long run. We are rightly focusing the resettlement strategy much more

    1065
    locally, and there will be regional organisation. We hope very much that voluntary and community organisations will come forward to be active partners at a local level in making sure that we get reoffending rates down.

    Prisoner Education
    Mr. David Bendel: How many hours per week on average prisoners spent in education in 2003. [148329]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): The average weekly figure for 2003 was 9.49 hours. This does not include distance learning, private study or learning that takes place on the wings, for example, through peer support schemes.
    Mr. Rendel: As a result of a question that I asked Mr. Narey, the then director general of HM Prison Service, the 53rd report of the Public Accounts Committee in 2001–02 stated:
    "The Prison Service said that the single action most likely to impact on re-offending was investment in education to enable prisoners to obtain jobs on release."
    Given that 50 per cent. of released prisoners reoffend within two years and that 80 per cent. of prisoners do not have the writing skills even to fill in a job application form, why is the Minister doing so little to increase education in prisons?
    Paul Goggins: The 53rd report of the Public Accounts Committee was right, but the hon. Gentleman was wrong to say that little is happening. Last year, 41,000 basic skills qualifications were gained in our prisons and we anticipate that 50,000 will be gained this year. He is right to suggest that better education and more qualifications will equip people to get jobs and stay out of trouble. That is our objective and we are delivering on it.
    Mr. Peter Pike: My hon. Friend knows that I visited Lancaster prison a few months ago and that I was impressed by the education facilities provided for some of its prisoners. It is important to reduce and stop reoffending, so will he tell us when such facilities will be increased and thus become available to all prisoners throughout the country?
    Paul Goggins: I know about my hon. Friend's visit and I was grateful for his positive remarks afterwards—he is right. We have put in place education and skills coordinators in all our prisons to ensure that all prisoners have the opportunity to learn and develop skills. As we move forward with the new national offender management service, we want the joining up of education in our prisons and that for offenders in the community. As we do that, I think that we will get even better results.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: As the ability to read and write is a crucial ingredient of people's prospects of employment after imprisonment, will the Minister tell us what efforts the Government are making, and whether they have made any impact on the high percentage of prisoners without those skills?
    Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman is right. The improvement of literacy and numeracy is fundamental.
    1066
    The numeracy and literacy rates in our prisons are deplorably low, which is why we are investing £59 million a year in education in our prisons. That is beginning to yield results because, it is anticipated that 50,000 basic skills qualifications will be gained in prisons this year. That represents an amazing step forward that we want to sustain and improve on. He is right that, if we continue to make such improvements, we will increase the chances of people staying out of trouble.

    Child Sexual Abuse
    Mr. Harry Barnes: If he will increase the length of sentences for those convicted of sexually abusing children. [148330]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): Yes; the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which comes into force in May 2004, introduces new offences of sexual activity with a child and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity that are punishable by a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment. These will widen the scope of offending behaviour and replace existing offences, which carry maximum penalties of two and 10 years.
    Mr. Barnes: I am not someone who naturally looks for longer sentences to fill up prisons, so I am conscious of earlier remarks about the national offender management service. Longer sentences are advantageous in the cases of children who have been sexually assaulted because they protect children in our communities and give more time for the treatment of offenders so that they can overcome their obsessions. Does the Minister agree that they are preferable to the publication of offenders' names and addresses, which could lead to vigilante activity?
    Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend is right, which is why action was taken in the Sexual Offences Act. In addition, relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which comes into effect at the end of the year, will ensure that dangerous offenders—specifically sexual and violent offenders—will not be released until the Parole Board has decided that their risks are manageable in the community.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Is the Minister aware of a case in Mold Crown court last week in which a man who was convicted of having unlawful sex with a 14-year-old girl was not only sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment—I make no comment on whether that sentence was the right length—but forbidden from using the internet, I hope and presume, ever again? As that was probably the first time that a judge has made such a restraining order, will she welcome it and encourage other judges to do the same in similar cases in which paedophiles or sex offenders are convicted?
    Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome the judge's decision. He recognised how the internet can be used in such cases. Sentencing in an individual case is a matter for the courts and not for politicians. The judge in that case, Judge Daniel, said that it is time to re-examine the law so that harsher penalties can be handed down to men who

    1067
    pursue 14-year-olds. I am proud to say that that has been done and that, from May, harsher penalties will be available to the courts.

    Probation Service
    Tom Brake: How many posts are vacant in the probation service. [148332]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): The latest figures show that there are 1,060 vacancies. That equates to 5.6 per cent. of a total work force of 18,851.
    Tom Brake: The vacancy rate is alarmingly high. The alarm in the probation service was confirmed when I met my local probation officers a couple of weeks ago.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) received a parliamentary answer in November 2002 stating that there were 231 vacancies in London for probation officers. A recent parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) showed that by June 2003 the figure had fallen to zero and that the shortfall was therefore eliminated in seven months. Will the Minister comment on whether that happened or whether the establishment has been reduced by that figure to show that there are now no vacancies?
    Paul Goggins: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the establishment has not been reduced. However, the figure has changed since the earlier parliamentary answer. There are 166 vacancies in London, but I assure him that there has been no reduction in the establishment. The Government's commitment to ensuring that there are sufficient probation officers in training and in service is illustrated by the current number of trainee probation officers, 1,520, and the figure for 1996, which was a nice round figure—nought.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: With the shortages of prison officers and the addition of the proposed national offender management service, the probation service will be forced to make major changes when it is already understaffed and overstretched. It was recently reorganised in 2001 and is now sinking under bureaucracy. With a senior member of the probation service saying,
    "We are drowning in audits and inspections and regulations and have very little time left to deal with offenders",
    how will the Minister avoid the new agency burying probation staff in even more red tape?
    Paul Goggins: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new role and look forward to many interesting debates with her across the Floor of the House.
    I do not know where the hon. Lady gets her information. Many of the responses on the national offender management service that have been returned to me have been very positive. Far from the dearth of probation officers that she describes, 4,300 more probation service staff are employed today than when the Conservative Government left office. The national
    1068
    offender management service has received a generally warm welcome and joining up prisons and probation will be a wholly good thing. I invite her to be more enthusiastic about it after she has studied it in greater detail.

    Passport Fraud
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: What action he is taking to reduce passport fraud. [148333]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): The United Kingdom Passport Service is working now on a group of projects to reduce passport fraud through improved fraud detection and prevention. The focus is on developing the professional skills, technology, improved systems and intelligence methodology needed to tackle passport fraud. Among these are new arrangements for lost and stolen passports and the reintroduction from February of secure delivery for all passports. However, it is also crucial and in line with international developments that we incorporate biometric identifiers in passports as soon as possible and work on this has already begun.
    Mrs. Calton: I thank the Minister for her response. She has assured us that things will change from February, when the new special mail service is introduced. Will she also check what happens after a decision is made? Mr. and Mrs. Crossley are two of my constituents. As her office well knows, Mrs. Crossley's documents, decision and passport were untraceable for three weeks over Christmas, although a special delivery, which apparently vanished into the ether, was used. The number was given to the Minister's office, Mr. Crossley and my office, yet for three weeks it was untrackable.
    Beverley Hughes: If the hon. Lady gives me details of that case, of which I was not aware, I shall investigate it. I am not sure whether in talking about special delivery numbers she was referring to the Post Office not being able to trace the document, which is of course not the responsibility of the UK Passport Service. It is to eradicate the problem of passports being lost in the post as well as to deal with claimants saying that their passports have been lost or stolen that we intend to introduce secure delivery. We have appointed a company to do that. As part of the implementation of that project, there will be full tracking of every document from the point that it leaves the passport office to its delivery. Those new arrangements will begin in February and implementation will be completed in March.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that organisations on the Indian subcontinent are openly advertising the provision of various travel documents, including passports? Will it be possible to do anything about that?
    Beverley Hughes: We are aware of that activity in India and, indeed, one or two other countries. The Foreign Office and our immigration staff whom we second to UK Visas have been working on those issues. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that the

    1069
    Home Secretary will be going to India very shortly. It is certainly one of the issues that he will want to raise during his discussions.
    Michael Fabricant: Will the Government confirm that they will be putting biometric information into all new passports? When will that be introduced? Has the Minister considered not waiting until passports expire, but introducing, beyond a specific date, biometric information in all passports?
    Beverley Hughes: This is an important development, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. There is a pilot scheme at the moment. He will appreciate that the operation is complex, large scale and technical, so it is important that, before we start introducing biometric information for real, we ensure that we can handle the logistics. That work is being done now. Under a major pilot scheme, 10,000 people will be enrolled in a realistic environment. During early to mid-2005, we hope to be able to begin embedding microchips in new passports and in those that come up for renewal. That will involve storing an image of the face and selective passport information in a chip. That is an important development to enable us to position the United Kingdom population to meet international standards as well as to meet our objectives on document and national security.

    Knife Sales
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What discussions his Department has had about current controls on the sale of knives. [148334]
    The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): We take our responsibility for public safety in this area extremely seriously. My officials are seeking the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers on the adequacy of legislation and its enforcement.
    Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. She will be aware, because I have written to her about it, of the concerns in Blackpool over the sale and availability of knives, particularly to the 16 to 18-year-old age group. The issue has been commendably taken up by my local newspaper in Blackpool, The Gazette. Does she share my concern that the Department's statistics do not differentiate between offences involving kitchen knives, for example, and those involving combat knives, which could be obtained on the street? Does she agree that it is important that the Government have more precise information about such offences so that they can judge whether the age of purchase should be raised?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend has been assiduous in taking up the matter on behalf of his constituents. I have read the articles in The Gazette and I am highly aware of the campaign. As he knows, there is a range of legislation on the matter, banning the carrying of offensive weapons, banning blades on school premises especially and banning the sale of knives to under-16s.
    My hon. Friend raises the important issue of differentiating between the types of knives used in offences. Clearly, we do not want to overload the police
    1070
    with bureaucracy in an effort to identify every single type of knife, but the reason I have asked ACPO to re-examine the matter is that I share some of his concerns.
    Derek Conway: Is the Minister aware that concern is spreading because knives are now being used in areas that are not used to violent crime? On Sidcup high street, a young teenage constituent of mine was stabbed in daylight, at tea time on a Saturday. Even in such areas, the culture of violence is becoming a problem. Do the Government intend to have an amnesty for handing in knives?
    Ms Blears: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, in the past few years, there have been several amnesties in different parts of the country, many of which have been extremely successful, with a huge number of knives handed in. It is an offence under existing legislation to sell knives to under-16s, but violent crime and the carrying of knives are issues of concern, which is precisely why the Government have asked ACPO to consider the matter in detail and see what more we can do. An extensive range of current legislation bans the manufacture and sale of knuckledusters, swordsticks, martial arts equipment of the type that is often used, flick knives and gravity knives, but I am concerned that young people in particular are gaining access to such weapons.
    Vera Baird: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the sale of other offensive weapons? I recently received an advertisement for a pepper spray that was directed very much towards women buying it for self-defence. I can see that it might be tempting to keep such an object in one's handbag, but of course possession is an offence under the Firearms Act 1968. Is there not a need either to take strong steps to stamp out the sale of such weapons, or to consider liberalising the law?
    Ms Blears: My hon. and learned Friend raises an important issue. The general ban on the carrying of a range of offensive weapons goes back as far as 1953. I advise the House that there is legislation that bans the marketing of knives in particular where that might encourage combat. That legislation is difficult to enforce because it deals with the way in which products are marketed, but it establishes a precedent for legislation on not encouraging the use of a range of weapons in an aggressive fashion. I shall ask the police to examine that issue as well.

    Criminal Justice System
    Angela Watkinson: What steps he is taking to improve public confidence in the criminal justice system. [148337]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): The simple answer is that a degree of common sense would help to raise confidence in the criminal justice system. However, tough sentences for violent and heinous crimes, sensible interventions in relation to first-time non-violent offences, reductions in crime rates and reconviction rates, steady increases in the number of offences brought to justice and in the

    1071
    number of police, and the introduction of community support officers and their steady increase—in other words, all the things that we have been doing in the past seven years—also increase confidence in the criminal justice system if those operating within the system apply that degree of common sense.
    Angela Watkinson: My constituent Mr. Roy Roomes has described Upminster as a police-free zone. His car has been either stolen from his driveway or vandalised on five separate occasions. What will the Home Secretary do to ensure that police resources in the London borough of Havering are not monopolised by the demands of the nightclubs in central Romford, so that sufficient police remain to cover law and order in the rest of the borough, including Upminster?
    Mr. Blunkett: Some co-operation from those selling the alcohol in Romford to help us to get additional community support officers and uniformed policemen and women would be a start, as would ensuring that the police reform consultation paper that I launched in November is widely circulated in the hon. Lady's constituency. That will enable the people there to make their views known both to the local commander and to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and enable us to engage the community in shaping the activity, priorities and effectiveness of the police service, given that all hon. Members appear to be keen on the idea of local operational responsibility.
    Andrew Selous: The Home Secretary will know that the criminal justice system requires high standards of evidence if it is to operate effectively. In that regard, will the right hon. Gentleman consider increasing the number of independent witnesses who are available to the police, local authorities and others so that in cases of violent antisocial behaviour, where people are too afraid to come forward to testify about what has been happening, there is more chance of securing convictions?
    Mr. Blunkett: The wider use of professional witnesses by housing authorities, social landlords and local authorities is welcome. Taking that together with protecting people who are brave enough to be prepared to provide evidence will make a difference. In the end, that involves the community being prepared to stand up and be counted. Those of us who have responsibility in this area must ensure that when individuals are so prepared, they do not find themselves the further victims of vandalism and antisocial behaviour.

    Anti-social Behaviour Act
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: When the powers contained in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 will be introduced. [148338]
    The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): On 20 January, we will publish a guide to the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which will give the dates when the measures in the Act will be commenced.
    Mr. Jenkins: While I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, we are all aware that introducing legislation is
    1072
    not the same as implementing legislation. Implementation is taken over by agencies such as the police. Will she consider asking the police ever so nicely—it is an operational issue—to make greater use of mobile closed circuit television units? Then, with the evidence in front of them, will she consider asking the police to make an appointment with the parents of some of the youngsters involved—either taking them into the station or going to their homes—and sit with both the youngsters and the parents so that parents are fully aware of the actions of their children and the implications once they become accomplices to those actions? They will no longer be able to claim that they are unaware.
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes the important point that enacting legislation in the House is not necessarily implementation. That is exactly why we have the "together" campaign, with the academy and the website running it out throughout the country. He has suggested an excellent solution to the problem, which I understand has been adopted by police forces in several areas—certainly in my community—whereby the police can intervene early and find the youngsters who are committing these actions, confront their parents and then work together with the parents to find solutions so that we can divert young people from behaving in this way. It is an excellent idea to get CCTV evidence, and I will be encouraging the police to do so.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Minister agree that communities used to police antisocial behaviour themselves? If parents could not or would not take action, the local bobby would do so swiftly. Is not that a model of policing that we should be trying to return to, rather than relying on lengthy processes of issuing orders and court proceedings that mean that, inevitably, much of the damage has been done by the time that any action is taken?
    Ms Blears: Yes; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the introduction of fixed penalty notices, which we have been piloting in a number of areas. We are about to roll them out nationally. They are very effective and there is swift justice on the spot. They confront young people with the consequences of their behaviour. I dare say that that is perhaps better than the traditional method of a clip round the ear. Those notices are beginning to be much more effective.

    Forensic Science Service
    Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement about the future of the Forensic Science Service. [148339]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): The Home Secretary's announcement on 17 July 2003 of the decision to establish the Forensic Science Service as a public-private partnership will ensure that it will continue to serve the public interest and to increase the benefits it delivers to the criminal justice system. The FSS is a world leader in its field. We believe that the PPP will ensure that it can respond speedily, flexibly and

    1073
    effectively to opportunities for exploiting new scientific developments in an increasingly competitive environment.
    Mr. Grogan: On the day that the folly of privatising the railways is fully exposed publicly, why are Ministers considering privatising a successful public service such as the Forensic Science Service solely on the pretext of raising extra funds for capital investment, especially when that service last year made a surplus of £10 million, which is equivalent to half the amount required for investment?
    Caroline Flint: I understand that my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends are concerned about the FSS. I have been keen to be involved through the work that it is doing on firearms. I should make the point that this is not about privatisation, which the McFarland review rejected outright. The PPP offers us the best means both to compete effectively and protect the public interest. There was a £10 million surplus last year, but the McFarland report said that the FSS would need at least £20 million to £30 million a year just to stand still. We must give it the opportunities to gain further investment so as to continue to be a world-class leader.

    Immigration
    Mr. Peter Lilley: If he will make a statement on projected levels of immigration. [148340]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): Projections on population growth and the contribution to that growth from net inward migration are made by the Government Actuary's Department. Its figures project, on the basis of current trends, a total annual population growth of 0.31 per cent over the next 30 years, about half of which would come
    1074
    from net migration. However, by clamping down on illegal immigration and unfounded asylum claims, and welcoming legal migrants where they can contribute to our economy, the Government are managing migration actively and continuously to ensure that, on the one hand, the UK is well positioned to gain the benefits of migration in an increasingly competitive global market while at the same time making sure that we are integrating newcomers successfully into our communities.
    Mr. Lilley: I thank the Minister for her answer. While the overwhelming majority of people seeking to live here are hard-working and desirable, does she agree that, at the end of the day, it is a question of the number that we can accommodate? Can she confirm that net immigration is running at over 200,000 a year and that the Government envisage no upper limit to the level of immigration? Where does she propose to accommodate a population equivalent to a city the size of Southampton every year henceforth?
    Beverley Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is citing figures from an organisation whose figures continue to be spurious and not at all related to those published by the Government Actuary. The figures produced by the Government Actuary are nothing like the 200,000 that MigrationWatch UK has talked about.
    I shall explain our approach for the right hon. Gentleman. In saying that there is no obvious limit, we are not saying that there is no limit but that we will monitor the needs of our economy for migration in line with the numbers that we can accommodate to take account of the impact on public services and the integration that has to take place in our communities. We do not have a command economy, and we cannot take a predict and provide approach. We are responding flexibly to the needs of our labour market while making sure that, when we allow people to come here and work, we can accommodate them successfully.

Railways
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the railways.
Last year, Britain's railways carried over a billion passengers for the first time in 40 years. That is a significant measure of success, and one that has been achieved despite all the well-known difficulties facing the industry. In those 40 years, the railways have suffered from substantial under-investment year after year. That was especially so in the years leading up to and immediately after privatisation under Railtrack. The Government will set out their spending plans through to 2008 in the spending review this summer. In advance of that, we need to look at the progress made through the increased investment that is already being put in place but, at the same time, we must look at the structural and organisational changes that we need to allow the railways to improve performance. That will enable us, as the spending review decisions are made, to publish proposals in the summer for a new structure and organisation for Britain's railways.
Following the history of under-investment, as a first step it was necessary to put in place increased investment. In July 2000, therefore, the Government announced public investment of £33 billion over 10 years, doubling railways investment over a five-year period. Total investment in the four years to 2006 will be almost three times the investment at the time of privatisation. That investment is now beginning to make a difference, but it has become very clear that the scale of under-investment and inefficiency in our railways that built up over decades was far greater than anyone believed at the time. The Hatfield accident in October 2000 exposed the poor state of much of the railways infrastructure. When Network Rail took over from Railtrack in October 2002 and started to go through the books, it became increasingly clear that Railtrack either did not know or did not admit to the sheer scale of the problems that were building up. It also became very clear that Railtrack had lost control of its costs. It had farmed out much of its decision making on what work was done, and therefore on costs, to private contractors. As everyone knows, forecast costs on the west coast main line were totally unrealistic, rocketing from £2 billion to £13 billion in just five years.
The recent regulatory review published last December confirms that the cost of upkeep of Britain's railways is £1.5 billion a year more than was thought necessary just three years ago. The review implied that Network Rail inherited a business from Railtrack with unit costs substantially higher than they ought to be. Network Rail is tackling these inefficiencies and is working to bring costs down. Taxpayers and fare-paying passengers alike need to know that their money is being well spent and that increased spending will improve performance. Cost control is absolutely essential.
The £64 billion public and private investment announced in 2000 is making a difference. Over a third of train rolling stock is being replaced, half of it on London commuter lines. Major projects are being delivered, like the west coast main line upgrade and the power supply south of the Thames. There is track and
1076
signalling renewal going on all over the country. There are now 1,500 more services every weekday than there were in 1997, and there has been a 20 per cent. increase in passengers since 1997. Reliability, which is highly dependent on track and signalling maintenance, and which fell dramatically after Hatfield, is improving, but it still has a very long way to go.
There remains a further and very serious difficulty facing the industry—that is, its structure and organisation. The way in which it was privatised has led to fragmentation, excessive complication and dysfunctionality that have compounded the problems caused by decades of under-investment. Quite simply, there are too many organisations, some with overlapping responsibilities, and it has become increasingly clear that that gets in the way of effective decision making and frequently leads to unnecessary wrangling and disputes. That is no way to run the railways.
The Government are committed to a partnership between public and private sectors. It happens on railways throughout the world. However, the long-term inefficiencies and costs of privatisation have, as time has passed, become an even bigger barrier to the success of the railways, so in the spirit of partnership between private and public sectors, we need to put right the problems that the authors of privatisation left behind. We need to build on that investment and on the structural changes we have already put in place, not only to put the railways on a sound financial footing, but at the same time to provide them with the right structure and organisation to take them through the next 20 or 30 years.
The Government will set out their spending proposals for transport at the conclusion of the spending review in the summer, but that money must be well spent now and in the future. It is essential, therefore, that the railways establish far greater cost control, so that the public and private investors know that it is efficiently and effectively run. Before they take on new projects, we need to be satisfied that there is proper control over existing costs and a significant improvement in performance. The public expect no less.
The Government remain committed to increasing spending on the railways because it is needed and because the railways are an essential part of the economic fabric of the country. Millions of people depend on it. The public rightly expect rigorous cost control—after all, we all pay for the railways through taxes and fares. That work has already started. For example, Network Rail is taking maintenance back in-house to control costs, and it is looking at other areas where it can do things more cost-effectively. The regulator's review, which I welcomed in my written statement on 15 December, identified substantial cost reductions, but more can and must be done.
As a country, we must be able to make informed choices and decisions about rail and other forms of public transport. Too often these costs are far from transparent. The Government also believe that the opportunity should be taken to consider how we can devolve more decisions on public transport, including rail, to the Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly Government and at a regional level to PTEs—passenger transport executives—within a nationally coherent framework. Local transport decisions are often best

1077
taken by the people who provide the service and who pay for it. They can be better placed to know what is needed and how best to provide it, as well as being able to make sensible and informed decisions as between bus, light rail and heavy rail, for example.
However, structural change is not just needed in order to make better spending decisions. It is also needed if rail is to operate effectively and to meet the needs of passengers and other customers. Privatisation had some disastrous and far-reaching consequences for the railways—Railtrack's performance, for example—but the private sector has brought considerable increased investment, and in many cases train companies have provided innovation that was conspicuously lacking in the past. We want to build on that.
That is why the Government believe that renationalisation would not solve the problems that the railways face. What is essential is to put in place a structure that works and can deliver not just cost control but safe, reliable railways that work efficiently.
Since 1997, we have put in place reforms to deal with some of the worst effects of privatisation. Richard Bowker and the Strategic Rail Authority have worked extremely hard with the industry, bringing greater leadership and strategic direction to the railways, and they do so with our full support. The SRA is making much-needed changes to franchising, planning and route development.
The Government remain committed to the minute that I laid before the House on 3 February 2003 covering obligations to the SRA, their other financial obligations and the Government's other contracts. As the House would expect, we will remain at least as closely involved in expenditure decisions and in financial commitments to the industry and those who finance it. However, what is needed are railways that make the most of what both private and public sectors can offer. The first stage of reform was to set up Network Rail, a private sector company operating in the public interest, and it is already making significant progress in improving the performance of the track and signalling and getting a grip on costs. It has a clear focus to operate in the public interest and build safe, reliable and efficient railways, and it will continue to do so.
We need to build on that, with more fundamental reform. The second stage is therefore to streamline the remaining structure of the railways and to examine the way in which the industry works together, and the Government will be publishing their proposals in the summer. Two key principles will underpin those reforms. First, the railways must operate in the public interest, while protecting the legitimate interests of investors. It must be for the Government to decide how much public money is spent on the railways and to determine priorities. Of course, no Government Department can or should attempt to operate the railways, but the Government can put in place a structure and organisation that can do that effectively and efficiently, with a single point of decision making. Rail privatisation failed to recognise that there are some things that only the Government can determine in the public interest and that cannot be left purely to commercial interests.
1078
Secondly, the principle of public and private partnership is right for the railways and it will continue. It brings in money from two sources, and that is important. We are spending £73 million every week on the railways and that is levering in a similar amount from the private sector. That is why the principle of independent economic regulation for the railways is essential and will be central to our proposals.
In many cases, the train operating companies have brought innovation to services that was lacking in the past, but we need to put in place the right organisation and structure so that both public and private sectors can focus on meeting passengers' needs and delivering value for money. As rail also makes a valuable contribution to keeping lorries off the roads, we want to ensure freight operators have access to the rail network on fair terms. We need the right framework to ensure that the railways can operate effectively and so that key decisions can be taken in the best interest of passengers to provide a more reliable service.
Our objective is a streamlined structure and organisation with clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Network Rail is already operating in the public interest, and with the right franchising arrangements so should the train operators, but we have a clear responsibility to examine the roles and relationships of all the other organisations with a view to streamlining the present structure.
The review will therefore look at the regulation of safety, which at the moment is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive, the Health and Safety Commission and the Rail Safety and Standards Board. Safety is of paramount importance, and all those involved undoubtedly work hard to ensure safe railways, but there is now a plethora of industry standards, some of which are over-cautious or are being applied in an over-cautious way. Safety regulation needs to be focused on the real risks to passengers and employees and should not be an obstacle to providing reliable services. We need the right organisation to do that.
Our reforms must make the structure as simple and as straightforward as possible. The complex structure at privatisation has contributed to the daily frustrations of the public, many of which are shared by the dedicated and committed people across the country working to improve the railways and deliver better services.
There will be many in the industry with ideas for reform. I am asking Richard Bowker and the SRA to evaluate ideas as they come forward, and then to let me have advice based on industry views, so that we can take them fully into account in reaching conclusions on the review. In the meantime, the priorities for the industry must be continually to focus on driving up performance and reliability and getting a grip on costs.
Passengers are rightly impatient. Improvements have been made but more needs to be done. We are determined to bring to an end the problems caused by decades of under-investment, compounded by an ill-thought-out privatisation. Rebuilding Britain's railways needs a long-term commitment and we are determined to deliver that.
I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs. Theresa May: I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement, such as it was.

1079
This statement heralds the fifth change in the structure of the railways in nearly seven years of this Labour Government. They came in promising immediate benefits for the travelling public, but after seven years passengers are seeing no improvement on the railways, and for many services are getting worse. One in five trains run late, targets for increasing passenger numbers have been cut, and work on new lines has been scrapped. Little wonder that the Institute for Public Policy Research pronounced the 10-year transport plan dead and said that
"the political goal now appears to be keeping transport out of the headlines."
The Government's treatment of Railtrack has undermined private investment; Network Rail has had its borrowings underwritten by the taxpayer; expansion plans have been abandoned or deferred; shorter franchises mean that train operators have less incentive to invest; and taking away the formula for controlled fares means that, for the first time, commuters are exposed to inflation-busting increases as performance continues to remain poor. What is the Government's answer? The Strategic Rail Authority wants to improve punctuality by making people's journeys longer and to make fewer trains run late by having fewer trains; and Network Rail wants to solve the problem of trains running late by changing the timetable. If it did not matter so much to passengers, it would be farcical.
The Government have done to transport what they did to health and education. Having obstructed those at the sharp end of the industry with regulation, targets and ministerial intervention, now, when they are failing to deliver, their answer is to set up a review, change the system and put decisions in the hands of the politicians. The statement makes one thing clear—this is not about finding the right structure for the railways, but about increasing centralisation and political control. The Government are tearing up the very structure that they created less than four years ago. Paragraph 16 of the statement says:
"There are too many organisations, some with overlapping responsibilities."
Who created the Strategic Rail Authority? It was the brainchild of the Deputy Prime Minister. Who created Network Rail? It was the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers). This Secretary of State is having to clear up the mess left by his predecessors.
As ever with this Government, when there is a problem to be solved they do not look for efficiency and new ideas, but reach straight for centralisation, interference and bureaucracy. The statement takes 57 paragraphs to tell us that the Secretary of State is setting up a review. Anybody who wants to know more about the review could have learned more from the newspapers over the past few days than from the statement. Only last September, the Secretary of State said in evidence to the Select Committee on Transport:
"I am loath to start spending overmuch time on structural changes when I really want everybody in the railway industry to concentrate on delivery. I do not think the problems that we currently have can be brought back to any lack of powers I may have over the SRA or Network Rail … In relation to the SRA, there is no issue over the powers. Richard Bowker and I see eye to eye on everything that we do."
Little wonder that Mr. Bowker is worried about his job.
1080
What made the Secretary of State change his mind about his structural review? Was it because the SRA's strategic plan, which was due to be published this month, set out a bleak picture of the railways, highlighting projects that the Government have failed to finance and saying that
"the perception too often remains that the railway is not run to benefit its customers"?
Of course, passengers did not need a report to tell them that; and they did not get the report, because the Government blocked it.
At paragraph 48, the Secretary of State talked about the train operating companies. As well as saying that they have brought benefits to passengers, as indeed they have, he said that with the right franchising arrangements they should operate in the public interest. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will maintain in their franchises the independence of the train operating companies in providing services to customers?
With the SRA standing between the Government and Network Rail in financial terms, the Chancellor has managed to keep Network Rail's debt off the Government's balance sheet. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the review will look into the financing of Network Rail, and if that leads to the Department for Transport taking over some of the SRA's powers, will that mean that the Chancellor can bring Network Rail's £21 billion debt on to the balance sheet?
In paragraph 42 of his statement, the Secretary of State says that "independent economic regulation" is "essential". Yet in paragraphs 38 and 45 he challenges the authority of the independent economic regulator. Will he confirm that his review will include a review of the role of the rail regulator, just over a year after he confirmed that he was happy with that role and with the powers of the regulator?
After nearly seven years of a Labour Government who promised improvements in 12 months, passengers see no improvement on the railways. For many, services are getting worse. We have heard 57 paragraphs of words from the Secretary of State that will do nothing to improve service to the passengers who travel on our railways. The statement might have been acceptable six months after the Government came to office; seven years on, it is an indictment of their transport policy. All that they offer passengers is months of uncertainty and yet more change and increased bureaucracy.
With the 10-year transport plan in shreds and the Government failing to deliver any improvement for passengers, their answer is centralisation and more political control. As in health and education, the Government are failing to deliver on transport. The statement is an indictment of their transport policy, proving what passengers know—that the Government have done nothing in seven years to improve the railways and will do nothing in the next 18 months to make the lives of passengers any better.
Mr. Darling: The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is fast gaining a reputation for travelling light when it comes to policy. She has no policy on roads, as we found out last December, she has no policy on airports, and she appears not even to have a policy

1081
on railways. Some of her criticism about the review that we are about to conduct might have had more weight if not for the fact that her fellow shadow Cabinet member, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who is, I understand, in charge of policy development—no wonder someone other than the hon. Lady is in charge of that—said in The Daily Telegraph in December:
"It was the wrong model…I freely accept that this structure is not right. I would not defend the way in which we carried out railway privatisation."
It would appear that at least one part of the Conservative party recognises that the way in which the railways were privatised in the early 1990s was wrong. It has not worked, and the hon. Gentleman would not even seek to defend it. The hon. Lady's attack on us for facing up to those problems and putting in place a structure that will enable the railways to develop over the next 20 to 30 years is therefore somewhat undermined by her own colleague.
The hon. Lady asked me about investment. It would be interesting to know at some point, and before very long, whether the Conservatives are in favour of more or less money going into the railways. More money is going in, and people rightly want improvements. The west coast main line, for example, will see increased journey times when the first phase is completed this year.
Mrs. May: Taking longer.
Mr. Darling: Of course they are taking longer: work is being done on the railways for the first time in 30 years, and that is why there are some delays.
The hon. Lady asked about Railtrack, and I cannot help but get the impression that that is the one thing she cares passionately about. She speaks about it with a fondness that I find astonishing when I consider that company's record.
The hon. Lady asked about franchises. They were put in place by the Conservatives in 1995, and they were not the best deal for the travelling public. They did not specify the level of services that ought to be provided in terms of reliability, passenger comfort, cleanliness and so on. They have been changed and that has resulted in improvements.
The hon. Lady criticised the fact that fares increased, but what is her policy on fares? Is she promising that a future Conservative Government will not increase fares? I do not think so. She asked about regulation. I said in the statement that as long as the public and private sectors are working together, independent economic regulation is required. However, I later stated what is blindingly obvious—it is ultimately for the Government to determine the amount of money that they are willing to spend on transport. We are spending substantially more on that than the Conservatives did.
It is difficult to do anything other than conclude that the hon. Lady has no substantial criticisms of the fact that we are considering the structure. We have made changes since 1997; improvements are being made to the railways but the current structure clearly could not take them through the next 20 or 30 years. That is why it must be changed.
John Thurso: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the usual
1082
courtesy of allowing me to have a copy of his statement in advance. He is right to draw attention to the historic under-investment that many rail historians would date back to the Government settlement for 1942. That is notable because that Government included a Liberal Minister, so we can therefore all share the blame.
The Secretary of State is also right to draw attention to the failure of rail privatisation, which was rushed through and botched. The effect should be neither underestimated nor forgotten. However, does he accept that the Government have had long enough in six years to diagnose the problems and begin to effect a cure?
The statement has been much trailed. Speculation about its contents has been all over the media throughout the weekend. However, it is a damp squib; a feast was promised but we have only the appetisers. I suspect that it changed somewhat over the weekend. Will the Secretary of State clarify that when he states that it must be for the Government to decide how much public money is spent and to determine the priorities, he has accepted that they have a duty to formulate a clear strategy for rail travel, in not only the short but the long term?
If the Government have begun to accept their responsibilities, when will the Secretary of State present genuine, concrete proposals? Is not it the case that too many bureaucrats regulate the railways and that there needs to be considerably fewer? What role is there for the SRA if the Government are to make strategic decisions? Is not it rather perverse to put the SRA in charge of collating the review when surely it is one of the review's major subjects?
The Secretary of State rightly highlights the high costs in the railways. Given that when I raised the matter on 6 January the Minister of State said that the number of consultants seemed extraordinarily high, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the review will specifically examine such costs?
Last year, on 1 July, the Secretary of State said that
"the priority for everyone in the industry is to focus on improving performance…Another major re-organisation would distract…from that."
Has he changed his mind or is not the review major? If he has changed his mind, what factors made him do that?
The Secretary of State accepts the need for a strategy for 20 to 30 years. I agree with him. Will he publish a White Paper when the review is complete? When can we read and debate genuine proposals? Will he confirm that the review of structure will include not only the regulatory regime but the industry, especially the track-train interface?
The statement commends itself more for what it does not say than for what it says. If hard-pressed passengers are to get a safe, reliable and affordable network, the Government need clearly to sort out their strategy for the future. The statement is barely the first stop on the journey.
Mr. Darling: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, the Government could have said nothing and simply published proposals in the summer, but I believed that it was right to say that we are conducting a review. It is better to be open and up front, and it is difficult for the

1083
Government to get the views and opinions that they need from people without explaining the reason for requesting them. I have not the slightest doubt that if I had simply come to the House and said, "Right, this is what we are doing," the hon. Gentleman would have condemned me for not considering the matter or taking the time to work it through.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, we shall be publishing proposals in the summer and I would then like to get on with it. We do not want to spend ages debating the matter after that. His point about investment is quite right. Ever since I got this job, I have been making the point that under-investment has not been confined to one particular party, and if the Liberals wish to plead guilty as well, that is fine by me. I did not know they were guilty, but if the hon. Gentleman is entering a plea on their behalf, I shall not quarrel with him. The serious point is that one of the reasons why there are so many delays is that not enough money has been put into solving the problems involving track and train and some of the older rolling stock. During the time leading up to privatisation, investment almost dried up. The Tories hoped that the private sector would bring all the necessary investment in, but that simply did not happen. The investment is now coming into place, but it is taking some time.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need a structure to take the industry forward 20 or 30 years; we do not want to see successive changes in that regard. In the meantime, however, there is no reason whatever for anyone working in the industry to take their eye off the principal objective, which is to drive up reliability.
Lawrie Quinn: May I welcome the Secretary of State's statement? I am sure many people in the industry will also do so, because it is part of the continuing journey towards delivering a realistic railway industry. I speak as one who has personal professional knowledge of that industry. The Secretary of State was right to mention the need for partnership and the need to devolve responsibility down to communities. He will know that the SRA has been very successful in working with many of the rural railways around the country, including the Esk Valley line in my constituency. Will he tell the House whether the review will include those rural railways, which represent a lifeline for many remote communities? Will he also work closely with the SRA officers who have done so well to achieve a degree of realism in terms of delivering an effective and efficient rural railway system?
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows a lot about the railways, having worked in the industry for many years. I should like to make two points. I said in my statement that we needed to determine whether we could devolve further decision making to local level, because bodies such as passenger transport executives and councils are often better placed to know how best to provide local transport such as rail, light rail and bus services. I certainly want to see more of that happening. I am also grateful for my hon. Friend's general welcome for the proposals. There is a recognition in just about every corner of all the areas
1084
from which we would expect to receive comment that reform is needed. It is only the Conservative party that is harking back to the old days of privatisation.
Mr. James Clappison: The Secretary of State has announced a review of the regulation of safety. Will that review consider the need for a quicker and clearer acceptance of responsibility in the case of serious incidents, such as those that took place at Hatfield and Potters Bar? Is he aware that the second anniversary of the Potters Bar incident is now approaching and that, in spite of repeated reports from the Health and Safety Executive, there has yet to be a formal acceptance of responsibility for that dreadful incident? Is he also aware that the position of the families involved, in respect of compensation, remains inadequate, although their main concern is that no one else should be put through the terrible experience that they have gone through?
Mr. Darling: In relation to compensation, my understanding is that discussions are taking place between Railtrack, which has accepted liability for the purpose of reaching a settlement, and those representing the families. It is true that there continues to be an argument between the solicitors acting for both sides, and we would all like to see that resolved as quickly as possible.
In relation to the hon. Gentleman's central point, one of our objectives must be to speed up the way in which these incidents are investigated, which is why we set up the rail accident investigation branch. That was widely welcomed in the House last year. We must also ensure that there is a clear point of responsibility for the running of the railways, not only in the event of an accident but on a day-to-day basis. The hon. Gentleman's point on that matter was extremely well made. Finally, the decisions to prosecute are taken independently of the Government, and while I would dearly like to see them speeded up, that is not a matter in which any Government can properly intervene. However, on health and safety, on speeding things up and on having a clearer point of identification of responsibility, the hon. Gentleman is right.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but can he tell me what is going to happen to the Blyth and Tyne line? A lot of money has been spent over the last five or six years to reopen it, yet we have heard absolutely nothing from his Department. What is happening there? Will we get our line reopened?
Mr. Darling: I may be wrong—if I am, I will say so to my hon. Friend—but I think he met my hon. Friend the Minister of State to discuss the matter. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Minister of State says from a sedentary position that he met some of our colleagues from that area—our hon. Friend was not present—and that they discussed the matter. Today's announcement is not about specific lines; it is about the organisation and the structure of the railways. However, the Department and the SRA are looking at that particular project. I am sorry that my hon. Friend was not able to be at that meeting, but I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be happy to meet him.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: The Secretary of State is always right to draw attention to cost control, and I was in danger of taking him seriously until he mentioned PTEs. He can have cost control or devolution to PTEs, but he has been in the job long enough to know that he cannot have both. More fundamentally, as far as trains are concerned, what remains of the Government's 10-year transport plan?
Mr. Darling: In relation to the latter point, the 10-year transport plan put forward investment of £33 billion of public money, coming to a total of £64 billion when it included private money. The right hon. Gentleman is a former Secretary of State for Transport, although I cannot remember precisely when that was. It must have been—
Sir Brian Mawhinney: When fares were brought down by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Darling: Oh no. The right hon. Gentleman put in place a fare structure that he must have known was unsustainable over the long term, as he well knew. He would have welcomed the fact of being able to have more money going into the railways. I think I am right in saying that the time with which he is concerned was precisely that when British Rail and the newly privatised railways did not have enough money being spent on them. However, I agree that cost control is essential, whether that involves Network Rail or a PTE. It does not matter where—cost control is absolutely essential.
John Austin: I welcome the review announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He will be aware that my constituents and I endure one of the worst rail services on record and that, with the termination of the Connex South Eastern contract, we are in the unique position of having a publicly owned railway. I understand that there is a possibility that it may remain in public ownership, albeit not British public ownership, as Danish state railways is one of the potential bidders. For the present, the Strategic Rail Authority runs the service. Would it not be sensible to allow the SRA to gain experience of the problems of running a railway and, if it succeeds in providing an improvement, to extend that policy to other franchises?
Mr. Darling: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but, as I said in my statement, the review will be looking at all aspects of the railway organisation, including the SRA. In relation to Connex, he, along with everybody else, welcomed the end of that franchise, but he would agree that there is still a long way to go before we can say that there has been a dramatic improvement. Again, two things are necessary. One is the money going into the system; the other is proper management.
Mr. Peter Luff: May I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider his proposal to devolve more powers and decision making to PTEs? Does he understand that an area such as Worcestershire, which is on the edge of a powerful PTE such as Centro, constantly plays second fiddle to the centre, and our services suffer as a result, while investment decisions to
1086
extend station platforms, improve signalling arrangements and improve track—small enhancements that would transform our services—slip? Please, Secretary of State, abandon that particular suggestion.
Mr. Darling: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's general concern, but the point is that there are areas covered by PTEs where more sensible and rational decisions can be taken as between rail, heavy rail, light rail and bus when formulating transport policies. Rail should not be considered in isolation. I understand perfectly well that many areas of the country do not have PTEs. We must ensure that they get their right share of investment and that they get the appropriate services. We are not talking about devolving all decision making, but as about a fifth of rail travel in this country is regional it is right to ask whether, where it is appropriate and where we can ensure that there are no adverse or unintended effects on other services, we might devolve further power to those PTEs. That is certainly something that should be looked at closely.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend said that 1 billion passengers were carried by rail last year, but as millions of them were standing or squashed together my question is about the relationship between the train operating companies and the leasing companies. Why are there not enough carriages in so many trains? Is it because the rolling stock is not available or because the leasing costs deter train operating companies from putting on a proper service?
Mr. Darling: The reasons for overcrowding vary from line to line. However, one reason why we decided to bring forward investment that will see the replacement of more than a third of all rolling stock was to get more capacity into the network. Indeed, my hon. Friend will know that there are many more commuter trains and there is new rolling stock on the long-distance lines, which will provide additional capacity. No matter whether the investment is public or private, however, there are always questions about how much the railways actually cost. As more and more people use the railways, which we want to encourage, we want to ensure that there is no impediment to getting additional capacity—if that is what is needed—and to getting trains on the line. We are replacing more than a third of the rolling stock, which will improve trains. Furthermore, the new stock is generally a lot more comfortable than some of the old stuff that is coming out of service.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that vertical integration will be an important theme in the forthcoming review? In his statement, he referred to the fact that he wanted freight operators to have access to the rail network on fair terms, but why has there been a moratorium on freight access grants for the last nine months?
Mr. Darling: The reason is that the SRA has an obligation to manage its budget, and to ensure that if costs increase in one element it considers what it does elsewhere. Freight grants are, of course, still being paid out; the moratorium is on new applications.

1087
Of course, we need to look at vertical integration, but I have to caution the hon. Gentleman: on the west coast main line, for example, where there are 13 train operators, the case for vertical integration may be less well made than where there is only one operator and one owner of the track. Where there are various operators, however, a system is being put in place whereby one person takes day-to-day control of services, so that if there is a problem on the line one person can take decisions about which trains run, which trains may need to be turned around early and so on. When one person is responsible for day-to-day management of the railways, it makes a difference in terms of the reliability of services.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I commend the Secretary of State for his commitment to rail and for his efforts to unravel the disastrous privatisation undertaken by the last Conservative Government. Does he agree that the trebling of subsidies under privatisation, from £1.3 billion to £3.8 billion, is an indictment of Tory policy? Will his review lead to less fragmentation and will he look at public sector solutions such as the successful body Merseytravel?
Mr. Darling: Merseytravel is an example of a line where punctuality and reliability have dramatically improved. However, it would probably be unfair to the rest of the network to compare every aspect of it with Merseytravel, as that railway is fairly self-contained.
On the subsidy, I caution my hon. Friend to this extent: one of the reasons why the amount of money going in has increased is that more services are running and more people are being carried, but a lot more money is being put in for track and train alike. One reason why the money dried up at the time of privatisation was that the then Government's response to the problems of the railway was to pass everything over to the private sector and hope that it would come up with the money or, alternatively, that the whole thing would wither away. That did not happen, however, and, whether for roads or rail, it is important that the Government maintain adequate investment. We are committed to that, although I am not sure whether everyone else in the House is.
Peter Bottomley: It is a matter of record that I have a brother-in-law who is a railwayman.
Is the Secretary of State's statement—unchanged since the end of last week—designed so that Richard Bowker keeps his job and Tom Winsor loses his, or the other way round? Has he deliberately failed to pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister, who made similar announcements about the future of the railways, and the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers)? Why has he drawn such a veil over the past six years? To whom can people apply if they want to improve their rail service? He said that the details of individual lines are not for today or the review; but, if I want the Worthing service to run three times an hour, not twice an hour, to whom should I apply?
Mr. Darling: First, I know very well that the hon. Gentleman's brother-in-law runs a railway—and a good railway service at that. In relation to the points he makes about individuals, I am afraid that it is inevitable now that we will read speculation about individuals. Frankly, it is ill founded. I have the greatest respect for Richard Bowker, who runs the SRA. He has done a good job in sometimes difficult circumstances. In relation to the fragmentation to which the hon. Gentleman refers, yes, that is a problem. One of the things that I should like to put an end to is the situation where it is sometimes uncertain precisely whose fault it is if a train runs late or not at all. Indeed, that was one of the consequences of privatisation, for which I think the hon. Gentleman voted.
Clive Efford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the structure of the railways has been exposed through the investment that has been provided, in the sense that the structure created at the time of privatisation is incapable of bringing about improvements and that what we have done is attempted to tinker with that structure? The review must bring about a root-and-branch alteration in the structure of the railway. Does he also find it surprising that the SRA thinks that this state cannot run a railway yet will consider another state to run a franchise in respect of the former Connex contract? Does he agree that the travelling public will find that somewhat surprising? In reviewing the railway, does he not think that we should put aside some of the dogma about everything that is private being correct and in the interests of the travelling public, and that, where the state can prove that it can run a railway effectively, we should consider that and compare that efficiency with any contract that we let in the future to ensure that we get value for money?
Mr. Darling: I was putting dogma to one side when I said that both public and private sectors have a role to play, but I think my hon. Friend was going in the opposite direction. I have always said that the public sector has an extremely important role to play. I have never taken the view that the public sector was blame or fault-free in the past. Just about everyone sitting in the Chamber will remember that, on one or two occasions, British Rail was not everything that it might have been when it comes to the model of a railway company.
In relation to who runs Connex or anything else, what matters to passengers is not whether it is public sector or private sector, but whether it actually works—that is the key thing.
In relation to my hon. Friend's point about the last six years, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), we have done two things over those six years: first, we have begun to tackle the huge investment backlog and, secondly, we have sought to deal with the problems that related to privatisation, one of which was the complete collapse of Railtrack, which could not carry on; it ran out of money and something had to be done about it. The second problem in relation to the SRA was that it was necessary—people widely accepted this—to have some strategic direction to the railways. We have done that. However, we have now reached the next phase, where we need to put in place an organisation that can take the railways forward over the next 20 to 30 years. I think

1089
that that is right—so, evidently, does the hon. Member for Havant, who speaks for the Conservative party on policy and is on record as saying that the way in which the Conservatives privatised could not be defended and they had to find a new way to run the railways. I am surprised that his colleagues have not read his comments.
Mr. John Redwood: Will the Secretary of State in his review consider the possibility of reuniting track and train in common privately owned regional companies and abolishing the SRA? I have a great deal of sympathy with him, given his unruly inheritance of those dreadful quangos and a botched renationalisation by the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers)
Mr. Darling: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman in two respects: he accepts that there was a problem after privatisation, and he has a policy, although it is not necessarily one that I would go along with. He is right to suggest that the whole question of track and train needs to be considered, and the precise model will be considered as part of the review.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that, over the past six years, there have been about half a dozen major statements about the railways? They started with one on the channel tunnel rail link when private money could not resolve the problem. Private money could not deal with Connex; private money could not deal with the Jarvis/Norris contracts; and private money could not deal with Railtrack. Is it not becoming increasingly obvious that privatisation, which has run for about 10 years or more, has failed, and that we ought to be thinking about another manifesto commitment that says that we will take the railways back into public ownership? Is that too much to bear?
Mr. Darling: Not for the first time, I have to disappoint my hon. Friend. We are not proposing to do that. I do not think that the problem is having public and private money and investment and operations on the railways. What is wrong is the structure that was set up.
My hon. Friend referred to the channel tunnel rail link and the same point applies to the franchises. The second thing wrong is that the Tories set them up in a way that was doomed to fail, because they were wildly optimistic in the assumptions they made. What was wrong with the privatisation was principally the way in which they botched it and left something that was completely fragmented and dysfunctional.
Mr. John Horam: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the groups of people who have particularly suffered from the constant dithering over different kinds of structure are London commuters? Will he undertake to give high priority to giving them a better deal and to dealing, in particular, with the problem of overcrowding that we discussed last
1090
Transport questions? The solution is not just about new trains—although I welcome what he said about that—but about having longer trains and longer platforms.
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right about London commuters, except that he will bear in mind the fact that one of the big problems that we face at the moment is that Railtrack failed to put in hand the upgrading of the power supply south of the River Thames. We are now putting that right and work is well under way. In addition, half the new rolling stock that is on order is going into London commuter lines—much of it to Connex and the southern railway as well. Yes, there need to be more carriages in some instances, but he will no doubt have heard what I said about health and safety. One of the problems that I want to sort out is, for example, the business of putting on an extra carriage. When there is a need to extend the platform that should not end up in our having to re-do the whole station, as that would make the whole process totally un-cost-effective. That is why we need to consider safety generally.
Although I have a great deal of sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman says about the problems faced by London commuters, I would be hesitant about blaming all those problems on the fact that I am now looking at the future organisation. Many of the problems were caused by a lack of investment in the past.
David Winnick: Since privatisation has clearly not worked and there is hardly a person in the country who does not realise that it was totally botched by the previous Government, why is my right hon. Friend so absolutely determined and dogmatic against bringing the whole system back into public ownership? Is he aware that there will be a great deal of disappointment in the Labour movement and among many Labour Members of Parliament—some present; some not—who will say that what is now proposed is not the solution? The solution is public ownership, and my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister should be bold enough to recognise what is really required.
Mr. Darling: Perhaps I may give just one reason to my hon. Friend. Each week we spend about £73 million of public money on the railway. It brings in about the same sum from the private sector each week. If we get rid of the private sector, that is £73 million a week that we need to find. I do not think that there is anything dogmatic about saying that it would be a bit hasty to chuck that overboard.
Mrs. Patsy Calton: In the statement, the Secretary of State said that Network Rail is taking maintenance back in-house to control costs. I agree with him about that. However, a parliamentary answer that I received last week from his Department indicates that maintenance costs have only increased by 7 per cent. over a seven-year period. The real increase has come in the upgrade programme in which, in the first four years up to the general election, costs were on an exponential upward curve. After a slight blip in the general election year of 2001, they are now again on an exponential upward curve. The cost of the upgrade programme in

1091
2004–05 will be in the region of £3 billion for the west coast main line, so how does he know that this exponential increase in expenditure will—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Darling: Let me make two points. First, on maintenance costs, Network Rail estimates that bringing maintenance back fully in house will save it about £300 million a year, which will be a result of the Jarvis's of this world, and other companies, not doing that work. On the upgrade work, the original cost of the west coast main line, about which the hon. Lady knows something, was about £2.5 billion. Five years later, that had reached £13 billion, but the actual cost will be something like £7.5 billion. The reason for that is purely and simply that Railtrack did not know, did not admit to or was unable to control the costs. However, the costs are now being brought under control.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: While expressing my gratitude for one of the great successes in my area—the very good new Cambridge-Norwich service—will my right hon. Friend ensure that any new management structures that may be put in place will be able to tackle effectively the real problems for commuters on Cambridge-London services: overcrowding, and continual delays and late runnings?
Mr. Darling: Yes, my hon. Friend is right, because anyone who uses the line knows that there have been problems with punctuality. Further problems have been caused by the fact that the route has become increasingly popular, because as Cambridge continues to grow, more people commute. It is thus important that we have a structure capable of running those railways. I am also grateful for her point about the Cambridge-Norwich railway line, which has been a great success.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the Secretary of State's statement delay and/or change the terms of the franchise currently held by South Eastern trains?
Mr. Darling: While we are considering the review, the day-to-day running of the railways has to continue. We consider all franchises that come up for renewal and decide whether it is appropriate for them to continue in their present form or whether changes are necessary. The railways must continue their day-to-day business of running, and we must ensure that we continue to improve their reliability and efficiency.
Mr. David Watts: When my right hon. Friend does his review, may I urge him to give as much power and responsibility as possible to passenger transport authorities? Given Merseyside's past experience—frankly, the rail service went down the tubes when the private sector had control of it—will he give us an assurance that he will not be driven by the dogma of the Opposition and that he will give PTAs all the support that they need?
Mr. Darling: As my hon. Friend knows, what matters is what works. The brutal truth is that some private sector operators are not terribly good, but, equally,
1092
some public sector operators are not very good either. As I said a few moments ago. what matters to passengers is that trains run on time and when they are supposed to and that they have a decent standard of cleanliness and comfort. That is what is important, so who provides the services is not the issue.
Chris Grayling: The Secretary of State will recall the Government's 10-year plan, which was published well after privatisation, well after his Government took office and, indeed, after the Hatfield crash. Will he confirm that it contained a variety of rail modernisation projects to which the Government were committed, such as work on the east coast main line, the upgrade to South Central and South West Trains, work in Manchester and Birmingham and Thameslink 2000? Will he confirm that none of those projects will now be completed by the end of the period covered by the 10-year plan, which is in about six years time?
Mr. Darling: I am not sure that I can do that. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the 10-year plan was published in July 2000 and that the Hatfield crash occurred a few months later. The plan marked a significant departure for railway planning because it set out railway spending over 10 years—that had previously been done annually. He mentioned several projects. I think he mentioned the west coast main line, work on which is going ahead. Work has been done on the east coast line and work is ongoing on the southern power upgrade. As I said to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), the day-to-day work of the railways must continue. However, we must continue to bear down on costs and improve reliability.
John McDonnell: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Despite some of his comments today, many of us see it as the first step on the inevitable path toward bringing rail back into public ownership. During the review, will he urgently meet the trade unions that represent the work force that supplies the industry, which has endured privatisation? Will the review cover the possibility of introducing a consistent approach on conditions and pay throughout the industry?
Mr. Darling: The review is looking at the structure and organisation of the railways rather than at pay and conditions. On nationalisation, I know what my hon. Friend thinks, and he has always thought that. I just do not happen to agree with him; I think that the railways benefit from both public and private involvement.
Simon Hughes: When the Government did their welcome reinstatement of London regional government five years ago, they set up Transport for London to co-ordinate the main roads, the buses and the tube, but they resisted requests to make sure that commuter rail services in Greater London were integrated into the city's strategic transport planning. Will the Secretary of State say whether he is willing to look again at that and at least contemplate the idea of an agency or authority, linked to the current London strategic government, which

1093
makes sure that the transport services used by London commuters, the largest group in the country, are coordinated with other services throughout the capital?
Mr. Darling: I am not sure that we need yet another agency to do that. The problem with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that most London commuter services do not stop in the London area but go some considerable way outside it. My guess is that people who want to get on and off those trains outside the Mayor of London's jurisdiction might have something to say if he—or, perhaps in future, she—was in charge of them.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the plethora of organisations and their conflicting interests have resulted in unacceptable delays to repairing the rail infrastructure, but that putting the infrastructure right more quickly may result in greater disruption now, while minimising today's disruption will result only in more problems for longer? He is right to act now and to streamline the decision-making structure to get the necessary work done.
Mr. Darling: For some time, the industry has recognised that it may be better, because more work can be done, to close a railway line for two or three days than to try to take possession of it and perhaps do only a hour or two of work each night. That work is starting now. Work is done at bank holiday time, and it is always said that there will be chaos and confusion, but that does not always materialise. However, most people realise that that is a better way to maintain a railway than to try to do the work piecemeal.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Government's definition of the right franchising arrangements involve long-term contracts and commitments or the short lease arrangements favoured by the SRA in cases such as that of South West Trains?
Mr. Darling: The problem with the long-term franchise arrangements that we inherited was that when franchises were signed all sorts of promises were made about an initial subsidy followed by money coming into the Treasury over 10, 15, 20 or 25 years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is incredibly difficult to forecast what revenues might be in 25 years. The second thing that was wrong with those franchises was that in many cases they gave the operator a concession to operate services, but there was not much specification about what should be delivered. I cannot therefore promise the hon. Gentleman a return to the Tory-style privatisation model of franchises because I do not think that they
1094
were particularly good, and nearly all of them resulted in the promises that were made coming to an end many years before they were supposed to.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I am not against attacking rail privatisation, but why are the Government attacking rail privatisation in the name of rail privatisation? How will we improve rail regulation with continuing privatisation, devolution to assemblies and greater regulation by passenger transport executives? Even in the late 19th century, Alfred Marshall. who was no socialist, believed that railways were natural monopolies and that action needed to be taken with them on those lines.
Mr. Darling: I know that my hon. Friend was an academic at some point, and the first part of his question sounds like the sort of thing that students might be invited to discuss; perhaps later on we will have the opportunity to develop that idea over a glass of something. The whole point of the review is to look at all the options that are available to us. If I correctly understood my hon. Friend's point about local decision making, I can tell him that there are parts of the country where that might be a more efficient and effective way of running things.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and welcome it as another milepost on the long track back to public ownership. Does he accept—I have raised this point with him before—that the cost of track renewal is four times as high in the private sector as it was in BR days and that the public got four times as much track for their money under BR as they do under the privatised system? Will he institute a thorough investigation of costs in the industry, with a view to getting back to the efficiency that we saw under BR?
Mr. Darling: There are two points. First, I do not think that anyone can be in any doubt that vigorous cost control is necessary. Costs in the industry have risen far faster than they should have, and cost control, particularly under Railtrack, was not adequate. Secondly, I add a word of caution in respect of British Rail. The Government are spending more, partly because we want to put money into the railways and partly because the true scale and nature of the network became apparent only after Hatfield. As Network Rail began to go through Railtrack's books, it discovered the backlog of investment that had built up over years. British Rail was a master at managing whatever the Government of the day happened to give it, which sometimes meant making do and mending rather than putting in place proper investment. Therefore, comparing today's figures with those under BR is not always comparing like work with like work. I agree with my hon. Friend—nobody could disagree with this proposition—that if we are to spend money on the railways, we must ensure that we get value for money and that costs are brought under control.

Point of Order
4.36 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of which I have given Mr. Speaker notice.
As well as the major changes to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill that I raised last week, the Government have announced further additions, extending the familial homicide provisions, domestic homicide reviews and restraining orders to Northern Ireland, despite the fact that the Bill has begun its passage in Grand Committee today in another place. I am sure that Mr. Speaker shares my belief that we need some certainty over what this important legislation will contain so that he can manage proceedings effectively in this House. Will you advise me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how we can prevent the Government from constantly adding major provisions to the Bill so late in proceedings?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of the point of order that she wished to raise. As she acknowledged, the Bill remains for the moment in the other place. Given that it has not yet reached this House, it would be wrong of me at this stage to comment on its contents. It would seem better to deal with the matter as and when it reaches this Chamber. In the meantime, she might like to institute proceedings through the usual channels.

Orders of the Day

  Civil Contingencies Bill
  [Relevant documents: Report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Civil Contingencies Bill, Session 2002—03, HL Paper 184 & HC 1074; Seventh Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2002—03, HC 557 on the Draft Civil Contingencies Bill; Fifteenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2002—03, HL Paper 149 & HC 1005; and the Government's Response to the Reports of the Joint Committee and of the Defence Committee, Cm 6078.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.37 pm
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)rose—
  Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill is to be moved by a Minister of State in the Cabinet Office. It is clear from the Bill that its main powers will be conferred on the Prime Minister and Secretaries of State. It seems extraordinary that a Bill of such importance, which repeals the Emergency Powers Acts 1920 and 1964, should be introduced by a fairly junior Minister.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the Second Reading is to be moved by the Minister who presented the Bill to the House in the first place. It is therefore not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Alexander: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Following a wide-ranging process of consultation and discussion, the Bill was published on 7 January. The aim of the Bill and accompanying non-legislative measures is to deliver a single framework for civil protection in the United Kingdom—providing a framework to meet the challenges of the 21st century. That is an objective that we have been working towards, with the assistance of many both inside and outside the House, since the emergency planning review was launched in August 2001.
  I will in turn set out for the House the background, principles and content of the Bill. In particular, I will set out an explanation of the legislation that we are replacing, and why we are doing so now; the open and consultative process by which we arrived at the Bill; a description of the wider context in which we introduced the legislation, considering both current and future risks and threats; and a description of the provisions, including the definition of "emergency", the new framework for local and regional response to emergencies, and the modernised approach to emergency powers.
  Finally, I shall address some of the specific issues about which concern has been expressed by some hon. Members who have already had the opportunity to consider the published Bill.
  The current framework for civil emergency planning was not designed with the needs of modern society in mind. Planning at local level is still governed by the Civil

  1097
  Defence Act 1948. Enacted at the start of the cold war, that Act was designed specifically to deal with the local contribution to national civil defence efforts; it focused solely on the threat of hostile attack and did not address the much wider range of civil emergencies. It is perhaps the final vestige of cold war civil defence architecture, much of the rest of which has already been dismantled.
  Even older is our country's emergency powers framework. Most states have made provision for Governments to take emergency powers in a crisis to assist in managing national emergencies and to ensure a speedy return to normality. In Britain, the Emergency Powers Act 1920 was introduced after the end of the first world war and in the immediate aftermath of the 1919 police strike. Obviously, the 1920s were witness to a very different sort of society and economy from the one we know today: motor cars were still few and far between, much communication was still done by letter, computers were 40 years away and did not govern complex delivery systems, and television was yet to be invented.
  Despite that, the basic rationale of the Emergency Powers Act holds good. In the UK, for more than 80 years, emergency powers have meant urgent specific new legislation in place temporarily to deal with the most serious emergencies. The Government hold to that approach and the Bill reflects that: it is a special legislative mechanism for abnormal situations. That is the UK approach to emergency powers that has served this country under Governments of all complexions for most of the past century.
  The problem with the existing Acts is that they were drafted for a different time and different circumstances. The 1948 Act only requires local authorities to plan in preparation for hostile attack by a foreign power. The range of activities local authorities plan for far exceeds those set out in the Act and is therefore not adequately covered by legislation. In addition, the Act does not set out the specific types of activity, such as risk assessment and information sharing, that are vital to the success of local-level planning.
  Mr. David Heath: The Minister mentions information sharing. A practitioner put it to me that one of the obstacles in the way of contingency planning is the classification of documents and information, which prevents an appropriate contingency from being arrived at because of the inability to discuss the intelligence or other information on which the contingency is based. Is there a case for reducing the level of restriction or for derestricting some information, so that a better dialogue is possible between the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and the civilian organisations on which we depend to develop the plans?
  Mr. Alexander: Clearly, we would have to be mindful of concerns that such information might fall into the hands of those who do not share the best interests of the population of the UK. As I explain the rationale behind that part of the Bill that deals with regional resilience forums, it will become clear that we take seriously the need to make sure that the appropriate information is in the appropriate hands so that emergency planning can be progressed.
  1098
  The Emergency Powers Act is drafted in terms of services essential to the life of the community in 1920: fuel, light and locomotion. Although those remain essential today, there are new services not included in the definition the disruption of which may have a significant impact on human welfare, such as health services, communications and the supply of money. Both the Civil Defence Act and the Emergency Powers Act do not take account of the significant cultural, technological and constitutional changes that took place in the second half of the last century.
  Chris Grayling: The Minister mentioned the role of local authorities. Will he discuss the planning role played by local authorities in today's world? I have often spoken with practitioners in the local authority who do not appear to be truly within the national loop and who are, in fact, not planning for much at all. My anxiety is that, in the event of a major national incident, the area that I represent—a constituency on the fringes of London—will be swamped by people moving out from the centre, without proper planning having taken place within the area.
  Mr. Alexander rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, may I say that we have had two fairly long interventions at the start of the debate? I hope that a pattern has not been set, as we have quite a long list of hon. Members who will seek to catch my eye during the debate.
  Mr. Alexander: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about ensuring appropriate consultation with local authorities. That is why we are introducing this framework legislation, along with a number of other policy objectives that we have set for ourselves. I will be happy to address specific points about local authorities in the course of my remarks.
  Over the past few years, we have witnessed a range of disruptive challenges to our country. As long ago as the Fennell inquiry into the King's Cross fire of 1987 there has been demand for improved co-ordination and liaison between organisations that prepare for and respond to emergencies. These concerns were still evident in the inquiries into the Southall and Ladbroke Grove rail crashes, the fuel crisis and foot and mouth, which have also shown where frameworks for handling challenges could be improved. Too much has had to be improvised when it could have been better planned for in a co-ordinated fashion. This has been a matter of growing concern for civil protection practitioners for well over a decade.
  That is why it would be wrong to characterise the Bill as a single response to 11 September, important though those tragic events have proved in informing our work. In fact, the start of this process was a commitment to a review of emergency planning that was made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in November 2000 following the serious flooding of that year. The Government carried out the promised emergency planning review in the second half of 2001, which initiated the work stream that has culminated in the Bill. There was wide consultation with practitioners

  1099
  on how we needed to change the structures that underpinned their work. The review was strongly focused on local emergency planning arrangements, and that is why such a significant part of the Bill is devoted to renewing those arrangements. The review was helpful in many ways and it confirmed one crucial fact: there is overwhelming demand from civil protection professionals for this new legislation.
  Since that point we have been working hard with the fullest range of organisations to construct the right legislation. My Department, as well as working closely with many Whitehall Departments, Government agencies and the devolved Administrations, has built up close working relationships with key practitioners.
  Mr. George Foulkes: My hon. Friend is doing splendidly in spite of the dreadful point of order that was made earlier. He mentioned the devolved Administrations. When I was Minister of State at the Scotland Office, I was a wee bit worried that there might be some problems because of a lack of clarity between devolved and reserved responsibilities, and also because of some rivalries. Will he address these matters as part of his considerations?
  Mr. Alexander: I will he happy to address that specific point in the course of my remarks. I would merely make an observation as a Scottish Member to a fellow Scottish Member that the Deputy Justice Minister, who was responsible for overseeing this work on behalf of the Scottish Executive, happens to share a constituency with me. I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many conversations took place both with the Deputy Justice Minister and the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales, who gave evidence before the Joint Committee of this place. We have been working hard to ensure that we had a dialogue with a range of organisations.
  Derek Conway: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Alexander: I have been generous in giving way. I ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to continue.
  Frequent meetings have taken place to discuss the Bill's development with organisations such as the Emergency Planning Society, the Local Government Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, the Ambulance Service Association, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and the Association of London Government. We have also maintained regular dialogue with civil liberties organisations, including Liberty and Justice.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: The Minister will know that he has moved a long way on the definition of emergency and that there are still some concerns. Would he be prepared in Committee to look again at some of the issues such as whether disruption of an electronic system should amount to an emergency? Some of these detailed points are still troubling Justice, Liberty and many other organisations.
  Mr. Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the view of Liberty. In response to the publication of the Bill earlier this month, it commented:
  1100
  "There may be further work to be done as the Bill goes through Parliament but there is cause to welcome it."
  I think that the tone of that remark is clear. There will be further discussions in Committee, but I think that there is a real opportunity for a genuine consensus to emerge on both sides of the House behind the Bill.
  The Government have also been active in discussions with a range of organisations, as I have set out to the House, in talking directly to civil protection practitioners as we developed the policy underpinning the Bill. We have carried out two national seminar programmes attended by more than 2,000 local civil protection professionals and members of my Department have spoken at national conferences and local events. They kept practitioners updated both by website and by correspondence. We also took the unusual step of seconding an emergency planning professional from local government directly to the Bill team.
  That open and consultative approach has been a consistent theme. When the Government's proposals were ready, we published them in a draft Bill last June and set two important processes in train, the first of which was public consultation. Notwithstanding our almost continuous contact with practitioners and their representatives, we wanted to maintain a high level of dialogue. The 12-week public consultation exercise included seminars in all the English regions, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to explain the content of the draft Bill and the policy behind it. The consultation elicited a wide range of responses from local authorities, the emergency services, the private and voluntary sectors and national lobby groups. We received about 400 responses.
  Derek Conway: The Bill deals with human welfare, which is rightly the priority for the Government and the House. However, did the consultation involve animal welfare organisations, as many people are close to their pets, especially family pets? There could therefore be a practical difficulty, and the Minister will have to spend time on such difficulties in Committee—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Alexander: One of my colleagues observes from a sedentary position that no animals wrote to us during the consultation, and I certainly believe that that is the case. We must look at the definition of emergency in the Bill to understand what we were consulting on. Human welfare was uppermost in our minds throughout the 12-week consultation that concluded on 11 September last year.
  We received about 400 responses, with about half of all local authorities and fire services commenting, along with a quarter of police and ambulance services. The message was clear—there was wide support for the overhaul and modernisation of the existing framework, but there was still work to be done on the detail of the proposals. Following the conclusion of the 12-week public consultation, we submitted the draft Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government invited a Joint Committee of both Houses to look at the draft Bill and work with us to refine its content. The Committee took evidence in six sittings in September and October, and heard from more than 30 witnesses, including local government emergency planning professionals, the

  1101
  private and voluntary sectors and civil liberties organisations. I was grateful for the opportunity to give the Government's evidence to the Committee in person.
  As hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware, pre-legislative scrutiny is a relatively new process. The Government and Parliament are committed to making it work, but we are still all finding our way. Nevertheless, in this instance, the process worked well and dialogue was constructive. I am grateful for the time and considerable effort contributed by the members of the Joint Committee to that process. Together, the public consultation and the pre-legislative scrutiny have made a genuine difference to the Bill, which is now stronger in a number of important ways than the draft Bill that was presented last summer. It has benefited significantly from further consultation and discussion, and the response of key individuals and organisations to the publication of the measure before us today is testament to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who chaired the Joint Committee, said:
  "The Government has gone a very long way to accepting the concerns we raised and I am well satisfied with the response."
  Indeed, the president of the Emergency Planning Society described the Bill as
  "an excellent framework to help the United Kingdom to become robust and resilient when emergencies occur."
  The tone of the additional responses that we received from parliamentarians, Liberty—an organisation that I mentioned earlier—civil protection practitioners and the media is a testament to the open and careful path of policy development that we have pursued.
  The legislative framework for civil contingencies that we are debating today sits within a wider effort to protect the United Kingdom from a series of potential disruptions, ranging from flooding to large-scale accidents, from e-viruses to epidemic disease. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has overall responsibility for the safety and security of the citizens of the United Kingdom. The Cabinet Office, for which I am responsible, co-ordinates activity across government and works with the Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator, Sir David Omand. Ministers or particular Departments have the lead on subjects that fall within their responsibilities. For example, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs leads on flooding and the Department of Health leads on epidemics in humans. The Home Secretary chairs the Cabinet committee that oversees both planning and response, bringing together key Government Departments along with external stakeholders, such as the emergency services, as necessary.
  The Bill will support the main mechanisms for planning and response through which work is co-ordinated across government. Turning to planning, the Home Secretary's statement to the House on 3 March 2003 set out the background to the Government's capabilities programme. We are building 17 cross-governmental capabilities, including the supply of essential services such as food and fuel, and practical response capabilities for dealing with mass evacuation.
  Our efforts in response to civil contingencies are guided by the lead Government Department principle, as outlined again by my right hon. Friend the Home
  1102
  Secretary in his statement to the House on 23 July 2002. Most emergencies are handled at a local level by the emergency services and by the appropriate local authorities, with no direct involvement by central Government. Where central Government do become involved because the incident is of such a scale or complexity as to require central co-ordination or support, it is essential that we are clear in advance which Department will be in the lead. Each Department takes responsibility for dealing with emergencies that arise in the sectors for which it is responsible. There are three clear principles: clear leadership at Cabinet level, exercised by the Home Secretary; clear structures to co-ordinate efforts across Government for both planning and response; and clear responsibilities for all Departments to play their part.
  Hon. Members will be aware that it is inevitable that the Bill will be considered in the light of current circumstances. We face new threats and risks and it is important that we respond to them. The Bill is not, however, driven by short-term concerns. It is designed to be a long-standing framework, but it is right that we reflect on the current context as a useful illustration of why civil contingencies legislation should be kept up to date.
  Many hon. Members have experience of the effects of flooding in their own constituencies over recent years. The water shortages over recent years and last summer's heat wave demonstrate some of the risks of being unprepared. Perhaps the best example is flooding. Environment Agency research indicates that the risk of flooding is increasing and we are seeing more frequent instances of severe weather that could cause serious flooding. The response to flooding is often regarded as the benchmark for effective planning and multi-agency co-operation at the local level—the activities that the Bill will strengthen.
  Just as the climate may be changing, so are the economy and society. We have to cope with the demands of modern networked societies, in which disruption can grow quickly and in unpredictable directions. The definition of "emergency" in the current Emergency Powers Act does not include IT networks or telecommunications, yet from local to global networks boundaries have become far more permeable. The modern reliance on new technology and interconnectedness brings with it vulnerabilities, as the millennium bug problems, for example, demonstrated.
  Mr. Heald: All this is well and good, and the Minister is setting out high principles, but when it comes to action on the ground, bodies will need to know what to do. Who will provide, for example, hazardous material support? Is there not a case for a national emergency volunteer reserve that brings together people with particular skills who can support the forces in emergencies?
  Mr. Alexander: I always find it revealing when Opposition spokesmen suggest that principles should not underpin legislation. That tells us something about the legislation that they introduced. On the substantive point that the hon. Gentleman sought to make, there would be questions as to whether volunteers would be best equipped to cope with a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incident, as he described.

  1103
  We recognise the valuable contribution made by voluntary organisations to the resilience capability of the United Kingdom. That is why we have been in discussion with a range of those organisations. However, we need to be clear-headed and keep a clear eye on the challenges that we face as a country. Our country is used to dealing with the threat of terrorist challenge over a number of years. We have lived with the heightened threat from Irish republican terrorism for more than 30 years. More recently, the threat from international terrorism has increased, noticeably since the events of 11 September.
  In the new environment we must remain vigilant to new types of threat, including that from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons, and also from attacks on IT and computer systems. Events in Bali in October, in Mombassa in November, and in Riyadh and Casablanca in May show that terrorists are often prepared to attack the least well-protected targets. The threat now comes not only from established groups with clearly defined targets, but from unaffiliated loose-knit networks of individuals with a much broader agenda.
  David Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that what he is now saying is the real justification, unfortunately, for the measure to be part of our law? If it were not for the ongoing terrorist threat, I would not see any reason to support the Bill.
  Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend raises an important point in recognising that we face two challenges. One is to strengthen our capacity for national security after the events of 11 September, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already legislated on that matter and brought forward a range of work across government to ensure that our national security is strengthened. But we also need to bear in mind the need for national resilience, and it is to that that this legislation directs itself.
  The threat, as I have already described, comes from a range of different organisations. We must, therefore, remain ever vigilant to ensure that both preparation and powers at our disposal are equal to the full range of possible eventualities, whether they are the result of terrorist action, an accident or a non-terrorist emergency. We keep all such matters under continuous review—in particular, the arrangements for dealing with CBRN terrorism and other hazards. We will take all appropriate steps that we judge necessary to respond to these potential threats.
  The Home Secretary will of course continue to keep under close review any threats to our national security wherever they come from, and will take whatever action is necessary to protect the British public. This is best achieved by a range of measures that accurately targets those individuals and groups that pose such a threat.
  I do not offer these risks as the sole justification for the Bill; circumstances change and the unpredictability of emergencies is often their defining characteristic. It is, however, necessary to remain vigilant in the face of risk, and what we need are proper frameworks for preparing for and dealing with disruptive challenges.
  1104
  The common thread that runs through the Bill is a clear definition of emergency. The message that we took from our discussions with practitioners was the need to define what we were legislating to deal with, and achieve a common understanding of that right across the board.
  We considered that question carefully. We looked at the definitions of emergency in the legislation that we are now seeking to replace, but ruled them out as unsuitable. The Civil Defence Act 1948 refers to
  "any measures not amounting to actual combat for affording defence against any form of hostile attack by a foreign power or for depriving any form of hostile attack by a foreign power of the whole or part of its effect, whether the measures are taken before, at or after the time of the attack".
  The definition of emergency in the Emergency Powers Act 1920 is set out as events
  "of such a nature…as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel…or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life."
  Those are definitions right for their time, but ones that do not cover the full range of threats and risks that we now face as a nation, and so fail to reflect the full realities of the current era.
  We looked at the international examples, many of which were too imprecise or reflected the unique demography or geography of the nation in question. For example, the definition in the South African emergency powers legislation focuses on threats of war and disorder, and the French equivalent centres on the functioning of the institutions of government.
  We also took the views of practitioners on the appropriate definition of emergency to capture in the Bill before the House today. The emergency planning review provided the Government with a wide range of opinion from civil protection professionals on how a definition of emergency should be framed. The result of that consultation and discussion was the definition of emergency in the draft Bill that was published last summer. The definition was based on threats to four elements—human welfare, the environment, political, administrative and economic stability and national security.
  The definition attracted considerable comment throughout the process of public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. In many respects, it was welcomed. The Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association described it as "comprehensive and clear". The Ambulance Service Association noted that it provided
  "sufficient width to cover all those events which could reasonably be foreseen".
  The Emergency Planning Society described its "broad agreement".
  But the Government also received powerful representations arguing against elements of the definition. The Joint Committee had
  "grave reservations about allowing…the government of the day the power to protects its own existence when there may be no other threat to human welfare".
  Civil liberties groups such as Liberty and Justice also voiced concern at the breadth of the definition.
  That is why the definition included in the Bill has been revised and reviewed. On the Joint Committee's advice, we removed

  1105
  "political, administrative and economic stability"
  from the definition. We had originally been concerned to make sure that we could protect the workings of Parliament, government and the economy. There are certainly international precedents, as I have suggested. The French definition of emergency refers to situations in which
  "the institutions of the Republic or the proper functioning of the constitutional governmental authorities are interrupted".
  The Irish definition refers to
  "preservation of the State…the maintenance of public order".
  Having listened to the Joint Committee and civil liberties organisations, however, the Government have concluded that while political, administrative and economic stability is a means to an end, it should not be an end in itself in the Bill. The purpose of such stability is to secure human welfare, protect the environment and maintain national security.
  We have met the concerns of local responders, many of whom asked for a caveat to be issued in relation to the definition in part 1 by making reference to the definition of an emergency in the Government's publication, "Dealing with Disaster"—namely, that it is a situation that requires special procedures or arrangements to be put in place. Clause 2(2) provides for that. The definition before the House has been weighed carefully and its scope narrowed as far as is prudent, and we now have a definition that we believe to be right. The Bill defines an emergency as an event or situation that threatens serious damage to human welfare, the environment or national security. That definition applies to both substantive parts of the Bill, to which I now turn.
  Part 1 establishes clear roles and responsibilities at the local level. The local response capability is the foundation of our response to all emergencies, and the Bill reflects that. It will ensure that local responders are prepared to deal effectively with the full range of emergencies, from localised major incidents to catastrophic emergencies. We start from a strong base. The United Kingdom has substantial experience of major emergencies occurring within the bounds of relatively small areas, and we have highly professional and dedicated emergency services. However, just as our dependence on the various response organisations, the emergency services and local and central Government is understood, we also acknowledge—now, more than ever—the importance of coherent strategies and systems for the harmonisation of contingency plans and procedure.
  The Bill identifies the range of bodies at the local level that have an interest in local civil protection, which it describes as local responders. Irrespective of the particular responsibilities of organisations and agencies that may be involved with the emergency response, they will all work to the following common objectives at the local level: saving and protecting life; relieving suffering; protecting property; providing the public with information; containing the emergency by limiting its escalation or spread; maintaining critical services; maintaining normal services at an appropriate level; protecting the health and safety of personnel; safeguarding the environment; facilitating investigations
  1106
  and inquiries; promoting self-help and recovery; restoring normality as soon as possible; and evaluating the response and identifying lessons to be learned.
  Simon Hughes: Nobody would resist the duties that the Minister properly sets out, but they come at a price. The notes to the Bill suggest that the Government's current spend provides £19 million to local government. Can the Minister tell us whether the new duties that the Bill imposes on local authorities will be fully funded; and, if not, how much they will be expected to raise to fulfil them?
  Mr. Alexander: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the explanatory notes state, if I recollect clearly, that the figure of £19 million relates to planning for emergencies at local authority level. There is a key distinction to be drawn between planning work that currently takes place across local government and the very wide range of support that has been provided to local emergency services—and, indeed, to local government—through other initiatives that I will cover in the course of my remarks.
  The Bill defines category 1 responders as the "core" organisations that are more likely to be closely involved in preparing for most incidents. They include the emergency services; local NHS bodies and the Health Protection Agency; local authorities; the Maritime and Coastguard Agency; and the Environment Agency. They can be characterised by their central role in coordinating response and delivering its main elements. Category 1 is subject to more significant duties than is category 2. They include: a duty to assess the risk of emergencies occurring and to use that to inform emergency planning; a duty to put in place planning arrangements; and a duty to put in place arrangements for business continuity management. Category 1 responders are also subject to a duty to put in place arrangements for warning and informing the public in the event of an emergency, in so far as that helps to prevent, reduce, control or mitigate its effects. They will also be obliged to co-operate with each other through local resilience forums. That will place the existing network of multi-agency groups on a sounder footing, delivering improved co-ordination and communication.
  Category 2 responders are "co-operating bodies" that are less likely to be involved in the heart of planning work, but will be heavily involved in incidents that affect their sector. They have direct responsibility to the public, either for their safety or for the provision of certain essential services; and, in most cases, they are already subject to a range of specific civil protection duties by virtue of their licensing or regulatory regimes. They include: utilities such as water, gas, electricity and telecommunications; transport companies and infrastructure providers; and the Health and Safety Executive. Category 2 responders will take on two activities that mirror the final obligations on category 1 bodies. First, they too will be obliged to share information, which will allow them to support the development of effective multi-agency plans through their knowledge of risks and essential services. Secondly, category 2 bodies, like those in category 1, will be obliged to co-operate with each other through local resilience forums. While most category 1 bodies already

  1107
  sit on the current equivalent of local resilience forums, the inconsistencies of participation are perhaps greatest for category 2 bodies.
  One duty—the promotion of business continuity management in the community—falls on local authorities alone. In the event of a serious disruptive challenge, local responders will offer assistance, but there are many advantages if businesses are also able to help themselves: the economic impact of emergencies is reduced, and local responders can target resources at the most vulnerable. Many local authorities already take on something akin to that role, particularly in urban areas. For example, in the immediate aftermath of the IRA bomb that devastated Manchester in 1996, the city council worked tirelessly with local businesses to mitigate the effects of disruption and keep affected businesses going. That was very successful, and Manchester has built on that approach, fostering links with the business community to share awareness of business continuity issues through briefings, written materials and advice. Should the city face similar challenges in future, businesses in the Manchester area will be better prepared to face them.
  Mr. Heald: On that point, has the Minister seen details of Project Unicorn from Scotland Yard? It identified five significant themes: a lack of co-ordinated and structured Government counter-terrorist communications policy; the absence of an identifiable and publicised centre for counter-terrorism in London; the non-use of the potential of the private security industry as part of a wider police family; a need for better understanding of the chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear threat; and the application of corporate governance to counter-terrorism. Why are the Government not doing anything about all that?
  Mr. Alexander: A range of work is being done across Government to address exactly those issues. I got up feeling some scepticism yesterday morning when I read newspaper observations about a 60-page report, which, I must point out, was a report to the police, not by them. In that sense, I would be cautious about interpreting the lessons of the report at this stage. Work is being taken forward by the Home Secretary on exactly the issues identified.
  The Bill is, of course, an enabling Bill. That is consistent with existing legislation and reflects the technical and unpredictable nature of emergency planning and response.
  Chris Grayling: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Alexander: I have been generous in giving way, and given Mr. Deputy Speaker's observations about the number of Members who want to speak, I had better make some progress.
  The Bill does not itself place a heavy burden. Rather, it is an overarching framework for local response. It places an emphasis on regulations and guidance that will accompany it. The Government have published the regulations in draft for part 1, and their development will be informed by the Bill's passage through Parliament. Before the Government seek to finalise the regulations and guidance, we will again consult publicly,
  1108
  working with the public on the regulations and guidance and their implementation. We will issue a consultation document to accompany the regulations and will ensure that all interested parties have the chance to make their comments. We will hold a further national series of seminars and offer direct opportunities for contact with all local civil protection professionals who want to take up the invitation.
  The final piece of the new local response framework will be effective performance management to ensure that we deliver and maintain effective civil protection. The consultation contained a specific element on how best to achieve that. Over three quarters of responses to the consultation supported the suggestion that the most effective route would be to use existing audit mechanisms. For example, the Audit Commission would add civil protection to the list of factors that it reviews when it audits the performance of local authorities.
  Proposals from the Joint Committee that a new inspectorate body should be considered have also been examined, but the Government concluded that we should press forward with our original proposal. For a dedicated inspectorate to be effective, the costs of setting it up and maintaining it would be likely to be disproportionate to the benefits. That view has been formed in discussion with organisations such as the Audit Commission, and they share it.
  In part 1 as a whole, the Bill sets out a new framework for local civil protection that builds on many years of good practice and experience. It contains duties that reflect the wishes of practitioners, and it sets in place structures to ensure that standards of performance are maintained. Those features in part explain why the proposals command widespread support among civil protection professionals.
  Simon Hughes: Now that the Minister has finished his description of part 1, what does he expect to be the total cost of the part 1 measures to be implemented across local government, and how much of it will Government fund?
  Mr. Alexander: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. I intended to deal with some of the specific anxieties that hon. Members raised. I appreciate that there is concern about funding and, with permission, I shall address that point later.
  Part 2 essentially updates the Emergency Powers Act 1920. It retains as its foundation the ability to make rapid temporary legislation to deal with the most serious emergencies. The 1920 Act was last used more than a quarter of a century ago. In subsequent years, considerable sector-specific emergency legislation has been introduced and reduced the need to resort to emergency powers, partly through a recognition of the weakness of existing emergency powers legislation. For example, the Energy Act 1976, the Electricity Act 1989, the Water Industry Act 1991, the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 and the Environment Act 1995 contain provisions that relate specifically to powers that are available in emergencies.
  A need remains for a latent capacity to make new, temporary statutory provision rapidly when that is the most effective way of enabling the resolution of an

  1109
  emergency. Existing emergency powers legislation allows that only in an outdated range of scenarios. That means that it cannot currently be used to respond to serious emergencies in cases when other legislation is insufficient.
  The Bill repeals the Emergency Powers Act 1920 and the Emergency Powers Act (Northern Ireland) 1926 and will apply to the United Kingdom. It sets out a new definition of what constitutes an emergency, appropriate to the times in which we live, and incorporates new risks and threats, which were not anticipated in the 1920s. They include contamination after a biological or chemical terrorist act and loss of electronic or other communications systems on which we now depend.
  As in the 1920 Act, the Bill places the Head of State at the centre of the process for making temporary special legislation. The Government have been in discussions with the palace about the existing procedure and how best to update the approach. Following discussions, we have agreed that the current process of royal proclamation might lead to unacceptable delay. The Government and the palace have also considered and agreed that, should emergency powers be needed and the Queen be, for whatever reason, unable to act without serious delay, the Bill should allow for a senior Minister or the Prime Minister to make the regulations. Such a power would be used rarely, if ever. The Queen, as Head of State, will in almost every case formally indicate that emergency powers are necessary. However, she will do that as part of the Order in Council that makes the regulations. That improved process was determined in discussion with the palace and reflects the centrality of the Queen's role and the need for practical arrangements in such circumstances.
  In discharging that responsibility, the Queen would act on the advice of her Ministers—principally the Home Secretary as the Cabinet member with responsibility for domestic security and resilience. That reflects long-standing practice in the current emergency powers framework. Should the Home Secretary be unable to take on the role, or if the emergency is focused on a specific sector that is outwith his responsibilities—for example, an emergency that relates solely to animal health—it may be appropriate for the lead responsibility to pass to another Cabinet Minister.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I note a reference under "senior Minister" to Commissioners of the Treasury. I understand that they are senior Whips. What possible role have they to play in the matter?
  Mr. Alexander: Parliamentary counsel's advice has been sought about that. The description of the Treasury that appears in most legislation is replicated accurately in the Bill. It therefore reflects common practice in describing the Treasury in legislation.
  The Bill overhauls the safeguards against misuse in the 1920 Act. By and large, they were express limitations such as prohibiting emergency regulations from providing for military conscription or interfering with criminal procedure. The measure significantly
  1110
  strengthens the protections in the 1920 Act and creates much greater transparency. It introduces new features, many of which are designed to ensure that emergency powers cannot be misused and that, when they are required, they can be used in a more targeted and proportionate manner.
  Mr. Richard Allan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Alexander: I have been generous and I fear that other hon. Members will not be able to make their contributions unless I press on.
  The triple lock is the foundation of the safeguards, but we have also replicated and enhanced the express limitations of the 1920 Act. Emergency powers cannot prohibit or enable the prohibition of participation in or activity connected with a strike or other industrial action. That limitation existed in the 1920 Act but has been strengthened. The effect of the new wording is broader than that in the 1920 Act.
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Before the Minister passes on from clause 21, I would be grateful he dealt with subsection (3)(j). It apparently enables the regulations to
  "disapply or modify an enactment".
  That means that the regulations can disapply any Act of Parliament.
  Does that include the Human Rights Act 1998? I appreciate that the explanatory notes say that it does not, and mention parliamentary counsel. but I can see nothing in the Bill that precludes the making of regulations that do away with the 1998 Act. Will my hon. Friend let us know the reasoning behind any opinion that he has been given on that?
  Mr. Alexander: My hon. and learned Friend refers to the safeguards on the powers created in the Bill. We have sought parliamentary counsel's advice on exactly that point and are assured that, in the triple lock that I was about to describe, the necessary precautions are in place. It was put to us that we should consider including a specific debarment of any change to legislation of a constitutional nature and, again, advice was sought from parliamentary counsel on that. However, because of the unwritten nature of the British constitution, there are considerable difficulties in defining in such a Bill exactly what constitutional legislation is. We are confident that the safeguards that are in place through the triple lock address that point adequately, and that they should be sufficient for hon. Members who are concerned on that point.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Clause 10 of the Government's Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill contains a provision that makes the remedial part of section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 subject to certain provisions in that Bill. There is no reason, therefore, why there could not be such a provision in this Bill.
  Mr. Alexander: I have of course signed a certificate to the effect that the Bill is compatible with the European

  1111
  convention on human rights, and we are concerned to ensure that the safeguards are in place. However, that is the specific reason why we took on board the deliberations and discussions of the Joint Committee, and why we have strengthened the triple lock that is the foundation of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a little more progress, perhaps I can assure him on exactly that point. As I was saying, the triple lock is the key safeguard in the Bill, and we believe that it addresses his point.
  As I have just described, the Bill is compatible with the ECHR, and, as the Minister responsible, I have signed the certificate to that effect. If the Government made emergency regulations that did not comply with the ECHR, we would be committing an unlawful act and the regulations, and action taken under them, could be challenged by the courts. Although some sections of the press may have speculated that emergency powers could breach or suspend the Human Rights Act, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) has just suggested, that is simply not the case. The Bill must operate within the confines placed upon it by that Act.
  Under the Bill's provisions, it will be possible for the first time to use emergency powers on a regional or devolved Administration basis. That will ensure that any special temporary legislation will apply only in the part of the United Kingdom affected by the emergency, leaving other areas unaffected.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Alexander: I will not, because I have been generous to hon. Members on both sides and I must make my concluding remarks so as not to prevent others from contributing.
  I turn to parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 26 sets out that emergency regulations, once made, must be laid before Parliament as soon as is practicable. Parliament will then have seven days to approve them, with or without amendment, or they will fall. Senior Ministers will answer in Parliament for the content of the regulations, explain why they are necessary and set out the use for which they are intended. In making emergency regulations, the Government will be conscious of the need for parliamentary approval. If each House passes a resolution that emergency regulations shall cease to have effect, they shall cease to have effect. Parliament may also amend the regulations.
  Mr. Shepherd: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Alexander: No, I am not going to give way further because I must make more hasty progress.
  The Bill also provides clear arrangements for managing situations in which Parliament stands prorogued or adjourned.
  Emergency regulations provided for in the Bill will be subject to judicial scrutiny. The courts will be able to review action taken using emergency powers in the usual way. For example, if a Minister exercises a discretion conferred on him by the emergency regulations in a way that breaches the Human Rights Act, the individual affected will be able to raise the matter in the courts. If the Secretary of State makes emergency regulations in
  1112
  situations where Her Majesty could make the regulations by Order in Council without any delay, the courts will be able to intervene. An individual being prosecuted for an offence created by the regulations will be able to raise the invalidity of the regulations as a defence in court. The remedy awarded by the courts will depend on the circumstances.
  That amounts to a much more comprehensive and coherent set of safeguards than that which exists under the 1920 Act, and it better reflects important elements of the current constitutional settlement including devolution and, as I have said, the Human Rights Act. We might hope never to use emergency powers, but experience tells us that at some point they will be required. The strength of these powers means that the clear safeguards are necessary, and the Government believe that the balance we propose is the right one.
  In addition to the efforts at a local and central level, the Government have put in place a new regional civil protection tier in the legislation. That is not a judgment in any way on the effectiveness of existing local response arrangements. Rather, it reflects a recognition by central Government that they need to build a stronger bridge with the local level and provide clearer support.
  Since last April, teams in each of the Government offices have led work to establish regional resilience forums, bringing together key players from the public and private sectors to co-ordinate resilience efforts. In the event of emergencies, those regional teams and forums would provide support and advice to central Government and to local government, co-ordinating effort if necessary and acting as a conduit for information.
  The Bill clarifies the position of the devolved Administrations. Essentially, it will establish for the first time a common civil protection framework for the United Kingdom as a whole. As I have made clear, the Government have undertaken extended consultations with the devolved Administrations. The Welsh First Minister and, as I have said, the Scottish Deputy Minister for Justice both gave evidence to the Joint Committee. I pay tribute to the constructive and thorough way in which they and their colleagues have approached the subject.
  The Bill grants powers to Scottish Ministers in areas that are devolved, which would in England and Wales be exercisable by UK Ministers under part 1. It sets out when Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales must be consulted. In Northern Ireland, local devolved administrative arrangements make it impossible for part 1 to apply to Northern Ireland in the same way as it applies to the rest of the UK. It applies to certain bodies in Northern Ireland that exercise non-devolved functions. In addition, Northern Ireland Ministers will ensure that devolved organisations act in line with the duties set out in the Bill. Concordats will be drawn up with the devolved Administrations setting out their role.
  I know that hon. Members will raise a number of matters in the debate, but let me turn to a specific issue that has been raised before I move on to the point about funding raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). First, there has been interest in how central Government themselves will be held to account under the new framework.

  1113
  Although we are confident that we have the right arrangements in place, it is fair to acknowledge that it is important to be clear to local responders where their work fits in, as well as to address questions that may be put to us by the general public.
  It has been suggested to the Government that one way to achieve that would be a duty on central Government analogous to that which the Bill places on local government. The Government do not agree. It is difficult to see how such a sensible, meaningful duty in this area could be imposed on central Government by way of statute. However, that is not to say that more cannot be done to improve the transparency of central Government frameworks.
  Within the Government, we are exploring what options there might be for some structure of reporting on the arrangements. The one caveat I would add is that, again, the balance has to be struck between ensuring—if it were deemed appropriate to Parliament and the people—that the transparency is achieved, but not at the cost of the need to ensure that those who do not have the interests of the UK at heart do not gain information that would be damaging to the interests of the country.
  As I have already said in response to one observation, the Joint Committee also had particular concern about the possibility that the part 2 powers would be used to amend constitutional enactments during the emergency. I merely repeat that, having taken parliamentary counsel's advice on how the normal principles of the construction of delegated powers would apply to this particular provision, we cannot currently envisage any circumstances in which that power would lawfully enable us to make a substantive amendment to a constitutional enactment.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Alexander: I am going to make further progress, with respect.
  I turn to funding, which was raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. We appreciate that—
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you remind me of the rule? When specific reference is made to a document—in this case, the advice of parliamentary counsel—should it not be laid in the Library of the House of Commons?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is usual for any document to which an hon. Member refers to be available to all hon. Members. I do not know whether the Minister can clarify that point.
  Mr. Alexander: There are, of course, guidelines in terms of advice within the Government. I can assure the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that, in relation to the specific intervention that I received, I was happy to confirm that I had raised this matter with parliamentary counsel. That remains the case. What documentation on the Bill
  1114
  is provided to the House will be entirely consistent with the normal precedents of government in terms of the information provided.
  Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It appears that the Minister has received written advice from the parliamentary counsel. If that is correct—I think it is, from what he has said—that document should be placed in the Library of the House of Commons, should it not?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is certainly usual, and helpful to hon. Members, for documents on which a Minister relies, or on which any other Member relies, to be more widely available. However, I do not know whether there may be an overarching reason of confidentiality for an exception to be made in this case.
  Mr. Alexander: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham seems to be suggesting that there is a specific opinion from counsel on a specific matter in my files at the moment. In fact, I sought the advice of parliamentary counsel through the normal channels within Government, and have received responses in discussion with officials. If there is a specific opinion on the specific question that it would be consistent with normal precedent to place before the House by putting it in the Library, I shall of course endeavour to do so. It is important to recognise, however, that the advice I sought was on the general points that we have raised with parliamentary counsel and that I have sought the advice of counsel on the specific point in relation to the Human Rights Act.
  On funding, we appreciate that there is considerable interest—
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Alexander: No, I have been generous. I have been speaking for almost an hour and it is important to allow other Members to make contributions.
  I shall address myself to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey on funding. The Government believe that the responsibilities of local government should be properly funded. However, the Bill deals with frameworks rather than funding so the Government's focus is to ensure that we get the structures right.
  Funding arrangements in respect of civil protection are kept under constant review. We have substantially increased the level of funding available for local civil protection over the last few years, including £330 million in the April 2003 budget to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office, as well as the Home Office, for counter-terrorism work.
  There must be a clear and robust case for any additional funding. Resources must be carefully targeted where need is greatest. Any pressure for additional resources will thus be considered in the normal way in the course of the spending round.
  The Bill is necessary, and I believe that both sides of the House realise that a legislative framework to deal with emergencies is a vital component of the statute book; recent events have brought that home to all of us.

  1115
  The Bill is also timely. The existing legislation has reached the end of its useful life and a consensus is building up on both the principle and the details of the proposals. The Bill will put in place a legislative framework necessary to deliver the effective civil protection that the people of the United Kingdom expect. We have a Bill that commands wide support and I commend it to the House.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: There is much to welcome in the Bill, but there is also much to probe, challenge and improve. I am pleased that the Government have at last presented the measure to Parliament. We live in troubled times and legislation to deal with our response to civil contingencies, locally and nationally, is necessary and overdue.
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office highlighted the deficiencies and weaknesses of the current system, but they were already clear in 2000 during the flooding and fuel crises of that year, and during the foot and mouth debacle in 2001. Those events provided definite contemporary precedents and demonstrated that the existing procedures and protocols were not sufficient and needed to be re-examined. The Bill needs discussion and improvement, but we believe that with proper scrutiny it can become an important addition to the statute book.
  I realise that there are other views about parts of the Bill and we take those points very seriously—as we shall in Committee. For example, the Joint Committee made it clear that there should be specific protection for the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998—a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and others, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he has had a telephone chat with parliamentary counsel—[Interruption.] I am told that he did not even go that far.
  When one examines the wording of the Bill, it is clear that there are specific points at which disallowances are made for particular human rights; for example, subsection (3)(a) of clause 22 disapplies the emergency regulations from a requirement for military service. Given the Joint Committee's recommendations and the fact that other Bills have included such protection, it is hard to understand why there is no specific protection for the provisions of the Human Rights Act, especially as the Act states that article 15 of the European convention on human rights can be disapplied for legitimate emergency powers.
  Mr. Hogg: Let us assume that the Bill, as enacted, contravenes the European convention as incorporated into domestic law. The aggrieved citizen goes to court, the court makes a declaration of incompatibility, but the law remains in place.
  Mr. Heald: That would certainly be the case with emergency regulations that have been introduced in this way. Of course we rely on the Minister's assurance that the Bill as a whole complies with the convention.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I wonder whether the Opposition have themselves taken legal advice on this
  1116
  very important issue, and if they have, whether it has given them the remotest idea what the Minister is talking about, because it appears in this respect that he is not entirely master of his brief.
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention. Of course I have relied on my own—modest, in comparison—legal experience, and I have had the opportunity of discussions with learned colleagues on the Opposition Benches. I have not been to other counsel, and I do not have a written opinion to put in the Library, but I share much of the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern.
  I wish to say a word about delay, because it will be the third anniversary of the events of 11 September before the Bill receives Royal Assent. That is a long delay, given the obvious risks to our country, about which the Prime Minister and others have been vocal. There has been plenty of time to introduce legislation, but the Government have been sluggish on this issue. I consider the protection of the British to be the paramount concern of any Government. Surely Ministers have taken risks in not acting sooner. At a time when terrorism and international conflict have been so prevalent in the public consciousness and we have also seen new incidents of other kinds of emergency, such as flooding and drought, surely a Civil Contingencies Bill should have been higher legislative priority than measures on banning hunting and trimming back leylandii hedges.
  Apart from the legal issues on which we must properly probe the Government, my main concern about the present state of the Bill is simply that its practical aspects—how it will work and how it will be enforced do not seem to hold together. A Bill dealing with emergency powers is a rare and unusual event. It is the sort of law that we want on the statute book but never want to use—but that must not make us shy away from producing a Bill that will work in reality.
  Yes, we shall probe in Committee to ensure that the legal definition of an emergency, which is much improved, adequately protects individual liberty. We will scrutinise the Bill, but it is vital not to ignore the practicalities. That is a problem. The Bill will place duties on councils and other responders, but no obvious resources will be allocated with those duties—a point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). If and when the emergency situation arises, particularly the more serious type of terrorist event, it is hard to see where the work force is to put the plans into effect for a sustained period. Where is the muscle that will turn the new Act into action?
  Just to give an example, it has been assessed that if there were a civil catastrophe, the emergency services in a city such as Liverpool—one of the United Kingdom's largest and most vital population centres—could manage 36 hours of continuous emergency cover, but that when those 36 hours were up, the emergency services would be spent and unable to continue. That would clearly not be enough if a dirty bomb were detonated in the centre of such a city.
  We have excellent emergency services in this country, but they are not equipped to deal for long periods with some of the emergencies that we are discussing. [Interruption.]

  1117
  On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister thinking of returning to his place?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I was just having an exchange with the Minister that I thought might be helpful.
  Mr. Heald: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I thought that I had lost the Minister for a moment; I had not realised that he was in discussion with you.
  The sole current support for the emergency services—[Interruption.] I welcome the Minister back to his place. The sole current support for the emergency services comes from the civil contingency reaction forces. In a recent ministerial statement, it was claimed that 14 of these forces had achieved full operational capability. The research undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who will wind up the debate for the Opposition, shows that the maximum theoretical strength of these forces is about 7,000 people, but the actual number available is nearer to 5,000. I certainly understand that at the moment they are being sent abroad to undertake duties in theatre elsewhere. Clearly those forces are less than is required, and a blind reliance on them as they stand would be a mistake. That demonstrates a lack of imagination on the part of the Government and a failure to take on board the full skills and competences that are available in our country.
  I have mentioned Project Unicorn, the report by Scotland Yard that shows great gaps in what the Government should be doing. The shortfall forces organisations such as the Metropolitan police into making ad hoc gentleman's agreements with private bodies, such as Group 4, to ensure that they will arrive to bail out the under-equipped emergency services at the scene of a major incident. The Met has no choice but to make such arrangements, as the Government have not put in place any other back-up for those vital operations.
  Mr. Alexander: I would not want the hon. Gentleman inadvertently to mislead the House. Does he accept that although the report was commissioned by the Metropolitan police, it does not bear the imprimatur that he suggests—that of a Metropolitan police report? It was a report to the police rather than a report by the police.
  Mr. Heald: I fully accept that, but I hope that the Minister is not challenging the abilities of the people who produced the report. They are some of the most senior figures in security in the country, including major-generals and people of great expertise. They certainly have far more expertise than either he or I would even attempt to suggest we had. Why have the Government not dealt with this problem in the Bill?
  Some years ago in the 1980s, I was asked to be an emergency plans community adviser in Royston, the town where I live. A number of us drawn from the town were prepared to volunteer to give up a small amount of time to be trained in the emergency procedures that were then thought necessary in case there was a missile attack from the USSR. It was simply a question of informing
  1118
  people of the particular measures in which we were trained. [Interruption.] I hear a certain amount of mirth at my remarks about volunteering, but in the context of the Bill, it is important to remember that the Red Cross has written to us say how disappointed it is that the role of volunteers has not been taken seriously and does not appear in the Bill. I would not wish to snipe at the Red Cross, as it does a fantastic job.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Can my hon. Friend throw any light on why, when he intervened to ask about the potential role of volunteer reserve forces, the Minister was so dismissive? We have volunteer reserve forces for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and they do a very good job in the heat of battle. Why should we not have volunteer reserve forces for civil emergencies of the type that we are discussing?
  Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend, as always, makes an extremely good point. The Bill makes provision for certain organisations to be enlisted for help—the category 1 and the category 2 responders—and we will question the Minister further in Committee on why certain bodies are in certain categories.
  Some key personnel, such as paramedics, doctors and environmentalists, will be required to offer their support, and that is a good thing. However, that does not reach down far enough into the pool of people who could usefully be employed in an emergency. Experts have suggested to us that there is a need for an emergency volunteer reserve. It would consist of willing individuals with important skills who would be asked to volunteer to spend a small amount of their time for the sake of the public good. The people who were asked to volunteer in the reserve would be specialists in their fields, so they would have a suitable and useful knowledge base. They would receive further training in what would be expected of them in the case of an emergency and the actions that they could usefully take. That ties in with the thinking of the Red Cross.
  Let us consider an example. Specialist hazardous materials—HAZMAT—drivers could be useful in several of the incidents about which the Minister has spoken. Such drivers have specialist training in the action to take when dealing with chemical spillages, so surely that could be used in an emergency situation. The Bill ignores a huge pool of skills among the general public. An emergency volunteer reserve would be practical, valuable, controllable and cheap, which is obviously what the Minister wants. It would also serve to make the public feel part of the solution, rather than always part of the problem. We ask the Government to explore the idea.
  We renew our call for one senior Cabinet Minister to be placed in charge of, and made accountable for, civil contingencies and emergency planning. Surely the importance of getting the plans right dictates that they are sufficiently crucial to merit the attention of a senior Government Minister. The Government must recognise that we would not get a second chance in such a situation because if there were a dirty bomb—in London, for example—extremely serious damage would be done. We need a Minister to take responsibility in such circumstances; the Government could call the post what they liked. We need to get the measures right first time—and quickly, because the consequences of not doing so are literally a matter of life and death.

  1119
  It might be helpful if decisions on whether an emergency should be declared involved, when practical, consultation with senior Privy Councillor representatives of each of the other main political parties, who could be nominated in advance. That would provide some of the advantages of the wartime national Governments that existed in the past, by persuading the public of the seriousness of the situation and reassuring them about decisions taken. We shall certainly probe the Government on that suggestion in Committee.
  I question the Bill's failure to refer in any way to a public education programme to supplement and support its other measures. It is all very well to introduce new emergency powers and measures, but what is the good of them if people do not know about or understand them? I am sure that the Minister will point out that he has established a website that contains useful information about various scenarios that could occur—www.ukresilience.info—and that he is also preparing a leaflet. Irrespective of how valuable that information is, it is not getting to the people who need it, because it is not being disseminated sufficiently vigorously or widely. How many people are likely to visit the website to check the information? If there were an incident, how many people would immediately click on www.ukresilience.info? Very few, I suggest.
  Many necessary responses in such situations rely on people understanding that they must obey instructions, and having an idea of what their responses should be. Fire brigades already visit schools to explain issues relating to fire safety. Hearing such information does not cause children great problems, and the process helps the fire service if incidents occur in due course. Similarly, if we want people's responses to the new emergencies that we are discussing to be instinctively correct, it is worth noting that the correct response might be counter-intuitive—it might not be what one might think that it should sensibly be. For example, the first instinct of workers in an office in which there was an anthrax scare might well be to vacate the building as quickly as possible and get away from the threat. However, a much more sensible course of action would be to stay in the building and get vaccinated. The same is true of other similar situations.
  I do not want to trouble the House for too long, because we have heard one long speech and many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. For the most part, the British people have been lucky: they have led sheltered lives and do not necessarily know how to react to a soldier with a rifle manning a cordon at the end of their street. They do not know that that soldier can open fire on them if he judges it to be necessary. We believe that they need to know, and that a public information campaign must be a sensible precaution. We recognise the need to avoid unnecessary alarm, but we also recognise that the British public are mature and sensible and that they will take on information that could potentially save their lives. If schoolchildren can take on such information, why do the Government not trust adults not to panic when they are warned of potential dangers?
  Mr. John Bercow: Given that local authorities, including those in my area, regularly complain that the Government foist new responsibilities
  1120
  upon them without providing adequate resources for those responsibilities to be discharged, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should at least commit to the principle that where an unforeseeable eventuality entails a new duty for local authorities, it will be reflected in increased financial assistance? Does he accept that clause 32(b) provides no such succour?
  Mr. Heald: It is certainly true that the Local Government Association's response has been along those lines. We will press the Minister on that point because it is all well and good for Ministers to say, "There is a duty here; there is a duty there,"—indeed, there are seven new duties for local authorities in the Bill—but they will not work if the means are not willed into existence. That is why I mentioned not only resources but means of obtaining the work force on the ground and taking other practical measures necessary to achieve success.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman could pray in aid the Bellwin formula to support his argument.
  Mr. Heald: That contribution is useful and helpful, and we will draw on it in Committee. However, I must not trespass on the good will of the House.
  I pay tribute to the Joint Committee that examined the draft Civil Contingencies Bill, the Select Committee on Defence and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which have moved the pre-legislative scrutiny forward a long way. The Government must not be complacent that they have got the Bill 100 per cent. right, and I look forward to exploring the issues in Committee.
  The British public have been lucky in the past because they have been prepared to take, and work with, the measures needed to protect their security, as well as fighting for freedom in two world wars in the past century. We should not think that the British public are weak, feeble and unwilling to understand. If there is an emergency and we must face new threats, I am sure that the British public will respond.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: Some Members may be surprised that the Defence Committee produced an unsolicited report on the draft version of the Bill. They should not be surprised, because the Defence Committee has been actively engaged with the issue of home defence from 9/11 onwards. We have produced five reports dealing either in full or in part with the dangers, the consequences and what the Government should do.
  In July 2002, in our report on defence and security in the UK, the Defence Committee said that new civil contingencies legislation was urgently needed. That was a year after the publication of the Government's original consultation document—the emergency planning review.
  Today, hon. Members, including the Minister, have emphasised the importance of the Bill in establishing an effective framework for dealing with emergencies in the modern world, and I am glad that that consensus is emerging. In the past, our regularly repeated arguments that new legislation was necessary were not always met

  1121
  by such agreement from the Government. As late as March last year, the Government's excellent—in my view—security and intelligence co-ordinator, Sir David Omand, told us:
  "Operationally it is not essential to have this consolidated legislation."
  It has already been pointed out that the legislation has been a long time coming. In the light of its long gestation, I expected it to have 130 clauses rather than a modest 30, but we must be grateful that it has finally arrived. I am delighted that the Government have responded positively to the Defence Committee report and the report by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, which was so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). As my hon. Friend has said, and as the Defence Committee believes, the Bill is a significant improvement on the draft Bill of last June.
  I want to concentrate on three issues: the respective roles of local government and national tiers, and co-ordination between them; the private sector, including the private security sector; and the military.
  On local, regional and national tiers of government, the Bill places statutory responsibilities on local responders, which is welcome. However, the response to major emergencies must be co-ordinated at regional and, probably, national level. The Defence Committee was surprised that the draft Bill did not mention either of those tiers, although the consultation document, which was published at the same time, set out the Government's proposals for each. We concluded that the Government needed to explain their role and responsibilities as well as those of regional offices and officers, which were not included in the legislation. The Joint Committee went further than us and recommended not only that the Government's roles and responsibilities should be outlined in the Bill but that they should be given a statutory duty to undertake them.
  The Government have rejected those recommendations. They argue that Ministers can task their Departments with appropriate roles and responsibilities without the need for legal duties or powers and that it is enough that Ministers are accountable to Parliament. This is not the time to enter into a protracted discussion about the accountability of Ministers to Parliament, except to say that in my 25 years on the Defence Committee I have frequently encountered situations in which Ministers have lacked enthusiasm in discharging that duty.
  The Government's reply to the Defence Committee and the Joint Committee elaborated on that refusal. They explained that
  "regional resilience structures are still at an early stage of development"—
  I am surprised that after two years those structures have not gone beyond that stage—and that although
  "a number of bodies have been established including Regional Resilience Teams and Regional Resilience Forums…their precise roles have not been fixed."
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although local responders and local authorities have a democratic mandate, the
  1122
  resilience teams, which currently seem vague, are not under control and have no mandate? Does he agree that there could be a clash between local authorities, which are under the democratic control of councillors, and what could be described as unelected, unaccountable regional resilience tsars?
  Mr. George: There might be a clash before a crisis. I hope that if there is a major crisis, there will be no time for any clashes about where democratic accountability lies, although my hon. Friend's point is true.
  The explanation given by Ministers on lack of inclusion in legislation is not sufficient. By excluding themselves and the regional offices, the Government are sending the wrong message about the importance of these issues. They are saying that local authorities and local responders must be placed under statutory obligations, but they are not prepared to accept a similar responsibility themselves. There is therefore likely to be a continuing lack of clarity on what precisely can be expected from the Government and from what part of the Government there is to be that response.
  To be fair, the Government recognised that when they said in their reply to the Joint Committee:
  "The Government is currently considering the most effective way to communicate its own role and responsibilities in this area to practitioners at other tiers, Parliament and the public."
  That is not quite good enough.
  That leads me to my second complaint: even now there is far too little detail on how the arrangements will work. It appears that no decision has been taken on how the regional emergency co-ordinator will be appointed. As I said, the regional resilience structures are
  "still at an early stage of development".
  In their response to the Defence Committee's recommendation, the Government stated:
  "a key aim of the Bill is to entrench existing good practice…it will tend to establish a baseline of good practice at a minimum acceptable rather than a maximum desirable level."
  In other words, the Government do not know how the system will work, and they will not really be able to differentiate should a crisis occur. So, I am not entirely happy. There is a certain lack of clarity and ambition in parts of the Bill.
  I turn to a subject that is dear to me: the role of the private—sector the private commercial sector, the private security sector and those who hire private security. In our report on the draft Bill, the Defence Committee strongly argued that the membership of category 2 responders should be substantially increased to include a wide range of private companies that will have an important part to play in the civil contingency planning process. The Bill does not invest category 2 responders with extensive responsibility—quite the reverse. They are obliged only to provide information to, or to co-operate with, frontline local responders in connection with the latter's responsibilities to plan for emergencies. The Government argue that the category 2 network should be established on "a closely defined basis" so that the new structure will be able to function effectively "without over-reaching itself". Neither I nor the Committee is happy with that explanation.
  Mr. Heald: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the report on Project Unicorn led by Major-General

  1123
  John Holmes, who used to lead one of the major SAS units and has genuine expertise in the field, cannot simply be treated with contempt?
  Mr. George: I have not the slightest intention of commenting on a leaked document, even though that leaked document, which I have read, appears to correspond pretty closely to what I have written on a number of occasions. I shall simply use my own analysis and investigation of 27 companies and entities—large, medium and small—such as the Building Research Establishment, the police, the City of London, Canary Wharf, the gas and water industries, and so on. I will come to that point, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me to emphasise it even more strongly.
  The new terrorist threats are more likely to involve an attack on the private sector. Statistics on patterns of global terrorism from the United States State Department prove that. If one wants further information, one need only look to the range of attacks on commercial buildings and entities such as those on St. Mary Axe, the City of London, Canary Wharf and so on. The private sector is likely to suffer a catastrophic emergency. One must add that, as a result of the policies of previous Governments and, dare I say, the present Government, the critical national infrastructure is far more likely to be in the hands of the private sector. So much of what will happen will impact—enormously, potentially catastrophically—on the private sector and its employees.
  I suspect that many of the companies are prepared to co-operate on a voluntary basis—at least I hope that they are. They should be obliged by statute to co-operate. That would achieve two important things. First, it would represent an explicit recognition of the broad front on which the preparatory measures are intended to function. It would demonstrate the inclusivity of the Government's approach to civil contingencies and the modern interdependence of private and public organisations.
  Secondly, such a measure would give those with responsibility for preparedness, security and business continuity planning the authority to extract the necessary resources from their companies. If one is head of a security operation in a big corporation—a facilities manager or a security manager—one will have the authority to say that money needs to be made available. However, research in the UK and the United States shows that very little money additional to what was available before 9/11 has been made available in companies to enhance security.
  Such a provision would give heads of security in large and small private enterprises the ability to say, "We've simply got to do this," just as they must when it comes to fire regulation. There is no shilly-shallying over what to do about fire. As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, resources must be made available and security must be taken more seriously. For far too long, budgetary responsibility and expenditure have been low down the list of priorities. A legal obligation to take the subject more seriously would be welcome. I am sure that that would give budgetary requirements well deserved promotion.
  Although it is important that the new structure can operate effectively, it is just as important that it reflects the reality of the modern world. The Defence
  1124
  Committee believes that, as currently proposed, it does not do so. I hope that the Minister will look again at making category 2 responders more inclusive.
  We also made recommendations on the private security industry, which, after a long fight, is to be governed by a statutory licensing scheme. That will not kick in immediately. The first group to be included in legislation is that comprising door supervisors and—that heart of the security industry—wheel clampers. That will not have an enormous effect on the private sector response. When legislation affects other sectors of the private security industry, for that and other reasons it will raise its game considerably. Companies such as Securicor, Group 4 Securitas, Reliance and so on are very professional, and they should be and are available. Although I have not read the Unicorn report, I know that it goes into some detail on that.
  It is estimated that there are more than 20,000 private security operatives in central London at any one time. They should be made available in an emergency; the companies should be required to make them available, perhaps voluntarily, perhaps not. Group 4 could well be asked to provide a certain number of employees, who should receive additional training. Perhaps that will increase the budget, but why should a company not only risk the lives of its employees but do so at its own expense? Numbers—I did not like the use the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire made of the word "bodies", as there will be quite enough of those around—of such people will be required to aid the police, the military if they are present and other members of what David Veness described as "the extended police family". It is important that the private security industry is included; we should not rely on the industry and the sector to co-operate voluntarily.
  On a separate point, I draw attention to a specific area in which the lack of an appropriate legislative framework has the potential seriously to compromise the security of private sector buildings and their occupants. As I said, historically such buildings have been the targets of many terrorist attacks. Clearly, extensive legislation relating to private buildings is in place: one knows who is in charge and the roles of the occupiers, the owners, and the emergency services in the event of fire. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, fire is not the same as a terrorist threat.
  Alarms and their nose and other senses tell people when there is a fire and they will act responsibly, but a terrorist attack is very different. It may well be that doubts arise as to whether the pilot of an aircraft flying somewhere near central London is in control of his aircraft. Are the intelligence services or the police going to transmit that information immediately to the facilities managers or the heads of security in the buildings in the area? I suspect that they will not. The police might be nervous about giving an order for immediate evacuation, because it might be the wrong order: heading out into the open might be more dangerous than staying inside. My questions are these: are the people who should give such an order trained in the task, and will they have proper legal protection so that if they give the order to evacuate and it turns out that there is no threat, they will not be legally liable to the various private companies that were so ordered? Caution in the absence of a clear authority may lead the

  1125
  facilities manager or head of security to be reluctant to give the order to evacuate, and the consequences of that reluctance may well be catastrophic.
  Like fire legislation, legislation such as this should be devised to cover the design of buildings, how to evacuate, and who should evacuate. If I have managed to convince the Minister that there is a case, I earnestly ask that he accept my request, which has been communicated to him, to bring a small delegation of people who can argue the case again. I hope that he is prepared to do that.
  The Defence Committee devoted a great deal of time to the military, who play a vital role in defending the security of the UK. One of the MOD's responses has been to establish the civil contingency reaction forces. That fits in with the Bill's tier structure in which the armed forces will be represented at the regional level, because, with two exceptions, the CCRFs' brigade areas match those of the Government offices for the regions, which will provide the basis for the regional tier. One of the recommendations in the report on the draft Bill stated that there were strong arguments for inclusion of the armed forces in local resilience forums as well as at regional level, to facilitate regular interaction with the bodies most likely to call for assistance, such as the local or regional police force.
  In their response, the Government agreed with the sentiment, but decided not to make attendance at the local forums a statutory requirement, since
  "participation could not be guaranteed in the face of operational requirements."
  Let us pause for a moment. The footprint of the military in this country has got smaller and smaller and shallower and shallower, and I read stories in the papers—not that I believe them—that it may become even smaller: the Regular forces may have even fewer members, or they may well be somewhere abroad, dealing with terrorism far from British shores. I dislike intensely the idea that in a crisis the Government would not be able to guarantee the availability either of the Regular forces located somewhere in the country, either locally or regionally, or of the Territorial Army. That is precisely the sort of unimaginative old thinking that the Defence Committee has encouraged the Government to leave behind.
  In the light of the change in the nature of the terrorist threat to the homeland, we have argued that the military has a responsibility to provide a "predictable element" of support for the civil authorities. Time and again during our Committee hearings. we were told that that could not be guaranteed because our forces had obligations elsewhere. Those who are planning told us that, in their experience, the arrival of the armed forces could not be calculated because they might not be available for use. I find that amazing. In my view, support for homeland defence should be an operational requirement of the armed forces, not an optional extra.
  In fact, when disaster strikes, the military are always there. They find the resources and the capability to respond and their contribution is professional and effective, and often critical to the success of the overall response. Let me point out that during the recent fire services dispute, despite operational requirements in
  1126
  Iraq and elsewhere, 19,000 service personnel were committed to provide cover during possible industrial action by the Fire Brigades Union. I believe that if such a commitment can be sustained during a time of crisis—as when requirements have arisen in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, the Falkland Islands, and so on—the armed forces can be relied upon and should therefore have a formal place in the planning process.
  The Committee also wanted the MOD to take the opportunity to review the structure of the arrangements for the armed forces to provide assistance to the civil authorities, which are set out under various acronyms including MACP, military aid to civil power, MAGD, military aid to other Government departments, and MACC, military aid to the civil community. We are disappointed that that has not happened.
  The CCRFs were announced in summer 2002, but it took 18 months—until December 2003—for the Government to decide that full operating capability had been achieved. We remain concerned that some of the troops earmarked as members of the brigades may be deployed in operations overseas and will therefore not be available to be called out in a civil emergency. We are aware that that has already happened: call-outs to continuing operations in Iraq testify to that.
  I am sorry to have taken so long, but we are worried that all is not well. The approach to planning and preparation for disasters, including large-scale terrorist attack, and other serious emergencies has been too gradualist. A preference for ramping up existing structures continues to be demonstrated, with an "It'll be okay on the night" attitude prevailing. A more fundamental assessment is needed of requirements today and tomorrow in the light of the global war on terrorism and the complex interdependence of modern society.
  I welcome the Bill. There are good parts in it. Despite much criticism—I have contributed to some of it—there has been a significant improvement in the way in which we prepare and our response to a crisis. Much has been said and done about dealing, as far as is possible, with the human rights issue. Having talked today about a limited area, let me say in conclusion that I believe that the Bill is a good start, despite the long time that has elapsed since preparation started. There is still much to be done and I hope that the Government are still in listening mode. I hope that in Committee they will realise that the Bill has not yet reached the pitch of perfection that the public expect. If that pitch is not achieved and there is a crisis, the concept of ministerial responsibility will apply. I hope that the Government are prepared to listen to serious suggestions that are made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I wish the Bill speedy progress and effective scrutiny.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Richard Allan: As has already been said, the Bill is a great improvement on the draft version that was published last year. The value of pre-legislative scrutiny is demonstrated when, as in this case, the Government are prepared to change their proposals. The Government certainly deserve credit for their comprehensive and largely positive response to the recommendations of the Joint Committee, on which I was happy to serve under the enjoyable chairmanship of

  1127
  the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie).Those less generous than me might ask why some of the horrors proposed in the draft Bill were there in the first place.
  The Bill contains distinct provisions in its two parts. The first part is concerned with planning for emergencies, and the second contains extraordinary powers that may be available to Government when an emergency has happened or is about to happen. Our concerns about each part of the Bill are quite different, reflecting the distinction between its two parts. In broad terms, they can be characterised as a worry that the first part will not be used enough and a fear that the second part will be used too much.
  Before setting out the details of our concerns, it is worth referring to the structure of the Bill, as that is relevant to the way in which it is read. I apologise to the parliamentary draftsmen for saying that this is not a pretty Bill, but even they might agree that their handiwork would win no awards from the Plain English Campaign. There are a number of reasons why it is confusing. First, the importance of the parts is reversed, and we saw that reversal of order in the Minister's speech, when we ran out of time on the most significant part of the Bill. I fear that we may run into the same problem in Committee, where the second part—the constitutionally more significant part—is the one that ends up being least debated.
  The scary part of the Bill—the emergency regulation-making powers—comes second. The repeated definition of an emergency is also confusing in both the first and second parts. Separate direction and regulation-making powers are given to Ministers in each part for different purposes that may be mixed up by the reader.
  The three components of the triple lock to which the Minister referred—an essential part of the safeguards around the emergency powers—are not set out as a coherent whole; instead, the components have to be read together through different clauses. Having read the provisions a number of times, I think I have the structure right in my head, but perhaps that reflects my having gone native after seven years in this place. I do not think that the Bill is nearly as intelligible to those outside the House.
  Mr. Hogg: There have been many references to a triple lock. Surely we should keep it in mind that this is no more than a statement of what the Minister needs to be satisfied about. There is no mechanism for making sure that there are sufficient grounds for his satisfaction.
  Mr. Allan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely correct. The triple lock sounds very good—it sounds robust—but in reality it would be tested only if people went through incredibly convoluted court proceedings to challenge the fact that a Minister had made regulations using these powers. We must place enormous faith in Ministers observing the powers set out in the Bill, but it is extremely unlikely that the public would be able to challenge a decision made under the Bill.
  The Bill is obscure, and I am sure that there are good reasons why it should be. Having gone through the private Members' Bill process last year, and having dealt with parliamentary draftsmen from the other side, as it
  1128
  were, I understand some of the contortions that they are forced to go through. However, clarity is important, and many of the recommendations of the Joint Committee rightly focused on clarity so that the public can understand what we are doing in their name.
  The main worries that remain relate to the resources necessary to do the work that part 1 will mandate. Local authorities will be the lead agencies in implementing this part of the Bill. Local government finance is properly moving up the political agenda as the issue of local taxation once again becomes contentious. Like the house prices cycle, the local taxation system becomes deeply unpopular every decade or so, to the extent that a fix is proposed that works for a while before it becomes unsustainable.
  I am pleased that local government retains the lead role in emergency planning, as it is the appropriate level for such work to take place. It would, however, be foolish not to consider the impact of regular crises in local government funding as we discuss the Bill. Many Members, myself included, have served in local government. The stark reality is that this is a vulnerable area of expenditure when it comes to annual budget decisions. When local councillors are faced with budget cuts, many will consider it more acceptable to take resources from departments planning for possible problems rather than from those dealing with problems that are happening at the time.
  The Joint Committee highlighted this area of vulnerability. The Government's response referred to it but offered a remedy only in the vaguest terms. It states:
  "We are committed to maintaining the right level of spending on local civil protection and will not remove the specific grant until the new framework is in place."
  I hope that the Minister will be able to give more detail on the Government's proposals to move away from the civil defence grant as the Bill proceeds. I thought that he was delightfully vague in response to questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about the extent to which the sums that are needed have been calculated.
  The Bill affects a wide range of companies and organisations as well as having an impact on local government. There are still questions about the role of the voluntary sector, especially where, as is increasingly the case, it is the deliverer of mainstream public services. It has already been said that the British Red Cross has been active in bringing this matter to our attention.
  It is not often that people come to us asking for the imposition of a statutory duty that affects them. That perhaps reflects the maturity of the voluntary sector and its engagement in dealing with emergencies. I hope that we will be able to respond positively to the suggestion that the sector should have a statutory right to be consulted.
  There are serious implications for private sector companies. That is especially true given the Bill's broadening of the definition of emergencies to situations where telecommunications or financial networks break down or are threatened. The position of companies such as BT is complex. They are essential partners in emergencies, they contribute to contingency planning, and they are commercial entities with their own statutory and financial responsibilities. It is extremely difficult to decide how they can satisfy all the

  1129
  requirements that are placed on them by legislation. The potential for conflicting legislation is real, particularly in areas such as health and safety. We should be conscious of the fact that when we are asking businesses to engage in information sharing—for instance, telecommunication providers—on infrastructure, we are asking businesses that are frequently competitors with one another to go head to head to give information that is extremely sensitive.
  For us, the more significant part of the Bill is part 2, beginning at clause 18, which creates a framework for Government to use emergency powers. We hope that part 2 will never need to be used. The Minister was right to talk about the Emergency Powers Act 1920 not having been used for 30 years. We would deem that a success. I hope that we will be able to have some confirmation that the trend since the 1970s to build emergency planning in sector-specific legislation is one that the Government intend to maintain. I suggest that it is far better that emergency planning is done through the normal primary legislation process than that we ever have to bring into play emergency powers outwith the normal system.
  A difficulty is created for anyone who believes in democracy as the Bill deals with powers adopted by Government outside the normal democratic framework. The questions that must be answered before accepting such legislation are as follows: first, can we imagine a situation ever occurring in which the Government would have to act outwith the normal democratic regime? The answer to that is a cautious yes. It is cautious because we must be clear that these are situations where the Government genuinely cannot follow normal procedure, and not those where it is just difficult for them to do so. If we accept that, however improbable, such a situation may occur, we must ask whether it is better that any action that has to be taken is within a statutory framework such as that proposed in part 2, or taken without any clear statutory basis, or founded in historic legislation or Royal Prerogative. The answer must be that it is better to have a statutory framework, if it is clear and robust, rather than leave things undefined. Much of the Joint Committee's work was an attempt to give clarity and robustness to that framework, which was extremely weak and therefore dangerous in the draft Bill. The Government's acceptance of most of the Joint Committee's recommendations has therefore gone some way towards satisfying our concerns. In particular, the relationship between the Bill and the Human Rights Act 1998 was of concern, not just to the Joint Committee considering the Bill but to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and a number of other Joint Committees. In a wonderfully understated part of their response, the Government concede the point on treating secondary legislation as an Act of Parliament:
  "The Government very much appreciated the care and attention with which the Committee has considered this difficult issue. The Government also found the comments on this point in the reports of the Joint Committee on Human Rights very useful, and has read with interest the comments of the Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, the Transport Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in their memoranda to the Committee. The Government has also had very fruitful discussions with consultees on the issue.
  1130
  In the light of this, the Government has decided not to include this provision in the Bill."
  Fortunately, on this occasion, a major constitutional issue has been settled the right way. Liberty, in its evidence to the Joint Committee, helpfully clarified the significance of that point. Parliament has accepted that it may pass legislation that is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. It has retained the right to do so and have that legislation upheld by the courts, but it intends that it should be the only body with the powers to do so. It did not intend the Executive to have that right, and therefore explicitly framed the Human Rights Act in terms whereby Parliament's legislation—primary legislation—cannot be struck down by the courts, but that any regulations made by the Executive under secondary legislative powers can be struck down. A crucial test for the Bill is whether or not that distinction still applies.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman may be falling into a trap if he thinks that the Human Rights Act cannot be amended or repealed by subsequent legislation. In a leading case in 2000, Lord Hoffman made it crystal clear that it can. Moreover, there are serious worries about whether or not there can be proper challenges and judicial reviews of part of the Bill.
  Mr. Allan: I accept that the Human Rights Act can be amended, but I am seeking to make the distinction between parliamentary legislation, where Parliament remains sovereign, and measures introduced by the Executive. Parliament can pass whatever legislation it likes, and in theory can pass legislation that is incompatible with human rights measures. However, the Executive have no power under secondary legislation to do that without it being struck down. I look forward to the contribution of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on a key test on which we need to seek answers both today and in Committee. We need to know whether or not powers in the Bill, as opposed to those in the draft Bill, still allow the Government, under their order-making powers in secondary legislation, to introduce things that have the effect of being primary legislation and that cannot be struck down under human rights legislation. That key test must be applied. In their response, the Government say that they have conceded the point, but clearly we must continue to test that in Committee.
  The Bill in its current form maintains the fundamental constitutional distinction between Parliament's sovereign powers and those that it delegates to the Executive. It may not quite have the historic appeal of the signing of Magna Carta, but it deals with the constitutional event that would have arisen had the Government sought to breach the distinction that was deliberately made by Parliament.
  The most significant open question remains when these powers might be used, and we hope to explore that as the Bill proceeds through Parliament. It is the area of greatest danger in the legislation. There is a risk that, having produced new legislation, the Government may be tempted to use it. The success of many pieces of legislation is measured by how often they are put into effect by the Government, but the test of part 2 is how little it will be used. The Bill is designed not to be used on a daily basis but to sit on a shelf—gathering dust, it

  1131
  is hoped—unless and until the most extreme circumstances arise. That is the final area that I want to explore.
  There is some confusion because the range of emergencies that have to be planned for in part 1 and those that may trigger emergency powers in part 2 are described in similar terms. However, the circumstances under which emergency powers may be taken by the Government in part 2 are quite different from and much more limited than those in part 1, for which local authorities will plan. The Government's regulatory impact assessment sets out the situations that require the planning function of part 1. It cites "wide area disruptive challenges" and says:
  "Flooding, foot and mouth disease and the fuel crisis are key examples of this".
  They are also, I hope the Minister will confirm, key examples of situations where part 2 emergency powers would not be used, as they could all be dealt with under existing legislation. If any need for new legislation or regulations could be demonstrated, there should be no disruption to Parliament that could prevent it from being proposed in the normal way. Similarly, terrorist attacks such as 11 September should not require any use of those emergency powers, however shocking those attacks might be. The correct response to 11 September was to propose the introduction of legislation to Parliament, as indeed happened with the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. While we may have disagreed about its terms, the Government were able to secure their business in the normal democratic fashion. While a heightened state of alert in respect of terrorist attacks is a fact of life at present, there are no valid reasons for emergency powers to be used.
  The Government might be tempted to be seen to respond robustly in certain circumstances, such as a serious attack on a UK target, and that may lead them to consider using the emergency powers. I hope that the Minister will confirm that any such temptation would be resisted most firmly. We need to bear it in mind that throughout most of the last 30 years we have experienced terrorist attacks of the most severe nature in the UK, from the IRA and others, without Governments resorting to the use of existing emergency powers.
  Patrick Mercer: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. He is right that there have been terrorist attacks for the past 30 years and longer on this country, but there have also been conventional attacks from our conventional enemies. However, there have never been more than a few dozen casualties. The Bill deals with multiple casualties—hundreds or even thousands of casualties—so it is another necessary measure.
  Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman is correct that the scale of previous attacks is different. However, the principle of part 2 is that, wherever existing legislation deals with the relevant circumstances, it should be used. However, where it does not, the first port of call is the introduction of primary legislation in the House. Only when those options have failed should the Government seek powers under part 2 to introduce emergency regulations. There may be a perception that terrorist attacks, whatever their seriousness and grossness, could
  1132
  trigger the use of emergency powers. I do not believe that they would, and I am seeking confirmation from the Government that that is not their intention. The exception is attacks at the far end of the scale such as chemical, biological and nuclear attacks. I accept that in such an event the centre of London would be unable to function and Parliament could not sit.
  There are many reasons why such powers should be in place, but it is worth making the point that there is a high threshold, including circumstances that have arisen over the past 30 years, including an attack on the Cabinet by terrorists in the Brighton bombing and attacks on London's financial centres. Those situations did not require the use of emergency powers, and the correct response was made to introduce anti-terrorism legislation in the normal way. I hope that that will continue to be the case. If the Bill is put on the statute book, it should be the last, rather than the first, recourse. However, I am concerned about the way in which it has been portrayed, with its powers being taken off the shelf when there is a terrorist attack. That need not necessarily be the case.
  Simon Hughes: Following my hon. Friend's last point, is not the lesson of the past few years that, while we may under-react there is a danger that we may overreact in the heat of the moment? The Privy Councillors who reported on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act were unanimous that the decision to derogate from human rights provisions—we were the only European country to do so—was inappropriate, unnecessary and went a step too far.
  Mr. Allan: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In a media-driven world, the hue and cry is for action to be taken, but such action may not be appropriate or necessary because statutory powers are already in existence.
  In closing, I shall describe certain scenarios in which we should be clear that we do not want any emergency powers to be taken. I call those the poll tax riot scenario, the Reichstag fire scenario and the killer bees scenario, to try to describe situations in which the legislation should not apply. The poll tax riots are an example of a situation in which there is serious disorder as a result of the Government pursuing a deeply unpopular policy. There is law available to deal with any criminal action that arises from politically motivated protests, such as the law on criminal damage and assault. Political protest, however destabilising, should never be grounds for Government to invoke emergency powers. It is therefore helpful that the provisions in the draft Bill for political instability to be included in the definition of an emergency have been removed.
  The Reichstag fire scenario is perhaps the hardest to deal with and the most fanciful in the current stable political climate, but it should never be discounted. It assumes that an anti-democratic party is on the rise in the UK. The party might be extreme right, extreme left, or even extreme centre, if there is such a thing. Such a political grouping might seek to cause an emergency precisely so that it could govern using emergency powers, rather than normal democratic procedures.
  Nobody is suggesting that that is at all likely in the present climate, but the rise of the far right in some surprising places over recent years means that we cannot

  1133
  entirely discount it as an issue for consideration. Although such parties could anyway achieve anti-democratic goals if they had a parliamentary majority, we should not make other routes available to them in the form of legislation that allows Government to exercise extraordinary powers without those being ring-fenced with extraordinary safeguards.
  The killer bees scenario is the one that I fear is most likely to occur. This is the situation in which there is hype in the media about a perceived new threat and a loud demand for Government action. We all know the scene from disaster movies: "Mr. President, there is a swarm of killer bees. You must do something now." If killer bees are a little far-fetched, think back a few years. Would we have imagined anthrax in the postal system or terrorists planning to dump poison in the water supply? Both are recent scenarios that were put forward in the US media and received a huge amount of coverage in this country.
  The urge for a Minister to "do something" when confronted by such a call and to reach for the emergency powers may be great, but it would be an abuse of them if it happened when not strictly necessary. We have an Executive in Parliament, not a separately elected Executive, and delegate executive powers only in extreme circumstances, not to satisfy the political needs of Ministers facing a crisis.
  We will seek to test the safeguards on part 2 during the progress of the Bill to satisfy ourselves whether a democratic party should support the Bill. We will also test the Government's commitment to resource the responsibilities created in part 1. We intend to do that in a constructive spirit and hope that the Government will respond in a similar fashion, as they have done to date.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: There is much in the legislative progress of the Bill for which the Government deserve and should receive congratulations. I appreciate that my saying that may cause a frisson of apprehension in the Home Secretary's breast that he has gone too far on this occasion in order to appease the dark forces of liberalism with which he struggles every day.
  The plaudits that the Government deserve in respect of the Bill apply entirely to the way in which they have taken it through the pre-legislative process, which is a model of its kind. The Bill is infinitely better as a result. There are, however, aspects of the Bill that are anathema to civil liberty. If they remain unscathed as a result of the Committee process, the Bill should ultimately be opposed.
  As this is a Second Reading debate, I shall reflect on the context in which the Bill is brought before Parliament, and the context in which Government ask for the greatest powers that any Government have asked the House to arrogate to them in modern history. The context of the Bill is terrorism. The Bill is not put before us for us to pass as a result of BSE, flooding or any other form of natural or environmental disaster. The basis of the Bill—the only basis on which Government could ask the House to pass it—is terrorism.
  Let us consider terrorism and the appropriate ways in which we should and can deal with it. Terrorism has two weapons. The first is the wanton, atrocious infliction of
  1134
  violence, cruelty and injury indiscriminately upon the innocent—terrible crimes committed in its name. The second great weapon of terrorism is fear of such acts. The fear is often wholly disproportionate to the extent of the threat actually posed. It is that fear that is the greatest threat to liberal democracies—not the action itself, but the fear of that action.
  There is no greater desire on the part of the terrorist than to instil that fear in liberal societies in order to make them react by passing legislation that attacks the very values and principles that are the basis of those democratic societies—in other words, by instilling fear, to make us do the job that the terrorists require us to do.
  Guantanamo bay is an institution in which al-Qaeda must glory and rejoice every single day, for the effortless recruitment—and in many ways, the legitimate recruitment—that it brings about to the ranks of those who protest. In our own prisons, as a pale shadow, which unhappily is very often what we become, we have tens of people who have been in prison without trial and without representation for two years now. That state of affairs represents a triumph not for the Home Secretary, but for terrorism, because the terrorists have dictated to us measures that are abhorrent to the basis on which this country proceeds.
  It is therefore in that manner that we must approach the Bill. If we pass into law things which, in due course, can cause us to lose those liberties, we are in effect producing precisely the result that terrorism demands. Also, terrorists rely on our own politicians and a de facto complicity. There is no shortage of politicians in democratic countries who are able to exploit that fear in order to enhance their own populist support and their own control. The House must beware of that, above all.
  It is not new that politicians should use fear of outside forces to pass draconian legislation or to enjoy abuse of power. In "Animal Farm" the pigs maintained order not by brute force, but by the persistent fear of the return of the farmer. In "1984" Big Brother maintained his power not by brute force, but because of the unspecified fear of other, countervailing forces in the world—unspecified and probably non-existent.
  While we are on the subject of great literature, I recommend to the Home Secretary Kafka's short stories, in particular one called "The Burrow", in which a small and terrified animal—terrified of something for which there is never any explanation—continues to burrow further and further into the ground. The more he burrows, the more terrified he becomes, because he tells himself, "I have burrowed so deep that the threat must be very great to have got me into this position in the first place." It is precisely that against which we must guard. There are many other parts of Kafka to which I could direct the Home Secretary, but I suspect that he has them well in mind. While we are on the subject of literature, I commend to the House the article by Mary Riddell on precisely this issue in The Guardian, that great bible of darkness, two weeks ago.
  That is the generality in which we must approach the Bill, and it is one in which we must take great care. The powers that the Bill asks us to give to arbitrary and executive government are massive. They are greater than have ever been required in modern history. They may destroy or requisition property by Executive decree; they may ban travel by Executive decree; they

  1135
  may ban any assembly, however peaceful, by Executive decree; they may mobilise the armed forces by Executive decree; they may set up courts or tribunals hitherto unknown to our judicial system in order to enforce the regulations; and they may by regulation strike down any Act of Parliament. It is completely incomprehensible that that bald pronouncement would not enable Government to strike down the Human Rights Act 1998 itself.
  I feel bound to say that the Minister's assertion that we have arrived at this constitutional position, which he can defend because of a conversation with parliamentary counsel, without the slightest reference to the reasons that parliamentary counsel gave for what would otherwise appear to be an incomprehensible view, is not something of which he should be proud in recommending the Bill on Second Reading to the House.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the basic human rights is life, and that if we as elected politicians were not to take actions to protect the electorate from the clear threat that faces this country at the moment we would be remiss and would be letting down the citizens who elected us to this place?
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Of course that is right, and I am grateful because I may now use that helpful intervention as a crutch in order to move forward to the next part of what I hope will be a short summing-up.
  The real problem, and it has been identified, is not necessarily the extent of the powers that are being demanded, but the basis upon which those powers can be exercised. That is the point. The gateway through which the Executive must pass in order to give vent to those powers must be narrow indeed and tightly drawn, and it is not. These powers are far too wide. They are subjective, by definition. It is for the Minister to decide what is serious and what is not at any given time, not for anybody else. As I have said, the Bill may very well have struck down the power of the courts to intervene. The extent of its powers is extraordinary. They are not simply, as the old statutes that it rephrases say, a response to events that will deprive us of "the essentials of life". That was understandable. For instance, it would be sufficient to perceive a serious danger to human welfare caused by the disruption of transport facilities. I do not want to be facetious in this debate, but given that subjective test, many of my constituents would consider that we have a state of emergency on every single working day in Chatham, Rochester and Strood railway stations, and sometimes at the weekends too, but that is how widely this is drawn.
  Mr. Cash: Following that line of argument, would the hon. and learned Gentleman also agree that part 2 of the Bill effectively says that the Minister—it could be the Prime Minister—may say, "If I think that there is a grave and serious threat, it is a grave and serious threat"?
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Yes, precisely. There is an obvious Lewis Carroll aspect to this—it is, because I perceive it to be. There is no test, check or limitation upon these powers. If I may take up the hon. Gentleman's use of language, in fact he has prescribed
  1136
  the power much more narrowly than it is. The threat does not have to be immediate and the threat itself does not have to be serious; it is only the effect of the threat that needs to be serious.
  What is serious in this context is the degree and the nature of the powers that the House is being asked to hand to the Executive. If we do so in the present terms, it will be a subjugation of the House to the very forces of terrorism that we are hoping to combat. In those circumstances, while even if we have the opportunity I would not vote against the Bill at this stage, I for one will most certainly combat the Bill when it returns if it remains in its present form.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: As is so often the case, it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). I share all the views that he has just expressed. We begin with the self-evident proposition that the Bill grants great powers to the Executive—the hon. and learned Gentleman has identified them and I shall repeat them briefly—and it imposes on the citizen draconian burdens and obligations. It is therefore right that the House should subject the Bill to vigorous and rigorous scrutiny.
  I begin by making two acknowledgements, if I may. The first is that I, too, am inclined to think that a Bill of this general kind is probably necessary. I also wish to acknowledge that the Government have listened to the responses to their consultation exercise and they deserve credit for that. But the fact that the Government have responded positively to many of the criticisms, and the fact that some of the lobby groups, the consultees, have expressed themselves satisfied as to the Bill broadly defined, does not relieve us of the obligation carefully to scrutinise the Bill, especially in Committee.
  The first point that I want to make—I make it as a person who served on the Front Bench for a long time—is that I distrust all Governments, and I distrust all those who wield Executive power. I would not give to the Front Bench of any party more power than is absolutely necessary because, in the end, it will be abused. That is the nature of political power.
  I reinforce that general observation by referring briefly to the war in Iraq. Britain was committed to war against Iraq on the assumption, oft stated by the Government, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that they constituted a threat to this country's security and to the world at large. I did not share that view and I voted against the war, but he did not possess such weapons and we were misled. The charitable interpretation is that we were misled because of a failure of "intelligence" on the Government side. The less charitable interpretation is that the Government had a private agenda—namely, their support of the United States—that they knew they could not sell to Parliament, or, more expressly, to their Back Benchers, so we went to war on a false prospectus.
  That is the view that I hold. It is one of the reasons why I voted against the war. But it does not really matter for these purposes which is true, because the circumstances that caused us to go to war on a false prospectus—failure of intelligence or misrepresentation of the facts—are quite capable of arising in a case such

  1137
  as this when a Government seek emergency powers. So, as I say, I view with very great caution the giving of draconian powers to any Government.
  The hon. and learned Member for Medway identified some of the powers that the Bill gives the Government, and did so very comprehensively, but I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I reiterate one or two, because they are pretty draconian. They include: a power to give any citizen an order or direction; a power, without compensation, to confiscate or to destroy property; a power to limit freedom of movement by excluding individuals from stated areas, such as their homes; a power to prohibit assemblies or activities, such as a right to protest at what the Government are doing; and, perhaps most dangerous of all, a power to modify or disapply an existing statute.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I am listening carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's tales of woe and dread. However, was he not a member of a Government who, although they did not have such powers, acted in a political way in the coalfields during the 1984 miners' strike, when whole areas were cordoned off and people were prevented from travelling? I did not hear him complain in support of the miners then.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman really must not damage the importance of the argument by making such trivial observations.
  Mr. Jones rose—
  Mr. HoggI will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
  We are talking about powers seriously to diminish the rights of the citizen and to enlarge the influence and authority of the Executive, and right hon. and hon. Members must ask themselves whether that is right. We should also bear in mind the fact that the Bill enables the Minister to extend the list of events that are classed as an emergency—that, too, is done by the regulatory procedure. These powers are very wide reaching.
  Let us ask ourselves what could be done under the power to disapply or modify an enactment, which I, like the hon. and learned Member for Medway, construe as a power to amend any statute, including the human rights legislation.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hogg: If I may just finish this point, I will of course give way to the hon. Lady.
  For example, the Bill would permit a Government to amend the Homicide Act 1957 so that soldiery who shoot individuals under Executive order would be protected from the usual civil or criminal consequences of the act. To give another example, there are, as the hon. and learned Member for Medway said, many aliens in Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh. They have been there for two years under powers given by this House—I voted against them—that were confined to aliens. But if
  1138
  that legislation were modified, under the Bill, so as to apply to UK citizens, we would find ourselves in a position whereby UK citizens could be similarly held in detention in Belmarsh. Where is the protection against that?
  Fiona Mactaggart: Perhaps I could draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to paragraph 34 of the Government's response to the Joint Committee's report on the draft Bill, which says that parliamentary counsel advised that these powers would not give the Government the power to overrule on constitutional matters. That means, for example, that the Human Rights Act 1998 could not be overruled.
  Mr. Hogg: Let me remind the Minister of paragraph 76 of the explanatory notes, which I shall read in its entirety in order to provide the full flavour of the Government's official position:
  "It has been suggested that the limits on the exercise of the power imposed by the Human Rights Act are illusory on the basis that the regulations could disapply the substantive provisions of the Human Rights Act."
  That is my point and that of the hon. and learned Member for Medway. It continues:
  "Clause 21(3)(j) enables regulations to 'disapply or modify an enactment or a provision made under or by virtue of an enactment'."
  The strongest the explanatory notes put the Government's case is as follows:
  "This argument does not appear to be persuasive. Having taken Parliamentary Counsel's advice"—
  I hope that we will see a copy of that written advice in the Library—
  "on how the normal principles of the construction of delegated powers would apply to this particular provision, it is not possible to envisage circumstances in which this power would lawfully enable regulations to make a substantive amendment to a 'constitutional enactment'."
  Well, the Bill says precisely that they can do so, because it gives the power to disapply or modify, by regulation, any enactment. Where in the Bill does it say that that provision does not touch on the human rights legislation? The fact that we are told that it is not a persuasive argument does not give much comfort to hon. Members who fear that we may be misled or tricked into doing something that we should not be doing.
  The next question is whether the definition of an emergency is properly drawn. The hon. and learned Member for Medway talked about his constituents on their trains, and I have no doubt that he is right, although I will not go as far as that. It is clear, however, that the definition goes much further than that which is allowed by the European Court of Human Rights. For example, a riot in a single city would clearly trigger the powers, as would a flood and, most certainly, the events in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years. The definition of "emergency" is far too broad: we should construct it so narrowly that it touches only on matters of extreme gravity that threaten the security of the nation.
  Mr. Allan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman share my concern that in trying to bring together the two different purposes of the Bill—

  1139
  planning for an emergency and the Government's taking of emergency powers in extremis—we have ended up confusing, rather than helping, matters? It would be much better to have a separate, narrower definition for part 2, leaving the provisions to do with flooding, animal welfare, and so on in part 1.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right—perhaps that point should be addressed more fully in Committee.
  I turn to the identity of the individuals who can make the regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), in a potent intervention, suggested that, for the purposes of the Bill, what the Prime Minister thinks is right is right. However, let us start by looking at who can make the regulations. Leaving aside senior Ministers, I see that they include the Commissioners of the Treasury—that is, a group of Whips. What possible reason should there be for a group of Whips, whose names we barely know, having the power to lay draconian regulations such as those which I have described? That is preposterous, and I can think of no sensible reason why it should be the case—other than tradition, perhaps, but I know of no sensible tradition that would maintain such nonsense.
  Mr. Llwyd: Might that have something to do with the tuition fee argument?
  Mr. Hogg: It might, and I shall have other things to say about that on another occasion.
  I want to make a constructive suggestion. Leaving aside the fact that it can be the Whips who exercise the draconian powers I have mentioned, what is clear is that the power can be vested in a single Minister, acting without proper consultation and not acting in a bipartisan manner. I suggest that when the Bill is further considered we should see whether we can construct a model that would enable a bipartisan approach to be taken with regard to the regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) pointed the way, and I shall point it a little more fully. Why not provide, in the first instance at least, for a special committee of the Privy Council, drawn from members of this House and the other place, comprising numbers that reflect the political composition of this House so that there can be no allegation of unfairness? Why not say that, whenever possible, that committee should be asked to approve the regulations before they are ever laid? There may be circumstances in which the urgency is such that that cannot happen, but there will be many cases when it would be possible to take the view of a specially constituted committee of the Privy Council, and that would be enormously valuable. Historically, that is what the Order in Council procedure was about.
  Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we have established a recent precedent for such a committee? We set up a committee of Privy Councillors to look into anti-terrorism measures, and it has done so. That committee provides a second lock and, more importantly, a second group of people with the keys to the lock, which is perhaps what interests outside the Chamber are looking for.
  Mr. Hogg: My only dissent from that is that the committee to which the hon. Gentleman refers is
  1140
  essentially a reviewing committee rather than an authorising committee, but there is a precedent, which I acknowledge and on which I would care to rely.
  Let me say something about what the Bill does not protect. As the hon. and learned Member for Medway said, the Bill does not in any way protect human rights. I have already made the point that the protection contained in the Bill, in the opinion of parliamentary counsel, is pretty sparse. There is some protection in clause 22(3), which effectively says that one shall be entitled to maintain industrial action and not be obliged to serve in the Army. That is good news as far as it goes, but I want the Bill to contain a statement about the human rights to life, freedom from duress, freedom from arbitrary imprisonment and entitlement to due process. I cannot see any good reason why that should not be the case.
  Let me say something about parliamentary scrutiny. It is true that the Bill does something to improve on ordinary scrutiny because it provides that all the regulations shall be made by the affirmative procedure. Of course, Standing Order No. 16 makes it plain that in the generality of cases that procedure will take 90 minutes. So in the ordinary case, in which law will be substantially changed, the regulations will be approved by the House in 90 minutes.
  We find in the Bill that there will be amendments in respect of some of the orders, but there is nothing to tell us who will make those amendments. I know Governments very well: I sat on the Government Front Bench for a very long time. I can say, therefore, what will happen. Governments will monopolise the power to table amendments. The rest of us will not be able to, even the Opposition Front Benchers. If we are to have such order-making powers, subject to the affirmative procedure, that procedure must be proper. We must not have timetabled debates and be subject to 90 minutes of debate. All of us must surely have the right to table amendments.
  I have another point, which goes to duration, as referred to in clause 25. The Bill provides that orders will be in force for 30 days. Surprise, surprise, however, it also provides that fresh regulations may be laid. It could be that there is a succession of regulations, one set after another, in substantially the same or the same form. We would have government by regulation, without, necessarily, any limit of time. I hope that when the Bill goes into Committee, the Committee will take on itself an obligation to subject the regulating power to a time limit so that regulations cannot extend for, perhaps, more than 90 days; and if Governments want the powers, they will have to seek primary legislation as their source.
  I sense that the House feels that there is a need for a Bill of this kind, and I agree. I am bound to say, however, that I approach it with a heavy heart, because I have a very strong feeling that we are putting in place legislation that will be relied on in justification for acts that are unjust and arbitrary. The least we can do at this stage is to try to incorporate truly effective safeguards. That is our duty, and I hope that the House will do it.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I welcome the Bill. It is important not just because of the imminent threat that we face from international terrorism but

  1141
  because we need to modernise our emergency planning powers, some of which, as has been said, date back to the 1920s, the 1940s, and even the 1980s, an era from which we remember the "Protect and Survive" leaflet. Today we face a different threat. It is a different age, and computers and international telecommunications systems are far advanced from where they were, even in the 1980s.
  The global threat from terrorism is not going to go away. It is here to stay. Unfortunately, 11 September raised the level at which terrorism will take place. The likelihood of terrorist attack will become greater rather than diminishing over the coming years. The next tactic will clearly be an attempt to be bigger and better than 11 September. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) referred to IRA terrorism, but we are dealing with terrorism of a different type and on a different scale. We are dealing with people whose political motives are not clearly defined, but who have one thing in common, which is that they wish to kill large numbers of people indiscriminately wherever in the world they act.
  Our reactions must be twofold. We must try to prevent such attacks. We must also be prepared if those attacks take place, and that is what the Bill is aimed at doing. In any democratic society, it is difficult to get the balance right between taking basic rights away from citizens, and not alarming citizens but providing a level of reassurance. With other members of the Select Committee on Defence, I have visited the United States a number of times in the last couple of years, and I must say that the USA has the balance wrong. There is a lot of publicity about appointing a homeland security chief and a lot of public awareness about the possibility of terrorist attack, but much time and effort is being spent on publicity and the lack of co-ordination rather than on tackling some fundamental issues.
  It would be unfair to say that this country has done nothing since 11 September. Clearly, the appointment of Sir David Omand, a very able civil servant, as intelligence co-ordinator is a major step forward. When he appeared before the Defence Committee we were impressed by his ability and his grasp of the subjects. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 has been referred to, and although it is controversial, the Government brought it in to guard against the threat of international terrorism.
  The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) tried to give the impression that nothing was happening elsewhere in the country. On a daily basis, many local authorities work with police authorities, fire authorities and others to establish emergency planning and practise it daily or weekly. When I was chair of public health in Newcastle, I was responsible for public protection and emergency planning. It was important to receive daily reports of local organisations' activities in that sphere. Some of their exercises were well honed and have been mentioned as examples of good practice, especially in the Joint Committee's deliberations.
  The appointment of regional resilience teams is a move in the right direction. The work by London Resilience in London as the nation's capital and some of
  1142
  the planning exercises there have been important. Against that background, the Bill is important in trying to co-ordinate efforts throughout the country.
  I congratulate the Government on providing for pre-legislative scrutiny. Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, I served on the Joint Committee, and I congratulate the Government on adopting most of our recommendations. The Committee took evidence from a wide range of organisations and had a variety of expertise—that was demonstrated in the tough report that we produced. It saddens me that the media have not yet grasped the idea of pre-legislative scrutiny, as shown in headlines that the Government have "caved in" or "withdrawn" items from the Bill. That is the exact purpose of pre-legislative scrutiny, to which I am a great convert. Many measures would be better if they went through the process.
  I want to consider local arrangements for civil protection. The response to the Joint Committee's recommendations states that the aim
  "of the Bill is to ensure a consistency of approach across the country which will enable Government to be sure that a basic level of co-operation and good practice is established everywhere".
  I am sure that no one would disagree with that, but a London-centric approach to the matter is taken. Let me pick up one of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on the regional tier. I remain unclear about its purpose and how it will relate to local practitioners—councils, fire authorities and others.
  Paragraph 7 of the response to the Defence Committee report states:
  "Government Offices are technically part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister"
  and continues by saying that they
  "do not have a direct role in front line response. Their role is to provide support to front line responders, and to support the flow of information."
  In the north-east, for example, in Tyne and Wear, we have an excellent fire and civil defence authority. However, I can envisage tensions if we do not clearly identify the role of the regional tier.
  I am not clear about the role of the regional nominated co-ordinator. We know that it will not necessarily be the same person for the same emergency. The person will vary, depending on the emergency. Those matters need clarification before the Bill is enacted; otherwise there will be local tensions. Local councillors and councils have a clear democratic mandate, but if a Government office without any local democratic accountability intercedes, tensions will arise. The role of the regional co-ordinator will therefore be important. He or she could have draconian and wide-ranging powers under the Bill. Clearly, they will conflict with democratically elected local councils, and possibly with local police commanders and others. That needs clarifying before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
  I welcome the fact that the Bill allows fire and civil defence authorities to remain in place. The co-ordination of emergency planning varies throughout the country. However. Tyne and Wear and County Durham have clearly defined and well organised fire and civil defence authorities. I urge the Government to examine them as models of best practice that should be

  1143
  encouraged elsewhere. The original measure abolished them and I welcome the fact that the Government now recognise their importance.
  I am worried about the responsibility for emergency planning that the Bill gives district councils. County Durham is currently a two-tier authority and has seven district councils. Some of those district councils' capacity for dealing with the Bill's provisions is worrying. Although I accept that they can devolve responsibility to county councils, the Government need to ensure that if possible, we get the best local co-ordination, and that that should be done at county or even sub-county level. I do not believe that some district councils have the capacity to deliver what the measure requires.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam spoke about funding local authorities' emergency planning. Such money should be ring-fenced, and I agree with him that when there are pressures on local authority budgets, with the best will in the world, no council will give emergency planning priority over, for example, a decision about closing an old people's home. That does not accord with my local government experience. I urge the Government to ensure that the money is ring-fenced and spent on emergency planning. If not, the Bill's aim for a consistent approach throughout the country will not be achieved, because councils will be tempted to use the money for other matters.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South spoke about the role of the military regionally and locally. The Defence Committee's report also mentioned that. I agree that military personnel who are responsible for supporting local civilian organisations should be a key component of the regional resilience teams. According to my experience, if one wants to ensure the best response in an emergency, people should know one another and have worked and practised together. Local authorities and police and fire authorities need to know who to contact. They also need to know the operating procedures—and, more importantly, the individuals, because personalities are important. From my experience of emergency planning in Tyne and Wear, I know that many meetings take place at which people plan and conduct exercises. That is also vital. Although I accept the constraints on military personnel, I stress that they should be part of the regional resilience teams so that they are perceived not as outsiders but as an integral part of the response to emergency planning.
  I accept the criticisms of the Bill's long gestation period, but I welcome it because broadly, it has the interests of our citizens are heart. It would be remiss of us not to ensure that if local emergencies occur, whether they are natural emergencies, such as flooding, or terrorist acts, we have the most robust and effective emergency planning legislation in place.
  I have listened carefully to the legal debate about rights. I respect the views of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) but I cannot accept the same from Conservative Members. In County Durham and other mining areas, the Conservative Government did not need an emergency planning Bill to deprive many constituents of their rights. Roads were closed and people were imprisoned and prevented from pursuing their livelihoods. I am sorry to say this, but some of what we have heard
  1144
  tonight has been crocodile tears. In practice, the Conservatives did not need such a Bill, because they simply carried out its provisions anyway—and they did that not for reasons of emergency planning or civil disorder, but for directly political reasons, to break the mining communities.
  I hope that the Bill becomes law, and I congratulate the Government on listening to the responses given and responding correctly to the points made by the Joint Committee.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I follow in the train of thought of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and of the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). They spoke about the values, freedoms and liberties that are still the hallmark of our democracy, central to which is our concept of freedom. They spoke for the generation that I come from, and for the past. My concern is that the Government have set in train in the Bill a constitutional process that is a response to the darker forces. It is as if we try to argue our case by almost romantic reference to "1984" and "Animal Farm", because we see there the dangers of what the state can be. It looks as if the Government, sitting there one Christmas evening, saw the Hollywood blockbuster "Independence Day", and felt that this country was being assailed by threats that they could not quite specify, but that they knew needed a massive response.
  Clause 21(3) states:
  "Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative".
  That is very serious. I cannot think of any statement quite like that in my lifetime, except in the context of war, direct and explicit, and in legislation for the defence of the realm. What do the provisions confer? As my right hon. and learned Friend and the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, they confer a power to enable.
  The point must be made again. Clause 21(3) says that regulations may

  "(b) provide for or enable the requisition of confiscation of property (with or without compensation);

  (c) provide for or enable the destruction of property, animal life or plant life (with or without compensation);

  (d) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, movement to or from a specified place;

  (e) require, or enable the requirement of, movement to or from a specified place;

  (f) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, assemblies of specified kinds, at specified places or at specified times;

  (g) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, travel at specified times;

  (h) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, other specified activities".

  Paragraph (i) contains a list of offences that are created.
  Subsection (3) then says that the regulations may
  "(k) require a person or body to act in performance of a function (whether the function is conferred by the regulations or otherwise and whether or not the regulations also make provision for remuneration or compensation)",
  but it does not end there. It says that the regulations may

  1145
  "(m) make provisions (which may include conferring powers in relation to property) for facilitating any deployment of Her Majesty's armed forces"
  and
  (n) confer jurisdiction on a court or tribunal (which may include a tribunal established by the regulations)".
  There is no question at all but that those measures engage human rights provisions.
  The argument is extraordinary that somehow, clause 21(3) does not mean what it says, and the introduction of the concept of parliamentary counsel's opinion is a departure from established points. Reference has also been made to the identification of constitutional legislation, which means that somehow the Human Rights Act 1998, as a constitutional measure, is protected. However, I suggest that the clause whereby the state seeks to take unto itself powers by regulation is itself a constitutional measure.
  Let us consider that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the hon. and learned Member for Medway are lawyers, and profoundly good ones, but I, as a layman, shall try to put my view of this forest. The opening words of clause 21(3) appear to allow regulations to amend primary legislation, including Acts of Parliament. Section 21(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 defines primary legislation, for the purposes of the Act, as including
  "an order or other instrument made under primary legislation…to the extent to which it…amends any primary legislation".
  Section 3(2)(b) provides that an incompatibility with a convention right
  "does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation"
  as defined in section 21. If a piece of primary legislation in that extended sense is incompatible with a convention right, the only legal remedy is a declaration of incompatibility, under section 4(6)(a) of the Act, which
  "does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given".
  It therefore seems that a regulation that amends primary legislation is itself primary legislation to that extent. Such a regulation cannot be quashed or set aside in legal proceedings on the ground that it violates a convention right.
  That is my legal advice. I cannot trade with parliamentary counsel, but there is no guarantee that the provision in clause 21 of the Bill—
  "Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative"—
  is locked in some way if such a regulation is in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1998.
  Mr. Hogg: To reinforce my hon. Friend's point, clause 22(3), which provides that the emergency regulations may not provide for call-up or prohibit industrial action, shows that there is a real anxiety that the regulating power may be an infringement of human rights as defined in domestic legislation.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful for the additional weight that my right hon. and learned Friend gives to the
  1146
  argument that some of us are advancing. We are trying to demonstrate that the powers in the Bill are not inconsiderable, that they are unusual in our constitutional context and that they go far beyond anything that any previous generation has sought. This is essentially enabling legislation—that is all. We have no idea what regulations will follow from it, although we have the illustrative ones here, and all the locks do not convince me that we are safeguarding essential liberty. The hon. and learned Member for Medway reminded us what that liberty is, saying that it is our fear that enables a Government to come to the House and make provision in these terms.
  All my life I have lived, as have most people in this Chamber, under the threat of nuclear warfare. That is a genuine threat, not a mirage in the desert, and all my life it has dominated the political and geopolitical balance of the world. At any time people could have assembled nuclear devices, under the aegis of diplomatic bags or otherwise. I have always assumed that the vigilance of our security services, the law enforcement agencies of our country and the intent of the Government have protected us in that balance of power. However, we are now told that the danger, and the order of the danger, is so great that it cannot be specified or anticipated, and that the Government must therefore take unto themselves powers whereby Whips, no less, can make regulations. It can be no comfort to this country to think that Whips can make regulations that have the force of law, and which could place us in criminal jeopardy. That is the suggestion. It would be risible if it did not come from this Government, whose paranoia has gone so far that they now say that under the Bill, Whips, no less, shall make regulations. That should be laughed out of the House.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, we must also turn to the parliamentary processes and parliamentary scrutiny. We do have clause 26(1), which says that the affirmative procedure shall be used to make regulations. Hooray. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, we have good reason to remember just what the affirmative resolution procedure entitles us to—90 minutes of debate on what is listed in the Bill.
  We know that for the Foreign Secretary, 90 minutes is but a second gone as he explains his measures, and the Home Secretary is not very terse either. By the time my Front Benchers get to grips with these matters, what will we have left? Members of Parliament, sent here to represent the freedoms of this country, will not even get a look in. We are also told at subsection (3) that
  "the regulations shall have effect as amended".
  That means that there is an understanding that there is a possibility of amendment—but of course, that is not in our Standing Orders; amendment would have to be consequential on the Bill.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked, who is to do the amending? If I were a pretty nifty Government, I would get my amendment in first and Mr. Speaker would select it. In any event, how can amended regulations be subject to proper debate on the nature of the amendment if we have only 90 minutes?
  It may be that the Whips are as apprised as me as to the vulnerability of our free society to the regulations that they are toiling over, probably even as I am making

  1147
  this speech. It may be that those Whips are not very literate. We have heard about prison populations with a high level of illiteracy; some of us feel sometimes that we too are confined. So, as they toil over the regulations that they are to introduce in the name of some security device, I ask when we will get the opportunity to consider them properly.
  I may have made too much, too lightly, of the role that the Whips play here, but it beggars belief that a Government could say in the Bill that the people to make regulations shall be Whips. That is the apotheosis of a Whips Office dream, and a nightmare for the rest of us.
  Mr. Hogg: Of course, there is another point: Whips never speak in the House, so they will never be accountable for what they have done.
  Mr. Shepherd: But they will clearly need stooges, and we have them listed in the explanatory notes. The stooges, it appears, can be the First Lord of the Treasury and any of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, so the Whips can remain mute as they work on the regulations that will give this country security.
  I have made the profound point that I want to make. Of course, we had all assumed that there was proper provision to be made for the organisations of this country. My own local authority is desperately short of money. Where will the funding come from? That point has been made. I have given no time to that side of the Bill, but I do not doubt that proper provision should be made for emergency planning. As for part 2, if the House were to divide on it I would gladly and willingly vote for it—and twice if I were Irish.
  7.44 pm
  Simon Hughes: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and many colleagues around the Chamber, I welcome the fact that a Bill such as this has been brought before us. Indeed, my hon. Friend and I, and our colleagues, had been pushing for such legislation and complaining that it was taking so long in arriving. We were glad when the Government eventually announced that they would introduce a measure; we were glad that that measure was subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny; and we are glad that that process did its work well and that the Bill has been improved as a result.
  Like colleagues on both sides of the House, however, I am clear about the fact that we have a long way to go yet. I do not intend to spend long reinforcing the points, which were extremely well made, about the need to ensure that when we have Bills that provide for extreme reactions, they are hedged about with the most careful protection. This place is one of the best protections that this country can be offered, and we ought to ensure that we offer such protection.
  I shall dwell therefore on more mundane and practical matters—not least, colleagues will be unsurprised to know, those involving our capital city, where the issue is live and in respect of which I have a particular responsibility. May I identify, then, the three headings which have emerged from the debate and which I want to reinforce? First, we have provided for duties of local
  1148
  authorities, but not for those at a regional level. We ought to do so: whether or not those regions have elected representatives, as London does and as some northern regions may soon do, we need to have their powers set out because regional planning is clearly a necessary part of civil defence and emergency planning. We ought to ensure that the Government's obligations are set out in legislation too.
  Secondly, we must spend as much time as we need in Committee on the definition and extent of the emergency and the emergency powers. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made the point well that a triple lock that is subject to a single person's subjective view is a triple lock in name only. If we are to have real locks and real safeguards, we need different people to have the keys to those different locks. Parliament is meant to be a key that locks and unlocks powers and unleashes them in relation to the general public.
  The third issue is funding. I shall return to that later, if I may.
  What is the test of what we should do as a country and as a capital city in terms of emergency planning and civil defence? Of course, the public service and the voluntary services should be properly prepared, but also the public need to be informed so that they can be alert but not alarmed. Those of us who live and work in or represent the United Kingdom's capital city are conscious that ours is not by any means the only prospective target or area where these matters are relevant, but this is, by definition, the most important place, as well as the most vulnerable.
  London is the city with the monarch, the Government, Parliament and the civil service. It has the greatest concentration of business and financial interests. Those are self-evident, but the city is also the tourism centre of the UK. In many ways, London is the gateway to Europe. Since last Thursday, it is also a bid city for the Olympic games. Security is highly relevant to ensuring that the Olympic games bid succeeds, as we remember from the Munich games and unhappy events in the past.
  As colleagues have reminded us, London also has to ensure that it continues to be the city where people of all races, all faiths, all cultures and all political traditions can come and speak their mind, knowing that this is a city of freedom. We need to get that balance right as we legislate on these difficult matters. We need to show that London is as safe as is practically possible and to see the benefit of that preparedness, but we must not go over the top.
  I worry that when perfectly proper concerns—for example, that we might be subject to the new modern tradition of terrible activity through suicide bombers—are expressed, we should not hear too much that suggests that such things are inevitable for our city. I have worked with others to ensure that the emergency services and all the others involved can prepare us appropriately against such fatalistic and foolish people. However, we must always reaffirm and seek to show through the military, the emergency services, the intelligence services and the others that although there is always a risk, people would not expect such a thing to happen either in this city or anywhere else in the UK.

  1149
  I pay tribute to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for identifying the need for the inter-agency London Resilience team to look after the capital city. However, as a consequence, the public need various things. They need to know that regularly updated information about the preparations is available. We do not yet have the communication right—I shall return to that point. The public need to see exercises being carried out regularly, not as an emergency, to ensure that our airports, railways, underground, roads and city are properly prepared. I am glad that such an exercise took place in the City a few months ago, although I do not think the public have yet been accurately informed of the lessons that were learned. Lessons were learned, however, and that is good.
  Patrick Mercer: Is the hon. Gentleman content that, two and a half years after 11 September and about 10 years after the events on the underground in Japan, we have held only one practical exercise?
  Simon Hughes: No, I certainly am not. If I did not make that explicit, I apologise. I am arguing that regular exercises should be held in all the places I mentioned—our airports, our main-line railway termini, on the underground and at our seaports—and that the public should know about them in advance and see them happening. Fire alarms are held in every school and public building in the land; we all receive regular preparation for very local emergencies, and that needs to happen nationally, too. The British public do not over-react—they do not become overly alarmed or irrational—but they need to know what is being done for them and it needs to be done with them. I accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, which is something for which I have been arguing for many months outside this place.
  We also need to ensure that the media are regularly well briefed about the latest developments and the current state of readiness and that their questions are answered.
  What do all those points imply? I hope that by the end of our consideration of the measure, the regional tier will be a prerequisite. Just as there are other special arrangements for the capital city—for obvious reasons—provision for London needs to be slightly different. We are the only region of England with a regional assembly and a directly elected mayor and that changes the nature of the processes of consultation, decision making and accountability. The London Resilience team, the London Resilience partnership and the "London Prepared" website need to be reviewed regularly both by regional government and by all the London local authorities.
  I cannot stress too highly the need for appropriate funding; both the Joint Committee and the Defence Committee made that clear. Many of us have received a briefing from the Local Government Association, which states:
  "We are aware of the Government's presentation of the current funding levels—ring-fenced through the Civil Defence Grant and totalling just over £19 million per annum—and would challenge the assertion that funding has grown considerably. It is estimated that in real terms, i.e. if the Grant had not been reduced in the
  1150
  1990s and allowing for inflation increases since, the total expenditure on the Emergency Planning service would have reached £36 million which, coincidentally, is the actual cost of the current service…Unlike the emergency services—police, fire, etc.—local authorities have received no extra funding to undertake additional anti-terrorism work expected of them by Government as a result of 9/11."
  Colleagues have made the same point about local authorities elsewhere. Transport for London, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and the Met police are all part of the Greater London authority family; the London ambulance service has a key front-line job, and in addition there are 33 local authorities, including the City. All of them make the same point—it is not a party political matter: they are willing to take on the responsibility but the Government must give them the resources to do the job. For example, according to the LGA's figures, fire authorities in England and Wales need £250 million to do the basic job of preparation for chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack, but that is five times the amount that they have actually been given. That is only the fire service. If the Government are serious about Britain being prepared, they have to be serious about providing the resources. It is no good their criticising local authorities for putting up council tax if the Government do not give them the money to do a job that the Government require them to do.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many local authorities are spending over and above what they actually receive from the Government in the civil defence grant? In many areas, local council tax payers are paying for civil defence.
  Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman, who represents an important north-eastern constituency, makes the same point as me, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and as colleagues in other parts of the country: local authorities are spending money for which there is no reimbursement. They might be willing to consider other ways of raising the money, but we are giving them a job—this list of new responsibilities. They should carry out those responsibilities, but they need the resources to do so.
  People in our capital city and throughout the country also want answers to many questions. Last year, a major power cut disrupted transport, although it could have been the gas or the water supply. Can the Government assure us that alternative sources of supply have been set up and that the system can cope with such an emergency, whether civilian or due to military intervention or attack? People need reassurance. Such an emergency could disrupt the whole city; it could bring down the stock exchange and completely change our ability to do international business. If there is now a back-up system, the public need to be told.
  Last year, people were asking whether we had enough GPs and other national health service staff to deal with a chemical attack. Whether or not we have enough staff, the public should be told. Whatever the information, people can cope with it, but they must be given it—they need that reassurance. Are there plans for rapid evacuation of hospitals, if that is needed? We should have such plans, but whether we do or not, the public should be told.

  1151
  Are there plans to evacuate parts of the city by road or by public transport, if that is required? People should be told whether that is the case. Is there adequate co-ordination of information from the police and other bodies, so that it is managed efficiently and accurately before it is shared with the public?
  The following example shows that we do not yet have adequate information or scrutiny. After putting some parliamentary questions, I discovered that special emergency powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 had been applied across the whole of London every month since the Act came into force—the whole of London, every month. I do not know as a fact whether that was justified, but I am surprised that the whole of London needed all those powers every month. No one had been told about that; the powers have not been renewed with the public's assent.
  If a regional emergency is declared, whether in London or elsewhere, we need, first, to do more than simply put the whole region under emergency powers. If necessary to protect the public, it should be possible to apply the powers to a smaller area. The powers could apply to sub-regional groups of local authorities or to a single local authority rather than a whole region.
  Secondly, where possible and appropriate, can elected representatives of the emergency planning authorities be consulted about those things? Local authorities, groupings of local authorities and in London, the Greater London authority, the assembly and the Mayor should be consulted. The representative bodies of the people in the region and, ideally, those of business and the voluntary sector should be part of the process of deciding what is appropriate to deal with any threatened or anticipated attack.
  My last point is that the concern that the public relay to me most regularly is that they still do not get accurate information in easy and manageable ways on a regular, non-frightening basis. The reason why that needs to be done is to give not just information, but confidence to the individual and to businesses. Those in business and individuals tell me that they want that to be a two-way process; they want to be able to share ideas with the security services and to receive ideas. Those ideas may or may not be taken up, but a regular dialogue is needed. Around us, in the most important commercial community in the United Kingdom, people do not yet feel that that is in place.
  Such arrangements should allow people to be told and to tell, to make inquiries and have questions answered and, above all, to feel that they are part of the process of deciding what appropriate further security is needed, and in this modern age, that involves all sort of methods. In a few weeks' time, an envelope containing our council tax bills will come through our letter boxes. Can we not have an update on the current plans for our local authority area with that piece of paper—at no additional cost—to tell people what the score is? Cannot television and radio be used regularly, not just in case of alarm or an emergency, to tell people where to look and what the latest state of preparedness is? Phones, mobile phones, e-mail and websites can all be used, and in places such as London, where millions of people go by public transport every day, the public transport information can be used too.
  1152
  If we are to be prepared without being alarmed, information is the key for most people in the country. I hope that we may improve the Bill significantly as it passes into legislation—we need to do so—but legislation is only part of the process, as colleagues have said. The rest of the process involves finding the resources for people to do the job and ensuring that the public and the commercial world know what job is being done, so that together, without alarm, we can deal with civil, military and other threats and we can do so in the good British way of being prepared, not overreacting and being a model for the rest of the world.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Ellyn Llwyd: The Bill brings into sharp focus the classic dilemma for hon. Members: the need to achieve an equitable balance between the rights of the individual and the security of the state. Many commentators believe that the balance has not yet been achieved with the Bill, and I sympathise with them. Others say that the Bill is unnecessary and that it is an overreaction to the perceived, current terrorist threat. I do not think that that is correct. I believe that a measure codifying the various laws is necessary and that the present laws need reviewing in the light of today's circumstances.
  Without considering the more drastic picture of terrorism, over the past five or six years the constituency that I am honoured to represent has suffered two leakages from underground fuel tanks. It is plain that such incidents will occur more often in future, unfortunately, as older tanks start to leak. During those incidents, it was interesting that the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency and local council were all running around, but no one was prepared to say, "We take the lead. We decide where we are going. We disseminate all the necessary information to people living locally." Those incidents may be minor; nevertheless, they were emergencies for those two towns, and they bring into focus the fact that we need to know who is responsible for what and who will co-ordinate and lead the operations to deal with emergencies, as defined in the Bill.
  I wish to echo something that many hon. Members have said already: the Joint Committee, pre-legislative approach is to be welcomed. During our deliberations, we received evidence from myriad authoritative sources, and such evidence is vital in informing the debate and, I hope, in leading to improved legislation that will prove practicable and stand the test of time.
  We have already heard several powerful speeches this evening. In particular, I commend the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I associate myself fully with what those gentlemen said. We should always bear it in mind that legislation should be consistent with human rights, and some serious concerns about the Bill remain. With great respect to the Minister, it is all very well for him to say that he has signed the section 19 caption on the Bill and that it accords with human rights. I have yet to see a Bill that does not carry that caption, several of which were rather iffy, to put it in the vernacular.

  1153
  The Joint Committee has three major concerns: first, the Government's definition of emergency; secondly, the possible—nay probable—human rights abuses in the Bill; and, thirdly, the use of the triple-lock guarantee promised by the Government. It appears that the Government have attempted to meet some of the concerns of civil liberties groups, but I am still unhappy with the definition of emergency, despite the fact that it has been narrowed.
  The initial draft said that an emergency was an event that "presents a serious threat" to human welfare, the environment, political, administrative or economic stability, and the security of the UK or part of it. The Bill now reads:
  "an event or situation which threatens serious damage to…human welfare…the environment…or the security of the United Kingdom or of a place in the United Kingdom."
  Ministers evidently dropped the reference to political, administrative or economic stability, possibly fearing that a future Government would declare an emergency to ensure their own survival. However, the Government have still allowed for measures to protect or restore the activities of Her Majesty's Government.
  With regard to human rights and civil contingencies, although there are no explicit human rights abuses in the Bill, its implementation could lead to severe abuses of civil liberties. Clause 25 in the draft Bill allowed regulations to be treated as though they were Acts of Parliament, making it possible to bypass rights guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights. The new Bill will not specifically prohibit the amendment of the Human Rights Act 1998, by emergency regulation. The Government's response on that is not very convincing. Page 18 of the Government's response states:
  "Given the inherent limits on the scope of the power"—
  in other words, the power to disapply legislation—
  "Parliamentary Counsel have advised that if we wished to be able to modify or disapply a constitutional enactment, we should take an express power to do so. We do not propose to do this."
  That is not very persuasive in my view. It continues:
  "Without such an express power, we cannot presently envisage circumstances in which this power would lawfully enable us to make a substantive amendment to a constitutional enactment."
  Those are pretty weak words when dealing with such an important principle.
  The triple lock is the third concern, and it is has been referred to already in previous speeches. The triple lock is intended to persuade us that everything is fine because the triple-lock procedure will have to be used before considering the declaration of an emergency. The draft dictates that the seriousness of the situation, the necessity for special legislative measures and the relevant geographical extent should be considered. The Joint Committee thought that the triple-lock feature needed to be strengthened. The revised Bill demands that there must be a serious threat of damage to human welfare, that existing legislation must be deemed ineffective and that the response must be in proportion to the emergency; but, as has been said, the triple-lock will only be as good as Ministers' own opinions.
  On the whole, civil liberty non-governmental organisations are partly relieved at the Government's alterations to the Bill. Justice, the foremost contributor
  1154
  in the 12-week consultation period, cited only two major problems still present within the Bill, but its reservations should not be disregarded. First, it stated that, although the definition of emergency was less sweeping than before, it still allows for the imposition of emergency powers in limited circumstances that pose no obvious threat to public safety. Secondly, it pointed out:
  "The Bill still does not specifically prevent the amendment of the Human Rights Act 1998 by way of emergency regulation."
  Those are two important provisions in the Bill, but the concerns have yet to be addressed. However, like members of the Joint Committee, Justice believes that the Government have tried to engage on such matters.
  Pre-legislative consultation appears to have yielded some positive results, but not enough. Statewatch, another civil liberties group, is less happy with the changes, but it came from the position that it did not believe that legislation was necessary. It pointed out that "assemblies", "travel" and "other specified activities" could be banned. Furthermore, although Parliament has the ability to let powers lapse after 21 days, it never has the chance to vote on the declaration of an emergency.
  In most circumstances, the requirement for urgency would not allow for such a vote to take place but, interestingly enough, deliberations in the Joint Committee revealed that the draft Bill contained a provision that the National Assembly for Wales would have to be consulted about the declaration of an emergency in Wales. However, the next provision says that it would be consulted except in cases of urgency. I may be a simple man, but I have never known an emergency that did not have within it an element of urgency. I am pleased that that provision has now gone.
  Several parts of the Bill still defy logic and need further careful investigation, and I hope that that will be done in Committee. No one imputes unworthy motives to the Government, but one must be wary of over-reaction in legislation and about when such legislation might be used. Let us consider the Terrorism Act 2000, which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said had been in force throughout London for many months. I well remember that, in that Bill's passage through the House, firm, bankable assurances were given by Home Office Ministers that such legislation was necessary—but only as a last resort. The Bill made it to the statute book only to the used shortly afterwards by the Metropolitan police—with or without Home Office collusion—to tackle peaceful, flag-waving demonstrators protesting against a visit by a member of the Chinese Government. It is no wonder that people such as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who made an impassioned speech, feel strongly about the issue.
  I am not imputing impure or wrong motives to the Government, but the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham pointed out that he has a healthy distrust of all Governments taking too much power. One is therefore naturally a little apprehensive when we deal with sweeping legislation such as this Bill. A less scrupulous Government in the future could undoubtedly misuse the law to disturbing effect.
  I referred to the two main provisions that have been amended and that require further amendment. I am certainly not convinced that the Human Rights Act

  1155
  1998 cannot be disregarded and I hope that, when the Bill goes into Committee, it will be possible to discuss that issue carefully and not to rely on the opinion of parliamentary counsel without at least seeing that opinion so that it can be scrutinised by hon. Members and other people outside.
  In fairness to the Government, we must recognise that there have been important changes, but I would say not enough. Although I said that a Bill is necessary, I do not believe that this Bill is the vehicle to deal with the issue. I am wary about the provisions for the Council on Tribunals, and I am still wary about the definition of any emergency. I am also very wary of the human rights aspects and about imposing seven new duties and obligations on local councils without providing them with the full funding—ring-fenced if necessary—to ensure that they can afford to carry them out.
  I am also concerned about provisions that would prevent assemblies, protests and so on and travel to other specified activities. I am concerned about those and other issues, but time does not permit me to deal with them now. My party and the Scottish National party are prepared to vote on Second Reading if there is a vote today, but we shall keep our powder dry until the Bill's final stages. Unless substantial improvements are made in the provisions to which I have referred, we will certainly not support the Bill then.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. The Bill is the traditional curate's egg but it is slightly unusual in that the bits of it that are good are very, very good while the bits of it that are bad are very, very bad. There does not seem to be any grey in the middle.
  We in the United Kingdom have a great deal of experience of dealing with natural disasters and the threat of domestic terrorism, most if it from the Irish Republic and a little bit of it home grown from the Angry Brigade and the more extreme animal rights movements. As a former junior Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, I have a little experience of the past processes that the Government used to deal with emergencies. Thank heavens that, while I was there, there was no real emergency, but the powers that be in the Department decided to have a trial and dummy run.
  I was awoken at 5.30 in the morning to the news that a nuclear power station situated on the Thames estuary had exploded and a plume of radioactive gas was spreading from the estuary to Southampton. I shall not describe all the processes of theoretical evacuation, except to say that the plans stated that the junior Minister had to go to the source of the radioactivity and report back to the Secretary of State, who was cowering in his air-conditioned, bomb-proof bunker at the bottom of the DTI. It was at that point that I learned exactly where junior Ministers are in the pecking order of importance, and I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that that is exactly why a junior Minister is introducing the Bill. He is expendable and if things go wrong—they never do—the powers that be will turn round and point to the Minister who introduced the Bill.
  1156
  We are in a changing situation in which international terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda, threaten this country and our interests throughout the world. Those threats have to be anticipated and met, but I regret to say that they have been seriously increased by the ill-judged invasion of Iraq. We have given a spurious legitimacy to the Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists to bomb and to maim, and they are doing that because they regard the invasion of Iraq as an illegal act that should not have taken place.
  I welcome the Bill in part, however, and the Government can be congratulated on their willingness to open up their proposals for improvement to deal with emergencies of all kinds. I particularly welcome the informed debate that takes place through a review process. I currently serve on the review process for the draft Gambling Bill and there is no doubt that, without that process, the Bill would not be as good as it will be when it comes to the House for consideration. This Bill is much better than it would have been had it been allowed to come to the House without the work of the review body. I do not often congratulate the Government, but I congratulate them on that. The review process of parliamentary Bills such as this is to be welcomed, encouraged and expanded.
  No one inside or outside the House can be in any doubt as to where the Government stand on the vital issues of civil protection with which the Bill deals. However, I have serious reservations that, like those of some of my hon. Friends, veer towards objections in principle. First, like my hon. Friends, I am worried about the scope of the Bill's emergency powers. It will allow Ministers, Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Departments and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all to modify Acts of Parliament and prevent them from being applied if they consider that to be necessary. It is not clear to me or, I suspect, anyone else in the United Kingdom the exact circumstances in which that might be appropriate. Does the Under-Secretary know? If so, will she tell us the Acts of Parliament that might be treated in such a way? Is Parliament really prepared to put powers such as those that Henry VIII, let alone more recent dictators, would have been delighted to have into the hands of regional emergency co-ordinators or even less identifiable specified persons? The House and the country are being asked to have an immense amount of trust in advance without any real safeguards.
  I cannot speak with the passion that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) evinced when he spoke about his concerns that the Government have taken more and more powers to bypass hard-fought democratic principles. I am embarrassed and ashamed that people in this country have been in jail for years without being brought to trial or having charges put against them publicly. Those people might not be British citizens, but they are still members of the human race. Some action should be taken to determine what risk they are, to make that publicly known and to allow them to be publicly represented.
  I am equally disturbed that emergency regulations could be made to require individuals or organisations
  "to act in performance of a function (whether the function is conferred by the regulations or otherwise…).

  1157
  Allowing such oppressive measures to be taken of which no notice may be given in regulations, against which no objections may be made, or for which no redress will be available is unsound, to say the least.
  As I said, I had the privilege of serving as a Minister in the last Conservative Government. Whatever else I learned from that experience, the importance of keeping proper records of decisions taken was clear. It is not good enough for Ministers to expect the House to authorise emergency regulations that convey powers to give mandatory oral instructions or orders, even in the most extreme circumstances. On that issue, I agree with the defenders of our civil liberties.
  Of course, civil servants and legal advisers—we have heard much today about advice given to Ministers—want to cover every eventuality and possibility. However, my experience in the law shows that for every lawyer who can be persuaded to come along to give supporting evidence to a case, another will give a diametrically opposite opinion. I would like the Government's legal advice to be put into the open so that we can determine how sound it is. When considering legislation such as the Bill there sometimes comes a point at which Ministers must say no and mean no. I am sorry that they have been unable to do that, and I hope that they will offer more convincing explanations in Committee for their positions on key matters.
  My other reservations have more to do with practice than principle. The main thrust of the Bill is to require certain specified bodies—such as local authorities and the emergency and health services, which are defined as category 1 responders, and transport and utility providers, which are defined as category 2 responders—to assess the risks of a range of emergencies and to prepare plans for their prevention, control, mitigation or reduction. That is perfectly sensible. However, I am not convinced about the extent to which it will be possible to enlist public co-operation if no more than partial information is made available to them. Allied to that, if an emergency is likely to occur or has occurred, it might well be too late to warn the public and to provide them with information. People living in a place in which an emergency is about to happen, or has happened, will not be sitting there thinking, "Gosh! I've got to contact a category 1 or 2 operator to find out what I should do." Such people will be on the move and doing something, although they could well be doing the wrong thing. Given that the Government have set such store on publicising their actions, I am surprised that they have not realised that point. To prevent chaos and confusion, the public of this country must be informed, perhaps by delivering leaflets to every home, of what they should and could do in a range of circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made that point forcefully, so I shall not labour it further.
  My next point has been galloped over, so I shall refer to it only briefly. There are concerns about the planning arrangements envisaged in the Bill. Many district councils of the kind outlined in schedule 1 have consultative arrangements involving business organisations, parish and town councils and voluntary groups in their areas. It would be sensible to bring those bodies into the proposed system, unless there were
  1158
  overwhelming reasons to the contrary. They should be consulted on planning preparations and involved in training exercises. Emergencies of the kind with which the Bill aims to deal will not necessarily occur in big cities. They could happen in areas such as my constituency, which is not especially densely populated. My constituents would like to think that a proper and adequate system for civil contingencies was available to them—we all want our constituencies to be protected in such a fashion. I endorse hon. Members who said that we should try to draw the whole community into a civil plan to deal with what might happen because the community could thus respond, rather than reacting to orders that might filter through slowly and far too long after an emergency had occurred.
  I am happy to reiterate my support for the Bill in general terms. Some aspects of it are good, and it is a necessary measure. However, several important aspects must be amended before it returns to the Floor of the House, so I hope that the Government recognise that and respond to it positively.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that I can give the House a helpful steer. Back-Bench speeches are averaging more than 16 minutes at the moment and will have to come down to nearer 11 minutes if I am to be able to recognise all hon. Members who are still anxious to contribute.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Alan Campbell: I have listened carefully to this afternoon's debate and I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution. I welcome the Bill. It goes to the heart of the responsibility of Parliament and the Government, which is the protection of the lives and safety of our constituents. It also fulfils a commitment from the Government to reform and update legislation on civil contingencies and emergency planning. As has been said, it will give the Government powers that might prove necessary, but that no Government would wish to have to use. Such matters should not be debated lightly—they are not being debated lightly.
  I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Civil Defence (Grant) Bill some two years ago, when the Government, in light of 11 September, were under pressure to produce a much wider Bill than one that sought merely to put the financing of civil contingencies on a more satisfactory basis. The Government resisted that pressure then, and they were right to do so. The truth is that, whenever a Government choose to introduce legislation of this sort, they face criticism. There are those who will say that the Bill is too late, and others will say that it is too early or unnecessary. It seems to me that on this occasion the Government have got it about right.
  It seems to me also that the key word in our deliberations should be "balance". Any Government who used too heavy a hand in determining the powers provided in the Bill or who allowed those powers to be used too soon would be justly criticised. They would also be criticised if they used too light a touch, provided too few powers or allowed delays in using them. That is

  1159
  why the process of consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny has been so important. The widest possible consultation with stakeholders, Select Committees of this House and Joint Committees of both Houses has produced sufficient consensus at least to introduce the Bill, and the Government should be congratulated on that.
  Politicians may not always be comfortable with positions taken by organisations such as Liberty and Justice, but it is appropriate that their views are listened to and, as far as possible, incorporated. Other bodies, such as Statewatch, which seems to start from the premise that the state is invariably the oppressor, never the defender, demonstrate that it is never possible to please all of the people all of the time. I am disappointed to have heard echoes of that perception of the role of the state in this debate. On balance, I think that the Government have got it right, at least in getting the Bill to this stage.
  We live in dangerous times, probably as dangerous as 1920, when the Emergency Powers Act was passed, or 1948, when the cold war was setting in and attack by a foreign power was a distinct possibility. Any straightforward comparison with today is very difficult because it is a quirk of history that assessing just how serious a time is requires a sense of historical perspective, as those of us who lived through the 1970s can demonstrate.
  It is evident, however, that 11 September and events since have demonstrated that the threat from terrorism is real, and although democracies need to think long and hard about emergency legislation, failure to act may place democracy itself in danger. We also live in an increasingly complex world where new technology brings great benefit but with it the risk of accident and disaster. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the existing legislation be looked at and, if necessary, changed to suit the requirements of a new set of circumstances and a new century.
  I welcome clause 1. I recognise the good work that local authorities do, in conjunction with others, in maintaining civil defence plans for their area, but it is necessary to ask whether a system designed for the cold war is still appropriate today. There is not only a greater risk of terrorism, but the threat of flooding, transport accidents, chemical spills and much more. No constituency is risk-free. Two years ago, the local civil protection plan in my constituency had to be enacted when a fire broke out at a chemical factory. I was pleased at the time to place on record my thanks to the emergency services, and I am pleased to do so again.
  In the review that took place in the aftermath of 11 September not every local authority was able to demonstrate the necessary high level of preparation. What we saw too often were arrangements whose resources had to be raided in times of local government hardship and a general lack of investment which characterised too much of our public services. The Bill sets out clear responsibilities, requires an assessment of local risk and sets out the duties of those involved. As a Member of Parliament for a coastal constituency, I want to know that the plans and the resources are in place to deal with any emergency. I want to know that those who are involved in the process, and those who seek
  1160
  protection from it, can have confidence in the arrangements. I want to know also that the plans and the resources reflect the present and future world.
  In the last 20 years the balance between central and local government has changed. We have established new constitutional arrangements in Scotland and Wales, and English regions may follow, but we also have myriad agencies and companies, some within Departments and some outside, delivering essential services. A Bill that clearly sets out their role and responsibilities—for example, in a local resilience forum—is therefore welcome.
  I should warn the Government, however, that discussions about civil defence usually come round to money, and here again I think that a balanced approach is needed. The measures in the Bill are about reforming the way in which organisations work together, rather than setting out a whole new set of additional requirements. Organisations already have funding to play a role in developing a strategy, and the necessary front-line resources, whether it be police officers, firefighters, coastguards or the equipment that they need, are already provided in large number. I urge the Government to treat with caution pleas from local authorities for additional resources. There is no doubt that the plans have to be funded adequately, but that should not just be an opportunity to try to plug any gaps that might have existed or simply to approach central Government with a begging bowl.
  We should be careful, too, about advice from Opposition spokesmen. In 21 minutes, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made three spending commitments: first, for the training of a voluntary reserve; secondly, for a comprehensive programme of public education; and, thirdly, for increased funding of local authorities. That was described as cheap, but, as is often the case with the Opposition, there was no evidence of just how cheap.
  I want briefly to address part 2, as I have no intention of getting into the area of law and civil liberties, of which others have much more experience and knowledge. It is entirely appropriate to bring a system that was set up in 1920 into the 21st century. It is sensible to set out the role of Ministers, and therefore crucial to set out the checks and balances that are required. It is regrettable but nevertheless a fact that there is a great deal of scepticism and cynicism about the role and motive of the Government—any Government. Any reassurances that the Government can give to illustrate their intent would be welcome. Nevertheless, I urge them to listen to the concerns expressed as the Bill makes its way through Parliament.
  Let us not forget the purpose of the legislation. It is to put in place measures to defend the public in times of emergency. So let us have the debate about human rights and civil liberties—not that I would go along with describing the United Kingdom Government as "darker forces". Let us take a balanced view and not be selective in our memory of events during the miners' strike in 1985, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) reminded us. Such legislation is not about producing something by this Government for this Government. It is about legislation for Governments of the future.

  1161
  Let us not lose sight of the common-sense approach demanded by our constituents, who expect us to bring common sense to the issue. They look to us to legislate and to exercise power with care, but they want us to ensure that necessary powers and preparation are in place to safeguard them and their families.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Hugo Swire: There is no doubt that the Bill is long overdue. As we have heard, we have been waiting for a response to the flooding and fuel crises of 2000 and to foot and mouth in 2001—to say nothing of more recent events. The public have been looking to Parliament for a lead, particularly in light of the mixed messages from different quarters of the Government.
  On 13 January last year, the Prime Minister stated:
  "There is a direct threat to British national security in the trade in chemical, biological and nuclear weapons".
  He added that he was made aware of that situation on a daily basis. Yet, in the response to the Defence Committee's report in 2001–02, the Government denied that there is
  "a real threat of a CBRN"—
  chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear—
  "attack on a scale not previously planned for".
  The Prime Minister was further criticised by the Home Office Minister, Lord Filkin, who told the House of Lords:
  "We will bring forward an emergency civil contingency Bill in good time. If the matter were of extreme urgency, we would have brought a Bill forward urgently."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 2003; Vol. 644, c. 824.]
  To say that such an attitude is complacent would be an understatement at the very least.
  The Government have failed to date and are still failing to take the public into their confidence, to make them aware of their plans and to communicate those plans to them. If they did that more effectively and convincingly, the country would respond in kind. One problem is that nobody outside the hallowed portals of the Palace of Westminster can understand the niceties of this legislation, its implications for human rights and the area of responsibility—but the public need to know who is responsible.
  Again and again this afternoon we have heard that the fact that there is no Minister in charge of civil defence is a real problem. That is why we, the Opposition, have such a post. We do not know who would take the lead following the declaration of an emergency. Who would oversee and co-ordinate our response? If, for example, there were a virus outbreak, would the Department of Health be in charge of the state of emergency? If a terrorist attack occurred, would the Ministry of Defence or the Home Office take control? If there was a strike, would the Department of Trade and Industry be responsible for implementing the emergency powers? Not only are we in need of clarification but, more importantly, so are the public.
  In all the deliberations of the past few weeks and months, what have the Government learned from the response of the United States? The US Government
  1162
  realised early on the crucial importance of co-ordinated homeland security as part of their strategy to deal with the new insidious threat of terrorism. That approach is borne out through their "National Strategy for Homeland Security", which states clearly that
  "The establishment of a new Department of Homeland Security would ensure greater accountability over critical homeland security missions and unity of purpose among the agencies responsible for them."
  That is precisely what we need and precisely what we do not have.
  Although we are now making progress on updating and improving our civil contingency planning, the lack of urgency and clarity in responding to any threat to our national security is truly worrying. Eight hundred and sixty days have passed since 11 September 2001, and even though the Bill has taken such a long time to come before the House, in all probability we will have to wait at least another four or five months before it becomes law. In the worst-case scenario, we will have to endure a summer recess without any updated legislation in place.
  In the time remaining, I shall discuss the implications for those bodies that are to be charged with front-line response. The Joint Committee on the draft Civil Contingencies Bill recommended that clearer provisions outlining the responsibility of councils at local level were needed in the Bill. My local council, Devon county council, echoed that view in its response to the Government's consultation document. The council claimed:
  "There are no indications of how financial efficiency will be measured, and planning and response takes place at national, regional and local levels, so, for clarity, statutory responsibilities also need to be placed on central government and regional bodies."
  Although I can understand the Government's desire not to over-complicate matters through excessive legislation, it is vital that we be assured that the question of first responders will be seriously examined. Rather than merely inviting co-operation, the Government and the Minister should be ensuring that those members of the public who are likely to be in a position to respond instantly will be able to do so, and do so effectively. Only by outlining the aims and objectives of planning and training at national level through to local level, rather than simply encouraging such strategies to be taken on board, can we harness the effectiveness necessary to deal with such an emergency.
  It is worth noting that Devon and Cornwall police, the force that covers my constituency, already has in place a multi-agency response plan, in which the military, the police, health and fire services and utilities companies have a clearly defined strategy. Although they welcome the Bill as recognising good work and putting in place good practice, there is concern about how the Bill will affect them in terms of increasing their work load and the likelihood of increased costs. What is more, although it is reassuring to know that the police force in my constituency already has a well structured plan in place, we have no framework in place to ensure that the same degree of diligence is applied nationwide.
  That brings me to a topic that has been touched on by many Members this afternoon—funding. Funding is critical to the working of the Bill and the enactment of it. About 90 per cent. of the respondents to the consultation exercise said that the level of funding was

  1163
  inadequate. My council in Devon was no exception to the rule. It claims that the new areas of work indicated in the Bill suggest a need to increase central Government funding for emergency planning. In particular, it has reservations about the increased duties placed on local authorities as a whole to deal with and respond to threats to the environment.
  First, there is the need to respond to coastal pollution. Secondly, there is the inclusion of the environment in the new definition, which will lead to the need to include environmental impact assessments in the development of all multi-agency plans. For emergency planning purposes, local authorities have the duty only to consider environmental impacts for sites covered by the control of major accident hazards regulations, and environmentally sensitive areas close to major gas pipelines crossing their area.
  Further to that, there is the duty on local authorities that is related to two main areas of business continuity work. These are the councils' own internal business continuity management and the promotion of it throughout their areas. It is estimated that this increase in work load would merit at least one new post fully to adhere to the new duty.
  We must remember that in addition to the Bill the enabling of subsequent Acts may well produce future needs for additional funding. If it is the case, as seems likely, that there is underfunding, the result will be either the transference of funds from other services or, perhaps more likely, the inadequate performance of statutory duty in this instance, and I have already alluded to that. That is of grave concern.
  Having ill-thought-out measures in place due to a lack of funding is beneficial to no one. At best it is irresponsible and at worst it is potentially catastrophic. I will not spend time reciting Devon's tale of woe with regard to council tax and the likely rises. I will say, however, that it has virtually doubled since 1997—98. It is most unlikely that the people of Devon would respond kindly to the Government suggesting that their local authority would have to pay for these additional requirements.
  There is a lot of good and a lot of what is needed in the Bill, but I am not altogether convinced that it is as good a Bill as those that other countries have enacted to deal with a new form of terror. I am not convinced that it is as good as New Zealand's Bill, which was described as being far more comprehensive and informative than the Bill before us. At the same time, there is much more specialised legislation such as the Biosecurity Act 1993 to deal with public welfare emergencies.
  Canada's Act, for instance, deals successively with public welfare emergencies, public order emergencies, international emergencies and war emergencies. The report says that that Act is far more comprehensive and informative than the Bill before us, and possibly also the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. During this period of reflection, which is necessary, perhaps we should once again revisit some of the other schemes that other countries have in place.
  I do not have time to touch on the issue of human rights and the implications of the legislation on human rights, which was dealt with so effectively by right hon. and hon. Members. While the triple lock is a good
  1164
  response by the Government to earlier concerns, I believe, like others who have contributed to the debate, that it leaves a lot of power in the hands of Ministers.
  The Government still have much work to do. They must convince the doubters in this place, some of whom we have heard this afternoon, that this legislation is necessary, workable and good. In the country, they must persuade the wider public that they are in control and that in the event of an emergency would be able to provide properly trained personnel to deal with it. They have some way to go.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. William Cash: This has been a fascinating debate. Many of the remarks made outside the House before it took place misunderstood the role of Parliament in achieving a more measured approach to the difficult and significant matters in the Bill.
  I remain unhappy with the Bill's title, because it is not about civil contingencies but about peace and war, if terrorism is categorised as a form of war. That creates muddle, so I would be happier if two Bills were introduced, perhaps in parallel. One would deal with planning and the other with the much more significant constitutional implications, which several hon. Members have spoken about. Indeed, my good friend, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said that the Bill has profound constitutional implications. I shall deal with some of them, setting them in the context of the way in which similar legislation has been interpreted in the past. It is important to do so, as the Bill has not grown in a vacuum.
  Times and circumstances may have changed since 1920, but questions of liberty and justice are still fundamental and include, for example, the determination that there should not be detention without trial. The Bill allows for carte blanche amendment and adaptation of existing legislation. Some provisions, including clause 18, give rise to serious problems. Under clause 18(5) the Secretary of State would have the power by order to
  "provide that a specified event or situation, or class of event or situation, is to be treated as falling, or not as falling"
  within certain definitions of emergency, which apply to human welfare, the environment and the security of the United Kingdom. In other words, the Secretary of State decides whether or not an event is to be treated as a "specified event". He also has the power to amend clause 18(2), which specifies various categories of human welfare, and would have the power to determine whether an event
  "is to be treated as threatening damage to human welfare",
  or is no longer to be treated in that way.
  An extraordinary range of options is therefore made available to the Minister under the Bill. One wonders what could not be done under the Bill, and we need to bear that in mind when the Bill goes into Committee. As I said in an intervention, the Secretary of State could do almost anything he thinks would be appropriate in the circumstances. Descartes famously said:
  "I think, therefore I am."
  In the Bill, the Secretary of State is saying, "I think, therefore it shall be." There are therefore serious problems in relation to the issue of civil liberty, and I am

  1165
  not satisfied that the limitations of emergency regulations in clause 22 are adequate. They are lifted from the Emergency Powers Act 1920 and may not, according to the clause,
  "require a person…to provide military service"
  or prohibit participation in industrial action. But that is only part of the activity that should be prohibited. The situation requires much more stringent consideration. The Bill has deservedly been criticised, and a good deal of work is needed to make the necessary improvements.
  Parliamentary scrutiny reveals some inconsistency between the duration of the regulations and the conditions under which they lapse. Clause 25 states that they lapse
  "at the end of the period of 30 days".
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, that would not prevent a new set of regulations from being made. However, clause 26 states that
  "the regulations shall lapse at the end of the period of seven days…unless during that period each House of Parliament passes a resolution approving them."
  Some cleaning up needs to be done there.
  Another important point should be borne in mind. As hon. Members have said, there is always a tendency for Governments to use the powers that they have, and to use them to maximum effect and to the greatest extent. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) referred to George Orwell's "1984". I, too, dug out a reference that I found interesting in the present context. In chapter 9, Orwell writes that the High—that is, the people who have the highest degree of authority—learned how to keep their position permanently. Part of this strategy included the maintenance of a state of continual warfare, which Goldstein discussed in the third chapter. The three major powers were not fighting this perpetual war for victory. They were fighting to keep a state of emergency always present, as the surest guarantee of authoritarianism.
  I would not want to exaggerate the applicability of that proposition to the present situation, but there is a serious problem that we should address. We should not grant too much power to Government, particularly power with relatively light parliamentary scrutiny restraints and with such extensive scope which in the wrong hands could be misused.
  Emergency powers are justified entirely in terms of the first duty of a Government to protect the security of the people in times of grave national emergency. The role of the Attorney-General, which has not been mentioned yet, is part and parcel of that. He is personally, not collectively, responsible for the security of the nation, hence the importance of the opinions he gave in relation to the recent war.
  In an important case in 1968, Conway v. Rimmer, Lord Pearce stated that
  "the flame of individual right and justice must burn more palely when it is ringed by the more dramatic light of bombed buildings".
  When he made that statement, he was referring to a matter of fact. He was not talking about something that might be expected to happen. The Bill, however, grants blanket powers to deal with anticipated events. One must distinguish, as Lord Pearce did, between the
  1166
  "dramatic light of bombed buildings",
  which is a done deal—a fact—and anticipated circumstances for which one is taking extensive powers that affect civil liberties, although that has not yet proved to be necessary.
  I refer here to the important case of Liversidge v. Anderson in the 1940s, in which the question of reasonableness was imported into regulation 18B of the defence regulations. Even in those defence regulations, where we are dealing with a situation that is clearly one of war, the test of reasonableness was part and parcel of those regulations. There is no test of reasonableness that I have been able to observe in relation to any of the powers conferred on Ministers, including the Prime Minister and Secretaries of State; they merely have to think that something should be done, not that they have reasonable cause to do so. When Liversidge v. Anderson was taken to the House of Lords, even with the word "reasonable" in the legislation, the House of Lords, with one important dissenting judgment by Lord Atkin, decided that, as in this Bill, there should be no test of reasonableness. That is a retrograde step and I criticise the Bill gravely and seriously for that omission. Lords Scarman, Diplock and Reid, in subsequent important cases, have said that the law in Liversidge v. Anderson is bad law. That is a matter that will need to be carefully examined in Committee.
  I conclude by making one other reference to the legal precedents, and that is that even as recently as 2000, Bradley and Ewing, in their textbook "Constitutional and Administrative Law", which gives an important analysis of the legal precedents and principles that underpin these questions, say:
  "But concern about the unenviable role in which they have been cast"—
  that is the courts—
  "is hardly eased by Lord Hoffmann's postscript in the Rehman case where he said that the events of 11 September…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 maters. It is also that such decisions…require a legitimacy which can be conferred only by entrusting them to persons responsible to the community through the democratic process."
  He goes on to make the point that the decisions
  "must be made by persons whom the people have elected and whom they can remove."
  In other words, even as recently as all that, Lord Hoffmann, a prime advocate of civil liberties, argues the case that it is Ministers who should decide—therefore we must trust those Ministers.
  In conclusion, I just make the point that these measures should not be enacted against the background of any authority other than that of Parliament. We will have to make those decisions. Those decisions will have to be made in Committee.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), I have found this a powerful and fascinating debate, and certainly in view of the speeches that we have heard

  1167
  tonight, no self-respecting legislature would provide the Executive with powers such as are in the Bill. I certainly hope that they will be expunged from the Bill in Committee, but if they are not, that in itself is an argument fatal to the Bill's progress.
  I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Member's Interests, particularly in respect of my commitment to the Territorial Army.
  The debate has been fascinating, but in one respect alone, frustrating—that is, the failure of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) to finish his story about the killer bees. Although it was a fascinating vignette for those of us who do not watch disaster movies of that sort, he left us hanging, and I want to know what became of the killer bees.
  The most irritating feature of the debate was the series of sedentary comments by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who, following his proper intervention, continued to carp, "What about the miners?" His point appeared to be that the wicked Tories had used powers such as those in the Bill, but without any legislative basis, to victimise the miners. Even if we were to accept that analysis, it is nonsensical to argue that because a wicked Government perpetrated terrible things against the miners, they should be placed on a legal basis so that they can be used against any group of citizens. If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he is a fool.
  In the mid-1980s, the most likely scenario appeared to be some sort of Soviet attack across the central European plains. It was believed that that would be preceded by some six months of growing tension during which Russian special forces would carry out a number of activities to destabilise the UK home base, principally involving assassinations and terrorist acts to disrupt key points such as communications centres and the transport network, especially the M4 corridor. We used to train against those possibilities: every two years, we would run an exercise called Brave Defender to co-ordinate the military, the ambulance services, the police and so on. That scenario is not wholly dissimilar from the one we are considering today. We should therefore think more about reactivating that civil defence capability and investing in such exercises than about new laws. I am not wholly persuaded of the case for a whole raft of new powers. I do not believe that anyone's immediate reaction to September 11 was, "Gosh, this is awful: we need a new law"—it was much more that we needed to take practical steps to deal with such eventualities.
  In July 2002, in response to September 11, the Government published an additional chapter to the strategic defence review containing the big idea that the reserves should be used for the civil contingency reaction forces. The Secretary of State told us that
  "500 reservists from…units of all three services in each of the 11 areas of the country—some 5,000 to 6,000 reservists in all"
  would help in
  "handling major incidents, with individuals committing themselves to turn out at short notice for a range of duties, including site search and clearance, transport and communications, control and co-ordination."—[Official Report, 18 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 463.]
  In the weeks and months that followed, that was fleshed out by the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary, who told us that 700 new posts were to be
  1168
  created purely to co-ordinate command and control so that the handling of such incidents could be run on a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week basis. We were told that 130,000 man training days were to be made available and that 2 Signals Brigade would be central to the co-ordination and communication efforts involved. How much of that is really in place? The Minister will not be able to tell us, because it is not his specific responsibility, but that prompts the question of whose it is.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) tabled questions to the Ministry of Defence asking precisely how much had been done, he got a fairly dusty response.
  He asked:
  "what training has been conducted in the last 12 months in each of the armed forces in dealing with a terrorist attack involving chemical or biological agents."
  He was told:
  "The armed forces are not responsible for dealing with chemical or biological attack in the United Kingdom. The Home Office, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Health would take the lead and could, if appropriate, call upon the limited skills of the armed forces."—[Official Report, 7 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 52W.]
  That may, strictly speaking, be true, but it is a hundred miles from the announcement and the enthusiasm for the subject in the additional chapter to the strategic defence review. I wonder why we seem to be backing away from that commitment. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) put his finger on the point by saying that the forces simply are not there. Many of them have been called up on Operation Telic. My estimate is that, rather than the 7,000 who are supposed to be dedicated to these matters, we probably have between 2,000 and 5,000.
  The recent defence White Paper spelled out how reserves would be used in future, saying:
  "This policy sees the Reserves providing an integrated, ready and capable component of Defence, capable of being mobilised for any type and scale of operation."
  That concerns me. In the past, we have considered the reserves for use in an emergency. If they are to be used for "any scale and type" of operation, the question arises of whether the high-tempo use of reserves that is currently under way in Iraq will continue to apply. I suspect that it will, because the White Paper says precisely that.
  The danger will be that only unemployed people will be able to serve in the reserves. People with careers will not be able to keep a commitment that continually places a reserve liability on them. It is fine to be called up when "Your Country Needs You" in the event of an emergency. If that is to be a continuous process, however, the reserves will quickly disappear. When the Government come to need them, they will find that the reserves are not there. The Minister has offered a Bill creating all sorts of powers for himself, but when Ministers come to pull the levers and try to make the system operate, they may well find that there are no reserves to carry out some of the vital purposes for which that Bill is designed.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Mark Field: All hon. Members who have spoken appreciate that the Bill envisages something that no one in public

  1169
  life wishes to contemplate—that there should be an emergency of such dire extent that this country would effectively find itself on a war footing. Nevertheless, it is right that Conservative Members have expressed grave concerns. Those concerns should be aired on the Floor of the House, and again in Committee. We must ask precisely how and in what circumstances the Government—any UK Government—would seek to exercise the draconian powers envisaged.
  The Minister, in opening the debate, gave a superficially emollient account and analysis, referring to flooding, and the fact that much relevant legislation dates back to the 1920s. Several Members on both sides referred to the safeguards of the triple lock, but at the front of my mind is a desire to see and understand the mechanism that ensures that protections and safeguards within that triple lock will be properly enforced. It seems to me that too much faith is being placed in Ministers doing the right thing, not just in this Government but in future Governments.
  My position as Member of Parliament for Cities of London and Westminster means that I am especially concerned about the Bill, not least because my constituency is the most likely of the 659 to be affected by the nightmare scenario that we are considering. The City of London has contingency plans, and regular rescue efforts have been practised not only since 11 September 2001, but previously. The Metropolitan police have worked with the City of London police and various other central London agencies. The capital as a whole is widely believed to be a leading terrorist target.
  At times of great national crisis, the rights of the individual must be defended with especial vigour. Members of Parliament owe it to all our constituents—the people who send us to this place—to uphold their freedoms. Several hon. Members presented a historical analysis and I shall not repeat their more eloquent words. Clearly, the history of this place goes back many centuries and we must defend individuals' rights.
  The breadth of the powers in the measure is breathtaking. We must keep the closest watch on the element of the Government's anti-terror legislation that we are considering. It is genuinely worrying that the Home Office is tempted to give itself more and more powers under the pretext of protecting the public. We must always remember that this nation is a famous haven for freedom and free speech. There is a suspicion that we are taking a further step down the road to undermining that freedom. It is hard to suppress that suspicion when one examines the Bill.
  Expanding state control is accepted in a time of war, but we should be most reluctant to provide the police and other Government agencies with carte blanche, not least since the Bill is likely to be used as a precedent for all manner of other civil contingency arrangements.
  This is neither the place nor the time to analyse the specifics. Indeed, several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), have already done that, in what one might describe as tortuous detail. However, we need firmly to define "emergency" and "serious damage" in clause 1, and all the powers of requisition and confiscation of property and land—which can occur with or without
  1170
  compensation—as well the police powers to quarantine perhaps thousands of people indefinitely under clause 21(3).
  I have discussed the matter with several leading policemen in my constituency, including the borough commander of Westminster this morning, and several superintendents in places such as Soho and Covent Garden. They were open and honest enough to express the concerns that they would feel as individuals even if, as police, they understood the importance of new powers such as those in the Bill.
  Perhaps the Under-Secretary will explain in Committee, if not in her winding-up speech, the reason for confusion about the devolved Administrations, which clause 28 covers. Why, for example, do not the Greater London Authority and the Metropolitan Police Authority have the same powers as those envisaged for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly? To pick up a point that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made, I am interested in the way in which local government, especially if we have large-scale regional government in the north of England, will play its part in ensuring that the Bill is joined up and well thought through.
  Vital principles are at stake, and I shall consider them briefly. My personal background plays an important part in my deliberations on all measures, and I am sure that that applies to all hon. Members. My mother's side of the family hails from Germany and my German grandfather's experience was one of the things that drove me into political life. He grew up in the 1920s and 1930s, and, like many articulate and educated Germans of his generation, he eschewed involvement in politics. It was at that juncture that Germany saw the rise of extremism under Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Government—who, we must never forget, were democratically elected in 1933. Over the following 18 months, they then systematically put on to the statute book through legal process a set of laws that effectively created a legal dictatorship. Under National Socialism, everything was done by the book, including the ruthless suppression of individual rights and responsibilities—all in the name of a higher collective authority.
  I am not suggesting that what is being proposed today is at all similar. None the less, it is right that individual Members of Parliament alert the state, and, more importantly, the Executive, to these grave concerns. I am often reminded of my great German political hero, Konrad Adenauer, the first post-war Chancellor, who, as mayor of Cologne, was a leading local politician during the 1920s and 1930s. When he became Chancellor, he recognised a worrying precedent in the way in which individual rights had been suppressed by the power of the state. We should not exaggerate that point when dealing with this Bill, but it is terrifying to see some of the powers that it envisages.
  I also believe that certain economic freedoms and property rights, which we perhaps take a little too much for granted, are under threat from the Bill, which provides for the
  "requisition or confiscation of property (with or without compensation)".
  To read those words on any Bill before the House brings terror to my heart, because the notion of private property ownership is the single most important guarantee of many of the freedoms that we enjoy.

  1171
  I appreciate that time is tight, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) wishes to say a few words. I hope that in addition to putting this legislation on to the statute book—it will inevitably be given a Second Reading tonight—we shall rely not only on more regulation and legislation in this regard but on what I might call the spirit of the blitz. We must be able to rely on the good will of all our citizens, and not just on the power of the state to ensure that certain protections and contingencies are put into place in the event of the kind of disaster that we foresee. There is little doubt that we live in dangerous times—but we should not allow the wholesale surrender of many of the freedoms that are close to the hearts of many of us here.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: This has been a most interesting debate, and I do not intend to go over the ground that has already been covered by so many honourable and learned Members. I am worried by the practical implications of the Bill. How would its provisions be implemented if it were put on the statute book? I should like to give two practical examples of situations in which I believe the system has already failed dismally.
  Last year, I was in my office when the BBC ticker-tape that seems to be obligatory on all our machines upstairs suddenly came up with the headline, "Nuclear disaster in Bridgwater". One very good way to focus an MP's mind is to tell him that there has been a nuclear disaster in his constituency. I have four nuclear reactors in my constituency, all of which are critical at this stage. One of them is being de-fuelled at the moment, involving the removal of 77,000 fuel rods over 10 years. I rang up the nuclear power station and asked what the problem was. I was told that a nuclear flask had slipped off a train in the middle of Bridgwater, a town of 30,000 people.
  I then rang the police, who told me that they were not entirely sure what was going on, but would be there as quickly as they could. I then rang Sedgemoor district council and was told, "Yes, there is something wrong, but we don't know what." At this stage, desperation was beginning to set in. I was up here, and all I knew was that there was a potential nuclear disaster in my constituency—although I did retain some hope that there were still some people around Bridgwater. I then rang representatives of the media, who said, "We can tell you what's happening—we're here!" It turned out that a nuclear flask had not slipped off a train. The flask in question was empty, and the train had slipped off the tracks; it was an accident that could have happened at any time. None the less, I then started to think, "Hang on a minute. This is happening in my constituency. What are the practical implications of a disaster happening there? Who would be responsible?"
  I have four command centres in and around my constituency. They are for Somerset county council, the police, the nuclear industry—in one of the power stations—and the Environment Agency, to look after flooding. The problem is that when I asked which command centre people would go to, the answer was, "We're not sure." One would presume that if there were a disaster at a nuclear power station people would not go to that command centre, although that is not entirely clear in the emergency plan. I went on to question
  1172
  precisely how those events would be looked after through the police, the military and so on, but I never got an answer.
  May I give a second, equally interesting example? If the area that I look after—in other words, the Parrett catchment area—floods, that cuts off the M5, the A303 and the main line railway station. Basically, the south-west gets cut off. There is an emergency scenario should that happen: bring in pumps. That is great, but the problem is that the south-west would be cut off. The M5 is built on a subsiding plain—a peat bog. The railway is the same, and the A303, at the best of times, is inconsistent.
  Mr. Swire: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend, who represents East Devon and uses the A303 more than I do, says, "Hear, hear." The problem is that it does not matter how good the Bill is, how marvellous the legal arguments are or how brilliant we are at enacting the Human Rights Act 1998. These measures will not work if we cannot sort those difficulties out.
  I do not care if we have a one-tier or a two-tier system. If there is a disaster in my constituency, I want to know what is happening and who is on the ground. I did some research on whether we could use the military in the surrounding area. Such matters were eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). We have 40 Commando just outside my constituency at Norton Fitzwarren in Taunton, but it is not there regularly enough to be relied on. The next nearest military base is Salisbury or Exeter, which is for the Territorials, but we do not have enough Territorials in our area to make the difference that my hon. Friend described. We certainly do not have the police resources, and the county councils are, at the best of times, stretched. Somerset county council cannot spend the money required to enact the legislation. I am not saying that this is a bad Bill—I agree with it—but I am saying that the practicalities mean that it cannot be implemented.
  Another thing intrigued me. I have just been reading the Phillis report, and one total failure in connection with the two potential disasters that I have mentioned to was the response of the media. I rang my local radio station, which said, "We're not sure what we would do if there was a problem." I asked the local TV stations, HTV and the BBC, what their role would be. They said, "We would get a steer from central Government."
  The Phillis report, which has been published today, says this:
  "There is poor co-ordination between departments and agencies, the COI, the Cabinet Office and Number 10, which shows up most starkly when there are government-wide crises such as the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001."
  As the Minister may be aware, Phillis is calling for the disbandment of the Government Information and Communication Service. That is up to the Minister to resolve, but the problem is that there is no central steer.
  If someone wants to get the message out, that has to be done through radio and television so that it gets down to the local forces, which can then deal with the problems. When I had a constituency problem, the system did not work. As it turned out, that did not

  1173
  matter. If there had been a real problem, what were the contingency arrangements for trying to get 30,000 people out of a town where a nuclear flask might have gone upside down? I did not know then; I still do not know.
  I plead with the Minister not only to enact the Bill, but to give it the teeth to do its job. Do not presume that in an accident or a disaster, things will just happen.
  Mr. Hogg: I must make this point to my hon. Friend. I entirely take the point that the media must be in a position to give advice, but, at the same time, we must not restrict the media's ability to criticise if the powers being taken are unjustified.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I wholly agree; the media should be able to put both sides of the argument.
  If the Bill does not work on the ground, it will fail the people whom we are in this place to protect. Our constituents are our responsibility. More than half my constituency was cut off during the major part of the foot and mouth epidemic. We could not move cattle—we could move nothing—until I went to see the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and she made the decision to open a road. In that national crisis, I got no sense from officials—from the emergency planners, vets or anyone else—but when I spoke to the Secretary of State in a canteen in this place she made that decision and it all happened the next day. That cannot be right under any form of legislation.
  The Bill should be enacted, but not at any price; that would be legally and morally wrong, and we would be letting down the people whom we are here to defend.
  9.30 pm
  Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger); he made many eloquent and practical points, and I shall pick up on some of them later in my speech.
  These are difficult times and they require difficult measures, but we have to strike a balance, and any Bill that comes into force must be entirely practical. My hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) sensibly registered their reservations about the powers in the Bill. They pointed out that the powers must be scrutinised and tightly watched so that the historical examples that they deployed are not repeated.
  We heard powerful speeches from the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page). They all considered how the Bill was put together and how it was likely to impose itself on us.
  I point out to the hon. and learned Member for Medway that terrorism certainly breeds violence and feeds on fear, but fear and uncertainty can perhaps be dealt with by information, education and training. Fear can be dispelled and terrorism can, to a certain extent,
  1174
  be brought under control. Anyone who has served in, or lived in, Northern Ireland during the past 30 years could tell Ministers about the successful public information policy there.
  In an extremely powerful speech, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made the practical point that a special committee of Privy Councillors should be established to approve the regulations, thereby adding an extra element to the much-vaunted triple lock. Similarly, the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills cannot be doubted.
  All those speeches concentrated entirely on the theoretical aspect of the Bill. If I have any criticism of the speech of the Minister for the Cabinet Office it is that it was as theoretical as it was lengthy. The Bill does not address practical issues, many of which were brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and by other Members who spoke in the debate.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) asked, why has it taken 860 days for the Bill to get this far? Why is there no central figure to whom we can respond? The Minister referred to clear leadership, but who is that leader? Which figure will offer that clear leadership?
  During the recent problems relating to sky marshals, the Secretary of State for Transport tried to talk us through a security issue, and several other examples have been mentioned. Where will that clear leadership come from? Why do not the Government establish, under the Bill, a particular Minister with particular responsibility for these problems?
  The hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) have all referred to ring-fencing the funding for local authorities. Again, that should be done in the Bill. We cannot impose such problems and difficulties on local authorities without ensuring that that money is ring-fenced.
  The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) have done excellent work both in the Defence Committee and in the Joint Committee. I was joined on both Committees by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). Again, he made the point very clearly about the funding for local authorities. We cannot ask local authorities to do something unless we are willing to give them the money.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire asked exactly where the physical muscle will come from to carry out the measures on the ground when emergencies occur.
  We have heard from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Gallant?
  Patrick Mercer: Yes, gallant.
  The civil contingencies reaction forces will simply not function. Where are those gentlemen at the moment? When a bomb goes off in Bermondsey, they are more likely to be in Basra than on the ground where they are

  1175
  needed. The Bill is the Government's only attempt to provide extra manpower. That is why things such as Project Unicorn have come into the public province, talking about gentlemen's agreements and trying to generate work forces in other ways.
  How much thought have the Government given to establishing something like an emergency volunteer reserve? We have the remnants of such a reserve in the shape of retained firemen and, indeed, special constables. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South has talked at some length and passionately about making the private security industry part of the wider police and security community.
  Where is the clear, new and innovative thinking that will give us people who can rally round when such trouble occurs? Of course that would not be completely without cost. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) made the point that there would be expense—yes, of course, but let us see some of the ideas that have been so clearly articulated in the public forum taken on by the Government and physically addressed; otherwise, the Bill will end up looking like a paper tiger. On one side, there are powers that I broadly support—of course, I have reservations—and, on the other, there are emergencies that will occur, but there is nothing linking the two.
  Our fire, police and ambulance services and our armed forces need to be reinforced, probably with an imaginative and driven idea, which could be remarkably low in cost. On top of that come our regular forces. If every soldier, sailor and airman was asked to stand up now, about 60,000 hands would go up in the United Kingdom, I guess. Why are they not brought into the planning process? Again, several hon. Members have made that point.
  The public education campaign is terribly important. It is no good the Minister depending on the emergency media forum coming into play once the emergency has occurred; it has got to happen beforehand. Let us see what Project Unicorn has to say about the communications strategy:
  "The commercial sector appears to be unanimous in its criticism of the present counter-terrorism communications policy prior to a major incident. They find it outdated, condescending, generally uncoordinated and at times incoherent."
  I have heard comments about that document being leaked and therefore unreliable, but the Minister knows that the people who have gone into that committee at the behest of the Metropolitan police are all respected, experienced and decent people.
  I urge the Minister to listen. I urge him to listen to the ideas that the Australians have had. Every Australian has received a "Dear Fellow Australian" letter from the Prime Minister telling them what the problem is and what to do about it.
  That brings me to my final point. It is no good having a communications policy if training does not go hand in hand with it. Have the Government considered in the Bill the use of virtual reality, how cheaply it can be employed and how it may, as part of contingency planning at local authority level, be built in as one of the requirements?
  One of the accusations that has been levelled is that any training or pre-preparation is likely to help the terrorists in their cause, a point that was made clearly by
  1176
  the hon. and learned Member for Medway. I do not believe that that is the case. At least three or perhaps four times in the 20th century, the British population was trained to deal with weapons of mass destruction. My mother, as a 12-year-old girl, was trained on how to deal with a gas attack. That was in 1938—before war broke out. It is crucial that the Bill pays attention to the practical elements of training people before and not during an incident. If people are treated responsibly and are treated with respect by the Government and taken into their confidence, fear will be dispelled. People will understand what the problem is. I reiterate the point: anybody who has lived in Northern Ireland will understand it.
  Before the Bill goes any further, will the Government and the Minister look to see what can be done practically, and at what cost—otherwise we will end up with a Bill that simply has no teeth? If we are going to dispel fear and not scare the pants off people at the prospect of terrorism, it is crucial that the absolute practicalities of it are understood. That is why children in primary schools are taught, under the scheme called "Firewatch", what to do if boiling oil is spilt on them from a chip pan. They know counter-intuitively as a result of that training to get down, keep away from other people and to roll out the flames.
  We face precisely the same problem with contamination. The Government's only advice that I can discover is, "Go in, stay in and tune in." If we have been contaminated, that is precisely what we should not do. People must understand that, if they are contaminated, they must keep still and be treated on the spot. They must not go in; they must stay precisely where they are. Unless people are properly trained, the problem will simply be exacerbated.
  There is much about the Bill that I believe to be good. There is much about it that, with the correct scrutiny and with the correct amendments made in Committee, can deliver useful legislation that will stand this country in good stead—as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said—in extremis when the most serious emergencies come upon us. However, until such time as we address the questions of resourcing, training and, above all else, communications, the Bill will continue to fail. I do not believe that it needs to.
  9.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): We have had an interesting and, at times, impassioned debate on what all those who have spoken agree is an important topic. I am grateful for Members' contributions, and I shall do my best in the time available to answer the points made. However, when I am unable to do that, as I will be in several cases because of the lack of time, I undertake to write to them at the earliest opportunity.
  It is clear from the debate that we are not considering a party political issue. I believe that something like the Bill would have been introduced by whatever party was in power. However, the Bill has generated a strong response in the House, so, as many hon. Members said, it is crucial that we get its provisions right. I welcome the thoughts of hon. Members that have helped to point the way on how improvements could be made.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster outlined the principles underpinning the Bill, which is part of the

  1177
  Government's commitment to building the UK's resilience to destructive challenges. We are committed to delivering a single framework for civil protection in the UK that is capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century.
  Hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) asked whether a single framework represented the right strategy. Disruptive challenges exist on a spectrum of severity—from localised flooding to a massive terrorist attack. While the threat of terrorism remains real, we should not lose sight of smaller-scale emergencies that can have a devastating effect, and hon. Members gave examples of such emergencies from places as far apart as Meirionnydd and Tynemouth. The impact of those emergencies on local communities can be similar to that of terrorist attacks, so our challenge is to ensure that arrangements are sufficiently robust and flexible to manage all risks. On the one hand, the Government must be ready and able to protect their citizens from the effects of a catastrophic incident, but, on the other hand, adequate safeguards must be in place to ensure that emergency powers are used only when absolutely necessary.
  We recognise the contribution made by many stakeholders in response to the extensive consultation on the Bill and its pre-legislative scrutiny. I welcome comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about how that has helped to improve the Bill to date. I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) about the way in which the media often misunderstand how the Government react and respond to pre-legislative scrutiny by changing their proposals. They have done that substantially to deal with several points regarding civil liberties. However, it was not a climbdown, but a powerful reaction to pre-legislative scrutiny, which should be welcomed rather than treated in the way in which it sometimes has been.
  The local response capability is the building block of our ability to deal with emergencies. As we all know, our fire, police and ambulance services are among the best in the world and have unquestionable expertise in emergency planning and response. The Bill will give the organisations that form the core of the local response—local authorities, emergency services and the voluntary sector—a clear and consistent set of expectations on, and responsibilities for, civil protection for the first time. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) tellingly highlighted the importance of co-ordination, and the Bill must provide a framework that can work in practice. It is an enabling Bill, so it does not name the precise parts of the building blocks that will be pulled together. Nevertheless, he was right to highlight the importance of making the process work, which is why practitioners have welcomed the proposals. The Bill will deliver the benefits of improved communication, co-operation and information sharing, which are all at the heart of the issues that he and other hon. Members raised. Greater consistency throughout the country will facilitate better performance management of multi-agency arrangements, which will allow more effective benchmarking and best practice sharing.
  1178
  We recognise the need to modernise the tools available to the Government to deal with the most serious emergencies. Some disruptive challenges are of such a scale or nature that they might require extraordinary measures that would not be appropriate in normal circumstances. Emergency powers are a necessary safety net to ensure that we can deal with even the most serious and unpredictable situations. I believe that the Bill meets those challenges and strikes the right balance between the individual's rights and the need to ensure the safety and well-being of the nation.
  Some Members have suggested that the powers are extreme and draconian. Indeed, in some cases the powers are draconian, but only if they are necessary. I am concerned that the debate has proceeded as though there were no current emergency powers legislation. It is important to recognise that the Bill replaces the Emergency Powers Act 1920, which included many of the powers in the Bill. There were some restrictions on when the powers in the 1920 Act could be used, but it did not require the exercise of emergency powers to be necessary and the provisions of the regulations did not have to be in due proportion to the emergency. Of course, the Human Rights Act 1998 will substantively limit what can be done under emergency powers, which was not so in 1920.
  Mr. Cash: Does the Minister agree that the Bill would be improved if we imported into it the notion of reasonableness in the making of the decisions and the question of how the Secretary of State arrives at those decisions when he thinks that something should be done?
  Fiona Mactaggart: The question of importing the notion of reasonableness was specifically considered following the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the draft Civil Contingencies Bill. We straightforwardly concluded that reasonableness is an absolute expectation of the actions of Ministers and that to import the notion specifically might query whether Ministers act reasonably in other respects. All Ministers are expected to act reasonably at all times. Indeed, in the case that the hon. Gentleman cited, that was the conclusion of the minority judgment that he so praised.
  Members have asked why it has taken so long to get to this point. We have not been idle: we have introduced the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Animal Health Act 2002, all of which deal with aspects of matters dealt with in the Bill. We have developed new structures within government such as the new security and intelligence co-ordinator, the overhauled co-ordination arrangements in central Government, a new regional tier, new structures within the devolved Administrations and a dedicated civil contingencies secretariat. We have also put in new funding: £330 million in the 2003 Budget for counter-terrorism; an extra £62 million for police work on counter-terrorism; and additional funds for the fire service and the NHS. Those practical measures go together with the new civil contingencies reaction force.
  We are trying to ensure that local government has the resources that it requires and are working closely with the Local Government Association to make sure that Government requirements are properly funded. As I have described, additional resources have been put into

  1179
  that area, and, as the needs of local government become clear, we will, as part of the 2004 spending review process, ensure that they are carefully considered.
  The other point raised in that respect is the question of where the buck stops and where responsibility lies. It is clear that the Government's view is, first, that resilience should be embedded within all Government organisations rather than being sliced off in a separate Department. We have made that clear choice because it is necessary for all parts of Government to be able to support resilience, but nevertheless it is clear that the Home Secretary is the core Minister with responsibility for those matters, and that he will be the lead Minister in responding to many of those points.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made a number of powerful points that reflected his continuing commitment to the rights of this House and of the citizens of this country. He had fun—let us be honest—with his point about Lords Commissioners to Her Majesty's Treasury, who are in large part Whips. Lords Commissioners are included in the Bill because there might be emergencies in which the primary interests affected are the responsibility of the Treasury, such as a terrorist attack on the Bank of England. In those circumstances, the Chancellor would be the person whom one would normally expect to take progress forwards. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister are normally referred to in legislation in such a way.
  I hope that it might assure the hon. Gentleman if I add that, by virtue of the Treasury Instruments (Signature) Act 1849, action must be taken by at least two Commissioners. One Commissioner cannot act alone. The intention of the procedure is to ensure absolutely that the Chancellor could take responsibility in such cases.
  Along with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills rightly made much play of the issue of the Human Rights Act 1998. Let us be clear that the Government have not sought to derogate from the provisions of the Act because we do not expect any regulations made under the powers in the Bill to contravene that Act. That is a very important commitment and safeguard to give the House. It makes clear the context in which we seek the powers. Frankly, the "dark forces" that my hon. and learned Friend referred to should not be forces that are designed to restrict the civil liberties of Members, but forces that threaten the safety and security of this nation. That is why such serious powers need to be considered at this point.
  Mr. Shepherd: By the Government's own actions, there is no reason to exclude the human rights issue. As I pointed out—I had hoped that the Minister would address the point—clause 10 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill makes the remedial scheme of section 7 of the Human Rights
  1180
  Act subject to its provisions. So such a matter could be included in this Bill without any compromise by the Government.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I have made the point clearly. The matter is also dealt with, together with specific outlines of the advice of parliamentary counsel, in paragraph 34 of the Government's response to the draft Bill.
  In the time left to me, I want to re-emphasis three points. First, the Bill is a necessary addition to the statute book. I am sure that we can all agree that a single legislative framework for civil protection is vital to managing the threats that we face in the 21st century. Secondly, the Bill is timely. Existing legislation was designed for a different era, and modernisation is long overdue—a point that hon. Members have made but I have sought to address by pointing out what we have been doing in recent months.
  Thirdly, we have built a strong consensus behind the generality of the proposals. One might not believe that from listening to some of the debate, but nevertheless it exists and we have secured buy-in from a wide range of groups. There is a strong expectation that the Government will deliver. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
That the following provisions shall apply to the Civil Contingencies Bill:

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Committal
  1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

  Proceedings in Standing Committee
  2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 10th February 2004.
  3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

  Consideration and Third Reading
  4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
  5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

  Programming Committee
  6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

  Programming of proceedings
  7. All other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Kemp.]
  The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 138.

  Division No. 32]

  [9.59 pm

  1181

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Allen, Graham

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Edwards, Huw

  Efford, Clive

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Farrelly, Paul

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Austin, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Baird, Vera

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Banks, Tony

  Flint, Caroline

  Barnes, Harry

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Follett, Barbara

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Foster, rh Derek

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Berry, Roger

  Best, Harold

  Foulkes, rh George

  Blackman, Liz

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Gardiner, Barry

  Boateng, rh Paul

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Gilroy, Linda

  Brennan, Kevin

  Goggins, Paul

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Browne, Desmond

  Grogan, John

  Bryant, Chris

  Hain, rh Peter

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Burden, Richard

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Burgon, Colin

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Hanson, David

  Cairns, David

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Casale, Roger

  Healey, John

  Caton, Martin

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Challen, Colin

  Heppell, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clapham, Michael

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Heyes, David

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Connarty, Michael

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hutton, rh John

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Denham, rh John

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  1182

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Kidney, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rammell, Bill

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lammy, David

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

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Lepper, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Linton, Martin

  Love, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Rooney, Terry

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruane, Chris

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCafferty, Chris

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Salter, Martin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  MacDonald, Calum

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacDougall, John

  Sawford, Phil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sheridan, Jim

  McKechin, Ann

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McWilliam, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Soley, Clive

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Squire, Rachel

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marshall David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Martlew, Eric

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Michael, rh Alun

  Stringer, Graham

  Miliband, David

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Moran, Margaret

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Morley, Elliot

  Timms, Stephen

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mountford, Kali

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Mudie, George

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Truswell, Paul

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Organ, Diana

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Owen, Albert

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Perham, Linda

  Ward, Claire

  Picking, Anne

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Pickthall, Colin

  Watts, David

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  White, Brian

  Plaskitt, James

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pound, Stephen

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Winnick, David

  Woodward, Shaun

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Woolas, Phil

  1183

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Wyatt, Derek

  Gillian Merron

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Allan, Richard

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Amess, David

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Bacon, Richard

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Barker, Gregory

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bellingham, Henry

  Leigh, Edward

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lidington, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Brazier, Julian

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Breed, Colin

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Mates, Michael

  Burnside, David

  Mercer, Patrick

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Moore, Michael

  Cash, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Norman, Archie

  Chope, Christopher

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Clappison, James

  Öpik, Lembit

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Page, Richard

  Collins, Tim

  Paice, James

  Conway, Derek

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Redwood, rh John

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Rendel, David

  Doughty, Sue

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Evans, Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Fallon, Michael

  Sanders, Adrian

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Selous, Andrew

  Flight, Howard

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Flook, Adrian

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Garnier, Edward

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gidley, Sandra

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spring, Richard

  Grayling, Chris

  Streeter, Gary

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Grieve, Dominic

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Gummer, rh John

  Syms, Robert

  Hague, rh William

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Heald, Oliver

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Viggers, Peter

  Hendry, Charles

  Watkinson, Angela

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Jackson. Robert (Wantage)

  Wilshire, David

  1184

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wishart, Pete

  Hugh Robertson and

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Mr. Mark Francois

  Question accordingly agreed to.

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Civil Contingencies Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
expenditure of a Minister of the Crown in connection with the Act, and
any increase attributable to the Act in sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under another enactment.—[Mr. Kemp.]
Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Primary Medical Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.—[Mr. Kemp.]
  Question agreed to.

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

  CONTROLS ON FLUORINATED GREENHOUSE GASES
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12179/03, draft Regulation on certain Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases; supports the Government's position on reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and notes that the Regulation is in line with the policy on fluorinated gases as set out in the United Kingdom Climate Change Programme and that the Regulation is designed to achieve emission reductions of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 and will assist the European Community and Member States to meet their targets under the Kyoto Protocol.—[Mr. Kemp.]
  Question agreed to.

Post Office Closures
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
10.15 pm
Ms Joan Walley: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to raise the subject of post office closures on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. I am grateful, as are a good number of my constituents' businesses and people across Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire. We feel that this is an eleventh-hour debate. It is our last chance to say to the Minister, whom I know to be caring and conscientious, that whatever the substance of what has been agreed under the Post Office reinvention programme, the reality on the ground in local neighbourhoods in Stoke-on-Trent and across north Staffordshire is very different.
As Parliament endorsed our Government's approach—I stand up to be counted as somebody who accepted that things could not continue as they were, and therefore that we had to embrace change—the Minister owes it to us to look closely at the way in which the changes are being forced on us in Stoke-on-Trent. The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for the Government's policy on postal services and for the nationwide network of postal services. The DTI, together with the Treasury, is the sole shareholder of Royal Mail Holdings plc. The Government have responsibility for overseeing the changes that have been brought about as a result of the Postal Services Act 2000. We expect the Minister to make the Post Office accountable for what it is doing in Stoke-on-Trent, across north Staffordshire and in other parts of the country, as evidenced by the presence of other hon. Members for the debate.
The proposal to close 21 offices across the city—six in my constituency, at Bradeley, Chell Heath, Stanfields, Dartmouth street, High lane and Waterloo road—amounts to nothing more than an ill-thought-out closure plan. It has been met with anger and derision and it is a travesty of the careful preparation that went into the Post Office reinvention programme. It has nothing to do with reinventing the Post Office to make its network services more viable. It has nothing to do with the Government's stated policies on neighbourhood renewal, which I have supported over many years. It will not strengthen the Post Office. The closure plan will weaken communities and betray trust in Government if it goes ahead without any changes. It will deter business from using the remaining post offices and provide incentives for businesses to look elsewhere, which the Post Office does not need or want.
Before I consider in detail what we will end up with, I shall comment on the consultation procedure. Members of Parliament—I am pleased to see my fellow MPs in the Chamber tonight—along with other consultees in Stoke-on-Trent received notice of the closures in a letter dated 9 December. As early as 11 December, just two days later, Postwatch chairman Peter Carr issued a press release condemning the Post Office for not properly managing the consultation process. The Post Office is risking its reputation and its brand.
By allowing only a six-week period which ends tomorrow—hence the timeliness of the debate—and which does not allow any extra time for Christmas and
1186
new year, the Post Office has prevented many people who have strong views from making their views known. I know, for example, that the petition from Mr. David Conway in my constituency and that from Mrs. Mellor would have had many more names had there not been such a short period for consultation with Christmas and new year in the middle, when many people could not make the necessary arrangements.
When I look in detail at the procedure used for consultation, it is even more apparent that the consultation is simply a sham. Members of Parliament were granted a meeting with the Post Office, but it was only in a follow-up letter to us, dated 16 January, just three days ago, that the Post Office revealed whom they had invited to consult. Stoke-on-Trent city council informed MPs, at a meeting that we had only last Friday, that its meeting to agree what it should submit to the consultation was not due to take place until 5 o'clock on Friday. By close of play this evening, I still could not obtain the details of Stoke-on-Trent city council's submission to the Post Office about the proposals now being considered. How could the council also consult the residents organisations that it recognises and the ward community facilitation service that was meant to be bringing decision making directly down to the people along with the local councillors?
Likewise, Age Concern has told me that it has submitted its comments to me but has no faith at all that the Post Office will listen to its real concerns that what is proposed will contribute to the dismantling of local communities and increase hardship for older people. It makes the point that for many people on benefits or restricted incomes, 0.8 miles is simply too far to walk, and often there is no public transport. A similar point has been made to me by the Royal National Institute of the Blind. It says that the nature of public transport serving routes around the receiving post offices has not been taken into account. That view is also shared by the citizens advice bureaux, which are also on the consultation list, but which told me earlier today that they were not even aware that they had been contacted, so they have not submitted any views about the problems for the people whom they advise, including those whose limited incomes force them to rely on local services and who cannot afford to travel.
It is worth the Minister noting that the local strategic partnership in Stoke-on-Trent, set up under legislation to bring community partnerships together, has had no opportunity to put the closure proposals to its scheduled meetings. It makes the point that in the past 12 months it has mapped out the poorest neighbourhoods, but this botched consultation that we have been given by the Post Office gives it no time to evaluate the likely impact of closures within neighbourhoods in my constituency. Neither is it clear how the work of the social exclusion unit will be affected by the proposals. What is the point of having the social exclusion units to make sure that communities and people are working together if the Post Office ignores them? I therefore wonder how the Minister can be satisfied that he and his Department are overseeing joined-up government. We need that deadline for consultation extended.
How did the Post Office prepare for this closure package? First, it seems to have simply removed the

1187
weakest links. It had no strategy; it simply touted for sub-postmasters who wanted to retire, and I can understand that. However, it comes as no surprise because in Stoke-on-Trent, North we have already seen the Post Office close small branches, and follow that up with a further closure programme that went for the easy targets of Packmore and Ball Green. The Post Office took no account whatever of the views of the community, of the amount of ill health, deprivation and disability, or of the lie of the land. In Stoke-on-Trent we have the frequently used phrase "up bank and down bank", and if one is elderly or disabled walking up bank and down bank is very difficult indeed. No account was taken of the lie of the land and I am still waiting for the Post Office chiefs to walk from Packmoor, with its closely knit community consisting of lots of older people, a new general practitioner's surgery, pharmacy and new houses, down a steep road—down bank—with no pavements and back up again, so that they can understand why the closure was so fiercely opposed. Even if the Post Office goes ahead with its proposals, if it can be encouraged to bring in newer, brighter facilities, so much the better.
When Ball Green was closed after a few weeks' reprieve, we were invited to hear the latest proposals, but neither elected Members nor local stakeholders were asked for our own ideas on the basic skeleton service that would best meet the needs of local people and business and be consistent with a strengthened post office network. The Post Office took no account of local council strategies or of the business and economic agendas that are being drawn up with Advantage West Midlands to renew the local economy after the large number of manufacturing job losses that have tragically occurred in our area.
We have neighbourhood renewal money earmarked for our city, we have health promotion plans, and we are encouraging small businesses to start up and to be successful, but the Post Office's so-called reinvention programme takes no account of any of that. Worst of all, it stands to undermine what other Departments are painstakingly trying to do on the ground with the support of local Members of Parliament. Will the Minister ask the Post Office to justify the assessment that it makes in paragraph 19 of its document on the urban network reinvention programme, which makes no reference to the housing pathfinders that are under way or to the regeneration zone's plans? Will he explain why paragraph 2, which describes the customer profile of the closing branch, makes no reference to the large number of elderly people who live in my constituency or to the industry-related ill health from which many of them suffer? The Post Office has failed even to base its plans on reliable facts.
The Post Office cannot hide behind its bland assertions that there is no alternative but to go full steam ahead with the closure plans. I have been talking to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters in my constituency throughout the three years in which the reinvention plan has been under discussion. I recognise that there is an element of "use it or lose it" and that some post offices will inevitably have to close in order to strengthen remaining offices and to make the mantra of bigger, brighter and better post offices a reality. However, we have been sold short in the way in which the programme is being delivered. The Post Office is taking no account of deprivation in some
1188
neighbourhoods. The definition of urban deprivation that has been adopted is flawed, especially in a former mining community such as north Staffordshire, where Coalfields Trust regeneration is doing an amazing amount to improve the standard of living.
Why has the Post Office not come forward with a set of options based not only on the needs of its core business, but equally on the individual needs of different communities and local business? The reality is that the strategy is simply to close post offices where the sub-postmaster has expressed a wish to retire. Before any sub-postmaster attempts to harangue me for saying that, let me say that I understand that they cannot be expected to subsidise essential neighbourhood services. Nevertheless, it should be possible for the starting point of the consultation to be based on which areas need a post office, not on those where it is easiest to close one down. Only then can a genuine strategy be drawn up.
Many of the protests that I receive point out that the wealthier, well-served areas are not being deprived of services as are those communities that have greater need of them because of their deprivation and reliance on benefits. Can the Minister tell the House what account he has taken of recent complaints that the Department for Work and Pensions has not made it easy for people to opt out and to keep their payments via the post office account? Can he also tell us what progress has been made on the negotiations to agree a new commercial contract for sub-postmasters? It has been put to me in meetings—here I pay tribute to the work of Mr. John Morris, regional secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters in north Staffordshire—that sub-postmasters cannot afford to pay the minimum wage to their employees on the basis of the current contract. That requires urgent consideration, as does the issue of improvements to assigned payments to benefit smaller post offices.
What account does the Minister take of the views of business in the consultation? Given the comments of Mr. Brian Carnes, director of the North Staffordshire chamber of commerce, about the proposals' costs to business, surely one DTI Minister should be conferring with his counterparts elsewhere? In an e-mail to me, one business man estimates that the annual cost of using a different post office would be £5,000 to his business alone. One hand of government is supporting business through the north Staffordshire regeneration programme while another is making it more difficult for business to operate. Indeed, other businesses have asked how they can survive when they will no longer have easy access to a post office where they can easily deposit bulky items.
I want, finally, to raise some reservations about the fund for deprived urban areas. The way in which it is being applied on the ground seems flawed. There are questions about which areas can apply to the fund and about which ward boundaries are to be used. Post offices that could benefit from the money in deprived wards are denied the opportunity because the strategy revolves around those who wish to retire rather than the communities that need to be served. Smallthorne post office is looking for support there, too.

1189
I hope that the Minister will not simply read me his civil service brief. I have two positive suggestions for him. First, extend the consultation and make it meaningful. Secondly, involve the stakeholder organisations in reconfiguring the network so that it is based on real needs, competitiveness, deprivation, and community and neighbourhood renewal. Everyone accepts that some post offices may have to close, but we want meaningful consultation.
10.31 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Does the hon. Gentleman wish to speak?
Mr. Fisher: I should like the opportunity to make one or two remarks, which I have discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the hon. Lady finished her speech?
Ms Walley: Yes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) have the hon. Lady's permission to take part in the debate?
Ms Walley: He does indeed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have the Minister's sanction?
The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): Yes.
Mr. Fisher: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to you, to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North for her kindness in giving me a moment or two, and to the Minister. I congratulate my hon. Friend on her resourcefulness in securing a debate that is important and urgent for everyone in north Staffordshire.
Now that the Minister has heard last week's debate and my hon. Friend's excellent speech tonight, I hope that he will think again about the disparity that is apparent between the theory of closures and what is happening in practice. In theory, they are an orderly reduction of the post office network in response to falling demand. In practice, they are an incoherent butchery of a public service that will leave some areas, particularly two large wards of almost 20,000 people in my constituency, without a single post office. Closures work in response to applications from post offices, and if each is vulnerable, there is no provision at all in some areas.
I hope that the Minister will think on that. I know that he cares enormously about post offices, but the way that closures are happening will leave not a smaller, coherent network, but a patchy one, and in those areas where the patches do not meet up, a disastrously inadequate service.
10.33 pm
The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on securing the debate and on the way in which she has presented her case. She described issues affecting the post office network that are relevant to all Members. I welcome the opportunity to respond to those points.
I assure my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) that I have taken serious note of their concerns, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central also raised in last week's Opposition day debate. Both my hon. Friends have also, in discussion and in correspondence with me, told me about their experience of the consultation process for the programme. I shall hold urgent discussions with the chief executive of Post Office Ltd. and the chairman of Postwatch about how we can ensure that there is greater confidence than has been expressed in debates of late that the public consultation is meaningful and local views are properly considered before final decisions are made.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that in the light of the concerns expressed by my two hon. Friends, Post Office Ltd. has agreed to extend the consultation period for the three Stoke-on-Trent city constituencies by two weeks until 3 February.
Again, I affirm the importance that I attach to the network of local post offices as a focal point for their communities in urban as well as rural areas, especially for elderly and less mobile people. We are committed to maintaining a viable nationwide network of post offices and ensuring that benefit recipients can continue to collect their entitlement in cash each week from their local post office by means of a Post Office card account or a bank account.
The starting point for our policy for the network is the performance and innovation unit's 2000 report, "Modernising the Post Office Network". It rightly pointed out that the network of post offices had not kept pace with the changing needs of its customers. Too often, post offices had become dingy and shabby through lack of investment and the Post Office had not made the most of its highly trusted status as a provider of financial services. The report was widely welcomed, in the House and elsewhere, as squaring up honestly to the challenges to the network. It made 24 recommendations, all of which we accepted.
The post office network has been contracting since the 1960s. Reductions in post office usage have occurred for all sorts of reasons. Past absence of investment is important, but dramatic improvements in technology, greater mobility and changes in shopping and financial habits mean that people simply do not use post offices as much. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North rightly made the point, "Use it or lose it." That applies to many post offices.
The company was slow to develop new sources of income before the beginning of the switch last April by the Department for Work and Pensions to making all

1191
benefit payments by direct credit. More than 43 per cent. of benefit recipients already had their cash paid directly into their bank accounts rather than through order books, compared with only 26 per cent. in 1996. There are far fewer recipients of jobseeker's allowance now than a few years ago. Those changes pose big challenges to the network of post offices and they must be tackled, not ducked.
In the past financial year, Post Office Ltd. lost £194 million before exceptional items. This year it has reported a loss of £91 million for its first half year. Declining profitability in the network means that sub-postmasters' ability to sell on their businesses—the way in which people moved on in the past—has taken a severe knock. Decisive action is essential to maintain the sustainable country-wide network that we all want. We are taking such action.
One PIU recommendation was that if the Post Office decided that fewer offices were needed in some urban areas, the Government should consider providing funding to compensate affected sub-postmasters adequately for the loss of their business. That is right, and it is why, after parliamentary approval of the funding, Post Office Ltd began its urban network reinvention programme in November 2002.
To minimise the possibility of damaging and unco-ordinated closures, initial closure proposals in the programme focused on single post offices that were known to be most at risk through poor viability. In response to comments from hon. Members and others and to reduce uncertainty about the future shape of the network, the company moved to producing its proposals on an area-by-area basis, using each parliamentary constituency as the framework.
The area-wide plan gives the Post Office an opportunity to discuss with hon. Members and others the future shape of the network. It gives sub-postmasters confidence, and most people accept that an area-wide picture should help in our discussions about the future. The company aims to complete all public consultations by next December. That will also help to reduce uncertainty.
Ms Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that when a desert could be left by the closure plan, the Post Office should consider carefully proposals from, for example, other retail outlets, where new post offices could be introduced, even alongside a closure programme?
Mr. Timms: We have made it clear that at the end of the programme, at least 95 per cent. of urban residents should be not more than a mile from their nearest post office. If there is an area larger than that, in which a large number of people would be more than a mile from their nearest post office, the Post Office should consider the possibility of opening a new outlet—indeed, I can think of a number of cases in which that has happened—perhaps within a larger retail outlet. I certainly welcome that.
In the debate last week, we talked about the crucial role of Postwatch in these discussions. Postwatch's assessment of the proposals relating to Stoke-on-Trent
1192
is not yet complete, but I understand that the organisation has some concerns about two of the proposed closures in Stoke-on-Trent, Central. It differs from the Post Office in seeing Trent Vale as a reasonably well presented post office. Also, although there is another branch less than a mile away at Hanford, there is a large road in between them. Postwatch has suggested that if Trent Vale were not retained, there would be a strong case for Oak Hill in Stoke-on-Trent, South. Postwatch is also concerned that the Penkhull branch was given as the receiving branch when the Allotments branch was closed under the programme last May. Postwatch is continuing to reflect on those matters, but I find it difficult to see how the closure of an office that everyone was told would be a receiving office only a few months ago can now be justified.
Following those proposals, and the decision that will be reached in due course—and given the additional two weeks' consultation that I mentioned—Post Office Ltd. has no intention of returning to the area with any further proposals for closures under the programme. The company believes that the proposed changes to the network across Stoke-on-Trent will fulfil its objective of providing the right level of service for the level of custom in the area.
An additional element of the programme is the £30 million that the Government have provided for modernising and adapting the offices that remain in the network. The key to improving standards in those offices will be the increased volume of business that they can expect, but the grants of up to £10,000—and in exceptional circumstances, up to £20,000—for each office that expects to take on a significant number of additional customers, to be matched by the same sum from the sub-postmaster, will be an important boost to achieving the bigger, brighter, better post offices that my hon. Friend rightly referred to.
Mrs. Betty Williams: Is the Minister aware that when the Post Office writes a letter of decision to Members of Parliament, the last paragraph contains the customer helpline telephone number and a website address, in case Members need to know any more about the decision?
Mr. TimmsI would be grateful if my hon. Friend would let me see the letter that she is referring to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North referred to the steps that we have taken in the programme in relation to deprived urban post offices. I understand that to date in the Stoke-on-Trent area there have been four applications to the fund that was launched by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in December 2002. That involves a £15 million scheme, called the deprived urban post office fund, specifically designed to support post office branches that are invaluable to the community in disadvantaged urban areas throughout England. Under the scheme, individual grants of up to £50,000 are available to sub-postmasters.
Of the four applications that have so far been made to the fund from the Stoke-on-Trent area, two have been approved: an application for £45,000 from the Milehouse lane branch, which is in the Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency, just north of Stoke-on-Trent,

1193
and one for £49,323 from the Normacot road branch in Stoke-on-Trent, South. A more recent application from the Sneyd Green branch in my hon. Friend's constituency is currently being assessed, as is the application from the Beverley drive branch in Stoke-on-Trent, Central.
We are investing very substantial sums in supporting this transformation of the entire post office network—some £2 billion in total. We have established a strong
1194
management team at the Post Office and I believe that the prospects are good. However, it is vital that there should be sufficient public confidence in the arrangements for consultation about the urban reinvention programme. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for raising their concerns with me.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Biological Weapons
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the United Kingdom Government's policy is on the export of(a) bacillus anthracis, (b) clostridium botulinum, (c) histoplasma capsulatum, (d) brucella, (e) melitensis and (f) clostridium perfringens by other countries. [146722]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  The export of these biological materials is controlled by States' obligations under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC). They are, however, all materials that have a legitimate use in laboratories and facilities for the production of vaccines to protect against the diseases that may be caused by exposure to them. Their export, in small quantities consistent with legitimate medical and scientific research to established scientific institutions in states that are Party to the BTWC, is not banned under the Convention.

  The Government would expect all other countries to scrutinise any applications for such exports with the same rigour as we would for exports from the United Kingdom.

  Boards of Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many boards of inquiry into deaths of military personnel have been established in each year since 1990. [142115]

  Mr. Ingram
  Not all military deaths are subject to boards of inquiry. However, details of military deaths investigated by boards of inquiry or other investigations are as follows:

  Royal Navy

  Army1

  RAF2

  1990

  8

  74

  15

  1991

  11

  104

  9

  1992

  4

  73

  9

  1993

  10

  61

  8

  1994

  4

  60

  11

  1995

  6

  66

  11

  1996

  6

  45

  8

  1997

  10

  35

  4

  1998

  6

  50

  7

  1999

  5

  45

  6

  2000

  5

  49

  3

  2001

  5

  42

  4

  2002

  8

  44

  3

  Total

  88

  748

  98

  1 Includes road accidents on duty and hostile action (not normally subject to Service investigation).

  2 Includes Army, USAF and Italian military personnel killed in RAF aircraft accidents.

  Communications
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training was made available for UK forces personnel on the Oscar communications system; and if he will make a statement. [147278]

  Mr. Ingram
  The three key elements of the Operations and Strategic Communications Architecture (OSCA) are Multiplexers, Exchanges and Military satellite terminals. Prior to deployment, personnel received training on all three of these elements. Training was conducted by a mixture of military and civilian courses, and was supplemented by having Subject Matter Expects (SMEs) available in theatre.

  Defence Spending
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2003,Official Report, column 943W, on defence spending, what the limits are on the UK's ability to conduct unilateral national operations in pursuance of security objectives; and if he will make a statement. [148530]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 3.3 and 3.5 of the Defence White Paper, Delivering Security in a Changing World (Cm 6041–1).

  Departmental Relocation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff in his Department work in(a) the West Midlands and (b) North Staffordshire. [146915]

  Mr. Caplin
  The number of civilian and Service personnel working in the West Midlands and Staffordshire are detailed as follows:

  West Midlands Government Office Region

  Staffordshire1

  Civilian Staff as at 1 November 20032

  4,790

  3800

  Service personnel as at 1 July 20024

  6,740

  1,080

  1 The Department does not hold information on staff based in the North Staffordshire area.

  2 Figures are for permanent industrial and non-industrial staff, excluding Royal Fleet Auxiliary, those on career breaks, long-term sick, secondments etc.

  3 The civilian figure for Staffordshire is an approximation as the Department does not routinely publish data below Government Office Region level.

  4 Figures are taken from Tri-Service Publication 10, last published in July 02.

  Flying Hours
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current funded flying hours are for(a) Hercules, (b) Nimrod, (c) Chinook, (d) Sea King, (e) Puma, (f) Lynx, (g) Tornado F3, (h) Tornado GR4, (i) Harrier GR7, (j) Sea Harrier and (k) Jaguar aircraft of each type; and what amount of funded flying hours these aircraft had in each of the preceding three years. [145646]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows funded (that is planned) flying hours.
  915W

  Financial year

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Hercules

  36,709

  36,709

  37,458

  37,458

  Nimrod

  12,265

  12,432

  11,830

  12,495

  Chinook

  13,744

  13,776

  14,200

  15,504

  Sea King

  42,575

  41,413

  35,400

  33,870

  Puma

  13,550

  15,210

  14,400

  14,857

  Lynx

  49,150

  40,100

  36,500

  36,075

  Tornado F3

  26,136

  24,193

  23,022

  25,468

  Tornado GR4

  28,572

  26,366

  26,058

  27,733

  Harrier GR7

  15,379

  15,282

  14,809

  14,783

  Sea Harrier

  6,320

  6,565

  6,003

  6,850

  Jaguar

  12,215

  12,543

  12,996

  12,446

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name the Iraqi civilians killed in incidents which have been investigated since the end of the conflict by the Special Investigation Branch. [141674]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom Military Authorities in Iraq have investigated or are investigating the deaths of the following Iraqi Civilians, all of which are thought to have occurred since 1 May 2003:

  Ali Salaam Aziz Mohammed

  Dyab Rehman Nasser

  Rhadi Nama

  Ahmed Jabber Kareem

  Nadhem Abdulha

  Abd Al Jubba Mousa Ali

  Hazma Abdul Hussein Al-Askary

  Said Shabram

  Wael Jabber Raheem

  Jasim Yassim Jabbar Al-Shimillwy

  Date Of Incident

  Date Investigation Started

  Name of Iraqi Civilian

  Stage of Investigation

  8 May 2003

  8 May 2003

  Radhi Natna

  Investigation complete

  8 May 2003

  11 May 2003

  Ahmad Jabber Kareem

  Investigation ongoing

  17 May 2003

  17 May 2003

  Abd Al Jubba Mousa All

  Investigation ongoing

  24 May 2003

  24 May 2003

  Said Shabram

  Investigation ongoing

  2 Aug 2003

  4 Aug 2003

  Hassan Abbad Said

  Investigation ongoing

  14 Sep 2003

  15 Sept 2003

  Baha Nasheem Mohammed

  Investigation ongoing

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims have been submitted to the UK under section 6 of the Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 17; how many of these claims(a) give rise to and (b) do not give rise to a legal liability to pay compensation under English law; how many (i) compensation payments and (ii) ex-gratia payments have been made; and what the (A) amount and (B) reason for the payments was in each case. [146848]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 14 January 2004]A total of 588 claims for compensation have been submitted to the United Kingdom Authorities under section 6 of CPA Order Number 17. Of these, 13 have been transferred to other contingents/organisations, 226 have been repudiated, 57 have received payment, and
  916W

  Waleed Fiay Mezban

  Baha Nasheem Mohammed

  Hassan Abbad Saied

  Hussan Said Shaba Al-Bata.

  Eight of these investigations have been completed. In three cases, the deaths were found to be as a result of road traffic accidents; in three cases it was found that troops had behaved in accordance with their Rules of Engagement and that there was no case to answer; in one case it was found that death had resulted from natural causes; and one case has been referred to the Army Prosecuting Authority to determine whether charges will be brought. Six of these investigations are on-going.

  An investigation is also being conducted into the death of Ather Karen Al-Mowafakia, which occurred prior to 1 May 2003.

  In addition, investigations have been conducted into an incident in which a member of UK armed forces and an Iraqi civilian (who has yet to be identified) died, and into a fatal traffic accident in which a Kuwaiti civilian died, the name of whom has been withheld by Iraqi police. Both of these incidents occurred before 1 May 2003. The first investigation is on-going; the second has concluded and determined that the incident was an accident.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer of 4 December,Official Report, column 127W, on Iraq, if he will name the individuals whose deaths are being investigated; on what date each died; on what date each investigation began; and what stage each investigation has reached. [143058]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is as follows:

  the remainder are still under investigation. The following table summarises the compensation payments made to date:

  Category

  Number of Cases

  Total Settlements(£)

  Fatalities

  3

  8,125

  Personal Injury

  20

  7,250

  Property Damage

  7

  34,243

  Road Traffic Accidents

  27

  22,606

  Total

  57

  72,224

  Ex-Gratia Payments are not covered by Section 6 of the Coalition Provisional Authority Number 17.
  917W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what strategy he is pursuing to(a) recover and (b) dispose of weaponry contaminated by depleted uranium in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [148054]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 537W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith).

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total volume is of depleted uranium tipped weapons used in Iraq between March and May 2003; and if he will make a statement. [148295]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no depleted uranium tipped weapons in UK service. However, UK forces in Iraq used a depleted uranium (DU) round in anti-armour operations. The round comprises an outer casing or "sabot" that surrounds a long rod penetrator made of DU, plus charge and igniter components. 1.9 tonnes of DU were expended by British Challenger tanks during the recent conflict in Iraq.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the availability is of cluster bombs to United Kingdom forces in Iraq. [148297]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no cluster bombs held by UK forces in Iraq.

  Manning Control
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to carry out manning control point reviews within the next 15–18 months. [147889]

  Mr. Caplin
  There are currently no plans to conduct any Manning Control Point reviews in the next 15–18 months.

  £million

  FinancialYear

  Pre-Feasability Programme

  TRRAP

  Longer Range Threat

  Capability Gap Work

  BMD Studies

  Missile Defence Centre

  Theatre BMD

  Total

  1994–95

  2.0

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  2.00

  1995–96

  2.5

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  2.5

  1996–97

  .3

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  .3

  1997–98

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1998–99

  -

  2.2

  -

  -

  .5

  -

  -

  2.7

  1999–2000

  -

  4.5

  -

  -

  .5

  -

  -

  5.00

  2000–01

  -

  5.00

  -

  -

  .5

  -

  -

  5.5

  2001–02

  -

  0.8

  1.2

  .6

  .5

  -

  1.0

  4.1

  2002–03

  -

  -

  1.2

  .6

  .5

  -

  1.0

  3.3

  2003–04

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  4.00

  1.0

  5.00

  MOD Posts
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) service and (b) MOD civilian posts he estimates will be transferred to the private sector over the next three years from the (i) Royal Navy, (ii) Army and (iii) Royal Air Force. [148051]

  Mr. Ingram
  Officials are collating the information requested. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Missile Defence Technology
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amount spent by the Government on research into missile defence technology in each year since 1988; and if he will make a statement. [142196]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding reply 10 December 2003]: Expenditure by the United Kingdom Government on research specific to Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) technology began in 1994–96 when the Pre-feasibility Programme was undertaken. This examined options, costs and timescales of BMD for the UK and its deployed forces at a cost of £2 million in Financial Year 1994–95 and £2.5 million in Financial Year 1995–96. An extension was completed in Financial Year 1997–98 at a cost of £300,000.

  As part of the Corporate Research programme, the Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme (TRRAP) began in July 1998 following an SDR recommendation, focussing on BMD defence of deployed forces. TRRAP cost £2.2 million, £4.5 million, £5 million and £0.8 million in the Financial Years 1998–99 to 2001–02 respectively and completed in July 2001.

  Alongside and following TRRAP, a programme of BMD studies ran from Financial Year 1998–99 to Financial Year 2002–03 at a cost of £0.5 million pa. In Financial Years 2001–02 and 2002–03 two further programmes examined the longer-range threat at a cost of £1.2 million per annum and assessed the significance of any capability gap at a cost of £0.6 million per annum.

  In Financial Year 2001–02 research into theatre BMD building on TRRAP began at a recurring cost of £1 million per annum. Additionally in Financial Year 2003–04, £4 million will be expended on research through the Missile Defence Centre.

  In summary, expenditure in the 10 successive Financial Years since 1994– 95 is set in the table below:

  Network-centric Capabilities
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2003,Official Report, columns 944–45W, on network-centric capabilities, what effect he expects the change of emphasis towards network-centric capabilities will have on the numbers of employees within the United Kingdom armed forces. [148686]
  919W
  Mr. Hoon
  At this stage, I have nothing further to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Member on 17 December 2003,Official Report, columns 944–45W.

  Northern Ireland
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons troops in Northern Ireland have been advised to avoid wearing(a) badges and (b) clothing which would indicate their support for the (i) Glasgow Rangers and(ii) Glasgow Celtic football clubs; and what representations have been made to him on this issue. [148442]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Army's role in Northern Ireland is in support of the PSNI, which has taken steps to remove contentious emblems under the Patten reforms.
  The MOD advises Service personnel in Northern Ireland that the wearing of emblems and clothing including contentious football tops, which could be misconstrued as offensive, should be avoided. This is good practice and complies with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland's Code of Practice which recommends that employers promote a good and harmonious working environment.

  I am not aware of any representations on this issue.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the number of Astute-class nuclear attack submarines available to the Royal Navy. [144690]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Astute-Class of nuclear submarines will progressively supersede the existing Swiftsure and Trafalgar Classes through a phased replacement programme. At present, the Ministry of Defence has a contract with BAE Systems for the design and build of the first three Astute-Class submarines. Decisions on the acquisition of further Astute submarines will be taken in due course. The MOD routinely considers changes to the future Defence programme to ensure that capability levels meet our anticipated requirements.

  Permanent Secretary (Engagements)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what elates the Permanent Secretary discussed allegations concerning Robert Lee International and BAE Systems with the chairman of BAE Systems. [142411]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence spoke to the Chairman of BAE Systems in May and June 2001 about allegations raised at the time concerning Robert Lee International. He also spoke to the Chairman of BAE Systems in September 2003, at the request of the Serious Fraud Office, in the light of the renewal of the allegations in the Press.

  Procurement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's procurement decisions have been the subject of judicial review since 1997. [147958]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  RAF Bicester
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it remains his policy to(a) close and (b) dispose of the airfield at RAF Bicester. [147963]

  Mr. Ingram
  As I announced in my letter to the hon. Member on 29 August 2003, the site is due to be vacated by military users later this year. The site will be disposed of on completion of the planning process that will ultimately determine its future use.

  Reinstatement Committees
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training members of employment tribunals receive to enable them to sit on reinstatement committees. [146179]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  The training of members of employment tribunals is a matter for the judiciary. The emphasis in training chairmen and lay members of employment tribunals is on the exercise of judicial skills—making findings of fact in accordance with the relevant legal principles and according parties a fair hearing. This applies whether dealing with the over 70 different jurisdictions covered by the employment tribunals or when constituted as a reinstatement committee.

PRIME MINISTER

  Chechnya
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Prime Minister what(a) representations he has received from and (b) discussions he has had with Chechen President Akhmad Kadryov. [148931]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, I have not received any representations from, or had any discussions with, President Akhmad Kadyrov.

  Fatalities (Government Obligations)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what obligations are recognised by the Government as arising in cases where a person has died from a heart attack as a result of duress or harsh treatment inflicted by an agent of the state. [148321]

  The Prime Minister
  Any such allegation would be investigated and appropriate action taken on the basis of that investigation.

  Government Performance Audit
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister whether a copy of the audit report on the performance of his Government, to be published on 16 January, will be placed in the Library. [148808]

  The Prime Minister
  No. Information relating to internal advice and consultation is not disclosed under Exemption 2, Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Prime Minister when he was informed that the USA was intending to wage war on Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [149053]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr. Allen) on 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 868W and on 23 June 2003, Official Report, column 616W.

  Rogue States
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Prime Minister how he defines rogue states. [148677]

  The Prime Minister
  The phrase "rogue state" is generally used to describe those believed to be engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, or those which support terrorism and offer succour to those who commit terrorist acts.

  Thames Gateway
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what discussions he has had in connection with the Thames Gateway Communities plans regarding(a) the Crossrail Project and (b) a new Thames road crossing; [148200]

  (2) which Government Departments are involved in plans for the development of the Thames Gateway communities; and what commitments have been made. [148202]

  The Prime Minister
  The Thames Gateway involves a number of Government Departments who are all represented in the Cabinet Committee on the Thames Gateway (MISC 22). Full membership and terms of reference of all Ministerial Committees of the Cabinet are available in the Library of the House.
  The Government's policy was set out in 'Creating Sustainable Communities: Making It Happen in Thames Gateway' in July 2003, copies of which are available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website. This set out a level of Government financial support, including £446 million of ODPM pump priming funding over three years, to enable the development of at least 120,000 new homes in the Gateway by 2016.

  The Department for Transport's recent announcements concerning the inclusion of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link domestic services in the Integrated Kent franchise and PFI funding support for the Thames Gateway Bridge in East London demonstrate the Government's continuing support for investment in infrastructure in the Gateway.
  On Crossrail the Secretary of State for Transport has asked a review team to look at the proposals for Crossrail from Cross London Rail Links.

  I have regular meetings and discussions with ministerial colleagues and others on a wide range of subjects and will continue to do so. As with previous Administrations, it is not my practice to provide details
  922W
  of confidential discussions, under exemption 2 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Prime Minister what common factor makes it permissible for the US, the UK, France, Israel, India, Pakistan and Russia to hold weapons of mass destruction. [148676]

  The Prime Minister
  The UK is fully committed to the Treaties promoting the non-proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and supports their universalisation.

  The US, UK, France and Russia, together with China, are recognised by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as nuclear-weapon States, as defined in Article 9(3) of the Treaty. Under the terms of the treaty Israel, India and Pakistan cannot be recognised as nuclear weapons states. The UK regularly calls on these states to accede to the treaty as non-nuclear weapon states.

  The US, the UK, France, India, Pakistan and Russia are all States Parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC). This Convention bans States Parties from producing, developing or stockpiling biological and toxin weapons. Israel has not acceded to the Convention, but is bound by the Geneva Protocol which prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons. The UK regularly calls on Israel to accede to the convention.

  The US, UK, France, India, Pakistan and Russia are all States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which bans the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and requires the destruction of existing stockpiles. US, India and Russia have begun destruction of their chemical weapon stocks as required by the convention subject to close scrutiny by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Israel has been a signatory of the CWC since 1993, but has yet to ratify it. The UK regularly calls on Israel to ratify the convention and supports calls by the EU and the OPCW to encourage it to do so.

WALES

  Wales-only Legislation
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what requests he has received from the Welsh Assembly Government for Wales only legislation to be included in(a) the current legislative programme and (b) the legislative programme for each of the last three years. [144399]

  Mr. Touhig
  The information is contained in the following table.

  Legislative programme

  2003–04

  Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Wales) Bill Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill Tourism Accommodation (Registration) (Wales) Bill Transport (Wales) Bill Smoking in Public Places

  923W

  Legislative Programme

  2002–03

  NHS (Wales) Bill Common Land (Wales) Bill Sunday Licensing (Wales) Bill St. David's Day Bill Land Use Planning Bill Education Bill Audit (Wales) Bill Housing Ombudsman (Wales) Bill Passenger Transport Bill

  2001–02

  Health and Well-Being (Wales) Bill Education (Wales) Bill St. David's Day Bill Census (Amendment) (Wales) Bill

  No formal bids were made for the 2000–01 session as they would have needed to be submitted at a time when the Assembly had only just been constituted. However, informal discussions resulted in a bid being made for a Bill to extend the functions of the Children's Commissioner for Wales.

  The Assembly Government also informed us of the Assembly's call for a Bill to ban smoking in public places.

  In most cases, the Government publishes Wales-only Bills in draft. The Assembly Government supports this and makes its bids in that context.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Small Arms Action Network
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funds have been provided to the International Action Network on Small Arms in the past five years; and for what purpose. [147888]

  Hilary Benn
  The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) were awarded a grant for £1.1 million in October 2001 under the joint DFID/MOD/FCO Global Conflict Prevention Pool's (GCPP) Small Arms Strategy. To date they have received £997,059 and the full grant amount is due to be disbursed by April 2004.

  The purpose of the project is to develop regional NGO and civil society networks in order to increase political commitment, raise public awareness and coordinate global action to effect policy change in tackling small arms proliferation and misuse.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the security situation in Afghanistan and its effect on(a) the provision of humanitarian aid and (b) national reconstruction. [148100]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Security in Afghanistan is one of the biggest challenges facing the Afghan Transitional Administration (ATA), especially in the South and East of the country where Taliban insurgents continue to encroach. The recent bombings in Kandahar, which claimed 15 lives, and assassination of a French UNHCR worker in Ghazni, are unfortunate evidence of this.

  Threats to the safety of Afghan and international staff have meant that some NGOs and international organisations are finding it increasingly difficult to operate in some parts of the country. So far difficulties
  924W
  exist only in specific areas and organisations are doing an excellent job in working around these to continue providing assistance wherever possible. However, the overall effect on the provision of humanitarian aid and reconstruction is very serious.

  The international community is heavily involved in helping the ATA deal with these problems, by helping reform its army and police force and through further deployment of joint civil-military Provincial Reconstruction Teams. The international coalition continues to counter Taliban fighters in Southern and Eastern Afghanistan and the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has recently been expanded to allow it to operate beyond Kabul. Subject to provision of troops by contributing nations this will enable it to support the UN-led programme to disarm and demobilise former combatants and facilitate other parts of the Bonn Process including elections.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how many of the international secondments to Afghanistan from his Department in each of the last two years have been of women; [148111]

  (2) how many international secondments of officials from his Department have been made to Afghanistan in each of the last two years; and if he will list their responsibilities. [148112]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  In 2002, DFID seconded two officials, both women, to international organisations in Afghanistan. One was seconded through UNDP to work in the ministry of Rural Reconstruction and Development and the other was seconded to the office of the EU special representative in Afghanistan as his special Assistant. In addition we employed three UK staff in our Kabul office of which one was a women.

  In 2003, both female secondments remained in their posts for a period. A male official was seconded to the World Bank office in Kabul as a governance and institutional development specialist. In our Kabul office we employed five UK staff of which two were women.

  African Union
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial support his Department has provided to the African Union since the expiry of the agreement in August 2003. [147345]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID fully supports the vision of the African Union, particularly its key role in peace and security across the continent. Since February 1999 DFID has given £1,089,745 to the Conflict Management Centre of the OAU/AU. This is distributed in three tranches: February 1999 to September 2000 (£311,812); June 2001 to August 2003 (£677,933) and October 2003 to March 2004 (£100,000). The last tranche is via the United Nations Development Programme and will be spent shortly.

  We have also been supporting an AU peacekeeping mission in Burundi bilaterally with £3.9 million to Mozambique as one of the troop contributing countries and we are about to release £2 million through the AU itself for the same mission.

  Angola
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance his Department is giving to the Government of Angola for preparations for the general election in 2005; and if he will make a statement. [147776]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's Country Engagement Paper (CEP) for Angola identifies the priorities for UK development assistance over the next three years. This includes support to the government and other stakeholders to prepare for the next general election. The date of the next general election in Angola has not yet been set however, with a possibility that it might be later than 2005.

  DFID are currently in discussion with the Angolan government and civil society as to the nature of that support. Possible areas include: reform of the constitution and electoral laws, voter and civic education, election-related conflict management and election monitoring. Another proposal is to fund Angolan parliamentarians to participate as observers in some of the elections that will take place in the SADC region during 2004 (Malawi, South Africa, Mozambique, Botswana and Namibia).

  Bilateral Aid
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to advance the target of an increase in the proportion of the Department's low-risk bilateral projects evaluated as successful. [148144]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's 2003 Autumn Performance Report on progress against our Public Service Agreement, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House last month, reported that 80 per cent. of our low-risk projects are currently evaluated as completely or largely successful. Of the remaining 20 per cent., many of these are evaluated as achieving a number of their objectives. While this represents a high success rate, DFID is constantly seeking to improve the impact and value for money of all our interventions, including high, medium and low-risk projects.

  All projects are subject to an approval process in which their potential contribution to our corporate priorities is assessed. Once underway, projects are `scored' annually to review progress towards achieving their objectives. Fuller reviews are undertaken midway through their duration and once they are completed. We also conduct wider evaluations of our portfolio's success and of the lessons we have learned. The performance of our portfolio, and progress against this target, is monitored every three months by DFID's Management Board. These processes allow us to address slippage and make judgments about how our resources should best be used.

  Brazil
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his Answer of 16 January 2004.Official Report, column 237W, on the Indigenous People's Demonstration Project, by how much the expenditure on the Indigenous People's Demonstration Project in Brazil will be reduced over the next two years; and what representations he has received
  926W
  on behalf of the Indigenous People's Demonstration Project in response to the reduction in United Kingdom funding. [147742]

  Hilary Benn
  We expect to spend £500,000 during 2004–05 and 2005–06 compared to £700,000 originally envisaged. As savings have been possible in the cost of expert advice (recruiting a Brazilian rather than an EU national) and German aid funds are able to meet the demand for demonstration funds, we will be able to deliver training and capacity building activities at a rate similar to that originally scheduled for these years.
  No representations have been made to either DFID's office in Brasilia or the British Embassy. DFID has, however, held discussions with the Brazil Cooperation Ministry to explain the reasons for the changes in expenditure. All project staff have been informed and are revising the project accordingly.

  Burma
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the level of cross-border humanitarian assistance to internally displaced people in Burma. [147348]

  Hilary Benn
  We know that some agencies provide cross-border assistance to internally displaced people in Burma, but we do not have reliable information on the total levels of this assistance. DFID does not fund cross-border assistance since we are unable to undertake monitoring and evaluation in these areas to ensure effective use of funds provided.

  We support the World Health Organisation's border health programme and the Burmese Border Consortium's effort to provide food aid to refugees along the border in Thailand, totalling £0.67 million in 2003–04. Internally displaced people are likely to be among the beneficiaries of DFID funding to tackle HIV/AIDS across Burma and basic health care programmes in two border states, towards which DFID is making a total contribution of £2.3 million in 2003–04.

  Burundi
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance has been offered to the government of Burundi for the improvement of medical facilities for the delivery of new malaria treatments. [147822]

  Hilary Benn
  There has been no assistance to the Government of Burundi for the improvement of medical facilities for the delivery of new malaria treatments. However we are providing assistance through international NGOs and UN agencies, as are other donors, to cover urgent humanitarian needs. This includes funding for Medecins Sans Frontieres who have helped introduce the new malaria protocol. This year we are also providing funding of £250,000 to the World Health Organisation (WHO) for the implementation of the new protocol. WHO will be working closely with the Government of Burundi.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on cholera levels in Burundi. [147824]
  927W
  Hilary Benn
  According to WHO, the last confirmed outbreak of cholera in Burundi was in 2002. Since then there have been no further reports of outbreaks.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made towards the rehousing of those left homeless by the storm in the Bubanza province of Burundi. [147825]

  Hilary Benn
  It is reported that on Sunday 4 January 500 people in Mpanda Commune in the northwestern province of Bubanza were made homeless by a storm which destroyed 102 houses and a primary school. DFID have not responded to this problem directly. We are however providing support to humanitarian work in Burundi amounting to £1.18 million so far this financial year.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has to visit Burundi. [148110]

  Hilary Benn
  I have no plans to visit Burundi at the moment.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in Burundi. [148116]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID closely monitors the humanitarian situation in Burundi through our office in Bujumbura, and through regular contact with NGOs and the UN. The UK takes a leading role in the donor support group in Burundi the objective of which is to improve assessment, co-ordination and response.

  We concur with the recent UN assessment that the current major problems faced by Burundi are insecurity, disease and malnutrition. Life expectancy plummeted from 53.8 years in 1992 to 40.9 in 2001; there is just one doctor for every 100,000 people; the infant mortality rate for under-fives has nearly doubled from 100 per 1,000 in 1993 to 190 per 1,000 in 2001; and 69 per cent. of the population is under-nourished.

  The UK participated in last week's Burundi Partners' Forum jointly hosted by UNDP and the Government of Belgium in Brussels. The meeting was successful in mobilising commitments of over $1 billion in donor support over the period 2004 to 2006, as well as making progress in establishing a simple co-ordinated framework to make more effective use of the donor funds being made available.

  Chad
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what response his Department will make to the appeal of the World Food Programme for Sudanese refugees in Chad. [147773]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is contributing to efforts to address the humanitarian needs of Sudanese refugees in Chad. We made a contribution of £1 million to the United Nations Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in December, towards the Emergency Needs budget of their Supplementary Appeal for Emergency Assistance to Sudanese Refugees in Eastern Chad.
  928W
  We are continuing to monitor the situation and may make further contributions if the situation indicates this is necessary. This may involve a contribution to the WFP appeal if there is a need for additional food aid.

  The cause of the movement of refugees from Sudan into Chad is the fighting in Darfur, in western Sudan. We reiterate our deep concern at the continuing humanitarian crisis resulting from this conflict and call on all those involved to address the problems in Darfur through dialogue, to establish and maintain a ceasefire with independent monitoring and to allow unfettered humanitarian access to those in need. The UK has already contributed over £4 million to the relief effort (including to the UNHCR) and remains willing to use its good offices in any way possible to facilitate the peaceful resolution of the conflict.

  Child Soldiers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the extent of the use of child soldiers in(a) the Democratic Republic of Congo, (b) Burundi, (c) Rwanda and (d) Uganda. [148163]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK condemns unequivocally the use of child soldiers. The fourth report of the UN Secretary-General on the use of children in armed conflict has recently been issued and will inform debate on this issue in the UN Security Council later this month.

  The UK discusses the issue with a range of UN bodies, particularly the Special Representative on Children in Armed Conflict, and works with the UN system to eradicate the use of child soldiers, including our support for a UNICEF programme of capacity building to strengthen its response in emergency situations. A key element of this programme is improving its advocacy on the situation of children affected by armed conflict at all levels.

  For DRC the UK is providing £750,000 to help establish child protection networks, and Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) mechanisms in each province and at national level. Our support will help UNICEF in launching preparations and commencing activities for the demobilisation and reintegration of children associated with armed groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

  UNICEF reported in September 2003 that it was thought there were then about 1,000 child soldiers serving in Burundi's regular army, 1,500 in the pro-government youth militia and 500 in the rebel movements, though the exact number would only be available when the demobilisation programme was implemented.

  Burundi ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990, though the optional protocol banning the use of children under 18 in armed conflict was not signed at that time—the text of this has recently been submitted to the National Assembly for approval.

  In Rwanda the UK is supporting research that is being undertaken by Save the Children to determine why more girl child soldiers from the ex-armed groups in the DRC are not presenting themselves for

  929W
  demobilisation and repatriation to Rwanda. With respect to Uganda, one of the terrible features of the conflict there is that abducted children themselves become the combatants. We have raised our concerns about the safety of those abducted with President Museveni and senior Ministers. The UK has provided financial support to UNICEF and Save the Children to rehabilitate children who have escaped from the Lords Resistance Army. Also we have discussed with the Ugandan government reports of under-age soldiers being recruited by the government defence units in the North. The Government of Uganda has assured us that they are co-operating with UNICEF to identify and demobilise the recruits. Our High Commission in Kampala is monitoring the situation.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many countries he expects to reach completion point for the purposes of debt relief by the end of 2004. [148142]

  Hilary Benn
  Of the 27 countries that have qualified for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, nine have so far reached completion point and have received an irrevocable reduction in their stock of debt. A further 10 are expected to reach completion point by the end of 2004. Three of these (Nicaragua, Ethiopia and Niger) should reach completion point imminently.

  Nevertheless, it is difficult to predict exactly when countries will reach completion point, because, instead of a fixed completion point date, the enhanced HIPC Initiative system is based on a 'floating' completion point. But even where countries miss their predicted completion point date, there is no delay to the delivery of debt relief, as countries cease to make payments on their debt from decision point.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions he has had with the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs about the effectiveness of humanitarian intervention in Ituri. [148076]

  Hilary Benn
  We have regular discussions with the UN's agencies including OCHA, and consider the humanitarian response to the crisis in Ituri to have been effective to date. The humanitarian situation there has improved as a result of services such as food aid, emergency medical assistance, provision of potable water and increased sanitation facilities delivered by the relief agencies, and the UN has been able to negotiate increased access in the area for relief work.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the most recent discussions he has had with the governments of(a) Rwanda and (b) Uganda concerning their involvement in the future of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [148078]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK is seeking to help resolve conflict and establish conditions for genuine development in the whole of the Great Lakes region. We have maintained a close dialogue with the governments 930W
  of Rwanda and Uganda, and indeed with the former Government and now the Transitional National Government (TNG) in Kinshasa, on the need for good neighbourly relations as the basis for national and regional stability. We continue to do so. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) will undoubtedly be discussed during the forthcoming visit to the UK of Presidents Kagame and Museveni.

  Both Rwanda and Uganda have taken positive steps recently to normalise their relations with the TNG in DRC, including mutual ministerial visits and the signing in New York on 25 September 2003 of a Good Neighbourly Pact, which included commitments that all support for armed groups should end and that there should be no illegal exploitation of natural resources of the DRC.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many monitors and overseers the United Kingdom will send to witness and report on whether the forthcoming elections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are(a) free and (b) fair. [148081]

  Hilary Benn
  The Transitional National Government (TNG) of the DRC has not set a specific date for elections, likely to be either in 2005 or 2006; nor has it invited partners to send election monitors. Should it do so, it is likely we will participate in wider EU or UN efforts.

  Helping the TNG and other stakeholders prepare for free and fair elections is an important part of our engagement in DRC. We are providing £400,000 for the Electoral Institute of South Africa (EISA), an NGO, to help enhance the capacity of stakeholders to participate in the process of designing the DRC's institutional, constitutional and legal frameworks, including for a democratic electoral system.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action he will(a) take unilaterally and (b) propose at multilateral level in response to the publication of the UN Commission report on the misuse of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [148082]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member for Buckingham to the Statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Chris Mullin) on 17 December 2003,Official Report, Column 142–4WS.

  We continue to urge the UN to provide the detailed information necessary to substantiate the allegations against British companies. We have urged NGOs to do the same.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with(a) his counterparts in EU member states and (b) representatives of the United Nations about the report of the UN Panel of Experts on illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [149186]
  931W
  Hilary Benn
  None. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office are the lead Department responsible for discussions on the UN Panel of Experts Report with counterparts in EU Member States and representatives of the United Nations.

  The issue of exploitation of the natural resources of the DRC is enormously important. We are already working with the new government in the Congo and with international and regional partners to help develop its institutions and to put in place effective management of the country's natural resources, including by playing a leading role in making the Anti-Corruption Commission effective and encouraging the Transitional National Government to engage in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.

  The huge potential of the Congo's natural resources should be exploited legally and in a regulated way, for the benefit of all Congolese. We want to see trade in natural resources become a cohesive factor in regional stability and not a cause of conflict.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on Ethiopia's debt burden. [147339]

  Hilary Benn
  Ethiopia qualified for debt relief under the Enhanced HIPC Initiative in November 2001 when it reached decision point—the first stage of the HIPC process. This means Ethiopia no longer has to service around $1.9 billion of debt. These debts will be formally written off when Ethiopia reaches its completion point as expected in the first half of 2004.

  Ethiopia owes the UK £15.4 million but is already receiving full debt relief on this under the UK Government's bilateral policy. This provides 100 per cent. relief on debt service payments starting from decision point and formally writes off the entire debt after completion point.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the joint departmental scoping mission scheduled for April 2004 to consider reform of Ethiopia's security sector. [147340]

  Hilary Benn
  The joint departmental scoping mission for Security Sector Reform (SSR) comprising representatives of MOD, FCO and DFID visited Ethiopia in April 2003 in response to requests from the Government of Ethiopia. The mission recommended a phased engagement by HMG that would help make all parts of the security sector more accountable to the people of Ethiopia. Initial activities to strengthen bodies responsible for oversight and planning are about to begin.

  We welcome the Government's recognition that reform of the security sector will enhance its capacity to fulfil constitutional obligations in respect of human rights.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how financial support from his Department to Ethiopia has been tailored to tackle 932W
  the increase in global acute malnutrition that has occurred in some of the drought affected areas of Ethiopia. [147346]

  Hilary Benn
  Since the start of 2002 we have committed over £50 million of humanitarian aid to Ethiopia making us one of the largest donors of emergency assistance. This has been channelled through UN agencies, the Ethiopian Government and non-government organisations (NGOs).

  A mix of interventions successfully helped to address global acute malnutrition (GAM) and severe acute malnutrition (SAM) in the drought-affected parts of the country. For example, we targeted localities suffering high levels of malnutrition with supplementary and therapeutic feeding through NGOs and UNICEF. This helped bring GAM levels in the most affected areas down to about 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. from over 20 per cent. at the peak of the crisis.

  Some pockets of malnutrition remain in 2004 largely as a consequence of poor targeting and delivery capacity. We are providing support to UNICEF for building capacity of the emergency system and will continue to play our part as and when further needs arise.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the level of ethnic violence in Ethiopia. [147392]

  Hilary Benn
  There is still a high level of ethnic violence in Ethiopia. Ethnicity is the basis of most of the major political parties, including the ruling party. Many ethnic groups are politically and economically excluded.

  Ethnic tension has led to fighting in Gambella (West Ethiopia) in December 2003. Up to 150 people may have died.

  New legislation passed in 2003 will allow Federal Government to intervene in cases of human rights violations at Regional level and below. This indicates a growing willingness by Federal Government to accept ultimate responsibility for human rights violations at Regional or local level.

  We take human rights very seriously and will continue to promote improvements through high level political dialogue, budget support indicators and support to security sector reform.

  EU Aid Target
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost will be to public funds of the UK achieving the agreed EU target of aid amounting to 0.39 per cent. of GNI. [148143]

  Hilary Benn
  Under current spending plans we expect official development assistance (oda) to exceed the EU target and hit 0.4 per cent. of GNI in 2005, a year earlier than the target date. The cost of achieving 0.4 per cent. in 2005, including that part of oda which is not financed through the DFID budget, is estimated to be £4.9 billion.

  Euro
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in how many speeches during 2003 he declared support for the Government's policy on the euro. [147293]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 517W.

  Global Interventions
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether he has made formal representations to the United Nations about his proposal for global intervention in countries whose Governments abuse their populations, made in his speech on 30 October 2003 at the UN High Level Dialogue on Financing for Development; and what criteria would be used for such global interventions. [147449]

  Hilary Benn
  No formal representations have been made to the United Nations concerning intervention in countries with humanitarian crises. The Department for International Development is working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to contribute to the debate on UN reform. The High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change appointed by Kofi Annan has an important opportunity to make proposals for a more effective UN response in this area. The UK supports reform that will ensure that the UN Security Council assumes its full responsibility to guarantee peace and security. We cannot allow a repeat of the mistakes made in Rwanda in 1994.

  Framing acceptable principles for intervention, so that people are protected effectively, and so that states are treated equally, is part of the challenge presently facing the United Nations. An important attempt to develop common ground on principles and criteria for intervention was made in the report of the Canadian-sponsored International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). We welcomed the commission's report, The Responsibility to Protect, which was published in December 2001. It attempts to move the debate from an unproductive discussion of intervention towards a new focus on the responsibilities held by states to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophes from mass murder, rape and from starvation. When states are unwilling or unable to fulfil their responsibilities, it argues that the responsibility to protect should be borne by a broader community of states. It also stresses that the responsibility to prevent conflict is as important as the responsibility to react, and that any intervention is accompanied by a responsibility to rebuild.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the working paper from the International Monetary Fund on the effect of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative upon Africa's poorest nations. [148084]
  934W
  Hilary Benn
  On 1 September 2003, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) published a working paper entitled "Fiscal Sustainability in African HIPC Countries: A Policy Dilemma?" The paper focuses on the link between fiscal policy and debt sustainability. The authors concluded that, without more international assistance in the form of grants or private non-debt financing (such as foreign direct investment), Governments would need to raise taxes or scale down social spending programmes in order to maintain sustainable fiscal positions in the face of possible adverse shocks. The authors noted that the paper's conclusions were sensitive to assumptions on growth rate, interest rate, and exchange rate dynamics.

  This problem has already been recognised by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the UK is pressing for additional relief at HIPC Completion Point, where necessary, to ensure that countries have sustainable external debt levels. On longer-term debt sustainability, the UK welcomes the report being prepared by the World Bank and IMF on ensuring debt sustainability for low-income countries, including HIPCs, while enabling them to access sufficient finance for their poverty reduction strategies. We hope to reach agreement on the appropriate policy response at the spring meetings of the World Bank and IMF in April.

  We also recognise that, in order to meet the Millennium Development Goals, an additional US$50 billion a year until 2015 is required from the international community. That is why the UK's proposal for an International Finance Facility is so important. It could provide the much-needed substantial increase in resources that debt relief alone would not achieve.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support he is providing to tackle the spread of HIV/AIDS in(a) India and (b) China. [147529]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID India is supporting the Government of India's National AIDS Control Programme through the National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO) with a commitment of £123 million over a period of five years. The main approach of the programme is to support innovative, targeted work with highly vulnerable sections of the community in the various slates of India. Our partners in this programme are World Bank and the US Agency for International Development. The programme includes support to UNAIDS for effective implementation of its HIV strategy in India and BBC-World Service Trust for media campaigns to raise awareness in the general public.

  The communities covered under the programme include sex workers, their clients, street children, men who have sex with men, industrial workers and injecting drug users. For example, in West Bengal one of DFID's focus states, our work to date have covered more than one hundred thousand people through 17 NGOs in 52 sites.
  935W
  DFID China is working in partnership with the Government to tackle and combat the spread of HIV/AIDS. DFID currently supports a £20 million HIV/AIDS initiative, which pilots replicable models of HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care in Yunnan and Sichuan for high risk and vulnerable groups. This project aims to inform and develop national policy and good practice on HIV/AIDS. In addition, DFID will provide £5 million to assist the Government of China in developing its strategic capacity to deliver an effective and co-ordinated response to HIV/AIDS.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on progress in Africa towards a reduction in the proportion of 15 to 24-year-old pregnant women with HIV from 16 per cent. [148136]

  Hilary Benn
  UNAIDS will publish global HIV/AIDS figures this year, which will allow for a proper assessment of the progress towards this target. The Department for International Development will report on this in its next Departmental Report in 2004.

  Meanwhile, the latest "AIDS Epidemic Update", published by UNAIDS in December 2003, reports that HIV prevalence in pregnant women in selected urban areas seems to show the following trajectories in recent years (UNAIDS "AIDS Epidemic Update", December 2003):
  Increasing: Swaziland, Namibia, Mozambique, Cameroon Stable: Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Kenya, DRC, Senegal Declining: Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda.

  The update concludes that we are not witnessing a decline in sub-Saharan Africa's epidemic. Significant challenges remain to arrest the epidemic and meet the target to reduce the proportion of pregnant women with HIV/AIDS.

  DFID has HIV/AIDS activities in most of our 16 focus countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Many of DFID's interventions support National AIDS Councils and help to integrate efforts to address HIV/AIDS into a range of other sectors. In addition to direct HIV/AIDS activities, in an increasing number of countries significant, indirect support for addressing HIV/AIDS is being provided through budget support.

  DFID has also invested £1.5 billion in supporting health systems since 1997. We are working with partners to improve maternal and child health and reduce the impact of HIV and other major communicable diseases.

  The recently published "UK Call for Action on HIV/AIDS" (copy enclosed), makes clear our own commitment to significantly increase our efforts to address HIV/AIDS and poverty.

  We will make reducing the vulnerability of poor people to HIV and to the impact of AIDS a priority for the extra resources the UK will be devoting to Africa by 2006. All DFID Africa country offices are currently considering what needs to be done, by those countries, to enhance their HIV/AIDS programmes, and how the UK and others can best help them, including through additional financial contributions.

  The Government will also make HIV/AIDS—and Africa—a centrepiece of our presidencies of the G8 and the EU in 2005.

  Human Rights (Sudan/Burma)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with representatives of Amnesty International about the level and nature of human rights abuses in(a) Sudan and (b) Burma. [148126]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have been asked to reply.

  I discussed human rights in Sudan with the Director of Amnesty International UK on 11 December 2003. We are in regular contact with Amnesty International on human rights issues in Burma. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials last spoke to Amnesty International on 15 January about their recent visit to Burma.

  Infant Mortality Reduction
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what further action he proposes to take to help to achieve the goal in Africa of a reduction in under-five mortality rates for girls and boys from 158 per 1,000 live births to 139. [148138]

  Hilary Benn
  While some African countries have successfully reduced child mortality since 1990, in others it has changed little, and some African countries have experienced a rise in child mortality since 1990. It is generally accepted that a significant change will be needed if the target to reduce under-five mortality rates by two thirds by 2015 is to be achieved. Challenges include: the HIV/AIDS epidemic; economic decline and persistent poverty; inequality; under-resourced and poorly functioning health systems; and lack of progress in reducing the number of deaths of newborn babies.

  DFID supports child health through wider work on strengthening health systems. We are actively supporting health sector development in 10 African countries, including working with partners to strengthen policy and action on child health. The UK will also continue to contribute to global initiatives such as the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization and Roll Back Malaria, which have helped revitalise interest in childhood diseases and substantially increased the resources directed to child health. We shall continue to support implementation of the Integrated Management of Childhood Illness Initiative with partners from the United Nations International Children's Fund, the World Health Organisation, the World Bank and the United States Agency for International Development. This initiative is building the quality and quantity of child health care at country level throughout Africa. The UK is also part of the recently inaugurated High Level Forum on Health which plans to address systemic challenges to achieving the health related Millennium Development Goals.

  In a range of countries we also have specific investments in sectors that contribute to reducing child mortality, for example in water and sanitation and in education. The UK's broader development efforts to enhance economic growth and address inequity, conflict, civil unrest, child rights and food insecurity can also be expected to have a positive impact on child health outcomes.
  937W
  At all levels of our engagement with African partners, we shall be increasingly explicit that affordable and sustainable child health outcomes need greater priority in poverty reduction strategies, especially in those countries with high child mortality.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if he will make a statement on progress towards the target of an increase in the proportion of births assisted by skilled birth attendants from 39 per cent. to 57 per cent. in key countries in Asia, with particular reference to Bangladesh and Pakistan; [148132]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress towards the target of a reduction in under five mortality rates for girls and boys from 92 per 1,000 live births to 68 per 1,000 in four key countries in Asia, with particular reference to India; [148133]

  (3) if he will make a statement on progress towards the target of an increase in the ratio of girls to boys enrolled in primary school from 87 per cent. to 94 per cent. in four key countries in Asia, with particular reference to (a) Pakistan and (b) India; [148134]

  (4) if he will make a statement on progress towards the target of an increase in gross primary school enrolment from 95 per cent. to 100 per cent. in four key countries in Asia; [148135]

  (5) if he will make a statement on progress towards the target of a sustainable reduction in the proportion of people living in poverty from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent. in East Asia and the Pacific; [148140]

  (6) if he will make a statement on progress towards the target of a sustainable reduction in the proportion of people living in poverty from 40 per cent. to 32 per cent. in South Asia. [148141]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID's Autumn Performance Report (APR), which is available in the House of Commons Library, reports on progress towards all of Asia's Public Service Agreement (PSA) indicators. The APR also explains what action we are taking regarding off-track indicators. The following additional detail covers the country-specific issues.

  China and India have made progress in increasing the proportion of births assisted by skilled birth attendants, but Bangladesh and Pakistan show little progress so far.
  In Bangladesh, DFID is currently supporting the Government's national plan for maternal mortality reduction. We are considering what else we can do to help Bangladesh to make speedier progress, which might include giving earmarked funding to accelerate maternal mortality reduction or an increased budgetary allocation for this purpose. In Pakistan, where progress has also been slow, DFID is developing proposals for substantial support for accelerated actions to improve maternal and neonatal health.

  There has been little improvement so far in reducing child mortality in India. To help respond to this challenge, DFID is supporting the design of the Government of India's Reproductive and Child Health Programme for 2004–08, which encompasses child mortality reduction. We intend to make a significant financial contribution in support of this programme.
  938W
  The ratio of girls to boys enrolled in primary school has improved in Bangladesh and China but in Pakistan and India, considerable progress is still needed. The Pakistan Government, in their recent Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, expressed a commitment to provide education for all through improved access to primary education. We and the other major donors support this commitment. DFID's current education programme promotes progress towards universal primary education and we plan to expand this support over the coming year. In India, which has made some progress, we are continuing to support the District Primary Education Projects in our partner states of Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Orissa. An integral part of this programme is the promotion of girls' education through a range of special initiatives and incentives. Enrolment, retention and completion rates of girls continue to steadily improve. We are also supporting the Lok Jumbish education programme in Rajasthan, which places significant emphasis on girls education. Emphasis on girls' education is also central in the new national strategy for universal elementary education, which DFID is planning to support with the WB and EC.

  Iranian Earthquake
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many sniffer dogs in the United Kingdom were ineligible to accompany search and rescue teams to Iran on account of quarantine regulations. [147349]

  Hilary Benn
  There are 12 collapsed structure search and rescue dogs that are registered with the National Search and Rescue dog group. None were ineligible to accompany the rescue teams to Iran. However, seven had only recently completed quarantine following the earthquake response to Algeria last May and their owners felt it was not appropriate to subject them to another spell of quarantine so soon after that mission.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many sniffer dogs accompanied the search and rescue specialists who went from the United Kingdom to Iran on 27 December 2003. [147350]

  Hilary Benn
  Four dogs sent from the UK took part in the search and rescue operations in Iran.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what briefing he has received from the heads of the UK search and rescue teams in Iran since their return to this country. [147385]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID officials have been in regular contact with team leaders since their return from Iran. There will he a formal debrief meeting, as is standard practice on Wednesday 21 January.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many of the people described in his written ministerial statement of 5 January 2004,Official Report, columns 1–4WS, as having been evacuated to receive tertiary care in Iran have now received that care. [147386]
  939W
  Hilary Benn
  According to latest reports from the Head of the Disaster National taskforce an estimate of 12,500 people were evacuated by air from Barn to other centres in Iran. All casualties have been treated.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his latest estimate is of the number of city officials in Bam who were killed during the recent earthquake. [147387]

  Hilary Benn
  The latest official Iranian Government figures estimate that 30,000 people lost their lives of which a proportion were city officials. Specific details of city officials killed has not been released. Meanwhile the Iranian authorities and the Iranian Red Crescent Society tracing department are continuing their assessment of missing persons.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate he has made of the number of unsolicited items provided by UK nationals to assist with shelter for people made homeless by the earthquake in Iran. [147388]

  Hilary Benn
  The Iranian embassy has expressed its gratitude for the tremendous response by the British public to the tragic situation in Iran. We cannot however, estimate the quantity of the unsolicited items they have been offered.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many of the people who suffered injuries in the earthquake in Iran have been(a) hospitalised and (b) treated. [147389]

  Hilary Benn
  The latest official Iranian Government figures give an estimate of 30,000 casualties that suffered injuries. Some of 12,500 people sustained severe injuries and were evacuated to other centres in Iran for treatment. The Iranian Red Crescent set up an extensive mobilised medical field hospital with four additional field hospitals set up by the Ukraine, Russia, Germany, Azerbaijan and Japan.

  Iraq
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the humanitarian projects that the UK has(a) completed and (b) not yet completed in Iraq since 1 May 2003. [147166]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on 6 January 2004,Official Report, column 238W.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the Government's estimate is of the average(a) level of supply and (b) number of hours per day of supply of water to the population of (i) Baghdad and (ii) Basra (A) before the start of the recent conflict and (B) since the conclusion of the recent conflict. [147170]

  Hilary Benn
  Statistics in the precise form requested are not available.

  Until the 1991 Gulf War, safe water was available to over 95 per cent. of the urban and 75 per cent. of the rural populations of Iraq. By 2000, coverage had dropped to 92 per cent. and 46 per cent. respectively.
  940W
  The deterioration of the system was disproportionately great in the south, including Basra, as a result of the discriminatory policies of the former regime.

  It is estimated that as a result of the 2003 conflict and subsequent looting, water supply deteriorated by up to 50 per cent. in some governorates. Estimates suggest that the water supply network as a whole is now operating at about 65 per cent. of pre-war levels. However, significant efforts are being made to improve this situation.

  In Baghdad, compact water treatment units and sewage pumping stations have been rehabilitated and additional units are being installed. Measures have also been taken to provide security at water treatment plants to prevent further looting. Hundreds of critical breaks in the water network have been repaired, increasing flow by 2 million litres per day. New construction is taking place at Baghdad's Sharkh Dijlah plant, which will add 40 per cent., or 2.25 million litres per day, to the water supply of eastern Baghdad by May 2004, benefiting 640,000 residents.

  In Basra, rehabilitation work has already restored the water supply to pre-conflict levels. By spring 2004, the volume of fully treated water supplied to the city is expected to surpass the pre-war level of partially treated water. By the summer of 2004, the rehabilitation of the Sweet Water Canal, which supplies water to Basra, will have been completed, further benefiting 1.75 million residents.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will arrange for discussions with the Iraqi Provisional Authority about the supply in that country of safe, legal abortion services; whether his Department is prepared to contribute funding specifically for this purpose; and if he will make a statement. [147909]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's main support to the health sector in Iraq is provided through the World Health Organisation (WHO). As part of their programme of work, WHO are holding regular discussions with the Iraqi authorities about the provision of all health services in the country, including family planning services. DFID has no plans to provide direct bilateral support for assistance in this area.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to ensure the safety of workers distributing aid funded by his Department in(a) Baghdad, (b) Basra and (c) elsewhere in Iraq, with particular reference to women aid workers. [148079]

  Hilary Benn
  The safety of UK personnel throughout Iraq is a top priority. Extensive measures are taken to protect DFID staff and consultants in their living and working quarters, as well as when they are travelling outside Coalition Provisional Authority compounds. These measures include the provision of personal safety and communications equipment, pre-posting security training and briefing and, where appropriate, armed protection. Security arrangements are kept under constant review. The same arrangements apply to men and women.
  941W
  We are in close contact on security issues with the United Nations, which distributes a significant proportion of DFID's assistance to Iraq. We recently allocated £3 million to enhance UN security following the bombing of its Baghdad Headquarters in August and to replace equipment destroyed in that attack.

  DFID also maintains regular contact with UK non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working in Iraq, in which safety and security issues are discussed. Where necessary DFID provides additional funding to those NGOs which we are financing in order to enable them to enhance their own security measures. It is however for each NGO to determine for itself the level and type of security to put in place, according to the circumstances in which it is working.

  DFID contracts with commercial companies allow for them to put appropriate security provisions in place. We expect them to adopt equivalent levels of security for their own staff to those we provide for DFID personnel. Security information is shared with these companies on a regular basis.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the level was of the UK contribution to the UN Oil for Food programme in Iraq. [148086]

  Hilary Benn
  The United Nations Oil for Food Programme was financed entirely from the sale of Iraq's oil.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what measures are being taken by(a) the UK and (b) the UK with others to prevent food shortages in Iraq; [148087]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the level of food shortages in Iraq. [148098]

  Hilary Benn
  The Public Distribution System for food, managed by the Iraqi Ministry of Trade, provides a basic ration for the whole population. Since the end of the United Nations Oil for Food Programme in November 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) has become responsible for food procurement. Contracts already funded are expected to ensure that sufficient basic food will be available until mid-2004.

  Significant levels of chronic malnutrition nevertheless persist in Iraq, mainly as a result of long-term poverty and the inability of many people to supplement their basic rations with food containing sufficient minerals and vitamins. A number of programmes are being implemented by bodies such as the World Food Programme, UNICEF and NGOs to provide supplementary feeding to vulnerable groups. DFID is providing support for such programmes, and also for the work of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in reviving agricultural production in Iraq.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what recent assessment has been made of the availability of medical supplies in Iraq; [148094]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the levels of equipment at (a) the teaching hospital in Basra and (b) the Nuclear Medicines Hospital. [148096]
  942W
  Hilary Benn
  Work is currently under way between the Iraqi Ministry of Health, Coalition Provisional Authority and World Health Organisation (WHO) to develop a complete overview of missing drugs, supplies and equipment. This is expected to be complete by March. A great deal has already been achieved to re-establish drug and equipment supply systems. The initial focus was, rightly, on securing adequate supplies of the most essential medicines and vaccines.

  Until new supply systems are fully operational, however, including comprehensive accounting and reporting processes to ensure that needs are identified before shortages arise, some problems will continue to occur. Even when these systems are in place, there may continue to be shortages of some highly specialised drugs and equipment.

  The most critical contribution the international community can make is to ensure that the Ministry of Health can call on the technical expertise to enable them to prioritise their needs among highly competing demands. This is the nature of some of the support which the WHO has been providing, with DFID funding. We are also looking at possibilities for longer-term technical assistance to this and other key service delivery Ministries to assist with the budget prioritisation process, and to help ensure that they are able to access both Iraqi government revenues and donor funding.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the security situation in Iraq. [148097]

  Hilary Benn
  Despite continuing terrorist attacks against the Iraqi people, the international community and Multinational Forces in Iraq, the security situation is improving throughout the country as a whole. The majority of insurgency attacks remain largely confined to a limited area to the north and north-west of Baghdad.

  Security problems are however still hampering humanitarian and reconstruction efforts, by way of sabotage of infrastructure and attacks on humanitarian workers and contractors. Several humanitarian organisations, including the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross, have withdrawn expatriate personnel from Iraq for security reasons. Many of their programmes are however continuing under the management of well-qualified Iraqi staff. We are offering NGOs working on DFID-funded projects in Iraq financial support to meet additional security requirements; and we have allocated £3 million to the United Nations to strengthen its security in Iraq and to replace equipment lost in the bombing of its Baghdad headquarters in August.

  The safety of UK personnel throughout Iraq is a top priority. Extensive measures are taken to protect DFID staff and consultants in their living and working quarters, as well as when they are travelling outside Coalition Provisional Authority compounds.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment has been made of the supply of(a) clean water, (b) sanitation and (c) electricity in Iraq. [148105]
  943W
  Hilary Benn
  The most comprehensive assessment of the water supply, sanitation and electricity systems in Iraq is included within the Joint Iraq Needs Assessment prepared by the United Nations/World bank and available on the World bank website: http://worldbank.org

  More recently the requirements of the various sectors have been assessed by the relevant Iraqi Ministries in conjunction with the CPA to develop the schedule of projects to be funded through the US Supplemental and managed by the Iraq Project Management Office and which are available at: www.rebuildinq-Iraq.net

  Other regular and on-going assessments of the various service sectors are prepared by a number of agencies including:

  Coalition Provisional Authority—www.cpa-iraq.org

  USAID—www.usaid.gov/iraq

  UNICEF—www.unicef.org

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions he has had with non-governmental organisations which have withdrawn from Iraq about the prospects of a safe return to the country to continue with humanitarian work. [148109]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID holds regular meetings with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working in Iraq, during which security issues are discussed. A number of NGOs have reduced their presence and profile in Iraq as a result of the high levels of insecurity in the country. DFID has offered additional financial support to those NGOs we are funding in Iraq for appropriate increased security provisions, if needed, and a number of NGOs have responded to this offer. Even where some NGOs have withdrawn their expatriate staff, most existing programmes are able to continue under the management of very capable Iraqi staff, albeit sometimes with additional security constraints.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the £60 million funding for his Department's expenditure in Iraq announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 9 April 2003 has been claimed. [148672]

  Hilary Benn
  The £60 million set aside by the Chancellor for Iraq is included in the UK's total Madrid pledge of £544 for the three years from April 2003. It is available to other Government Departments as well as DFID. £30.8 million has already been allocated, primarily towards meeting the costs of UK secondments to the Coalition Provisional Authority. The allocation of the remainder is under consideration.

  Liberia
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of(a) the supply of clean water, (b) sanitation and (c) electricity supply in Liberia. [148106]

  Hilary Benn
  Clean water supply remains a major challenge, although immediate needs are being met. In urban centres, DFID has supported efforts to chlorinate shallow wells and, in sites where Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) have collected, to provide safe water 944W
  from drilled bore-holes with tankers, storage bladders and distribution networks. In rural areas, a major programme to rehabilitate wells and hand pumps is under way, with DFID backing.

  Urgent sanitation needs are largely under control, since IDPs were moved from Monrovia to formal camps with established sanitation infrastructures.

  Electrical supply has been virtually non-existent throughout the country for the last 15 years. The population has largely adjusted to this, and urgent needs, for instance in hospitals, are covered by generators provided and run by the humanitarian community.

  Repairing and expanding the electrical grid system remains a significant mid-term rehabilitation requirement.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the security situation in Liberia and its impact on humanitarian relief. [148107]

  Hilary Benn
  The general security situation in Liberia remains stable, if fragile. However, while the number of UNMIL peacekeeping troops is insufficient to guarantee security across the country, the humanitarian agencies are understandably cautious in extending their activities beyond Monrovia; humanitarian operations remain restricted in scope, with only a few agencies implementing mostly small-scale activities in the more distant and insecure counties. In spite of this, the most urgent and acute humanitarian needs across Liberia are being met. Recent UNMIL deployments to Buchanan and Tubmanburg will, we hope, lead to the opening of UN sub-offices in these strategic towns, and a scaling up of humanitarian assistance. We understand that the UN is considering reducing the security alert level outside Monrovia from the current maximum level of Phase IV. This would also assist the spread of humanitarian programmes.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the levels of(a) food, (b) shelter and (c) medicine for the people of Liberia. [148108]

  Hilary Benn
  Given the extensive displacement of the population from their agricultural land, domestic food production in Liberia is inadequate, and will remain so in 2004. However, plans to feed almost 800,000 vulnerable people in 2004, which we propose to support, should provide sufficient food to avert extreme shortages.

  With the large majority of informal settlements in Monrovia having been closed, and their occupants resettled to more formal camps, shelter for IDPs is considered by the relief agencies to be adequate, although temporary. The reconstruction of permanent shelters in IDPs' places of origin remains a major challenge for 2004–05.

  With the reactivation of health services across the country, managed by international NGOs (with DFID support), medicines are in good supply in those areas where agencies are currently able to operate.
  945W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals in Liberia. [148122]

  Hilary Benn
  Liberia is just beginning a planned period of recovery from long and widespread destruction and collapse of Government services caused by civil war, corruption, and incompetent Government unconcerned to provide public services. Consequently, there has been no progress towards the Millennium Development Goals.

  The National Transitional Government of Liberia, which has been in office only since October 2003, has agreed with the UN, World Bank and international agencies a comprehensive framework for post-conflict recovery over its two-year period of office. Its intention is to put in place, over this period, the basis for re-establishment of Government Administration and service provision that will subsequently enable progress towards the Millennium Development Goals.

  Malaria
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money has been given by his Department in each of the last six years(a) for medicines to fight malaria and (b) to research into affordable anti-malaria medicines. [148088]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development works closely with many partners to help developing countries accelerate progress towards achieving the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Goal VI is: by 2015, to have halted and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS and the incidence of malaria and other major diseases. Goal IV contains a target to reduce by two thirds between 1990 and 2015 the under-five mortality ratio.
  The UK is committed to tackling malaria and contributing towards poverty reduction, in line with the MDGs and the associated Abuja Targets on malaria control. At the 1998 G8 summit in Birmingham the UK pledged £60 million in support of malaria activities, with £48 million allocated to Roll Back Malaria (RBM) over the period January 1999 to March 2004. RBM provides coordinated support for sustainable action against malaria. This includes providing technical support to Governments to ensure that their anti-malarial drug policies enable those suffering from malaria to get early treatment and to access affordable and appropriate medicines. As an active partner of RBM, DFID works to ensure RBM provides sound evidence-based support for the effective use of resources, including those available from the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, to which we have committed a total of US$280 million.

  Within our overall spend on communicable diseases, we estimate that the amount spent on named malaria projects, including country programme and research spend, has been:

  1997–98: £2,152,884

  1998–99: £5,651,063

  1999–2000: £13,882,671

  2000–01: £17,372,874

  946W

  2001–02: £17,280,357

  2002–03: £18,892,095

  DFID funds a variety of projects and programmes which work towards malaria control, including on the development and supply of anti-malarial drugs. DFID makes direct investments in research that covers malaria in several ways. Every year we give £4 million to the MRC through a Concordat agreement, which prioritises the needs of developing countries. Within the overall MRC portfolio, the focus on basic clinical research that can be used to identify new drug candidates includes malaria.

  DFID also engage more directly in partnerships with industry to transform basic research, of the kind supported by the MRC, into drugs. We recently worked with GlaxoSmithKline, the WHO programme on Tropical Disease Research and Liverpool University in the development of a cheap new drug called LAPDAP(tm). In order to make the best use of this drug, further research to combine it with another drug to protect against early resistance is being undertaken, managed under an umbrella organisation called the Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV), which DFID also supports. MMV is an important and innovative organisation that brings together researchers from the public and private sectors, with donors and foundations. DFID is funding MMV with £1 million per year for five years. Since its inception in 1999 MMV has demonstrated significant progress towards reaching its objective to deliver two new drugs in the next 10 years.

  Effective health systems are equally important if medicines are to be delivered safely. Many poor countries still do not have the capacity to deliver treatments for malaria in a safe and effective way, regardless of their cost. This is why we have committed £1.5 billion since 1997 to help developing countries strengthen their health systems.

  Maternal Mortality
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what steps he is taking to meet the Millennium Development goals to reduce the level of maternal mortality among developing countries; [148083]

  (2) what further action he proposes to take to help to achieve an increase in the proportion of births assisted by skilled birth attendants from 49 per cent. to 67 per cent. [148137]

  Hilary Benn
  I will answer questions 7107 and 7507 together.

  Globally well over half a million women die in childbirth each year. A further 1.5 million women are left with a disability as a result of complications in childbirth and two million children are orphaned. The 5th Millennium Development Goal of improving maternal health has a target to reduce the maternal mortality ratio by three quarters between 1990 and 2015. One proxy indicator of progress against this target is the proportion of births assisted by skilled birth attendants. This is reflected in DFID's Public Service Agreement Targets.
  947W
  Improvement in the proportion of births assisted by skilled attendants has been a key feature in countries where the maternal mortality ratio has been reduced. Skilled attendance means the presence of a professional with midwifery skills, supported by the necessary supplies and systems. Also important is a functioning referral system, able to provide rapid access to life saving skills and procedures in the event of an emergency. The reality in many developing countries falls far short of this and most women deliver alone or with a family member or traditional birth attendant.

  DFID is committed to reducing the toll of maternal death and to promoting women's right to a safe pregnancy and childbirth. The Department's strategy includes advocacy in the international arena, support to countries to strengthen health systems and improve access to maternal and reproductive health services, and support for research and improved measurement tools. Since 1997 the Department has committed approximately £1.5 billion to help developing countries put in place effective health care systems which are vital if maternity services are to be improved. DFID has specific bilateral programmes to promote safe motherhood in Nepal, Malawi and Kenya, which include work to improve access to skilled attendants with the necessary accompanying improvements in access to emergency obstetric care. DFID also supports the maternal health work of international multilateral agencies, including WHO, and international NGOs.

  DFID is participating in a new international partnership for Safe Motherhood and Newborn Health and supports a number research programmes to improve the evidence base on effective interventions to reduce maternal mortality including the Initiative for Maternal Mortality Programme Assessment (IMMPACT) with the Gates Foundation, USAID and the EC.

  Middle East
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of(a) movement restrictions on Palestinians and (b) the construction of the separation wall on the access of children living in the town of Abu Dis and surrounding villages to schools and other educational facilities; [146552]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of (a) movement restrictions on Palestinians and (b) the construction of the separation wall on the ability of people living in the town of Abu Dis and surrounding villages to visit hospital and other health facilities. [146551]

  Hilary Benn
  Abu Dis and its neighbouring villages on the eastern flank of Jerusalem are socially and economically integrated into Jerusalem. The construction of the separation wall, between the municipal boundary of Jerusalem and Abu Dis, will isolate Palestinians from their places of work, schools and health facilities.

  Abu Dis provides only basic health care services. Movement restrictions and the separation barrier, will deny many Palestinians access to the nearest hospitals in Jerusalem. Schooling will be severely disrupted too.
  948W
  Currently many Jerusalemites send their children to schools in Abu Dis, and vice versa. The separation wall cuts through Al Quds University, which will lose one third of its land.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assessment he has made of the preliminary analysis of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs published on 15 December 2003 into the humanitarian consequences of the planned route of the Separation Wall outlined in the map released by the Israeli Government on 23 October 2003; [146553]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the preliminary analysis of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs published on 15 December 2003 into the humanitarian consequences of the planned route of the Separation Wall outlined in the map released by the Israeli Government on 23 October 2003 on the website www.seamzone.mod.gov.il. [146554]

  Hilary Benn
  I agree with the preliminary analysis on the humanitarian consequences of the separation wall in the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs report of 15 December 2003. The livelihoods of thousands of Palestinians have been drastically affected by the separation of villages from their agricultural land and water resources. The separation wall fragments communities and isolates people from vital social support networks.

  I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs preliminary analysis on the humanitarian consequences of the planned route of the separation wall, published on 15 December 2003.

  Poverty Reduction
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what further action he proposes to take to secure a sustainable reduction in the proportion of people living in poverty in Africa. [148139]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK is committed to helping secure a sustainable reduction in the proportion of people living in extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. The Prime Minister gave his commitment prior to the G8 summit in Canada in 2002 to significantly increase UK spending on bilateral programmes in Africa, and we are on course to increase the UK's budget for bilateral programmes in Africa, to £1 billion by 2005–06, (up from around £650 million a year in 2002).

  We shall concentrate our resources in countries strongly committed to poverty reduction and on helping to end and recover from conflict. We will work to improve the effectiveness of UK and others' aid, by supporting country government systems and priorities. We shall continue to promote better coordination and harmonisation between bilateral donors and multilateral organisations on the ground.

  The G8 will report progress on the Africa Action Plan during the UK Presidency in 2005. The Africa Action Plan expresses our political support for the New

  949W
  Partnership for African Development (NEPAD). The Prime Minister's priorities in particular include conflict, HIV/AIDS, primary education and trade.

  Procurement Outsourcing
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on his Department's procurement policy with regard to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing; whether his Department is outsourcing IT and call centre jobs to offshore companies; to which countries his Department has outsourced these jobs; how much his Department has spent on this outsourcing in each of the last two years; and how much has been budgeted for this purpose for the next two years. [147593]

  Hilary Benn
  The present policy in DFID is to undertake our IT work in the most cost-effective and efficient way with a blend of "in-house teams" and outsourcing where appropriate. We have no specific policy about offshore outsourcing but keep the situation under regular review.

  The Department for International Development has no call centres. We have not outsourced any of our IT work to offshore companies nor do we have any specific budgets to do so in the next two years.

  We have over 60 overseas offices, some of which are co-located with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and we recruit local staff to assist with the maintenance of our IT systems as required.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Sierra Leone and its impact on the provision of humanitarian aid. [148089]

  Hilary Benn
  Security is well-established across Sierra Leone. The whole country is under Government control, with the support of UNAMSIL. The Government's security agencies are developing their capacity in preparation for the withdrawal of UNAMSIL at the end of the year. The UK is providing extensive support to this process. The Government are currently carrying out a security sector review to put in place measures to guard against threats in the future, both internal and external. We plan to review our support to the security sector when the report of the Government's review is available, and will make modifications to our support as necessary, to assist with the maintenance of security beyond the departure of UNAMSIL.

  There is no security restriction on humanitarian aid. Humanitarian agencies are able to operate in all parts of the country.

  Somalia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the status of the drought affecting the north-western regions of Somalia; and what assessment he has made of the impact which the drought is having on levels of malnutrition in the region. [147826]
  950W
  Hilary Benn
  A succession of failed rains over the past four years has resulted in large-scale food insecurity among pastoral populations in the Sool and Sanaag regions of northern Somalia. The UN Food Security Assessment Unit (FSAU) surveyed the Sool plateau between 27 November and 5 December 2003, with preliminary results showing a global acute malnutrition rate of 18.9 per cent. and a severe acute malnutrition rate of 3.8 per cent. amongst children. Malnutrition rates among adult women (15 to 49 years) were 17.3 per cent., suggesting all household members are affected by the current drought. There is evidence of deterioration in the nutritional status of the population, confirmed by reports of collapsing social support system and a worsening drought after the failure of Deyr rains. Malnutrition rates appeared significantly higher among children from pastoral households than those in major villages. With no rains expected before April, further losses to livestock and other assets are expected.

  Unfortunately the growing tension between Somaliland and Puntland, who both claim the drought-affected areas as their territory, could jeopardise assistance if the situation escalates into violent conflict.

  Street Children
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money is being provided by his Department to tackle the problem of street children in Russia in 2003–04. [148121]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  In 2003–04 DFID is spending £164,500 to tackle the problem of street children in Russia, of which £89,000 is committed under the project "Supporting Vulnerable Children in Ekaterinburg and Sverdlovsk Oblast". The project purpose is to improve the quality of life for vulnerable children by providing family-focused, rather than institutional, care. The remaining £75,000 is committed under a number of-small projects funded through the Health and Social Care Partnership Scheme. These projects include drug and alcohol awareness programmes for street children, activities to prevent homelessness and the development of foster care.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many street children there are in(a) Asia, (b) Africa, (c) Latin America, the Caribbean and the overseas territories and (d) the Middle East. [148129]

  Hilary Benn
  There are no internationally agreed definitions of street children and estimates of total numbers are unreliable and patchy. For all areas, numbers are therefore very difficult to assess.

  For Asia I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend for Harrow West on 15 January Official Report column 831W.

  In Africa street children form a proportion of the 300 million people that live in extreme poverty (on less than $1 per day, figure relates to 1999). Across Africa we know that some 50 million girls and boys are out of school (UNESCO). Some of these will be street children.
  951W
  In Latin America street children again form a proportion of the 135 million people that live in poverty (on less than $2 per day). There are some 2 million children out of school at primary level and some of these will be street children.

  As far as DFID is aware there are no street children in the British Overseas Territories. There is no comprehensive date available for numbers of street children in the Caribbean.

  The numbers of street children in the Middle East region as a whole is difficult to assess although UNICEF estimate that there are in excess of 1 million street children in Cairo alone. Where children are particularly vulnerable, for instance Iraq, UNICEF is undertaking research that will assist the government and international donor community efforts to meet their needs.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate he has made of the breakdown between public sector finance and private sector finance towards the costs of delivering the millennium development goals in sub-Saharan Africa. [148113]

  Hilary Benn
  Several estimates of costs of reaching the millennium development goals (MDGs) have been made using differing methodologies and assumptions about developments over the next decade. Uncertainties include how rapidly the policies of African countries might improve, how rapidly countries which have been in conflict emerge from it, how severe the longer term impacts of HIV/AIDS will be, and what impact shocks such as droughts might have.

  Improved policies can make a big difference to the costs of achieving improvements in social indicators, but undoubtedly much more money is needed to achieve the MDGs. Both public and private finance has a role to play. Public expenditure is needed to help fund social services such as health and education, and the money for this can come from domestic taxes as well as from external aid. How much domestic revenue is generated depends on how fast the economy grows as well as on the tax system. Private investment, domestic and foreign, can help finance social services too, but also has the potential to accelerate economic growth.

  More analysis has been done on how much extra foreign aid will be needed for the MDGs in sub-Saharan Africa than on how much extra private sector money would be necessary. The aid estimates suggest that two or three times the current total annual inflows of $13 billion might be needed. The scale of this challenge suggests that we need to focus on four things. First, we should encourage African countries to develop sound policies for reducing poverty and the capacity to implement them, while continuing to follow prudent macroeconomic policies and to improve the environment they create for private investors. This will enhance their capacity to use aid effectively at the same time as raising their economic growth potential. Second, we should promote higher inflows of aid to countries with such policies. Third, we should seek to improve the quality of aid, in terms of its predictability and
  952W
  flexibility, for instance by directly funding national budgets. Fourth, we should work to make international trade and finance systems more supportive of economic growth and poverty reduction in low income countries.

  Sudan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the level of political stability in Sudan. [148091]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Good progress continues to be made at the peace talks in Naivasha, Kenya. Both parties have now described the peace process as irreversible and they are hoping to conclude a framework agreement very soon. Although problems persist in some areas, and we continue to be very concerned about the situation in Darfur, there is, at last, a real chance for peace and stability in Sudan.

  World Poverty
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate he has made of the number of people in the world living on(a) less than one dollar a day, (b) between one and two dollars a day and (c) between two and five dollars a day. [148114]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID does not produce its own estimates of the number of people living in poverty. This is a complex and resource intensive task. We use estimates produced by the World Bank. The latest estimates are that in 2000 there were 1.1 billion people in the world living on less than a dollar a day and a further 1.6 billion people living on between one and two dollars a day. A figure is not given for the number living on between two and five dollars a day.

  More information on the analysis, including regional breakdowns, is in Chapter 1 of the World Bank's Global Economic Prospects 2004. This is available at: http://www.worldbank.org/prospects/gep2004/toc.htm

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when he last met representatives of opposition parties in Zimbabwe; and when he next expects to meet representatives. [147344]

  Hilary Benn
  Since my appointment, I have not had any formal meetings with members of Zimbabwean opposition parties. Although I did have a brief conversation with the Secretary General of the MDC during his visit in November 2003. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and other FCO Ministers have had regular contacts with the Movement for Democratic Change, most recently during the visit to the UK of the Secretary General of the MDC. DFID officials also have occasional contact with representatives of Zimbabwean political parties.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions he has had with Amnesty International about(a) the level and (b) the nature of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. [148127]
  953W
  Hilary Benn
  The British Embassy in Harare is in regular contact with a number of human rights organisations operating there who are monitoring the situation on the ground. Embassy officials in Harare and in London regularly receive reporting from Amnesty International about the level and nature of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe, but have not met Amnesty recently to discuss Zimbabwe.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Art Acquisition
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much his Department has spent on the acquisition of works of art in each year since 1997, broken down by amounts spent on(a) paintings and (b) sculpture; what the single most expensive piece of art purchased by his Department since 1997 has been; how much it cost; and what the total revenue raised by his Department through sales of works of art has been since 1997. [142361]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department has not purchased nor sold any works of art during the period since 1997.

  Children's Rights
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by when the Government are due to report to the Committee on the Convention on the Rights of the Child on what the UK is doing to fulfil the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography; whether the Government have submitted this report; when this report will be made publicly available; and if he will make a statement. [147445]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK has not yet ratified this Optional Protocol, so is not required to report on it. However, we do intend to ratify at the earliest opportunity. The UK will then be required to submit a report to the Committee within two years of the ratification coming into force, in accordance with article 12 of the Optional Protocol.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list information technology contracts in his Department and its predecessors with a value of above £20 million in each of the last 10 years; what the inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged; and what the cost of over-runs has been. [146191]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Neither the Department for Education and Skills nor its predecessors have let an information technology system contract in the last 10 years with a value above 20 million euros. A number of contracts for services have been let with a value above 20 million euros in that period and some of those contracts have included information technology elements as an integral part of the delivery arrangements. In no case has the implementation date 954W
  of those contracted services been delayed by information technology problems, and consequently no costs have been incurred as a result of system development or de-bugging over-runs.

  Jigsaw Research (Correspondence)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much his Department has spent on the recent research conducted by Jigsaw Research into what customers think of the quality of the Department's replies to letters. [147413]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 14 January 2004]The Department's Strategic Framework Delivering Results-A Strategy to 2006, sets out a commitment to deliver prompt, responsive and consistently excellent services to our customers. The Department receives over 200,000 phone calls, letters and emails from the public every year. The recent research conducted by Jigsaw Research cost £18,000 and is our way of measuring the service we provide and identifying areas for improvement in our responses to letters, telephone calls and emails.

  Office for Fair Access
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will propose an amendment to the Higher Education Bill to require the annual report produced by the Director of Fair Access to be accompanied by an annual debate on the floor of the House; and if he will make a statement. [148262]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 15 January 2004]We have no plans to make such an amendment. Members of Parliament are always free to seek debates in the House. We have also said that we will establish an independent review, working with the Director for Fair Access to report to this House, based upon the first three years of variable fees, and I am sure there will be an opportunity to debate that report.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how the Director for Fair Access will safeguard fair access to higher education if top-up fees are introduced; and if he will make a statement. [148263]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 15 January 2004]From 2006, no institution will be able to charge higher fees without having an Access Plan approved by the Director of Fair Access. This will include details of the action they will take to safeguard access, including offering financial support (including bursaries) and running outreach activities. The Director of Fair Access will also have the responsibility for renewing and monitoring reports on the implementation of Access Plans.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information must be contained in the plan that a higher education institution must provide to the Director of Fair Access in order to increase fees above the basic rate; and if he will make a statement. [148264]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 15 January 2004]An access plan must include the levels of fee the institution wishes to charge for its courses. We also intend, through
  955W
  regulations, that an institution should include in its access plan details of the financial assistance (including bursaries) they will offer; how it will attract applications through outreach activities; how it will inform prospective students about financial assistance available to them; and set out its own objectives in widening participation. Institutions will also need to set out how they will monitor their compliance with the plan and progress against their objectives.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will break down the planned expenditure for the proposed Office for Fair Access by(a) salaries and staff, (b) office, (c) personal expenses and (d) other costs; and if he will make a statement. [148266]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer on 15 January 2004]We have said in the Regulatory Impact Assessment which we published alongside the Higher Education Bill that OFFA's costs will average around £500,000 per year. We will provide further detail in due course.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Office for Fair Access will continue the system of fining universities that do not meet their benchmarks for participation from under-represented social groups. [148569]

  Alan Johnson
  There is no current system of fining institutions because they do not meet their benchmarks and neither will OFFA do so.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) whether he intends to set a cap on the level of specified financial requirements that the Higher Education Funding Council for England can impose on universities breaking the terms of their access agreements; [148571]

  (2) what notice the Director of Fair Access must give to universities under the provisions of section 35 (1)(b) of the Higher Education Bill;[148572]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the average length of time that an access agreement between the Director of Fair Access and each individual university will last. [148570]

  Alan Johnson
  We intend to publish our draft regulations during the passage of the HE Bill which will provide information about access plans, and how the Director of Fair Access will operate.

  Sign Bilingualism
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department is taking to secure universal access for deaf children to Sign Bilingualism; and if he will make a statement. [147450]

  Mr. Miliband
  Last March the Government issued a position statement recognising British Sign Language (BSL) as a language in its own right and announcing that it would make available £1 million for a discrete programme of initiatives to support the statement. A working group comprising key Government Departments and organisations for deaf people has been established to advise on priorities for allocating the funding. Tenders are currently being sought for work 956W
  which will contribute to establishing a Great Britain wide framework to support the recruitment, training and deployment of BSL tutors and for work which will promote access for BSL users through awareness-raising amongst employers, service providers and in the wider community. The working group will also be considering strategies and policies which overtime will further increase access to BSL and will be making recommendations to Ministers in the autumn.

  Parents of deaf pupils who have statements of special educational needs, are able to express a preference for the maintained school they would like their child to attend, and can also make representations for a place at an independent or non-maintained special schools. Before expressing a preference they are able to consider communication approaches offered by different schools—auditory-oral, total communication or sign bilingualism.

  Sixth-form Budgets
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the budget for the teaching of A-Levels and equivalent academic courses in sixth-form colleges was in each year since 1996–97; and what the budget is for 2005–06. [147414]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 14 January 2004]The Department allocates funds to the Learning and Skills Council for the provision of A-Levels and equivalent academic courses in the post-16 learning and skills sector. The Department does not provide a specific budget to the LSC for sixth-form colleges. It is for the Learning and Skills Council to determine for itself the right level of investment in sixth-form colleges from the funds allocated to it for learning participation. Mark Haysom the Council's Chief Executive will to write to the hon. Gentleman providing details of the funds allocated to sixth-form colleges from 1996–97 to 2003–04, and provisional allocations to sixth form colleges from 2004–05 to 2005–06. A copy of his letter will be placed in the House Library.

  Student Complaints Office
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what estimates he has made of the cost of providing(a) maintenance loans and (b) fee loans in each of the next 10 years assuming (i) current student numbers and (ii) expected growth in student numbers; [148564]

  (2) how much annual Government spending on student loans will change in each of the next 10 years from the amount set out in the Higher Education Bill. [148566]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on the costs and benefits associated with the proposal in the Higher Education Bill to allow universities to set their own tuition fees is contained in the Regulatory Impact Assessment published on 8 January alongside the Bill. Because of the nature of a variable scheme, the costs vary greatly according to the decisions that both students and higher education institutions take, and they cannot be estimated precisely at this stage. Copies
  957W
  of the Regulatory Impact Assessment were placed in the Library of the House; it is also available on the Department for Education and Skills website.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the size of the total student loan debt was in each year since 1999; what the size of the increases in(a) loans taken out and (b) repayments of principal were in each year; what the increases from interest additions were in each year; and what the Government contribution to the student loan scheme was in each year.[147417]

  £ million

  England and Wales

  Financial year

  1999–2000

  Change

  2000–01

  Change

  2001–2002

  Lent

  1,281.7

  618.1

  1,899.8

  217.9

  2,117.7

  Repaid1

  111.4

  47.1

  158.5

  80.6

  239.1

  Interest added

  69.4

  32.1

  101.5

  44.1

  145.6

  Amount outstanding at the end of the financial year

  3,413.8

  1,889.3

  5,303.1

  1,900.1

  7,203.2

  1Amounts repaid cannot be split between repayments of principal and interest.

  The resource accounting and budgeting (RAB) costs to the Treasury for loans to students domiciled in England and Wales are shown in the table:

  Full details of student loans movements for England and Wales are included in the DfES resource accounts.

  £million

  Resource Accounting and Budgeting costs Financial year

  Movement on Provisions

  1999–2000

  558.9

  2000–01

  794.6

  2001–02

  855.9

  Full details of student loans movemednts for England and Wales are included in the DfES resource accounts.

  No figures have yet been published for 2002–03. Information for that year will be contained in the 2002–03 resource accounts which will be published within the next month.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he expects universities to take on responsibility for the funding of the new student complaints office. [148565]

  Alan Johnson
  We anticipate that universities and other higher education sector institutions will be required, subject to parliamentary approval of the Higher Education Bill and designation of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA), to fund the OIA from March 2005.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many bursaries for primary teacher training posts are to be funded from the Sure Start programme in 2004–05; [148167]
  958W
  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 15 January 2004]The Secretary of State for Education and Skills has responsibilities for student loanspaid to higher education students domiciled in England and Wales, and this information is therefore provided on an England and Wales basis.

  The table shows the student loans issued, repaid, the interest added and the amount outstanding at the end of the year for financial years 1999–2000 to 2001–02, and the change between each financial year.

  (2) how many of the additional initial teacher training places for primary teaching in 2004–05 will be eligible to receive bursaries; [148168]

  (3) what plans he has to guarantee teaching posts to undergraduates who have received bursaries funded through the Sure Start programme. [148169]

  Mr. Miliband
  I announced last month that a minimum of 400 initial teacher training places would be made available in the 2004/05 academic year for trainees with an early years specialism. These are all places on Postgraduate Certificate in Education courses and will therefore in principle attract £6,000 training bursaries. An additional £2 million will be made available to the Teacher Training Agency to cover the costs of the additional places that will fall in the 2004–05 financial year. In view of the growing demand for trained teachers in early years settings, there is every reason to expect that suitable employment opportunities will be available for the trainees who are being recruited to fill these places.

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the amount of funding that will be raised for higher education in(a) 2006 and (b) each year to 2020 under (i) the present arrangements and (ii) his proposals on top-up fees. [148709]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest available estimates for fee income under the existing arrangements are for 2003/04: the total income from the standard fee of £1,125 is estimated at £847 million. Information on the additional income from variables fees is contained in the Regulatory Impact Assessment published on 8 January alongside the HE Bill. Because of the nature of a variable scheme, the extra income from fees will vary according to the decisions that higher education institutions take on the level of fee, both when variable
  959W
  fees are introduced, and as universities' fee policies evolve in subsequent years. Copies of the Regulatory Impact Assessment were placed in the Library of the House; it is also available on the Department for Education and Skills website.

  University Bursaries
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the average bursary that universities charging the full £3,000 will pass on to students from poorer backgrounds; and how many students he estimates will receive this bursary. [148567]

  Alan Johnson
  As a minimum, the Government want to ensure that no student who qualifies for the maximum state support (around 30 per cent. of students) has to take out additional debt as a result of higher fees. For a student on a £3,000 course, this means a minimum bursary/financial support of at least £300. But, as we have made clear the Director will expect more than the minimum from those institutions that do not have a strong record in access. For example, Cambridge University have announced that they will offer bursaries of £4,000 a year for the poorest students. Therefore we expect the average bursary will be more than £300 and more than 30 per cent. of students will benefit.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what powers the Office of Fair Access will have in the setting of bursary amounts in respect of universities that do not have strong records in recruiting students from poorer backgrounds. [148568]

  Alan Johnson
  From 2006, no institution will be able to charge higher fees without having an access plan which will include details of the action they will take to safeguard access, including offering financial support (including bursaries) and running outreach activities. The Director of Fair Access will scrutinise the access plans and refuse to approve any which are not satisfactory.

  University Fees
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what total revenue he expects to be raised assuming(a) 10 per cent., (b) 20 per cent., (c) 30 per cent., (d) 40 per cent., (e) 50 per cent., (f) 60 per cent., (g) 70 per cent., (h) 80 per cent., (i) 90 per cent. and (j) 100 per cent. of universities charge the full £3,000 fee, with the remainder of universities charging the standard fee of £1,200; [148573]

  (2) what total revenue he expects to be raised assuming (a) 10 per cent., (b) 20 per cent., (c) 30 per cent., (d) 40 per cent., (e) 50 per cent., (f) 60 per cent., (g) 70 per cent., (h) 80 per cent., (i) 90 per cent. and (j) 100 per cent. of universities charge the full £3,000 fee, with the remainder of universities charging the standard fee of £1,200 less the total amount spent on bursaries. [148574]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on the additional income from fees in different scenarios is contained in the Regulatory Impact Assessment published on 8 January alongside the HE Bill. Because of the nature of a variable scheme, the extra income from fees will vary according to the decisions that higher education 960W
  institutions take on the level of fee. Figures for extra fee income, with and without the amount spent on bursaries, cannot therefore be estimated precisely at this stage. Copies of the Regulatory Impact Assessment were placed in the Library of the House; it is also available on the Department for Education and Skills website.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Bush Administration regarding the role of the United Nations in Iraq. [148099]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are in regular contact with the US Administration on all aspects of the situation in Iraq, including the role of the United Nations. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush have repeatedly affirmed, we support the UN's vital role in Iraq, in accordance with the mandate set out in relevant Security Council resolutions. The future role of the UN will be discussed at a meeting between the UN Secretary-General, the Iraqi Governing Council and the Coalition Provisional Authority today.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British companies have won contracts to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq, broken down by type of service or project provided. [146960]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We wish to see UK companies play a substantial role in the reconstruction process in Iraq. Several UK companies have won contracts to assist in that process but have asked us not to publicise their success because of commercial confidentiality. Furthermore, UK companies are not required to report such details to the Government. Therefore, we are unable to provide the information requested. However, UK firms are active in the power, water, banking, ports, construction, telecoms, security, legal services and consultancy services.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British technical experts are deployed(a) with the Iraqi Survey Group and (b) for the disarmament of Libya's weapons of mass destruction; and what the cost to date has been in conducting each mission. [147026]

  Mr. MacShane
  There are currently 55 British personnel (both civilian and military) deployed with the Iraq Survey Group. The costs to the United Kingdom of their mission are not recorded separately in a readily accessible form and cannot, therefore, be differentiated from the total cost of personnel deployed to the Gulf region as a whole. We do not have figures relating to costs incurred on support for the Iraq Survey Group by other Coalition Partners.

  There are no British personnel currently deployed to Libya to assist with the disarmament of Libya's weapons of mass destruction.

  Poland
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the number of people expected to travel from Poland to reside and work in the United Kingdom following Poland's accession to the European Union on 1 May. [147703]

  Mr. MacShane
  Research conducted for the Home Office by University College London (published in June 2003) estimates that the numbers of people who will migrate to the UK from the new Member States in the years following enlargement will not be significant. The University College London report is available on the Home Office website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr2503.pdf. The research was not broken down by country.

  Visas
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost was in each of the last five years of the visa sections of(a) embassies and (b) high commissions and consuls, including the cost of entry clearance officers. [147787]

  Mr. Mullin
  Total global costs of running UK visas operations for the years 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 are published in the annual Foreign and Commonwealth Office Department Report, available in the Library of the House and on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website: www.fco.gov.uk. The latest published figure is £81.386 million for 2001–02. To break down the information further as requested by my hon. Friend could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Angola
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of human rights abuses in the Cabinda province of Angola; and if he will make a statement. [147792]

  Mr. Mullin
  We remain concerned about reports of human rights violations in Cabinda. We hope that a speedy and negotiated settlement to the Cabinda question can be found. Our embassy in Luanda is monitoring the situation closely in consultation with EU partners.

  Bilateral Treaties (United States)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many bilateral treaties have been signed since I May 1997 between the UK and the United States, giving in each case(a) the date of signature, (b) the title and (c) information on whether the treaty is available for public inspection. [148867]

  Mr. Straw
  14 bilateral treaties have been signed with the Government of the United States of America since 1 May 1997. Of these, 11 have so far been published, with the remaining three expected in due course. International treaties to which the UK is a party are published as Command Papers as soon as possible after they are concluded, and are widely available through 962W
  The Stationery Office (TSO). All Treaty Command Papers published since March 2002, and their accompanying Explanatory Memoranda, have also been placed on the internet and may be accessed via: www.fco.gov.uk/treaty

  The relevant bilateral treaties are:

  (1) Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America concerning the establishment on Ascension Island of an Additional Facility to be operated on Behalf of the United States Air Force.

  Signed 15 July 1997 and 22 July 1997.

  Published as a Command Paper in the Treaty Series as No. 049/1997: Cm 3739.

  (2) Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America concerning Maritime and Aerial Operations to Suppress Illicit Trafficking by Sea in Waters of the Caribbean and Bermuda with Exchange of Notes.

  Signed 13 July 1998.

  Published as a Command Paper in the Treaty Series as No. 002/2001: Cm 5031.

  (3) Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on behalf of the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Government of the United States of America relating to investment incentives.

  Signed on 20 April 1999.

  Published as a Command Paper in the Treaty Series as No. 041/1999: Cm 4395.

  (4) Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America concerning the construction of a Monitoring Facility on Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory (British Indian Ocean Territory 1999).

  Signed on 18 June 1999 and 21 July 1999.

  Published as a Command Paper in the Treaty Series as No. 001/2000: Cm 4582.

  (5) Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America amending the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters done at Washington on 6 January 1994.

  Signed on 30 April 2001 and 1 May 2001.

  Published as a Command Paper in the Treaty Series as No. 008/2002: Cm 5375.

  (6) Convention between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital Gains.

  Signed on 24 July 2001.

  Published as a Command Paper in the Treaty Series as No. 023/2003: Cm 5880.

  (7) Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including the Government of the Cayman Islands, and the Government of the United States of America for the Exchange of Information relating to Taxes.

  Signed on 27 November 2001.

  Not yet published.

  (8) Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including the

  963W
  Government of the British Virgin Islands, and the Government of the United States of America for the Exchange of Information relating to Taxes.

  Signed on 3 April 2002.

  Not yet published.

  (9) Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America amending the Agreement done at London on 27 March 1941, and related lease and other arrangements regarding the establishment, use, operation and defence of the United States bases on Bermuda.

  Signed on 18 June 2002.

  Published as a Command Paper in the Treaty Series as No. 049/2002: Cm 5683.

  (10) Protocol amending the Convention between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America for the avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and capital Gains, signed at London on 24 July 2001.

  Signed on 19 July 2002.

  Published as a Command Paper in the Treaty Series as No. 023/2003: Cm 5880.

  (11) Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America.

  Signed on 31 March 2003.

  Published as a Command Paper in the Country Series as United States No. 001/2003: Cm 5821.

  (12) Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America regarding the sharing of Forfeited or Confiscated Assets or their Equivalent Funds.

  Signed on 31 March 2003.

  Published as a Command Paper in the Treaty Series as No. 034/2003: Cm 5946.

  (13) Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America to extend the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters signed at Washington on 6 January 1994 to the Isle of Man.

  Signed on 2 June 2003 and 5 June 2003.

  Not yet published.

  (14) Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America concerning the use of Wideawake Airfield on Ascension Island by Civil Aircraft not engaged in Scheduled International Air Services.

  Signed on 1 October 2003.

  Published as a Command Paper in the Treaty Series as No. 051/2003: Cm 6087.

  Brazil
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Brazil about nuclear proliferation issues. [148466]

  Mr. Rammell
  We maintain a substantive and ongoing dialogue with Brazil on the full range of nuclear proliferation issues at official level in London, Brasilia and at relevant international organisations and international fora. There has been no recent discussion at ministerial level on these themes.

  Chechnya
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence his Department has of links between Chechens and(a) al-Qaeda, (b) Iraqi insurgents and (c) other practitioners of terrorism. [146686]

  Mr. MacShane
  Chechen extremists had close and long-established links to terrorists based in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime. Some foreign terrorists who trained in Afghanistan, and had ties with al-Qaeda, went on to fight in Chechnya. Some Chechens fought with the Taliban and al-Qaeda against the Northern Alliance, and subsequently against the Coalition. Chechen groups even set up an "Embassy" in Kabul in early 2001. Those involved are subject to UN sanctions under UN Security Council Resolution 1267. Under the same resolution, the leading Chechen rebel field commander Shamil Basayev was made subject to UN sanctions on 12 August 2003.We have no strong evidence of Chechen terrorists being in Iraq. Some networks that support Chechen terrorism, however, may also support extremists in Iraq. Chechen extremists have developed links with a wide range of other extremists, including some in Europe, in order to fund and support their campaign. Some extremists see the conflict in Chechnya as a 'jihad' which they have a duty to support.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent progress towards finding a solution to the Cyprus problem.[R] [148259]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 15 January 2004]The formation of a new "government" under the leadership of the pro-settlement politician Mehmet Ali Talat in northern Cyprus is an encouraging development. So too was the statement last week by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan. I was impressed during my visit to Ankara last week at the new positive line from the Turkish Government in support of the Annan Plan. I stressed in talks with Turkish Foreign Minister Gul the need for Turkey to support and work for the speedy acceptance of the Annan Plan with a view to finding a settlement that would allow a united Cyprus to enter the EU on 1 May this year. It is in the interest of all with a stake in Cyprus to work for a settlement by 1 May.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he plans to make to(a) the new government in northern Cyprus and (b) Turkey over the need for a census to be conducted in northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.[R] [148260]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 15 January 2004]We believe that the UNSG's proposals (the Annan Plan) satisfactorily take into account the issues underlying calls for a census. It is difficult to see the useful purpose that a census at the present time would serve, nor how the necessary delay in organising it would advance matters. I was impressed in talks with the Turkish
  965W
  Government in Ankara last week at the new positive approach to finding a solution based on the Annan proposals.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the outcome of the elections in northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [R] [148261]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 15 January 2004]I welcome the fact that a coalition "government" has now formed in northern Cyprus and that the coalition's stated aim is to work for a settlement to the Cyprus problem on the basis of the Annan Plan by 1 May. That is what the majority of the Turkish Cypriot population voted for on 14 December 2003. We continue to believe that the UN Secretary General's proposals offer the only realistic basis for a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement. All sides must now commit to resume substantive settlement negotiations on the basis of these proposals as soon as possible, in line with the requirements set down by the UN Secretary General in his report of 1 April 2003.

  Euro
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in how many speeches during 2003 he declared support for the Government's policy on the euro. [147301]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear the Government's position on EMU on many occasions in 2003. These included a speech on 23 October 2003 to the Chester/Ellesmere/North Wales Chamber of Commerce, which I am sending to my hon. Friend. In addition to published texts, the Foreign Secretary frequently answers questions on this issue during the course of all kinds of public discussions.

  Germany
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason extra security has been put in place around the British Embassy in Berlin; when it was put in place; what the total cost of these measures has been since they were implemented; and who is meeting the cost of this extra security. [147682]

  Mr. Rammell
  Immediately after the attack on the British Consulate-General in Istanbul, all diplomatic missions were instructed to review their security urgently and, where appropriate, implement security enhancements. In addition, those missions with a high level of threat or vulnerability sought additional protection from the host government.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) cannot disclose, under Exemption 1 (a) and 4 (e) of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information the specific security measures in place at the British Embassy in Berlin but such costs would normally be met from FCO budgets.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Hong Kong. [148229]
  966W
  Mr. Rammell
  We continue to follow developments in Hong Kong closely, in line with our responsibilities as a co-signatory to the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary continues to report regularly to Parliament on the implementation of the Joint Declaration. The last such report (Cmnd 5864) was issued in July 2003 and is available in the Library of the House. We continue to assess that, generally, the "One Country, Two Systems" policy enshrined in the Joint Declaration is working well in practice.

  The main political issue in Hong Kong is currently constitutional reform. The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) contains provisions on constitutional development, with the ultimate aims being the selection of the Chief Executive and election of all members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. On 1 January up to 100,000 people participated in a march to call for greater democracy in Hong Kong.

  On 7 January the Chief Executive announced the setting up of a Task Force, headed by the Chief Secretary for Administration, to examine the Basic Law's provisions on constitutional reform and to consult the Chinese Central People's Government on these issues. On 14 January the Chief Secretary issued a paper setting out the Work Plan of the Task Force. This makes clear that the Task Force will be carrying forward discussions with the Hong Kong people while consulting the Central People's Government on issues pertaining to the Basic Law.

  When I was in Hong Kong in December I reiterated our position on this issue, that we hope to see early progress towards the Basic Law's ultimate aim of universal suffrage, at a pace in step with the wishes of the people of Hong Kong.

  Imad Hage
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received during the last 12 months from Mr. Imad Hage. [145209]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have no record of any official representations from Mr. Imad Hage to the Foreign Secretary during the last 12 months.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings(a) officials and (b) Ministers in his Department have held during 2003 with Mr. Imad Hage. [145215]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have no record of any official meetings between officials or Ministers of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Mr. Imad Hage.

  Israel
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli authorities in advance of the court hearing scheduled for 7 January, concerning the proposed demolition of the peace centre called Beit Arabiya in the West Bank village of Anata. [146561]

  Mr. MacShane
  None.
  967W
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of(a) settlement buildings, (b) movement restrictions on Palestinians, (c) planning regulations, (d) rules of residence and (e) construction of the separation wall on the extent to which Israel is fulfilling its responsibilities towards the character and status of Jerusalem under UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 267, 476 and 478; and what representations he is making on the issue. [146566]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government have repeatedly said that neither side should take unilateral action that could prejudge the status of Jersualem. We regard the status of Jerusalem as still to be determined in permanent status negotiations between the parties. Pending agreement, we recognise de facto Israeli authority over West Jerusalem but consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory. We recognise no sovereignty over the city.

  We consider the building of settlements on occupied land to be unlawful. We have regularly called on Israel to fulfil its roadmap commitment to freeze all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements) and to dismantle outposts erected since March 2001. We have also urged Israel to improve the humanitarian situation by lifting curfews and easing restrictions on movement of persons and goods.

  We understand Israel's need to take steps, within international law, to protect itself from terrorist attack. But we have made clear that we regard the route of the wall that Israel is building on occupied Palestinian land as unlawful. The decision to declare the land between the fence and the Green Line a "closed zone" and require those Palestinians who live on or farm it to apply for a permit to access their land is a matter of particular concern.

  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have raised these issues with the Israeli Prime Minister and Foreign Minister on a number of occasions. My noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean has also raised these issues with the Israeli Government in Tel Aviv and with the Israeli Ambassador in London. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials have also made representations to the Israeli Ambassador, most recently on 10 December 2003.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost to his Department of using management consultants has been in each of the last five years. [148023]

  Mr. Rammell
  Expenditure on external consultants in general is reported annually in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (FCO) Departmental Report, available in the Library of the House and on the FCO's website: www.fco.gov.uk. Expenditure specifically on management consultants is not categorised separately and could be established only at disproportionate cost.
  968W
  Expenditure on external consultants for the last five years has been:

  £ million

  1997–98

  15.8

  1998–99

  14.5

  1999–2000

  14

  2000–01

  17.9

  2001–02

  20.1

  Expenditure for 2002–03 is not yet available, but will be included in the next Departmental Report due to be published in spring 2004.

  The vast majority of our expenditure on external consultants is associated with our major Information Communications Technology (ICT) and Estate Construction programmes. Consultants also advise on legal, financial and personnel issues and provide support in areas where we have skills shortages. Increasing expenditure over recent years is largely associated with the growth of our ICT programme which is being used to support change in the organisation.

  Procurement Outsourcing
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's procurement policy with regard to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing; whether his Department is outsourcing IT and call centre jobs to offshore companies; to which countries his Department has outsourced these jobs; how much his Department has spent on this outsourcing in each of the last two years; and how much has been budgeted for this purpose for the next two years. [147585]

  Mr. Rammell
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) purchasing policy follows the Government's Public Purchasing Consolidated Guidelines which require the procurement of goods and services to be based on value for money and that they should be acquired by competition unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary.

  In the UK the FCO has not agreed any contracts for the provision of IT or call centre services operated outside this country, nor are there any plans to do so.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has received from Saudi Arabian officials concerning plans to attack British Airways flights(a) over Saudi Arabia and (b) with light aircraft registered in that country; and if he will make a statement. [148433]

  Mr. Straw
  We liaise closely with the Saudi Government on security issues, including those relating to aviation security. Information received in confidence from the Saudi Government is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 1(c) of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. We do not disclose the details of exchanges on security issues, as it is the longstanding practice of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence and security matters.

  969W
  The security and intelligence agencies are outside the scope of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Paragraph 6, Part 1).

  Sudan
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence has been collated by his Department on whether the Eritrean authorities are arming Sudanese rebels in the Darfur region; and if he will make a statement. [147774]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are aware of accusations made by the Government of Sudan of Eritrean involvement in the conflict in Darfur, and are in contact with both governments on this matter.

  We hope that peace in Sudan will help bring stability and prosperity to the entire Greater Horn region, and are encouraging both sides to work to improve relations.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made on the need for sunset clauses on legislative proposals brought forward by the European Commission. [147918]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government believe that review clauses and sunsetting should be included in European legislation where appropriate. The Cabinet Office Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment asks those officials negotiating a Directive to consider getting a commitment to review in the text of the Directive itself, if it is not feasible or appropriate to have sunsetting. The Cabinet Office Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment is available on the Cabinet Office website: www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/scrutiny/ria-guidance.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of relations between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. [147526]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United Kingdom monitors cross-Straits relations closely.

  We attach great importance to the avoidance of conflict. We take every appropriate opportunity to convey to the Chinese Government and, through informal channels, to the Taiwanese Authorities our strong opposition to the use of force or to any action that raises cross-straits tensions.

  United Nations
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions since 1975 when the vote cast by the United Kingdom has been diametrically opposed to that of the United States in the UN Security Council; and what percentage of votes this represents. [147399]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK has made a positive vote in the Security Council when the US has voted negatively on the following 28 occasions since 1975:

  11 August 1975: Application for membership for Republic of South Vietnam

  970W

  11 August 1975: Application for membership for Democratic Republic of Vietnam

  30 Sept 1975: Application for membership for Republic of South Vietnam

  30 Sept 1975: Application for membership for Democratic Republic of Vietnam

  8 Dec 1975: Situation in the Middle East

  25 March 1976: Situation in occupied Arab territories

  23 June 1976: Application for membership for Angola

  15 Nov 1976: Application for membership for Socialist Republic of Vietnam

  2 April 1982: Situation in occupied Arab territories

  20 April 1982: Situation in occupied Arab territories

  8 June 1982: Israeli invasion of Lebanon

  26 June 1982: Israeli invasion of Lebanon

  2 August 1983: Situation in occupied Arab territories

  6 Sept 1984: Israeli occupation of Lebanon

  30 Jan1986: Provocative acts in relation to Al Aqsa Mosque

  1 Feb 1988: Situation in the occupied territories

  15 April 1988: Situation in the occupied territories

  10 May 1988: Israeli invasion of Southern Lebanon

  14 Dec 1988: Israeli raid on Lebanon

  17 Feb 1989: Situation in the occupied Arab territories

  9 June 1989: Situation in the occupied Arab territories

  7 Nov 1989: Situation in the occupied Arab territories

  31 May 1990: Situation in the occupied Arab territories

  17 May 1995: Situation in the occupied Arab territories

  7 March 1997: Situation in the occupied Arab territories

  21 March 1997: Situation in the occupied Arab territories

  30 June 2002: Situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina

  20 Dec 2002: Situation in the Middle East

  There have been no occasions since 1975 when the US has voted positively on a resolution which the UK has voted against. The 28 votes listed above represent around 2.3 per cent. of the 1,238 votes on substantive resolutions which have either been adopted or vetoed since 1975. In the same period, there were 23 occasions in which the UK voted positively and the US abstained, and 21 occasions when the UK abstained and the US voted against. There have been no occasions since 1975 when the UK abstained and the US voted positively, or the UK voted against and the US abstained. Exact figures for the total number of votes (including those, for example, on procedural issues) which have taken place in the Security Council are not readily available.

  USA (Visas)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the US Administration about the introduction of visa charges for British citizens who visit the United States of America. [148154]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There have been no recent changes to charges for US visas for British citizens. However, we are in close consultation with the US on the introduction of biometric travel documents, and how this will affect entry in to the United States for British passport holders after 26 October 2004.

  Western Sudan
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what measures the Government are taking to re-establish and support the Chadian-led peace negotiations following the breakdown of peace talks on Darfur, Western Sudan; [148015]

  (2) what steps the Government are taking to encourage the Government of Sudan to agree to (a) the presence of international observers at peace talks on the conflict in Darfur, Western Sudan and (b) the inclusion of the Justice Equality Movement and militias at the negotiations. [148016]

  Mr. Mullin
  We remain extremely concerned at the humanitarian situation in Darfur. We are in contact with all parties, including the Government of Sudan at senior level, to press for the re-establishment of a ceasefire, preferably with international monitoring, which would permit humanitarian access to those in need and lead to talks about how the problems of Darfur can best be addressed.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of South Africa regarding the political situation in Zimbabwe. [147338]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed Zimbabwe with President Mbeki at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Abuja from 5 to 7 December 2003. We and our High Commissioner in South Africa are in regular dialogue with the South African Government on the issue.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Cannabis (Recategorisation)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effects of the forthcoming recategorisation of cannabis in(a) London and (b) England; and if he will make a statement. [148341]

  Caroline Flint
  Cannabis is a harmful drug and it will remain illegal to produce, supply or possess it following reclassification as a Class C drug on 29 January. The presumption against using the power of arrest for simple cannabis possession offences committed by those aged 18 or over, following reclassification, will save police time and provide them with an opportunity to focus greater resources on priority areas like tackling Class A drug supply offences.

  Fireworks Regulations (Enforcement)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been issued to police forces in respect of enforcement of new regulations to control fireworks. [148342]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Department for Trade and Industry regulations prohibiting the possession of fireworks, in public places, by those under the age of 18 972W
  and the possession of category 4 fireworks (professional display fireworks) by the general public have now come into force.

  The Home Office will be writing to Chief Police Officers shortly with details of these new powers.

  Anti-Social Behaviour Act
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the powers contained in the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 on(a) graffiti and (b) fly-posting will be introduced. [148343]

  Ms Blears
  On 20 January we will be publishing a Guide to the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 which will give the dates when these measures will be commenced. The powers on graffiti will be commenced on 31 March 2004, those on fly posting on 20 January 2004.

  Local Authority Finance (Police)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on increases in police precept by local authorities in 2004–05. [148344]

  Ms Blears
  Police authority precepts are a matter for each police authority. We expect all police authorities to assess their local needs carefully, taking into account local views on service and budget levels. We also expect authorities to exercise restraint in setting budgets and precepts as the current trend in council tax increases is unsustainable.

  Police Budgets (East Anglia)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet chief constables from East Anglia to discuss policing budgets for 2004–05. [148345]

  Ms Blears
  I have no current plans to meet chief constables from East Anglia. I have received written representations on the provisional grant funding settlement from Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. These will be fully taken into account in decisions on the final settlement.

  The setting of budgets and precepts are matters for police authorities. We expect police authorities to ensure that their decisions will not place excessive burdens on the local council tax payer.

  Child Trafficking
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will introduce legislation to combat the trafficking and sexual exploitation of children within the UK; and if he will make a statement. [148346]

  Paul Goggins
  The Sexual Offences Act 2003 includes offences which criminalise trafficking into, within and out of the country for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The offences carry a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. The Act also introduces a wider range of offences covering the sexual exploitation of children. The Asylum and Immigration Bill includes a new offence of trafficking for purposes other than sexual exploitation.

  "Reducing Crime, Changing Lives"
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the plans contained in the report "Reducing Crime, Changing Lives" will be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny. [148347]

  Ms Blears
  The chief executive of the National Offender Management Service will be accountable to Ministers for reducing re-offending and delivering other agreed outcomes from the new service. Ministers will of course remain accountable to parliament for the service. Some of the reforms proposed in Reducing Crime—Changing Lives are likely to require legislation to be passed by parliament.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been arrested through powers exercised under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; how long the detention lasted in each case; and if he will make a statement. [145076]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Individuals who are detained under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCS) are not arrested. They are detained under Immigration powers pursuant to a certificate issued under Part 4 of the ATCS Act 2001, pending their removal from the United Kingdom.

  In terms of numbers, I refer the hon. Member to my Written Ministerial Statement of 18 November 2003, Official Report, column 27WS. No further certifications or detentions made since then.

  Under the other 12 Parts of the ATCS Act, Home Office records show that there have been 24 convictions under Part 5 (Racial and Religious Hatred) of the Act. Arrest figures for Part 5 of the Act and figures for the length of time each individual is detained are not held centrally. In addition, six people have been arrested

  Removals and voluntary1 departures of principal asylum applicants (excluding dependants): January 1997 to June 20032,3,4

  Nationality

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  January to June 2003

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  60

  20

  n/a

  n/a

  20

  35

  10

  1 Includes persons departing "voluntarily" after enforcement action had been initiated against them, persons leaving under Assisted voluntary return programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration, and removals on safe third country grounds.

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest five with * = 1 or 2.

  3 Data have been estimated due to data quality issues

  4 Provisional figures

  n/a not available

  Information on the destination of removals is not available.

  Current advice from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is that it is not safe to return nationals to the Democratic Republic of Congo other than to Kinshasa.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many and what proportion of asylum seekers in each country of the United Kingdom had achieved, prior to their entry into the
  974W
  under Part 13 of the Act (Miscellaneous provisions including noxious substances; hoaxes involving noxious substances; failure to disclose information about acts of terrorism and terrorist training).

  Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to give a substantive reply to the question, reference 143845, concerning asylum and immigration cases heard in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, tabled by the hon. Member for Woking on 9 December 2003. [146843]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]I replied to the hon. Member on 14 January 2004,Official Report, column 754.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many failed asylum seekers were returned to the Democratic Republic of Congo in each of the last six years; and if he will make a statement; [144712]

  (2) how many failed asylum seekers were returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in each of the last six years; and if he will make a statement; [144742]

  (3) how many applicants for asylum there were from the Democratic Republic of Congo in each of the last six years; and how many and what percentage of applications were accepted. [145401]

  Beverley Hughes
  Estimates of the number of nationals of the Democratic Republic of Congo who had sought asylum at some stage and who were removed between January 1997 and June 2003 are shown in the table. These figures include persons departing `voluntarily' after the initiation of enforcement action against them, and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Returns Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration.

  UK, professional qualifications or their equivalent in (a) nursing, (b) medicine, (c) dentistry and (d) teaching in each year since 1997; [144818]

  (2) how many and what proportion of asylum seekers in each country of the United Kingdom had gained prior to their entry into the UK (a) higher education qualifications or their equivalent, (b) professional qualifications or their equivalent and (c) secondary level qualifications or their equivalent in each year since 1997. [144817]
  975W
  Beverley Hughes
  Data on the qualifications which asylum seekers had obtained prior to entry are not recorded and collated centrally, and could therefore only be obtained from individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Information on asylum statistics is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on detaining asylum seekers with children whose application for asylum has been denied. [145677]

  Beverley Hughes
  After an application for asylum has been refused a family with children may be detained if there is a considered risk of non-compliance with the conditions of temporary admission or release, or to effect removal.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will provide a substantive response to the question relating to funding due to Kent county council in respect of asylum seekers, ref 144468, tabled by the hon. Member for North Thanet on 12 December and transferred to his Department by the Treasury for named day answer on 16 December 2003. [146557]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 8 January 2004]I replied to the hon. Member on 15 January 2004.

  Cleveland Local Criminal Justice Board Website
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date the Cleveland local criminal justice board website will contain some information. [146767]

  Paul Goggins
  The Cleveland Local Criminal Justice Boards website is currently under construction and will be populated with information by 23 January 2004.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes of 5 November 2003 about the Totnes European School, acknowledged by his Department on 19 November 2003 (ref: M7244/3). [147070]

  CPS
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Crown Prosecution Service's Racially Aggravated and Religiously Aggravated Crime Policy. [146246]

  The Solicitor-General
  The question has been passed to me for reply as the Law Officers are responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

  The CPS policy on racist and religious crime was launched on 14 July 2003 and was developed with criminal justice partners and in consultation with over 120 local and national groups, including representatives of faith and black and minority ethnic communities.

  The policy clearly sets out the CPS stance on prosecuting racist and religious crime and emphasises the need to prosecute cases firmly, fairly and robustly.
  976W
  The aim is to contribute to improving public confidence in the criminal justice system and, it is hoped, to bring more offenders to justice.

  In delivering training to underpin the policy, the CPS has involved members of the community and the police to assist prosecutors in understanding the issues and underline the impact on communities of such crime.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Crown Prosecution Service Merseyside Community Engagement Programme. [146247]

  The Solicitor-General
  The question has been passed to me for reply as the Law Officers are responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

  CPS Merseyside is heavily involved in a range of community engagement initiatives. These include talks to schools and colleges, mentoring students from the black and minority ethnic communities, and contributing to conferences arranged to obtain the views of a variety of community groups. Two conferences are scheduled in January. The Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Merseyside also arranges for representatives of relevant communities to address his staff during training courses so that they can describe the effects of crime on their lives and explain how the criminal justice agencies can better meet their needs.

  The area is currently updating its community engagement strategy to draw together the initiatives in which it is involved.

  Dangerous Offenders
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of sentences that(a) are poorly targeted and (b) do not bear down sufficiently on dangerous offenders. [147365]

  Paul Goggins
  Decisions on the targeting of sentences are for the courts, based on the full facts of individual cases. However, the Government is determined to ensure that sentences delivered are appropriate to offences committed. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduces a range of new sentences so that courts have a full range of options at their disposal in order to deal with offences and offenders appropriately.

  These include the new Generic Community Sentence, which will allow judges and magistrates to choose specific elements (such as drug rehabilitation, unpaid work, curfew) that best suit the profiles of individual offenders and crimes.

  The Act also enhances protection for the public from dangerous offenders. It introduces new indeterminate sentences for use where an offender is considered to pose a significant risk to the public. These sentences will ensure that an offender may be kept in custody for as long as he or she is considered to pose a threat to the public. If the risk posed decreases over time, the offender will become eligible for release once the period specified by the court as the minimum necessary for punitive purposes has been served.
  977W
  In addition, to promote consistency in sentencing between courts, the Act set up the Sentencing Guidelines Council, an independent body chaired by the Lord Chief Justice. The Council's role is to produce guidelines for the courts on the most appropriate and best-targeted sentence for different types of offence.

  Human Trafficking
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of human trafficking were detected in 2002. [144611]

  Beverley Hughes
  Forming an accurate estimate of the levels of trafficking in people is problematic because of the secretive and hidden nature of the act. There are currently no accurate, reliable data in existence within the UK or the European Union. A Home Office research study "Stopping Traffic" (Police Research Series 125, published in 2000), indicated that there was intelligence to suggest that some women and children are trafficked into the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation. This was estimated at between 140 and 1,400 per year but it was not possible to say how accurate this estimate is. The report concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that this was on a large scale in the UK compared with other European countries.

  However, due to the very serious nature of the crime, in 2000, the Government set up a multi-agency taskforce called Reflex to co-ordinate the operational response to tackling organised crime groups involved in human trafficking and the smuggling of people into the UK. Since April 2003, there have been 14 significant disruptions (26 in total) and from these 37 convictions for related offences.

  The Government have also introduced specific criminal sanctions covering traffickers. We have acted quickly to deal with the worst forms of exploitation by creating an offence of trafficking for the purposes of controlling someone in prostitution within the Nationality, Immigration, and Asylum Act 2002. More comprehensive offences concerning trafficking into, out of and within the UK for all forms of sexual exploitation are included in the Sexual Offences Act which received Royal Assent in November 2003. A new offence covering trafficking for forced labour and removal of organs is included in the Asylum and Immigration Bill, currently before Parliament. All of these offences carry a maximum penalty of 14 years.

  Immigrant Surcharge
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his plans to introduce a £500 surcharge on immigrants to the UK includes those entering to study at English language schools; and if he will make a statement. [145139]

  Beverley Hughes
  No decisions have yet been made about the level of the fees. The Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is required to provide a range of fees for indicative purposes only. The upper limit of that range, £500, does not signify that the Government intends, as some newspapers suggested, to set fees at that level.
  978W
  The enabling power is the first stage of a two stage process. The second part of the process is to undertake a full Regulatory Impact Assessment and wider consultation with key stakeholders. Following this consultation, decisions regarding fee levels, scope and timing of introduction can then be made taking these views fully into account.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what percentage of immigration and asylum appeals before adjudicators his Department was(a) represented by Home Office Presenting Officers, (b) represented by Counsel and (c) not represented in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [143360]

  Beverley Hughes
  For the 12 month period to August 2003 the level of representation for Presenting Officers and Counsel when taken together was 72 per cent. This relatively low level of representation was caused, in large part, by difficulties in recruiting Presenting Officers, particularly in the London area. The level of representation will increase early in 2004 as up to 65 newly recruited Presenting Officers complete their training and take up their posts.

  Immigration Control (Vehicle Checks)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of(a) lorries and (b) other vehicles passing through Dover from France were not checked in Dover for purposes of seeking to discover illegal immigrants in the last 12 months.[142167]

  Beverley Hughes
  Approximately 2,500 lorries arrive at Dover every day on board cross channel ferries. Port authorities and operators in both Calais and Dunkerque check all lorries entering their port and again using UK supplied New Detection Technology (NDT) before lorries board ferries for the UK.

  As it is clearly more effective to have searched lorries before they embark on ferries to the UK than on arrival at Dover lorries are selected for search by Immigration Service search teams only on an intelligence-led basis employing known profiles of vehicles used in people smuggling. Other vehicles such as private cars and vans are systematically checked in France by agents acting for the ferry operator.

  Again, targeted checks by Immigration Officers are carried out on arrival at Dover.

  Muslim Converts to Christianity
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded cases of(a) assault and (b) murder have occurred in the UK over the past five years of members of the Islamic faith who have converted to Christianity. [147424]

  Ms Blears
  The requested information is not available centrally.

  Police Arms Recoveries
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) legal guns, (b) illegal guns and (c) knives have been recovered by the police investigating crimes in the last year. [146832]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not available in the form requested. The National Firearms Forensic Intelligence Database launched in November 2003 will provide a central database of seized firearms and help trace guns used in crimes and improve detection.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the cost was of holding prisoners in police cells in 2002; [141643]

  (2) how many prisoners have been held in police cells so far in 2003. [141644]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 3 December 2003]Prisoners are not routinely held in police cells as a result of overcrowding. When population pressures result in police cells being used, it is under an arrangement between the Prison Service and the police called "Operation Safeguard". Operation Safeguard has not been used since 2002 (between 11 July and 20 December 2002).

  The average daily cost of holding a prisoner in a police cell during 2002 was £363 per person per night. The total cost of holding prisoners in police cells in 2002 was £10.4 million.

  There are occasions where prisoners have to be accommodated in police cells because the escort contractor cannot deliver them to the receiving prison before its reception closes. There is an on-going arrangement with many police forces, known as "Lock-outs". These are entirely separate arrangements from Operation Safeguard. This arrangement is sometimes used to facilitate the return of prisoners to court the next day or when a court hearing extends into the evening. The average daily cost of holding a prisoner on Lock-out is currently £120 per person per night. The total cost for Lock-outs in 2002 was £1.356 million.

  The total cost of holding prisoners in police cells under both Operation Safeguard and Lock-outs in 2002 was £11.756 million.

  No prisoners were held under Operation Safeguard in 2003. There were a total of 982 prisoners held in police cells as Lock-outs in 2003. In addition, eight prisoners were held in police cells in the Greater Manchester area on the weekend of 7–8 June 2003, as an emergency measure, following a disturbance at HMP Whealstun, which resulted in a temporary loss of accommodation at the establishment. These prisoners were not held under arrangements for Operation Safeguard or as Lock-outs.

  Police Time
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of a police officer's980W
  time on average was spent on (a) patrol and (b) dealing with paperwork in the last year for which figures are available. [146834]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Figures collected by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary show that, in 2002–03 the number of officers allocated to patrol duties was 63,426. However, we know that there is significant variation between forces in the amount of time officers spend on front line duties, including patrol. We are, as part of the Police Performance Assessment Framework, collecting data from forces so that we can publish a baseline estimate of front line policing for all forces. This will be a valuable tool to drive up the amount of time spent on front line duties.

  We remain committed to tackling administrative burdens and inefficient practices in the police service. Sir David O'Dowd's Taskforce was commissioned to give the Government a police service view of what could be done to tackle the administrative burdens and inefficient practices which keep police officers off the streets. The Taskforce report, published in September 2002, highlighted ways of freeing up significant amounts of officers' time. Among the achievements to date, more than 4,600 forms in 21 forces are now obsolete and all 43 forces now have the capacity to undertake video identity parades. The national roll out of the fixed penalty notice scheme is scheduled for completion by April 2004. Other initiatives are contributing to the reducing burden on police officers. In addition, there is a major Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary Thematic inspection on Civilianisation/The use of non-sworn staff due to report April/May 2004. £8 million has been set aside this financial year for workforce modernisation projects, the criteria for which include the release of officers for front line duties.

  Prisons
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total prison capacity has been in each year since 1997. [147356]

  Paul Goggins
  The annual average usable operational capacity for prisons in England and Wales from 1997 to 2003 is given in the following table.

  Useable operational capability

  1997

  61,900

  1998

  67,800

  1999

  68,100

  2000

  69,000

  2001

  69,400

  2002

  71,500

  2003

  74,300

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of prisoners in prisons in each of the next 10 years. [147358]

  Paul Goggins
  The most recent projections of the prison population are presented in the Home Office Prison Population Brief, England and Wales, April 2003
  981W
  (issued September 2003). These present the four scenarios A, B, C, D for the short-term projection (up to March 2005) and the two central scenarios B and C for the long-term projection (up to 2009). There are no higher (A) and lower (D) scenarios for these long-term projections.

  The projections are as follows:

  Long Term (as at end of June)

  2003

  2004

  2005

  2006

  2007

  2008

  2009

  Scenario B

  73,900

  77,000

  2,900

  88,000

  89,500

  91,100

  92,400

  Scenario C

  73,700

  76,200

  81,500

  87,200

  88,700

  90,300

  91,600

  Future prison population projections will take into consideration the impact of the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and proposals included in the "Reducing Crime—Changing Lives" report.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the new remand unit at Winchester will he ready to receive the first prisoners. [147372]

  Paul Goggins
  The construction of the new remand unit at HMP Winchester is complete, and it is expected to receive its first prisoners in April 2004. This is subject to the installation of ancillary provisions such as new fences, reception, and gate entry systems.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders have been sent to Holloway prison in each year since 1997. [147373]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of young people held in Holloway prison at the end of June of each year from 1997 to 2003 is given in the table below. Young people are defined as those aged under 21, but may include some 21 year olds who were under 21 at conviction but have not been reclassified as part of the adult population.

  Year

  1997

  67

  1998

  57

  1999

  82

  2000

  85

  2001

  51

  2002

  70

  2003

  59

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what budget has been allocated to Holloway prison for young offenders in each year since 1997. [147374]

  Officer numbers by establishment and gender 31 March 1998 to 31 December 2003

  31-03-98

  30-11-98

  31-12-99

  31-12-2000

  Establishment

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Acklington

  203

  9

  178

  3

  211

  9

  205

  9

  Aldington

  42

  3

  39

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Albany

  156

  7

  161

  7

  150

  6

  144

  4

  Ashwell

  103

  15

  101

  10

  101

  16

  96

  14

  Askham Grange

  7

  23

  80

  20

  8

  21

  8

  21

  982W

  Short term

  End of March 2004

  End of March 2005

  Scenario A

  75,900

  82,300

  Scenario B

  75,600

  81,700

  Scenario C

  74,700

  81,100

  Scenario D

  74,500

  80,600

  Paul Goggins
  There are no specific budget allocations made by the Prison Service to cover young offenders (aged 18-21) held at establishments including Holloway prison. The total budget issued to each prison covers all inmates and makes no distinction between adults and young offenders. The juvenile estate (prisoners aged under 18) receives separately identified and monitored budgets from the Youth Justice Board.

  However, it is acknowledged that there are additional funding requirements relating to young offenders because of physical security considerations and educational needs. It is the responsibility of the Governor of each establishment and the Area Manager to determine how these requirements are met out of the total budget available.

  The Prison Service's Annual Report and Accounts for 2002/03, printed on 15 July 2003, contains details of the costs of all prison establishments including those holding young offenders.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers were serving at each(a) prison and (b) remand centre, disaggregated by sex, in each year since 1997. [147375]

  Paul Goggins
  The information available is contained in the following tables. The figures include prison officers, senior officers and principal officers. Information on officer numbers broken down by gender and location is not available prior to March 1998.

  In those establishments which hold both remand and convicted prisoners, it is not possible to disaggregate the staffing numbers attached to each. The data represents a snapshot staffing level on the date of data capture. It does not take account of new staff who were in the recruitment process at that time. Staffing levels in prison establishments can be affected by a number of factors, including, for example, prisoner numbers, the opening of new accommodation, the temporary closure of accommodation for refurbishment, change to role and function, and changes to working practices.
  983W

  Officer numbers by establishment and gender 31 March 1998 to 31 December 2003

  31-03-98

  30-11-98

  31-12-99

  31-12-2000

  Establishment

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Aylesbury

  174

  18

  148

  14

  160

  22

  144

  28

  Bedford

  158

  14

  162

  8

  145

  18

  147

  17

  Belmarsh

  475

  77

  464

  66

  456

  86

  433

  94

  Birmingham

  310

  28

  319

  28

  318

  33

  300

  29

  Blakenhurst

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blantyre House

  30

  3

  31

  3

  33

  2

  30

  3

  Blundeston

  156

  8

  157

  7

  151

  8

  156

  8

  Brinsford

  154

  37

  160

  37

  171

  41

  178

  39

  Bristol

  298

  27

  298

  24

  281

  28

  270

  33

  Brixton

  288

  50

  281

  37

  272

  54

  253

  50

  Brockhill

  54

  32

  58

  25

  52

  40

  50

  43

  Buckley Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  72

  40

  Bullingdon

  199

  53

  205

  41

  205

  48

  200

  55

  Bullwood Hall

  24

  53

  22

  48

  27

  54

  25

  52

  Camp Hill

  146

  8

  146

  8

  148

  10

  139

  11

  Canterbury

  127

  5

  129

  4

  122

  6

  118

  4

  Cardiff

  241

  8

  234

  8

  232

  9

  226

  9

  Castington

  155

  10

  127

  3

  177

  21

  190

  23

  Channings Wood

  141

  14

  141

  14

  134

  17

  137

  19

  Chelmsford

  171

  15

  170

  15

  171

  19

  171

  29

  Coldingley

  90

  7

  89

  10

  89

  9

  84

  9

  Cookham Wood

  16

  39

  15

  39

  13

  41

  12

  43

  Dartmoor

  246

  12

  242

  10

  237

  12

  227

  13

  Deerbolt

  153

  9

  145

  6

  151

  10

  144

  11

  Dorchester

  79

  9

  79

  9

  77

  10

  78

  9

  Dover1

  105

  6

  108

  4

  111

  5

  107

  8

  Downview

  101

  21

  103

  19

  101

  24

  100

  24

  Drake Hall

  14

  49

  14

  48

  16

  47

  20

  45

  Durham

  357

  77

  361

  59

  350

  76

  359

  77

  East Sutton Park

  8

  16

  7

  15

  6

  18

  4

  19

  Eastwood Park

  36

  63

  36

  56

  42

  80

  36

  75

  Edmunds Hill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Elmley

  229

  47

  224

  40

  230

  49

  230

  55

  Erlestoke

  91

  4

  89

  4

  95

  4

  95

  7

  Everthorpe

  121

  10

  120

  9

  125

  11

  122

  9

  Exeter

  183

  7

  182

  6

  175

  10

  167

  12

  Featherstone

  143

  13

  143

  13

  145

  14

  140

  12

  Feltham

  290

  50

  297

  42

  282

  59

  324

  63

  Ford

  60

  3

  61

  1

  60

  4

  58

  5

  Foston Hall

  17

  43

  18

  37

  21

  47

  26

  59

  Frankland

  435

  57

  411

  50

  458

  58

  445

  53

  Full Sutton

  447

  55

  442

  48

  451

  50

  448

  60

  Garth

  222

  32

  222

  32

  222

  34

  216

  37

  Gartree

  136

  18

  140

  14

  138

  16

  137

  17

  Glen Parva

  256

  16

  278

  18

  259

  26

  253

  24

  Gloucester

  122

  11

  122

  11

  120

  11

  122

  11

  Grendon

  158

  38

  127

  35

  132

  38

  133

  42

  Guys Marsh

  112

  14

  109

  12

  113

  18

  113

  18

  Haslar1

  47

  3

  46

  2

  47

  3

  45

  4

  Hatfield

  47

  2

  52

  1

  44

  2

  42

  3

  Haverigg

  126

  22

  126

  18

  115

  20

  113

  23

  Hewell Grange

  26

  1

  27

  1

  25

  2

  26

  2

  High Down

  330

  68

  254

  53

  238

  55

  240

  61

  Highpoint

  169

  1

  162

  56

  178

  59

  176

  67

  Hindley

  193

  21

  195

  18

  196

  21

  192

  22

  Hollesley Bay

  139

  4

  147

  4

  129

  5

  143

  13

  Holloway

  82

  219

  84

  215

  71

  225

  72

  213

  Holme House

  278

  35

  280

  32

  276

  32

  277

  32

  Hull

  243

  14

  243

  11

  228

  20

  224

  16

  Huntercombe

  120

  18

  100

  16

  121

  24

  123

  35

  Kingston

  72

  2

  73

  2

  72

  5

  69

  5

  Kirkham

  77

  7

  79

  8

  79

  7

  80

  6

  Kirklevington Grange

  42

  2

  40

  2

  38

  2

  36

  1

  Lancaster

  83

  5

  84

  4

  84

  6

  84

  6

  Lancaster Farms

  164

  21

  164

  18

  172

  26

  178

  27

  Latchmere House

  32

  6

  29

  8

  34

  7

  32

  5

  Leeds

  399

  47

  400

  43

  396

  52

  389

  50

  Leicester

  164

  15

  171

  12

  148

  12

  143

  15

  Lewes

  193

  14

  196

  14

  194

  12

  184

  12

  Leyhill

  63

  7

  66

  5

  60

  11

  57

  11

  984W 985W

  Officer numbers by establishment and gender 31 March 1998 to 31 December 2003

  31-03-98

  30-11-98

  31-12-99

  31-12-2000

  Establishment

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Lincoln

  225

  9

  230

  8

  220

  13

  216

  11

  Lindholme

  170

  8

  170

  8

  168

  10

  177

  16

  Littlehey

  148

  16

  150

  12

  143

  22

  137

  23

  Liverpool

  537

  48

  545

  43

  545

  53

  519

  51

  Long Lartin

  355

  51

  322

  32

  349

  58

  344

  64

  Low Newton

  86

  45

  98

  22

  63

  60

  60

  61

  Maidstone

  172

  22

  178

  23

  173

  20

  169

  21

  Manchester

  504

  75

  510

  69

  486

  75

  457

  70

  Moorland

  240

  32

  239

  31

  238

  34

  232

  37

  Morton Hall

  32

  —

  30

  1

  30

  —

  31

  25

  New Hall

  49

  86

  45

  82

  45

  86

  44

  97

  North Sea Camp

  29

  3

  31

  2

  28

  4

  29

  4

  Northallerton

  77

  10

  80

  12

  75

  9

  77

  11

  Norwich

  220

  25

  218

  24

  213

  30

  216

  27

  Nottingham

  166

  12

  157

  9

  165

  13

  164

  14

  Onley

  187

  21

  179

  21

  197

  36

  197

  40

  Parkhurst

  189

  15

  193

  14

  186

  13

  189

  16

  Pentonville

  335

  52

  336

  50

  323

  45

  319

  59

  Portland

  157

  5

  155

  5

  154

  12

  165

  14

  Preston

  271

  15

  278

  16

  269

  16

  255

  16

  Ranby

  189

  17

  151

  13

  188

  20

  189

  19

  Reading

  116

  15

  112

  9

  112

  16

  115

  14

  Risley

  240

  79

  261

  100

  227

  70

  221

  71

  Rochester

  143

  14

  151

  14

  154

  18

  151

  18

  Send

  22

  47

  51

  7

  24

  41

  30

  43

  Shepton Mallet

  66

  5

  68

  4

  70

  4

  68

  4

  Shrewsbury

  114

  9

  112

  9

  111

  9

  109

  11

  Stafford

  188

  14

  191

  13

  175

  16

  173

  16

  Standford Hill

  81

  4

  66

  4

  79

  4

  73

  6

  Stocken

  127

  13

  115

  9

  128

  16

  128

  13

  Stoke Heath

  153

  25

  157

  28

  173

  33

  184

  35

  Styal

  62

  111

  38

  78

  72

  114

  69

  107

  Sudbury

  64

  3

  64

  3

  65

  3

  63

  3

  Swaleside

  168

  42

  186

  34

  187

  52

  191

  51

  Swansea

  127

  4

  127

  4

  126

  6

  122

  7

  Swinfen Hall

  116

  12

  111

  11

  120

  15

  116

  14

  The Mount

  117

  22

  115

  21

  133

  27

  130

  32

  The Verne

  123

  5

  124

  5

  125

  6

  117

  6

  Thorn Cross

  92

  13

  93

  13

  98

  15

  100

  16

  Usk/Prescoed

  80

  3

  81

  4

  83

  2

  84

  3

  Wakefield

  374

  17

  386

  16

  361

  21

  352

  24

  Wandsworth

  368

  67

  343

  43

  365

  66

  354

  69

  Warren Hill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wayland

  138

  12

  136

  12

  139

  18

  130

  19

  Wealstun

  131

  16

  135

  15

  132

  18

  129

  19

  Weare

  109

  15

  110

  15

  112

  13

  113

  14

  Wellingborough

  98

  15

  93

  17

  128

  34

  120

  33

  Werrington

  75

  8

  67

  5

  73

  10

  69

  11

  Wetherby

  126

  21

  124

  23

  130

  25

  128

  24

  Whatton

  71

  5

  70

  5

  73

  6

  65

  6

  Whitemoor

  416

  70

  421

  59

  389

  62

  409

  69

  Winchester

  194

  23

  218

  31

  188

  25

  186

  25

  Woodhill

  351

  81

  349

  74

  342

  85

  345

  100

  Wormwood Scrubs

  335

  54

  347

  53

  300

  50

  300

  56

  Wymott

  190

  28

  202

  27

  188

  30

  181

  32

  Establishments total

  20,641

  3,276

  20,460

  2,885

  20,329

  3,516

  20,128

  3,747

  31-12-01

  31-12-02

  31-12-03

  Establishment

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Acklington

  196

  10

  185

  12

  205

  22

  Aldington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Albany

  141

  4

  134

  6

  139

  9

  Ashwell

  89

  12

  86

  15

  92

  19

  Askham Grange

  8

  20

  5

  24

  6

  26

  Aylesbury

  136

  30

  139

  29

  126

  33

  Bedford

  128

  16

  113

  16

  115

  19

  Belmarsh

  422

  98

  418

  94

  424

  97

  Birmingham

  268

  23

  285

  30

  424

  70

  Blakenhurst

  139

  33

  124

  38

  133

  45

  986W 987W

  31-12-01

  31-12-02

  31-12-03

  Establishment

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Blantyre House

  31

  3

  32

  3

  30

  4

  Blundeston

  149

  8

  141

  9

  137

  12

  Brinsford

  186

  42

  188

  45

  181

  50

  Bristol

  261

  31

  251

  31

  233

  31

  Brixton

  221

  47

  201

  42

  194

  36

  Brockhill

  47

  44

  46

  50

  47

  52

  Buckley Hall

  67

  36

  61

  46

  52

  53

  Bullingdon

  187

  55

  165

  61

  163

  56

  Bullwood Hall

  21

  52

  21

  55

  24

  58

  Camp Hill

  139

  11

  135

  12

  135

  14

  Canterbury

  115

  6

  111

  8

  102

  8

  Cardiff

  216

  9

  219

  12

  223

  16

  Castington

  190

  23

  183

  23

  177

  24

  Channings Wood

  134

  19

  141

  20

  144

  23

  Chelmsford

  163

  30

  164

  32

  152

  28

  Coldingley

  83

  10

  80

  14

  81

  13

  Cookham Wood

  11

  39

  11

  40

  13

  48

  Dartmoor

  211

  12

  188

  9

  161

  9

  Deerbolt

  134

  9

  144

  14

  159

  16

  Dorchester

  74

  9

  74

  8

  82

  5

  Dover1

  101

  8

  105

  5

  105

  5

  Downview

  69

  31

  38

  60

  47

  59

  Drake Hall

  20

  54

  21

  67

  23

  69

  Durham

  340

  77

  341

  77

  331

  84

  East Sutton Park

  4

  20

  6

  18

  4

  21

  Eastwood Park

  39

  77

  36

  79

  46

  81

  Edmunds Hill

  36

  50

  34

  49

  39

  85

  Elmley

  214

  55

  218

  58

  197

  52

  Erlestoke

  86

  7

  87

  12

  97

  20

  Everthorpe

  110

  9

  104

  11

  113

  13

  Exeter

  163

  12

  161

  13

  169

  22

  Featherstone

  126

  11

  132

  11

  125

  14

  Feltham

  296

  52

  308

  66

  348

  91

  Ford

  56

  5

  56

  6

  55

  8

  Foston Hall

  23

  57

  25

  64

  20

  81

  Frankland

  429

  50

  427

  50

  456

  56

  Full Sutton

  427

  58

  439

  61

  428

  64

  Garth

  197

  37

  191

  39

  186

  40

  Gartree

  128

  16

  120

  19

  123

  26

  Glen Parva

  243

  22

  238

  25

  232

  27

  Gloucester

  110

  12

  105

  19

  97

  24

  Grendon

  126

  37

  107

  41

  119

  43

  Guys Marsh

  113

  19

  111

  32

  113

  29

  Haslar1

  41

  4

  38

  8

  43

  8

  Hatfield

  35

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Haverigg

  106

  24

  101

  25

  103

  28

  Hewell Grange

  24

  4

  24

  4

  25

  5

  High Down

  225

  54

  211

  52

  166

  53

  Highpoint

  131

  14

  138

  22

  165

  13

  Hindley

  219

  29

  233

  33

  222

  34

  Hollesley Bay

  147

  14

  159

  20

  42

  3

  Holloway

  69

  195

  79

  169

  100

  195

  Holme House

  275

  30

  279

  31

  269

  36

  Hull

  223

  19

  297

  41

  300

  44

  Huntercombe

  112

  35

  129

  43

  116

  34

  Kingston

  63

  8

  63

  10

  62

  11

  Kirkham

  77

  8

  78

  8

  81

  13

  Kirklevington Grange

  36

  1

  39

  3

  42

  4

  Lancaster

  80

  6

  77

  6

  71

  13

  Lancaster Farms

  167

  27

  172

  30

  185

  39

  Latchmere House

  34

  5

  32

  4

  34

  4

  Leeds

  356

  49

  366

  61

  359

  67

  Leicester

  126

  13

  110

  13

  118

  19

  Lewes

  163

  12

  159

  14

  159

  13

  Leyhill

  53

  11

  55

  9

  57

  11

  Lincoln

  206

  11

  205

  10

  201

  13

  Lindholme

  160

  15

  175

  19

  177

  20

  Littlehey

  130

  23

  124

  21

  128

  25

  Liverpool

  481

  47

  469

  43

  431

  32

  988W 989W

  31-12-01

  31-12-02

  31-12-03

  Establishment

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Long Lartin

  321

  63

  307

  62

  301

  65

  Low Newton

  57

  62

  55

  71

  58

  88

  Maidstone

  163

  22

  166

  28

  134

  25

  Manchester

  360

  60

  355

  60

  352

  71

  Moorland

  243

  38

  290

  49

  290

  47

  Morton Hall

  26

  44

  34

  76

  37

  80

  New Hall

  51

  103

  64

  112

  70

  110

  North Sea Camp

  30

  5

  36

  5

  34

  7

  Northallerton

  61

  8

  58

  9

  55

  9

  Norwich

  207

  23

  206

  26

  200

  27

  Nottingham

  161

  15

  157

  14

  164

  19

  Onley

  191

  33

  182

  39

  184

  42

  Parkhurst

  182

  16

  174

  17

  173

  20

  Pentonville

  301

  59

  303

  73

  311

  78

  Portland

  165

  12

  153

  10

  153

  18

  Preston

  233

  17

  227

  18

  221

  22

  Ranby

  194

  21

  202

  24

  201

  29

  Reading

  115

  11

  97

  13

  95

  15

  Risley

  209

  65

  218

  65

  223

  72

  Rochester

  139

  17

  118

  23

  109

  24

  Send

  29

  40

  25

  36

  26

  43

  Shepton Mallet

  58

  4

  59

  6

  58

  7

  Shrewsbury

  101

  11

  96

  9

  96

  13

  Stafford

  163

  14

  156

  14

  150

  18

  Standford Hill

  72

  7

  69

  11

  76

  17

  Stocken

  127

  12

  127

  14

  136

  18

  Stoke Heath

  193

  35

  190

  37

  198

  34

  Styal

  67

  109

  57

  108

  58

  121

  Sudbury

  61

  1

  62

  1

  63

  6

  Swaleside

  187

  50

  192

  44

  190

  48

  Swansea

  119

  7

  118

  7

  122

  10

  Swinfen Hall

  114

  12

  104

  16

  99

  19

  The Mount

  120

  32

  112

  38

  110

  38

  The Verne

  115

  8

  110

  8

  106

  6

  Thorn Cross

  98

  19

  86

  19

  88

  17

  Usk/Prescoed

  85

  3

  83

  5

  85

  5

  Wakefield

  341

  21

  348

  27

  340

  35

  Wandsworth

  323

  61

  315

  67

  309

  67

  Warren Hill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  121

  21

  Wayland

  124

  19

  132

  20

  125

  26

  Wealstun

  128

  15

  134

  19

  140

  21

  Weare

  106

  17

  101

  17

  99

  20

  Wellingborough

  124

  33

  108

  35

  108

  33

  Werrington

  66

  12

  69

  10

  68

  13

  Wetherby

  128

  22

  130

  30

  136

  28

  Whatton

  64

  7

  81

  8

  80

  9

  Whitemoor

  417

  66

  407

  63

  412

  70

  Winchester

  178

  32

  176

  32

  172

  42

  Woodhill

  322

  91

  317

  96

  345

  92

  Wormwood Scrubs

  278

  49

  252

  45

  247

  58

  Wymott

  175

  29

  172

  28

  187

  38

  Establishments total

  19,254

  3,713

  19,057

  4,043

  19,198

  4,508

  1Immigration detention centre.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of service at any one prison is of current prison governors. [147419]

  Paul Goggins
  Since January 1999 the average length of tenure across the Service of a Governor in charge of a public sector prison establishment has been 1.9 years. Decisions on the appointment of Governors in HM Prison Service are taken by senior operational managers in the light of operational need.

  Shoplifting
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences of shoplifting were recorded in each criminal justice area in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available. [144580]
  990W
  Paul Goggins
  There were 309,397 recorded offences of thefts from shops in England and Wales in the year ending March 2003.

  Victim/Witness Support
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support his Department gives to(a) victim support and (b) witness support in (i) England and Wales and (ii) Gloucestershire. [144018]

  Paul Goggins
  Between 1996–97 and 2002–03 the Home Office's funding of the organisation Victim Support, which provides support to both victims and witnesses, more than doubled, from £11.7 million to £29.3 million. This year our grant in aid to Victim
  991W
  Support has been increased to £30 million, which represents an increase of 2.4 per cent. Of this, over £26 million will be passed on to local Victim Support schemes, with the balance being used by the Victim Support National Office to provide, amongst other things, a range of central services to its member groups.

  The Victim Support Area of Gloucestershire has been allocated a total of £265,498 by Victim Support National Office under their new Funding Formula for the year 2003–04. As well as providing funding to Victim
  992W
  Support, the Home Office also provides £572,000 to other organisations supporting victims and witnesses of crime.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions members of Independent Monitoring Boards have refused to sign off a child being held in a segregation unit in each young offender institution.[144365]

  Paul Goggins
  This information is not held centrally.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Assembly Elections
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of levels of voter turnout at the recent Assembly elections; what research he intends to commission to study the reasons for this; and what measures he is considering adopting to improve turnout. [147532]

  Mr. Spellar
  The turnout for the 2003 Assembly election was 63.1 per cent., which compares to a figure of 68.8 per cent. for the previous Assembly election in 1998.

  The Electoral Commission, which has responsibility for promoting public awareness of electoral matters, held a one-day seminar on the 7 January to hear views from stakeholders about the administration of the Assembly election. The public have also been invited to contact the Commission with their views on the election.

  I understand that the Commission intends to publish a report on the election before the end of April 2004. The report will cover all aspects of the recent election including voter turnout. The Government will study the report carefully when it is received.

  Criminal Justice Act
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the minimum sentence for the murder of(a) a prison officer and (b) a police officer on duty in Northern Ireland is; and if he will make a statement on the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. [147574]

  Mr. Spellar
  The mandatory sentence for murder is life imprisonment. Under the provisions of the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, the determination of the appropriate minimum period or tariff, which any life sentence prisoner in Northern Ireland must serve in custody before consideration can be given to release, is a matter for judicial discretion. The sentencing judge can set a tariff for a fixed period of years or determine that a whole life tariff would he more appropriate in individual cases.

  The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced in England and Wales a new statutory framework providing for four different starting-points for the judicial determination of minimum terms in mandatory life sentence cases. That framework provides for an initial starting point of 30 years for a person convicted of the murder of a police or prison officer in the course of their duty in England and Wales. Those statutory starting-points may be adjusted upwards or downwards by the sentencing judge, having regard to any relevant
  994W
  aggravating or mitigating factors in the case, to arrive at the minimum term which must be served by the prisoner. On 8 January, I published a consultation paper seeking views on the appropriateness of adopting a similar framework for mandatory life sentences in Northern Ireland. The consultation period extends to 31 March, after which responses will be carefully evaluated and the outcome of the consultation published.

  Decommissioning
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reports he has received regarding the treatment of General John de Chastelain during the decommissioning act in Northern Ireland on 20 October 2003; and if he will make a statement. [148469]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has received no reports regarding the treatment of General de Chastelain during the decommissioning act in October 2003.

  Dementia Services
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans to review dementia services in Northern Ireland. [148775]

  Angela Smith
  My Department recognises the need to review the policy in relation to people with dementia. Dementia services will therefore be included in the ongoing review of mental health and learning disability. Inclusion in the review will mean that dementia will be covered in a comprehensive evaluation of policy and services spanning issues such as health promotion, prevention and early detection of dementia, effectiveness of interventions and broader issues such as human rights and social inclusion.

  An Expert Working Committee on Issues in Old Age has been established and dementia will also be included in its remit, although it is of course recognised that some younger people also have dementia. The working committee has been asked to ensure that it reflects a broad representation of views. The review of mental health and learning disability is not expected to complete its work until mid-2005 but work is in hand to consider how the review recommendations might be phased as sections of the review work are completed.

  High Hedges
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what plans he has to extend Part 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 to Northern Ireland; [148673]

  (2) what action the Government are taking to deal with the problem of high hedges in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [148719]

  Angela Smith
  The Government have no plans for high hedges legislation in Northern Ireland at present.

  Hospital Trolley Waits
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 7 January 2004,Official Report, column 406W, on hospital trolley waits, whether the December statistics represent (a) an estimate for the full month and (b) a total number collected on weekdays only. [148860]

  Angela Smith
  The December trolley wait statistics represent the number of trolley waits recorded in Accident and Emergency departments in Northern Ireland at 9.00am on weekday mornings. These figures show the total number of trolley waits reported by Accident & Emergency Departments at a point in time (9.00am) on week days during December.

  Leak Inquiries
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what inquiries his Department has conducted into alleged leaks from members of staff since 1997; and on what occasions the names of those persons accused of leaking information from his Department have been made public(a) by the Government and (b) by way of another source. [147009]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since 1997, my Department has investigated three suspected leaks. In line with Exemptions 1(a) and 7(b) set out in Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it has been the practice of successive governments not to comment on the outcome of such inquiries in order to safeguard security and investigative arrangements.

  This reply relates only to inquiries specifically within the Northern Ireland Office and does not cover the 11 Departments of the Northern Ireland Administration.

  Nurosurgery Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients were awaiting neurosurgery(a) inpatient admission and (b) outpatient assessment in Northern Ireland on the most recent date for which figures are available. [148845]

  Angela Smith
  The latest available waiting list figures show the position at 30 September 2003, when:

  there were 659 patients awaiting admission to hospital in the neurosurgery specialty;

  there were 354 patients awaiting a first outpatient appointment in the neurosurgery specialty.

  This information is published in the "Northern Ireland Waiting List Quarterly Information Release" on the first Thursday in March, July, September and December. A copy of this publication is placed in the House of Commons Library or can be obtained from the DHSSPS website, internet address: www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/publications/index.html.

  Procurement Outsourcing
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his Department's procurement policy with regard to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing; whether his Department is outsourcing IT and call centre jobs to offshore companies; to which countries his Department 996W
  has outsourced these jobs; how much his Department has spent on this outsourcing in each of the last two years; and how much has been budgeted for this purpose for the next two years. [147589]

  Mr. Pearson
  Procurement Policy in Northern Ireland is based on achieving best value for money while complying with European Community and other international obligations. The 11 Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office have not outsourced call centre or IT work to offshore companies in the last two years and have no plans to do so.

  Rural White Paper
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce a Rural White Paper for Northern Ireland. [147834]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, in consultation with the Rural Stakeholder Forum, has begun a review of rural development policy. A decision on whether or not to produce a Rural White Paper will be considered after that review has been completed.

  Water/Sewerage Services
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress being made with the reform of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland. [148674]

  Mr. Spellar
  Detailed reform proposals are currently being developed, taking into account the substantial feedback received during last year's public consultation on water reform. The proposals will address the basis on which household water charges will be determined, the most effective public ownership model for water and sewerage services, and the most appropriate consumer representation and economic and consumer regulation arrangements. These proposals will be subject to a full range of impact assessments, including an equality impact assessment, which I plan to publish for consultation in the spring.

  In tandem with this work, a vigorous reform programme is being developed within water service to deliver efficiencies of up to £45 million per annum by 2010. Implementation of an interim efficiency action plan will result in savings of over £11 million during 2004–05.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many responses he received to his Department's "The Reform of Water and Sewerage Services in Northern Ireland" consultation document; and how many of these responses were(a) in favour and (b) against the introduction of water charging. [148720]

  Mr. Spellar
  A total of 784 written responses were received to the consultation document "The Reform of Water and Sewerage Services in Northern Ireland" published on 11 March 2003.

  The consultation document invited comment on a range of options regarding the basis on which domestic charges should be set. As the consultation document did not seek views on whether water charges should be

  997W
  introduced or not, it is not possible to identify the number of responses (a) in favour or (b) against the introduction of water charging.

  However, approximately 14,500 expressions of general opposition to Water Reform were received by petition, postcard etc.

SCOTLAND

  Procurement Outsourcing
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's procurement policy with regard to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing; whether his Department is outsourcing IT and call centre jobs to offshore companies: to which countries his Department has outsourced these jobs; how much his Department has spent on this outsourcing in each of the last two years; and how much has been budgeted for this purpose for the next two years. [147579]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office has not outsourced any of its IT functions to offshore companies and has no plans to do so.

  Universal Bank
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the Scottish clearing banks about their participation in the Post Office Universal Bank. [148751]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I have regular contact with ministerial colleagues and representatives from the industry.

  As a result of discussions with the Government, all of the UK's major banks, including the Scottish clearing banks, are participating in the Universal Banking project by giving access to basic bank accounts at post offices.

  The Government would urge all banks to provide their customers with access to their accounts through post offices. However, the decision to do so rests with individual institutions.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage Scottish banks to make their services available through the Post Office branch network. [148957]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I have regular contact with ministerial colleagues and representatives from the industry.

  All of the major Scottish banks currently allow access to their basic bank accounts through the Post Office branch network. Post Office Ltd. also provides access to a range of other bank accounts and is seeking to expand these in conjunction with all the major institutions.

  The Government would urge all banks to provide their customers with access to their accounts through post offices. However, the decision to do so rests with individual institutions.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Christmas Expenditure
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent by her Department on(a) Christmas cards and (b) Christmas parties (i) in the last year and (ii) since 1997. [145595]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Expenditure on Christmas cards is detailed in the following table:

  Costs(£)

  1997

  No record

  1998

  No record

  1999

  1,971.00

  2000

  3,500.92

  2001

  2,211.39

  2002

  1,985

  2003

  1,587.50

  (b) Expenditure on Christmas parties is detailed in the following table:

  Christmas party costs (£)

  1997

  No record

  1998

  No record

  19991

  n/a

  20002

  n/a

  2001

  4,452.23

  2002

  6,963.73

  2003

  6,941.85

  1 No Christmas party held this year. However, there was a new year's drinks reception on 18 January 2000. The cost was £4,386.03.

  2 No Christmas party held this year. However, there was a new year's drinks reception on 22 February 2001. The cost was £2,248.38.

  Gambling
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment her Department has made of the size of fund the proposed Gambling Industry Charitable Trust will need to address problems of gambling addiction over the next 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [148470]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have accepted the advice of the Gambling Review Body that the gambling industry should in the first place be asked to provide £3 million a year to fund the Trust's work. The size of this contribution will need to be kept under review in the light of experience and the Trust's own views; and if it proves necessary to ask the industry to consider a larger contribution then we will do so.

  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Government will bring forward legislation to introduce a levy on the gambling industry if the sector fails to agree voluntary funding of the Gambling Industry Charitable Trust. [148471]

  Mr. Caborn
  Yes. Clause 96 of the draft Gambling Bill (Cm 6014) which is now being considered by a Scrutiny Committee on both Houses makes provision to this effect.

  Honours
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many honours nominations her Department has received for people involved in rugby league football in each of the last five years; how many have been awarded in each of those years; and if she will make a statement. [148743]

  Mr. Caborn
  We cannot provide the number of nominations for people involved in rugby league football as we do not keep records in this form. Three awards have been made to people involved in rugby league football since New Year 1999.

  We receive nominations for people from a broad spectrum of sports and there is always stiff competition for the limited number of awards available in each Honours List. Individual nominations are considered strictly on merit: the discipline in which the individual has achieved success is not a factor in the decision-making process. We are always interested in receiving nominations from the public and sports bodies and the Rugby Football League is one of many of sports organisations invited on a regular basis to make nominations.

  National Lottery
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many Lottery grants were given to(a) the hundred richest and (b) the hundred poorest wards in Wales, using the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation published by the National Assembly for Wales in 1999 (i) from the inception of the Lottery to 1 May 1997 and (ii) from 2 May 1997 to date. [148491]

  Estelle Morris
  I am arranging for copies of this information to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Rugby World Cup
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total departmental cost was of visits to Australia for the Rugby World Cup. [145601]

  Tessa Jowell
  The total cost to the Department for the visits of two Ministers and officials to Australia for the Rugby World Cup was £44,161.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many security passes have been reported(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in (i) her Department and (ii) departmental agencies in the last 12 months. [147984]

  Mr. Caborn
  In the 12 months since December 2002 three security passes, none of which identify the Department nor the buildings to which they allow access, have been reported as lost. There have been no reports of stolen passes. The Royal Parks Agency do not differentiate between lost and stolen cards and three have been reported lost/stolen in the relevant period. In all cases the cards are electronic and are de-activated as soon as a report is received.

  Tourism
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the balance of payments deficit in tourism was in each year since 1995. [149223]

  Mr. Caborn
  The balance of payments in tourism for the UK in each year since 1995 are shown in the following table.

  Tourism balance of payments

  £ million

  Overseas residents'spending in the UK

  UK residents'spending abroad

  Balance of payments

  1995

  11,763

  15,386

  -3,623

  1996

  12,290

  16,223

  -3,933

  1997

  12,244

  16,931

  -4,687

  1998

  12,671

  19.489

  -6,818

  1999

  12,498

  22,020

  -9,522

  2000

  12,805

  24,251

  -11,446

  2001

  11,306

  25,332

  -14,026

  2002

  11,737

  26,962

  -15,225

  Source:

  International Passenger Survey, National Statistics

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Ministers (Legal Fees)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will publish a list of the ministers who, since May 1997, have benefited from the Government paying their legal fees. [142541]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 11 December 2003]: The question of whether a Minister's legal fees should be paid by Government, i.e. out of public funds, is primarily a matter for the relevant departmental accounting officer, normally the Permanent Secretary for the Minister's Department. Whether or not a Minister's legal fees, for example in relation to some private litigation, are being paid out of public funds is not information which is held by the Treasury Solicitor's Department or by any other of the legal teams in the Government Legal Service. The source from which to obtain this information will be each of the Departments.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Solicitor-General what recent assessment she has made of the work of the Serious Fraud Office; and if she will make a statement. [146163]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General and I meet the SFO Director on a regular (almost monthly) basis and on other occasions as required. These meetings are wide ranging and include casework, management and financial issues.

  As well as our on-going contact the Director of the SFO is required to present the SFO's Annual Report to Parliament. The report details progress and performance of the SFO's operational activities. In addition the audited accounts of the SFO are laid before Parliament annually.
  1001W
  The SFO continues to provide an effective response to the most serious and complex frauds. Since its inception the SFO has convicted 71 per cent. of defendants who were charged.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many(a) offences of fraud and (b) serious frauds, involving breaches of trust by professionals, were reported to the Serious Fraud Office in each of the last three years; how many prosecutions were initiated; what the outcome was in each case; and if she will make a statement. [146164]

  The Solicitor General
  The SFO does not routinely record the professions of individuals reported to them. The specific information requested could be produced only at disproportionate costs. It is however the case that the SFO has in the past and will continue to prosecute, where appropriate, professionals such as lawyers and accountants for fraud offences which meet the Department's criteria for acceptance of a case.

  An ad hoc inspection of files reveals that since 1 January 2001 the SFO has commenced at least 10 investigations where one or more of the suspects is a qualified accountant or lawyer. In the cases identified there are total of 14 accountants or lawyers who are suspects. Prosecutions have commenced in some of these cases but they are yet to reach the trial stage.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans she has to set up branches of the Serious Fraud Office in the regions. [146165]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have no current plans to set up regional offices; staff are employed and based in the regions from time to time in accordance with individual case demands. However, with nearly 50 per cent. of cases based in London and the South East and a current total permanent staff of some 240, it has so far proved not to be necessary or economic to establish a regional base. As the Serious Fraud Office expands this is something that will be kept under review.

TRANSPORT

  Disabled Drivers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has undertaken into the provision of a temporary disability scheme for car drivers to supplement the Orange Disk scheme. [148271]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Blue (formerly Orange) Badge Scheme provides a national arrangement of on-street parking concessions for disabled people with severe walking difficulties or the most severe upper limb disabilities and those who are registered blind. The Scheme was introduced in 1971 since when it has been the subject of several reviews.

  The latest review was completed in December 2002. Ministers accepted the majority of the 47 recommendations made by our statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, to improve the Scheme. We are taking these forward through changes to primary and secondary legislation, research and in new guidance to local authorities on the
  1002W
  Scheme. The recommendations and the Government's response to them were placed in the House Libraries on 18 December 2002.

  On the research side we are pursuing three projects arising from the review: one to look at the feasibility of setting up a database of blue badge holders to assist with enforcement; a second to examine the current exemption from the Scheme for the four Central London Boroughs; and a third to look at the case for extending eligibility to other groups of disabled people.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents were caused by drink driving in Lancashire in each of the last five years. [148364]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Whether an accident was caused by drink-driving is not recorded as part of the Department's personal injury accident database. However the following table shows the number and severity of accidents in Lancashire where at least one of the drivers involved provided a positive breath test or refused to provide a breath test.

  Accidents involving positive breath tests in Lancashire

  Severity

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Fatal

  0

  2

  0

  1

  1

  Serious

  39

  39

  47

  35

  35

  Slight

  84

  114

  79

  110

  126

  Total

  123

  155

  126

  146

  162

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road traffic speed cameras there are in the area covered by the Lancashire Constabulary; and what the estimated revenue from them is in the current financial year. [147536]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Currently there are 210 fixed speed camera sites and 60 mobile sites within the Lancashire Safety Camera Partnership area. Estimated revenue from fixed penalties for speeding offences detailed in the partnerships operational case for 2003–04 is £7,200,000, although this amount will depend on the number of motorists that exceed the speed limit. The portion returned to the partnership is that needed to cover the cost of their camera activity.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the criteria for the installation of speed cameras, with particular reference to the cameras sited at(a) Highlands Road, Fareham and (b) Gosport Road, Fareham. [147155]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Speed cameras within the Safety Camera Programme are sited in accordance with the Handbook of Rules to the scheme which is available in the Library of the House. The two camera sites referred to fully meet both the casualty criteria and conspicuity and visibility criteria.

  Airlines (Safety Standards)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether safety standards that have to be
  1003W
  met by an airline for a permit to be granted to operate in the airspace of each of the other EU and EEA member states are identical to those which have to be met before his Department will grant a British permit to operate in UK airspace; [149031]

  (2) whether a permit issued to an airline by another member state of the EU or EEA to operate in its airspace is sufficient authorisation to operate in UK airspace. [149032]

  Mr. McNulty
  All airlines operating international services are required to have certificates showing that they meet the safety standards established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. As Contracting States to the Chicago Convention, EEA (including EU) Member States are required to recognise the certificates issued by other Contracting States to their airlines unless they have reason to believe that they have not been issued in accordance with the ICAO standards.

  If another Member State has issued an operating permit to an airline we would expect that airline to meet the necessary international safety standards. However, the fact that another Member State had issued a permit would not itself provide authorisation for that airline to operate to the UK. The UK reserves the right to make its own decisions on whether or not to issue a permit. Permits may also be refused, suspended or revoked for safety or other reason, as illustrated in my answer to the hon. Member of 8 January 2004, Official Report, columns 429–30W. Other Member States may also take permit action for reasons other than safety.

  Airports (Scotland)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses were received to the Future of Air Transport—Scotland consultation document; and of these(a) how many expressed a view in favour of a second runway at Edinburgh airport, (b) how many expressed a view against a second runway at Edinburgh airport and (c) how many did not express a preference. [147832]

  Mr. McNulty
  A total of 325 written responses and 965 questionnaire responses were received to the Scottish Consultation Document. The results of the consultation are summarised on the Department's Airport White Paper website.

  The stakeholder consultation response and the NOP questionnaire response both indicate that of those who expressed a view, there were significantly more consultees in favour of a new runway than against it. In the case of the public response the numbers were more evenly matched.

  CCTV
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to fund the extension of CCTV cameras in London's tube and train stations. [148438]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department has no plans to fund additional CCTV cameras in London at either Tube or train stations. This is an operational matter for London 1004W
  Underground, Network Rail and the train operating companies to decide, in accordance with their own needs and their responsibilities for safety and security.

  Central Railway Project
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the Central Railway project. [148146]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are considering carefully Central Railway's proposals and will respond to Central Railway in due course.

  Cheltenham/Gloucester Parkway Station
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority on the construction of a Cheltenham/Gloucester Parkway railway station near Gloucester airport; [148533]

  (2) if he will assess the advantages and the disadvantages of constructing a Cheltenham/Gloucester Parkway railway station near Gloucester airport. [148534]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority is carrying out a pre-feasibility study into the potential for a new parkway station near Gloucester. This work is to assess the business case for and operational implications of a new station. Several locations are being assessed including some in the vicinity of the airport. The study is due to be completed in February.

  Driving Licences
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has received from the EC Committee on Driving Licence working groups on the procedures employed to(a) assess and (b) minimise the road safety risks associated with epilepsy. [148552]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The appropriate working group of the EC Committee on Driving Licences has not yet met, therefore I have received no such information. I expect the epilepsy Working Group to meet three or four times during 2004, and to report back on its conclusions in about 18 months time.

  Edinburgh Airport
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) households and (b) electors live within the possible new Edinburgh airport boundary as outlined in the Aviation White Paper. [147900]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are 33 residential properties within the possible new Edinburgh airport boundary outlined in the Aviation White Paper. We do not have information on the number of electors at these properties.

  Environmental Audit Committee Report
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the research referred to in paragraph 4 of the Government's response to the Environmental Audit Committee's Report (CM6063). [149023]
  1005W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The finding that congestion costs are over three-quarters of the full external costs of road transport can be found in Table B on page v of "Surface Transport Costs and Charges: Great Britain 1998", Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, July 2001. The research was commissioned by the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Hazardous Incidents
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people have made reports to the Confidential Hazardous Incident Reporting Programme, in each year since it was introduced. [148485]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since the CHIRP was introduced on 1 December 1982 there have been a total 4,488 reported incidents for the aviation and maritime programmes.

  The number of reports for the last four years for the aviation CHIRP is as follows:

  Number

  2000

  330

  2001

  379

  2002

  345

  2003

  373

  The Maritime CHIRP was introduced in July 2003 and has so far received 38 reports.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) date and (b) nature of each incident involving ships in British waters assisting other vessels attempting to bring illegal immigrants to Britain since 1997; and what the names of the vessels were in each case. [148502]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency co-ordinates the search and rescue of persons in distress at sea and responded to over 13,000 incidents in the last year. The Agency collects data about the nature of incidents, including the types of vessels involved in terms of whether they are commercial ships, fishing vessels or pleasure craft. However, the Agency does not collect data relating to illegal immigration.

  The UK Immigration Service also does not collate the information in the format requested. However, the Service does work closely with European counterparts to identify vessels concerned with smuggling potential illegal immigrants to the UK. In addition, as part of REFLEX, the government's multi-agency task force to combat organised immigration crime, the Immigration Service co-operates with other government departments to exchange information on those suspected of involvement in maritime smuggling.

  Leak Inquiries
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list occasions on which his Department has conducted an inquiry into alleged leaks from members of staff since 1997; and if he will list the occasions on which the names of those persons accused 1006W
  of leaking information from his Department have been made public (a) by the Government and (b) by way of another source. [147192]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was formed in May 2002 and since then it has not instigated any inquiries into alleged leaks from members of its staff.

  Liquid Natural Gas
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what tax advantages are available for liquid natural gas vehicles. [147940]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Due to its environmental benefits, liquid natural gas (LNG) enjoys a lower rate of duty compared to conventional fuels, equivalent to 6p per litre compared to some 47p per litre for petrol and diesel. In the pre-Budget report the Chancellor announced that this differential will be held constant for a further three years.

  Alternatively fuelled vehicles are also eligible for lower rates of vehicle excise duty depending on their CO2 emissions.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicles using liquid natural gas benefited from tax advantages in the last year for which figures are available; and how many were(a) cars and (b) vans. [147941]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Figures published by the Natural Gas Vehicle Association for August estimate that there are 875 natural gas vehicles in the UK which will have benefited from the duty differential for natural gas. Of these 20 are estimated to be cars: there is no estimate for vans. Details of the split between vehicles using liquid natural gas and compressed natural gas were not published.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what Government grants are available to convert petrol cars to liquid natural gas; what the take-up has been in the current financial year; and how much is available for the remainder of the financial year. [147942]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Limited grants are available under the TransportEnergy programmes to offset the additional costs of purchasing clean fuelled vehicles including those powered by liquid natural gas (LNG). Grant offers have been made for 45 LNG vehicles in this financial year, which will be honoured once the conversions are completed under the terms of the grant offer letters.

  The Energy Saving Trust, who administer the grant programmes for the Government, will not be issuing any new grant offer letters this financial year as they have now received applications to cover the full TransportEnergy programme budget of nearly £30 million. This is a considerable increase from the £18 million spend in 2001–02, and the Trust forecast they will provide grants for around 8,000 vehicles this year, compared with 5,000 last year. The grant programmes will resume in April 2004.

  M6 Tolls
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the impact of the M6 Toll on traffic flows in the West Midlands. [148649]

  Mr. Jamieson
  At present it is too early to say with certainty what impact the M6 Toll has had on traffic flows in the West Midlands. The Highways Agency is monitoring traffic flows on the M6 Toll and adjacent road network and a full report will be prepared in April 2004, once traffic patterns have stabilised. A more detailed study report will follow when the toll road has been open for 12 months.

  Moving Vehicles (Smoking Ban)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to outlaw smoking while in control of a moving vehicle. [148823]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no plans to prohibit smoking when driving. However, drivers who fail to have proper control of their vehicle for any reason risk prosecution.

  North Berwick-Edinburgh Line
  Anne Picking
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action the Strategic Rail Authority is taking with regard to the withdrawal of rolling stock from the North Berwick-Edinburgh commuter line when the current refurbished units are returned to WAGN at the end of March. [147992]

  Mr. McNulty
  North Berwick services are operated by trains hired from WAGN under a lease which expires in March. The Strategic Rail Authority, Scotrail and the Scottish Executive have therefore been considering options for replacing them. Trials of alternative rolling stock have taken place on the line and Scotrail announced on 14 January that the replacement trains would be formed of locomotive-hauled carriages.

  Procurement Outsourcing
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's procurement policy with regard to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing; whether his Department is outsourcing IT and call centre jobs to offshore companies; to which countries his Department has outsourced these jobs; how much his Department has spent on this outsourcing in each of the last two years; and how much has been budgeted for this purpose for the next two years. [147590]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department complies with Government procurement policy, which is that all procurement is based on value for money, having due regard to propriety and regularity. The Department must comply with the requirements of the EU Treaty, including the principles of non-discrimination, the EC procurement directives and the UK's international obligations. The Department has not outsourced any IT or call centre jobs to offshore companies and currently has no plans to do so.

  Railways
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to reduce the costs of(a) administration and (b) consultants within the railway industry. [147329]

  Mr. McNulty
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said today in his statement to the House, the Department for Transport is undertaking a review of the rail industry. This will consider all of the industry's costs and how better value for passengers can be obtained from the Government's funding.

  Road Junctions (Christchurch)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason representations in respect of the proposed compulsory purchase order at Barrack Road/Stour Road junction in Christchurch are being considered by the Government Office of the North East. [149025]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State for Transport's quasi-judicial role for considering all Local Highway Authority Schemes and Orders for his confirmation, such as the case for the proposed Compulsory Purchase Order at Barrack Road/Stour Road junction in Christchurch, is undertaken as a national function and is based (since 1989) in Government Office for the North East.

  Robin Hood Country
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what historical basis road signs on the M1 motorway describe Nottinghamshire as Robin Hood country. [148744]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The signs were requested by Nottinghamshire county council, whose area has been historically connected with the legend of Robin Hood.

  Ships (Near Misses)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many near misses between ships there were in each year since 1997 while in British waters; and what steps he is taking to reduce the number of such incidents. [148503]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of hazardous incidents in UK waters involving more than one vessel, where at least one was a 'ship', since 1997 were:

  Number of incidents

  1997

  55

  1998

  35

  1999

  36

  2000

  49

  2001

  46

  2002

  46

  2003

  67

  Note:

  These figures are for incidents reported to the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) by 15 January 2004.

  Mariners are encouraged to report any such incidents and these reports are considered with the alleged offending vessel invited to comment. Actions arising

  1009W
  from this include reminding the alleged offending vessel of the importance of maintaining good seamanship at all time and referring them to the appropriate literature or, where necessary, inspection or prosecution. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is also actively involving the mariner in how to promote awareness on avoiding these situations through its website and promotional literature.

  Speed Limits (Roads)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce minimum speed limits on(a) motorways and (b) dual carriageways. [148821]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government has no plans to introduce minimum speed limits on motorways or dual carriageways.

  Speeding (Penalty Points)
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals not to penalise motorists guilty of speeding with penalty points on their driving licences when it is a first offence. [146991]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Speeding is a serious threat to road safety which can result in death and serious injury. We see no reason to distinguish between first and subsequent offences.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority on publication of its annual strategic plan; [149037]

  (2) how many drafts of the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan for 2004 have been (a) received and (b) commented on by his Department; [149038]

  (3) what powers he has to determine the date of publications issued by the Strategic Rail Authority; [149039]

  (4) under what authority he is able to determine the date of publication by the Strategic Rail Authority of its strategic plan; [149040]

  (5) when (a) he and (b) his officials first received a draft of the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan for 2004. [149041]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government and the Strategic Rail Authority have agreed that it is not appropriate to publish a Strategic Plan in advance of the review now taking place of Government expenditure. I have the power to determine the date of any publication by the Strategic Rail Authority by issuing a direction, as prescribed under sections 206(3), 207(5) and 209(5) of the Transport Act 2000. My officials saw one draft of the Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan, which they received on 16 December 2003, but made no comment on its content. No ministers saw the draft, nor was its existence drawn to their attention.

  Street Works
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to develop an England-wide system for the notification of street works owned by utilities and road departments similar to the Susie Phone system in Scotland. [147096]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Local authorities in England already have systems for the notification of street works. We believe that the large number of authorities involved makes a single system covering the whole of England unrealistic. However, the Department has undertaken a study to consider how future systems could he developed in a way that ensured consistency and compatibility between them while remaining locally based.

  Traffic Management Bill
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the basis used in the regulatory impact assessment of the Traffic Management Bill for calculating the extent of delay imposed by incidents on the trunk road network. [145546]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency has calculated total motorway congestion from Department for Transport figures for estimated time lost compared with free flow speed (per kilometre travelled for different vehicle types) together with figures for total motorway traffic taken from the Transport Statistics Bulletin.

  The Highways Agency used a variety of data to estimate incident related congestion. This included research from the Transport Research Laboratory which estimated that 25 per cent. of congestion was due to incidents. The Highways Agency Traffic Control Centre Project estimated a figure of 30 per cent.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that the powers contained in section 74 of the Traffic Management Bill are universally adopted by local authorities. [147094]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Clause 74 of the Traffic Management Bill enables the Lord Chancellor to make regulations specifying how a penalty charge notice may be served and its content, such as the alleged contravention, the amount of the penalty charge, by when it has to be paid, how and where it can be paid, discount available for early payment, right to make representations and so on. The clause specifically excludes the power to stop vehicles for the purposes of issuing a penalty charge notice.

  All local authorities receiving civil enforcement powers as a result of this Bill will be required to abide by the terms of these regulations.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what sources were used to produce the figures for the costs to business of utility streetworks in the Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Traffic Management Bill. [147097]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Traffic Management Bill (page 5) discusses the total economic costs of utility street works rather than the costs to business alone.
  1011W
  There are two estimates. The first of £35 million in 1983 prices is taken from the 1985 'Review of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950' (HMSO—ISBN 0 11 550729 9, page 119). The second of £2.4 billion is taken from a 1992 report of the Transport Research Laboratory. Unfortunately, this latter figure was quoted in error and refers to the total value of utility construction work. However a 2001 report by the Laboratory 'Mitigating the Disruption caused by Utility Street Works' (TRL report 516—ISSN 0968–4107, page 9) estimated the annual traffic delay costs of utility street works at some £2 billion. My department has commissioned Halcrow to update this work.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what economic model the Government has used in working out the figures for the Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Traffic Management Bill; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [147099]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Figures presented in the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Traffic Management Bill have been calculated using software packages models Transport User Benefit Analysis (TUBA), Cost Benefit Analysis (COBA), and Queues and Delays at Roadworks (QUADRO).

  TUBA and COBA were used to calculate figures relating to the Highways Agency's Traffic Officer Service. The model used to calculate the financial cost of disruption caused by utilities' street works is called QUADRO.

  Manuals and guidance for using these packages are available via the DfT website as detailed below.

  The COBA User Manual is available at:
  http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft index.hcst?n=7912&1=4
  The TUBA User Manual is available at:
  http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft transstrat/documents/page/dft transstrat 50799Q.hcsp
  The TUBA Guidance is available at:
  hitp://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft transstrat/documents/page/dft transstrat 507975.pdf
  The QUADRO user manual is available at:
  http://www.dft. gov. uk/stcllent/groups/dft control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft index. hcst?n=7914&1=4

  US Ships (Decommissioning)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 56W on US Ships (Decommissioning), who carried out the routing plans and initial risk assessment for the return of the US ships under tow; what the earliest date the risk assessment determined the ships could safely make a return journey was; and if he will place the (a) risk assessment and (b) routing plans in the Library. [148618]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The UK took the view that it could be unsafe to return the ships to the US immediately, given the likely winter weather in the Atlantic and the need for a high degree of confidence of fair weather for the duration of the tow. It concluded that a return passage could not be contemplated before the spring. Passages both to the north and south of the United Kingdom have been considered in relation to notional routes which respect 1012W
  mandatory maritime traffic schemes and advising guidance. As weather windows become available in the spring, routing options will be subject to more detailed assessment, once application is made, and copies of such assessments will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  International Trade
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 9 December,Official Report, column 449W, on international trade, if she will make a statement on the impact of the Commons Agricultural Policy on the competitiveness of products from developing countries. [144808]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) supports farmers' incomes via a number of methods—direct payments, export subsidies, intervention buying and tariffs—which ensure that EU farmers receive higher prices for their goods. These measures increase the level of production and therefore result in lower imports and / or higher exports than would otherwise he the case. This can have the effect of depressing world prices for certain commodities. Developing country producers who would otherwise be competitive on world markets may find themselves unable to compete. This could distort the allocation of resources in a particular country away from those in which it has a comparative advantage towards less competitive sectors.

  The CAP reforms agreed in June 2003 will help to break the link between income support and production in the EU and will reconnect farmers to their markets. Production occurring as a result of loss-making activities should cease as farmers decisions are increasingly determined by market forces rather than subsidies. This production response will reduce EU production and net exports and, where this results in a higher world price, it should have a beneficial impact on developing country producers.

  Further reform of the domestic support regime is necessary and the Commission have recently produced proposals for reform covering the cotton, tobacco, olive oil and hops sectors and proposals for reform of the sugar regime are expected next year.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what restrictions she has placed on imports of beef into the UK from the USA following the recent BSE case there; and what discussions she has had with her EU counterparts on achieving a common approach to policy. [148306]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 15 January 2004]Animal and public health in the UK are protected from BSE from third countries by existing EU import rules. These rules require any third country exporting meat or live animals into the Community to have in place controls equivalent to those in the EU. These controls are supported by a requirement for veterinary certification in relation to individual meat consignments.
  1013W
  Imports of beef and beef products are permitted only if EU rules requiring the removal of specified risk material (SRM—eg skull, tonsils, spinal cord, intestine) and methods of slaughter are met.

  A recent meeting of the EU's Chief Veterinary Officers was informed that the European Commission were following up the implications of the recent BSE case with the US authorities. The Chief Veterinary Officers supported the Commission in taking this approach. An EU technical visit to the US is being arranged to evaluate the position.

  Dairy Farming
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many dairy farms were in operation in each of the last 20 years for which figures are available. [148695]

  Alun Michael
  The following figures show holdings in England where dairy is the predominant activity.

  Dairy holdings

  1983

  30,361

  1984

  29,912

  1985

  28,300

  1986

  27,583

  1987

  26,138

  1988

  24,767

  1989

  23,849

  1990

  22,793

  1991

  22,701

  1992

  21,712

  1993

  18,771

  1994

  20,579

  1995

  19,632

  1996

  18,904

  1997

  18,007

  1998

  17,014

  1999

  16,313

  2000

  15,219

  2001

  14,106

  2002

  14,342

  Note:

  Figures prior to 2000 show main holdings only. From 2000 onwards minor holdings are included.

  Source:

  June Agricultural Census

  Departmental Lawyers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many lawyers her Department employs. [148921]

  Alun Michael
  Defra currently employs 89 lawyers, plus 2 legal trainees.

  EU Regulations (Fruit)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reasons the Department initiated proceedings against the Asda company in respect of the EU horticultural regulations relating to the size and shape of items of fruit; and what the costs involved were. [147012]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 13 January 2004]: The Department instituted proceedings against Asda at South Hampshire Magistrates Court in respect of 14
  1014W
  breaches of EU marketing standards identified during an inspection at the company's Fareham store on 1 November 2000. None of the alleged breaches relate to the size or shape of produce. The allegations relate to the retail of poor quality produce and failure to label with the correct quality class or country of origin.

  The defendant argued in the courts that the offences with which it was charged were not known to law because the UK legislation establishing them was defective. These arguments were rejected by the House of Lords, which awarded Defra the costs of its appeals in the Divisional Court and the House of Lords. The quantum of these costs has not yet been determined.

  The matters have been remitted to the magistrates court for trial. The costs of the case in the magistrates court will be decided at its conclusion as is usual practice.

  Fisheries
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the decisions of the December 2003 EU Fisheries Council on(a) fishing in the Irish Sea, (b) fish landings in Whitehaven and (c) policy on designated ports; and if she will make a statement. [147448]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 15 January 2004]: We agreed a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for Irish Sea cod of 2,150 tonnes (a 10 per cent. increase on the 2003 TAC that in fact represents a reduction in fishing effort). We agreed 20 per cent. cuts in the associated plaice and sole TACs, as opposed to the 47 per cent. and 34 per cent. cuts proposed by the Commission. A threefold increase in the haddock TAC will help to balance cuts, and a minimal cut in the nephrops TAC allows current catch levels to be maintained.

  Landings in Whitehaven, mainly demersal species and shellfish from both UK and Irish vessels, are likely to reflect the above TAC changes.

  The designated port arrangements for the United Kingdom will not be affected except that landings of North Sea haddock taken under the special conditions set out in Annex IV of Council Regulation 2287/2003 will be restricted to designated ports in Scotland and on the east coast of England.

  Food Exporters
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the announcement by the Rural Payments Agency that it is to end export refunds immediately to exporters of processed foods to the new EU entrant states. [147050]

  Alun Michael
  The Rural Payments Agency recently issued advice to traders on the transitional arrangements for the payment of refunds on goods exported to the new European Union (EU) entrant states.

  From I May 2004, when the ten acceding states become full members of the EU, refund payments will cease. Among the accessionary arrangements designed to minimise the impact of these changes, some entrant states and the EU entered into a number of 'double

  1015W
  benefit' agreements. Under these arrangements, export refunds are not paid in return for a reciprocal waiving of import duty in the importing country for certain exports of agricultural products. A number of these arrangements affect processed foods exports. In addition the Commission has identified possible problems in relation to speculation in the sugar sector and potential stock piling of community exports in acceding member states. To counter this sugar export refunds have been withdrawn with effect from 28 November 2003.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many firms are in dispute with her Department over payments for work carried out during the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease; what the total outstanding sum in dispute is; and for what reasons each payment is being withheld. [148646]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter), on 6 January 2004,Official Report, columns 259–62W.

  Livestock Farming
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the recovery of livestock farming in(a) Copeland and (b) Cumbria since January 2002; and if she will make a statement. [146503]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]: Other than the June annual Agricultural Census, which amongst other things records the number of animals present on holdings on the designated census day, no specific assessment has been made of the recovery of

  UK raw milk production and utilisation

  Million litres

  Calendar years

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Supply and Use (a)

  Production

  14,317

  14,549

  14,259

  14,256

  14,420

  14,218

  14,587

  14,078

  14,291

  14,449

  Imports

  1—

  1—

  181

  111

  128

  129

  111

  105

  64

  72

  Exports

  89

  129

  185

  173

  290

  373

  465

  445

  414

  421

  Total new supply

  14.228

  14,420

  14,255

  14,194

  14,258

  13,973

  14,233

  13,738

  13,941

  14,100

  of which:

  For liquid consumption

  6,806 (48%)

  6,765 (47%)

  6,922 (49%)

  6,838 (48%)

  6,748 (47%)

  6,739 (48%)

  6,853 (48%)

  6,768 (49%)

  6,761 (48%)

  6,756 (48%)

  For manufacture

  7,061

  7,298

  6,918

  6,934

  7,059

  6,821

  6,988

  6,550

  6,714

  6,939

  of which:

  Butter (b)

  284 (2%)

  292 (2%)

  273 (2%)

  266 (2%)

  284 (2%)

  281 (2%)

  290 (2%)

  270 (2%)

  259 (2%)

  279 (2%)

  Cheese

  3,267 (23%)

  3,248 (23%)

  3,182 (22%)

  3,348 (24%)

  3,371 (24%)

  3,257 (23%)

  3,297 (23%)

  3,032 (22%)

  3,568 (26%)

  3,449 (24%)

  Cream (b)

  262 (2%)

  277 (2%)

  279 (2%)

  276 (2%)

  263 (2%)

  263 (2%)

  271 (2%)

  266 (2%)

  259 (2%)

  260 (2%)

  Condensed milk (c)

  731 (5%)

  751 (5%)

  661 (5%)

  719 (5%)

  692 (5%)

  643 (5%)

  603 (4%)

  522 (4%)

  536 (4%)

  491 (3%)

  Milk powder—full cream

  458 (3%)

  531 (4%)

  623 (4%)

  558 (4%)

  822 (6%)

  809 (6%)

  853 (6%)

  932 (7%)

  781 (6%)

  825 (6%)

  Milk powder—skimmed

  1,437 (10%)

  1,567 (11%)

  1,422 (70%)

  1,322 (9%)

  1,146 (8%)

  1,101 (8%)

  1,123 (8%)

  889 (6%)

  663 (5%)

  973 (7%)

  Other

  623 (4%)

  632 (4%)

  480 (3%)

  445 (3%)

  482 (3%)

  467 (3%)

  549 (4%)

  640 (5%)

  649 (5%)

  663 (5%)

  Dairy wastage and stock change

  1—

  1—

  113 (1%)

  86 (1%)

  112 (1%)

  80 (1%)

  56 (-)

  91 (1%)

  132 (1%)

  98 (1%)

  Other uses (d)

  1—

  1—

  301 (2%)

  336 (2%)

  338 (2%)

  333 (2%)

  338 (2%)

  329 (2%)

  334 (2%)

  307 (2%)

  1Equals less than 0.5 per cent.

  Note:

  Aggregated data from surveys run by Defra, SEERAD and DAR DNI on the utilisation of milk by dairies.

  Includes the utilisation of the residual fat of low fat liquid milk production.

  Includes condensed milk used in the production of chocolate crumb and in the production of machine skimmed milk.

  Includes farmhouse consumption, milk fed to stock and on farm waste. Excludes suckled milk.
  1016W
  livestock farming in Copeland and Cumbria since January 2002. However, data from the Agricultural Census of June 20021 shows that in Cumbria there has been an increase in livestock numbers compared with June 2001, while in Copeland the position remained broadly similar. The details are as follows:

  Recovery of livestock farming in Copeland and Cumbria since January 2002

  Copeland

  Cumbria

  Cattle and Calves

  2000

  42,217

  510,446

  2001

  40,502

  281,490

  2002

  39,938

  426,484

  Sheep and Lambs

  2000

  251,408

  2,633,973

  2001

  221,293

  1,499,064

  2002

  219,897

  1,801,789

  Pigs

  2000

  —

  54,441

  2001

  —

  10,119

  2002

  —

  23,555

  Note:

  Pig data in Copeland have been omitted to prevent the disclosure of information relating to individual holdings.

  1June 2003 data is expected to be published in March.

  Milk
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the UK's raw milk production was in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and how this raw milk is processed, broken down by percentage. [148690]

  Alun Michael
  The following table provides information on the UK raw milk production and supply, and how this supply is then utilised for liquid consumption and the manufacture of products.

  Procurement Outsourcing
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's procurement policy with regard to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing; whether her Department is outsourcing IT and call centre jobs to offshore companies; to which countries her Department has outsourced these jobs; how much her Department has spent on this outsourcing in each of the last two years; and how much has been budgeted for this purpose for the next two years. [147582]

  Alun Michael
  Consistent with the need to ensure fair and transparent procurement processes in line with legal obligations, the Department's procurement policy is to obtain value for money and protect the public purse. In evaluating any procurement decision containing any offshoring proposals, the Department will have regard to the net cost to the Exchequer.

  Defra is currently conducting a procurement according to EU requirements to outsource its IT provision, and award of contract is expected in June 2004. The contract will be evaluated in line with the above policy and will also follow the latest Government guidance on tax planning and tax avoidance. It is expected that around 300 staff will transfer to the new supplier under TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) 1981) arrangements.

  There was no spend on off shore IT or off shore call centre outsourcing in 2002–03 and in the current year is nil to date. No sum has been budgeted for off shore outsourcing for the years 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the latest advice is that she has offered to those who use organophosphates for sheep dipping. [148305]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 15 January 2004]: Since 1995 the sale and supply of OP sheep dips has been restricted to those holding a Certificate of Competence in the Use of Sheep Dips awarded by the National Proficiency Tests Council (NPTC). The training course run by the NPTC covers the use and handling of sheep dips before, during and after dipping.

  In addition the Health and Safety Executive has issued to all sheep farmers an advisory leaflet on sheep dipping. This includes specific advice on the handling and use of OP sheep dips. This leaflet was last revised in 1998.

  In November 1999 the VMD also distributed to all holders of the NPTC Certificate of Competence in Sheep Dipping an A4 laminated sheet highlighting the risks of exposure to OP concentrate. Agricultural merchants are required to supply copies of this advisory sheet to all purchasers of sheep dips, together with protective gloves.

  Advice on the safe use and handling of each specific OP sheep dip product is also included on the product label. These were last revised when OP sheep dips were returned to the market in containers with fully enclosed delivery systems in 2001–02.

  Sugar Beet
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of the annual sugar consumption in the United Kingdom she estimates is met by domestic sugar beet production. [148611]

  Alun Michael
  It is not possible to give an estimate of the percentage of the annual sugar consumption in the UK which is met by domestic sugar beet production. This is due to several reasons. Firstly, it is not possible to distinguish between exports of sugar produced from imported sugar cane and exports of sugar produced from domestic sugar beet. Secondly, not all sugar is consumed directly, it is also manufactured into many processed products. Although those processed products may be produced in the UK, they may not be consumed here.

  However, the Department produces data on the annual total production of sugar (on a refined basis) from domestic sugar beet and supplies for the UK market. These figures are published annually in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom". Copies are available in the House Library or on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk/esg. The latest figures available are for 2002 and are provisional. A total of 1,390,000 tonnes of sugar were produced from sugar beet in 2002. The UK imported 1,309,000 tonnes of sugar and exported 487,000 tonnes of sugar. Thus, the total new supply of sugar available for use in the UK in 2002 was 2,212,000 tonnes (see Table 1 as follows). UK production as a percentage of new supply, which is the commonly used measure of self sufficiency, was 63 per cent. in 2002.

  Table 1. Sugar production in the UK in 20021

  Calendar year 2002 (provisional)

  Sugar(thousand tonnes refined basis)

  Production2

  1,390

  Imports from:

  the EU

  186

  the rest of the world

  1,123

  Exports to:

  the EU

  104

  the rest of the world

  383

  Total new supply

  2,212

  Production as percentage of total new supply for use in the UK

  63

  1Extracted from "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2002"

  2Sugar coming out of the factory in the early part of the new year is regarded as being of the previous calendar year's production.

TREASURY

  Air Passenger Duty
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the case for changes in the basis of air passenger duty from payment per passenger to payment per flight, and for relating it to the
  1019W
  amount of carbon dioxide and other pollutants produced during the flight; and if he will make a statement. [147831]

  John Healey
  The use of economic instruments to encourage the aviation industry to take account of and, where appropriate, reduce its contribution to global warming, local air pollution and noise pollution was considered in the Air Transport White Paper, published in December 2003. The White Paper supported widened use of airport charges linked to the level of local noise and air pollutant emissions. In addition, we announced that, as part of the Government's commitment to using economic instruments to help tackle greenhouse gas emissions, the UK will push hard at international level to secure agreement on including aviation in the EU's emissions trading scheme.

  Levels of all taxes, including air passenger duty, are reviewed Budget-by-Budget, taking account of a range of social, economic and environmental considerations.

  Financial Products (Risk Warnings)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the need for a risk warning to be attached to(a) all financial products and (b) documentation about pensions. [148381]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services Authority requires regulated financial products to be promoted in a manner that is clear, fair and not misleading.

  In particular, for investment products it requires firms to adequately describe the risks involved. In the case of personal and stakeholder pensions, it specifically requires firms to explain those risks to the consumer before the product is bought.

  The Department of Trade and Industry is currently consulting on the provision of risk warnings for consumers as part of its ongoing review of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (I) what plans he has to develop a substitute eligibility test for working tax credit fast-track; [148388]

  (2) what plans he has to conduct a reappraisal of the fast-track eligibility rules for claiming working tax credit. [148389]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no plans to change the eligibility rules. As with other issues, we continue to keep the policy under review.

  Unemployment (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the change in the level of unemployment in the Warrington North constituency has been since 1997. [148248]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  1020W
  Leter from Colin Mowl to Helen Jones dated 19 January 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployment in the Warrington North constituency. I am replying in his absence. (148248)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definitions. For Parliamentary constituencies, information about unemployment rates, but not levels, is available. However, the LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of unemployment in the Warrington North constituency.

  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for local areas including Parliamentary constituencies. The annual average number of JSA claimants in the Warrington North constituency decreased by 763 from 2,041 in 1997 to 1,278 in 2003.

  Armed Forces (Departure Payments)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposed early departure payments for members of the Armed Forces which will replace pension payments will attract national insurance contributions. [147575]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The early departure payments will not attract national insurance contributions, since they will be made under a statutory scheme and would not be considered as earnings derived from employment.

  Banking Regulation
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which banks have a licence to operate in the UK; and when each received its licence. [149498]

  Ruth Kelly
  Under the Financial Services and Markets Act (2000), banks, building societies and credit unions are authorised by the Financial Services Authority to accept deposits in the UK.

  Details of the banks and other institutions which are authorised with permission to accept deposits in the UK and the date when they received authorisation can be found on the Financial Services Authority's website (www.fsa.qov.uk).

  Child Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer per year of increasing by 100 per cent. the rate of child tax credit in respect of children under five. [148619]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The annual cost would be approximately £3 billion per year.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the Buckingham constituency(a) have applied for, (b) are eligible for and (c) received the child tax credit in 2003–04. [149191]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated number of families receiving tax credits in the Buckingham constituency at 3 July 2003 is shown in "Child and Working Tax Credit Statistics. Geographical analyses—July 2003", which is on the Inland Revenue website at: www. inland reven ue.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/menu.
  1021W
  htm. The estimates are based on a sample of cases, and are subject to sampling uncertainty. Estimates for January 2004 will be published on 30 January 2004.

  No estimates are available at the constituency level of the number of people who have claimed tax credits or who are eligible for them.

  Citizen Information Project
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what dates he has met Scottish Ministers to discuss the Citizen Information Project and its implications for Scotland; [147920]

  (2) how many members of staff have been seconded from the Register Office for Scotland to work on the Office of National Statistics' Citizen Information Project; [147921]

  (3) whether the Office for National Statistics' Citizen Information Project will cover information held by offices and agencies responsible to the Scottish Executive; [147922]

  (4) which parts of the Citizen Information Project's current work programme includes matters of responsibility for the Scottish Executive; and what reporting procedures have been put in place for this work. [147923]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Ms Annabelle Ewing, dated 19 January 2004.

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions on the Citizen Information Project. I am replying in his absence. (147920, 147921, 147922, 147923).

  The work announced by the Chief Secretary on 6 January is about the development of a UK population register. The aim is to cover the UK because a number of the public sector organisations (such as UK Passport Service, Inland Revenue) that might supply basic data to construct the register, and that are among the potential users of the register, cover the whole of the UK. The current work is on project definition, to explore more fully the potential scope of a register and to develop a more detailed proposal.

  The Chancellor has not met Scottish Ministers to discuss this work, but the project team has been in close touch with the Registrar General for Scotland and Scottish Executive officials, who have kept Scottish Executive Ministers informed of developments. The Chief Secretary has corresponded with his Cabinet colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Scotland, on several occasions. The issue of how the register might be used and taken forward in Scotland will be considered during this next stage of the project. Should legislation be required, it would be for the Scottish Parliament to decide whether any register should be used to support the administration of devolved services.

  The project team will continue to work closely with the devolved administrations, other government departments, agencies and local authorities. The Scottish Executive was represented, by the Head of its 21 s' Century Government Unit, on the Steering Group for the project's feasibility study. The Scottish Executive and the General Register Office for Scotland will be similarly involved in the governance of the current stage of the project.

  No secondments of staff to the CEP team from any organisation have yet been arranged for the current stage of the project.

  I am copying this letter to the Registrar General for Scotland.

  Consumer Education
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cross-government spending is on education for consumers on(a) financial services and (b) consumer credit, broken down by Department. [149449]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  We are, however, seeking to inform the work of the Financial Capability Steering Group, which informs policy development work by the Financial Services Authority, with a survey of the financial education, information and generic advice work of the principal Departments involved.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on council tax increases for 2004–05 of the £406 million announced in the Pre-Budget statement for local authorities in Great Britain. [147714]

  Mr. Boateng
  The additional £406 million announced by the Chancellor includes £340 million for local authorities in England. This means that, including the additional resources announced at the time of the provisional local government finance settlement, the Government is making an additional £760 million in grant available for local authorities in England, over and above what the last spending review originally allocated. Total Government support next year will total £54.5 billion—up from £50.8 billion for 2003/04 on a like for like basis. That represents an increase, in real terms, of 30 per cent. in central government support since 1997 and is the second year in succession that all authorities have received an above inflation increase in government grant.

  Taken together with the further £750 million reduction in ring fencing that we announced in November, the additional support being provided underlines the Government's commitment to ensuring that local authorities can provide decent local services without making excessive demands on local taxpayers.

  The Government believes that next year local authorities can and should deliver council tax increases in low single figures. However, decisions on council tax levels are a matter for local authorities, in consultation with their local residents, not for the Government.

  Decisions on local government funding in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the allocation of the additional resources provided by the Chancellor, are the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government, and the Northern Ireland Executive, reflecting their own priorities and circumstances in the normal way.

  Death Statistics
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of suicides in the UK in 2003. [148837]
  1023W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mrs. Iris Robinson dated 19 January 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning what estimate has been made of the number of suicides in the UK in 2003. I am replying in his absence. (148837)

  The most recently available information is for deaths in 2002. There were 5,736 deaths1 with a verdict of suicide or undetermined intent2 in the United Kingdom in 2002.

  1Data for England and Wales are for deaths occurring in the calendar year. Data for Scotland and Northern Ireland are for deaths registered in the calendar year.

  2Causes of death were defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-IO) codes X60-X84 and YIO-Y34 for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and X60-X84 and YIO-Y34 excluding Y33.9 where the Coroner's verdict was pending for England and Wales.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many drownings there were in the UK in 2003. [148839]

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mrs. Iris Robinson dated 19 January 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many drownings there were in the UK in 2003.1 am replying in his absence. (148839)

  The most recently available information is for deaths in 2002. There were 646 deaths1 from drowning2 in the United Kingdom in 2002.

  1Data for England and Wales are for deaths occurring in the calendar year. Data for Scotland and Northern Ireland are for deaths registered in the calendar year.

  2Cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (1CD-10) code 775.7.

  Economically Inactive Young People
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many economically inactive persons aged 18 to 24 there are; and what the number was in April 1997. [148851]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. George Osborne, dated 19 January 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about economically inactive people aged 18 to 24. I am replying in his absence. (148851)

  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) gives information about economic inactivity for each three month period, but not for individual months. The latest available estimate, for the three month period ending November 2003, is that there were 1.32 million economically inactive people aged 18 to 24 resident in the United Kingdom during this period. The estimate for the three month period ending April 1997 is 1.13 million. These estimates are seasonally adjusted.

  As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability.

  European Council of Finance Ministers
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Ecofin meeting on 16 December 2003, including the Government's positions on the different issues discussed. [148614]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Ecofin meeting scheduled for 16 December 2003 was cancelled by the Italian Presidency.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what research has been commissioned on the impact of recent developments in the life assurance and pension industry on the capital structure of organisations offering such services; and if he will make a statement; [148759]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the impact of changes in the reporting of the financial position of insurance companies on those that have a mutual structure; and if he will make a statement. [148855]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services Authority has developed a 'twin peaks' approach to the requirements for capital to support with-profits liabilities. This compares the capital required on a prudent regulatory basis with that needed on a realistic basis to meet payments made to policyholders, including terminal bonuses. The regulator will consider the impact on individual firms, including those that have a mutual structure, and on the industry as part of further development of its reserving proposals.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact that the Basel II accords on capital adequacy will have on mutual financial organisations; and if he will make a statement. [148760]

  Ruth Kelly
  The new Basel Accord will be an international agreement on prudential capital, applying mainly to internationally active banks. Implementation of the new Basel Accord in Europe will be through a new Capital Adequacy Directive, which is expected to have a broader scope covering credit institutions and investment firms (as was the case for the implementation of the existing Basel Accord). That broader scope will encompass some mutual organisations, for example building societies, although the detailed boundaries are yet to be determined. The Treasury will assess the European Commissions formal proposals in the usual way once they are issued.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact he estimates recent changes in the regulatory regime for insurance companies will have on(a) projections of future returns of policy holders and (b) the anticipated benefits of their mutual structure; and if he will make a statement. [148871]

  Ruth Kelly
  The rules governing projections for policyholders are set out in the Financial Services Authority Handbook under Conduct of Business. It is for individual companies to ensure that their projections are fair and not misleading. Recent changes to introduce
  1025W
  a new realistic reporting regime are intended to provide the regulator with a better picture of the underlying financial strength of the industry, including mutuals.

  Income Tax
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the additional revenue which would be raised from a 1p increase in(a) the standard rate of income tax and (b) the higher rate of income tax; [148711]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the additional revenue which a higher rate of income tax of 50 per cent. would produce. [148712]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the publication "Tax ready reckoner and tax reliefs December 2003" on the Treasury website: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media//AAB247pbr03_trr.pdf. The figures exclude any estimate of behavioural response to the tax change.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of Inland Revenue inquiry offices have textphone or similar communication aids. [148382]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All Inland Revenue inquiry offices are registered with the BT Typetalk service.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many home visits were conducted by Inland Revenue employees in each of the last five years to provide advice to those incapable of reaching an office. [148383]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not keep a central record of the total number of such visits going back over the last five years. The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to establish a disabilities helpline in the Inland Revenue for(a) tax payers and (b) voluntary sector intermediaries who need access to information on disability issues. [148384]

  Dawn Primarolo
  At present the Inland Revenue has no plans to establish a disabilities helpline. Advisers in our telephone contact centres are trained to deal with telephone calls from the full range of taxpayers. We believe that this provides a cost effective approach to meeting taxpayer needs and the flexibility to respond to the differing requirements of our taxpayer base.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of public Inland Revenue offices are equipped with equipment to aid those with hearing impediments. [148386]

  Dawn Primarolo
  When last audited in early 2002, out of a total of 323 of Inland Revenue inquiry offices providing a face to face service, 86 per cent. had portable loop systems and 27 per cent. of them had fixed induction loop systems. We are in the process of carrying out another audit.
  1026W
  In spring 2003 Inland Revenue introduced a set of national standards for their inquiry offices specifying that they be equipped with a fixed and portable induction loop system, and a crystal listening device. They are progressing to all of their inquiry centres meeting this standard.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of Inland Revenue frontline staff have received training on disability issues. [148387]

  Ruth Kelly
  All new members of staff receive disability awareness material as part of the Revenue's induction process. In addition during the last three years 22,752 staff (over 32 per cent. of total staff) have attended a training course specifically covering disability issues.

  During the same period over 90 per cent. of staff have received diversity awareness training which included disability related issues.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue office in Chorley is equipped with equipment to aid those with hearing impediments. [149168]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Chorley Inland Revenue Enquiry Office is equipped with portable induction loop equipment.

  Insurance Cover (Terrorism)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce an insurance scheme to cover domestic risks during times of terrorist attack. [147886]

  Ruth Kelly
  We do not currently have plans to introduce a Government insurance scheme to provide terrorism insurance for risks to domestic property.

  IT Projects
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each information technology project being undertaken by his Department and its agencies, including the(a) start date, (b) the planned completion date, (c) the current expected completion date, (d) the planned cost and (e) the current estimated cost; and if he will make a statement. [147654]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 13 January 2004]A table containing the information requested has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Leak Inquiries
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list occasions on which his Department has conducted an inquiry into alleged leaks from members of staff since 1997; and if he will list the occasions on which the names of those persons accused of leaking information from his Department have been made public(a) by the Government and (b) by way of another source. [147194]

  Ruth Kelly
  While the Treasury has not itself instigated any formal leak enquiries since 1997, it does co-operate in cross-government preliminary enquiries at the request of other Government Departments attempting to trace the sources of leaked information.
  1027W
  In line with exemptions 1(a) and 7(b) set out in Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it has been the practice of successive governments not to comment on the outcome of such enquiries in order to safeguard security and investigative arrangements.

  New Deal
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have benefited from the New Deal(a) broken down by region and (b) in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (i) since 1997 and (ii) since 2001. [148403]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since its introduction the New Deal has helped over 970,000 individuals into work. The following tables show the regional breakdown of jobs found through New Deal programmes. The first table shows data from the programmes introduction from June 1998 onwards, and the second table since April 2001. Both tables include the jobs gained from New Deal programmes for the constituency Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East.

  Individuals into jobs since beginning of programmes

  Jobs

  NDYP

  ND25plus

  NDLP

  ND50+

  Jobcentre Plus region

  Scotland

  54,630

  18,970

  25,000

  12,180

  North East

  36,920

  11,780

  14,760

  6,360

  North West

  68,060

  20,960

  34,180

  12,710

  Yorkshire and Humber

  53,060

  18,440

  24,720

  10,660

  Wales

  31,870

  9,180

  16,260

  7,290

  West Midlands

  46,860

  15,450

  19,830

  9,940

  East Midlands

  29,330

  10,250

  14,230

  7,290

  East of England

  25,550

  10,590

  14,930

  6,880

  South East

  28,840

  12,710

  22,110

  7,740

  London

  57,420

  27,820

  22,360

  7,750

  South West

  30,210

  10,970

  20,860

  9,180

  Parliamentary constituency

  Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East

  1,450

  310

  560

  240

  Individuals into jobs since April 2001

  Jobs

  NDYP

  ND25plus

  NDLP

  ND50+

  Jobcentre Plus region

  Scotland

  23,450

  11,740

  15,500

  8,060

  North East

  15,770

  6,540

  8,650

  4,390

  North West

  27,500

  10,990

  19,300

  8,660

  Yorkshire and Humber

  20,860

  9,860

  14,520

  6,990

  Wales

  13,480

  4,570

  10,250

  4,820

  West Midlands

  20,020

  9,140

  11,500

  6,780

  East Midlands

  12,060

  5,570

  8,330

  4,940

  East of England

  9,150

  5,100

  8,590

  4,380

  South East

  10,180

  5,650

  12,280

  5,040

  London

  21,770

  12,840

  12,660

  5,140

  South West

  11,520

  5,890

  12,830

  5,770

  Parliamentary constituency

  Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East

  680

  100

  340

  170

  The New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) had helped over 20,000 disabled people into work since its introduction. New Deal for Partners has helped over 1,700 people into work, but due to the size of the
  1028W
  programmes there is currently no regional or constituency breakdown available for either NDDP or NDP.

  Research and Development Tax Credits
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many firms in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley (i) are benefiting and (ii) have benefited from research and development tax credits. [148704]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not available. Claims for research and development tax credits do not disclose where in the UK research and development was performed.

  Stamp Duty Land Tax
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the change in stamp duty land tax revenues in 2004–05 from(a) residential property, (b) commercial property, (c) anti tax avoidance measures and (d) securities-related transactions. [146424]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 8 January 2004]: Forecast revenues from stamp taxes on Land and Property transactions and transactions in Shares are given in the table below. The forecast yields are consistent with the published PBR forecast. The yield from anti-avoidance measures was published in Table A2.1 of the Budget 2003 report.

  £ million

  2003–04

  2004–

  Stamp Duty

  4,800

  6,000

  Stamp Duty Land Tax

  2,700

  3,300

  The increase in duty on land transactions is in due to the introduction of Stamp Duty Land Tax on 1 December 2003. In particular this will:
  (A) prevent the avoidance of stamp duty that was formerly common in commercial transactions, and
  (B) charge duty on the grant of a new lease in a way that better reflects the economic and commercial reality'

  Separate forecasts of yield for residential and commercial property are not available.

  Unemployment (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the change in the level of unemployment in the Chorley constituency has been since 1997. [148494]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Lindsay Hoyle dated 19 January 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about unemployment in the Chorley constituency. I am replying in his absence. (148494)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definitions. For Parliamentary constituencies, information about unemployment rates, but not levels, is available. However, the LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of unemployment in the Chorley constituency.
  1029W
  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for local areas including Parliamentary constituencies. The annual average number of JSA claimants in the Chorley constituency decreased by 764 from 1,679 in 1997 to 915 in 2003.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on levels of unemployment in Chorley; and what the numbers were in(a) 1990, (b) 1995, (c) 2000 and (d) 2003. [149166]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr Lindsay Hoyle, dated 19 January 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about unemployment in the Chorley constituency. I am replying in his absence. (149166)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definitions. For Parliamentary constituencies, information about unemployment rates, but not levels, is available for the twelve month period ending February of each year from 1997 to 2002. However, the LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of unemployment in the Chorley constituency.

  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for local areas including Parliamentary constituencies. The table below shows the annual average claimant level in the Chorley constituency for the requested periods. Because of boundary changes the figures for 1990 and 1995 are not directly comparable with the later data.

  People claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in the Chorley constituency

  Year

  Level

  Annual average 1990

  12,159

  Annual average 1995

  12,605

  Annual average 2000

  1,217

  Annual average 2003

  915

  1 Figures based on the 1981 census wards.

  Unemployment (Middlesbrough)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about levels of unemployment in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East; and what the rates were in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2001. [148402]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Dr. Ashok Kumar dated 19 January 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployment in the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency. I am replying in his absence. (148402)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definitions. For Parliamentary constituencies, information about unemployment rates, but not levels, is available. The unemployment rate in the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency for the 12 month period ending February 2002 was 8.1 per cent. The LFS sample size is too small to give comparable information for 1997. LFS estimates are not available at Parliamentary constituency level for 1992. As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability.
  1030W
  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (ISA) for local areas including Parliamentary constituencies. The table following shows the average total level of Jobseeker's Allowance claimants and the percentage of the working age population in the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland Constituency for 1997 and 2001. Comparable figures for 1992 are not available as the constituency did not exist in its current form at that time.

  People claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency

  Number

  1Rate

  Annual average 1997

  3,462

  6.1

  Annual average 2001

  2,427

  4.3

  1 People claiming Jobseeker's Allowance as a percentage of the 2001 Census working age population adjusted to 2001 mid-year population estimates for local authorities.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the revision of the generalised system of preferences. [148517]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The EU's Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) scheme has traditionally operated for a series of 10-year periods. While we are currently in the cycle for 1995–2004, revisions of the current scheme were agreed at the end of 2003. Details of these revisions can be found in Official Journal of the EU of 19 December 2003 and 31 December 2003 (Council Regulations No. 2211/2003 and 2331/2003 respectively). The main change was a one-year rollover, with amendments to the graduation criteria. This revised GSP scheme is therefore due to end on 31 December 2005. Proposals for a new GSP scheme will need to be agreed by 31 December 2004, thus providing EU importers with 12 months' notice to plan for changes to duty rates.

  The Commission has indicated its intention to begin the renegotiation process of the EU GSP scheme early this year through regular working party meetings once initial proposals have been published. Officials from my Department will lead on the consultation across Whitehall and industry and, together with colleagues from the UK's Permanent Representation to the EU, make representations on behalf of the UK at these working party meetings. The proposals will be cleared through Parliament by Explanatory Memoranda in the usual way.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements with African, Caribbean and Pacific States which are party to the Cotonou Agreement. [148518]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As outlined in my answer to the hon. Member's question published on 13 January 2004,Official Report, column 696W, no Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) has yet been agreed between the EU and an ACP region. Phase I of the negotiations began in September 2002. But the EU only announced the launch of the first EPA negotiations with the Western and Central African regions—CEMAC

  1031W
  (Central African Economic and Monetary Community) and ECOWAS (Economic Community of Western African States) in October 2003. Launches of negotiations between the EU and other ACP regions are expected to take place later this year and to continue over several years. EPAs are expected to enter into force on 1 January 2008.

  Aerospace Funding
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the funding of the Aerospace Launch Investment; and if she will break down the costs incurred by main budget head. [147805]

  Jacqui Smith
  Through Launch Investment partnerships the Government supports the design and development of civil aerospace projects in the UK. The information in the DTI's Departmental Report (CM 5916 published in May 2003) on the funding of the Aerospace—Launch Investment (page 85) indicates a working provision for 2002–03 of Payments of £258.2 million, Receipts (excluding Consolidated Fund Extra Receipt (CFER)) of £66.9 million and Total Receipts of £98.5 million. The actual outturn for 2002–03 was Payments of £258.2 million, Receipts (excluding CFER) of £80.7 million and Total Receipts of £109.5 million.

  My Department is working closely with the industry in implementing the recommendations from the Aerospace Innovation and Growth Team (AelGT), which reported on 11 June 2003. The Government will continue to consider applications for Launch Investment in conjunction with exploring with Industry ways to attract more private sector finance. Further information on the AelGT can be found on the website of the Society of British Aerospace Companies at http://www.sbac.co.uk/aeigt/.

  BNFL Strategic Review
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her written statement of 11 December 2003,Official Report, column 93WS, on the BNFL Strategy Review, what estimate she has made of the potential cost to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority which will result from that body taking responsibiilty for the clean-up of the Springfields site. [148531]

  Mr. Timms
  The White Paper "Managing the Nuclear Legacy", published in July 2002 indicated that the costs associated with clean up of civil nuclear liabilities at the Springfields site would be around £300 million. More detailed work to quantify the precise nature and extent of legacy liabilities at the site is under way to inform the future strategy for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

  Broadband
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with BT on reducing the trigger numbers required to roll out broadband in smaller market towns. [147914]
  1032W
  Mr. Timms
  My colleagues and I maintain regular contact with BT across a wide range of issues as we do with other broadband providers. On 17 November 2003, BT announced trigger levels for 2,300 exchanges across the country. BT has also, on more than one occasion, reduced trigger levels which it had previously set. Decisions about which exchanges should be upgraded for ADSL or what trigger levels should be, are for telecommunication companies, such as BT, to make on commercial grounds.

  Lowering of trigger levels may well be one of he benefits of public sector broadband demand aggregation, which is commencing region-by-region in the coming weeks.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will state the percentage coverage of broadband in(a) Lancashire and (b) each Lancashire district. [148416]

  Mr. Timms
  These data are not available within Government.

  Cheese Industry
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with representatives of the cheese industry about the impact of the weakening dollar on the exports of UK-produced cheese; and if she will make a statement. [148175]

  Alun Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Secretary of State has had no formal meetings with representatives of the cheese industry about the impact of the weakening dollar on exports of UK produced cheese. However, Ministers and officials frequently meet representatives from all parts of the dairy supply chain and are therefore aware of the current difficulties facing UK exporters of cheese and other dairy products. Officials raised this issue with the European Commission at the Milk and Milk Products Management Committee on 15 January.

  Coal Health
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been paid to date by the Department to solicitors for handling coal health claims, broken down by region. [147203]

  Nigel Griffiths
  To date the figures are as below.

  £ million

  COPD solicitors costs

  VWF solicitors costs

  England

  158.2

  64.1

  Scotland

  14.1

  4.6

  Wales

  54.8

  10.2

  Total

  227.1

  78.9

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the funding for(a) coal liabilities and (b) coal health liabilities was allocated

  1033W
  in 2003–04; and what amounts were allocated in each year since 1997. [147799]

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–4

  Coal Liabilities

  226

  131.6

  116.8

  209.6

  179

  131.1

  93.3

  Coal Health1

  Inc. in above

  123.2

  228.2

  648

  829.5

  850

  850

  1 These figures are provisional allocations. There is no cap to the allocation of funding for coal health liabilities, as the Treasury would make available to the Department whatever it takes to fund coal health claims.

  Company Annual Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to bring forward legislation requiring companies to publish in their annual reports(a) a table showing the annual (i) pre-tax profits and (ii) tax paid in each country and (b) transfer prices for intergroup transactions. [146535]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Companies Act 1985 already requires companies to disclose their pre-tax profits and their tax charge split between UK and non-UK. There are no plans to change these requirements, or to introduce company reporting requirements on transfer pricing. Transfer pricing is taken account of in tax legislation.

  Departmental Relocation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment her Department has made of the benefits of relocation of staff to North Staffordshire; and if she will make a statement; [146861]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the effect of proposals to relocate Government jobs on the Department's ability to meet (a) departmental policy objectives and (b) departmental public service agreements; [146877]

  (3) what assessment her Department has made of the effect of possible relocation of staff in the Department to North Staffordshire on (a) job creation, (b) sustainable development, (c) the local economy and (d) tackling regional economic disparities; and if she will make a statement; [146890]

  (4) what plans she has to establish procedures for assessing the impact of possible re-location of staff in her Department to the regions; and if she will make a statement. [146920]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 516W.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people were employed by her Department in each year since 1992, broken down by Department. [148171]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Cabinet Office publishes statistics on Civil Service numbers showing staff in post figures going back to April 1990. These are available on their website: http://www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics/archivesip.htm
  1034W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The allocations, as set out in the Government's Expenditure Plans are:

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employment tribunal cases in each year since 1999 took(a) three months, (b) six months, (c) nine months and (d) 12 months to issue a decision. [147005]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]For each of the last four financial years, based on the information currently held in the Employment Tribunals Service's statistical database, the number of Employment Tribunal decisions recorded as having been issued three months or more after the hearing date were:

  (a) Three to six months

  (b) Six to nine months

  (c) Nine to 12 months

  (d) 12+ months

  1999–2000

  94

  17

  6

  17

  2000–01

  142

  21

  20

  14

  2001–02

  150

  32

  4

  6

  2002–03

  144

  20

  4

  7

  Source:

  Employment Tribunals Service

  The Employment Tribunals Service (ETS) has a target to issue 85 per cent. of decisions within four weeks of the final hearing. In each of the last four financial years, ETS achieved the following percentages of decisions issued within that time:

  Percentage

  1999–2000

  84

  2000–01

  86

  2001–02

  83

  2002–03

  86

  Source:

  Employment Tribunals Service.

  Engagements
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she was in the United Kingdom for the whole of 13 January. [148722]

  Ms Hewitt
  Yes.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list her engagements for 13 January. [148723]

  Ms Hewitt
  I had a full programme of departmental and private appointments.

  European Structural Funds
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the additionality requirements under the European Structural Funds regulations have been met by the UK Objective 1 programmes at their mid-term stage. [148434]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are no specific additionality requirements that have to be met under the European Structural Funds regulations at the mid-term point. The purpose of the mid-term verification exercise is to determine whether a member state's economic position has changed to the extent that some adjustment is required to its programmes.

  As stated in my reply to the hon. Member's earlier question on 13 January 2004, Official Report, column 701W, data supplied to the Commission in December for the UK Objective 1 programmes demonstrated that for each programme the average annual expenditure for the period 2000–02 was equal to or better than that forecast in the 2000–06 ex-ante tables published in the original Single Programming Documents for each Objective 1 area. As a result, there will be no need for adjustment of any of the Objective 1 programmes.

  Fuel Poverty (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many fuel poor households there are in each district council area in Cambridgeshire; and what her estimate is of how many(a) children and (b) elderly people are living in fuel poor households. [146443]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The available information from the English House Condition Survey indicates that, in 2001, there were 139,000 fuel poor households in the Eastern Region. This is based on fuel poverty defined as occurring when a household needs to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income on all fuels in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime.

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

  Gas Quality
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the written statement of 8 January 2004,Official Report, columns 13–14WS, on gas quality, what assessment she has made of the number of domestic appliances that would require (a) replacement and (b) modification as a consequence of change to the upper Wobbe Index limit for domestic gas supplies; and what assessment has been made of the cost of (i) processing and (ii) blending. [149222]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department is considering these important issues, working together with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Office for Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem), and other interested parties, with a view to preparing the public consultation document referred to in my written parliamentary statement of 8 January 2004,Official Report, columns 13–14WS.

  Industrial Disease
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average full and final settlement paid to former miners and their families is for(a) vibration white finger and (b) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and how many settlements were less than (i) £1,000, (ii) £500 and (iii) £200. [147264]

  Nigel Griffiths
  To date the figures are:

  Settlement value

  COPD

  VWF

  Less than £1,000

  21,418

  2,647

  Less than £500

  9,475

  193

  Settlements less than £200

  3,413

  8

  Average settlement value1

  £7,729

  £8,168

  1 Excludes denials.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the full and final settlements for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were reduced because of a smoking history; what percentage of the total number of such settlements this represents; and what the average value was of the reductions made. [147265]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As of mid January 2004 the number of full and final settlements reduced because of a smoking history is 59,993. This represents 64 per cent of total settlements.

  Manufacturing Jobs
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many manufacturing jobs have been created in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley in each of the last three years. [148219]

  Jacqui Smith
  Although it is possible to give net change figures for manufacturing jobs in Lancashire and Chorley (see table) information about the number of jobs created is not kept in an easily accessible form. It is not therefore possible to answer this question accurately.

  Total numbers of manufacturing jobs by year

  Chorley

  Lancashire

  2000

  4,300

  129,100

  2001

  3,800

  117,600

  2002

  3,400

  115,700

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to ensure the fastest possible completion of compensation payments to former miners for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger. [146116]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The DTI is working closely with the medical assessment organisation, IRISC, (The Department's claims handlers), solicitors and other representatives of miners and their families to process and settle claims as quickly as possible. So far almost £2 billion has been paid to over 300,000 such miners, their widows and families.
  1037W
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many solicitors firms are known to have charged additional fees, above agreed Government fees, for miners' compensation. [147762]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 13 January 2004]On 18 December 2003 I wrote to all 515 firms of solicitors dealing with coal health claims, seeking clarification of whether they charged additional fees and asking those solicitors who had taken a proportion of miners' compensation to repay the money to claimants and their families. I have asked that they provide a response by the 23 January 2004.

  To date I have received 160 replies, who all but one have confirmed that they do not double charge. We believe that certainly three other firms have been charging some additional fees, one of which has agreed to repay them.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the terms of the arrangements agreed are between her Department and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers with regard to the union's subsidiary company established to process claims under the miners' compensation scheme. [148287]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The term of the Claim Handling Agreement for all miners' compensation schemes are available in the Libraries of the House or on web.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department has made representations to the Union of Democratic Mineworkers about the union's policy on charging legal fees for processing miners' compensation claims. [148288]

  Mr. Timms
  No, nor has the hon. Member ever asked me to.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to which organisations her Department wrote in December 2003 in relation to legal fees in the Miners' Compensation Scheme; and if she will publish the texts of the letters. [148289]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have placed a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Mobile Phone Companies
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met the chief executives of(a) O2 and (b) Orange. [148159]

  Mr. Timms
  I last met with John Allwood CE Orange UK on 17 December 2003 and Dave McGlade CEO O2 on 18 November 2003. Officials meet regularly with both companies.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not met on a one-to-one basis with either Chief Executive.

  Nanotechnology
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on the patenting of carbon molecules as part of nanotechnology development. [147226]
  1038W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]The policy relating to the patenting of carbon molecules in the field of nanotechnology is that the usual patentability criteria, including novelty, inventive step and industrial application, must be satisfied.

  National Grid
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the maintenance work that needs to be carried out on the National Grid; and if she will hold meetings with National Grid Transco to discuss the matter. [148318]

  Mr. Timms
  National Grid's maintenance regime is being considered as part of the DTI's Engineering Inspectorate investigation into the major power failures in London on 28 August 2003 and in Birmingham on 5 September 2003. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry expects to meet with representatives from National Grid Transco shortly.

  North West Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley have been helped by the North West Regional Development Agency. [148702]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been advised by the Northwest Development Agency (NWDA) Chief Executive that the NWDA does not monitor its outputs by sub region or town.

  The NWDA are working with all Sub Regional Partnerships on a sub regional agenda to deliver the Regional Economic Strategy (RES).

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money from the North West Regional Development Agency has been spent in(a) Cumbria, (b) Lancashire, (c) Greater Manchester, (d) Merseyside and (e) Cheshire in each of the last three years. [148703]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been advised by the Northwest Development Agency (NWDA) Chief Executive that the NWDA does not allocate its funding on a sub-region basis. NWDA's total expenditure for the last three financial years was:

  millions

  Financial Year

  Expenditure

  2003–04

  1345

  2002–03

  306

  2001–02

  292

  1 Budget

  Olympic Bid
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on the Royal Mail donating money to London's Olympic bid. [147709]

  Mr. Timms
  The decision by Royal Mail to donate money to London's Olympic bid is an operational matter for the board of the company.

  Parliamentary Debates
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the reasons for her decision not to respond to the debate on the future of the Post Office in Her Majesty's Official Opposition time initiated by the Shadow Secretary of State for Industry, the hon. Member for Eddisbury. [148724]

  Ms Hewitt
  Even though the debate was on an opposition motion, no Shadow Cabinet Minister was present on the opposition Front Bench, and there was therefore no automatic need for a Secretary of State to be present. On behalf of the Government, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services made an excellent speech.

  Personal Computers
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of the £500 annual exemption from the taxable benefit on loaned personal computers introduced in the Finance Act 1999; and what steps are being taken to promote awareness of the exemption. [146140]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information on which to make an estimate is not available. But on 19 January my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry launched a major campaign, the Home Computing Initiative, to encourage employers to take advantage of this exemption and lend computers to their employees.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the proportion of private sector employees who received computers as a result of employer-provided home computing initiatives in each year since 1997. [146141]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available.

  Post Office
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what talks she has had with trade unions over the future of the Post Office. [148417]

  Mr. Timms
  DTI Ministers and officials meet with union representatives on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on(a) job losses in the Post Office and (b) the future of the Post Office. [148418]

  Mr. Timms
  Job losses in Royal Mail are an operational matter for the Board of Royal Mail in consultation with the unions. They are regrettable, but the Government accepts that cuts are necessary to stem company losses. The company is committed to achieving this through natural wastage, voluntary redundancy and redeployment of surplus staff within other parts of the business, under an agreement reached with the unions.
  1040W
  The company is now in year two of its three-year renewal programme to secure the future of the company. Progress is encouraging so far, but there is still some way to go. The Government is looking to the Royal Mail Board to drive through the renewal programme and return the company to profitability.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future post office network in Chorley. [148645]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government remain fully committed to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices and have invested very substantial sums in supporting the modernisation of the network. I understand that Post Office Ltd. expects to put forward for public consultation its area plan proposals under the urban reinvention programme for Chorley constituency in February or March.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer given on 8 January 2004,Official Report, column 445W, on post offices, what changes there have been to (a) the number of post offices in each constituency and (b) the number which transact more than 40 per cent. of their work volumes on behalf of the Benefits Agency since 9 January 2003. [148782]

  Mr. Timms
  Post Office Ltd. updates annually its list by parliamentary constituency of post offices, classified as urban or rural. The most recent list available shows the position as at end April 2003 and a copy is available in the Libraries of the House.

  A special exercise was undertaken by the Post Office in 1999 to determine the numbers of post offices in each parliamentary constituency and how many of them derive more than 40 per cent. of their income from benefits work. That information is set out in the reply given to the then hon. Member for Birmingham on 29 November 1999, Official Report, column 22W, and remains the latest information available in that form.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which post office branches in the 20 per cent. most deprived wards in England have(a) been the subject of a closure consultation, (b) had their proposal (i) modified and (ii) withdrawn after public consultation and (c) closed as a result of the Urban Reinvention Programme. [149179]

  Mr. Timms
  Decisions on post office closure proposals under the urban reinvention programme following public consultation are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which sub-postmasters of branches in the 20 per cent. most deprived wards in England have(a) applied for compensation to close their business and (b) been successful in their application; and how much has been paid to them to date. [149180]
  1041W
  Mr. Timms
  Decisions on compensation to sub-postmasters are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what definition of contiguous population is used by the Post Office for classification of post offices as urban for the purposes of closure; and if she will make a statement. [149213]

  Mr. Timms
  The classification of a post office branch as urban or rural is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. Mapped contiguous built up areas with a population exceeding 10,000 are classified by the company as urban. The company uses a geographical mapping model that enables it to adopt a consistent approach to classification across the country.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when sub-post offices in Taunton will learn whether they will be considered for closure under the network re-invention programme. [148506]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that urban reinvention area plan proposals for Taunton are scheduled for June 2004.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has made to the Scottish clearing banks about their participation in the Post Office Universal Bank. [148750]

  Mr. Timms
  As a result of the Secretary of State's discussions with the clearing banks to set up universal banking at the Post Office, the major financial institutions, including the Scottish clearing banks, agreed to provide access at post offices to their basic bank accounts. Those services were launched on schedule on 1 April 2003.

  Access to other current accounts at post offices is a commercial matter between the Post Office and individual banks. It is Post Office Ltd. strategy to increase access to banking services. The Government would urge all banks to provide their customers with access to their accounts through post offices. But the decision to do so rests with the individual institutions.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many rural sub-post offices closed in(a) England and (b) Somerset in each quarter in each of the last three years. [148505]

  Mr. Timms
  Post Office Ltd. maintain net quarterly closure figures by region/country, not by county and local authority. Decisions on post office closures are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what mechanisms are in place for evaluating the performance of projects undertaken by regional development agencies. [146152]

  Jacqui Smith
  All RDA projects have to be appraised within the rules of Government Accounting and Treasury's "Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government" Guide (The Green Book).
  1042W
  To supplement this higher level guidance, the Department has worked closely with RDAs, other Departments and the Office of Project Appraisal Training to produce the "Single Programme Appraisal Guidance". The guidance covers project appraisal and evaluation of completed projects. The appraisal itself must contain an evaluation plan specific to the project, and after the project is completed, the RDA to carry out a formal evaluation and report the results. In addition, DTI has reserved the right to call in any project for post appraisal and implementation monitoring. Now that RDAs have been in operation for four years, significant numbers of projects are entering their evaluation stages.

  To ensure compliance with the guidance, each RDA has a project performance and evaluation team of senior officers who are tasked with determining the success of the project, to identify lessons to be incorporated into other projects and to improve processes.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria are used to measure the(a) success and (b) effectiveness of regional development agencies. [148192]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Regional Development Agencies; funding is tied to a framework of targets relating to their functions, and responsibility for the monitoring and evaluation of progress towards achievement of these targets sits with the Government Office in each region. Their reports provide Ministers with the information required to measure the success and effectiveness of RDAs by assessing their progress towards achievement of targets and delivery of their Regional Economic Strategies and Corporate Plans.

  Research and Development Tax Credits
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new(a) products, (b) services and (c) processes have been developed by firms benefiting from the introduction of research and development tax credits in each year since their introduction. [148183]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not available. Companies are not required to agree specific products or processes in advance with the Inland Revenue in order to claim research and development tax credits. So far there have been 8,000 claims and over 6,000 companies have benefited from research and development tax credits.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been spent on research and development tax credits in each quarter since their introduction. [148184]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available data on the cost of the research and development tax credits provided to SMEs, by quarter, are set out as follows. The costs are on a receipts basis, showing when the cost has been incurred by the Inland Revenue, we expect costs in the latest quarters to increase as further claims are received. Information on claims from large companies is not yet available.
  1043W

  £

  2000

  Q2

  6,297

  Q3

  747

  Q4

  align="right"73,685

  2001

  Q1

  913,963

  Q2

  5,087,103

  Q3

  12,857,568

  Q4

  23,443,820

  2002

  Q1

  29,210,686

  Q2

  44,627,755

  Q3

  47,382,286

  Q4

  66,392,398

  2003

  Q1

  75,042,704

  Q2

  69,326,644

  Q3

  67,097,095

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies have benefited from research and development tax credits in each quarter since their introduction. [148185]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  We do not have figures for the number of companies that have claimed the research and development tax credit by quarter, although we had over 8,000 individual claims and over 6,000 individual companies have benefited since the tax credits were introduced. The available figures for the number of claims received from SME's so far for research and development tax credits, by quarter, are set out as follows. Information on claims from large companies is not yet available. Claims are made by companies retrospectively and therefore we expect the number of claims in later quarters to increase further as more claims as received.

  Number

  2000

  Q2

  185

  Q3

  271

  Q4

  644

  2001

  Q1

  668

  Q2

  530

  Q3

  589

  Q4

  1,219

  2002

  Q1

  936

  Q2

  767

  Q3

  766

  Q4

  1,195

  2003

  Q1

  434

  Q2

  143

  Q3

  27

  Post Offices
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress of(a) the network reinvention programme and (b) the rural subsidy for sub-post offices. [146486]

  Mr. Timms
  Post Office Ltd. (POL) reports on the urban reinvention programme on a quarterly basis. As at the end of December 2003:694 offices had closed under the programme (with payments to sub-postmasters totalling £38,111,410);
  46 proposals had been withdrawn or delayed for reworking during the advance notification process agreed with the consumer body Postwatch;
  a further 66 proposals had been withdrawn or amended as a result of the public consultation. POL had approved 388 applications totalling £1.3 million for investment grants to modernise remaining post offices.

  Regarding the rural subsidy, which I announced on 2 December 2003, this is in place and is being drawn down by Post Office Ltd. to underpin its obligation to maintain the rural network and prevent avoidable closures. £450 million has been made available over three years (2003–04, 2004–05 and 2006). This funding is having the desired impact with rural closures much reduced; the lowest number since 1994–95. There were 115 net closures in the financial year 2002–03

  Call Centres
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government support is available for the setting up of call centres, with particular reference to rural areas. [146487]

  Mr. Timms
  There is no specific Government support for the setting up of call centres in rural areas. However there is a range of business support available in certain circumstances including regional selective assistance (RSA). RSA is available to support investment and the creation or safeguarding of jobs in the assisted areas for viable projects that benefit regional and national economies and which without RSA would not go ahead.

  The DTI invests £1 billion a year in support of business and of that sum £400–500 million is spent on business support schemes. RSA with an annual budget of £110 million is one of the largest business support schemes. Our aim is to use this money in a way that ensures the best possible return on investment for the UK and makes a real difference to business performance.

  Small Business
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will break down how funding allocated as other support for small business has been awarded in 2003–04; and what amounts were allocated in each year since 1997. [147794]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to Chapter 8 of the DTI Departmental Report 2003(Cm 5916) which
  1045W
  sets out expenditure on small business programmes as a whole; and in particular to figure 8.5 on page 104 of that report (reproduced below). The figures in the table

  Figure 8.5 Expenditure on small business and enterprise Main estimates 2003–04 RfRl Functions A, M and V (promotion of enterprise, innovation and productivity)

  £ million

  2001–02 Outturn

  2002–03 Working Provision

  2003–04 Plans

  2004–05 Plans

  2005–06 Plans

  Small Business Service (and corresponding earlier activity)

  274.8

  423.4

  404.8

  367.0

  387.0

  Of which: Local Network1

  141.2

  143.4

  144.0

  144.0

  144.0

  Farm Business Advice Service (gross)

  4.8

  7.5

  2.3

  0

  0

  Business Link call handling and website

  9.2

  21.4

  12.0

  12.0

  12.0

  Business Gov

  0

  6.3

  7.7

  15.0

  35.0

  Phoenix Fund

  12.9

  35.0

  30.0

  25.0

  25.0

  DTI spend on TCS and STEP

  13.7

  17.2

  18.5

  18.5

  18.5

  Enterprise Fund (including SFLGS net)

  39.2

  93.9

  87.5

  87.5

  87.5

  Smart

  23.7

  27.0

  27.0

  27.0

  27.0

  Enterprise Grants

  0

  17.0

  24.0

  24.0

  24.0

  Business Incubation Fund

  0

  20.0

  25.0

  0

  0

  Other Support

  30.1

  34.7

  26.8

  14.0

  14.0

  1 The Local Network includes Start-ups; Core Services funding; and Local Network Development.

  Similar information on expenditure on small business and enterprise is contained within corresponding reports for earlier years (Cm 5416; Cm 5112; Cm 4611; Cm 4211), although direct comparisons may be inappropriate due to departmental reorganisation. The outturn for those years was as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98 Outturn

  1998–99 Outturn

  1999–00 Outturn

  2000–01 Outturn

  171.3

  152.0

  194.1

  277.2

  Spectrum Efficiency Scheme
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will break down how funding for the Spectrum Efficiency Scheme has been allocated since the scheme's inception; and what amounts have been allocated in each year since 1997. [147793]

  Mr. Timms
  Arrangements for the Spectrum Efficiency Scheme were agreed between DTI and Treasury in 2002. Only one year of funding for 2003–04 was agreed at the time owing to the transfer of the Radiocommunications Agency's functions into Ofcom.

  The Spectrum Efficiency Scheme had an annual budget of £5 million in 2003–04 as agreed in the 2000 Spending Review. There are two components to this budget; (1) compensation payments for spectrum replanning and (2) research.

  No compensation payments were made during 2003–04 but research contracts were let to the value of £2,866,000.

  Details of the contracts awarded in 2003–04 are available on the Ofcom website(http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/ra/rahome.hto

  A call for expressions of interest in the research element of the 2004–05 Spectrum Efficiency Scheme has just been announced by Ofcom. The budget of £5 million is expected to be shared between compensation payments for spectrum replanning, and research.
  1046W
  below incorporate those in Annex Bl on page 207 of the Report, including funding allocated as Other Support for Small Business.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people employed in her Department have claimed statutory sick pay for(a) less than one week, (b) one to three weeks, (c) four to six weeks, (d) seven to 12 weeks, (e) 13 to 20 weeks and (f) 21 to 28 weeks in each year since 1997. [148633]

  Ms Hewitt
  The work involved for my Department to gather the requested information would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold.

  The recent AON Limited report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service, 2002" is a useful source of reference for some sickness absence data.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the volume of United Kingdom trade has been with(a) Singapore, (b) Thailand, (c) Malaysia, (d) Vietnam, (e) Cambodia and (f) Laos in each of the last five years. [148218]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information is in the following table.

  UK trade in goods with Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos January to October

  £ million

  Country

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  UK exports

  Singapore

  1,615

  1,604

  1,627

  1,604

  1,459

  1,288

  Thailand

  391

  466

  581

  596

  532

  469

  Malaysia

  683

  940

  910

  1,033

  882

  892

  Vietnam

  68

  79

  93

  90

  80

  88

  Cambodia

  6

  4

  4

  3

  4

  3

  Laos

  2

  5

  4

  2

  2

  3

  UK imports

  Singapore

  2,463

  2,451

  2,485

  2,146

  2,031

  2,306

  Thailand

  1,329

  1,347

  1,661

  1,669

  1,608

  1,395

  1047W

  UK trade in goods with Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos January to October

  £ million

  Country

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Malaysia

  1,991

  2,040

  2,374

  2,012

  1,796

  1,586

  Vietnam

  244

  306

  385

  428

  488

  501

  Cambodia

  24

  43

  55

  85

  89

  81

  Laos

  5

  9

  5

  7

  10

  7

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HM Customs and Excise.

  Vehicle Exports
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with representatives of the car industry on exports of UK built(a) cars, (b) vans and (c) trucks. [148419]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have frequent discussions with individual automotive manufacturers and with the SMMT, covering a broad range of issues touching on the competitiveness of the automotive industry, including those which impact on exports. It has been pleasing to see that manufacturers in the UK have in general been very successful in improving their export performance over recent years, often in markets which have been particularly tough.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the number of new UK built(a) cars, (b) vans and (c) trucks exported in each of the last three years. [148473]

  Jacqui Smith
  A breakdown of UK vehicle production for export is attached. The light commercial vehicle figure comprises vans, and also van-derived minibuses. Full figures for 2003 are yet to be published, but the table includes an estimate based on published data to end-November.

  Cars

  Light CVs

  Heavy CVs

  Buses

  2000

  1,062,990

  71,667

  4,220

  294

  2001

  894,204

  91,127

  4,776

  321

  2002

  1,047,668

  109,308

  4,702

  225

  2003 estimate

  1,137,000

  96,700

  4.200

  200

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the members of the World Trade Organisation, broken down by the size of their(a) gross domestic product and (b) per capita income. [146643]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government do not produce their own data on these categorisations, but instead draw on publicly available information produced by international organisations such as the IMF and the World Bank. I will write to the hon. Member enclosing this information and will place a copy of the letter in both Libraries of the House.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Fines
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) what his estimate is of the revenue cost as a result of(a) unpaid and (b) uncollected fines in the last five years; [147966]

  (2) what proportion of fines were not (a) paid and (b) collected in the last five years. [147967]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on fines imposed and collected is provided by the 42 Magistrates Courts Committees (MCCs) in England and Wales. A new data collection procedure was implemented in 1999–2000. Comparable figures are therefore only available from that period, and are set out in the table.

  In addition, last year, I agreed to a revision of the enforcement payment rate target so that it focuses clearly on fines.

  The April to November row of the table sets out year-to-date performance on the basis of the new formula which excludes other financial penalties such as confiscation orders.

  England and Wales

  Period

  Total imposed

  Total paid

  Payment rate (%)1

  Total arrears outstanding2

  1999–2000

  431,111,249

  267,326,873

  62

  227,361,076

  2000–01

  384,958,059

  242,455,701

  63

  225,908,941

  2001–02

  387,020,885

  228,122,287

  59

  246,481,521

  2002–03

  425,863,782

  236,320,110

  55

  276,870,306

  April-November 2003

  247.135,001

  139,353,460

  72

  3—

  1 Payment rate percentage for periods 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2001–02, and 2002–03 was based on amount paid divided by new amount owed. For the period April-November 2003 as a result of the Minister's statement on 25 June 2003 the payment rate has changed to: amount paid divided by new amount owed less amount judicially cancelled. Therefore a direct comparison can not be made between the payment rate for April-November 2003 and previous years.

  2 Total arrears outstanding includes arrears outstanding from previous years

  3 Total arrears outstanding for the Year to Date ending November 2003 is not currently available

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what proportion of fines levied by the courts were collected in full in the last year for which figures are available. [148335]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on fines imposed and collected is provided by the 42 Magistrates Courts Committees (MCCs) in England and Wales. Figures for the financial year 2002–03 are set out in the table.

  In addition, last year, I agreed to a revision of the enforcement payment rate target so that it focuses clearly on fines.

  The April to November row of the table sets out year-to-date performance on the basis of the new formula which excludes other financial penalties such as confiscation orders.
  1049W

  England and Wales

  Period

  Total imposed

  Total paid

  Payment rate %1

  Total arrears outstanding2

  2002–03

  425,863,782

  236,320,110

  55

  276,870,306

  April-November 2003

  247,135,001

  139,353,460

  72

  3—

  1 Payment rate percentage for 2002–03 is based on amount paid divided by new amount owed. For the period April-November 2003 as a result of the Minister's statement on 25 June 2003 the payment rate has changed to: amount paid divided by new amount owed less amount judicial cancelled. Therefore a direct comparison can not be made between the payment rate for April-November 2003 and previous years.

  2 Total arrears outstanding includes arrears outstanding from previous years

  3 Total arrears outstanding for the Year to Date ending November 2003 is not currently available

  Immigration Appellate System
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the cost was in each of the last five years of the administration of the Immigration Appellate System. [147783]

  Mr. Lammy
  The costs of the administration of the Immigration Appellate system in each of the last five years are as follows:

  £ million

  1998–99

  167.3

  1999–2000

  177.5

  2000–01

  116.8

  2001–02

  181.1

  2002–03

  269.8

  1 The costs of administration of the Immigration Appellate System for these years are estimates. Detailed financial reporting information was not available to capture the full cost of administering the process.

  These figures include the cost of administering the Immigration Appellate Authority, the Legal Services Commission, provision of legal aid and the Department for Constitutional Affairs Asylum Policy and Programme Division.

  The rising costs reflect a significantly increased caseload (reflecting the clearance of the backlog of cases) and the Government priority that has been given to fast and effective processing of asylum claims—in order to ensure the end to end system is as cost effective as possible.

  Access to Justice
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what measures are being taken to increase access to justice for the disadvantaged. [146667]

  Mr. Lammy
  Since the introduction of the Community Legal Service (CLS) in 2000, it has improved access for those who are financially eligible to good quality civil legal and advice services. In many areas local CLS providers have linked up with other government programmes jointly to help people climb out of social exclusion.
  1050W
  Spending on the CLS in 2002–03 totalled £814 million and is expected to rise to £913 million for 2003–04. The eligibility criteria for assistance and the identification of priority unmet need within CLS Partnership Strategic Plans ensure that help is given to those most in need.

  For the Criminal Defence Service (CDS), the Legal Services Commission manages contracts with solicitors' offices which provide a comprehensive national network of quality assured legal services. It has established a Public Defender Service in eight offices. Outside the major urban areas, and particularly in rural areas, the Commission continues to provide CDS arrangements which support and encourage supply in ways which recognise the need for access to quality services. Spending on the CDS in 2002–03 totalled £1,095.7 million and is expected to rise to £1,202.9 million for 2003–04.

  My Department and the Commission, with the help of independent consultants, is carrying out a major review of the CLS, including an examination of the extent to which the CLS ensures access to justice, and a review of supply, demand and purchasing arrangements for both the CLS and the CDS. We hope to publish the findings on the reviews soon.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps the Department is taking to ensure access to justice. [146675]

  Mr. Lammy
  My Department, together with the Legal Services Commission, continues to develop the Community Legal Service (CLS). The CLS ensures that publicly funded legal services are targeted more effectively at areas of priority need as identified at a local level by Community Legal Service Partnerships. Since the launch of the CLS in April 2000 more than 200 Community Legal Service Partnerships have been set up, covering more than 99 per cent. of the population of England and Wales. Spending on the CLS in 2002–03 totalled £814 million and is expected to reach £913 million in 2003–04.

  For the Criminal Defence Service the Legal Services Commission manages contracts with solicitors' offices which provide a comprehensive national network of quality assured legal services. It has established a Public Defender Service in eight offices. Outside the major urban areas, and particularly in rural areas, the Commission continues to provide CDS arrangements which support and encourage supply in ways which recognise the need for access to quality services. Spending on the CDS in 2002–03 totalled £1,095.7 million and is expected to rise to £1,202.9 million for 2003–04.

  My Department and the Commission, with the help of independent consultants, is carrying out a major reviews of CLS, including an examination of the extent to which the CLS ensures access to justice and of supply, demand and purchasing arrangements for both the CLS and the CDS. We hope to be able to publish the findings on the reviews in due course.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the funding allocation for video equipment in courts was for each of the last seven years; and by what percentage it changed in each of those years relative to the proceeding year. [147675]
  1051W
  Mr. Leslie
  Prior to 2000, funding for video equipment was provided from local budgets and there is no central record of overall expenditure.

  My Department spending on video equipment for prison links vulnerable and intimidated witness cases, electronic presentation of evidence cases and playback of police interviews is shown in the following table.

  Amount (£)

  Percentage change

  2000–01

  1,350,000

  —

  2001–02

  5,170,000

  + 282

  2002–03

  2,950,000

  -42

  2003–04

  5,700,000

  + 93

  Courts Service
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what system is in place within the Department to ensure that concerns about practical issues impacting negatively on the business of courts from those judges responsible for modernisation in the courts are brought to the attention of the relevant Minister and responded to accordingly. [147667]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Secretary of State and Ministers meet senior members of the judiciary periodically, and modernisation issues are among those discussed.

  In addition, we have agreed and put in place detailed consultation arrangements with the judiciary to ensure their views are reflected fully in the modernisation programme. I am briefed by officials on issues arising from these consultations.

  Departmental Relocation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) what assessment the Department has made of the benefits of relocation of staff to North Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement; [146859]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of proposals to relocate Government jobs on the Department's ability to meet (a) departmental policy objectives and (b) departmental public service agreements; [146875]

  (3) what assessment the Department has made of the effect of possible relocation of staff in the Department to North Staffordshire on (a) job creation, (b) sustainable development, (c) the local economy and (d) tackling regional economic disparities; and if he will make a statement; [146889]

  (4) what plans he has to establish procedures for assessing the impact of possible re-location of staff in the Department to the regions; and if he will make a statement. [146919]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 516W.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many staff in the Department work in(a) the West Midlands and (b) North Staffordshire. [146904]
  1052W
  Mr. Leslie
  The Department and its agencies (the Court Service and the Public Guardianship Office) employs:

  (a) 689 staff in West Midlands, of which 49 are casual employees and

  (b) 159 staff in Staffordshire of which eight are casual employees.

  Electoral Fraud
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many applications for entry on the electoral register have been found to be fraudulent since 1997. [148725]

  Mr. Leslie
  This information is not collected centrally. In its report on the electoral registration process, published in May 2003, the independent Electoral Commission commented that the number of electoral fraud prosecutions in Great Britain is small.

  Euro
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs in how many speeches during 2003(a) he and (b) the Secretary of State declared support for the Government's policy on the euro. [147300]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 516W.

  Gender Recognition
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what recent steps the Department has taken to promote gender recognition. [146668]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department for Constitutional Affairs is responsible for Government policy on transsexual people and for the Gender Recognition Bill. The Bill, which was introduced in the House of Lords on 27 November, will see the advancement of the rights of transsexual people by giving them legal recognition in their acquired gender. From the inception in 1999 of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People the Government have been careful to take into account the views of all those with an interest in transsexual issues, supporters and opponents. Transsexual people are a small minority group in our society and the issues around the recognition of an acquired gender are often unfamiliar to those not directly affected. Accordingly, the Government have worked closely with individual transsexual people and their representative organisations to better understand the issues and to ensure that the Bill strikes a sensible balance between their rights and the rights of others. The Department's promotion of gender recognition issues has been limited to correspondence and meetings with the transsexual community and those who have
  1053W
  expressed views on Transsexual policy and the Bill. My Department will continue to ensure that it regularly updates its website on transsexual issues, including the Gender Recognition Bill.

  Immigration Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement about the Government's proposals for the judicial review of the decisions of immigration appeal tribunals. [148336]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government has introduced measures in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants Etc) Bill to establish a new single Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. This will merge the two current tiers of appeal in asylum and immigration cases. The judicial determinations and decisions made by the new Tribunal will be final and can only be challenged in the higher courts on the grounds that a Tribunal Member has acted in bad faith.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether a case remitted by the Immigration Appeals Tribunal may be returned to the original adjudicator. [147852]

  Mr. Lammy
  Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2003, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal may direct a remitted appeal to be returned to the original adjudicator to determine in accordance with any directions given by the tribunal.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what proportion of appeals remitted back from the Immigration Appeals Tribunal to the adjudicators in 2002–03 were subsequently upheld by adjudicators. [147853]

  Mr. Lammy
  Statistical assessment of cases remitted by the tribunal to the adjudicators indicates that in approximately 25 per cent. of remitted asylum cases this leads to the initial adjudicator decision being changed. Between 1 October 2002 to 30 September 2003 (the last full year for which information is available) this equates to 1.6 per cent. of all adjudicator asylum decisions having a different outcome following remittal and rehearing.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the possible outcomes of the remittal process are, with respect to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. [147854]

  Mr. Lammy
  Once an appeal has been remitted from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to the adjudicator tier of the Immigration Appellate Authority the appeal is most commonly heard by a different adjudicator, or more rarely, by the original adjudicator. The possible outcomes from the remittal process are for the appeal to be allowed, to be dismissed or withdrawn by the appellant. Following a fresh adjudicator determination, parties again have rights to seek permission to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs in what circumstances appeals are remitted back from the Immigration Appeals Tribunal to the adjudicators;1054W
  what guidance is given to the tribunal on remittals; and what training tribunal members have had on remittals. [147865]

  Mr. Lammy
  Appeals are remitted from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal when a defect in the original adjudicator determination is revealed which the Tribunal cannot correct itself. The President of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal has not issued a formal Practice Direction relating to the remittal of appeals, but Tribunal members will take the decision to remit a case where there is no practicable alternative. Decisions are taken in the light of the overriding objective in rule 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2003: "to secure the just, timely and effective disposal of appeals and applications in the interests of the parties to the proceedings and in the wider public interest". Training for Tribunal judiciary includes reference to the application of procedural rules and guidance.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what proportion of appeals which are(a) successful, (b) dismissed, (c) withdrawn and (d) remitted back to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal are (i) appeals by asylum claimants and (ii) appeals by immigration authorities. [148017]

  Mr. Lammy
  At the adjudicator asylum appeal, the two parties are the asylum seeker and the Home Secretary (as the initial decision-maker). Either party can apply for permission to appeal to the Tribunal and, if permission is granted, the appeal will be substantively determined. As either party can appeal, "allowed" and "dismissed" at the Tribunal do not equate to the grant or refusal of asylum.

  In 2002, the Immigration Appeals Tribunal substantively determined 5,565 asylum appeals. The information requested is contained in the table below and is taken from the published Home Office asylum statistics. These figures are provisional and rounded to the nearest five. Certain elements of information relating to remitted appeals are not available and this is indicated where appropriate:

  Appeals

  Tribunal outcome

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Remitted

  Total

  620

  2,015

  225

  2,700

  Proportion by asylum claimant

  410

  1,880

  210

  1—

  Proportion by Home Office

  215

  130

  15

  1—

  1Not available.

  Late Fine Payments
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) what plans he has to impose automatic sentences on those who are overdue in paying fines by a set period; [147839]

  (2) what plans he has to impose automatic sentences on those who persistently fail to pay fines imposed by magistrates courts. [147840]
  1055W
  Mr. Leslie
  There are no automatic "sentences" for fines. However the Courts Act, 2003 provides a number of new arrangements to facilitate the enforcement of fines, including mandatory automatic attachment of earnings orders if the defendant is in employment, or deductions from social security benefits if they are not working which will be applied upon first default. The Act introduces "fines officers" (who will have delegated powers), an automatic increase (to a maximum 50 per cent. of the fine) for continued non-payment of the fine, and a range of new sanctions as further steps for non-payment. These include clamping the defaulter's car and registration of the fine in a new combined register of judgments and fines. There will also be new offences for not providing means information or for providing false information to the court or fines officer. The increase and new sanctions will be piloted in six local pilot areas in a phased rollout from 23 February 2004. The new mandatory application of the Attachment of Earnings Orders and Deductions from Benefits will be piloted nationwide, together with the rollout of the new offences for non-provision of means information from 5 April 2004. Where the court is satisfied that an offender is genuinely unable to pay a fine, schedule 6 of the Courts Act introduces the alternative new sentence of fines payment work, where an offender can work off the value of the fine through unpaid work. This new provision will also be piloted in selected local pilot areas from 5 April 2004.

  Persistent offenders fined in the new fines collection scheme provided by schedule 5 of the Courts Act, 2003 will be deemed "existing defaulters" (defined in paragraph 3 of schedule 5) if they have already defaulted on previous fines payments. They will be subject to automatic mandatory attachment of earnings orders (if they are employed) or deductions from benefits (if they are in receipt of benefits) upon conviction. If they default on the current fine as well, they will be subject to an increase (up to a maximum of 50 per cent.) of the fine which will only be disapplied if they stick to the required payment terms for the life of the fine. These defaulters will then be subject to the same range of further steps as the new defaulters in question (1) above, with the ultimate threat of imprisonment for wilful non-payment of the fine.

  Procurement Outsourcing
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the Department's procurement policy with regard to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing; whether the Department is outsourcing IT and call centre jobs to offshore companies; to which countries the Department has outsourced these jobs; how much the Department has spent on this outsourcing in each of the last two years; and how much has been budgeted for this purpose for the next two years. [147594]

  Mr. Leslie
  My Department has a number of contracts for the provision of outsourced IT and call centre services, none of which is based or supported offshore.
  1056W
  No money has been spent in the last two years on outsourcing IT systems to offshore companies, and no money has been budgeted for this purpose in the next two years.

  My Department will keep the position under review, in the light of any emerging Government policy, as part of its overall aim to ensure that its procurement activities are based on obtaining best value for money.

  Video Equipment
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) how many complaints have been received from(a) judges, (b) barristers and (c) parties to a case about the quality of video equipment and its impact on the quality of evidence in a case; [147666]

  (2) what action is taken in the event that a judge raises concerns that the quality of video equipment is impacting on the balance of relative quality of evidence on a recurring basis within courtrooms; [147668]

  (3) what evidence the Department has received that poor video links are affecting the quality of prosecution evidence. [147674]

  Mr. Leslie
  My Department does not specifically monitor or record complaints about video playback or video link equipment. My Department has received no formal complaints to date about the quality of the equipment. Maintenance contracts are in place with the suppliers to provide after installation support should any difficulties with the equipment be encountered. Any complaints or difficulties over the quality of the equipment will be referred by the court to the suppliers.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what system of monitoring is in place for parties in a case to report concerns about the quality of video equipment provided to courts. [147670]

  Mr. Leslie
  A Judicial Advisory Group, comprising judiciary from the Crown court, magistrates courts, county courts and tribunals, has been established to review and provide feedback on courtroom technology. This group meets on a regular basis and represents the views of the judiciary on matters such as video equipment.

  The legal profession and members of the public can also use the complaints and customer service procedures, which are publicised at each court.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs on what quality criteria video equipment is chosen for use in cases which involve vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. [147671]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Judicial Advisory Group has been consulted about the specification for video equipment installed in Crown court centres. The Department is working with other Criminal Justice organisations to develop a standard for visual recording and playback across the Criminal Justice system. The standard is due to be published at the end of January 2004.
  1057W
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how the video equipment selected for pre-trial hearings differs from that selected for criminal trials; and what criteria are used for this selection. [147672]

  Mr. Leslie
  The video equipment installed in 30 Crown court sites during 2003 can be used for pre-trial hearings and during criminal trials.

  Voter Registration
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps are taken to ensure that only bona fide constituents are registered on the electoral roll. [148735]

  Mr. Leslie
  Applications for registration are made to individual Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), appointed by local authorities, who are responsible for compiling the electoral register as accurately as possible. The annual canvass form which is sent to all households provides information about who is eligible to register. An ERO may require a person applying to register to give additional information if they are in doubt as to whether that person is eligible to be registered. It is an offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983 to fail to comply with a request for information from an ERO, or to provide false or inaccurate information to a registration officer. The electoral register is available for public inspection which enables checks to be made that only eligible electors are on the register.

HEALTH

  Acute Hospital Trusts
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute hospital trusts suspend outpatient waiting lists at less than 21 weeks. [147188]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not available.

  Ambulance Service (Radio Network)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the competition for a new national radio network for the ambulance service. [147806]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  An Official Journal of the European Commission Notice, issued in June 2002, invited suppliers to express an interest to provide a new digital radio network and associated hardware. This was separated into four "lots", which together would provide the complete new service for the ambulance service.

  18 expressions of interest were received. Following a short evaluation, eight were invited to respond to an output based specification. Following this exercise, four responses were received, one of which dropped out soon after. From the remaining three, only one supplier was able to provide Lot 1 (digital infrastructure), while all three were able to provide Lot 2 (Fixed and Hand Portable Radios), Lot 3 (Control Room Dispatcher Equipment) and Lot 4 (Total Integration of all Lots at Ambulance Trusts).
  1058W
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Government will ensure that usable spectrum is available to bidders competing to provide a new national radio network for the ambulance service. [147811]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Radio communications Agency (RA), as the spectrum manager for public safety spectrum, has been working hard to meet ever increasing demands placed on the finite spectrum resource.

  The radio spectrum available to the emergency services was a matter for the Public Safety Spectrum Policy Group (PSSPG).

  The PSSPG published guidance in order to assist interested parties in identifying available public safety spectrum and advising as to other issues that should be taken into account. This was the case with the Ambulance Service procurement exercise. It is recognised that only the 380–385 MHz and 390–395 MHz spectrum is in the harmonised format for digital technologies and all of this is required in spectrum 'hot spots' to meet the existing airwave requirement. While spectrum in this band is available on a carefully co-ordinated regional basis, it was considered that the capacity to meet a second national network that can be planned and protected to meet the exacting requirements of public safety did not exist.

  Antibiotics
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what English acute NHS hospitals do not have antibiotic pharmacists in post. [147508]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Autism
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the incidence of autism in children who were vaccinated with the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine(a) before attaining the age of three and (b) after attaining the age of three. [145185]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 5 January 2004]In the last few years a number of epidemiological studies have examined the postulated link between MMR and autism and have found no association. Some of these studies (Taylor et al, 1999; Farrington et al, 2001; Madsen et al, 2003, Jick & Kaye, 2003) have specifically looked at rates of autism in populations who have had MMR and populations who have not had MMR. These studies did not find an increased reported rate of autism in MMR immunised children when compared with children who had not had MMR. Moreover, the recent study by Farrington et al, 2001 showed no temporal association between MMR and onset of autism at any time following MMR.

  References:
  Jick H. & Kaye JA. Special Article: Epidemiology and Possible Causes of Autism. Pharmacotherapy 2003; 23:1524–1530.
  Taylor B, Miller, et al. Autism and measles, mumps and rubella: no epidemiotogical evidence for a causal association. The Lancet 1999; 353:2026–9.
  Farrington CP, Miller E, Taylor B. MMR and autism: further evidence against a causal association. Vaccine 2001: 9:3632–65.

  1059W
  Madsen KM, Hivid A, et al. A population-based study of measles, mumps and rubella vaccination and autism. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002; 347:1477–1482.

  Caesarean Births
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of births were by caesarean section in the latest period for which figures are available; and what the percentage was(a) five, (b) 10 and (c) 15 years ago. [148776]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The percentage of deliveries by caesarean section in the latest period for which figures are available and percentages for five, 10 and 15 years ago may be found in Table 3 of NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 2001–02 which can be found at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0309.htm. A copy of the bulletin is also available in the Library.

  Care Fees
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to monitor the fee levels offered by local authorities to finance care. [148013]

  Dr. Ladyman: Central Government do not themselves routinely monitor the fee levels offered by councils. It is for local councils to develop an understanding of their local market and set fees accordingly. An annual analysis of fee levels is conducted by Laing and Buisson, independent consultants working in the care sector.

  Chest Pain Clinics
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting times for patients to be seen for the first diagnosis at chest pain clinics after referral by a general practitioner were in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [147268]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Roll out of rapid access chest pain clinics started in 2000 and national coverage was achieved in 2003. Monitoring of performance began in March 2001, when 75 per cent. of patients were seen within 14 days of referral. The most recent data, for August 2003, showed 86 per cent. of patients seen within 14 days.

  Terminal Illnesses (Children)
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to ensure that there are sufficient(a) palliative care and (b) hospice beds available for children with life-shortening illnesses. [146319]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Funding for these services is available from primary care trusts, which are responsible for ensuring the level of health care provision required by their local population. Local authorities also fund

  UK dental schools—intake and number obtaining first qualification

  Academic year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Intake

  898

  868

  883

  920

  922

  Number obtaining first qualification

  768

  782

  808

  815

  800

  Source:

  Higher Education funding Council for England, Universities and Colleges Admissions Service.

  1060W
  services for disabled children. In addition, the New Opportunities Fund has provided £48 million over three years to over 130 projects in support of children with life-shortening illness and their families, and to develop more options for care. The national service framework for children, which is to be published later this year, will also address services for children with severe disability and illness.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will respond to the correspondence to his Department containing the Tim Parry Jonathan Ball Trust's Legacy Project study. [144455]

  Dr. Ladyman
  A reply was sent to Mr. Colin Parry on 14 January 2004.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the NHS Pensions Agency will reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Wrexham of 7 October 2003 relating to Mrs. Margaret Bryden (ref SD 40/080674/ 9387). [147088]

  Mr. Hutton
  I understand that the NHS Pensions Agency replied to the hon. Member's letter on 9 January.

  Dentistry
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average starting salary of a dentist leaving training and going into(a) an NHS practice and (b) private practice was in 2003; [147595]

  (2) what proportion of dentists, after training, went into (a) an NHS practice and (b) private practice in 2003. [147599]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Newly qualified dentists who wish to work in the national health service general dental services are first required to undergo one year's vocational training. The Department does not collect information on the proportion of dentists who go into NHS or private practice after training. There are relatively few dentists who do all of their dental work privately. The Office of Fair Trading's report, "The Private Dentistry Market in the U.K." stated that about 210 dental practises are totally private, out of 11,000 dental practises. Currently the starting salary for a vocational trainee dentist is £25,776 per annum.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists left training in England in each of the last five years. [147598]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The available information, for the numbers of undergraduates in the United Kingdom admitted to dental schools and of those obtaining their first qualification, for the period 1997–98 to 2001–02, is shown in the table.

  Departmental Staff Absence
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many days have been lost to sickness absence, expressed as days per year per full-time employee, in the Department of Health in each of the last three years. [147031]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is shown in the table.

  1 January to 31 December

  Total number of days lost to sickness absence

  2000

  7,041

  2001

  6,939

  2002

  7,856

  Source:

  Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service (Year 2000 chart 4.1, Year 2001, chart 9 and Year 2002, chart 9).

  Domiciliary Care
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) people and (b) households received domiciliary care in each year since 1997; [147309]

  (2) what proportion of elderly households received (a) home care and (b) home help services in each year since 1993; and if he will make a statement. [147315]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the number and percentage of households in England receiving home help or home care from 1993 to 2002 is shown in the table.

  Number and percentage of households receiving home help or home care from 1993–2002

  England Survey week in September

  Rounded numbers and percentages

  65 and over2 Including double counting3

  Total all ages Including double counting3

  Excluding double counting3

  Number of households

  1993

  463,200

  514,600

  1—

  1994

  453.100

  538,900

  1—

  1995

  451,300

  513,600

  1—

  1996

  427,000

  491,100

  1—

  1997

  410,400

  479,100

  1—

  1998

  368,500

  447,200

  1—

  1999

  1—

  421,000

  1—

  2000

  1—

  415,800

  398,100

  2001

  1—

  399,900

  381,700

  2002

  384,000

  366,800

  Percentage4 of households (percentage)

  1993

  9.1

  2.7

  1—

  1994

  8.9

  2.9

  1—

  1995

  8.9

  2.7

  1—

  1996

  8.4

  2.6

  1—

  Region

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  Total

  East Midlands

  61

  98

  15

  8

  4

  3

  6

  16

  23

  234

  Eastern

  124

  99

  13

  5

  4

  10

  10

  9

  10

  284

  London

  176

  206

  28

  26

  21

  16

  140

  9

  24

  516

  North east

  115

  27

  13

  8

  8

  8

  7

  5

  5

  196

  North west

  123

  263

  38

  29

  46

  7

  12

  13

  16

  547

  South east

  237

  134

  21

  12

  47

  23

  10

  6

  10

  500

  South west

  104

  213

  13

  10

  13

  8

  17

  7

  10

  395

  West Midlands

  134

  198

  17

  12

  12

  23

  8

  9

  3

  416

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  130

  64

  11

  12

  8

  12

  9

  8

  6

  260

  Total

  1,204

  1,302

  169

  122

  163

  110

  89

  82

  107

  3,348

  1062W

  Number and percentage of household receiving home help or home care from 1993–2002

  England Survey week in September

  Rounded numbers and percentages

  65 and over2 Including double counting3

  Total all ages Including double counting3

  Excluding double counting3

  1997

  8.1

  2.6

  1—

  1998

  7.2

  2.4

  1—

  1999

  1—

  2.2

  1—

  2000

  1—

  2.2

  2.1

  2001

  1—

  2.0

  1.9

  2002

  1—

  1.9

  1.8

  1Data not available

  2 Based on the age of the oldest client in the household.

  3 Double counting occurs when a household receives home care directly from the council and through an independent provider.

  4 For 1993 to 2000, the total number of households is based on the 1991 census; the 2001 census is the basis for 2001 and 2002.

  Source:

  HH1, Census 1991–2001

  The number of contact hours has grown 67 per cent. between 1993 and 2002 at the same time as the number of households receiving home help or home care has fallen. This reflects a trend towards greater intensity and specialist skills in the services provided by home care. At the same time, broader community based services, which help older people and other adults to live independently in their own homes were provided for 1.4 million people in 2002–03; compared with 1.33 million people in 2000–01. Community based services include day care, meals, respite care, direct payments, professional support, transport and equipment, as well as home care.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications made by domiciliary care providers for registration with the National Care Standards Commission have been(a) rejected and (b) provided with action plans. [147311]

  Dr. Ladyman
  As at the end of November 2003, the latest date for which information is available, no applications made by domiciliary care providers had been rejected and two applications had been registered with conditions.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many domiciliary care providers applied for registration with the National Care Standards Commission in each month since March 2003, broken down by region. [147312]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Environmental Radiation Report
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment; and if he will make a statement. [148576]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) is currently preparing several reports on different topics. COMARE has already published seven reports. Its eighth report is expected to be published in early March of this year.

  Gatwick Airport
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many asylum seekers have arrived at Gatwick airport in each of the last three years claiming to be minors and without identity documents. [144998]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  Data on the number of asylum seekers without documentation claiming to be minors that arrive at specific ports of entry are not recorded and collated centrally. This information could therefore be obtained only from individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Information on asylum statistics is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  GP Referrals
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of cases seen in NHS walk-in centres resulted in referral to the general practitioner with whom the patient is registered in the last year for which figures are available. [147512]

  Mr. Hutton
  These data are not routinely collected or held centrally. The evaluation of national health service walk-in centres published by the University of Bristol in July 2002, and available at www.epi.bris.ac.uk/wic, suggested that some 13 per cent., of consultations resulted in a referral to a general practitioner. In part to address this, a growing number of NHS walk-in centres now offer access to a general practitioner, as well as the established service offered by nurses.

  Infectious Diseases
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) consultants and (b) trainees in infectious diseases there were in the NHS in England in each year since 1990. [147498]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  1064W

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): Consultants and doctors in training with a specialty in infectious diseases; September 1990-June 2003

  England1

  Number (headcount)

  Consultant

  Registrar Group

  Senior House Officer

  House Officer

  2003 (June)

  107

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2002

  95

  42

  58

  21

  2001

  88

  58

  61

  6

  2000

  88

  53

  44

  8

  1999

  69

  45

  43

  6

  1998

  73

  35

  41

  9

  1997

  73

  37

  61

  8

  1996

  65

  32

  40

  10

  1995

  69

  35

  38

  6

  1994

  55

  31

  31

  7

  1993

  48

  29

  36

  3

  1992

  39

  21

  40

  2

  1991

  31

  28

  35

  2

  1990

  38

  20

  28

  1

  1 All data as at 30 September except for 2003, where data as at 30 June.

  2 Data not available.

  Note:

  Trainees are referred to as doctors in training.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Consultant numbers have increased by 182 per cent. between September 1990 and June 2003.

  Information Campaigns and Advertising
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total expenditure on information campaigns and advertising was for his Department in each year since 1997. [145371]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows the expenditure on major information campaigns and advertising commissioned by the Department's communications directorate for the financial years 1996–97 to 2002–03. The figures include the costs of publishing, television, radio, poster, newspaper and magazine advertising, and campaigns on subjects such as sexual health, immunisation, staff recruitment, TB awareness, mental health and blood donation.

  million

  Financial year

  Total campaign expenditure

  Advertising expenditure

  1996–97

  15.13

  2.50

  1997–98

  6.63

  2.04

  1998–99

  22.96

  8.53

  1999–2000

  35.97

  15.17

  2000–01

  25.32

  20.80

  2001–021

  37.23

  20.41

  2002–031

  34.85

  23.13

  1 These figures include Health Promotion England publicity and advertising when it became part of the Department.

  Key Worker Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on key worker housing and the land required to provide health services for key workers. [146413]
  1065W
  Mr. Hutton
  Discussions are currently taking place with officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the requirements of the national health service in respect of affordable housing and the NHS contribution to the provision of key worker accommodation. The Department of Health and NHS Estates have a major programme in place to support key workers. The NHS Plan target of 2,000 extra rental units has been exceeded. By March 2004, around 5,000 NHS staff will have had the opportunity to gain a foothold on the property ladder by way of assistance under the Government's Starter Home Initiative Scheme.

  Long-term Care
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has reviewed his policy in the light of the Health Service Ombudsman's report on long-term care. [147962]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department is satisfied with the existing policy on national health service fully funded continuing care, but wants to ensure that policy is correctly implemented. As a result, all strategic health authorities (SHAs) have reviewed their eligibility criteria and an independent survey has been commissioned to examine SHAs' progress on all aspects of continuing care provision. Forthcoming Directions will introduce a legal framework for assessment for NHS fully funded continuing care.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to his Department of using management consultants has been in each of the last five years. [148020]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The cost to the Department of using management consultants in each of the last five years is shown in the following table:

  Cost (£ million)

  1998–99

  7.3

  1990–2000

  8.1

  2000–01

  6.5

  2001–02

  6.8

  2002–03

  7.2

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of mothers have access to a midwifery-led maternity unit. [148933]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Memory Clinics
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for a first appointment at a memory clinic from the time of recommendation by a consultant was in(a) England and (b) Dorset in each of the last two years for which figures are available. [148461]
  1066W
  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mental Incapacity Bill
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether a patient's wishes in the form of an advance directive will be included on the health space of an electronic patient record following legislation in the Mental Incapacity Bill. [144594]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service care records service (CRS) includes functionality for recording patient preferences, such as advanced directives. The specification included the requirement to ensure that the existence of patient preferences (including advance directives, for example, a "living will" or a religious requirement that blood transfusions are not to be given) shall be recorded and displayed, and the contractor shall ensure that clinicians are:alerted to the existence of a patient preference;
  advised to ask the patient to confirm its validity; and
  advised to record the patient's confirmation of its validity.

  Patient preferences can therefore be captured at the point of care on the relevant system. The patient will be prompted at the point of care to confirm that the advanced directive is still to be enforced—this is to avoid an out-dated statement of patient preferences being enforced (for example, if a patient changes his or her mind).

  The existence of the NHS CRS in no way prejudices a patient's rights under existing or proposed legislation.

  Microbiology
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many consultant microbiologist vacancies there were in the NHS in England on the last date for which figures are available, broken down by region; [147495]

  (2) how many new posts in medical microbiology have been created in the NHS in the past 10 years, broken down by region; [147496]

  (3) how many medical microbiology training posts there were in the NHS in England in each year since 1990. [147497]

  Mr. Hutton
  Vacancy data is collected by the Department of Health as three-month vacancies as at 31 March each year. These are vacancies which trusts are actively trying to fill, which have lasted for three months or more.

  Information showing the number of three-month microbiology and virology consultant vacancies as at 31 March 2003 in England, by strategic health authority has been placed in the Library.

  The Department does not collect data on the number of new posts in microbiology and virology. Workforce data are collected through the annual Department of Health medical workforce census. The census is a snapshot of data as at 30 September in the appropriate year. The information in the table shows the net increase in the number of staff in microbiology and virology since 1992.
  1067W
  Due to the variation in regional boundaries over the stated time period, between 1992 and 1997, a breakdown by national health service regional office has also been placed in the Library. Between 1998 and 2002, data is shown by government office regions.

  Between 1997 and 2002, staff increased by 22 per cent.

  The table shows the number of medical microbiology and virology training posts in England since 1990.

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): Doctors in training with a specialty in medical microbiology and virology; 1990–2002—England, as at 30 September

  Number (headcount)

  All training grades of which:

  Registrar

  Senior House Officer

  House Officer

  2002

  179

  162

  17

  —

  2001

  156

  143

  13

  —

  2000

  141

  121

  20

  —

  1999

  142

  131

  11

  —

  1998

  136

  125

  11

  —

  1997

  139

  125

  14

  —

  1996

  134

  124

  10

  —

  1995

  159

  145

  14

  —

  1994

  189

  176

  13

  —

  1993

  182

  163

  18

  1

  1992

  173

  159

  14

  —

  1991

  191

  175

  16

  —

  1990

  163

  146

  17

  —

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  NHS Estates
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what revaluations of the sites involved in the NHS Estates surplus property disposals have been carried out in the last six months; and when. [147754]

  Mr. Hutton
  A due diligence exercise, using its own independent valuers, has been undertaken by the preferred partner.

  NHS Trusts (Mergers)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) hospital trusts, (b) primary care trusts, (c) mental health trusts and (d) ambulance trusts have merged in each of the last six years. [145355]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of trusts involved in mergers with similar trusts to form the same type of trust is shown in the table. The distinction between 'hospital trusts' and 'mental health trusts' is not straightforward owing to a number of trusts providing a range of services.

  Ambulance NHS trusts

  Other NHS trusts

  Primary care trusts

  1997–98

  0

  8

  n/a

  1998–99

  0

  39

  n/a

  1999–2000

  8

  40

  n/a

  2000–01

  0

  22

  n/a

  2001–02

  0

  40

  0

  2002–03

  0

  36

  2

  North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken following the Griffiths report into the research framework at North Staffordshire hospital NHS Trust. [147507]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department takes very seriously the points made in the report about the importance of public safety, and of protecting children. The Department of Health, Home Office, Department for Education and Skills and the Welsh Assembly Government published "Safeguarding Children in Whom Illness is Fabricated or Induced" in August 2002. Paragraphs 6.46—6.51 provide guidance on the use of covert video surveillance and references the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000.

  This document was in response to the recommendation made within the Griffiths report to develop guidelines to assist the identification of children who have had illnesses feigned or induced by a carer within the framework of "Working Together to Safeguard Children (1999)", the Government's inter-agency guidance on child protection. It was the subject of public consultation prior to being published in 2002.

  We have also taken a number of steps to strengthen research and clinical governance systems, not necessarily as a direct result of the findings of the Griffiths report. For example:

  We have established the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) to focus our efforts to improve patient safety in the national health service and to run a new national reporting and learning system for patient safety incidents. The reporting system will be implemented across the NHS during 2004.

  NHS staff will be able to report adverse incidents and "near misses" affecting NHS patient care to the NPSA, so that patterns and trends can be identified and lessons learnt in one part of the NHS can be properly shared with the whole of the health service.

  The NHS Plan set out a review of consent procedures to ensure that good practice in seeking consent for both treatment and research is in place throughout the NHS. In November 2001, "The Good Practice in Consent Implementation Guide: Consent to Examination or Treatment", was published, containing a model consent policy and consent forms.

  In the summer of 2000, the Department set up the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees to improve the support provided for multi centre research ethics and local research ethics committees.

  The Department published the Research Governance Framework in March 2001, aimed at continuous improvements and the reduction of unacceptable variations in research practice across health and social care. The Department has been monitoring NHS trusts' compliance with the framework since its publication.

  In its 2002–03 annual research and development report, North Staffordshire hospitals reported satisfactorily on compliance with the research governance framework targets for March 2003 and that it was either already compliant or on target with the research governance

  1069W
  framework targets for March 2004. Actual compliance with the March 2004 targets will be assessed in the 2003–04 annual research and development report.

  The Department has commissioned a substantial audit of the use of continuous negative extrathoracic pressure at the University hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust (formerly North Staffordshire hospital NHS Trust). This is still on-going. The results will be published when the audit is completed.

  Nurses
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) district nurses, (b) community nurses and (c) midwives there were in (i) St. Helens, (ii) Merseyside, (iii) the North West and (iv) England in each year since 1992. [147171]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified community nursing by each specified group in England, the North West regional office area, Cheshire and Merseyside and the St. Helens and Knowsley Health Authority area as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount

  England

  North West1

  Cheshire and Merseyside2

  St. Helens and Knowsley HA3

  1992

  Community nursing

  32,797

  4—

  4—

  229

  District nurses

  11,013

  4—

  4—

  54

  Midwives

  29,553

  4—

  4—

  163

  1993

  Community nursing

  33,384

  4—

  4—

  234

  District nurses

  10,888

  4—

  4—

  52

  Midwives

  29,439

  4—

  4—

  151

  1994

  Community nursing

  33,866

  4—

  4—

  216

  District nurses

  10,015

  4—

  4—

  50

  Midwives

  28,638

  4—

  4—

  144

  1995

  Community nursing

  40,566

  4—

  4—

  339

  District nurses

  13,793

  4—

  4—

  78

  Midwives

  22,022

  4—

  4—

  120

  1996

  Community nursing

  43,137

  6,116

  2,126

  331

  District nurses

  14,248

  2,248

  752

  78

  Midwives

  22,595

  3,782

  1,221

  113

  1997

  Community nursing

  44,710

  6,227

  2,212

  350

  District nurses

  14,150

  2,263

  740

  63

  Midwives

  2,385

  3,703

  1,173

  102

  1998

  Community nursing

  46,953

  6,608

  2,308

  356

  District nurses

  14,260

  2,254

  764

  57

  Midwives

  22,841

  3,613

  1,161

  91

  Community nursing

  48,828

  7,043

  2,270

  328

  1999

  Community nursing

  48,828

  7,043

  2,270

  328

  District nurses

  14,258

  2,175

  701

  51

  Midwives

  22,799

  3,633

  1,289

  118

  2000

  Community nursing

  50,877

  7,308

  2,483

  337

  District nurses

  14,452

  2,150

  696

  51

  Midwives

  22,572

  3,553

  1,309

  119

  2001

  Community nursing

  55,275

  8,180

  2,878

  380

  1070W

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified community nursing by each specified group in England, the North West regional office area, Cheshire and Merseyside and the St. Helens and Knowsley Health Authority area as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount

  England

  North West1

  Cheshire and Merseyside2

  St. Helens and Knowsley HA3

  District nurses

  13,510

  1,963

  673

  49

  Midwives

  23,075

  3,674

  1,265

  121

  2002

  Community nursing

  57,975

  9,161

  3,181

  350

  District nurses

  12,184

  2,126

  727

  62

  Midwives

  23,249

  3,833

  1,276

  118

  1 1995–2001 data are based on Government Office Region areas, 2002 data is based on staffing figures for Q13 Greater Manchester SHA, Q14 Cumbria and Lancashire SHA, Q15 Cheshire and Merseyside SHA

  2 1995–2001 figures are based on QDC Wirral HA:, QC7 Sefton HA, QC2 Liverpool HA, QC5 St. Helens and Knowsley HA, QCW South Cheshire, HA and QCV North Cheshire HA and for 2002 Cheshire and Merseyside SHA.

  3 Figures for St. Helens and Knowsley HA for 2002 are based on RBN St. Helens and Knowsley NHS Trust, 5J3 St. Helens PCT and 5J4 Knowsley PCT.

  4 Accurate comparable information is not available.

  Notes:

  1. A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995. Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years.

  2. Community nursing includes nurses employed in community learning disabilities, community psychiatry and community services excluding district nurses.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census

  Procurement Outsourcing
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's procurement policy with regard to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing; whether his Department is outsourcing IT and call centre jobs to offshore companies; to which countries his Department has outsourced these jobs; how much his Department has spent on this outsourcing in each of the last two years; and how much has been budgeted for this purpose for the next two years. [147584]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department's procurement policy is based on value for money, having due regard to propriety and regularity and the requirements of the European Union Treaty, including the principle of non-discrimination, the European Community procurement directives and the United Kingdom's international obligations.

  The Department has not outsourced any information technology or call centre services to offshore companies and there are no current plans to do so.

  Smoking
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ban smoking in public places. [148551]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) on Monday 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 209W.

  Sperm Counts
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on recent research from the Aberdeen Fertility Centre on sperm counts since 1989; what assessment he has made of links between harmful man-made chemicals in the environment and reduced sperm counts; and what steps his Department is taking to reduce exposure to harmful chemicals. [147231]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The research from the Aberdeen Fertility Centre has not been peer-reviewed or published, and has not been assessed by the Department. The Global assessment of the state-of-the-science of endocrine disrupters, by the World Health Organization (WHO) International Programme on Chemical Safety concluded in August 2002 that,"although an extensive review of the published data suggest that there could be temporal and geographical variation in human sperm production, it is not possible to conclude that the phenomenon is real and, if so, to what extent reductions in sperm count may affect fertility. The data should he interpreted with caution."
  The WHO assessment also concluded that,
  "Analysis of the human data by itself, while generating concerns, has so far failed to provide firm evidence of direct causal associations between low-level (i.e., levels measured in the general population) exposure to chemicals and adverse health outcomes".

  The Government research programme on trends in male reproductive health and the possible influences of occupational or environmental (or other) exposure to chemicals includes two studies on sperm counts. One is a study of Scottish male reproductive health (Medical Research Council Reproductive Biology Unit, Edinburgh). The other (which is co-funded with the European Chemical Industries Council) is a United Kingdom multi-centre study of occupational and environmental exposure to chemicals and male fertility (Universities of Manchester and Sheffield). The results will be published in due course.

  The Government's chemical strategy was published in December 1999 and is available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/chemicals/ukstrategy.htm. Its main goals are to: phase out chemicals posing an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment as soon as possible; reduce as far as possible the risks posed by chemicals that are essential in our everyday lives, thus finding a balance between protecting health and the environment and retaining the socio-economic benefits that many chemicals provide; and make full information publicly available about the environmental and health risks of chemicals.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms are in place to monitor progress made by(a) strategic health authorities and (b) primary care trusts in reducing waiting times for diagnostic testing. [147270]

  Mr. Hutton
  Waits for diagnostic services are not recorded nationally.

  The Government is committed to improving access to diagnostic services and the Department is working in partnership with strategic health authorities (SHAs)
  1072W
  and other stakeholders to secure a more responsive service. Each SHA is responsible for developing and implementing local improvement programmes for diagnostic services and to monitor progress against any locally agreed objectives.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by the Changing Workforce Programme in redesigning the roles of diagnostic staff to reduce waiting times. [147271]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Changing Workforce Programme is supporting the development of a number of roles designed to help the National Health Service provide speedier access to high quality services.

  In particular, the roles of assistant practitioner and advanced practitioner will help reduce waiting times for radiography services. An accelerated development programme is supporting the implementation of these roles across a network of hospital trusts. To date, 81 assistant practitioners in radiography are in training or scheduled to receive training in 2004, while 79 trainees are working towards advanced practitioner status.

  It is anticipated that the majority of plain film imaging will be performed by assistant practitioners under the supervision of qualified radiographers. This will release radiographers' time and allow them to focus on more complex issues, thus increasing service capacity. Once the assistant practitioners are fully trained, further data will be collected to evaluate the impact on waiting times and access to services.

  The appointment of advanced practitioners in diagnostic areas such as computer tomography imaging, trauma imaging and gastro-intestinal imaging, has already contributed to a reduction in waiting times. For example, at one site, the waiting time for a barium enema has been reduced from 30 weeks to one week since advanced practitioners have been performing this procedure.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average wait was for patients to be seen by their own general practitioner in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion were seen within 48 hours. [147511]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data are collected on availability of access to primary medical services rather than actual waiting times. Information for November 2003 shows that 94 per cent. of the population was able to be offered an appointment to see a general practitioner within two working days.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the programme protection strategy used by the Pension Service to prevent pension credit fraud since October 2003. [147828]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The programme protection strategy used to prevent loss in minimum income guarantee was reviewed to ensure its continued effectiveness once pension credit was introduced in October 2003.
  1073W
  The review concluded that the strategy would continue to address those areas where fraud could occur in pension credit.

  The strategy and introduction of pension credit presents opportunities for improved protection at the gateway during the teleapplication process and for making use of all our contacts with customers to help them get their applications correct from the outset. The use of intelligent questioning, targeted visits and contacts with customers based on established risk, and effective internal and external data matching, all support the prevention of pension credit fraud.

  Positive efforts made in driving down the loss and the legislative changes introduced for pension credit have contributed towards the achievement of the Service Delivery Agreement target to reduce fraud and error overpayments to pensioners by 20 per cent. by March 2006.

  Measurement of fraud and error in pension credit commenced in October 2003 and we expect to publish results for the first full year's data in July 2005. In the interim we will be undertaking an early examination of cases found to be incorrect so that we can refine the programme protection strategy as necessary.

  Casual Appointments
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employees have been employed on 13-week casual appointments in his Department in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [147816]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department generally only employs people on casual appointments in order to fulfil a short term need. The information required is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Children Leaving Care
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of children who had been in local authority care were unemployed in the September after leaving school in each of the last five years. [147332]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is not available.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the cost of the new council tax benefit in the first full year of operation; and how it compares to the cost of the old council tax benefit, using the same methodology for the calculations. [146689]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Council tax benefit expenditure for 2003–04 is forecast to be £3.4 billion, and for 2004–05 to be £3.8 billion. However, on 15 December 2003, we announced reforms of council tax benefit, which included the abolition of restrictions for people living in band F, G and H properties. This is anticipated to take place from April 2004, with an expected additional cost of £6.5 million per annum benefiting 21,000 claimants.

  Departmental Relocation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff in his Department work in(a) the West Midlands and (b) north Staffordshire. [146914]

  Maria Eagle
  The number of staff working in the West Midlands and north Staffordshire is shown in the following table.

  DWP Staff

  West Midlands

  11,844

  North Staffordshire

  726

  Notes:

  1. Figures show headcount and are consistent with Cabinet Office definitions other than for the inclusion of staff on paid maternity leave.

  2. Figures include temporary staff.

  Euro
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in how many speeches during 2003 he declared support for the Government's policy on the euro. [147296]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply the Financial Secretary gave him on 12 January 2004,Official Report, columns 516–17W.

  Former Soviet Citizens
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether former Soviet citizens resident in this country qualify for the UK state pension; and if he will make a statement. [148718]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The UK State Pension is payable generally to people who have paid or who are deemed to have paid sufficient National Insurance contributions while working and residing in this country.

  Therefore, former Soviet citizens can only start to acquire entitlement to a UK State Pension from the time they become resident in the UK.

  Income Support Claimants
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if his Department will provide individuals claiming income support which is paid into their bank account with documentary proof of their receipt of benefit so that they can apply for discounts and reduced rates for leisure and other services. [148866]

  Mr. Pond
  People receiving benefit that is paid into a bank account can use their initial award notifications as documentary proof of entitlement. Alternatively, customers can obtain evidence confirming their entitlement from the Department; for example, Jobcentre Plus provide customers with locally produced forms.

  Local Housing Allowance
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the local housing allowance will be extended from the nine Pathfinder authorities to all local authorities. [R][146690]
  1075W
  Malcolm Wicks
  There will be a comprehensive evaluation of local housing allowance Pathfinders including interviews with claimants, landlords, local authority staff and stakeholder organisations, as well as an analysis of administrative data. This is already underway.

  The findings of the evaluation will inform decisions on the national extension of the allowance. It is envisaged that local housing allowance will be extended to all local authorities in 2006.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reasons the local housing allowance applies only to the de-regulated private sector. [R][146691]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We hope to implement a flat rate housing benefit system in the social sector, similar to that anticipated in the private rented sector to enable people in that sector to benefit from the choice and flexibility that the reforms can provide. We aim to extend our reforms to the social rented sector as soon as rent restructuring and increased choice have created an improved market.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how the rent of those tenants whose rent is higher than the local housing allowance will be paid; [R][146692]

  (2) whether there will be a hardship payment to prevent the eviction of those tenants whose rent is higher than the new local housing allowance. [R][146693]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Tenants whose rent is higher than their local housing allowance will be expected to make good the difference with their landlord. This is no different to what happens under existing rules. During the Pathfinder stage, no claimant will be worse off financially at the point of change as they will be covered by a form of transitional protection.

  There will not be a hardship payment to tenants whose rent is higher than their local housing allowance. Tenants will have the choice to shop around and look for a cheaper property in such circumstances.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the nine Pathfinder local authorities for local housing allowance will fully implement the new system. [R][146694]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The nine Pathfinder authorities will implement the new housing allowance using one of two different approaches—a "big bang", or a "phased". Under both approaches, all new claims made after the start date will go directly on to local housing allowance.

  Under the "big bang" approach, all existing claims will be converted to housing allowance on the authority's start date. However, the local authority can delay the change on payments to tenants for up to six months.

  Under the "phased" approach, exiting cases will be converted gradually over a 12 month period. Conversion will be triggered either by a change in the tenant's circumstances, or when a referral to the rent officer would have become due under the housing benefit system.
  1076W
  The table shows the start date for each of the pilot authorities together with the approach they have chosen to adopt.

  Local Authority

  Start date

  Approach

  Blackpool

  17 November 2003

  Phased

  Lewisham

  1 December 2003

  Phased

  Coventry

  12 January 2004

  Phased

  Teignbridge

  12 January 2004

  Phased

  Brighton

  2 February 2004

  Big Bang

  Edinburgh

  9 February 2004

  Big Bang

  NE Lincolnshire

  9 February 2004

  Big Bang

  Conwy

  9 February 2004

  Phased

  Leeds

  9 February 2004

  Phased

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on the criteria used to set the local housing allowance in each area; [R][146695]

  (2) how often local housing allowance will be reviewed; and what methodology will be used to calculate the new level. [R][146696]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Rent Officers in each Pathfinder area will look at a range of properties and rents in that area. Excluding exceptionally high and exceptionally low rents to avoid distortion, Rent Officers will identify the lowest and highest rents for a property type, add them together and divide by two. This will give the local housing allowance for that property type in that area.

  Rent Officers will review the local housing allowance levels on a monthly basis to ensure they remain accurate reflections of average rents in an area. However, an individual claimant's entitlement will only be reviewed annually or where there is a change of circumstances.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the estimated cost is of local housing allowance in the first full year of operation; and what the equivalent cost of housing benefit would have been using the same methodology for the calculation. [R][146697]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is estimated that the Local Housing Allowance Pathfinders will cost an additional £20 million in their first year of full operation. Information on the forecasted equivalent cost of housing benefit is not available.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect of local housing allowance on rent restructuring in the de-regulated private rental sector. [R][146698]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The programme of rent restructuring applies only to the social housing sector and not to the de-regulated private sector.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how local housing allowance will be adjusted to take into account improvements that are carried out to an individual property. [R][146699]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Local housing allowance will not depend on the individual rent or the type of property occupied by a claimant. It will be based on a standard amount for similarly suitable properties in that area for the size of the claimant's household.
  1077W
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the landlord will be able to apply to have local housing allowance paid directly to him in circumstances when the tenant is likely to abscond with the allowance. [R][146700]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Landlords can make representations to receive direct payment if they believe that a tenant will not use their housing allowance to pay their rent. Landlords have the right of appeal if the authority decides to continue to make payment directly to tenants. Each of the Pathfinder authorities has held meetings with local landlords to explain how the housing allowance will work.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of(a) the change in the number of homes available to rent to those in receipt of local housing allowance and (b) the change in the number of empty homes as a result of the introduction of local housing allowance. [R][146701]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We do not expect there to be any significant change in the number of homes made available to rent to those in receipt of local housing allowance, or an increase or decrease in the number of empty homes as a result of the introduction of the local housing allowance. However, both will be monitored as part of the comprehensive evaluation of the Pathfinders.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements are being made in each of the Pathfinder local authority areas to house tenants who have to move from the private to the public sector because of the introduction of local housing allowance. [R][146702]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The local housing allowance was launched in Blackpool on 17 November and Lewisham on 1 December 2003. Coventry and Teignbridge both introduced the housing allowance on 12 January this year. The remaining five authorities will be going live during February this year. So far there has been no evidence of tenants having to move from the private to public sector. However, we will monitor this as part of the comprehensive evaluation of local housing allowance Pathfinders, which will include interviews with claimants, landlords, local authority staff and stakeholder organisations, as well as an analysis of administrative data; the evaluation is already under way.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what advice the Department is offering those tenants who get into financial difficulties following the introduction of local housing allowance; and what the estimated cost is of the provision of that advice. [R][146703]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Pathfinder authorities are being given an additional £540,000 towards the cost of providing financial management advice to claimants. Pathfinders are working directly or in co-operation with voluntary agencies, such as the Citizen's Advice Bureau, to provide advice on financial management. This is in addition to existing support mechanisms offered by welfare organisations, and loans and advice available from Jobcentre Plus.
  1078W
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how local housing allowance will be paid; and what arrangements will be made for those tenants who do not have a bank account; [146704]

  (2) whether the tenant will be reimbursed for any overdraft fee paid as a result of late payment of local housing allowance into a bank account. [146705]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As for tenants who currently receive direct payment of housing benefit, payments of the local housing allowance will be made by cheque or a bank transfer. Pathfinder authorities will assist tenants with advice on how to obtain bank accounts.

  It is entirely a matter for local authorities to decide whether to reimburse for any overdraft fee incurred as a result of late payment of local housing allowance into a bank account. Local authorities will be able to process local housing allowance claims more quickly than current housing benefit claims, and our aim will be to prevent late payments.

  New Deal
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the number of young people in(a) West Cumbria and (b) Copeland who have benefited from the New Deal; and if he will make a statement. [148010]

  Mr. Browne
  The New Deal for Young People has been successful in helping over 460,000 young people into work, including 1,160 people in the Copeland constituency. Figures for West Cumbria are not available; however, 4,910 young people in the Jobcentre Plus Cumbria district have been helped into work by New Deal for Young People.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have entered the employer option under the New Deal for Young People in each year since 1997, broken down by ethnicity; how many people have entered the full-time education and training option under the New Deal for Young People in each year since 1997, broken down by ethnicity; and if he will make a statement. [147815]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is in the tables.

  New Deal for Young People: Starts to employment option, broken down by ethnicity

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20031

  White

  12,580

  16,650

  13,950

  10,650

  10,130

  5,190

  Black-Caribbean

  220

  330

  250

  160

  180

  70

  Black-African

  90

  110

  100

  80

  80

  50

  Black-Other

  100

  140

  100

  90

  60

  30

  Indian

  130

  230

  170

  150

  120

  60

  Pakistani

  260

  390

  300

  240

  210

  100

  Bangladeshi

  80

  120

  90

  100

  80

  30

  Chinese

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  10

  Other

  170

  230

  200

  170

  180

  120

  Prefer not to say

  330

  630

  520

  360

  290

  190

  Missing2

  570

  300

  70

  20

  10

  0

  1079W

  New Deal for Young People: Starts to full-time education and training option broken down by ethnicity

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20031

  White

  24,300

  32,480

  24,600

  14,320

  16,800

  14,600

  Black-Caribbean

  840

  1,440

  1,000

  750

  880

  740

  Black-African

  690

  1,070

  680

  710

  1,040

  930

  Black-Other

  420

  610

  430

  330

  360

  290

  Indian

  410

  590

  360

  250

  300

  220

  Pakistani

  890

  1,200

  1,000

  800

  880

  720

  Bangladeshi

  260

  380

  230

  190

  240

  210

  Chinese

  70

  90

  80

  50

  60

  50

  Other

  700

  1,230

  1,110

  1,090

  1,840

  2,190

  Prefer not to say

  810

  1,730

  1,250

  820

  750

  730

  Missing2

  90

  60

  20

  10

  0

  0

  1 To September.

  2 It, has only been compulsory to record ethnicity on the Jobcentre Plus Labour Market System (LMS) since the spring of 2002, and some ethnicity codes were not recorded before then.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many participants on New Deal for Young People in the Chesterfield constituency have been placed on training courses for(a) up to one year and (b) over one year in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [147819]

  Mr. Browne
  In the 12 months to September 2003,70 people started on the New Deal for Young People (NDYP) Full-Time Education and Training Option in Chesterfield.

  It is the policy of New Deal for Young People that nobody should be placed on an NDYP Full-Time Education and Training course for longer than a year.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many participants have joined the New Deal for Young People(a) once, (b) twice, (c) three times and (d) more than three times, broken down by ethnicity; and if he will make a statement. [147820]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is in the following table:

  New Deal for Young People: Number of times people have joined the programme broken down by ethnicity

  Ethnic group

  Once

  Twice

  Three times

  More than three

  White

  485,660

  119,620

  28,400

  5,000

  Black-Caribbean

  13,380

  5,060

  1,470

  260

  Black-African

  12,270

  2,980

  690

  130

  Black-Other

  6,340

  1,990

  490

  70

  Indian

  11,970

  2,190

  450

  60

  Pakistani

  20,670

  5,080

  1,180

  190

  Bangladeshi

  7,440

  1,610

  330

  50

  Chinese

  1,420

  230

  40

  10

  Other

  25,120

  4,440

  990

  170

  Prefer not to say

  27,730

  5,390

  1,050

  190

  Missing

  6,590

  70

  10

  0

  Total

  618,620

  148,640

  35,080

  6,110

  Note:

  Figures are to the end of September 2003.

  Source:

  DWP Information and Analysis Directorate.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North East on 16 December 2003, reference 145191, which was transferred to his Department by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. [148472]
  1080W
  Mr. Pond
  I replied to the hon. Member's question on 13 January.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of expenditure on the(a) guarantee credit and (b) savings credit in (i) 2003–04, (ii) 2004–05 and (iii) 2005–06. [145981]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  £ million

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Guarantee credit

  4,730

  4,710

  5,160

  Savings credit

  350

  1,020

  1,000

  Total

  5,080

  5,720

  6,160

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on latest published forecasts, published in the pre-Budget report on 10 December 2003.

  2. Figures for 2003–04 include expenditure on the minimum income guarantee, prior to the introduction of pension credit. Minimum income guarantee expenditure is treated as guarantee credit. The 2003–04 guarantee credit figure also includes child elements of the minimum income guarantee totalling £50 million. These payments were replaced by child tax credits at the same time as the introduction of pension credit.

  3. Note that until October 2004, new claimants will be able to claim payment for entitlement dating back to October 2003.

  4. Figures are rounded to nearest £10 million.

  5. Due to rounding, figures may not sum exactly to totals.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many telephone inquiries on pension credit have been received in each of the last 12 months. [147692]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The table shows numbers of telephone calls received by the pension credit application line in each month since it became operational in April 2003. The application line primarily handles calls from customers about applying for pension credit, but also deals with other inquiry calls.

  Calls to pension credit application line—April to December 2003

  2003

  Calls received

  April

  20,810

  May

  32,750

  June

  60,240

  July

  118,220

  August

  181,860

  September

  427,900

  October

  482,780

  November

  318,280

  December

  193,900

  Total

  1,836,740

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the advertising budget is for the pension credit. [147693]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The marketing campaign for pension credit has been designed to be flexible and the level of expenditure may change according to need. However, it is currently estimated that media costs, including direct mailing, television and press advertising, will be in the region of £12 to £17 million, excluding VAT, to October 2004.
  1081W
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in(a) Cumbria and (b) Copeland are receiving pension credit; what percentage this represents of those entitled to pension credit in each case; and if he will make a statement. [148009]

  Malcolm Wicks
  At 31 December 2003 there were(a) 15,950 pensioner households (18,710 individuals) in Cumbria and (b) 2,300 pensioner households (2,739 individuals) in the Copeland constituency receiving pension credit. Information on numbers of households eligible for pension credit is not available at county or constituency level. However, the number of eligible households in the North West region is estimated to be 500,000. At 31 December 2003 there were 289,000 pensioner households (344,000 individuals) in the North West region receiving pension credit.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how often his Department revises the standard interest rate used to calculate the mortgage element included in the pension credit. [148863]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The standard interest rate is based on the weighted average of the basic rates charged by the top building societies. A change is triggered whenever the average rate which is published monthly by the Office for National Statistics increases/decreases by 0.25 per cent. or more.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many whole-time equivalent staff were employed by the pension credit helpline in the most recent month for which figures are available. [148969]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Pension Credit application line is resourced in line with forecast levels of activity. At 5 January the application line had approximately 1,300 whole-time equivalent staff handling customer contacts. This is expected to rise to approximately 1,400 whole-time equivalent staff by late March.

  Pension Credit Helpline
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many calls were received by the pension credit helpline in the most recent month for which figures are available. [148971]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Pension Credit application line received approximately 193,900 calls in December 2003.

  Pensions (Order Book Payments)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements were made for pensioners with order books whose pension fell due on Christmas Day 2003; and when they were able to receive that payment. [148970]

  Mr. Pond
  The arrangements agreed with the Post Office for Christmas Day 2003, gave pensioners (women aged 60 and over, men aged 65 and over) the option of encashing the order book payments dated 25 December,1082W
  up to a week early, (i.e., on or after 18 December). Post Office were open for normal business hours, up to and including 12.30 p.m. on 24 December.

  Pensions (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Warrington North have(a) applied for and (b) been awarded the pension credit; and what the average increase in income is per pensioner. [148250]

  Malcolm Wicks
  At 31 December 2003 there were 3,426 pensioner households (4,151 individuals) in the Warrington North constituency receiving pension credit. Information on the number of pension credit applications in individual constituencies is not available. The average weekly rate of pension credit awards in Warrington North is £41.19. Information on the average amount gained by pensioners in individual constituencies, since the introduction of pension credit, will become available following publication of the November 2003 Quarterly Statistical Enquiry on 17 March 2004.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much his Department has spent on advertising the availability of Winter Fuel Payments. [147771]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In the region of £625,000 was spent on national and regional press and consumer magazine advertising throughout the 2003–04 Winter Fuel Payments campaign.

  A wide variety of publicity in other forums was also undertaken to support this advertising.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what studies his Department undertook to find the most effective way of informing people about their eligibility for Winter Fuel Payments. [147772]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department uses a wide range of research on how to reach older people when formulating its communication strategies.

  We develop communications in partnership with representative groups such as Age Concern, National Pensioners Convention and Citizens Advice. We have built on our experiences from past years of paying Winter Fuel Payments using communication channels appropriate to our customers.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Scotland are(a) eligible for the £300 winter fuel payment for the over eighties and (b) have received it this winter. [148753]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Analysis of payments made this winter is not yet available and therefore it is not possible to say how many payments were made to households including someone aged 80 or over. Nor have we data to establish how many households include someone who is aged 80 or over and would be eligible for a winter fuel payment of £300.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Thames Gateway
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress since the announcement of the Thames Gateway Communities plan; how much public money has been spent; how much private sector capital has been committed; how much land has been acquired; how much land will be acquired; and over what timescale. [148199]

  Yvette Cooper
  I am pleased to be able to report substantial progress in the Thames Gateway even since my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham announcement in July.

  Delivery is the key to the Thames Gateway. The new UDC for Thurrock is now established and Chair and Board appointed, consultation on the London UDC will end on 6 February and new partnership bodies for the other growth areas in the Gateway are now in place. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects the new Gateway Office to be operational shortly.

  The Thames Gateway expenditure programme provides £446 million over the three years commencing 2003–4. Projects worth £330 million have been accepted in principle for funding, and some £50 million worth of projects have been formally approved. These range from land acquisitions in London's Lower Lea valley, to affordable housing schemes with the Housing Corporation, a new lifelong learning centre for Barking, University campus expansions at Southend and Medway, and environmental Green Grid initiatives across South Essex and North Kent. In addition to this, the Regional Development Agencies, English Partnerships, the Housing Corporation and Highways Agency are also undertaking projects which make a major contribution to the Gateway, including Barking Reach, Chatham Maritime, A 13 improvements and anew Swale Crossing.

  Outline planning applications have been submitted for the key private sector developments at Stratford City and Ebbsfleet. These schemes alone represent private sector investment approaching £7 billion.

  The Strategic Rail Authority confirmed shortly before Christmas that it will be proceeding with plans for domestic services on the Channel Tunnel Rail link as part of the new Integrated Kent Franchise, and more recently, my right hon. Friend Member for Edinburgh Central, has announced that he is offering financial support for the Thames Gateway Bridge, the proposed new river crossing in East London. Both are strategic projects which will strengthen the platform for new development, and will help to consolidate private sector confidence and involvement.

  There are no targets for land acquisition in the Gateway; the need for land assembly by the public sector will be determined by market strength and interest. To date, funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister budget for land acquisitions is being pursued for projects in the Lower Lea for new mixed-use development, and in Sheppy, to promote new housing.
  1084W
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many houses have been built under plans for the development of the Thames Gateway communities; how many are social housing; how many houses are planned to be built; and how many will be social housing. [148201]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government's policy for the development of sustainable communities in Thames Gateway and the Growth Areas was set out in "Creating Sustainable Communities: Making It Happen" in July 2003. The most recent annual house building figures for local authority areas contained within the Thames Gateway are for the 2002–03 financial year. Local authorities and the national house building council report a total new build of 7,865 houses for this period, of which 1,077 are social housing. It should be noted that these figures are totals for local authorities in Thames Gateway, but that some local authority areas fall only partially within the designated Thames Gateway region.

  "Creating Sustainable Communities: Making It Happen" set a target for the Thames Gateway of the development of 120,000 new homes over the period to 2016, which is 40,000 above current planning targets. Projects worth £300 million were approved in July as part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's new Sustainable Communities funding package. These include funding for new affordable housing.

  The Government do not set annual targets centrally for local authorities on either affordable or social housing. Planning policies for affordable housing are set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 3, "Housing", and in Circular 6/98, "Planning for Affordable Housing". They advise that where local planning authorities are able to demonstrate a lack of affordable housing to meet local needs, based on up-to-date surveys and other data, they should indicate in their local plan how many affordable homes need to be provided throughout the plan area, and set indicative targets for specific suitable sites (expressed either as numbers of homes or a percentage of the homes on the site). Local planning authorities should be monitoring their performance against their local plan policies and targets, but this information is not collected centrally.

  Arms Length Management Organisations
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been set aside for the funding of newly constituted arms length management organisations for(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [148730]

  Yvette Cooper
  Allocations for Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) are made in two-year tranches. £300 million has been allocated to eight local authorities setting up ALMOs under Round 1 of the programme for 2002–04, £383 million to 12 local authorities under Round 2 for 2003–05, and £360 million to 13 authorities under Round 3 for 2004–06. Allocations for Round 1 ALMOs for 2004–05 and later have yet to be decided.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish the results of the arms length management organisation ballots in those local authorities where votes have taken place this year. [148731]
  1085W
  Yvette Cooper
  The results of ballots on Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) proposals held to date by local authorities awarded places on Round 3 of the ALMO programme in 2003, or applying for places on Round 4 in 2004, are tabled as follows. The results of ballots held under Rounds 1 and 2 were given in my reply to the hon. Member for Colchester on 15 September 2003,Official Report, column 602W.

  Percentage

  Local authority

  Turnout

  In favour

  Not in favour

  ALMO Round 3

  Camden

  30

  23

  77

  High Peak

  60

  98

  2

  Islington

  27

  85

  15

  Sheffield: Brightside and Shiregreen

  42

  78

  22

  Sheffield: Central Area

  47

  87

  13

  South Lakeland

  65

  88

  12

  ALMO Round 4

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  40

  81

  19

  Birmingham Urban Development Plan
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether Pedimore, Sutton Coldfield, has been removed as a major investment site for the West Midlands region in accordance with the independent Inspector's report into the Birmingham Urban Development Plan. [148011]

  Yvette Cooper
  Peddimore is identified as a Major Investment Site in my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's Proposed Changes to Draft Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) for the West Midlands. The Proposed Changes were subject to a public consultation period, which closed on 12 December 2003.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is now considering responses to the Proposed Changes. He is aware of the Inspector's report on the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan, and this will form part of his consideration. I cannot comment further on the Proposed Changes at this stage.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether Bassetts Pole, Sutton Coldfield, has been removed as a major investment site for the West Midlands region in accordance with the Inspector's report into the Birmingham Urban Development Plan. [148012]

  Yvette Cooper
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's Proposed Changes to Draft Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) for the West Midlands were prepared before the UDP Inspector's report was published, and state:"the principle of a premium employment site at Bassetts Pole is contained in the adopted Birmingham Unitary Development Plan, the alterations to the UDP have identified a specific site".

  The Proposed Changes were subject to a public consultation period, which closed on 12 December 2003.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is now considering responses to the Proposed Changes. I cannot comment further on them at this stage.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will raise the single person discount on council tax for single pensioners from 25 per cent.; and if he will make a statement. [148231]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to change the single persons discount for pensioners. Not all pensioners are on a low income and council tax benefit exists to help those that are. Steps are being taken to ensure that those who are eligible, including many pensioners, do take up their entitlement. We are also removing the current restriction on council tax benefit for those living in band F, G and H homes from next April.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to reduce the number of older people receiving court summonses for non-payment of council tax, with particular reference to cases where they were entitled to full council tax benefit and the only reason for the arrears was the delay in processing their claim. [148232]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This is a matter for each individual billing authority, but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would expect authorities to take account of whether there was a likely entitlement to benefit in considering enforcement action.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of properties there are in each council tax band in each local authority area. [148733]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is available in the Library of the House.

  Council Tax Disabled Bands
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of changes to the disabled band council tax reduction on current recipients; and if he will make a statement. [147972]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government has made no changes to the disabled band reduction. It is for each individual billing authority to decide whether a property qualifies for Disabled Band Reduction when deciding entitlement, taking into account case law. An appeal against a decision can be made to the Valuation Tribunal.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many properties are in receipt of council tax disabled band reductions. [147973]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As at 3 November 2003 local authorities have reported that about 121,000 properties in England were subject to a reduction in their council tax band under the Council Tax (Reductions for Disabilities) Regulations 1992.

  Dwellings (Conservation Areas)
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the recently announced proposals to free up land for development relate purely to councils blocking applications for housing schemes in conservation areas;
  1087W
  and whether they apply to single dwelling developments in the curtilage of other single dwellings in conservation areas. [147887]

  Yvette Cooper
  The recent reports suggesting that my right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, was proposing to remove the planning powers of local councils to prevent new building in the countryside are untrue. My right hon. Friend has made no such announcement, and has no such plans.

  This press speculation appears to have been based on the draft of a new Planning Policy Statement (PPS7), "Sustainable Development in Rural Areas". The draft was published for public consultation in September 2003 by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It sets out proposed national planning policies to deliver sustainable rural communities by focussing most new development on towns and villages, and through strict control over new development in the open countryside. Draft PPS7 proposes that local planning authorities should adopt criteria-based policies in development plans for the location and design of rural development, rather than rely on locally designated landscape protection areas. It would remain for local planning authorities in the first instance to determine planning applications, having regard to these and other relevant policies.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is now considering the responses to the consultation draft. The views expressed will help inform the final version of PPS7.

  Finance (Lancashire)
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what additional money(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley have received from his Department in each of the last three years, expressed in (i) monetary and (ii) percentage terms, using 2000–01 as a baseline. [148426]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Grant issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and its predecessor departments for Lancashire and Chorley in the last four years is tabled. Monetary and percentage increases using 2000–01 as a baseline are also shown:

  £ million

  Increase from 2000–01 (£ million)1

  Percentage increase from 2002–01 (£ million)1

  Lancashire

  2000–01

  628.2

  2001–02

  644.5

  16.3

  2.6

  2002–03

  650.6

  22.4

  3.6

  2003–04 (a)

  712.4

  84.2

  13.4

  Chorley

  2000–01

  5.7

  2001–02

  5.9

  0.2

  3.7

  2002–03

  6.1

  0.4

  7.6

  2003–04 (a)

  6.7

  1.0

  17.9

  1 The figures have not been adjusted.

  Note:

  Includes Revenue Support Grant, Redistributed Non-Domestic Rates, Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (from 2001–02 onwards).

  Source:

  RS forms 2000–01 to 2002–03, RG forms 2001–02 to 2002–03, RA 2003–04 form and RA(SG) 2003–04 form.

  Budgeted figures.

  Fire Sprinklers
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what measures he has taken to improve fire safety using fire sprinklers; [148864]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the merits of compulsory installation of fire sprinklers in (a) commercial properties and (b) leisure facilities. [148865]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is keen to improve fire safety by all reasonable means and sprinklers are part of a package of measures that can be used in buildings.

  Since 1992, guidance supporting the fire safety aspects of the Building Regulations, which apply to most building work forming new and altered premises in England and Wales, has suggested the provision of sprinkler systems is necessary in commercial and leisure properties over certain area or height thresholds.

  This was expanded in 2000 when the guidance was revised to set a limit of 2000m2 for the size of any fire compartment in a single storey retail building, beyond which a suitable sprinkler system should be provided. This applies to new and extended retail buildings.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also nearing the completion of a detailed study into the effectiveness of sprinkler systems in tackling fires in residential properties. The results of this work are being fed into the further development of national standards by the British Standards Institution (BSI) and are forming part of our considerations of the current review of the fire safety aspects of the Building Regulations. The results of that work will shortly be publicly available enabling those involved with fire safety in buildings to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the benefits of residential sprinkler systems. During this review of the Building Regulations we will also be considering the role that sprinklers can play in all buildings and deciding whether the current thresholds in the guidance should be amended or indeed new ones introduced.

  In the meantime, our Community Fire Safety programme continues to inform people of the risks associated with fire and the measures which can mitigate against its occurrence and subsequent effect, such as the use of fire detection and alarms and sprinkler systems. This programme has already been effective in reducing fire deaths and injuries from accidental fires.

  Housing
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what quantity of land in the Thames Gateway needs to be re-allocated from employment uses to housing or mixed use to meet the Government's aspirations for delivering 120,000 additional houses by 2016. [149185]

  Yvette Cooper
  The figure of 120,000 is drawn from discussions on development capacity with local planning partners during the preparation of the Gateway initiative, and reflects both existing planning allocations for development and local perspectives on further capacity. Work is now under way with Regional
  1089W
  Planning Bodies to agree the detailed distribution of this growth, and prepare for its incorporation into Regional Strategic Statements.

  Development in the Gateway focuses on its substantial reservoir of redundant and brownfield land, most of which will have originally been used historically for industrial and employment use. However, economic renewal is a parallel priority for the Gateway in order both to provide a stronger economic base for existing communities, and meet the employment needs of new residents. The area remains an important industrial and commercial location in the South East, and collectively the Gateway ports are the largest in the country. Retention and renewal of appropriate and good quality employment land to meet the needs of the local economy therefore remains important. The planning exercise now under way will therefore also be taking into account the appropriate future balance of housing and employment land.

  Housing (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many planning applications for housing in Chorley have been approved in each of the last five years. [148223]

  Yvette Cooper
  The number of planning applications for housing in the borough of Chorley approved in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Applications approved

  1999

  91

  2000

  58

  2001

  71

  2002

  69

  2003

  67

  Total (January 1999 to December 2003)

  356

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much land has been allocated for the next 10 years for new housing in Chorley. [148224]

  Yvette Cooper
  The adopted Chorley borough Local Plan Review allocates 100 hectares of land for housing for the period up to 2006. This figure excludes the former Royal Ordnance Factory site at Euxton, which is also expected to contribute 500 dwellings during the plan period, on the part of the site lying within Chorley borough.

  Upon commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, Chorley borough council will be required to prepare a Local Development Framework to replace the Local Plan Review. In doing so the council should have regard to the annualised rates of average housing provision set out in Regional Planning Guidance for the North West, as applied by the emerging Lancashire Structure Plan. That currently proposes an annual rate of housing provision for Chorley in the period 2006–16 of 210 dwellings per year, net of clearance.

  Housing (North Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received on affordable housing in North Yorkshire. [147208]
  1090W
  Yvette Cooper
  In 2003, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister received correspondence from the hon. Member and from Mr. Peter Annison, Chair of the Richmondshire Local Strategic Partnership, about affordable housing in North Yorkshire. Affordable housing in North Yorkshire featured in comments on the draft regional housing strategy in Spring last year, and is an issue identified in the sub-region's local authorities' housing strategies. The subject also features in Government Office discussions with North Yorkshire housing authorities, and the Government Office has received representations about funding for a project developed by Esk Moors Action for the Elderly. The North Yorkshire Housing Forum has submitted to the Regional Housing Board three proposals for different types of affordable housing for funding through the Board's 'transformational proposals' commissioning strand, for schemes to start in 2005–06.

  Housing Strategies
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on how older people are involved in planning for housing strategies; and if he will make a statement. [148237]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not commissioned any research on the involvement of older people in planning for housing strategies. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will, however, be supporting the work of the Housing for Older People Development Group (HOPDev), which will be examining older people's involvement in housing strategies as part of its programme of work for the coming year.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he intends to take to ensure that council tenants are given information on the case for and against the large scale voluntary transfer of council housing proposed by North East Lincolnshire council. [148067]

  Yvette Cooper
  Tenants should be involved from the outset in the consideration of stock options and have a central role in deciding which option is pursued. To assist tenants in this the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects them to have access to good independent advice from the start.

  Where housing transfer is the chosen option, the local authority should ensure that the information provided to tenants during the consultation process gives a full, fair and balanced picture of the implications of the proposed transfer as compared with staying with the council, so they can demonstrate that tenants have been properly consulted and informed.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how he intends to ensure that his undertaking to London council tenants on 27 November 2003 regarding the information to be given to tenants about the implications of stock transfer or the creation of arm's length management organisations is implemented in the light of the decision by Mr. Justice Munby in case CO/6212/2003. [148068]
  1091W
  Yvette Cooper
  The Communities Plan published in February 2003 made clear that council tenants must be fully informed and consulted at all stages in the process of appraising, choosing and implementing options for the future management and improvement of their homes. Tenants will have the support of Independent Tenant Advisers in this process. Effective tenant engagement is a key test for signing off the results of option appraisals and for giving approval for councils to implement these results. The information made available for tenants by their council and others at each stage should be sufficient to enable tenants to express an informed opinion.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many council houses were sold in each year since 1980; and how many houses were left in local authority ownership each year. [148279]

  Yvette Cooper
  The figures available for England are tabled as follows:

  Thousand

  Council house sales

  Right-to-Buy

  LSVT

  Other sales

  LA rented stock estimates1

  1979–80

  n/a

  n/a

  54

  4,764

  1980–81

  2

  n/a

  66

  4,798

  1981–82

  105

  n/a

  23

  4,819

  1982–83

  167

  n/a

  14

  4,660

  1983–84

  106

  n/a

  16

  4,561

  1984–85

  78

  n/a

  13

  4,511

  1985–86

  72

  n/a

  10

  4,439

  1986–87

  77

  n/a

  9

  4,366

  1987–88

  94

  n/a

  19

  4,277

  1988–89

  136

  11

  9

  4,134

  1989–90

  134

  14

  9

  3,991

  1990–91

  76

  45

  6

  3,899

  1991–92

  48

  11

  6

  3,844

  1992–93

  38

  26

  5

  3,760

  1993–94

  45

  30

  7

  3,666

  1994–95

  43

  40

  4

  3,565

  1995–96

  32

  45

  2

  3,470

  1996–97

  33

  21

  4

  3,401

  1997–98

  41

  33

  4

  3,309

  1998–99

  40

  74

  4

  3,178

  1999–2000

  54

  95

  3

  3,012

  2000–01

  52

  132

  1

  2,812

  2001–02

  52

  35

  1

  2,708

  2002–03

  63

  166

  1

  2,457

  1 Up to 1988–89 stock data at 31 December, thereafter at 31 March.

  Local Government (Employment)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the change has been in the number of local government employees since 1997. [148443]

  Phil Hope
  Figures for Great Britain, which are available in an article published in 'Economic Trends' (September 2003), show that between 1997 and 2002 there was an increase of 148,000 in the total general local government employment category.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the report by Professors Blanchflower and Oswald on Calculating an Appropriate Regional Funding Adjustment for Worcestershire, commissioned by Worcestershire county council; and if he will make a statement. [148037]
  1092W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government will carefully consider the points made in Worcestershire county council's response to the consultation on the provisional local government finance settlement, alongside all others, as the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister takes the final decisions on the settlement.

  Local Government Planning
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government will press local authorities reviewing the potential for re-allocating excess employment land to consider the option of withdrawing sites from their development plans, with particular reference to those which are identified as low priority for development according to the sequential approach set out in PPG3. [149190]

  Yvette Cooper
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: "Housing" (PPG3), requires local planning authorities to review all their non-housing allocations, including those for employment, and consider whether some of this land might better be used for housing or mixed use developments.

  In July 2003, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published a consultation document, "Supporting the Delivery of New Housing". This proposes to add new policy to PPG3 requiring local planning authorities to consider applications for housing development favourably on allocated industrial and employment sites. It highlighted the need to review employment sites and to identify those which no longer need to be retained for employment uses. Such sites would then be de-allocated at the next review of the plan, and consideration given to whether the sites should be allocated for other uses. Whether such sites are suitable for housing will depend on how they perform against PPG3 policies, including the sequential approach.

  The consultation closed on 31 October 2003 and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering the responses received. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will publish the final policy, alongside practice guidance to help local planning authorities in reviewing employment land allocations, in due course.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the quantity of previously developed land that is(a) available for redevelopment and (b) likely to become available for redevelopment up to 2016. [149194]

  Yvette Cooper
  From the 2002 National Land Use Database of Previously Developed Land, an estimated 66,000 hectares of previously developed land are available for development in England. This includes both vacant and derelict land and land currently in use with known potential for redevelopment. New sites amounted to 14 per cent. of the 2001 stock of previously developed land. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not made any forecasts of future flows of land likely to become available for redevelopment.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Stewart report on mobile phone masts in relation to
  1093W
  PPG8, with particular reference to the recommendations of the report on main beam transmissions next to sensitive sites. [149182]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Stewart report recommended that all telecommunications development be subject to the planning process in order to improve local consultation. On 22 August 2001, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister strengthened public consultation requirements on mast proposals of 15 metres and below and for masts on buildings and structures so that they are exactly the same as applications for planning permission. The changes to the planning arrangements also underlined that school governors must be consulted on all proposals for new masts on or near a school or college.

  The Stewart Report also recommended that an independent random, on-going, audit of base stations be carried out to ensure that exposure guidelines are not exceeded. Ofcom (formerly the Radiocommunications Agency) is undertaking the audit, which has been running since December 2000 and has focused on school sites. The results have shown emissions ranging between several hundred to many thousand times below the public exposure guidelines set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

  Planning
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many, and what percentage of recommendations from inspectors called in dealing with(a) planning appeals and (b) applications he overturned in each year since 1997. [148484]

  Yvette Cooper
  This information is only available for decisions taken since 1 April 2002 by the new Planning Central Casework Division (PCCD) established in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on that date to take over work previously done predominantly by Government Offices, Information on decisions administered by PCCD since April 2002 is tabled:

  Year

  Total appeal decisions

  Inspector's recommendation overturned

  Total call in decisions

  Inspector's recommendation overturned

  2002–2003

  124

  5 (4%)

  59

  12 (20%)

  2003–20041

  179

  16 (9%)

  72

  8 (11%)

  1 First three quarters

  In relation to decisions made before the setting up of PCCD, the available information (which does not distinguish between called in applications and appeals) is tabled:

  Year

  Secretary of State decisions

  Inspector's Recommendation overturned

  1999–2000

  184

  13 (7%)

  2000–01

  189

  22 (12%)

  2001–02

  180

  13 (7%)

  2002–031

  64

  17 (26%)

  2003–041

  5

  2 (40%)

  1 First three quarters

  Comprehensive information is not held centrally for the period April 1997 to March 1999, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  1094W
  1 These decisions are in respect of inquiries which closed before 1 April 2002.

  Planning Guidance
  John Mann
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what account planning authorities in England are required to take of(a) written departmental guidelines circulated to them and (b) ministerial speeches in Parliament. [147970]

  Yvette Cooper
  Written Departmental Guidance and Ministerial speeches in Parliament are capable of being material considerations which local planning authorities must take into account when exercising their planning powers (for both forward planning and development control purposes). Central Government policy may be communicated to local planning authorities in various ways (for example by written guidance or oral statements) and may be taken into account by a local planning authority, irrespective of the way in which it is communicated. The weight to be attached to it may vary, however, depending on how formally it is expressed.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance he has provided to local authorities on the incorporation of estimates for climate change into the definition of floodplain for planning purposes. [148281]

  Yvette Cooper
  The flood zones in the risk-based sequential test in Planning Policy Guidance note (PPG) 25 "Development and flood risk", which was published in July 2001, are based on Environment Agency mapping of the risks at the time of map preparation. This does not include any allowance for climate change. However, local planning authorities and developers are advised to take account of climate change in assessing the risks from flooding. PPG 25 recommends a minimum standard of flood defence that takes account of the allowances for climate change contained in the "Project appraisal guidance for flood and coastal defence", published by the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1999.

  Climate change allowances have been re-examined by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) following publication of new climate change scenarios in 2002. Further guidance was published by DEFRA in 2003, which does not differ in its essentials from that already cited in PPG 25.

  Property Revaluations
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research his Department has commissioned on the impact upon pensioners of the revaluation of properties in England in 2007; and if he will make a statement. [148235]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government acknowledged the criticisms of council tax in the 2001 White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership, Quality Public Services". Consequently the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has established the Balance of Funding review to consider possible reforms to the current arrangements. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has commissioned various research studies to inform the review including analysis of the potential impact of
  1095W
  revaluation on different regions and groups of council tax payers. The review will be considering proposals for change in the course of the next few months.

  Registered Social Landlords
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the registered social landlords under investigation by the Housing Corporation; and if he will make a statement. [148728]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Housing Corporation is responsible for some 2,000 registered social landlords in England. To comply with the Corporation's Regulatory Code, all registered social landlords provide the Corporation with financial and regulatory information. The Corporation conducts a range of regulatory reviews as part of its routine regulatory exchanges. The Corporation has statutory powers to direct an inquiry into the affairs of a registered social landlord. There is currently only one such inquiry under way, into Solon Wandsworth Housing Association Ltd.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from registered social landlords on allowing them to exceed the cap in relation to the rent increases set down in the Government's rent restructuring policy; and if he will make a statement. [148729]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created in May 2002. Since this time, we have received four written representations from registered social landlords (RSLs) seeking a revision to the cap on rents of properties with the highest capital values which is incorporated into our rent restructuring policy. The current cap in 2003–04 ranges from £87.30 for a bedsit to £102.70 for a property with four or more bedrooms. For the small number of properties affected by this safeguard, the maximum increase in future years is set at Retail Price Index (RPI) plus 1 per cent. a year.

  As set out in our initial policy, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently conducting a three-year review of the policy, with the aim of completing this in the spring.

  Relationship Managers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 149W, on relationship managers, which authorities rated as weak in 2002 are involved in the on-going discussions with his Department over arrangements to accept assistance from his Department on a voluntary basis. [148072]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are discussing with Wolverhampton, Northamptonshire, Havering, Merton, Enfield, Milton Keynes and Nottingham, whether those councils would wish to develop their relationship with Government through a named official.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 149W, on relationship managers, what assessment was made of Trafford Metropolitan borough council's corporate capacity to improve; and what the outcome was of that assessment. [148073]
  1096W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Audit Commission carried out a corporate assessment of Trafford Metropolitan borough council published as part of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) of the authority in December 2002.

  The Audit Commission's corporate assessment team gave a rating for the council's overall ability to improve as two out of a possible four and their overall performance was assessed as 'weak'.

  Following the CPA assessment, the Audit Commission orchestrated an improvement planning process with the council, involving relevant representatives from government departments and inspectorates. This process established the priorities for improvement and agreed a co-ordinated and focused programme of follow up inspections based on the findings of the CPA assessment. Trafford Metropolitan borough council's priorities for improvement are set out in their Best Value Performance Plan, published in June 2003.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 149W, on relationship managers, what discussions have taken place with Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council following the comprehensive performance assessment; and whether he will appoint a relationship manager to improve Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council services. [148074]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since taking up his post in September 2003, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Director of Local Government Practice in the North-West has met with the Chief Executive of Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council on several occasions, as part of his broader brief. In particular, he has provided the council with advice on the availability of funding through the capacity building programme run jointly by the Government and the Local Government Association.

  Trafford have not requested that a Lead Official should be appointed.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 149W, on relationship managers, what criteria he used to distinguish between councils rated as weak in 2002 when considering the appointment of lead officials to work with councils. [148075]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Following the Audit Commission's Comprehensive Performance Assessment announcements in December 2002, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister appointed lead officials to engage directly to secure recovery in those authorities classified as 'poor' and those categorised as 'weak' with a corporate capacity score of one, indicating little scope for managing recovery.

  In addition, other councils classified as 'weak' can volunteer to develop their relationship with Government through a named official.

  Sandwell MBC v. Perks
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many properties he estimates will be affected by the judgment in the High Court Case R (Sandwell MBC)
  1097W
  v. Perks and the West Midlands (West) Valuation Tribunal (2003) EWH 1749 Admin; and if he will make a statement. [147974]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Entitlement to disabled band reduction is a matter for individual billing authorities. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister therefore has not estimated how many properties might be affected by this decision.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make available supplementary funding to local authorities which incur expenditure as a consequence of the judgement in the High Court Case R (Sandwell MBC) v Perks and the West Midlands (West) Valuation Tribunal (2003) EWH 1749 Admin. [147975]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of new build is required to be social housing for(a) rent and (b) shared ownership. [148424]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not set annual targets centrally for local authorities on social housing.

  Planning policies for affordable housing are set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 3, "Housing", and in Circular 6/98, "Planning for Affordable Housing". They advise that where local planning authorities are able to demonstrate a lack of affordable housing to meet local needs, based on up-to-date surveys and other data of local need, they should indicate in their local plan how many affordable homes need to be provided throughout the plan area, and set indicative targets for specific suitable sites (expressed either as numbers of homes or a percentage of the homes on the site).

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many council houses were sold in Chorley in the last five years; and how many properties remained in local authority ownership in each of those years. [148425]

  Yvette Cooper
  The figures reported by Chorley to the Office of Deputy Prime Minister and its predecessor departments are tabled as follows:

  Council house sales

  LA rented stock estimates at end of year

  1998–99

  35

  3,477

  1999–2000

  44

  3,437

  2000–01

  41

  3,393

  2001–02

  52

  3,367

  2002–03

  95

  3,271

  Sustainable Communities
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress since the announcement of the(a) Milton Keynes, (b) Ashford and (c) Stansted Corridor Sustainable Communities; how much public money has been spent; how much private sector capital has been committed; how much land has been acquired; how much land will be acquired; and over what timescale. [148203]
  1098W
  Yvette Cooper
  There has been considerable progress in the growth areas since the announcement in July 2002—"Creating Sustainable Communities: Making it Happen: Thames Gateway and the Growth Areas".

  Partners are well advanced in developing the £88 million worth of projects approved in July as part of the Government's Sustainable Communities funding package and we are on target to meet the £21.5 million allocated in this year's programme. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's further announcement of 14 January 2004 allocated an additional £63 million to a further 27 projects. £11.5 million has been allocated to schemes which will deliver new and improved strategic green spaces in the growth areas, including a new regional park in the Nene Valley, and a significant expansion of the Forest of Marston Vale in Bedfordshire. Over £50 million has been awarded to 18 other projects to provide key transport and economic infrastructure including new bridges and roads to access sites for 6,850 homes that would otherwise be blocked.

  The vast majority of development within the housing growth areas will be undertaken by the private sector but detailed information on each investment is not collected. In addition there will be major investment programmes on commercial sites—such as the £800 million programme for Central Milton Keynes, involving English Partnerships, Milton Keynes Council and a number of private investors. Many schemes funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are, however, designed to enable local partners to lever in specific private sector commitments to infrastructure by unblocking barriers to investment. In most cases negotiations are ongoing, but examples of match funding already committed include the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment of £10.6 million for road access to the Wellingborough East development site, which is matched pound for pound by Bovis Homes.

  There are no targets for land acquisition in the growth areas; the need for land assembly by the public sector will be determined on a case by case basis. Several of the projects for which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is already providing funding will facilitate the assembly of parcels of land for public benefit, such as the provision of affordable housing and community facilities (for example in Harlow), or high quality green spaces within or around the growth areas, as in Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire. The funding will also facilitate the remediation of heavily contaminated land and the preparation of sites for release to the private sector for development.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Government Departments are involved in plans for the development of the(a) Milton Keynes, (b) Ashford and (c) Stansted Corridor Sustainable Communities; and what commitments they have made. [148205]

  Yvette Cooper
  The July Statement—"Sustainable Communities: Making it Happen: Thames Gateway and the Growth Areas"—set out how growth area projects
  1099W
  would be taken forward across Government, with schemes including transport, health, education, sports and green spaces. For example, transport commitments include the £1.6 billion announced by Alistair Darling in July, and most recently the Department for Transport's Local Transport Programme announcement of December 2003, which included schemes worth £221 million across the three growth areas.

  A wide range of public agencies are involved. Bringing more agencies together with local partners to look at strategic infrastructure issues is the purpose of the Inter Regional Board being established for the Milton Keynes South Midlands growth area, which will hold its first meeting on 11 February 2004.

  Unfit Housing
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assistance is available for repairing structurally unfit houses owned by the(a) elderly and (b) disabled; and if he will make a statement. [148236]

  Yvette Cooper
  Local authorities have wide ranging powers under the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2004 to provide assistance for the repair, improvement or adaptation of any living accommodation in their area. Such assistance, which can be made available at the discretion of the authority, may be in any form, for example by way of a grant, loan or loan guarantee, and can be provided either directly by the council or through a third party. The Order provides that before using these powers the local authority must publish a policy setting out the range of assistance that they will make available.

  Funding for this assistance is available from an authority's single capital housing pot and in 2002–03 total local authority expenditure in England on housing renewal grants (excluding disabled facilities grant) was £259 million.

  Water Supply
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what additional water supply infrastructure is likely to be required for the additional homes proposed for the Thames Gateway up to 2016. [149184]

  Yvette Cooper
  Each water supply company produces a water resources plan that looks forward 25 years. The companies update their plans annually, which are then reviewed by the Environment Agency for consistency with its national and regional water resources strategies. The companies serving the Thames Gateway need firm estimates of growth to enable them to identify new water supply and disposal infrastructure requirements and factor these in to their business plans. Companies are therefore working in close liaison with local and regional planners and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to establish both infrastructure requirements and the scope for achieving water efficiency savings in the new homes through sustainable development. A summary of their final investment plans will be available in late April, but these will cover investment required to meet the totality of demand forecast in their areas not just that which is within the Thames Gateway.

  West Midlands Regional Planning
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he plans to publish the final version of the West Midlands Regional Planning Guidance. [148014]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently considering responses to the public consultation on my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's Proposed Changes to Draft Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) for the West Midlands. We hope to publish the final RPG in the spring this year.

  Wychavon District Council
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what account he took, in setting the revenue support grant for Wychavon District Council for 2004–05, of cost pressures on the council flowing from(a) administering the new local plan, (b) implementing the law on high hedges, (c) administering the Supporting People programme, (d) deregulation of building control services, (e) ending of Market Towns Initiative funding, (f) ending of Local Government On-Line funding and (g) compliance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000; [146549]

  (2) what account he took in setting the revenue support grant for Wychavon District Council for 2004–05, of cost pressures on the council flowing from (a) implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 on council property, (b) compliance with new legislation on homelessness, (c) provision for migrant workers, (d) changes to insurance premiums, (e) audit and inspection fees, (f) implementation of new licensing arrangements, (g) provision of recycling and waste services and (h) increases in employer contributions to pension funds; [146550]

  (3) what account he took, in setting the revenue support grant for Wychavon District Council for 2004–05, of cost pressures on the council flowing from (a) the requirement for more consultation with the community to improve local accountability and community leadership, (b) the administration of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, (c) further requirements for dealing with stray dogs, (d) administration of the standards regime for regulation of district and parish councils, (e) the need to have the financial capacity to improve following Comprehensive Performance Assessment inspection and (f) the requirement to develop a cultural strategy. [146555]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's proposals for the funding of local authority revenue spending in 2004–05 take into account the cost pressures and new burdens on local government identified with the Local Government Association in the context of the Spending Review 2002, which set the spending plans up to 2005–06. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has added to those totals to reflect additional pressures and new burdens since the announcement of Spending Review 2002. Additionally, Wychavon District Council has received specific grants for certain items identified by the hon. Member, for example from the Waste Recycling Challenge Fund.
  1101W
  The Government's proposals for 2004–05 provide for an increase in total general grant of £2.4 billion or 5.5 per cent. Wychavon District Council would receive an increase of £5.6 million or 4.2 per cent. on a like-for-like basis compared with 2003–04.
  1102W
  Most Government funding to local authorities is paid through general grant and is for councils to allocate in line with their statutory duties, their priorities and the wishes of their electorate.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Overseas Surveillance Officers
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint)
  Article 40 of the Schengen Convention sets out the basis for cross border surveillance by police officers from member states. Subject to a Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council decision authorising the United Kingdom to begin applying the relevant provisions of the Schengen Acquis, we have decided that in strictly pre-planned operations, and on a basis of full reciprocity, overseas surveillance officers should be able to travel armed by sea or rail to the UK, but not by air.

  Foreign Officers would not be able to carry their firearms beyond the confines of the port or rail station at which they arrive. The purpose of this agreement is to allow for continuing, without putting officers at additional risk, the surveillance of a dangerous individual leaving the UK or of one coming to the UK who will then be followed from the port by armed UK surveillance teams.

  Each foreign officer will require authority from the Home Secretary to carry firearms under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, and an import licence. Before an authorisation is given to allow the carriage of firearms, the operation will be risk assessed by a UK police officer of at least Assistant Chief Constable rank.

  Foreign officers on urgent operations under Article 40(2) of the Schengen Convention will not be able to carry firearms in any circumstances.

HEALTH

  NHS Foundation Trusts
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  The Secretary of State has decided to support the applications of 24 NHS trusts in becoming NHS foundation trusts.

  The applications will now be sent to the office of the independent regulator. The final decision on whether a trust can become an NHS foundation trust rests with the independent regulator.

  The NHS trusts concerned are:

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  Basildon & Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Trust

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  Countess Of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  Doncaster & Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Trust

  Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust

  50WS

  Guy's & St Thomas Hospital NHS Trust

  Homerton University Hospital NHS Trust

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust

  North Tees & Hartlepool NHS Trust

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Devon & Exeter Health Care NHS Trust

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospital Services NHS Trust

  Stockport NHS Trust

  The Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  The Royal Marsden NHS Trust

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Communications Review
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  The full report of the independent review of Government communications, chaired by Bob Phillis, has been published today. The Minister for the Cabinet Office is grateful to the review for its work and consideration of these issues.

  The Report builds on the Review Team's interim report published in the summer. The Government accepted the interim report's recommendations. Central to the process is the appointment of a new Permanent Secretary, Government Communications, which the Cabinet Office is currently in the process of recruiting.

  Departments have the responsibility to devise and implement communications operations and strategies appropriate to their needs. Bearing this in mind, the new Permanent Secretary will take forward, in consultation with Departments, recommendations relating to a redefinition of the overall role of Government communications, the structures necessary to deliver this activity and the improved training and development of all communications specialists.

  The Permanent Secretary will also consider whether the existing rules and guidance are fit for purpose and whether any additional clarification is required. We note the Committee's conclusion on ministerial involvement in the selection processes for communications professionals which will be taken forward in discussions already underway with the Civil Service Commissioners.

  The Government also agree that it must communicate with the public in the widest possible way, including greater use of regional briefings and electronic communications. It will look at how Departments' websites could be better coordinated and structured to encourage greater public participation in the development and communication of Government policies.

  The Government remain committed to the principle, reflected in the Ministerial Code, that when the House is sitting announcements of Government policy should, in the first instance, be made in Parliament. It agrees that

  51WS
  more Ministers should host lobby briefings and that these should be open and televised. The Government will now enter into discussions with the relevant public authorities, including Parliament, and the Parliamentary Lobby, on how best to pursue these proposals.

  The Government also note the review's recommendations on the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. A great deal of work is going on to ensure that departments are fully prepared for the legislation which comes into force on 1 January 2005 and the Government are fully committed to ensuring full and effective implementation of the Act across the whole of the public sector. The review's recommendations will be taken into account as part of this implementation process.

  On the use of statistics, the Government welcome the review's acknowledgement that some important steps have been taken to reinforce the independence of the statistical service. The Government note the review's recommendations on access to pre-release national statistics. Under the National Statistics Code of Practice and its associated protocol on release practices, issued in September 2002, there are already long-established and effective procedures in place to restrict early access to certain data to a small number of Ministers and officials, so that they are able to provide an authoritative response when questions arise at the time of release. There are no plans to change this.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Falkland Islands
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  Air links between the Falkland Islands and the South American mainland are the subject of two understandings reached between HMG and the Argentine Government, under a sovereignty umbrella (which protects both sides' positions on the question of sovereignty). Following the UK/Argentine Joint Statement of July 1999, LAN Chile resumed their weekly flight between Punta Arenas (in southern Chile) and the Falkland Islands. Once a month this flight makes a stopover in each direction in Rio Gallegos (in southern Argentina). In February 2001 a further understanding was signed to permit private flights. Under these arrangements aircraft, including Argentine aircraft, can undertake private flights between Argentina and the Falkland Islands. These arrangements continue in place and are unaffected by developments set out below.

  In recent years there have also been a number of charter flights to the Falkland Islands, mostly originating in Chile and servicing tourist cruise ships. These charter flights are not covered by either of the two understandings described above. They require permission to use Argentine airspace between Chile and the Falkland Islands. Until this season Argentina has not raised any difficulties with these charter flight authorisations, though it had periodically indicated that it would wish to review the situation at some point.
  52WS
  On 3 November 2003, without warning, Argentina announced the suspension of permission for charter flights to use Argentine airspace and proposed that a scheduled air service between Argentina and the Falkland Islands by an Argentine carrier be put in place. The weekly LAN Chile scheduled flight was not affected by this announcement.

  We made clear to Argentina that while we were prepared to enter into discussions about ways of building on existing arrangements for air links between the Falkland Islands and the South American mainland, any future arrangements must be acceptable to the Falkland Islanders, and that the Falkland Islanders were not prepared to accept a scheduled service by an Argentine carrier. We also made clear that such discussions needed to take place against the backdrop of charter flight authorisations proceeding normally.

  Regrettably, despite considerable efforts it has not been possible to reach agreement with the Argentine Government on opening talks on air services on acceptable terms. This means that there is little prospect of charter flights to the Falkland Islands being authorised to overfly Argentine airspace for the rest of this tourist season. Unless such an understanding can be reached with the Argentine Government, it seems likely that charters for the next tourist season will also be affected. Falkland Island Councillors have been kept fully informed of our exchanges with the Argentine Government.

  The cancellation of the charter flights will obviously have some negative impact on the tourist industry in the Falkland Islands. However, Falkland Islanders believe that there are principles at stake here which outweigh short term economic costs. We respect and agree with that view. Argentina is fully aware of our position and we hope that an acceptable arrangement can be reached in the interests of all parties to resolve the charter flight issue.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Emission Trading Scheme
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  I have today issued a consultation paper "EU Emissions Trading Scheme—UK Draft National Allocation Plan for 2005 to 2007", which invites views from individuals and organisations on the Government's proposals for allocating allowances to participants in the first phase of the EU scheme and on a number of operational issues.

  The EU emissions trading scheme will start in 2005 and will establish the world's largest ever market in emissions allowances. The scheme is the most significant measure in the EU climate change programme. Its objective is to reduce, in the most cost effective way, EU emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to the problems associated with global warming. The Government stated in last year's Energy White Paper that the scheme will be a central plank of its future emissions reductions policies. The scheme will regulate the carbon dioxide emissions of up to 10,000 installations across the EU including those in the power

  53WS
  generation, mineral oil, iron and steel, mineral and pulp and paper sectors. Approximately 1,500 UK installations are expected to be within the scope of the scheme which are responsible for about 50 per cent. of total UK emissions of carbon dioxide.

  The Government is firmly committed to its national goal of moving towards a 20 per cent. reduction of carbon dioxide by 2010. The initial allocation of allowances for the first phase of the scheme is consistent with an overall reduction in UK carbon dioxide emissions of 16.3 per cent. The overall level of allowances to be allocated for the second phase, which runs from 2008–2012, will be strengthened to be consistent with the trading sector's contribution to achieving the 20 per cent. goal.

  The consultation documents explain the decisions that the Government has taken in the light of responses to earlier consultation. In particular it explains how the
  54WS
  total quantity of allowances has been calculated, how these allowances are to be distributed between each of the industry sectors covered by the scheme in 2005–2007, how sector totals are to be distributed between individual installations and the proportion of allowances to be allocated each year. They also set out proposals for allocating allowances to new installations and for dealing with plants which close, including making use of the auctioning provision to distribute any unused allowances set aside for new entrants.

  Each EU member state is required to draw up a draft national allocation plan for submissions to the European Commission by the end of March 2004. Consultation will run until Friday 12 March. The Government will be holding a consultation seminar and meetings with individual sectors of industry during the consultation period to discuss the proposals. Following this the draft national allocation plan will be refined to take account of comments made during consultation before it is submitted to the European Commission.

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

Zimbabwe: British Food Aid
Lord Watson of Richmond Lord Watson of Richmond asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements exist for the distribution of British food aid in Zimbabwe now that the country has withdrawn from the Commonwealth.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, Zimbabwe's withdrawal from the Commonwealth has had no effect on the levels of humanitarian funding or the way in which British food aid is distributed. The UK Government remain committed to supporting the people of Zimbabwe, who are suffering as a result of their government's disastrous policies, erratic rainfall and HIV/AIDS. DfID continues to work in close collaboration with the UN World Food Programme and NGOs to ensure that food distribution is carried out in an apolitical manner and targets those in most need.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply and for her clarification. Does the Minister not agree, however, that there is a real danger that Zimbabwe out of the Commonwealth can also be Zimbabwe out of the public eye? Given the complete apparent failure of all attempts to persuade Mr Mugabe to follow another course, including the so-called "too little, too late" sanction on his financial assets held abroad, has not the time now come for the international community in the Commonwealth and beyond to consider new and tougher measures with regard to Zimbabwe, if that country is to avoid ruin and the world is to avoid the danger that Zimbabwe seriously begins to destabilise South Africa itself?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, and in particular the view that Zimbabwe out of the Commonwealth could mean Zimbabwe out of the public eye. We have a responsibility in the international community to ensure that that does not happen. Noble Lords have pressed the Government several times with respect to the issue of a UN resolution, and we have taken soundings on that. The temperature is not right for it at this point in time, but I agree with the noble Lord that the international community really has to continue to put pressure on Zimbabwe.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the current appeal for vulnerable Zimbabweans by the UN World Food Programme has fallen short by 40 million dollars? Is she aware that, as a result, in this month the World Food Programme can feed a totally inadequate diet to only 3.2 million people and cannot feed a further 300,000 people at all? Britain has been very generous in this matter, but can the Government try to find some more money? Can they encourage Germany, Japan and other countries to do the same thing?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The WFP appeal for Zimbabwe is currently 80 per cent funded, with a shortfall of some 39 million dollars. However, I have to tell my noble friend that we are hopeful that the shortfall will be reached, in the sense that we expect an announcement from the European Commission shortly. We are continuing to monitor the situation and, if it continues to deteriorate, I assure my noble friend that we shall look again at our own contribution.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the local churches in Zimbabwe were disturbed at the directive last year that gave local councillors a leading role in deciding who would get food aid? Does she know whether the subsequent understanding negotiated with the Zimbabwean government, which precludes such political interference, has been honoured?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my understanding is that that memorandum of understanding between the World Food Programme and the Government of Zimbabwe has been honoured. There have been one or two minor incidents that have been dealt with promptly, but the kind of political interference that the Government of Zimbabwe tried to introduce into the system has not occurred.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, will the Government give particular support to the women of Zimbabwe on 14 February, St Valentine's Day, when they take to the streets to protest at the situation in which their families find themselves? On that particular day, very vocal and high-profile government support would be enormously helpful and supportive to them.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The women of Zimbabwe are under particular pressure. We all know how difficult it is to see families and children go hungry. We shall continue to do all we can with respect to the humanitarian situation. Of course, we are one of the only countries that continues to give support with respect to HIV/AIDS problems in Zimbabwe.
Lord Laing of Dunphail: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that Mr Mugabe, considering the destruction that he has caused in that great country, could be embraced by the title of a "weapon of mass destruction"?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have all agreed that Mr Mugabe's policies have been disastrous for Zimbabwe and for the people of Zimbabwe. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the way in which the noble Lord has phrased his question.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, has the Minister read the reports about the collapse of the currency in Zimbabwe and the difficulty of paying local aid workers there? Could she elaborate on what is happening to ensure that aid workers who are trying to get food aid into the country are being paid and that the food is, therefore, getting through to the people?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is quite right. Inflation is rife and this is one of the reasons behind the increase in the number of Zimbabweans who require additional food support. People can no longer afford to buy food in the shops. With respect to the impact on the pay of aid workers, I was not aware that this is a particular problem. I shall take this information away and write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Amos for confirming that the situation is kept under constant review. Is she aware—I am sure that she is—of the reports over the weekend of grave food shortages in South Africa itself? A drought is affecting the whole of the region and we must not allow distaste for the Mugabe regime to deflect us from making sure that the aid programme is carried out to the fullest extent.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. This is an issue that affects southern Africa as a whole, although Zimbabwe has suffered disproportionately because of disastrous economic policies. We are keeping the situation across the whole of southern Africa under review.

Iraq War: Strategic Communications Networks
2.43 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether strategic communications networks functioned satisfactorily during the Iraq war.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, overall our communications equipment worked well in Operation TELIC, as outlined in the recent National Audit Office report. The Bowman personal role radio was a great success. However, the rigorous lessons process conducted by my department has identified that the very high level of information exchange requirements between the United Kingdom and the Gulf, coupled with the very dynamic operational situation, meant that there were occasions on which
836
the maintenance of strategic communications links proved challenging. However, these difficulties did not significantly affect the overall outcome of operations.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he not agree that if the strategic tasks set out in Essay 2 of the last Defence White Paper are to be discharged, effective—indeed, perfect—strategic communications are essential? Can he now give an answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, in the recent defence debate? Will there be someone in the Ministry of Defence who is specifically charged with ownership—that is to say, responsibility—for communications between home and expeditionary forces?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, about the importance of strategic communications in a conflict such as this. It is important to realise what the NAO said. which was that,
"the majority of communications equipment worked well on the operation, although the force sometimes had difficulty maintaining strategic communications between United Kingdom and units in theatre".
There was a difference between the Gulf conflict of 1991 and last year's conflict. The total information exchange requirement was increased by a factor of at least eight. It is not surprising that things did not go perfectly, but I repeat that, on balance, they went entirely satisfactorily and I can confirm that there will be a position in the Permanent Joint Headquarters that will be responsible for dealing with the issue of strategic communications.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the Minister has said that the Bowman personal radio worked well. When are the Bowman's other functions going to come on line?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the personal role radio worked extraordinarily well. That, as the noble Lord knows, is for platoon level. It was a huge success; so much so that our American allies bought a large number for their own soldiers' use. The noble Lord refers to the Bowman tactical secure voice and data system and I am happy to say that, as I speak, the in-service date of 31 March this year will be met.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, although the NAO report is favourable, can the Minister say whether this is due mainly to the terrain in Iraq, which is extremely favourable to radio communications? If we were in an area such as the Balkans the Clansman would not have performed as well. What is being done to improve the range of the Clansman?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not in a position to talk about terrain. I do not have the noble Lord's intimate knowledge of the difference of terrain between Bosnia and Iraq. All I can say is that communications worked well.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, will the Minister explain why there was no training and initially no cryptographic equipment accompanying the OSCA strategic communications system? What problems were encountered in fitting the strategic communications systems into the current communications structures?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as I understand it, there was training. A considerable amount of training was put into effect before the OSCA system began to be operated. Prior to deployment, personnel received training on all elements of OSCA, which as the noble Lord knows, is the operational and strategic communications architecture, which covered the strategic communications in this case. The training was conducted by a mixture of civilian and military courses and was supplemented by having subject matter experts available in theatre. As the noble Lord knows, we had some experience of using similar equipment in other theatres such as Bosnia and Afghanistan.
On the second part of the noble Lord's question, we are planning to introduce the Cormorant system from May 2004, which will provide, crucially, an in-theatre command and control information infrastructure, thus avoiding the need for what is described as flubbing in the United Kingdom.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Minister has emphasised the importance of strategic communications. Can he tell us the extent to which those communications are dependent on satellites that are neither owned nor controlled by the British Government? To what extent does that influence our strategic policy?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we do of course rely on satellite communications, and we have for many years. The satellite communications that we relied on in this case worked well, and their strategic links were enhanced by using a combination of military and commercial resources. We are content that we have as much control over these satellites as we require for military purposes.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the Minister said that strategic communications were multiplied by eight times compared with those for the previous Gulf War. Surely the one thing that commanders want is not people from Downing Street or the Ministry of Defence chattering up the lines; they want to get on with it. What possible use can there be in increasing communications eight times, except possibly looking for body armour?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not think that it was people chattering from Downing Street or wherever else the noble Earl said; I think it was commanders on the ground and commanders at headquarters in theatre wanting to talk to and exchange information with those who commanded the Armed Forces in this country. The reason why there is so much more communication now than before is that it is now so
838
much easier. It is critically important, as I hope the noble Earl will agree, that at a time of expeditionary warfare, many thousands of miles away from the United Kingdom, we should be able to use all modern technology to enable commanders to talk to commanders.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
2.51 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will respond to the report of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee on the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, in particular regarding the recommendation that the powers which allow foreign nationals to he detained potentially indefinitely should be replaced as a matter of urgency.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I refer my noble friend to the reply which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, on 18 December:
"The Committee has used the provisions"—
within the Act—
"to specify that the whole of the Act be considered when we come to debate its renewal. We will, of course, provide the House with the opportunity to do that".—[Official Report. 18/12/03; col. WA171.]
While we are considering the report's recommendations carefully, we believe that the Part 4 powers are a necessary and proportionate response to the current threat.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the whole House will of course welcome the Government's tough stance against terrorism. However, does my noble friend accept that detaining people indefinitely without charge is a denial of many of this country's most important traditions? Will the Government consider as a matter of urgency dropping the ban on the use of intercepted communications material in courts, as has been done in the United States, as the best way forward in dealing with this aspect of a very difficult problem?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say straightaway to my noble friend that we have never at any stage suggested that the situation in which we find ourselves is ideal; it is not. However, by using this legislation we have tried to behave in a proportionate and appropriate way so as to ensure that the interests of the people of this country are put first. I hear what my noble friend says about intercepted information and the best way of dealing with that. Noble Lords will know that we are considering the response to the committee's report. We shall in due course take these matters into consideration also.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, while appreciating the way in which the Minister has replied

839
to the noble Lord's Question, I am struck by the fact that the Question is not just about procedure; it does indeed concern human rights. Is the Minister able to give reassurances that any legislation on detaining foreign nationals will be matched against that wider arena of human rights? Will she also reassure us that that valuable, even golden quality of restraint will figure in the way in which this government policy is worked out?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am certainly more than happy to reassure the right reverend Prelate on that golden quality of restraint, and I hope that noble Lords will have seen clear evidence of it in the way in which we have approached the SIAC proposals. The monitoring of that procedure has been absolutely rigorous, and we shall continue to ensure that that is right. Noble Lords will know that consideration has been given also to whether any of the foreign nationals can be sent back to their own country, because we consider the issues in relation also to Article 3 and so on. All those matters are extremely complex and difficult. The Government will continue to be proportionate and appropriate in the way that we respond to them.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, in declaring an interest as a member of the review committee, I wonder whether the noble Baroness is aware that the Government—in the shape of her right honourable friend the Home Secretary—attacked the committee's conclusions almost simultaneously with its publication in respect of Part 4, which is the subject of the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Does the Minister agree that as well as fixing an early debate in the House to discuss the committee's conclusions, a preceding period of quiet consideration by the Government might be appropriate?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I hear what the noble Lord says in relation to attacks on the committee. However, my right honourable friend's comments should not be thus interpreted. My right honourable friend was quite clear. He complimented the committee for its sterling work. He made it clear that we are going to consider all the recommendations. However, it was only right and proper that we should indicate in relation to Part 4 that the reasons that caused us to create this legislation, regrettably and somewhat tragically, still pertain. The security of this country and its citizens will always remain at the forefront of the Government's consideration.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I worked at Bletchley Park during the war? One of the good things about Bletchley is that we never cackled. I hope that she will bear that in mind before adopting the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble Baroness that we will be as careful as she would wish.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as a member of the committee. Does my noble
840
friend agree that, in relation to her previous remark, nothing in the committee's report suggested that security should be downgraded in any way whatever? However, there were recommendations about whether Part 4 was the appropriate way in which to safeguard the security of this country. I should be grateful for her confirmation of that. Equally. perhaps she could clarify something that she said in her reply regarding the Section 123 provisions which many noble Lords will remember. I think she suggested that the committee said that we would want the other provisions of the Act—many of which have nothing to do with terrorism—debated at the time of renewal. In fact the report specifies very clearly that it should be separate from that. Can she confirm that the Home Office recognises that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I am very happy to confirm to my noble friend that the committee did not suggest that the security of this country should be jeopardised in any way. The committee made various comments about Part 4. I hope I made it clear that in his response my right honourable friend did not fail to take the committee's recommendations into consideration, but made it clear that, from the Government's point of view, the level of threat that pertained in the past had not decreased so as to make us confident that the changes which my noble friend suggests are appropriate.
As for Section 123, I take on board what my noble friend says—that the committee recommended that there should be two separate debates on those matters. Those matters are for the usual channels to determine, as I know she knows only too well.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not clear that risks of terrorism can arise both from citizens of this country as well as from foreign nationals? Does the Minister agree that both categories should be dealt with by due process of law, which is not the case at present?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I join issue with the noble Lord—certainly both categories need to be determined appropriately. However, I hope that no one in your Lordships' House will forget that the whole reason why we have Part 4 of the ATCS Act is to provide an immigration power that allows the Home Secretary to detain a foreign national whom he reasonably believes to be suspected as an international terrorist, whose presence in the United Kingdom is a risk to national security, but who cannot currently be removed from the United Kingdom. Those individuals fall into a very specific category. and that is our difficulty.
As for ensuring that those individuals have access to legal representation, I hope that noble Lords will accept that they have very generous access to legal representation and can make proper challenges to their detention, as they have in fact done.
Lord McNally: My Lords, perhaps I can ask the Minister and indeed the Home Secretary to reread the committee's report and the debate on the Bill's Third

841
Reading in this House. They will see that there were considerable misgivings in the House about letting through Part 4. It was passed only because of assurances that such a committee would conduct such a review. In the light of that, does she not think that the Government should give proper consideration to these recommendations and realise that, as when the Bill was passed, there are very real concerns that, in the war against terrorism, we may indeed be losing the liberties that we are supposed to be defending?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have taken those matters into consideration. Each and every recommendation of the committee's review will be considered, so noble Lords can rest assured on that matter.

Head Teachers: Recruitment
3 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the shortage of well qualified applicants for head teacher posts, what action they propose to take to ensure that these posts are appropriately filled.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, in January 2003, over 99 per cent of head teacher and deputy head teacher posts in maintained schools in England were filled. The vacancy rates for both heads and deputies were lower than at any time since the Government came to power. Through the work of the National College for School Leadership, professional headship training is now being offered to more serving and prospective school leaders than ever before.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, but is there not something seriously wrong when Education Data Surveys has just reported that 40 per cent of all headships in the south-east had to be re-advertised—they were advertised at least twice and some of them more often—and that in the country as a whole 30 per cent of all primary headships and 25 per cent of all secondary headships had to be re-advertised? Do not the Government recognise that their own policies of interfering in the day-to-day management of schools, the heavy bureaucratic burden that they have placed on schools with regulations as well as a punitive regime of naming and shaming have meant that good and creative people are no longer willing to come forward for the job?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, not surprisingly, l do not agree with the noble Baroness's final statements regarding the role of government. It is very important that we see our relationship with schools as a partnership working together to ensure that our children get the best possible education. I have
842
said many times in your Lordships' House that I make no apology for wanting that outcome. It is very important in so doing to recognise schools that need additional help. As the noble Baroness will know from the report, there is a reduction in the re-advertisement ratio for deputy heads and, indeed, for primary heads. There are issues concerning secondary heads and specialist schools in particular which we have noted and will be looking at.
Lord Dearing: My Lords. I wonder whether the Minister is aware that while the new framework of inspections by Ofsted is widely welcomed. there are concerns that the interpretation of the new framework has led a minority of inspection teams to concentrate on weaknesses to the detriment of producing a balanced assessment of a school, and that that can damage education. Will she confirm that possibility with the Chief Inspector and the adequacy of the means of appeal against an inspection report?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we are aware of the issues that have been raised in the Times Educational Supplement and elsewhere. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector and my honourable friend David Miliband are looking at that. Some noble Lords may have picked up that Mr Miliband said on 8 January that we are looking to a new system of better focused inspections which will be introduced from this year. That will shift the emphasis towards self-evaluation— something that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, would welcome, as, indeed, would other noble Lords. Detailed proposals on that will be published by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector next month.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister happy regarding the qualifications of teachers who teach modern languages, physics and mathematics? I gather from statistics that many do not have qualifications in those subjects. Is the Minister happy that such teachers should teach those complicated subjects without having qualifications in them?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, will appreciate that his question is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, as he indicated, it is very important to ensure that our children get the best possible teaching. That is, indeed, why we have introduced a series of measures to support those students who may go on to teach what we describe as shortage subjects. I am sure that the noble Lord will support us in doing that.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister confident that the new national professional qualification for head teachers that has recently been introduced is on the right lines? I believe that its reception has been somewhat mixed and that some head teachers are rather unhappy about it.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot confirm what the noble Baroness said about teachers

843
being unhappy about the qualification. However, I am sure that in considering the qualification we are very mindful of the feedback that we get. Some 11,300 teachers have completed the qualification and 6,600 are currently undertaking it. I believe that that in itself speaks volumes about those teachers who recognise its value and importance. It constitutes a critical opportunity to ensure that we have good leadership. Were I to discover that the kind of remarks the noble Baroness mentioned were reported in the feedback, I should, of course, ensure that we acted upon them.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, to what extent, if at all, do arrangements exist for the enhancement of salaries payable for headship posts in deprived areas, which should take account of the extra work and responsibility involved? Is not that a very important principle to affirm and one which might well lead to more suitably qualified applicants coming forward?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is very important to ensure that we incentivise people to be head teachers. As regards areas, it is perhaps worth saying that the average secondary head teacher's pay in inner London is £61,013.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many issues lie behind the appointment of head teachers and include such questions as the price of houses, particularly in the south-east? Recently, a Church school head was appointed who is a Muslim. Many of us who are concerned about the appointment of good head teachers look for many wider qualities of spiritual strength. Will the Minister give us some encouragement in that regard?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as regards the recruitment and retention of head teachers it is important to look at all the possibilities in terms of support. Home loans for teachers are a critical part of that, particularly in our inner cities.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords. I wish to make a brief announcement. With the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham will repeat a Statement on the railways. It is intended that that Statement will be repeated after the Clause 7 stand part debate.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 39,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 40 to 53,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 54 to 77,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 78 to 87,

Schedule, 4

Clause 88,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 89 to 114,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clause 115,

Schedule 8,

Clause 116,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 117 to 121— (Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Goldsmith.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 6 [Duty of Director of Public Prosecutions to refer certain matters to Police Ombudsman]:
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No.35:
Page 3, line 29. leave out "follows" and insert "set out in subsections (2) to (5)"
The noble and learned Lord said: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos.35 and 41 standing in the name of my noble friend the Lord President of the Council and to Amendment No.40 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Rogan. These amendments all deal with retrospective investigations by the Police Ombudsman and it seems right to deal with them together.
I start by thanking the noble Lord. Lord Laird, who at Second Reading alerted us that this clause was out of keeping with the Government's policy in relation to time limits on investigations by the Police Ombudsman. Amendments Nos.35 and 41 seek to ensure that referrals under the new clause will be treated consistently with any referrals to which the RUC (Complaints etc.) Regulations 2001 currently apply.
Subject to the exceptions contained in those regulations, they limit the ombudsman to investigating complaints about matters that are no more than 12 months old. The proposed amendments allow the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make similar regulations in respect of proposed new subsection (4A) of Section 55 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, which will be inserted by Clause 6 of this Bill.
Similarly, Amendment No.40, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Rogan, is intended to prevent retrospective investigations. I thank them for raising that important issue in Committee, but I hope that they will be satisfied that the Government amendments deal with the substance of the issue. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No.36:
Page 3, line 33, leave out "shall" and insert "may"
The noble Lord said: The amendment concerns the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose duty is to see that those who should be prosecuted are brought promptly to court where evidence exists to justify a prosecution. I want prosecutions of police officers, as well as others, to go ahead whenever there is sufficient evidence. If that is the case, I do not want prosecutions to be postponed to allow the police ombudsman to investigate. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said at Second Reading:
"The DPP has no power to conduct investigations".— [Official Report, 16/12/03; col.1118.]
He does, however, have power to bring prosecutions and should not be prevented using that power promptly. If the Attorney-General can assure me that fully justified prosecutions will not be held up as a result of the Bill. I will happily withdraw the amendment. Of course, I do not object to cases that fall into grey areas, especially those justifying only disciplinary proceedings, being looked into by the ombudsman. I want clear cut cases, backed by evidence, to be prosecuted promptly. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. As I understand it, if the clause stands unamended it will, according to the Explanatory Notes:
"place a duty on the director to refer matters to the ombudsman and Clause 6 makes the necessary amendments to ensure that the recommendation is fully implemented in line with the undertaking of the Government in the Joint Declaration".
I am not fussed about that. What concerns me is that the amendment would retain the current discretion for the DPP, rather than having the requirement, as the Bill proposes, for the DPP to refer to the ombudsman any matter in which it appears to him,
"that a police officer may have committed a criminal offence or, in the course of a criminal investigation"
"may",
"have behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings".
846
Removing the discretion of the DPP is taking a step too far in the judicial process. Consecutive DPPs have served the Province and the public extraordinarily well and I am sure that they will continue to do so. We will now have a prosecution "department". That will strengthen the hand of the DPP and will increase the clarity and the transparency of the operation of the DPP. Therefore, I am inclined to support the amendment.
Lord Smith of Clifton: I shall speak to Amendment No.37, which is a probing amendment, to ensure that the language is correct in implementing the intention of the updated implementation plan. Clause 6(3), on the duty of the DPP to refer matters of police malpractice to the ombudsman, also falls short of the review and of the promise in the updated plan. The wording confers an excessive degree of discretion on the director to decide whether a matter is one which must be referred to the ombudsman. That degree of subjectivity in assessment could make it difficult for a judicial review of the director. Will the Attorney-General elucidate on that?
Lord Rogan: I, too, have more than a degree of sympathy for Amendment No.36, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. If it were pressed to a vote, I would find it impossible not to support the protection of the DPP.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: All the amendments in the group deal with the Director of Public Prosecutions making referrals to the police ombudsman. Amendment No.36, table by the noble Lord, Lord Hyltor, would increase the level of discretion on the part of the DPP. I am grateful to him for his explanation of what lies behind the amendment. He does not want any proper prosecution to be delayed while an investigation by the ombudsman takes place and he seeks my assurance that that is not our intention. I am happy to give that assurance that, where a proper prosecution ought to be pursued in the view of the DPP, then it will be pursued. That must be the priority and I hope that my explanation and assurance will satisfy him.
Responding to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, the decision to table the clause does not reflect in any way on the professionalism of the DPP. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord that the director and, particularly, his predecessor and others have served with distinction, absolute professionalism and objectivity. As I work closely with the director, I know that to be true. I am happy to endorse fully his independence and impartiality, in which I have full confidence. The simple reason for the clause is that it is more appropriate for the police ombudsman to make decisions regarding police conduct, as is the case when matters are raised by the general public. Questions of prosecution will be for the director to decide, as they should be. Questions of disciplinary investigations would be left to the discretion of the police ombudsman. That would be more appropriate and more closely reflect recommendation 21 of the Criminal Justice Review.

847
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, has spoken, but not particularly to advance Amendments Nos.38 and 39, which go in rather the opposite direction. I see that he wishes to intervene and I am happy that he should do so.
Lord Rogan: Perhaps I have misunderstood procedure. I was going to speak on those two amendments later. Should I have done so earlier?
Lord Goldsmith: Yes, they are grouped together. I am happy for him to speak to them now.
Lord Rogan: That is extremely kind. Indeed, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos.38 and 39. Amendment No.38 replaces "may have" with "has". It is a different approach to restoring the input in terms of the discretion of the DPP. First, if the DPP is going to direct a prosecution there must be a degree of evidential sufficiency. All matters in which it is possible that an offence has been committed are not necessarily proceeded with. Similarly, with this procedure, there should be something more than a possibility before a referral.
Secondly, the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions is to determine, first, whether an offence has been committed and then to apply tests such as interests of justice and evidential matters before instigating a prosecution. If it does not appear to the DPP that a criminal offence has been committed, why should the matter be referred to the ombudsman for consideration by virtue of new subsection (4A)(a)(i)?
Amendment No.39 removes the disciplinary criteria for referral for one simple reason. The duty of the DPP is to consider criminal offences and criminal matters and one would think that there must be an element of expertise. For example, in terms of knowledge of stop-and-search procedures, the DPP is not and should not need to be an expert on internal police disciplinary matters. It is not the duty of the DPP to be an expert on police disciplinary proceedings. What behaviour would merit such proceedings? This section of the Bill presupposes that he is. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Lord Goldsmith: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his observations.
The effect of the two amendments would be that the DPP would refer cases to the police ombudsman only where a police officer had been convicted of a crime. It would exclude the alternative limb where in the course of a criminal investigation it appears to the director that an officer may have behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings and would limit the power and duty to refer cases where it appeared to the director that the officer had committed a criminal offence and not just might have done so.
If the amendments were accepted, that would move a long way from what the Criminal Justice Review envisaged. Recommendation 21 stated that a duty should be placed on the prosecutor to ensure that any
848
allegations of police malpractice were fully investigated. Amendments Nos.38 and 39 would very much constrain what the director would refer to the police ombudsman.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, makes an important point in saying that the director is not necessarily an expert in what would constitute disciplinary conduct on the part of police. But the director is not required to reach a definitive conclusion on that. He is required to consider whether the conduct, when one looks at it, may mean that an officer has behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings. I know that the director will want to provide to his staff guidance with assistance from those who are more expert in what those matters would be, but experienced prosecutors who deal with police conduct in the course of investigating and considering prosecutions day in and day out form a view as to what may be conduct that justifies disciplinary action.
Of course, the decision is in no way final and the whole point is that the matter is then referred to the ombudsman. The discretion will lie with him and the expertise will be with the ombudsman to decide whether the conduct merits disciplinary activity. The provision therefore delineates the respective roles of the DPP and the police ombudsman by ensuring that any decisions which might need to be taken about the conduct of the police are referred to the appropriate authority; that is, the police ombudsman.
I hope that that provides a sufficient explanation of what lies behind the clause and the justification for it and that therefore the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Glentoran: I have a comparatively small point to make. We are slightly at odds because I asked the noble and learned Lord whether we want to be in a situation in which every suspicious case is referred to the ombudsman by the DPP. I suggest that the DPP has other things to do in respect of criminal investigations and processing a potential prosecution, instead of looking over his shoulder at whether the policemen involved in the investigation have performed directly according to the rules and regulations. If it hits him in the face that they have clearly done something wrong, that is a good reason why the case should be referred to the ombudsman.
I am concerned that if the Bill remains as drafted, there will evolve a way of life within the DPP's department where one is always looking to see whether the police have done something slightly wrong and whether one ought to be pushing everything on to the police ombudsman.
I should have mentioned a small point in relation to Amendment No.40 and perhaps the Committee will allow me to do so. I am afraid I was talking to my Chief Whip on a detail of timing. Amendment No.40 relates to timing. It asks that only conduct which took place after the Act has achieved Royal Assent will be

849
referred. Will the noble and learned Lord be good enough to comment on that? We do not want to go back in time in these situations.
Lord Rogan: Perhaps I, too, may comment on Amendment No.40 which stands in my name. As printed, it states:
"No reference shall be made in subsection (4A) if the conduct giving rise to the intended referral took place after the coming into force of this section".
I understood that I had—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We have dealt with the first group of amendments, but it is open to a noble Lord to speak to an amendment in its place on the Marshalled List. If we now go through the amendments in the second group, noble Lords can raise their points when we reach Amendment No.40. I think that that would be helpful.
Lord Goldsmith: The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, will be able to make his points on Amendment No.40 in a few moments and I will defer my response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, on that amendment.
I see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, wants to intervene, but perhaps I may deal with the first question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. He asked whether we want a situation in which every suspicious case is referred to the ombudsman. The burden on the DPP and his staff—and I am grateful for consideration of them—is the lesser under the drafting of the clause. No one has to make a decision about whether, in accordance with criteria that have been laid down, a case is the right kind or not. The only question is: is it one in which it appears that a criminal offence may have been committed? Is it one in which it appears in the course of a criminal investigation that the officer has behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings?
That threshold being established, all that needs to be done is to hand the papers, or whatever, to the ombudsman and the burden of considering whether it should be the subject of time and investigation falls to him. Therefore, this may be a more desirable approach in terms of burden on the DPP so that he and his staff can get on with the important job of prosecuting cases.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: It is the important job of the DPP to prosecute important cases and I suggest that it is his sole job. I am a little perturbed by the provision which gives an administrative, or quasi-executive, function to the DPP and in a case where there has not been a complaint. As I understand it, the jurisdiction of the ombudsman in Northern Ireland—I may be inaccurate about this—derives from a complaint of maladministration. If the DPP is or has been considering a matter of criminal prosecution but there has not been a complaint—there is no shortage of people to make complaints about anything under the sun in Northern Ireland—I need to be persuaded
850
that a duty should be imposed on him to refer such a matter to the ombudsman in case the ombudsman believes that something has gone wrong.
The position of the DPP, as the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General knows so well, is a very delicate one. I entirely endorse the graceful comments that have been made about the holders of that office. It is important that they should not be given anything to extend the duty that they have to prosecute cases and to bring an entirely independent and judicial mind to bear on matters. I realise that it is Recommendation 21 of the Criminal Justice Review, but in itself that is not decisive. I should like to hear a little more about the Government's thinking on that matter before the issue is concluded.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: The experience of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in the office that I am privileged enough to hold, and otherwise in Northern Ireland, gives him particular knowledge of how the DPP operates.
It is right to record that we are not proposing for the first time that the Director of Public Prosecutions should refer matters to the police ombudsman. We have already taken that step because under Section 55 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, as amended by the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, the director is already empowered, along with the policing hoard and the Secretary of State, to refer certain matters to the police ombudsman. Perhaps I may put the point in this way: the proposition that it is wrong that the director should do anything outwith the business of prosecuting is a bridge that has already been crossed. Here we are concerned with whether, following Recommendation 21 to a large extent, although not precisely, he should be under a duty to refer matters that come to his attention.
As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, it seems to me that one advantage of phrasing the clause in this way is that it makes a clear distinction between the jobs. It does not leave the director in a position of having the job of deciding what the criteria are by which he should decide that something needs to be investigated; for example, for a disciplinary matter. It simply says that if he comes across something in the course of his primary work, he should refer it to the ombudsman for the ombudsman to take on the job of examining it and deciding whether there is anything further with which to deal.
I hope that that explanation helps to show that the director will not be put in a position that is difficult for him—I certainly would not want that—that it does not cast doubt in any way on his independence or professionalism and essentially that it leaves him to get on with the principal job of prosecuting.
Lord Rogan: I appreciate the indulgence of the Committee in allowing me to speak.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am sorry, but we need to deal with the group of amendments before us

851
now. If the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, seeks to speak to Amendment No.40, he should do so when Amendment No.40 is called. Although the amendment will not be moved, I am sure that the Committee will be indulgent enough to allow noble Lords to speak to it.
Lord Hylton: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply to me. I particularly appreciated his assurance that there will be no delays in prosecuting serious, solid cases when there is plenty of evidence. I believe that the noble and learned Lord went on to say that overall the discretion that now resides with the Director of Public Prosecutions will be preserved. If I am wrong, I am sure that he will correct me. If I am right, I ask the Committee to give me leave to withdraw Amendment No.36.
Lord Goldsmith: If I do not intervene, the noble Lord will have put me in the position of appearing to accept what he has said. When he talks of the discretion that remains with the director, I believe he means the discretion of the director whether to prosecute or not. I see the noble Lord nodding. If that is so, I can certainly give that assurance. That remains unchanged.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.37 to 39 not moved.]
Lord Rogan Lord Rogan had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.40:
Page 3. line 41, at end insert—
"( ) No reference shall be made in subsection (4A) if the conduct giving rise to the intended referral took place after the coming into force of this section."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No.40 as printed on the Marshalled List contains the words,
"took place before the coming into force of this section".
I actually tabled the word "after". I apologise if that is my error.
Clause 6 makes yet another structure within our society—the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which should be independent and immune from interference—subject to conditions that will be dictated by the police ombudsman and it interferes with the chief constable's right to set, modify and impose appropriate standards of discipline.
There is a practical aspect to my amendment. Already we have seen the so-called Bloody Sunday inquiry moving at enormous cost towards a conclusion that I predict will satisfy no one in Northern Ireland. It has impinged on police resources. Now in the aftermath of the Corrie report we are bound for four more major inquiries.
In terms of police resources, neither manpower, money nor time are geared to cope with those huge extra burdens which I predict will be fruitless and inconclusive exercises that will satisfy no one. How, then, can we seriously consider adding another police
852
ombudsman requirement for use of scarce police resources to what is already potential organisational mayhem?
Lord Glentoran: I am not sure that I follow or agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. Perhaps I missed what he said in relation to what is printed as the amendment. As I understand it, the amendment states:
"No reference shall be made in subsection (4A) if the conduct giving rise to the intended referral took place after the coming into force of this section".
My notes say, "Only conduct that took place after the Act has received Royal Assent will be referred". I believe that is the same thing. I believe we are trying to say that if we pass Amendment No.40 only conduct that took place after this Act has received Royal Assent will be referred to the ombudsman. May I have clarification on that point?
Lord Goldsmith: The amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Rogan, as it appears on the Marshalled List, states that:
"No reference shall be made in subsection (4A) if the conduct giving rise to the intended referral took place after the coining into force of this section".
I understand that to mean that only conduct that took place before the coming into force of the Act or this section could be the subject of a reference. Although the record may suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, expressed the wording the other way round. it may be that when he used the word -after" rather than "before", or "before" rather than "after", he meant the amendment to include the word "before".
In those circumstances. the intention is as I understood it, which is what I said when I spoke to this amendment during debate on the first group of amendments—that is, to prevent retrospective referrals, or referrals of things which happened previously. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, nods his head. I intervened in order to clarify the noble Lord's amendment, but I leave the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to complete his remarks unless he has already done so.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord. I had completed them; I simply wanted clarification.
Lord Goldsmith: The amendment concerns the issue of retrospection. As I said in moving government Amendment No.35, we accept, and were grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, for pointing out, the need to deal with the possibilities of full retrospection. The way in which we propose to do so—indeed, it is the way that the Committee has accepted because we have now agreed to the amendment—is through Amendments Nos.35 and 41.
Those amendments would provide the same approach to time and retrospection in this situation as any referrals to which the RUC (Complaints etc.) Regulations 2001 apply. I shall simply repeat what I said then: that is. subject to certain exceptions contained in them, the regulations limit the ombudsman to investigating complaints about

853
matters that are no more than 12 months old. The amendments which the Government propose would allow the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make similar regulations in respect of this new subsection.
Therefore, the government amendments are also intended to deal with retrospection. They do not deal with it in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, proposes. They provide for greater consistency with the RUC complaints regulations than does his amendment. However, perhaps I may respectfully point out that his amendment could not be passed in the form in which it presently stands as it would do the opposite to what he seeks.
[Amendment No.40 not moved.]
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No.41:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert—
"(6) In section 64(2A)(b) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (Ombudsman not to investigate matter referred under section 55(1), (2) or (4) if it took place more than the prescribed period before the date of referral) for "or (4)" substitute ". (4) or (4A)"."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Rogan: I have been trying to outline the iniquity of this entire clause, which legislates for something that is unnecessary, unproductive and, I believe, unachievable. Perhaps I may give an example of a potential outcome regarding Clause 6 where subsection (3) inserts new subsection (4A)(a)(ii). A police officer investigates a crime and the result of the investigation is considered for prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP somehow becomes aware that the investigation was delayed by a week when the officer concerned took sick leave but was, in fact, watching a football match in Europe.
That matter would justify disciplinary proceedings and, I imagine, would be dealt with fairly severely through internal police procedures. But it does not affect the outcome of the investigation; nor does it impede the prosecution in any way. Therefore, why should the independent Director of Public Prosecutions be obliged to inform the ombudsman and thus precipitate a welter of work for other hard-pressed officers, whose primary responsibility is to serve the public?
I hope that Members of the Committee realise that this provision can be retrospective and that that would place an even greater demand on police time and resources. The police have an obligation to meet every request made by the ombudsman.
On Thursday last, my noble friend Lord Maginnis, as I have done today, sought not to allude to other political parties as villains of the piece. However, I suggest that Clause 6, the intent of which was rejected by the Minister, Des Browne, is designed by the Government merely to help the nationalists. Your Lordships will neither want to legislate for the unachievable nor allow anyone to impinge on the
854
efficiency and independence of the offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the chief constable. That is why I oppose the clause.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: As we discussed during debate on the preceding amendments, the purpose of the clause is to place a duty on the DPP to refer all cases of suspected police malpractice to the police ombudsman. I also indicated that the d rector is already empowered to do that under the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.
I make clear, first, that I very strongly support the independence and professionalism of the director and his staff. I have made that clear already and f shall make it clear in debate on subsequent clauses, too. As the superintending Minister for the director's work, I feel that very strongly. I recently had the great pleasure of being able to commend his work and that of his predecessor when talking about the steps that were being taken to develop the new Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. I believe that it will he an independent, professional and efficient service which will serve the people of Northern Ireland extremely well.
I make a second point clear. I do not consider it likely that, where the director has taken a decision about prosecution and where there has been a thorough and complete police investigation, the ombudsman will consider a new investigation to be necessary. Of course, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, previously, a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute remains a matter for the director.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, was concerned that the director's independence might somehow be affected by having to judge certain questions, and he gave an example of what might have been a disciplinary offence by an officer pretending that he was on sick leave when he was, in fact, watching a football match. However, the merit of the clause as it stands is that the director does not have to judge such questions; he simply has to form a view on whether or not it may mean that the officer has behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings. If he comes to such a decision, he passes the case to the ombudsman. Whatever difficult decisions may arise for the ombudsman in considering whether further disciplinary investigations should take place, those decisions are for the ombudsman and not for the director. Therefore, I hope that the assurances that I was able to give previously will satisfy noble Lords that opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill can be withdrawn.
Lord Glentoran: Before the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, makes a final decision on what to do about the clause, can the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General give us an assurance that, before we reach the Report stage, one or two small parts of the clause can be softened somewhat so that a little more discretion is allowed? I think of changing "shall" to "may" and other similar single-word changes. I hope that the noble and learned Lord may be able to encourage us

855
that, before Report stage, the Government will consider one or two small areas; for example, those such as in Amendment No.38, which states:
"line 35, leave out 'may have' and insert 'has'".
Lord Goldsmith: As noble Lords who take part in debates on this legislation know, the Ministers concerned with Northern Ireland business are always happy to meet noble Lords to discuss any aspects of the Bill and to give further assurance or explanation. Of course I am happy to do that, but I would not like to hold out hope that any changes are likely to be made to the clause. Essentially, the clause simply says that where we come across conduct in the director of this sort or that sort—or which may be conduct of this sort or that sort—one should send the matter to the ombudsman for him to exercise his statutory discretion on whether to pursue it.
There is a discretion as to whether the matter should be pursued; but it is a better discretion for the ombudsman to operate than the director. It avoids the director being directly involved in questions of whether a matter is worthy of further consideration and helps to preserve his independence. That is as far as I am able to go, but I hope that the noble Lord finds at least my last remarks of some comfort.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister. I hate to inject an element of real Northern Ireland politics into this very cultured debate, but I suspect that in various parts of the police force there are those who might start to look on the DPP as a spy on them.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Glentoran: I have opposed the inclusion of Clause 7 in order to probe the Government on its purpose. According to the Explanatory Notes, Clause 7 creates an offence of seeking to influence prosecution decisions without legitimate cause. We are told that the measures were suggested in the Criminal Justice Review at recommendation 46.
New Section 32A(1) and (2) make it clear that guilt depends on intention to pervert the course of justice. Thus it would appear that an offence would already be committed under common law. The Minister knows far more than I about these matters, but my advisers ask what is added by the Bill. Is it an offence for which the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland has been calling? What sort of examples have prompted it?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I support the comments of my noble friend Lord Glentoran. Paragraph 19 of the Explanatory Notes states:
"Case law concerning the common law offence of perverting the course of public justice is likely to be of use in the interpretation of this new offence".
That strikes me as a polite way of saying that the provision is not necessary, but it simply applies the existing law explicitly to this set of circumstances. If
856
that is the case, it seems superfluous to legislate in particular for this context. We should be trying to avoid unnecessary legislation. If I am wrong, I should be glad to hear why.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I identify with the remarks of the two Members of the Committee who have spoken. I wait to hear the Minister's persuasive explanation. Subject to that, the public is growing a little dissatisfied and anxious about the plethora of new criminal offences created by the Government—some 600-plus offences since they came to power. Do we really need to create a new offence where a common law offence already exists?
Lord Rogan: It is a wise principle that in legislation one does not over-legislate; nor does one legislate unless the current legislative provision is insufficient. I can see no need for legislation in relation to Clause 7. Obviously I shall defer to Members of the Committee who are experts in law, but I ask the Minister where the offences created by Clause 7 differ from the common law offence of perverting the course of justice. The provision limits the sentence for the offence, unlike the common law offence, which carries a greater term of maximum imprisonment.
Furthermore, the common law offence can be tried only in the Crown Court. Will the Minister tell the Committee in which circumstances attempting to influence a prosecutor with the intention of perverting the course of justice is not an act tending or intended to pervert the course of justice? Interference with jurors or witnesses at common law in an attempt to persuade them to change their evidence is sufficient to constitute an act; therefore, so must be attempting to influence a prosecutor.
The Minister will know that common law offences do not activate only after the instigation of proceedings, as may apply, for example, to a police officer's activities before the commencement of proceedings. Unless substantial justification is forthcoming, this clause should not remain in the Bill. If the explanation is that it was an undertaking given to the SDLP at Hillsborough, that is not sufficient justification for its inclusion in the Bill.
Lord Goldsmith: One thing stood out in our discussions on the previous amendments: a view shared on all sides of the Committee that the independence of the DPP and his staff was critical to the functioning of the justice system in Northern Ireland. Changes to the justice system in Northern Ireland will mean that that independence is even more warmly to be cherished. The role of Attorney-General will be changing: the director will be standing as an independent person with a different relationship to the new, local Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and indeed the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, which the English Attorney-General will continue to be.
In those circumstances I am sure all Members of the Committee would agree that it is extremely important that we send a clear message that the director's

857
independence shall not be interfered with without proper reason. In Clause 7 we seek to make it abundantly clear that improperly seeking to influence the Director of Public Prosecutions will be an offence.
I can envisage many circumstances in which providing information to the director, even making representations, perhaps on behalf of a relative—I do not constrain the examples—would be perfectly proper and it would be proper for the director and his staff to be able to take them into account. But there will come a point at which an attempt to influence a decision will cross a boundary and begin to move into the area in which the director's independence is being subverted.
At that point we believe that an offence should be created. We found it useful in those circumstances to have regard to an existing body of law in relation to the common law offences of perverting the course of justice, which help to identify what the point is. To my mind—I hope that Members of the Committee will agree—given that the director's independence will be at the heart of his role in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, it is right and desirable that we should specifically underline that through the creation of an offence.
We have not followed precisely the proposals of recommendation 46 of the Criminal Justice Review, which proposed the creation of an offence, because we wanted a clearer provision that had regard to existing law that would enable people to judge whether conduct would break the law. I have consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions closely on this clause to ensure that it is workable and fair, and he is content with it.
I invite noble Lords to view this as an important protection. One thing on which we are all agreed is the need to safeguard as much as possible the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That independence is the bedrock on which prosecution decisions will be made and accordingly of a fair and effective justice system for the people of Northern Ireland. That is why I shall ask that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Can the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General illustrate circumstances in which there would be a breach of this clause and yet not of the common law provisions?
Lord Goldsmith: I am disinclined to speculate on all the kinds of circumstance in which someone might attempt to form a view as to what would constitute a common law offence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, will know perhaps better than anyone that the surrounds of the common law can be a little imprecise. However, I can say that it will be clear both in terms of a message and an offence that if, with the intention of perverting the course of justice, someone seeks to influence the director, the deputy director, a public prosecutor, a barrister or a solicitor to whom certain matters have been assigned, that will be an offence. Stating that clearly on the face of the statute will send a clear message to everyone as to the
858
need to safeguard the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions and will be very beneficial in that regard.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that clear explanation as to where the Government stand. It is clear that they have sound reasons. However, listening to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and to others, the legal debate could go on for a long time. I think it would be wise on this occasion to beg leave to withdraw my opposition to the Question that Clause 7 stand part.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House be resumed in order to take a Statement on railways.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Railways
4.3 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, on the railways. The Statement is as follows:
"Last year Britain's railways carried over 1 billion passengers for the first time in 40 years. That is a significant measure of success and one that has been achieved despite all the well-known difficulties facing the industry. Because in those 40 years the railways have suffered from substantial underinvestment, year after year. That was especially so in the years leading up to and immediately after privatisation under Railtrack.
"The Government will set out their spending plans through to 2008 in the spending review this summer. In advance of that, we need to look at the progress made through the increased investment already being put in place but at the same time to look at the structural and organisational changes we need to allow the railways to improve performance. This will enable us, as the spending review decisions are made, to publish proposals in the summer for a new structure and organisation for Britain's railways.
"Because of the history of underinvestment, as a first step it was necessary to put in place increased investment. In July 2000, therefore, the Government announced public investment of £33 billion over 10 years, doubling railway investment over a five year period. Total investment in the four years to 2006 will be almost three times the investment at the time of privatisation.
"That investment is now beginning to make a difference. But since that time it has become very clear that the scale of underinvestment and

859
inefficiency in our railways, which built up over decades, was far greater than anyone believed at that time.
"The Hatfield accident in October 2000 exposed the poor state of much of the railway infrastructure and when Network Rail took over from Railtrack in October 2002 and started to go through the books, it became increasingly clear that Railtrack either did not know or did not admit to the sheer scale of the problems it was building up.
"It also became very clear that Railtrack had lost control of its costs. It had farmed out much of its decision making on what work was done, and therefore on costs, to private contractors. And, as everyone knows, forecast costs on the West Coast Main Line were totally unrealistic, rocketing from £2 billion to £13 billion in some five years.
"The recent regulatory review published last December confirms that the cost of upkeep of Britain's railways is £1.5 billion per year more than was thought necessary just three years ago. The review implied that Network Rail inherited a business from Railtrack with unit costs substantially higher than they ought to be. Network Rail is now tackling these inefficiencies and working hard to bring costs down.
"Taxpayers and fare-paying passengers alike need to know that their money is being well spent and that increased spending will improve performance. Cost control is essential.
"The £64 billion public and private investment announced in 2000 is making a difference. Over one third of train rolling stock is being replaced—half on London commuter lines. Major projects are being delivered, like the West Coast Main Line upgrade and the power supply south of the Thames. There is track and signal renewal going on all over the country and there are now 1,500 more services every weekday than there were in 1997. There has been a 20 per cent increase in passengers since 1997.
"Reliability, which is highly dependent on track and signalling maintenance, and which fell dramatically after Hatfield, is now improving, but it still has a very long way to go.
"But there remains a further and very serious difficulty facing this industry; that is, its structure and organisation. The way in which it was privatised has led to a fragmentation, excessive complication and dysfunctionality that have compounded the problems caused by decades of underinvestment.
"There are too many organisations, some with overlapping responsibilities. It has become increasingly clear that this gets in the way of effective decision making and frequently leads to unnecessary wrangling and disputes. That is no way to run a railway.
"The Government are committed to a partnership between public and private sectors. It happens on railways throughout the world. But the long-term inefficiencies and costs of the privatisation
860
settlement have, as time has passed, become an even bigger barrier to the success of the railways. So, within the spirit of partnership between private and public sectors, we need to put right the problems that the authors of privatisation left behind.
"So we now need to build on the investment we have made and on the structural changes we have already put in place, not only to put the railway on a sound financial footing, but at the same time to provide it with the right structure and organisation to take it through the next 20 to 30 years.
"The Government will set out their spending proposals for transport at the conclusion of the spending review in the summer but that money must be well spent now and in the future. It is essential, therefore, that the railways establish far greater cost control so that the public and investors know that it is efficiently and effectively run. Before it takes on new projects we need to be satisfied that there is proper control over existing costs and a significant improvement in performance. The public expect no less.
"The Government remain committed to increasing spending on the railways because it is needed and because the railways are an essential part of the economic fabric of the country—millions of people depend upon it—but the public rightly expect rigorous cost control. After all, we pay for the railways through taxes and fares.
"That work has already started. For example, Network Rail is taking maintenance back in-house to control costs. It is also looking at other areas in which they can do things more cost effectively. The regulator's review, which I welcomed in my Written Statement on 15 December, identified substantial cost reductions. But more can and must be done.
"As a country we must be able to make informed choices and decisions about rail and other forms of public transport. Too often these costs are far from transparent. The Government also believe that the opportunity should be taken to consider how to devolve more decisions on public transport — including rail—to the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly, and at a regional level to PTEs within a nationally coherent framework.
"Local transport decisions are often best taken by the people who provide the service and who pay for it. They can be better placed to know what is needed and how best to provide it, as well as being able to make sensible and informed decisions as between bus, light rail and heavy rail, for example.
"Structural change is needed not just to make better spending decisions. It is also needed if rail is to operate effectively and to meet the needs of passengers and other customers.
"Privatisation had some disastrous and far-reaching consequences for the railway, such as Railtrack's performance, for example. But the private sector has brought considerable increased investment. In many cases, train companies have provided some innovation that was conspicuously lacking in the past. We want to build on that, which

861
is why the Government believe that renationalisation would not solve the problems that the railway faces. It is essential to put in place a structure that works and which can deliver not just cost control, but a safe, reliable railway that works efficiently.
"Since 1997. we have put in place reforms to deal with some of the worst effects of privatisation. Richard Bowker and the Strategic Rail Authority have worked extremely hard with the industry, bringing greater leadership and strategic direction to the railway. They do so with our full support. The SRA is making much needed changes to the franchising, planning and route development.
"The Government remain committed to the minute that I laid before the House on 3 February 2003 covering obligations to the SRA, other financial obligations and the Government's other contracts. As the House expects, we shall remain at least as closely involved in expenditure decisions, financial commitments to the industry and those who finance it.
"We need a railway that makes the most of what both the private and public sectors can offer. The first stage of reform was to set up Network Rail, a private sector company operating in the public interest. It is already making significant progress improving the performance of the track and signalling, and is getting a grip on costs. It has a clear focus to operate in the public interest and to build a safe, reliable and efficient railway, and it will continue to do so. We now need to build on that with more fundamental reform.
"The second stage is, therefore, to streamline the remaining structure of the railway, and to examine the way in which the industry works together. The Government will be publishing their proposals in the summer.
"There are two key principles to underpin these reforms. First, the railway must operate in the public interest, while protecting the legitimate interests of investors. It must be for the Government to decide how much public money is spent on the railway and to determine priorities. Of course, no government department can, or should, attempt to operate the railway. However, the Government can put in place a structure and organisation so that it operates effectively and efficiently, and with a single point of decision making. Rail privatisation failed to recognise that there are some things that only government can determine in the public interest that cannot be left purely to commercial interests.
"Secondly, the principle of public and private partnership is right for the railway and it will continue. It brings in money from two sources, which is important. We are spending £73 million every week on the railway, and a similar amount from the private sector is levered in. That is why the principle of independent economic regulation for the railway is essential, and will be central to our proposals.
862
"The train operating companies have, in many cases, brought innovation to services that was lacking in the past. But we need to put in place the right organisation and structure so that both the public and private sectors can focus on meeting passengers' needs and delivering value for money. As rail also makes a valuable contribution to keeping lorries off the roads, we want to ensure that freight operators have access to the rail network on fair terms.
"We need the right framework to ensure that the railways operate effectively, so that key decisions can be taken in the best interests of passengers to provide a more reliable service.
"Our objective is a streamlined structure and organisation with clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Network Rail is already operating in the public interest, and with the right franchising arrangements so should the train operators But we have a clear responsibility to examine the roles and relationships of all the other organisations with a view to streamlining the present structure.
"The review will, therefore, also look at regulation of safety which, at the moment, is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive, Health and Safety Commission and the Railway Safety and Standards Board. Safety is of paramount importance. All those involved undoubtedly work hard to ensure a safe railway. But there are now a plethora of industry standards, some of which are over-cautious, or which are being applied in an overcautious way. Safety regulation needs to focus on the real risks to passengers and employees. It should not be an obstacle to providing reliable services. We need the right organisation to do that.
"Our reforms have to make the structure as simple and as straightforward as possible. The complex structure at privatisation has contributed to the daily frustrations of the public. Many of those frustrations are shared by the dedicated and committed people across the country who are working to improve the railways and deliver better services. There are many in the railway industry with ideas for reform. I am asking Richard Bowker and the SRA to evaluate ideas as they come forward, and then to let me have advice based on industry views, so that we can take them fully into account in reaching conclusions on the review.
"In the mean time, the priorities for the industry must be to focus continually on driving up performance and reliability and getting a grip on costs. Passengers are rightly impatient. Improvements have been made but more needs to be done. We are determined to bring to an end the problems caused by decades of under-investment, which have been compounded by an ill-thought-out privatisation. Rebuilding Britain's railways needs a long-term commitment, which we are determined to deliver. I commend this Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.17 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Statement. I am afraid that it is another nail in the coffin of the 10-year transport plan that the Government published in 2002. It is a government policy that is caught between political dogma and Treasury concerns—a conflict between the two about public spending restrictions.
At least the Minister admitted that privatisation works for the train operating companies. We need only look at the huge investment. It should have worked for Railtrack. I have always admitted that we did not get the interface between Railtrack and the train operating companies right. But the Government did nothing for six years—before it was too late
and then they renationalised it. Did that work? No. Network Rail has abandoned expansion plans and cut investment. Fares are rising and one in five trains runs late. The Government want to change it again, after only three years.
The Strategic Rail Authority was the brainchild of the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, and Network Rail was the brainchild of Stephen Byers. Let us not forget the creation of the Rail Regulator, the Health and Safety Executive, the Health and Safety Commission and the Railway Safety and Standards Board.
We said from the beginning that there were too many bodies with conflicting interests. Who set them up? This Government. At least the current Secretary of State now agrees with us that the bodies set up by his predecessor do not work. They conflict with each other.
What is rather surprising about the Statement is that in September Alistair Darling, Secretary of State, said to the Transport Select Committee:
"I am loathe to start spending overmuch time on structural changes when I really want everybody in the railway industry to concentrate on delivery".
What has happened since September to change his mind? Why the change of policy? Is the reason that the Secretary of State had to block the SRA strategic plan, which is due to be published this month, that he did not like its findings? When will it be published? Is it going to be published soon? If not, we shall begin to wonder why. What are the Government covering up?
Almost the only important sentence in the Statement was in paragraph 39, which talked about the structure and organisation,
"with a single point of decision making".
What does the Minister mean by that? Will it be the Secretary of State, the SRA or some new person making decisions? Does it mean that the Government or someone else will be taking control? What is,
"a single point of decision making"?
We cannot respond to a rail Statement without saying that it is always the poor long-suffering fare-paying travelling public who suffer from government policy. The one good thing about the Statement today is that, after seven years of government, they will be in no doubt who to blame—this Government and this
864
Secretary of State. It was not really a Statement but a softening-up for further admissions of failure. It was a long Statement—13 minutes—which said very little. It could have said: "We have got it wrong; we shall go back to the drawing board and return to you in the summer".
4.21 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, perhaps I may start by apologising for having missed the first few paragraphs of the Minister's Statement, but I was urgently called away.
We had looked forward to today's Statement with some enthusiasm, but I am afraid that we are very disappointed indeed. We are first disappointed that the Minister did not refer to the railways being in a deplorable state and that they have suffered from 40 years of substantial under-investment—year after year. That was not the case before privatisation. There were low levels of investment but a management system which had learned to cope with them.
The railways were in a very good state when they were handed over on privatisation. The fact that Railtrack subsequently failed to invest, to control its contractors and to put the interests of its shareholders first lies at the heart of the problem. That is the fault not of the Government but of the previous administration.
We need to act radically and quickly if the Government are to salvage something from the deplorable state that the railways are now in—and which are in fact getting worse rather than better. I suggest that the Minister must go for some simple solutions. He must combine the regulator—who by the way was not invented by the Labour Party or its previous Ministers, but by the previous Conservative administration—with some kind of oversight body that contains the economic regulator. That is the model under which the CAA has worked, and has worked extremely successfully. I doubt whether anyone knows the name of the economic regulator of the CAA—Harry Bush—but they certainly know the name of Tom Winsor very well because almost every statement is preceded by the personal pronoun.
We should make franchises longer. They should roll forward subject to meeting performance criteria, and they should be more comprehensive. In order to get the railways back into a manageable form, Network Rail should gradually surrender to the franchisees its responsibilities for timetables, for signal operations, for possession and planning, and then, in the fullness of time, it should surrender track and signalling in order to get the railway back into a manageable form. It was a fundamental error to split the track away from the trains, which were so deeply ingrained. Alone of the regulated industries, the railways have proved absolutely unsuitable for the form of nationalisation which was chosen—mainly by people who did not know what they were doing.
All the safety responsibilities to which the Minister referred should go to the newly created Railway Inspectorate and not the Health and Safety Executive

865
with its "safety case" culture. While I agree that safety is paramount, it does not need layer on layer of bureaucrats supervising and interpreting responsibility, so that what goes for the fastest part of the railway is applied willy-nilly to the smallest branch line.
The Minister should tell the OFT that combined ownership of bus and rail is not objectionable and that bus and train companies should be allowed to cooperate in the public interest.
The rumours we have read in newspapers about the appointment of eight tsars may or may not be true. What I would say is that if there are eight good people available to direct the railways, they are needed to run the railways and not to direct them. If there are eight not so good people then the result will be more, rather than fewer, turf wars.
The SRA, the railway directing body, or whatever it is called, should be small and clearly aware which are its responsibilities and which belong to the Department of Transport. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that issue.
I conclude by saying that we on these Benches are very willing to help rescue the railways. The Government should not rely simply on advice filtered through Richard Bowker, who, despite the Financial Times describing him as an experienced railway manager, is in fact nothing of the sort. We are keen to see that the lot of the passenger and freight-user is put first.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the two Front-Bench contributions. It is a function of the Official Opposition, I suppose, to criticise and never at any stage either to admit mistakes of the past when it was in government or to advance a proposition that is remotely constructive in relation to our present problems. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, fulfilled that role admirably. He referred to the issues with regard to Network Rail and its difficulties as though Hatfield had never happened. He must surely appreciate that the enormous problems which have engulfed Network Rail are a reflection of what the Hatfield accident threw up, and that the problems, therefore, of the railways were far greater than even the worst analysis had shown at the time of the botched privatisation.
The noble Viscount asked me one specific question. He asked what will be the single point of decision making. He will recognise that the Statement's purpose is to make clear to the industry and to all those with a contribution to make in improving our rail performance that in the summer we intend to reform the railways' organisation to have this crucial single point of decision taking. We are aware that the plethora of competing points of decision is causing enormous problems in the railways by failing to produce a structure to tackle these outstanding issues.
866
Of course we are consulting on this issue. We expect the industry, and all those interested in it, to put forward ranges of proposals so that we can arrive at the right structure to stand the country in good stead for the decades ahead.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. He addressed some crucial areas where he thought there were points that we should take on board. In his comments regarding safety, I accept that we need to rethink the position. It is quite clear that that has been one of the railways' significant problems. We all put the highest priority on safety, but we cannot run the railways solely on the presumption that safety takes predominance over every other factor. Otherwise, no train would ever move at any speed at all. We are aware that we need to look at the safety side. I am grateful for the noble Lord's constructive point.
On combined ownership, the Statement indicated that we are looking at how we can devolve some areas of decision taking down to local passenger transport executives and local structures. The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly can play their part on a rather more significant scale. The concept of seeking to devolve some aspects of decision taking to a more local level would fit in with the proposition that the noble Lord advanced. That needs to be considered further. I also accept that we cannot get this single point of decision right if we lack a clear definition of the responsibilities between such a body and the Department of Transport. That is absolutely critical to the effectiveness of the review.
I conclude on the obvious point. If we had come along with a cut-and-dried solution to a very difficult problem, no doubt we would have been challenged about giving insufficient signals for consultation on what should be done. We are allowing five months which will ensure that we hit our intended objectives for the railways.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the Front Bench speakers have had a long time. I am glad that Back-Benchers at last have their chance. Is the Minister aware that if he had gone further back into the past then his criticisms of privatisation would have been much more valid? The past is important in the railways. First, they were run into the ground by six years of war, very intensive use, and nothing was spent on them. After the war, the railways had the colossal misfortune—visited on them by the party opposite—of having the Treasury as a banker. That is an untold misfortune. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, will be the first person to agree with that.
The Minister has to understand that words will not help. A major casualty is that the morale and pride of railwaymen has been lost. That is the first thing to restore and only then will there be a competent organisation. I am quite conscious of the fact that privatisation as an attempt to get the railways off the hack of the Treasury was flawed in many respects. There cannot be that confusion of responsibility and one cannot have too many players in the game. The

867
whole thing becomes too complex. It was a rather long Statement. I hope the Minister will lend himself not to words but to action.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the Front Benches had the time they were allocated for questions. If anything, they were slightly economical. If we did run over-run I did not notice that we had—then the blame rests with me in my answers and not my two inquisitors from the Opposition Front Benches.
On the more general issue of history, I bow to the greater knowledge of the noble Lord. He used to occupy a very significant position in transport and I have no doubt that he studied the history of the railways at that time. I agree with him that the present situation is too complex. There need to be clear points of decision and we need to get the relative rail responsibilities sorted out accurately. That is what we intend to do. I emphasised the other point that he will recognise; the future of the railways will not just be dependent on what the taxpayer contributes through the Treasury. There will also be additional investment from the private sector.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I agree with every word said by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, whose time as Transport Minister is still viewed by many people in the rail industry as perhaps the golden age in the post-war period. His comments about morale are ones that the Government must take very seriously.
I say to my noble friend that there is a huge amount in the Statement today that will be welcomed by the travelling public and by the industry. There are aspects of it which are long overdue and very sensible. I particularly welcome the full support that it gives to the Strategic Rail Authority and its chairman, Richard Bowker. I hope that, contrary to the mendacious reports appearing in the press over recent days, he will have a long-term role in the industry and play a part in the new structure that emerges from this process. My noble friend's comments about safety in the industry will be welcomed. It is grotesque that there is such an imbalance between the way in which road safety and rail safety are treated. If that leads to a more satisfactory consideration in the future, that will be very welcome indeed.
Finally, does my noble friend agree that while the review is underway the industry should not take its eye off the ball and lose sight of the need to continue with improvements and cut costs?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, introduced that very important concept of the morale of the workforce. There is no doubt that morale can lift with investment in the railways with people then driving and serving on vastly superior rail stock. One should bear in mind the speed with which the rail stock is being improved. However, as any railwayman will tell any passenger at any time, morale
868
is only as high as the punctuality of that train. Passengers wish to travel on a comfortable train but, above all, they want that train to arrive on time. Those are the issues that we have to address if we wish to raise morale of the rail workers who have such an important role to play.
I would not go quite as far as my noble friend Lord Faulkner in suggesting that the press were mendacious over the weekend. I have too many friends in the media to accuse them in quite those trenchant terms—inaccurate, certainly, wide of the mark and speculative in the extreme. He asked whether we will ensure that there will be no loss of activity on improvements while decisions are taken on the new streamlined arrangements. We are talking only in terms of four to five months. There is no intention on anybody's part to let up the drive towards improving the railways.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I apologise for losing a few minutes at the beginning of the Statement. The encouraging aspect is the speed at which a massively dangerous financial situation is now confronting whichever party is in power, not whether trains run five minutes late or 10 minutes late. In my view, the current organisation is financially totally out of control. Both parties have played a real role in that. Against advice from many people in the industry, the Conservative Party decided that not only would it seek to privatise the railway—despite people arguing that it was not like the electricity board or the water board—but also that it would separate the track from the operation of the organisation. That was a fundamental mistake. What has happened now is that there is such a multiplicity of management points that it is impossible to decide who is responsible for what.
At the previous general election I was encouraged when reading through the Labour manifesto. I came to the conclusion that 99 per cent of it should be disregarded. Then I fixed on a small part which said it was the intention of the Labour Party to bring the railway system back under public control. I have the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, whom I regard—I have never made any secret of it—as the best of six Ministers I encountered, not least because the two of us, whenever we met, cursed his colleagues with equal enthusiasm. However, there is no way that a passenger railway system of this size can escape a position where the Government are the ultimate bankers. That dogs the whole thing.
This is a complex subject. I hope that nobody really believes that this problem will be solved in the next four or five months. There is a need to take what urgent action can be taken, but I think it would be perfectly sensible to have an outside commission go back to the drawing board and provide a number of options, because there is no simple solution to the problem.
I know of no major passenger railway system in the world which breaks even, let alone makes a profit. The cosmetics of railway accounting are wondrous, but the realities are that ultimately they require very large subsidies for a number of reasons, one of which is the most simple and powerful of all. The passengers never

869
come in a nice neat flow—they come in peaks and troughs throughout 24 hours. That requires a massive infrastructure investment for the whole of the 24 hours which could never be met by passenger fares.
Many of these problems are fundamental and basic. I congratulate the Government on at least saying that they recognise that there is a serious problem. I think it will take longer; there is a need for a long-term look at the problem, because railways can be a very, very hungry beast.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, with his vast experience, for emphasising just how investment in the rail industry is such a costly burden for both taxpayers and farepayers, who are the only other source of revenue. The figures in the Statement about investment over the next decade are very substantial indeed.
On staff morale, the noble Lord is also right that so long as crucial resources appear to be ebbing away because of a loss of control over crucial costs, morale in the railway industry will of course be low. By taking the projects in-house, Network Rail has set about getting a grip on those costs. I assure the noble Lord that the timescale of four to five months will give all those who have a clear interest in the industry—all who have imagination and perspective—the time to go hack to the drawing board and present the Government with how the crucial decisions should be taken and what structure is necessary for that to happen. I am sure that we will benefit from that consultation over the next five months.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government have, albeit belatedly, agreed with what we on these Benches have been saying for some time—that the structure of the rail industry is at the heart of the problems we face today. Indeed, the highly fragmented nature of railway decision-making and provision has resulted in a system which is far more costly than need be, and far more heavily regulated and bureaucratic. Most seriously of all, it has ended in a sort of institutional paralysis, so that the Government's efforts to invest more and Network Rail's efforts to cut costs have, to a large extent, been wasted because the structure is wrong.
Can the Minister be a little more specific about the nature of the consultation and how it will take place? We should also like to pin him down a little more on the question of four or five months. I suggest that, on the subject of railways, it is not unreasonable to have a timetable.
Finally—and I say this with every respect for Richard Bowker and the Strategic Rail Authority, although I know it is not always shared—I question whether the Strategic Rail Authority is the right body to carry out this study. I say that not least because it is crucial that whatever comes out at the end has, if not the agreement of all the players, the respect of all the players. I am nervous that the SRA will be seen as a partial body, and that we may start off doing the right
870
thing for the right reasons but end up with something that does not command the respect of the rail industry. That would be nothing short of tragic.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's comments. I emphasise that of course the SRA will have a role to play with regard to this review. However, it is a Government-led review, and we intend to get the position clarified and the new structure proposed by the summer. So we are working to a tight timetable, with ministerial drive behind the review. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, indicated, a number of quite radical concepts may come forward in the review. The Government have made it quite clear what principles they will be working on for the new streamlined organisation. However, I emphasise again that this is a Government-led review and Ministers will take responsibility for the outcome.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I welcome the Statement, which is very positive. It is a positive commitment to freight—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—and to the principle of economic regulation, which is so important in attracting private sector finance. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree on that point.
I particularly welcome the review and its attack on costs. Several noble Lords have mentioned costs; we need to move on to the question of the causes of costs—standards, regulations, and so on. There is a general feeling that costs in the railways are about four times what they were for the same output with British Rail. That is quite unsustainable.
Back in the summer, when we were debating the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey spoke about common values for preventable fatality on safety between road and rail, which was very positive. The Minister of State for Transport, my honourable friend Kim Howells, has been saying similar positive things about road and rail safety since then. However, I do not see any leadership or action from the SRA, the Rail Safety and Standards Board or Network Rail on this issue. I urge my noble friend to ensure, in the five-month period, that the message continues to come from Ministers and that these organisations do what they should be doing with regard to leadership and action. When they report and the Government finally decide, at the end of July, what will happen, the industry will already have taken a lot of action.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I want to reassure him that the point he makes is central to government thinking. It came up a little earlier in this question and answer session in terms of the morale of the industry. While costs were escalating under Railtrack, this was deeply demoralising for the industry because scarce resources were clearly not being invested where they needed to be— in improvements to the industry—but were being wasted. I assure my noble friend that that is an important principle behind the structure of the outcome of the review. I also emphasise that, against

871
this background, he will recognise that we must not only get costs under control, but also that we need to build upon the much increased investment which the Government have pledged and are committed to over this 10-year period and which we are also deriving from private sector resources. Once the right structure and leadership are in place, that will give the industry real hope for the future.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords—
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, there are 57 paragraphs in this Statement—no wonder there are varieties. Two paragraphs have been referred to specifically. In paragraph 39, the Statement refers to,
"a single point of decision making".
That, in my view, is centralising. Paragraph 27, however, talks about devolving more decisions. That is devolutionary. Which way are the Government travelling? I hope that they could be travelling in a devolutionary way by devolving to the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly and also at regional level to PTEs. Often the most important places where rail can make a contribution, particularly with congestion, is 10 miles further than the PTE boundaries. I worry that two-tierism is happening with that as well as the Government facing in two directions.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I emphasise that parts of the Statement envisage greater participation by passenger transport executives. We have already seen illustrations in places such as Liverpool, Manchester and several other of our great cities of the integration of transport modes where rail plays a crucial part. It is right that local PTEs should make an increased contribution to that work. However, that in no way collides with the central thrust of the review, which is to guarantee that decisions affecting investment strategies, the shape of the railways and the obligations of the big players—who account for a substantial amount of public money—are taken along clearer lines than is now the case by a plethora of agencies. The railway industry is of overwhelming concern to our fellow citizens. The clearer decision-taking process will enable Ministers to exercise their proper judgment about the development of the railway and be answerable to the nation through Parliament.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
4.51 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.— (Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
Clause 8 [Guidance for criminal justice organisations on human rights standards]:
Lord Lyell: I advise the Committee that if Amendment No.42 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment No 43.
Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton moved Amendment No.42:
Page 4, line 27. leave out subsection (I) and insert—
"(1) The Attorney General for Northern Ireland shall issue, and as he thinks appropriate from time to time revise, a list of international human rights standards relevant to the criminal justice system."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No.42, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.44 to 51. The amendment relates to another area where the Bill has failed sufficiently to reflect the review and the guarantee in the updated plan about the role of international human rights standards in the reform process. The updated plan stated that all criminal justice agencies would be under a duty to have due regard to international human rights standards. That has translated rather differently, however, to the published Bill.
The Bill proposes a curious and convoluted formulation whereby it would be for the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland to issue guidance, as and when he thinks fit, to the listed criminal justice agencies on the exercise of their functions in light of relevant international standards. That raises doubts over the genuine commitment of the Government to finding a greater role for the application of international human rights standards in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland.
Amendment No.50 is slightly different. Clause 8(8) of the Bill exempts the prosecution service from having any regard to human rights guidance issued by the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland where that guidance would be inconsistent with a code of practice issued under Section 37 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. Our amendment simply asks why. It is difficult to foresee how the new and first-ever code of practice for the prosecution service, which is due to be published in draft form this month—long before the operation of the Bill—would be inconsistent with international human rights standards. Will the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General explain why the Bill has deviated from what was expected in the review and the updated plan? I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: I tend to rely on noble Lords from the Liberal Democrat Party on human rights matters. There are many experts among them. However, I wonder if the amendment would achieve what we would all hope for. If it replaces guidance, are we not losing some flexibility that might prove valuable? While guidance would appear to be more open to interpretation than a set of standards, I wonder whether it really is. I suspect that one could argue equally convincingly that it is not.
Lord Goldsmith: In speaking to the amendment, I too shall speak also to Amendments Nos.44 to 51. The amendments would give me the power to produce only a list of the relevant conventions and standards in criminal justice for organisations in Northern Ireland, rather than a more comprehensive document. In that respect, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is absolutely right.
The guidance that we envisage would be given under Clause 8 would help interpret and explain the conventions and standards, as well as their effect on the criminal justice agencies, and not simply present them with a bare list. It would be significantly more helpful to the agencies for them to be provided with some kind of commentary and analysis of the relevant conventions and standards rather than with that simple list. In that way, the agencies would find it easier to accord with the conventions and standards and to do so consistently.
That is important because the great differences that exist between the status and effect of some of the conventions and standards do require some degree of comment. Some are binding on UK and international law and some are not. Where only parts of a particular instrument or standard are relevant, it would not be helpful simply to list the standard. That is our principal reason for resisting the burden of the majority of the amendments.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, did not refer specifically to Amendment No.44. That would change "regard" in Clause 8(3) to "due regard". Having sought the view of Parliamentary Counsel, we believe that that amendment would not be helpful.
Amendment No.50 would remove a safeguard in the legislation. I respond specifically to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, put to me. The safeguard would allow the Public Prosecution Service to disregard so much of the guidance as may be inconsistent with the code of practice for prosecutors to be published by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland as required by the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.
I agree that it is unlikely that the two will be inconsistent. I hope that they will not be so. I am sure that great effort will be made to ensure that they are not. It is still right to prepare for the possibility of that event, particularly if the guidance relates to a significant number of instruments. In those circumstances, unlikely though they may be, it is important to provide a clear steer as to which should take precedence. I assure noble Lords that in those circumstances we would want to move swiftly to address any apparent anomalies. With those explanations, I invite the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Smith of Clifton: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation and for his assurance at the end of his remarks. In light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No.43:
Page 4. line 27, after "shall" insert "by order"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No.64. These amendments are intended to meet the proposals of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Bill. I see that my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, who takes part in that committee, is present.
We support the principle behind Clause 8, which places a duty on the Attorney-General to issue guidance on relevant international human rights standards to certain specified criminal justice organisations in Northern Ireland, as referred to in subsections (4) and (5). The organisations are required to have due regard to the guidance in carrying out their functions. The guidance must be published and laid before Parliament.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reforrn Committee is not altogether happy with that. On page 4, paragraphs 18 and 19 of the report say:
"The guidance must be laid before Parliament, but it is not subject to further scrutiny. The delegated powers memorandum mentions the precedents of the Code for prosecutors under section 37 of the 2002 Act and the Code of Ethics of the police under section 52 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Those codes are addressed to one category of recipient only, though they have a wide effect. The guidance under clause 8(1) will apply both to the organisations listed under clause 8(4) and also to any other organisations added by order under clause 8(5) Those organisations could include any organisation with a role in the criminal justice system.
We recognise that human rights issues are highly sensitive in Northern Ireland and, for this reason, we conclude that the guidance should be brought into force by an order subject to negative procedure, so allowing Parliament an opportunity to have some control over its issue".
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take on board that sensible suggestion from the committee. It would be an added safeguard that would put a good many minds at ease. We are asking here only for the negative rather than the affirmative procedure. With such important guidance, I see no reason not to have some degree of parliamentary scrutiny. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: For the guidance of the Committee, it may assist at this stage of the debate if I say that I will undertake to the House that the Government will table a suitable amendment on Report that will reflect the advice given by the committee. It has not been possible to prepare a suitable amendment in time. That may help noble Lords who want to speak on the amendment.
Lord Smith of Clifton: I simply say that we on these Benches support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and are grateful for the advice given by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I have nothing to add, but I am certain that my colleagues will be gratified by the position taken by the Government.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.44 to 51 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Rogan: Much of the language of this clause has been debated before in various guises, through both the Northern Ireland policing legislation and the criminal justice legislation. To see that, one need only cast one's eye over the Hansards for the Commons Committee debates on the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.
The first question to consider is whether the guidance is necessary. We have a Human Rights Act that places a duty on public bodies. Is it the case that the Government consider that Act itself deficient in some respects, given that subsection (1) contains the words,
"consistent with international human rights standards"?
Subsection (6) places a duty on the Chief Constable and the Policing Board to have regard to guidance from the Attorney-General. It is already obliged to consult the police association, the Secretary of State, the ombudsman, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission and any other person who may have an interest. What additional input is the Attorney-General going to provide that may be lacking?
In terms of subsection (7), the Director of Public Prosecutions is already under a duty to be guided by the general principles of the guidelines on the role of prosecutors adopted at the eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Havana between 27 August and 7 September 1990. He is also under a duty to consult the Attorney-General in relation to guidance by virtue of Section 42 of the 2002 Act. What other additional international guidance or standards do the Government have in mind in relation to the provision? Most importantly, the role of the Attorney-General was debated in 2002. Why is the proposal coming before us now and why was it omitted then? What has given rise to the proposed change?
Lord Goldsmith: The clause provides for my office, and for me, to issue guidance to the listed criminal justice agencies and for the listed agencies to have regard to such guidance as is issued.
Human rights were a key theme of the Criminal Justice Review, and the purpose of the clause is to enshrine human rights awareness even more emphatically in the criminal justice system. However, there is a difficulty, which the review recognised, in enshrining human rights duties in law, which is why it is better to produce guidance on human rights rather than placing a direct duty. We discussed the issue earlier, under another amendment.
Noble Lords have asked what value the guidance would have. It will have to be taken into account in any revision of the code of ethics of the Police Service of
876
Northern Ireland, and in the making or alteration of the code of practice for prosecutors, to be issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions. We have already discussed the question of consistency between the guidance and that code of practice.
Parliament will have some control over the publication of guidance, as a result of the undertaking that I gave in relation to an earlier amendment that we would introduce an amendment that would take account of the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked why the measure was not introduced as part of the 2002 Act. The Criminal Justice Review did not specifically recommend legislation on human rights, but the issue was revisited during the Hillsborough discussions. The Government's view is that the provision of guidance to criminal justice agencies on the relevant human rights instruments will help them to ensure that respect for human rights is kept at the heart of the justice system, while avoiding the difficulties that the review anticipated.
I presumed to suggest before that the independence of the DPP and the prosecutorial discretion was something that all Members in the House and in Committee could agree. I hope and believe that the same would be true in relation to respect for human rights for all peoples in Northern Ireland. This clause will help to underline that importance.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Prosecution right of appeal against grant of hail by magistrates' court]:
Lord Rogan Lord Rogan moved Amendment No.52:
Page 6, line 30, leave out from "bail" to "the-in line 31 and insert "in proceedings in connection with an offence triable on indictment,"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No.52. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos.53 to 57. These amendments bring the procedure for the Crown appealing bail refusal into line with the current practice in England and Wales. They are, in a sense, probing amendments. I invite the Minister to justify that different approach. I have three simple questions. Why should appeals from the magistrates' court go to the High Court and not the Crown Court? Why should there be an automatic second bite of the cherry, rather than concentration on new information? Why should it read "imprisonable" rather than "triable on indictment"? I shall be grateful for the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may assist the Committee if I confirm that we are now taking as a group Amendments Nos.52,53, 55,56 and 57, to which the noble Lord. Lord Rogan, has spoken.
Lord Goldsmith: I shall take these five amendments together. They broadly relate to the same issue.
Amendments Nos.52,56 and 57 would have the effect of restricting the new prosecution right of appeal against the grant of bail to those cases where the

877
accused is charged with an offence triable on indictment. As the clause stands at present, its scope is wider, allowing an appeal in any case where the accused is charged with, or convicted of, an offence that can attract a sentence of imprisonment. As the clause stands, it would create a prosecution right of appeal to the High Court where prosecutors have concerns about a grant of bail by a magistrates' court.
At the moment, unlike in England and Wales, there is no mechanism for the prosecution to challenge any grant of bail by magistrates. Having had the opportunity of discussing this with the chief constable and other senior officers of the police force, I am confident that it is an important new power. As to the detail, the clause provides that where a magistrate grants bail in a case where the defendant is charged with or convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment, the prosecution can appeal the grant of bail to the High Court.
There are important safeguards. First, an appeal can be made only if the prosecution opposed bail in the first instance. Secondly, oral notice of an intention to appeal must be given to the court before the person concerned is released from custody. Thirdly, written notice must then be given to the court and the person concerned within two hours of the conclusion of proceedings. The hearing of the appeal itself has to be commenced within 48 hours, subject to limited exceptions.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked three questions. The first was why the appeal should go to the High Court. That is dealt with by his Amendments Nos.53 and 55. In Northern Ireland it is the High Court which has jurisdiction in bail matters. It is that court which currently has jurisdiction to hear appeals by the accused against refusal of bail by a magistrates' court. So it makes sense that the new prosecution right of appeal should also go to the High Court in Northern Ireland. It is a difference from the position in England and Wales where the appeal goes to the Crown Court, but this clause is tailored to the conditions in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord's second question was why there should be a second bite of the cherry, as he put it; that is to say, a right to appeal even though there is no fresh information. It is important that there should be the opportunity for a higher court to review a decision of bail, where that decision may have been erroneous. It can be very important. The consequences of granting bail where bail ought not to have been granted may be that the public are put at risk of further offences, of the defendant absconding or of interference with witnesses. This is an important decision and to limit the ability to appeal simply to the case where there is fresh information would render it a very limited power indeed.
Thirdly, the noble Lord asked why the opportunity to appeal should apply to cases where there is the possibility of imprisonment, rather than some different category. I draw noble Lords' attention to the fact that, when it is commenced, Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 will amend Section 1 of the
878
Bail (Amendment) Act 1993. That will mean that prosecution appeals against grants of bail England and Wales can be made in relation to offences punishable by imprisonment.
In short, once Section 18 is commenced, the position in this respect will be the same in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales; that is to say, the same formula of applying it to offences punishable by imprisonment will apply in both jurisdictions. If the noble Lord's amendment were carried that would not be the case. It seems to us that the reasons that led to that extension in England and Wales apply equally to Northern Ireland.
I hope I have given satisfactory answers to the noble Lord's three questions and invite him not to press his amendments.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Rogan: I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.53 to 57 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Bail under section 67 of the Terrorism Act 2000]
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh Lord Cooke of Islandreagh moved Amendment No.58:
Page 7, line 39, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: This, too, is a probing amendment, seeking justification for this particular provision. It seems fair to have something fall on a particular date if the substantive Act has a renewal aspect, as we have been familiar with in Northern Ireland over many years. However, is it not fair to say that this is less so when one considers procedures?
Secondly, why would one seek to permit the Secretary of State to remove bail provisions simply by order? Surely it should take something more substantial. Surely as we debate this as primary legislation its removal before a fixed date should also be debated? I beg to move.
Baroness Amos: I shall try to address the question which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, in relation to the justification for this aspect of the Bill.
Clause 11 and Schedule 2 are clearly contingent on the Diplock bail arrangements set out in Section 67 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which, in accordance with Section 112 of that Act, will expire on 19 February 2006. Section 112 of the Terrorism Act would also allow Section 67 to cease to have effect by order before February 2006, hence the second limb of Clause 11(4). Clause 11(4) is simply a reflection of the status of Section 67. It is right that provisions that can have no effect should be removed from the statute book in the interests of clarity of legislation.
As for the Secretary of State's ability to do this by order, the power to make an order, with the effect that the provisions will cease to have effect, is included to cover the situation in which Section 67 ceases to have

879
effect before 19 February 2006, either by virtue of an order under Section 112(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000, or because it is allowed to lapse under Section 112(1) of the 2000 Act.
I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Bail to which Part II of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 applies]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No.59:
Page 8, line 20, after "court— insert "and at end insert—
"in order to carry out an arrest under this paragraph, a constable may enter any premises where he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that person to be""
The noble Lord said: This amendment was prompted—I think that that is the best way of putting it—by discussions that I and colleagues had with the chief constable's office, the PSNI. It focuses on Clause 12, which makes very positive changes to the bail provisions in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. Subsection (4) of Clause 12 amends Article 6 of that order, which deals with arrest for absconding or breaking conditions of bail.
At present, police may arrest a person for breach of bail conditions, but they have no power of entry to effect the arrest. A person may have been released on bail and have been told, as a condition of that bail, to stay away from witnesses. Police may have reasonable grounds to believe that that person has been visiting witnesses, but officers would be unable to enter a private dwelling without consent to use their new power of arrest. The suspect can remain in his house or another's house and officers are powerless to do anything until they catch him in a public place. While the power of entry is not found in the English Bail Act 1976, there seems no valid reason to give a constable a greater power of arrest but to withhold the lesser power to enter.
The criminal justice department has raised this matter with the Northern Ireland Office, I understand, but there seems to be no prospect of change at the moment. However, I understand that the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council will tell me shortly that she will perhaps take another look at it. I therefore ask whether she will explain whether the Government are willing to concede the point and respond to the wishes of the police. There seems little sense in allowing powers of arrest when the police would not be able to enter a building to effect an arrest.
The police have obviously found the status quo an impediment to their work and are frustrated about this loophole, which may allow those who have absconded or broken bail to escape arrest. This change seems a prudent one. I hope that the noble Baroness the Lord
880
President will not merely respond by saying that the amendment would be inconsistent with English practice. I am sure that she will not. I beg to move.
Baroness Amos: As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has already made reference to my response, it might help the Committee if I gave that response now. He will be pleased to know that I have no reference in my notes to what is happening in the English courts.
Our concern is that the power sought in Amendment No.59 may be inappropriate and indeed disproportionate to the problem in hand. However, in the light of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I undertake to go away and reflect on the principle behind the amendment, with a view to deciding whether there should be a power of entry to effect an arrest where there has been an actual breach of bail. I have to say to the noble Lord that, in looking at the amendment, I have a concern about a provision to enter premises on "reasonable grounds for suspecting". I think that we really do need to reexamine that issue and the phrasing of the amendment. However, I undertake to talk to him and to return to the issue on Report if that is appropriate.
Lord Glentoran: In thanking the noble Baroness the Lord President I also wish to apologise. It was pointed out to me that I did not address her completely correctly when I was speaking before. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, byleave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Transfer of prisoners]:
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No.60:
Page 8, line 38, at end insert "because of his serious misconduct, or, with his consent, for his own protection"
The noble Lord said: I return to a point that I raised at Second Reading. The fact that Northern Ireland has only one maximum security prison now, whereas it used to have two or three, of itself makes prison management somewhat more difficult. There is nowhere in the jurisdiction that a difficult or disruptive prisoner can be moved to. I can therefore understand the need for a clause along the lines of this one. I was glad when the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said in reply on Second Reading that transfers, of the kind we are discussing, would,
"not be used if the particular prisoner could be dealt with in another way".—[Official Report, 16/12/03; col.1119.]
Despite that assurance I still think that the clause as drafted gives the Secretary of State powers to make compulsory transfers that are too sweeping. That is why I am suggesting that the power should be usable only as a result of an individual's "serious misconduct". "Misconduct" may not be exactly the right word and "misbehaviour" might be better. I am trying to cover serious or repeated violence against prison staff or other prisoners, persistent threats of death or injury, arson and other serious breaches of prison rules and discipline. Appendix A of the Steele review of prison safety at Her Majesty's Prison Maghaberry covered such serious cases.
As to the expression "for his own protection", prisoners sometimes have to be segregated. That can be harmful, as well as protective, for the individual concerned. I am therefore suggesting that if the prisoner agrees, he might be moved to England or Scotland to avoid having to be placed in long-term segregation. I beg to move.
Lord Smith of Clifton: We on these Benches support the amendment and the reasoning behind it. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, this clause comes out of the report into the disturbances at Maghaberry last summer. Again as he reminded us, at Second Reading we were reassured that this clause would be used very much as a last resort. However, we would feel much more comfortable if the reasons for using this clause were more than just,
"in the interests of maintaining security and good order in prisons".—[Official Report, 16/12/03; col.1094.]
We think that that is too wide. We believe that there should be a specific connection to a prisoner involved. Therefore, we support Amendment No.60.
Baroness Amos: I understand the concerns raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Smith of Clifton. I hope that my comments on the amendment will reassure them.
The concern has been expressed that the proposed amendments to Clause 13 are drawn too widely. However, I think that the test is in fact quite a strict one. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, referred to the fact that the power can be used only if it appears to the Secretary of State that, in the interests of maintaining either security or good order in any prison in Northern Ireland, the prisoner should be transferred. However, transfer is not something that will be undertaken lightly. Each case will be considered on its individual merits. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked for a specific connection in relation to the prisoner. We are looking at each case being considered on its individual merits by the Secretary of State or, in his absence, by a Minister. Transfer will be directed only as a last resort after all other methods of dealing with the threat posed to security or good order have been considered.
The transfer power is required for the protection and safety of prison staff and other prisoners. The amendment would seriously reduce the effectiveness of the power and would mean that action could not be taken until there had been serious misconduct by a prisoner or until he was at risk of harm and consented to the transfer. It is important that where the Secretary of State has credible information that a prisoner is planning any action which will pose a threat to security or good order of a prison he can act to protect the lives of prison staff and other prisoners. The making of a transfer order might be an appropriate and proportionate response in extreme cases. If this amendment is accepted, such pre-emptive action could not be taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, spoke about the case where a prisoner agrees to a transfer. Where a prisoner consents to transfer this can be effected under the
882
existing provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act. Therefore, the Government take the view that the part of the amendment dealing with transfer with the consent of the prisoner is unnecessary.
The new power set out in this clause is part of a package of measures required for the protection of prison staff and other prisoners and to prevent slippage from the new separated regime into full Maze style segregation. I believe that concern has been expressed. This amendment would seriously reduce the effectiveness of the provision and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to withdraw it.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. I undertake to study it carefully but add that I am not sure that I am entirely satisfied. It may be necessary to come back to the matter on Report. However, for the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No.61:
Page 8, line 42, after "Wales" insert "or Scotland"
The noble Lord said: I believe that this amendment is straightforward. It simply opens up the possibility for the Secretary of State to transfer prisoners to Scotland in addition to England and Wales. If one looks at this matter from the point of view of the families of the prisoner, it is almost certainly very much easier for them to visit across the water in southern or central Scotland as compared with the long and complicated journeys that are frequently necessary when travelling from Northern Ireland to England.
In the nature of things, this amendment, if approved, would be likely only to deal in a more humanitarian way with a very small number of prisoners. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said when replying on Second Reading that,
"a Sewel Motion in the Scottish Parliament would be required".—[Official Report, 16/12/03; col.1119.]
I do not doubt that at all but surely it is within the capability of the Government to get such a Motion passed in the interests both of prisoners and their families. I beg to move.
Lord Smith of Clifton: On this occasion I cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to transfer a prisoner to a gaol in Scotland as well as to one in England and Wales. I am a little concerned about the amendment as Scotland also has a sectarian problem whereas Wales, so far as I know, does not.
The noble Lord touched upon the devolution issue. I am not sure that the measure would work as justice matters are devolved to Scotland but not to Wales. I do not know whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would have the ability to transfer a prisoner to Scotland without the agreement of his opposite number in the Scottish Parliament. I believe that that adds a further complication, but primarily

883
my concern is that the sectarian problem, although, thankfully, not as bad as in Northern Ireland, is nevertheless still present in Scotland. Therefore, I believe that it would not be conducive to the well-being of transferred prisoners if they were transferred to Scotland.
Baroness Amos: This matter was raised at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who is not present. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, is quite right. Prisons and prison transfers fall into the devolved field. Therefore, before the Westminster Parliament can legislate in that regard, the consent of the Scottish Parliament must be obtained by way of a Sewel Motion. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said he did not think it would be beyond the bounds of possibility that the Government could ensure that that happened. A Sewel Motion is being considered. If it is approved by the Scottish Parliament, the Government will bring forward an amendment to provide for compulsory transfer to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hylton: That is as much as I could possibly hope for. I am grateful to the Government but slightly disappointed at the lack of Liberal support. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No.62:
Page 9, line 4, at end insert—
"(2B) Where a prisoner is transferred under subsection (2A), the jurisdiction which imposed the length of the sentence will be responsible for determining the date of the release of the prisoner except where the prisoner's release date is delayed by reason of his misconduct or for other reasons relating to the maintenance of prison discipline.""
The noble Lord said: To some extent this amendment concerns the same topic. It is intended to probe some of the practicalities of a transfer order made under Clause 13. What we are concerned with here are any potential discrepancies between the length of the sentence a prisoner serves due to his transfer from Northern Ireland to England or Wales. Which jurisdiction is responsible, for example, in determining the release date of the prisoner? We are thinking in particular about early release or parole and the issues of good behaviour and misconduct. Will the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council tell us whether the decision will be for the Northern Ireland system or the English/Welsh system to decide?
Our amendment attempts to clarify this issue. As we have already discussed in earlier debates on this clause, transfer is envisaged as a consequence of misconduct. In such circumstances we think it right that the prisoner's release date remains as that which was originally set by the Northern Ireland jurisdiction when the sentence was imposed with one exception: that is, where the release date is later than that which
884
was first set due to the misconduct or bad behaviour of the prisoner. In those circumstances the English/Welsh prison in question may exercise its own disciplinary rules to delay the prisoner's release. The benefit of the amendment is to make clear that there would be no advantage to a prisoner in terms of release date if he were to be transferred. I beg to move.
Lord Smith of Clifton: These Benches support this amendment. We believe that there must be consistency within the jurisdiction even if the prisoner is moved outside.
Lord Hylton: I have some sympathy with the amendment. However, the elegance of its drafting might be improved. As an attempt in that direction I offer the following:
"Where a prisoner is transferred under subsection (2A), the jurisdiction which imposed a custodial sentence will be responsible for determining the date of release of the prisoner except where this is delayed by reason of his misconduct et cetera".
Baroness Amos: I hope that I can demonstrate to the Committee that the amendment is not necessary and that what Members of the Committee are looking for is already available, despite the elegance of the drafting of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
I can understand that the Committee wants to be clear that prisoners will not benefit from any transfer. I can assure your Lordships that any transfer under the new power will be on a restricted basis and the prisoner's release date will be determined according to the laws of Northern Ireland.
The need for the prisoner to remain in England and Wales will be reviewed on a regular basis and he or she will be returned to Northern Ireland as soon as it is assessed that his or her transfer is no longer necessary in the interests of maintaining security or good order in any prison in Northern Ireland. It is highly unlikely that any prisoner will be released while still held in a prison in England and Wales, because of the regular review and assessment.
At present there no provision to delay the release of a prisoner in Northern Ireland because of his misconduct. Noble Lords may be aware that the Prison and Young Offenders Centre (Amendment) Rules (Northern Ireland) 2004 were laid before the House on 9 January 2004. They seek such a power in respect of breaches of prison discipline by separated prisoners only. If that power comes into force I can assure your Lordships that any transferred prisoner awarded loss of remission would have to serve out the period of that award before his or her release. Any prisoner transferred to England and Wales on a restricted basis remains subject to the law of Northern Ireland in relation to the loss of remission.
The intention behind the amendment will be achieved as a consequence of our policy decision that all transfers will be restricted. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness for that response. I should like to take time after the

885
Committee stage to study Hansard. The issue is complex and clarity is essential. Some seriously heavyweight lawyers helped me prepare for the Bill and, if your Lordships agree, I would like to consult them again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14,15 and 18 agreed to. Schedule 4 agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 19 [Commencement]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved AmendmentNo.63:
Page 10, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) Any order under subsection (1) bringing into force any of sections 1 to 5 shall not be made before the end of the period of 12 months beginning from the date on which this Act achieves Royal Assent."
The noble Lord said: The amendment is one of the main contentions that we have with the Bill. I shall not make another Second Reading speech, but inevitably I will go over some ground that we have covered before. The amendment proposes a sunrise provision which would delay the commencement of Clauses 1 to 5 for 12 months after Royal Assent. Throughout our discussions, both at Second Reading and in Committee, we have heard concern from all sides of the House about the timing of the Bill. We firmly believe that no changes should be made to judicial appointments for Northern Ireland before we have seen the Bill that brings forward legislation to tackle the same issues in England and Wales.
The main Bill should be considered before this Bill and, therefore, we have asked for a 12-month delay in commencement. Our fear is that if this Bill is pushed through hastily and without due thought we will need in 2005 a third justice Bill relating to Northern Ireland. It would be a farcical situation. I remind the House that the previous occasion was in 2002—not long ago—and the Police Bill before that was in 1998. There is already deep disillusionment about the changes made in this Bill which were emphasised when we discussed Clauses 4 and 5.
First, Clause 5 cannot come into effect because the Assembly is still suspended; so we currently have no First and Deputy First Ministers to give recommendations to the Prime Minister about appointments to the position of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lords Justices of Appeal. Secondly, Clause 5 takes away the right of veto of the Lord Chief Justice even though when the 2002 Act was being discussed, the Government claimed that they were happy with such a veto. The fear is that we will have a new Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill every year, because the Government change their minds every year with each new Criminal Justice Review and kowtows to pressures from certain political parties.
The timing of the changes on judicial appointments are fundamentally wrong, due to the impending constitutional Bill with which we will be faced later in the year and the current suspension of the Assembly.
Now is not the time to destabilise the system by five clauses that would fundamentally undermine the current impartial system of judicial appointments in Northern Ireland. We see nothing but trouble as a consequence and the politicisation of the judicial appointments system which, we believe, will ensue. Clauses 1 to 5 are not needed. They will only negate and ruin a good and successful judicial system. There is no rhyme or reason, sense or logic in why the Government should have the clauses passed now. I beg to move.
Baroness Amos: I hope what I have to say will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. In our earlier debates on the Bill we dealt with two of his specific comments
on undermining the impartiality of the system in Northern Ireland and the politicisation of the system. The Government made it absolutely clear that it is their intention to maintain the impartiality and independence of the judicial system in Northern Ireland.
Regarding the practicality of the amendment, Clauses 1 and 2 relate to the Judicial Appointments Commission. The practical steps to create a commission will necessarily take a little time and we will want to work in consultation with stakeholders. Our aim is to have the commission in place by spring 2005.
Regarding the debate on a constitutional reform Bill, we expect some overlap between discussion of this Bill, which will have to go to the other place, and the constitutional reform Bill, which we expect to be introduced to the House quite soon. If it proves possible to have the Judicial Appointments Commission in place by spring 2005 we see no reason why the establishment of the commission and the start of its work should be delayed.1 hope the fact that we expect some overlap between the two Bills will help the noble Lord.
Clauses 4 and 5, which amend provisions in the 2002 Act and are linked to senior judicial appointments and removals from listed judicial offices respectively, come into effect only after the devolution of criminal justice. I hope that my clarification will help the noble Lord and that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for those explanations. First, I believe that the Government have got it wrong in relation to impartiality and politicisation and I will take a great deal of persuading otherwise. There is no way that Clauses 1 to 3 will improve that. They will open all kinds of doors, as will be seen in the next five years, to both impartiality and politicisation becoming apparent.
I am happy to hear that there will be an overlap between the passage of the constitutional reform Bill and the completion of this Bill. I hope that in practice, should things change during the progress of the constitutional reform Bill, we will he able to implant the changes into this Bill. I am looking for that because it would be a sound and more comfortable basis on which to go forward.

887
I am also relieved to hear that Clauses 4 and 5 will not come into effect until after devolution of the judicial processes. I suspect that that will be at least 12 months after the enactment of this Bill.
I intend to take the amendment away and to review it before bringing it back at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Statutory rules]:
[Amendment No.64 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 2004
5.52 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18 December 2003 he approved [4th Report. from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 2004 be approved and, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2004.
The proposals before the House seek authority for the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board to impose a levy on employers in the industries they cover.
Industrial training boards—or ITBs as we know them—are non-departmental public bodies that operate under the provisions of the Industrial Training Act 1982. Their role is to ensure that the quantity and quality of training are adequate to meet the needs of the industries for which they are established.
They provide a wide range of services, including setting occupational standards and developing vocational qualifications, delivering modern apprenticeships and paying direct grants to employers who carry out training to approved standards.
The Act contains provision for a levy on employers to finance an ITB's activities and to share the costs of training more evenly between companies in an industry. It is for the employer members of a board to make proposals for the rate of levy for the industry it covers and for the Secretary of State to make an order giving effect to the proposals.
The order before the House would give effect to proposals submitted to the CITB and the ECITB for their 2004 levy. Each proposal involves the imposition of a levy in excess of 1 per cent of payroll on some classes of employer. The Industrial Training Act 1982
888
requires such orders to be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses. In each case, the levies are based on employers' payrolls and net payments for sub-contract labour.
For both boards, the proposals involve levy rates in excess of 0.2 per cent with no exemption other than for small firms. In such cases, a levy order can be made only if the proposals are necessary to encourage training in the industry and that one of three conditions is satisfied.
The first condition is that proposals have the support of organisations representing more than half the employers who together are likely to pay the majority of the levy. The CITB proposals meet that first condition.
The engineering construction proposals are supported by the industry's employer organisations. However, currently those organisations represent fewer than half the employers, although together those employers are likely to pay the vast majority of the levy. The first condition in this case, therefore, has not been fully met. In this case, an order can be made only if one of the other two conditions is satisfied.
The second condition is that the order is made less than two years after the making of the former levy order giving effect to proposals in respect of which the first condition was satisfied. An order was made in 2003 that had the support of the employer associations representing more than half the employers. Those employers also paid the majority of the levy. This means that for the current proposals, the second condition is satisfied.
The Act requires ITBs to exclude small firms from the levy, but it does not set the minimum size threshold. Each of these proposals contains an exclusion provision that the industry considers to be appropriate.
In the order before your Lordships, the CITB proposes that both its levy rates should stay the same as those approved by the House last year; that is, 0.5 per cent of payroll for direct employees and 1.5 per cent of net expenditure on sub-contract labour. Employers whose combined payroll and net expenditure on sub-contract labour is less than £61,000 will not have to pay the levy. That equates to an employer who employs three people full-time throughout the year. It is estimated that the exemption will effect about 60 per cent of employers.
There is a higher levy rate on sub-contract labour because, according to the industry, the vast majority of training is carried out by those employers with a directly employed labour force. Employers who opt to use sub-contract labour tend to have a transitory arrangement with their sub-contractors and are not normally involved in their training.
The ECITB proposes to impose the same rate as last year on site contractors; that is, 1.5 per cent of total payroll and net expenditure on sub-contract labour. Contractors whose combined payroll and net expenditure on sub-contract labour is £75,000 or less will not have to pay the levy. This equates to an

889
employer who employs four to five people full-time throughout the year. It is estimated that the provision will exempt 37 per cent of the sites.
This year, however, there will be no levy on head offices. This is in response to recommendations from the board's recent quinquennial review and its own strategy review, which was carried out by external consultants. Both reviews recommended that, for the short term, the board should focus its activities at craft, supervisory and first-line management levels. These are currently the areas of greatest skills shortage. The proposals are expected to raise for the CITB between £116 million and £120 million and for the ECITB £8 million to £9 million.
Your Lordships will know from our annual debates that the CITB and the ECITB exist because of wide support from employers and employer interest groups in these sectors. There is a firm belief that without them there would be a serious deterioration of training in these cyclical, peripatetic and project-based industries, leading to a real fear that their skill needs would not be met. That was again confirmed by the recent reviews of both boards, carried out by the Department for Education and Skills last year. The reviews found that the principle of the levy is still strongly supported in each industry. They recommended that CITB and the ECITB should continue to act as statutory industrial training boards with levy-raising powers.
The draft orders will enable the two boards to carry out their vital training responsibilities in 2004, and I believe that it is right that the House should agree to approve them. I commend the order to the House.
6 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the measures in the orders. I understand that there is a general acceptance within the construction industry of the work done by industrial training boards and, as a consequence, there are no significant objections to the levy charged. We agree that boards are necessary because of the nature of the industry. Left to themselves employers are reluctant to take on the significant burden of training their employees. Therefore, in order for there to be a well trained workforce, the costs of training must be met collectively.
I am pleased to hear that the boards do a good job setting standards, developing qualifications, facilitating modern apprenticeships and paying grants to employers. Today I have received a letter from CITB Construction Skills which says that,
"in 2002 for every £1 of levy received, 93p was paid out directly in training grants, allowances and college fees, and the industry received £1.61 in total benefits, payable from the total income from CITB-Construction Skills and not just the levy".
That is indeed worthy of congratulation.
Small businesses are exempt from paying the levy, and the orders set out the maximum net expenditure on subcontract labour possible for a firm before it has to pay the levy. It is obviously important to get the amount right. Too high or too low would have a
890
negative impact and distort the market. On the figures of £75,000 and £61,000, I ask the Minister whether there is consensus on this issue. In addition, is the issue of a firm falling within the remit of the two industrial training boards a contentious subject? What consultation has the Minister had with the industry or any part of it in the past year regarding a possible change in the definition of a firm covered by the order?
I would also like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister about the progress of sector skills councils, of which one, out of only four that have been fully licensed so far, is for construction. Can he reassure the House that the progress made over the past year represents value for money, given the fact that £12 million has been paid out of public funds for all sector skills councils, and the chairman is quoted as saying—this is a little unnerving—
"we have the power because we have this big budget"?
The benefits that training brings to the economy and to the country in general is hard to underestimate and any measure that serves to enhance the number and quality of skilled workers must be welcomed. However, it is essential to keep an eye on the benefits that industrial training boards bring to the construction industry because we must avoid the levy becoming yet another tax on business. For the mean time, I am satisfied that the benefits are significant. They will justify the levy charged and, as a consequence, I will not be resisting the orders.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing the two orders which come up regularly at this time of year. From these Benches we regularly welcome them. Both the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board represent what, in our eyes, is in many senses an ideal situation. The levy imposed is voluntary and it has the support of all sides of the industry. It enables the cost of training to be spread evenly across the industry with the exception of very small firms, whose turnover is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, identified, respectively £75,000 and £61,000.
Revenues obtained from the levy are used by the industry to provide a wide range of training. I particularly welcome initiatives that have been taking place within the industry to make employment in the industry contingent on all employees meeting minimum standards of training and commitment on the part of the major employers to ensure that that is so and to ensure that all employees are offered opportunities to upgrade their qualifications when appropriate.
It seems to me that the differential levy on direct and subcontract labour, which has been a source of some contention within the industry, is justified. Within the industry there are the continuing problems of the cowboys who pay nothing for training and poach from others who have contributed to training. The great advantage of the levy is that it limits the degree of poaching; it limits the free-riders in the industry.

891
I have very few questions because we have seen such orders on previous occasions. However, I would like to ask about the progress of sector skills councils. The construction industry is an area where we have seen a sector skills council established but it would be interesting to know whether other sector skills councils are in the wings waiting to be launched and how far progress is being made. I also wonder whether any other sector is showing an inclination to have an industrial training levy along the same lines. It is within the ambit of the Employment Act that was enacted some two years ago. It was left to each of the sector skills areas to decide whether they wished to go for a levy grant system of this kind. I wonder whether any other sectors are interested in moving in that direction.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am most grateful for the response of both noble Baronesses who have spoken in this short debate. As they have both indicated, we have been here before. Exceptionally, this year there is no change to the levy. We feel that we are going over well tilled ground. None the less, it is essential as the levies are subject to the affirmative procedure and, therefore, we are duty bound to consider them with all the seriousness that we bring to such debates.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, for the figure of 93p in the pound. It was not contained in my notes. I have various measures of value for money, as I believe that we hold these boards in high regard for the work that they carry out, but I cannot think of a more graphic illustration than that given by the noble Baroness. I am grateful for it. I have no doubt that, if I am in the privileged position of addressing these issues again at the Dispatch Box, I shall keep an eye on that figure
an excellent measure.
The exemption criteria for small firms is not government-imposed. The industry itself brings forward a proposal for the cut-off point for levies. Therefore, it is the industry that has produced the figures of £75,000 for employers with about four employees and about £61,000 for employers with three employees. The noble Baroness asked whether there was consensus on that and the answer is that there is. As to whether everyone would agree with that, I can think of some on the margin who would clearly not agree. As with any other concept of this kind, there is bound to be fairly lively debate on the margin. However, this exemption formula has held for a number of years and has been considered to be representative of what the industry expects.
With regard to sector skills councils, we have made considerable progress. It will be recognised that the Construction Industry Training Board was the first to get off the ground. We know the reasons for that. We know the way in which the industry is organised and how its specific skill needs have to be met from within the industry. That is one reason that the industry has a training board when so many other industries do not.
On the question of what wider progress has been made, 10 sector skills centres have been established. We are on course for the majority of them, if not all,
892
to be set up by the summer of this year. Therefore, considerable progress has been made in that respect, although it has not happened as rapidly as we might have liked. As soon as one sees one such skills centre in operation, one always thinks that everyone else is being a little tardy in getting on board. Nevertheless, within the realistic expectation that they would all be up and running this year, we are just approaching the half-way stage in terms of the numbers established and we are confident that we shall meet the target over the course of this year, as was the original expectation.
I am grateful that the two boards receive the plaudits that they do. They carry out very valuable work. It is not surprising that the CITB is a trail-blazer in terms of the sector skills proposals. If our whole industrial life were organised to the patterns of these two bodies, I believe we should feel a good deal more optimistic about the general skills levels in our society. However, we also know the needs of these two areas and why they match up in such an excellent way. Therefore, I am grateful for the support expressed in the contributory speeches today.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, I want to point out that there is a real concern among larger employers about the lack of training by small employers in the industry. Clearly such training must be carried out at a local level. However, these days, many small employers do not take on apprentices in the way that they used to do, and it is being left largely to the larger employers to do so. One reason for that is the sheer bureaucracy and the amount of paperwork involved in having apprentices. I believe it should be placed on the record that there is considerable worry in the industry about the lack of training by small employers.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness says. She is well experienced in this area. This is one of the perennial debates that take place in any organisation. The larger employers usually blaze the trail for all the obvious reasons. However, the noble Baroness is right to call attention to the fact that all employers need to be alert to the fact that, without investment in their workforce and without the necessary training, they will render themselves vulnerable in the rapidly changing industrial and economic environment that we all face. We all know that we compare ill with many other advanced countries in relation to skill levels. Of course, the Government must take responsibility for their role in these issues. That is why it is an important priority for this Administration. However, it is also the case that employers in other countries are often far more committed to the concept of training than is the case here.
I hear what the noble Baroness says about bureaucracy. Form-filling is irritating but I believe that, if it leads to effective training, it is both necessary and something to be desired. I am sometimes conscious of the fact that upbraiding bureaucracy is an easy way to shelve one's responsibilities, and I believe that that has been the case in certain areas of training.

893
That is why, when we have models that work quite well. and particularly where some employers do very well indeed, we should build upon that. On that basis,
I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2004
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8 January be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Discrimination
A message was brought from the Commons that they concur with this House that it is expedient that a
894
Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the draft Disability Discrimination Bill presented to both Houses on 3 December 2003 and that the committee should report on the draft Bill by the end of April 2004, and have ordered:
That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Disability Discrimination Bill.
That the committee shall have power:

(i)to send for persons, papers and records;

(ii)to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(iii)to report from time to time;

(iv)to appoint specialist advisers; and

(v)to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.

That the quorum of the committee shall be two.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [H.L.]
(First Day)
Monday, 19 January 2004.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before we begin the proceedings on the Bill I should mention two matters. First, all the faces before me are familiar with the procedures and I do not believe that it is necessary for me to read out the spiel about how we conduct ourselves in the Committee. Does anyone disagree with that? It would appear not.
Before we get under way, I am told that there will be an informal discussion about the timing of the later stages of consideration of the Bill. This is innovative but it is in order, provided that no one attempts to move any Motion or divide the Committee. I therefore invite the Minister to launch this informal discussion, in which I shall play no part unless there is any violence.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): I should like to say a few words about the publication of the consultation document, Compensation and Support for Victims of Crime. I know that this issue was raised in the House when my noble friend Lord Bassam moved the order of consideration of the Bill on my behalf. Although I said on Second Reading that that would be published in the new year, I did not explicitly link any possible legislation to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. That was because at the time of Second Reading the date of publication was not clear and, as a consequence, it was not known whether the timetable for consultation would allow amendments to the Bill.
In accordance with my usual practice, I should have liked to contact those with an interest in the Bill to inform them of the position in relation to the consultation paper. I realise that that was not done and I apologise unreservedly for that. I know that members of the Committee take a keen interest in such matters—including those who are involved in support to victims and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and its predecessors—and I shall be more than happy to provide more detail and to discuss the proposals set out in the paper, should the Committee want me to do so.
GC 192
We are committed to a full and open consultation. At this stage, three areas require legislation. The first is the surcharge on fixed penalty notices for criminal offences and any fine, community or custodial sentence. The revenue recovered would be paid into the victims fund to provide support and services to victims of crime. That would fall within the territory currently covered by Part 2 of the Bill. The other two areas fall within Part 3. Those include transferring the liability to pay compensation to those criminally injured in the course of duty to the employer and giving the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority a right to recover what it has paid in compensation from an offender. However, we need to come to a view as to whether we choose to pursue those proposals and in what form, following the consultation process.
I am grateful to the Committee for sparing the time for me to make that brief statement. I very much look forward to working with the Committee on the Bill.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am grateful to the Minister. I had given her notice that I intended to raise this matter and she has been kind enough to write me a letter today setting out what she has just said.
However, with respect, the issue goes further than that. Let me give the date order in which events occurred. On 23 October, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, wrote to me about a question I raised in debate on the Criminal Justice Bill—whether a consultation paper on compensation for victims was under consideration. He said that it was and that it would be published in the next two months. The document was duly published in January—not quite within two months.
In the mean time, as the Minister said, the Second Reading of the Bill took place. During Second Reading, she mentioned that a Bill would be published but she did not at that stage refer to any legislation. In January, the consultation paper was published. That consultation states in terms that comments are invited:
"Please respond to this consultation paper by 29th March 2004".
That seems reasonable and certainly no longer than one would expect on a major paper out for consultation. Immediately above, it states:
"Subject to the outcome of this consultation exercise"—
that is, the consultation to be completed by 29 March—
"we propose to legislate to make the changes where necessary through amendments to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. We hope that this Bill will be enacted by the Summer 2004".
The Government are saying, therefore, that they do not expect consultation to be completed before 29 March. At that point, if they wish to make legislative changes, they will make them in a Bill which had its Second Reading in the December of the previous year and, should it be the wish of the Committee, should start its Grand Committee stage today.
Needless to say, my noble friend Lady Anelay took up this matter on the Floor of the House, inquiring into the position and asking when amendments were to

GC 193
be inserted into the Bill, which was the subject of a Motion relating to consideration in this Committee. She asked the Minister to,
"give an assurance to the House that the Bill will not leave Grand Committee until those amendments have been tabled and noble Lords have been able to give full consideration to them".
My noble friend then said:
"If he is unable to do that, can he give the House an assurance that the new clauses will be considered by way of recommitment when the matter returns to this House after consideration by the Commons?".
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, replied to my noble friend but, with great respect, he said absolutely nothing. He said:
"I cannot give commitments from the Dispatch Box today about recommitment and such issues. However, I can tell your Lordships that there will be ample time for consultation".—[Official Report,13/1/04; cols. 469–470.]
However, it is not the time allowed for consultation which concerns us; we know that that is set out in the Green Paper. Rather it is the time allowed for consideration and discussion of any matters that may arise out of the consultation.
The Minister, with her normal courteousness, has written to me about this, stating that,
"At this stage it is difficult to be precise about the number of clauses"—
that is, the number of clauses that will need to be added to the Bill as a result of amendments arising from the consultation—
"given that there are still some policy details to be worked through in light of any consultation responses. We are committed to a full and open consultation process. We will aim to legislate quickly where we can. However, should the consultation process bring new issues and complexities to light, we may have to take longer in policy development and consequently may not be able to amend this Bill".
In other words, the noble Baroness is rightly leaving the way open in case the Government have to introduce a completely different Bill.
The Minister mentioned three of the matters that the consultation raises. Two of them are highly controversial. One is the intention that those who speed in motor cars should pay a surcharge into a fund that is to compensate the victims of crimes of violence, although they have had nothing to do with a crime of violence. In other words, what is at the moment coming out of general taxation is instead to be taken on by the individual motorist. Equally importantly, and equally controversially, and far more wide in the Bill, it is intended that anyone who is injured in the course of their work as the result of a criminal offence should be compensated not from general taxation but by the employer by way of insurance.
A large proportion of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 deals with injuries caused to someone in the course of employment. I am talking not only about policemen and nurses, but anyone working in a shop or a restaurant. If a fight takes place and they are injured, they are in the course of their employment and therefore it is said that the employer should insure against that. I do not want to get into the merits of
GC 194
those changes. They will be controversial, and they desire and require full consideration by this House before they are turned into law.
Therefore, with great respect to the Minister, we are all entitled to know the intention of the Government before we start on any stage of the Bill. Is it their intention at this moment that major new clauses are to be added? In the normal turn of events, starting in Grand Committee on 19 January and ending on 9 February, the Bill would have been long though the Lords before the consultation period ended on the other paper. Is it the Government's intention that those amendments are to be introduced into the Commons, with the Lords merely limited to the consideration of Commons amendments? Is it intended to re-commit to a Committee the clauses that have been added? With respect, we are entitled to know.
I appreciate that I will not be able to move any Motion, or invite a Division in the Committee, as both of those would be out of order. We are allowed, if everyone wished, to adjourn the Committee stage of the Bill until it is clear what will happen. If necessary, we could delay the start of the Committee stage of the Bill, so that we can be sure that the Bill will still be before the Lords when any major changes are made to it.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I ought to speak briefly to put the position of the Front Bench on this side. As a Front-Bencher, I am bound by decisions of the usual channels. That does not mean that in any way I fail to support the objectives and the principled intent of my noble friend. I am aware that an agreement has been made that the Committee stage will begin today—of course I support that.
As my noble friend has pointed out, however, the Minister properly referred at Second Reading to the fact that there would be consultation and legislation on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and other matters. At that stage, it never occurred to me, not for one second, that the Government's plan was to go out to consultation at the beginning of this year and to do so in such a way that it would be impossible for this House to consider those clauses properly, should they be brought forward in the normal procedure.
Indeed, had any of us at that stage on 15 December had a modicum of suspicion that that was the Government's intention, it may well be that usual channels would have thought hard before agreeing to a Committee starting on this day. However, we are where we are. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for his response last week that he would refer the matter back to the usual channels. I understand that discussions are afoot as to how the House may properly consider any clauses brought forward by the Government. One would of course hope that we would follow the best practice pointed out by my noble friend, or at the very least the next best practice, which would be that we would not start Third Reading until we had a re-commitment on the new clauses.

GC 195
The Minister wrote a very courteous letter to us dated 16 January, for which I am most grateful, in which she invited us to a meeting to discuss the possibilities of the new proposals. I wish to be the first to welcome that and to say that I would be delighted if such a meeting could take place, as it would be most constructive. However, like my noble friend, I am dismayed by the penultimate paragraph. It looks as though the Government are at sea about what might be the outcome. One can applaud that in one respect, because it means that they are thinking and listening to consultation when it is completed. On the other hand, in the context of a Bill that is starting in Committee today, one is dismayed because one does not know quite what will happen to it and what contribution this House will make.
I am also advised that it would be proper for me at this stage to make a brief comment on another matter, of which I have given notice to the Home Office officials and the noble Baroness's office. It is the amendments on Northern Ireland that were produced last week and were in print on Friday. I was kindly approached by the Home Office, by fax, the day before with draft copies of those amendments. As the Government are producing proposals for the devolved legislature in Northern Ireland on matters in Clauses 4 and 5 that are highly controversial, our view was that we could not in all honesty say that those amendments should be agreed in Grand Committee.
Noble Lords are old hands at Grand Committee; they will know that any amendment may be made only by agreement of every Peer present. Although I am not necessarily hostile to the ultimate adoption of those amendments, I will not be able to agree to them being made in Grand Committee. However, I expect to listen very carefully to the government argument and have a full debate on them. From today, I shall also start to contact organisations in Northern Ireland—they may have been consulted by the Northern Ireland Office, but we do not know that yet—to take proper soundings so that we may then properly decide whether, at a later stage, we will need to amend the government amendments when they are tabled again on Report.
I am indicating a procedure. Last Wednesday, I immediately phoned the Home Office to give it advance warning. I also gave the Liberal Democrats' Whips office notice. We will not hold up the ultimate delivery of the Government's provisions, but that procedure will enable the Opposition to give them proper consideration.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McNally: This is my maiden speech in a Grand Committee. I am not therefore experienced about such a Committee's procedures. However, I spent a good deal of time involved as part of the usual channels' discussions with the late Leader of the House, Lord Williams of Mostyn, about the concession—and it was a concession—of allowing Bills to come to Grand Committee to facilitate government work. It is my clear recollection that the experiment was based on the fact that the Government would not play fast and
GC 196
loose with a piece of legislation once the House had decided that it was suitable for consideration in Grand Committee.
Without the forensic persuasiveness of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, I put it to the Minister very bluntly that that is exactly what the Government are doing. I give her fair warning that, if the Government conveniently reshape Bills in Grand Committee, they will bring Grand Committee procedure into disrepute and will find that they make the opposition parties very reluctant to go down that road. Therefore, although I shall not go into the noble Lord's points about the nature of the proposals, they have major implications not simply for domestic violence—the point of the Bill—but for fines, compensation and terms of employment. I give notice that we shall consider the urgency of the whole of Part 3 if it is to contain such provisions.
The problem is that the Government always feel that they can put opposition parties on the back fool when they produce measures that, like the curate's egg, are good in parts. When we point out the bad additions, they say, "Ah ha!You are trying to prevent the good parts coming into law". That is not true, but there is a substantial point of principle that we are unwilling to let pass. I associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about the Northern Ireland provisions—also suddenly spatchcocked into the Bill in an arbitrary manner.
I hope that the Minister takes to heart the fact that the complaints of the opposition parties are extremely justified. If we were on the Floor of the House, I should have been willing to have followed the noble Lord, Lord, Carlisle, into the Lobby on this point of principle.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Can I briefly support—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am not trying to curtail discussion more than I think necessary, but now we have heard from the opposition parties, it would be better if we were to hear from the Minister, not let everyone around the table have his go.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have of course listened carefully to all that has been said. In response to some of the comments, I say gently that of course in an ideal world no government would ever amend a Bill after introduction, save in response to parliamentary scrutiny or real world events. In reality, however, we know that governments of all complexions do so from time to time. In this case, the Committee had the advantage of knowing what might be coming.
As I said, there is genuine consultation. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said about that. We are firm in our view of what should occur, but we are not so arrogant that we think that we are the fount of all wisdom and that consultation is therefore not merited or that we should not listen carefully.
I hope that I have been frank enough to make clear that if, through the consultation, we feel that the timing is not right and does not elide with the Bill's provisions, we shall have to reconsider. I know that the

GC 197
Committee is anxious about the whole issue of what we do to help and support victims and witnesses. The Bill is entirely directed to helping them. I am confident that the Committee would want us to take all appropriate opportunities to give them the support that they need.
When my noble friend Lord Bassam responded about consultation, he was talking about consultation through the usual channels, as opposed to the Home Office's consultation on the policy. Through the usual channels, there will be appropriate consultation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said.
I tried in my outline—the few remarks I made before we started this short debate—to describe the nature and extent of the amendments that we think may be appropriate. Of course I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, said about the controversial nature of the provisions. That depends on the form of the consultation and whether we iron out those controversies.
The noble Lord said much about speeding and the inappropriateness of allowing all those who break the law to participate. The Government's proposal is that all offenders should pay into the fund for all victims. There is a great deal of concern that the victims of road traffic incidents should not be put into another category. I read a letter in the Guardian from Mr Graham Durbin, and I thought that it was very helpful. He said:
"Could the government's plans to surcharge … motorists be thwarted by a campaign of mass civil obedience, in which drivers refuse to break the law?".
I would certainly concur with that view.
These issues will take some time. I did not know specifically about the Northern Ireland issues that the noble Baroness mentioned, but, I am sure that she told my officials. I am most content to debate the matter in Committee, and the noble Baroness will be able to come back on Report and take whatever stance she deems appropriate. In no way will I construe that as meaning that she has acceded to the provisions. I think she will find that the Northern Ireland provisions are proper and do not excite much concern, but she will, of course, need time to consider the matter.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said about playing fast and loose with the Committee. None of us engaged in the process has ever attempted to play fast and loose. The Committee process has been extremely useful, and I assure the noble Lord that we do not seek to do anything in Committee that we would not do on the Floor of the House.
With that, I hope that noble Lords will join me in starting to discuss what is one of the most longed-for Bills for a long time. We have waited 30 years for it, and I invite the Committee not to wait a minute longer before we start discussing it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We have had enough of this informal discussion. I am certain that many noble Lords have views that have not, perhaps, been expressed, but the main ground, in this
GC 198
unprecedented situation, has been covered by those who have spoken. We should now get on with the Bill. The matters that have been discussed will, of course, all appear in Hansard tomorrow morning. They can be taken up through the usual channels or elsewhere.
I am sorry, but I will not allow the noble Lord to prolong what has been a perfectly agreeable discussion between those who speak from the Front Bench for their respective parties. Therefore, I will not call the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: You have no right not to call me. I wish to be heard, as a Member of the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am not giving you a chance to be heard now. You can be heard as soon as we get into the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The question that has arisen—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Would the noble Lord mind sitting down while I am on my feet, please?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: If I am allowed to get to my feet again.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: You can get to your feet again at the appropriate moment, when I have gone through the next procedures on the Bill.
Title postponed.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I call the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I must—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have called the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I know, but you have—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Would the noble Lord therefore please sit down?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Under protest, I will do so.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Protest as much as you wish. I invite the noble Lord to be so good as to sit down, as I have called the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: You are ordering me to sit down. As a Member of the Committee, I feel that there is an aspect that has not been dealt with. The noble Baroness spoke of consultation—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is defying what I, as

GC 199
Chairman of the Committee, have said to him. Unless he is willing to accept what I have said, I can have no option but to ask him to leave the Committee.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No.1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—"
"TRAINING
(1) No person mentioned in subsection (2) shall be required to carry out their functions in relation to matters covered by this Act unless that person has followed a course of training and development covering the matters dealt with in this Act.
(2) Subsection (1) applies to the following—

(a) police officers;

(b) those involved in the conduct of domestic homicide reviews.

(3) A member of the judiciary may not carry out their functions in relation to matters covered by this Act unless that person has followed a course of training and development covering the matters dealt with in this Act."
The noble Baroness said: The importance of the Bill is not reflected by its length or, at least—as we have recently been debating—its current length. As a precursor, I must say that the noble Baroness did not have advance notice of my intention with regard to Northern Ireland. As soon as I had received a courteous fax from her office on 15 January, I spoke to her private secretary by telephone, who, I know, is new in the job. I explained the procedure. I did not speak to the officials until we arrived today, and I am sorry that the message did not get through on an earlier occasion.
There are provisions in the Bill that break new legal ground in many respects and will involve statutory and voluntary organisations in their effective implementation. There are, of course, significant resource implications. The objective of my amendment is to draw attention to the importance of training for all those who will be involved in implementing the provisions of the Bill and to ask the Government to explain what steps they have already taken to ensure that there is the budget and the staff to do the training required.
So far the Government have only pointed us to what might happen in the future. A Written Answer by the Home Secretary in another place stated that the Inter-Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence will, over the next two years and beyond, oversee a programme of work and that,
"Among other things, we will be looking at education and tackling risk factors, improving the police and CPS handling of domestic violence cases".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/04; col. 416W].
That is very welcome. I certainly congratulate the Government on that work and look forward to seeing the results of it.
However, I must point out that the Government also expect the Bill to be on the statute book by the summer. One hopes that its provisions will be in place in months and not years, unless of course there is a delay in bringing the Bill into force.
The Law Society pointed out that considerable funding will be required to implement the Government's proposals. It states:
"If, for example, injunctions are to be enforced by the police and criminal courts it is vital that there are sufficient funds available to ensure that there are adequate staff in both areas and that they are properly trained to deal with such offences".
The Explanatory Notes state at paragraph 99 that,
"A full regulatory impact assessment is published with the Bill".
That was on 1 December. In fact the regulatory impact assessment is a hit of a Scarlet Pimpernel—we seek him here, we seek him there, we seek him just about everywhere. The staff in the Printed Paper Office deserve a plaudit for retaining heir patience with me as I went there almost every day to find out where it was. It was finally run to earth last week and I am grateful to the Home Office for e-mailing me an advance copy, which was very helpful.
The only direct reference to training that I can see is at page 7 in considering the costs and benefits of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses. Staff training has been put at £30,000, for what I assume is years two and three, but as I had only the draft copy at that stage it gave the figures for year two and was blank after that.
Much more training than that will be required as a result of the Bill. The importance of training for the police, judiciary, lawyers and voluntary organisations was highlighted at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Seccombe, among others. It has certainly been of concern to several of the organisations that briefed noble Lords at Second Reading and beyond. For example, the Women's National Commission has issued a document Unlocking the Secret: Women Open the Door on Domestic Violence. In the executive summary it makes clear that there should be regular, mandatory training for all the front-line professionals as well as specialists—the police, courts, social services, housing officers, health workers, teachers— to recognise domestic violence and to know how to help. That was repeated by Women's Aid.
My amendment is very modest when compared to what other organisations require. I have narrowed down the training requirements to a limited number of people. I accept fully that other organisations outside the House would expect the training to be much wider.
Clauses 4 and 5 state that those subject to domestic violence could themselves be subject to prosecution unless there is a very careful settlement of the cases. I shall later be bringing forward amendments in that regard. But it will be very difficult to provide training for courts and professionals to deal with such cases. Clause 6, homicide reviews, is another area where training will be required.
At paragraph 29 of its briefing, Liberty states:
"We would welcome clarification of what training will be made available for those conducting such reviews".
Clause 7 makes common assault an arrestable offence. That puts a huge responsibility on the police officer to determine whether to arrest a person. After all, it could be an accusation such as "He or she raised their fist to me just before you arrived". It places a

GC 201
huge responsibility on the officer to decide whether a common assault has taken place and whether they should arrest at that stage. Women's Aid states that training will be crucial if restraining orders are to be properly implemented.
Many organisations have drawn attention to the need for training and my amendment gives the Government the opportunity to put on record their commitment to ensuring that the measures in the Bill will be implemented only after appropriate training has taken place. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have a great deal of respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, as she knows, but—there is a big but—whatever the merits of her proposals, it would not be appropriate to include any of them in the Bill. The matters may or may not be addressed in correspondence by my noble friend. It may be appropriate to discuss the noble Baroness's proposals. If she is saying that the matters should be dealt with in correspondence, she should at least make that very clear. But there is not a scintilla of evidence to support the view that any of the matters to which the noble Baroness has subscribed should be included in the Bill. What she has said is very important, but the Government have a duty to make the Bill workable—in that regard, certain training may be necessary. I hope that, in outlining what the Government have in mind, my noble friend will subscribe to the view that none of the matters described so far should be included.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall take a little time on subsection (3), which reflects a recent judicial decision. While I am on my feet, I wish to tell the Committee, unless I am told that I may not do so, that I propose to report the Chairman's conduct to the Procedure Committee. His conduct was not within his power; it was a total abuse of power, as he had not heard what I had to say—which had not been considered—about the noble Baroness's comments. I shall not go into the matter; I shall deal with it before the Procedure Committee. I wished merely to point out that consultation between usual channels does not include myself or other Members of this Committee.
Lord McNally: Would the noble Lord—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Just a moment, please. I was ordered to sit down on pain of being told to leave the room. I have never been subjected to any such indignity by any chairman of any committee or by any Member on the Floor of the House. I make a firm protest that I shall continue to serve this Committee, to do my best, and not to retire as invited to do so.
Lord McNally: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I, too, was rather surprised by the Chairman's attitude. I had assumed that the Grand Committee operated as the House does. I want to ensure that the Procedure Committee is clear on that. A very important principle is at stake: we take great
GC 202
pride in being a self-regulating House, but if matters are referred to a Grand Committee where the Chairman apparently has powers greater than he would have on the Floor of the House, we have given away something rather more substantial than imagined initially. The matter should be looked at by the Procedure Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: This was an unprecedented occasion where an informal discussion was to take place. The proceedings had not formally opened; therefore, I had no particular authority to do what I have done. I do not regret what I did because I felt that it was important that we get on with the job of discussing Amendment No.1. No increased authority has been given to me, just some advice from the Public Bill Office, and that is how I interpreted that advice. I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord McNally, too, feels that that is a little severe for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. For the third time, that is unprecedented leeway that I was invited to give to the Committee before the proceedings began. Now proceedings are under way. We are discussing training, about which the noble Lord did not feel inclined to talk. The matter is now closed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Lord Chairman, it is closed here; let the Procedure Committee decide. I do not accept your explanation for one moment.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Perhaps I may seek a little assistance on Amendment No.1. Subsection (3) of the amendment states:
"A member of the judiciary may not carry out their functions in relation to matters covered by this Act unless that person has followed a course of training and development covering the matters dealt with in this Act".
In a first-instance situation, that may be right. As regards appeals, might we find that the Court of Appeal, for instance, is divided into the trained and the untrained judiciary? That would be a novelty, to say the least.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: First, I apologise to the Minister for not being present during her opening remarks. I shall read them tomorrow in Hansard and wise myself up as to the various considerations that were taken on board. As regards Amendment No.1, my knowledge of the courts is very restricted. I know a large number of magistrates, but, on the whole, I do not know judges in other courts except in an informal way.
Magistrates faced with this Bill might undertake some training led by their clerks, who, I am sure, would draw their attention to any new and difficult issues, which, if the Bill goes through unamended, should be studied before cases come before them. There is nothing odd about that aspect. But, with my knowledge of the courts, I shall not contest what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said because that would be idiotic.

GC 203
The phrase that caught my eye is in subsection (1) of the new clause. It states:
"No person mentioned in subsection (2)" —
referring to police officers and those involved in the conduct of domestic homicide reviews—
"shall be required to carry out their functions".
I understand the words, "shall carry out their functions".
But I do not understand the words,
"shall be required to carry out their functions".
Who needs protection: is it the victim or the policeman'?
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I, too, apologise for not being here at the start. I lost the meeting, but now I have found it. I, too. have some anxieties about the amendment, although it is crucial that there is training. I declare an interest as a member of the new board of CAFCASS. I have considerable experience of courts in relation to children as witnesses, as well as within the domestic and criminal courts.
It is clear that people will need training across the board, particularly in the voluntary sector where, often, they do not obtain training because they are marginalised by the Secretary of State from receiving any money. The Government often say that it should be shared, but I think that the noble Baroness knows that that does not always happen, despite encouragement.
However, I should like assurance that if the details of training were not in the Bill, the guidance would certainly contain them. That is where this belongs and where the who and the how can be thought through in some detail. Here is a particularly complex group of people, and training will be different for the different groups.
Lord Ackner: Perhaps I may make a very limited intervention on the case of judicial training. There always has been resistance among the judiciary to suggestions that it should be trained. Lord Devlin himself took the point that judges do not need training. That is an out-of-date concept. Judges of any first-instance kind may need training. That justifies the very considerable expenditure on the Judicial Studies Board. That is fully carried out.
As a judge, one is required to attend these courses. As a judge, one is required to attend a number of training courses. That particularly was the case in relation to the European human rights legislation that we took on board. With great respect to my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson, I do not think that there is anything the matter with that. The Court of Appeal is not required to take on training, for the simple reason that it is expected to understand the law. If it needs training, no doubt the Master of the Rolls could arrange courses. I therefore see nothing wrong with subsection (3) of the proposed new clause.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: If accepted, the clause would go to jurisdiction. That is the problem.
GC 204
I do not disagree with my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner about the desirability of training. Nor do I disagree when he says that there is extensive training now undertaken through the Judicial Studies Board. That is thoroughly desirable, and I am sure that it will continue. No doubt, it will be broadened in the light of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament.
My point is that it is a complete novelty. It is undesirable to have licensed judges in the Court of Appeal or, possibly, in the slightly lower courts. That is what this amounts to. There would be no jurisdiction in Lord Justice X's court unless he had received adequate training. It may be that, administratively, it could be arranged that he did not hear such an appeal, but that is another matter altogether. But this would mean that the man or woman had no jurisdiction, which I find strange.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In replying to this part of the debate, I may say that I interpreted the noble Baroness's amendment as a generic way of asking what is to be done about training. Unfortunately, the flaws in the amendment—I shall not trouble to go through them all—are such that they would have some very unfortunate consequences, as already alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. They are all correct.
The Government recognise the importance of training for those working in the field of domestic violence. Quite properly, that was raised at Second Reading. I made it absolutely clear that the Government would review all the domestic violence training available, with a view to ensuring a more consistent, multi-agency approach.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount. Lord Bridgeman, would place a statutory requirement for training on the police, the judiciary, and those involved in domestic violence homicide reviews. Because of the scope of the Bill and the terms of the amendment, its effects would be felt throughout the civil and criminal justice system. For example, in the absence of judges with the new training that the amendment demands, there may be delays in the issue of non-molestation and occupation orders, and criminal cases dealing with everything from common assault to familial homicide could not be heard. That would throw the listings procedure into chaos and seriously delay or jeopardise the outcome of a large number of proceedings.
At the other end of the system, as I think was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, senior police officers would be unable to order officers to attend most domestic violence cases, along with incidents of common assault or breach of a restraining order. Similarly, domestic violence homicide reviews, which are intended to be light touch, would also become difficult.
I understand that that is not what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, seeks. We all acknowledge that more work is needed to ensure that training for the police and the judiciary is of the highest standard, and that work already is under way. I should like to

GC 205
reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that the days when judges denied the need for training have frankly long gone. The criticism, if there is one, of the JSB now is why they do not receive more training. There is no problem about judges wanting to be trained.
The police and judiciary continue to make significant progress in training. In 2002, the Central Police Training and Development A uthority—Centrex—and the Association of Chief Police Officers published a new six-part training pack on domestic violence, and the National Centre for Policing Excellence is developing new guidelines for police handling of domestic violence cases. In addition, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate will shortly publish a joint thematic review of the handling of domestic violence cases, and we look forward to any recommendations that the report makes on training.
Training for the judiciary is provided by the Judicial Studies Board, which has recognised that training is not provided consistently throughout the magistrates' courts service. In order to support universal delivery, the Judicial Studies Board has developed training materials on domestic violence for use in the training of magistrates, and is providing training for magistrates' trainers in the use of that material.
The Judicial Studies Board also provides a range of courses for judges that covers domestic violence. If and when specific legislation is introduced, the Judicial Studies Board will assess the training needs of the judiciary and make any necessary provision. Finally, a review is under way to determine how many judges are ticketed for different areas of work, after which an assessment will be made about any additional appointments that may be required to fill the gaps.
No one disputes the fact that the police and judiciary need proper training to ensure that they understand the laws they are called on to enforce, and that they do so with proper awareness of the dynamics of particular types of case. I very much take on board what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said about training generally and the needs being of importance to all the agencies. We are keeping that matter very much in the forefront of our minds.
Training is an essential part of implementing new measures and making full use of existing powers, but the amendment would not improve matters. If anything, because of the way in which it is drafted, it is likely to make matters worse for the justice system and for victims themselves. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendments.
I have the privilege of chairing the inter-ministerial group on domestic violence. I reassure the noble Baroness that we are indeed trying to work right across government to see how we can raise the profile of the issue and make sure that there is better understanding. We are working with the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health, the ODPM, which deals with housing, and right across the board. The broad ministerial commitment is very strong, and
GC 206
we can get the message across and make the situation better. We will look carefully at the whole issue of training. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that her amendments have done what she wanted; namely, to have the issue explored. I hope that the answers meet her concerns.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I would like some reassurance that guidance will be cross-cutting.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The inter-ministerial group is looking at the needs of multi-agency working, and is consulting carefully with all the other departments to try to ensure that we can all sing from one hymn sheet. I cannot give the noble Baroness specific assurances about guidance; she will know that it is issued by different departments. There is the Department of Health's guidance, the guidance that we would issue in the Home Office, DCA guidance and CPS guidance. We are trying to make sure that there is clarity in relation to all the guidance, and that synergy takes place, so that we all work to the same brief.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful for the Minister's response. She was right in her opening remarks to recognise that my invitation to the Government was to put on record a series of assurances about what steps had been taken and what was their attitude to training. I tried to make that clear in my opening remarks.
A multi-agency approach is certainly needed. The Minister referred to the inter-ministerial group. In long distant days, I served on just such a group as an also-ran—as a non-political adviser, not a Minister. I realised early on in that group that the key to success lay in the person chairing it taking ownership of it to ensure that it was driven forward.
Without sounding too cloying, I think that we have the right person to do that. I hope that the Minister stays there to do just that. Otherwise, it is a most appallingly difficult job to get different government departments to work together. They often have a reasonable meeting, only, when they go away, to find that the matter is a low priority. I recognise that it is a difficult job; I am glad that the noble Baroness is performing it; we look forward to the results.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, did his usual friendly act in which he takes me to task for tabling a useless amendment and says that the matter could be better dealt with by correspondence. I am looking forward to carrying on our double act in discussing the Bill. I am sure that he will not be disappointed or offended if I give my usual answer, which is to say that, as I see it, my duty is to raise issues that have been raised with me as matters of concern by outside organisations.
In particular, I cited the Women's National Commission, which wants mandatory training. I appreciate all the proper reasons advanced by other members of the Committee why the amendment should not be accepted because of its drafting—here, I

GC 207
say thank you to the Public Bill Office for the drafting. It is not its fault that it has been criticised; I gave it the wrong instructions.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Why did not the noble Baroness say at the beginning of her speech, "I tabled the amendment so that the Minister can comment on it"?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I said that I wanted the Government to explain what steps they had taken to ensure that there was both the budget and the staff to do the training and, at the end, I invited the noble Baroness to give various assurances. Perhaps I did not make that as clear as I should have, but I tried.
Training is vital. I was delighted to be caught between two noble and learned Lords; I hope to repeat the experience in future. At this stage, I should declare a related interest. I am indeed aware of how seriously the judiciary takes its duty to provide training, and what good training the JSB provides. Tomorrow, my husband, as a lesser mortal in the judiciary, is off to Northampton to train in family law. So far be it from me to think that judges do not train.
I am most grateful for the contributions of all members of the Committee. I shall in particular bear in mind the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, about guidance. That is an important matter. The Minister was right to point out that every department will need to consider it, but we can deal with the Home Office. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No.2:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
In Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 (c.27) (family homes and domestic violence), before section 30 insert—
"Definition of domestic violence
29A DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
(1) Violence against a person by any other person is to be regarded as domestic violence if that person is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with that other person.
(2) In this section, "violence" means—

(a) physical abuse;

(b) sexual abuse;

(c)psychological or emotional abuse, including, but not limited to—

(i)intimidation;

(ii)harassment;

(iii) damage to property;

(iv) threats of physical abuse, sexual abuse or psychological abuse;

(v)in relation to a child, abuse of the kind set out in subsection (3).

(3) Without limiting subsection (2)(c), a person abuses a child psychologically if that person—

(a) causes or allows the child to see or hear the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a person with whom the child has a domestic relationship; or

GC 208

(b) puts the child, or allows the child to be put, at real risk of seeing or hearing that abuse occurring,

but the person who suffers that abuse is not regarded, for the purposes of this subsection, as having caused or allowed the child to see or hear the abuse or, as the case may be, as having put the child, or allowed the child to be put, at risk of seeing or hearing the abuse.
(4) Without limiting subsection (2)—

(a) a single act may amount to abuse for the purposes of that subsection;

(b) a number of acts that form a pattern of behaviour may amount to abuse for that purpose, even though some or all of those acts, when viewed in isolation, may appear to be minor or trivial.

(5) Behaviour which does not involve actual or threatened physical or sexual abuse may be regarded as psychological abuse for the purposes of subsection (2)(c).""
The noble Baroness said: I come now to a matter which has been raised with us by many different groups; namely, the need for a definition of domestic violence as a crime. That is because no such definition currently exists. We have tried to draw up a definition that keeps within what is laid down in the Long Title, amending Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996. and I am grateful to the Public Bill Office for its help. The noble Baroness will appreciate that when a Bill is so tightly drawn, it can be difficult to introduce an amendment of this kind. Were it completely new legislation, the task would have been much easier.
The definition we have provided in the amendment is drawn from New Zealand law and is an "off the shelf" form of words. As such perhaps it is not one that I would have advanced had I had the time to talk it over with others and start from scratch. What is set out is excellent, but I am more concerned with what is not included, in that it might cause some problems.
We are talking about defining domestic violence and violence committed within a family context or the context of a domestic relationship. It covers physical, sexual, psychological or emotional abuse, all of which are set out in detail, while subsection (3) addresses the psychological abuse of a child if the person committing the violence,
"causes or allows the child to see or hear the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a person with whom the child has a domestic relationship".
That reflects the strong recognition among the many organisations working in this field that children can be damaged by the domestic abuse of one of their parents. However, the subsection goes on to provide that the person who suffers the abuse cannot be blamed for causing damage to the child. Again, that is an important point that was raised with us.
Subsection (4) provides a definition for a single act or, as is much more common, a pattern of repeated actions as a description of domestic violence. Finally, subsection (5) covers:
"Behaviour which does not involve actual or threatened physical or sexual abuse may be regarded as psychological abuse".
This amendment has been drafted in response to the concerns expressed by many organisations that the opportunity should be taken in this Bill to include such

GC 209
behaviour in any definition of the crime of domestic violence, and New Zealand law is fairly close in character to our own legislation.
There are three main strands to the argument in favour of attempting to set out a definition in the Bill. The first responds to the perceived problem on the part of victims and those offering them help, support and encouragement that the courts do not always understand the nature of the problem. Psychological abuse in particular is not always recognised for what it is—namely, a form of violence—and the repeat nature of the crime that is so characteristic of many cases is also not always recognised by sentencers. The result is punishment which does not always fit the crime.
I should add that certain groups are still left out of the proposed definition, groups to which the noble Baroness referred in response to my comments on the matter during our debate at Second Reading. Special attention needs to be paid to the position of members of certain minority groups, mostly women who are not only abused by their husbands or partners, but find that that abuse is supported by the community. The victims of such abuse literally have nowhere to turn. That is not reflected in the definition. At some point, it ought to be referred to. I may well return to the matter, depending on what the Minister says in response. That explanation covers what has been set out in the proposed new clause.
The second strand of justification is purely practical and was the basis of my first rationale for proposing a definition to include in the Bill. The Government are rightly concerned to reduce the incidence of domestic violence, but in order to measure something, one first has to define it. The Equal Opportunities Commission is one of several organisations to have made the point.
At Second Reading, the Minister responded to my comment about the unfortunate absence of any definition in the present Bill by pointing out how the definition of domestic violence has changed over time. She also acknowledged the problems that can be caused by the different definitions being used in various parts of public administration and confirmed that the Government are working on a broad definition of domestic violence with partners, but rejected the notion of introducing a statutory definition. I recognise the problems surrounding statutory definitions, but I am not yet prepared to yield to the Minister—in particular since we do not yet know what the government definition will be.
That leads me to the third and most fundamental strand: the lack of understanding of the essential character of domestic crime shared by individuals, society and, often, the courts. In most situations where a person is facing the threat of physical assault, the old saying has it that he or she has two options: fight or flight. As it happens, the person is usually a young male. Sometimes there may be witnesses and there may be no former connection between the assailant and the victim. The assault may be a random and one-off event.
The victim of domestic violence, in particular of domestic violence that results in serious harm, is almost always a woman. She may lack the physical or mental strength to fight. As for flight, where can she go? How can she take her children with her, yet how can she leave them behind? Domestic violence, whether physical or psychological, may be witnessed by no one except the victim and, perhaps, her children—who, as I have said, may be damaged by witnessing that violence. The victim will have a close connection to the assailant, one in which she, or he, is the weaker partner. The violence will be what is most probably part of a pattern of behaviour which reinforces that power relationship. It is those considerations which have drawn many to say that UK law should reflect what is set out in the various human rights declarations to which the UK is a signatory.
Article 5 of CEDAW—the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women—requires states to,
"modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary…practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or superiority of either of the sexes".
In terms of the attitudes towards violence against women addressed in the Government's consultation document, that article, broadly drafted as it is, seems pretty apt.
In 1993, the United Nations produced a declaration on the elimination of violence against women, and within that declaration introduced a definition:
"violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men".
I do not want to speak at length about what some may perceive as a disagreeably feminist approach to the matter, but it is difficult not to be a feminist when so often the victims are women. For that reason, this Government in particular may well want to take a lead in the matter rather than merely following behind the changes in the definition of domestic violence referred to by the noble Baroness in her response to me.
The amendment contains no reference to the particular problem of the domination of male over female. I do not try to say that the amendment, tabled on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, is perfect, but perhaps we shall be able to improve it at later stages. That will depend on the response of the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: This is a welcome amendment which has been clearly explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. It is taken from the New Zealand law, subject to minor amendment, to provide a statutory definition. But the decision of the Court of Appeal regarding Lomas v Park published on 13 January has created an entirely new perspective for debate on this and other amendments. That decision unanimously concluded in

GC 211
a reserve judgment that the extant regime for domestic violence was wholly unsatisfactory. It further requested that Parliament consider, by amendment to this Bill, setting up an integrated court with civil and criminal jurisdiction, along with remedies, to adjudicate on domestic violence which, as a matter of principle, is to be found reflected in Amendment No.8.
It further found that, pending the setting up of an integrated court, mandatory guidance given by the courts on the operation of the parallel system should obtain in the interim, a point which also affects the proposed new clause. So on that basis, the amendment would serve alongside such guidance as a valuable staging post on the road to redressing the unsatisfactory regime.
An interim measure, pending a report and a draft Bill from the Law Commission, would be required in order to set up the court. Such is the basis on which the amendment warrants the Committee's support as an interim measure. The machinery for setting up the court cannot be devised in the form of an amendment to this Bill. It will involve a series of amendments to extant law, revision for a new mode of trial, retention of criminal jurisdiction for certain types of crime and implementation by rules. All that would be totally beyond the scope of the Bill. But the principle of establishment is expressly sought by the Court of Appeal in the Lomas v Parle decision.
During the process of gestation to achieve that Bill, the amendment will serve as a welcome and essential safeguard, albeit that I have certain reservations about subsection (5). I hope that it receives the support of the Committee.
Lord Borrie: Perhaps I may raise one or two questions about the amendment. The first two words in the title of the Bill are "domestic violence". On the face of it, therefore, it would seem a good idea to include a definition. I shall make one or two more detailed points. Although I am not an expert draftsman, what should be defined as an act of domestic violence seems to be well set out in the amendment. But although there are certain criminal offences and certain procedural remedies for criminal offences set out in the Bill, no specific offence of "domestic violence" is created. If one does not have an offence so described, then surely we would be doing unnecessary work in seeking to define it.
Clause 4 contains the most important offence of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable person. A brand new criminal offence such as that, the main purpose of which was explained by my noble friend at Second Reading and is set out in the Explanatory Notes, will no doubt be discussed in considerable detail. The Committee will want to pay the closest attention to the definition of that offence. It is a new offence with penalties attached to it and, therefore, in the interests of both victims and defendants, it must be closely and carefully defined.
Other provisions on the matter of definition in the Bill are perhaps less significant. For example, the provision set out in Clause 1 for the breach of a non-molestation order makes that, for the first time, a
GC 212
criminal offence. Because it is to be a new criminal offence, very careful attention must be paid to its definition.
I could give other examples from the Bill, but there is no offence entitled "domestic violence"; it is a description given. Obviously, one wants to give it some meaning, but I am not sure that it would help to set it out in a Bill, which then becomes an Act—rigid law. To my inexpert mind, the amendment seems well drafted, but it include phrases such as, "a person who is in a domestic relationship with another person". If one includes such a phrase, one needs to include a definition of "domestic relationship", and there is not one. I do not suggest that there should be; perhaps it would be as well, in these times of changing and developing social and domestic relationships, to allow the definition to be developed over time and as the courts deal with cases.
The inclusion of a definition of "domestic violence" would make the law more rigid than necessary. Although it may help judges, social workers and others dealing with the Bill and the offences that it covers, I do not see any value in including a definition in the Bill when it is not defining an offence.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I wish briefly to follow what the noble Lord has said. Since there is no offence of domestic violence, there seems no need to include a definition of it. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause states:
"Violence against a person by any other person is to be regarded as domestic violence if that person is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with that other person."
Immediately that requires a definition of a "domestic relationship". Until you know what a domestic relationship is, you cannot know whether the act of violence is an act of domestic violence occasioned in a domestic relationship.
We are in danger of attempting to define words that do not need definition. We all know what we mean—it is violence in a domestic surrounding. Courts know what it means. Since it is not a separate offence, I cannot see why it needs a separate definition.
Lord Desai: Not being a lawyer or a woman, I hesitate to intervene in this debate. At Second Reading, when the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, asked about a definition, I tried to cite one in the White Paper. I cannot judge whether it should be in the Bill, but it is good to be clear and to be reminded what domestic violence is. We may all know what it is, but about 10 years ago none of us did. Information on the nature of domestic violence has been developed by a lot of research. We are just beginning to understand its nature, because it is complex.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, and as the definition in subsection (4) states, domestic violence is often a repeated offence, rather than a one-off offence. Secondly, it is an offence to which witnesses are difficult to find. It may be assault and battery, for example, or grievous bodily harm, but to which there

GC 213
were no witnesses, therefore the context must be clear. Thirdly—this concerns me above all else—as I mentioned at Second Reading, the notion of domestic relationships, especially in a multi-ethnic society, must be thought of completely differently.
When the publication of domestic violence literature started in the social sciences, it was very much in the context of a man/woman relationship, with or without children, in which—let us make it clear—the man was battering the woman. That was the nature of domestic violence. Then we added the effect on children, direct or indirect, and so on. But, very often in a multi-ethnic situation, especially in joint families, a variety of people commit domestic violence against a woman, some of them women. There is no straightforward gender distinction. I do not know what should be done about the situation, but if we ever have to define "domestic relationship", we will take it in the context of a larger familial relationship as opposed to just a domestic relationship.
In statistics "family" and "household" mean two different things. Similarly, "familial relationship" may have a meaning different from "domestic relationship". Whether or not the provision is included in the Bill, it ought to be set out somewhere so that people can refer to it. In that document we should err on the side of generality rather than tight specificity, as we do not know what shape domestic violence will take in future.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support the inclusion of the amendment. As has been said, the offence of domestic violence has very much come to the fore over recent years. I would wager that, although the Committee may know what area it covers, much of the population does not. There is therefore a need for some definition. Having listened to the experts, I agree that the definition in this amendment may not be perfect, but the more one thinks about the matter, the more important it seems to describe the range of sexual domestic violence. I agree that domestic violence is not carried out against women only; there are plenty of examples of domestic violence against men, although they are the minority. I hope that the Minister will consider further the inclusion of some such provision in the Bill.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I feel somewhat ill at ease, as I do not support the amendment to include a definition of domestic violence. As a social worker and social scientist, I am aware that there would be huge temptations, in that people would believe that they had something against which they could measure cases. We have gathered statistics in this area for some considerable time, and, as some Members said, we can recognise domestic violence. In a changing society, there are dangers of getting it wrong. I have heard incidents of mothers-in-law in certain ethnic communities having the right to beat up their daughters-in-law as part of bringing them into line in the household. That is just an example, but there is a range of other issues.
GC 214
I am particularly concerned about allowing the person who has suffered abuse not to be found guilty, if a child is seriously harmed, of not bringing that harm to the attention of the authorities. That would be in direct conflict with Clause 4, which relates to two people being held responsible.
I have concerns about having definitions, as they tend to narrow attention. They conflict with other issues. We are in such an extraordinarily changing society that no sooner will we have one definition than we will need another.
Lord Renton: As the longest serving Member of both Houses and a senior Queen's Counsel, the Committee may be surprised and pleased by the silence that I have kept today. I must confess that I have serious doubts about the need for the Bill at all. Although I have great respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and have listened to the discussion of the amendment with much interest, I fear that it goes into too much detail by way of definition.
We must trust the courts to decide principles. We do not have the experience that the courts have in deciding whether justice should be done in one way or another. Too much of our legislation goes into too much detailed definition. For example, the amendment includes the words "domestic relationship", which is not defined here—or anywhere else, as far as I know. The courts would not have difficulty in finding whether there was a domestic relationship: husband and wife, partner and partner, brother and sister or even first cousins. People living together or spending a lot of time together are all domestic relationships. If we provide a definition in too much detail, some occasion is bound to be considered as being outside of it. So the definition would be better not made.
I could go on for a long time—I have tried to keep quiet today—but I hope that the Committee will bear that point in mind.
5 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I welcome the opportunity given to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, to debate this issue. I certainly go along with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, in believing that if we do not need a definition in the Bill, we need one somewhere—or at least an understanding of what is domestic violence.
Some members of the Committee said that the amendment narrows attention so that matters that should be excluded from domestic violence can be excluded. Today we have seen how coming to some understanding of what is domestic violence is fraught with difficulties. But that is precisely what we expect our courts to decide in each and every case before them. We have placed that heavy responsibility on them.
Whether we like it or not, a definition of domestic violence is at present used by the Home Office. If the Home Office did not have one, it would be criticised;

GC 215
because it has, we criticise it by saying that the definition is insufficient and not up to date. That definition is:
"Any violence between current and former partners in an intimate relationship wherever and whenever the violence occurs. The violence may include physical, sexual, emotional and financial abuse".
The amendment does not appear specifically to cover financial abuse.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has done us a great service by enabling us to debate the problems involved in updating the definition. As she said, there are flaws in the amendment's drafting. That is not the problem. She has focussed our attention on how difficult it is to decide what should be the definition. Members of the Committee have referred to the problem of defining a domestic relationship, whether it involves a family or a household.
The amendment starts with the circular definition that violence is to be regarded as domestic violence if a person has been in a domestic relationship, but without defining "domestic". "Violence" is defined in the proposed new clause but "domestic" is not. We must surely consider that.
I question how widely the word "domestic" should go. After all, when murder statistics are classified it is often said that most murders are "domestic" in the sense that a murder is committed by someone whom the victim knew. Already, my noble friend Lord Renton has talked about the definition of domestic violence including cousins, brothers and sisters. Some would say that that is not domestic violence. I would say that my noble friend is right to consider how widely domestic violence can extend. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, was right to avoid gender bias in her drafting; the problem is gender free.
I recollect the first interview that I had in a case of domestic violence that ended up with a conviction in the Crown Court. In that case, a gentleman was being beaten up by his mother-in-law and his wife. Both of them were smaller than he, but the mother-in-law performed a service by putting a pitchfork round his neck and putting him on the ground, so that his wife could do the rest. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, has recognised that it may be in a minority of cases that there is domestic violence against a man but that that must be covered properly, as she has done in her definition.
It is difficult to decide what kind of domestic relationship is covered. Is it only a household in which people live together? What about a long-distance relationship because of professional commitments? Is not that a domestic relationship too, even though each party might maintain and own separate homes and travel a lot? One may consider oneself, either married or unmarried, as being in a domestic relationship. A platonic relationship could even be included. As a relationship develops over the years, the sexual relationship may have gone out of it. There is so much that is difficult in drafting such a definition.
I sympathise with the way in which the noble Baroness has approached the drafting of subsection (3). She seeks to protect the victim of domestic violence
GC 216
from being held guilty for the child abuse offence described in the first paragraph of the subsection. That is a theme to which I would like to return, when we get to the offence in Clause 4 and the way in which it is dealt with in court, as set out in Clause 5. I recognise the huge difficulty in trying to absolve a victim of domestic violence from the responsibility of preventing other people suffering the same violence in the household.
I was interested to see in the Judicial Studies Board's training document, to which I referred a moment ago—the training is going on this week—that the participants would be invited to debate a preferred option of defining domestic violence. Her Majesty's judges will consider another possible definition, to test their mettle. It runs as follows:
"Domestic abuse is essentially a pattern of behaviour, which is characterised by the exercise of control and the misuse of power by one person over another person, often within the context of an intimate relationship and affects the lives of children. It can be manifested in a variety of ways, including but not restricted to, physical, sexual, psychological, emotional and financial abuse, and the imposition of social isolation".
That is not a perfect, preferred option, and one can immediately see problems with it. However, it takes us further forward, and I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate whether the Government have been made aware of that preferred option and have had the opportunity to consider it. If so, what is their reaction? If not, will they direct their mind to it in the future?
We have made a good start in the debate today, in the hands of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. We may need to return to the matter, even if the definition does not need to go into the Bill. As noble Lords have correctly pointed out, there is no offence of domestic violence in the Bill, but it is essential that we know what we are talking about, if we are to be able to say whether the Bill should go forward unamended.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I found the debate that we have just had stimulating. It reflects the debate that the Government had, causing us to believe that there should be no definition in the statutory form. Several Members of the Committee highlighted the difficulties of defining domestic violence in a way that will remain flexible and capable of responding to changing circumstances. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for tabling the amendment. It enables us to consider the matter and justify our decision not to have a definition. I want to say straightaway that I agree with the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Borrie, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and Lord Renton, my noble friend Lord Desai and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, when they say that a definition would be misplaced in the Bill.
The issue of definition arose at Second Reading. Members of the Committee will recall that I acknowledged the concerns voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, about the different domestic violence definitions in use by

GC 217
different agencies, and assured noble Lords that the Government were working with partners towards a single definition.
I should say how grateful I am for the unnecessary and unfounded compliments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about my chairmanship of the inter-ministerial group. Members of the Committee will know that domestic violence has been an issue about which I have felt passionately since 1977. That passion has not waned. As the chair of the domestic violence inter-ministerial group, I assure Members of the Committee that it is looking at the very issue of definition, not in terms of what goes into the Bill, but to have a working model that all practitioners across the discipline can seek to use as a first-point position. I do not want to restrict a definition but to enable one, in the parameters within which we currently understand domestic violence, to be better understood by all practitioners who have to apply it.
I endorse the comments of those who have spoken about the fear of rigidity, not least because the people whom we seek to protect are the victims of domestic violence. Tragically, we are discovering that the species of domestic violence mutate far more quickly than we can keep up with in statute. That is a change. One could say that we have waited 30 years for this new piece of legislation, and we do not know how quickly we would have to amend any definition. That informs what we think.
The amendment is unnecessary. Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 does not use "domestic violence" and, if it did so, defining it might create another hurdle that applicants for orders would have to clear. At present, parties must be "associated" according to the definitions in Section 62 of the Act, and there must be evidence of "molestation". The case law indicates that a very wide range of behaviours may be classified as "molestation" for these purposes; for example, "pester" may be included, as in the case of Vaughan v Vaughan in 1973. Conduct that does not amount to violent behaviour can fall within the category, as in Davis v Johnson in 1979. Repeated telephoning was covered in Burnett v George in 1992; the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, talked about psychological issues and stalking. The courts can identify all those different species as domestic violence in its real form.
Making eligibility for an order further dependent on establishing some history of domestic violence as defined in the amendment would risk reducing the availability of orders to those who need their protection. Members of the Committee have said that there is often a pattern. It is right that the average is about 37 occasions before a woman—it is usually a woman—has the courage to come forward. However, we would obviously like, through education and better understanding, any person who suffers violence not to wait for it to be repeated, but to seek succour on the first occasion on which abuse takes place. Certainly, we would not like to have anything in the definition
GC 218
that would discourage them, so that they felt that they had to be abused on a continual basis before they were able to receive the care and attention that they needed.
I shall pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about larger familial relationships. They are currently covered in the Family Law Act 1996. The definition of associated person in subsection (3)(d) includes relatives. We want to add to, and not subtract from, the protection that already exists. Clause 1 of the Bill talks about criminalising a breach of a non-molestation order, so a court will already have made an order determining that some form of domestic violence or molestation has taken place, and it is the breach of that molestation order that will then be dealt with under that clause.
I think that I can take it from everything that has been said without exception, by each Member of the Committee who has spoken, that our general intent is to enhance the protection given to victims of such abuse, to bring about greater clarity of understanding and question whether that would be better dealt with in the statutory definition, and to have a general approach that would be better understood by all. Through our attempts at education and raising the profile, we seek to do that.
We hope, very soon, to launch a domestic violence campaign to help others better to understand the nature of domestic violence. We understand that the issue may start with someone being silenced and not being able to express themselves. It may then move on to what equates to a form of bullying, to get control of a person, and may gradually move on to a violent act. It sometimes starts psychologically and moves on to the physical. Making sure that there is better understanding is certainly important.
I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that we seek understanding between agencies which have to deal with the problem, so that there is clarity of purpose. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that we are delighted that the Judicial Studies Board is taking a role. We will continue to work with it. The Department for Constitutional Affairs, which is the lead government department under which the JSB sits (although it is a an independent body), also sits on our inter-ministerial committee. We are looking across the piece so that we get the understanding that I know that all Members of the Committee seek.
It has been a very helpful debate. It has clarified to me, if I needed further clarification, precisely why we should not have a statutory definition in the Bill.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank everyone who has been kind enough to give the debate and my amendment such serious consideration. I shall start with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. It is the absence of the definition of the crime that I am trying to correct by providing one. His argument circulates one way and mine circulates in the opposite direction, so I do not think that we shall find a point of contact along that line of discussion. I think that the absence of a definition is a problem, and it is not the solution.

GC 219
I cannot go through every contribution, but I noticed that some have said that there is something wrong about creating an offence. We need to know what we are talking about. The noble Baroness did not contest that. Her attitude was different from that: it was not that one should not define it, but that it should be defined in a different place. In some ways, she and I are in fairly close alliance on the matter of whether the crime needs to be defined.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for her support. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others said, that the amendment is fairly complicated. However, I do not find "domestic" at all difficult to understand. It means living in the same house—in the same domestic situation. It therefore includes all the relationships, whatever they may be, between the people who live in that house. So it includes any kind of familial relationship—a cousin or whoever it may be—as the noble Baroness said. Battered grannies and so on can all come under it. That is the meaning of the word "domestic". I know that I have not set that out in the amendment but to me, as an amateur, "domestic" means the people living in the household and that is the way in which I interpret it.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: A number of noble Lords have made the point that if we are talking about the same household, the term "domestic relationships" may be too narrow a definition because a number of the relatives may not live in the same household. That is one of the problems.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I understand the Minister's point and I take it in the context of what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said about various minority communities where extremely unfortunate abuse is vented upon people by all kinds of different connections and, indeed, as I said in my opening statement, where very often the abused person cannot obtain support outside of the household for the abuse that she or he is suffering within it. I understand the point and I know that the amendment is deficient in that respect.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for welcoming the amendment as a basis on which we can discuss these issues. She is quite right, the amendment does not cover financial abuse and it certainly should.
I thank the Minister for her reply which I shall read it with great care. I have sufficient experience of the noble Baroness to know that one does not necessarily always get the full import of what she is saying when listening to her. I shall read what she said with great interest to ensure that I understand it. I may continue the discussion in correspondence with her or we may bring forward another amendment which satisfies the problems raised by members of the Committee at a later stage. That will depend on how matters pan out. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 3:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS, COHABITANTS OR FORMER COHABITANTS: REPEAL
Section 41 of the Family Law Act 1996 (c.27) (additional considerations if parties are cohabitants or former cohabitants) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are directed towards the same area of the original Bill—that is, the question of occupation orders. Amendment No.3 seeks to insert a new clause which would remove from the original Bill the additional considerations that a court may have in mind when discussing occupation orders and whether the parties are cohabitants or married. In other words, you may be disadvantaged—in theory, at any rate—by the court if you are not married. That is an absolutely unsustainable position today, particularly considering the large number of people living together unmarried for many, many years.
A Member of your Lordships' House told me the other day that his son or daughter—I forget which—was about to get married, he or she having lived with their partner for seven or eight years. Many marriages do not last that long. We are in a completely different situation nowadays as regards how we treat married or unmarried people.
The second amendment goes in a slightly different direction. It is concerned with the duration of occupation orders, which do not have the same minimum duration as non-molestation orders. The amendment provides that the various orders shall last for a minimum period of six months and can be extended on two occasions for further periods of six months unless an application is made to discharge the order. In other words, it would ensure that the orders are not too short.
Currently, victims of domestic violence do not all have equal access to protection because of the legal differential regarding the nature of their relationships. That does not affect non-molestation orders, but it does affect occupation orders. An abused woman, who has directly contributed to or even fully met the costs of the family home through rent or mortgage payments for many years cannot, under present law, obtain an occupation order for more than a year simply because she is not married to the legal tenant or owner. That is a strange situation.
We should bear it in mind that this law is to apply to single-sex partnerships and we should consider what effect it will have on those. The courts may well have to say that because they are not married, but only cohabiting, single-sex partners would be discriminated against in the same way. All discrimination is unacceptable and I hope that the Minister will consider these amendments.
The matter of the duration of orders has been raised because so many women complain about their short period of effect. They must return to the court maybe every two or three months to get another order which may last for only another two or three months. They

GC 221
do not feel sufficiently protected when the orders are so short-lived. That is why we have tabled a probing amendment to provide that orders are made for six months at a time, for a total of 18 months, unless an application is made to discharge them. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, gave the game away when she referred to the fact that many of these issues will be covered by the Civil Partnerships Bill. They will be better dealt with there, although I appreciate that she is rightly taking this opportunity to try to raise some of those issues. I understand that the Minister is to take the Civil Partnerships Bill through the House, so she is the ideal person to respond today. I shall not be dealing with it, since it is a DTI Bill. My noble friend Baroness Wilcox is the person charged with that task.
I had difficulty following the reasoning behind Amendment No. 4. I was grateful when the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, explained that it is a probing amendment designed to tease out certain equality issues. She then put some of the arguments in favour of the amendment, which seemed to achieve the exact opposite of what I thought the amendment was about.
Thank goodness for the Internet, because I did not see these amendments until Friday. Had the statutes not been available online, I could not have done a thing. I looked up the Family Law Act 1996 to see the basis on which the noble Baroness is working. I am puzzled by the way in which the noble Baroness has sought to amend the duration of occupation orders, by making the period specific to six months. That does not allow for a shorter period, as does the existing law. She says that she seeks a minimum period of six months, but she has not explained why there should be no flexibility for the courts.
Why should not the court decide each individual case? A shorter order might benefit the victim of domestic violence. Victims of abuse have put it to me that sometimes there is an advantage in using a "quick fix" remedy. In a sense, it keeps the offender's eye on the horizon. Victims can apply for a further order.
I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that courts are normally enjoined to make orders for as short a period as possible; that is their duty. The amendment also says that an extension is allowed for a further period of six months on only two occasions, rather than at will. The noble Baroness says that she seeks a minimum six-month period because she wants longer rather than shorter orders. However, her amendment would take away from the courts the opportunity to reissue orders for as long as may be necessary. I am rather puzzled about that.
I am also puzzled by the phrase,
"unless an application is made to discharge the order".
Perhaps whoever has been assisting the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, may like to look at that again. As I read it, if one applies to discharge the order, the rest of the proposed new section cannot apply. If the noble Baroness wants to retable the amendment at Report, she may like to rejig it.
GC 222
I certainly agree that it is important to ensure that the orders are fit for purpose and last long enough. However, perhaps the noble Baroness should consider circumstances where orders may serve their purpose by being shorter than six months. But, by golly, sometimes one needs the extra armoury that the courts can keep reissuing them more than just a couple of times.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I echo much that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said. I absolutely understand why the noble Baroness tabled Amendment No. 3. It will need consideration in the light of the proposals currently being considered under civil partnership provisions. Although I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for giving me the wonderful task of piloting the whole of that Bill through, I may find that the DTI Minister has a considerable part to play and that mine may be the minor role. But hope springs eternal.
Clearly, it is important that the court should have regard to all relevant factors when considering whether to make an occupation order—the nature of the parties' relationship will no doubt be highly relevant. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for raising this issue in relation to Section 41. In its present form, it would apply only to opposite-sex cohabitants. As I said earlier, that is something we must address.
For some of the reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I, too, have greater difficulty with Amendment No. 4. It would have the effect of standardising the length of the initial occupation order made under Sections 35, 36, 37 or 38 of the Family Law Act 1996 at six months, and would allow a court to extend the order on two occasions for a further six months when an application is made to discharge the order.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, at the moment, the Family Law Act 1996 provides for an initial order under those sections to be for a maximum of six months—that is, for any period up to six months. It then draws a distinction between spouses or former spouses and cohabitants or former cohabitants. For spouses, it states that the court may extend the order on one or more occasions for a further period of not more than six months. For cohabitants, one extension may be allowed for a period of not more than six months.
In general principle, I do not believe that it is right to prescribe the length of the initial occupation order as six months. The court should be free to determine the length of the order, depending on the facts of the case, and providing what it considers to be the right length of protection. The noble Baroness will know that no one case is the same as any other.
The second effect of Amendment No. 4 is to harmonise the position of spouses and cohabitants. I understand that the current provision of the Family Law Act might appear strange. However, the purpose of the distinction was to reflect the different level of commitment involved in marriage and cohabitation. I know that those relationships are very similar, but the

GC 223
noble Baroness will concede that marriage allows both partners to share property as of right. Many people who do not marry wish to keep their property rights separate. There are other provisions which, as a result of the duration of the relationship, will give one party rights in relation to property on the basis of certain conditions being met. They are two differently structured relationships.
For cohabitants, the courts may provide protection for up to a year in total. That should be sufficient for the parties to arrange suitable alternative accommodation. For married couples, where there is a lifetime commitment—or, at the beginning of the marriage, there purports to be a lifetime commitment—the courts may find instances where they consider it necessary to make a longer order in favour of the non-entitled spouse, and that should be left to the discretion of the court. If there is a need for further protection, an application for a new occupation order could be made, with the court having the opportunity to reconsider the full facts of the case.
We do not believe that the way in which the rules work at the moment is either discriminatory or unjust. It reflects the different relationships between the parties and the likely complexity of their financial and property arrangements, and allows the court to reflect that in the occupation order. I can be seduced into considering Amendment No.3, but, for those reasons, I am more resistant to the noble Baroness's lures in relation to Amendment No. 4.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank both noble Baronesses for their thoughtful contributions and their comments on my amendments. As I said, they are probing amendments, particularly the second one.
I am a little concerned at the Minister's response about the difference between married and unmarried partners. I have been both. In both cases, I have had half ownership of the house in which I have lived. There must be many other people in long-term unmarried associations—if that is the right term—who, similarly, share their property, for obvious reasons. One partner at least obtains half of the property tax free on the death of the other partner. Of course, that partner cannot obtain the other partner's half of the property tax free. My point is that the relationships between unmarried and married people are much less dissimilar than might be supposed.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hesitate to interrupt, but reassure the noble Baroness that I was not, in any way, detracting from that fact. It is simply that the legal relationship about which the noble Baroness spoke can be different. For instance, the noble Baroness is right to say that people may share the house in joint names. That is a decision they both make.
We are considering where there is not such an expressed declaration of sharing. Perhaps the couple is unmarried and the property a previously-owned property in the name of one of the parties, but not the other. If one marries, one is deemed to give the other
GC 224
person an interest in one's property. That is the operation of marriage and the vows that should have been listened to very carefully. Then there are others who—some would say—are wise enough not to enter into that estate because they wish to protect their property from any unmerited claim made by the unassociated partner whom they have chosen judiciously not to marry.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The noble Baroness described various relationships that can exist between married and unmarried people. I do not propose to go any further down that line. It seems that what we are talking about here is the balance of good, and, in terms of both amendments, where the balance should be struck. I shall read the criticisms made of Amendment No.4 by both noble Baronesses, because they seem to agree with each other. That is always a good indication that I may have got something wrong.
Lord Renton: If the noble Baroness is considering tabling the amendment again on Report, will she bear in mind that she uses the same phrase four times when it need be used only once, after which the four occasions to which it applies can be set out?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I accept again the unrivalled knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on how to draft a Bill. I do not know anyone who scares governments of any complexion more thoroughly when he gets up to query the drafting of a Bill. I yield to the noble Lord's knowledge in that respect. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 1 [Breach of non-molestation order to he a criminal offence]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No.5:
Page 1, line 13, after "existence" insert "and terms"
The noble Baroness said: We reach Clause 1 after two hours; I wonder whether we have set a record in that respect. Clause 1 inserts new Section 42A into the Family Law Act 1996, which makes breach of a non-molestation order a criminal offence. I am aware that, for the most part, the provision has been welcomed by professional and voluntary organisations, but that there are some concerns. My amendments are intended to probe the operation of the clause. I look forward to the opportunity, when we debate Amendment No. 7, to probe the whole principle of the clause and whether it should be replaced by contempt proceedings.
The maximum penalty for breach is five years. The Government have made clear their intention that the police will always be able to arrest for breach of a non-molestation order without the need for the courts to attach a power of arrest, or for the victim to apply to the civil court for an arrest warrant. Just about the only protection for the person who will be arrested is in proposed Section 42A(2), which provides that an individual would be guilty of the criminal offence only

GC 225
if he or she was aware of the existence of the order. My probing amendment would add an extra layer of protection by requiring that the person should also be aware of the contents of the order. I note that Liberty supports that approach, although it would prefer the word "content" to be used rather than "terms". I bow to its superior knowledge on such drafting.
Can the Minister confirm that the present drafting of the Bill would mean that an order would not have to be served upon the person who may be arrested, and therefore that they could be unaware of the exact content of the order? If so, will the noble Baroness explain the Government's reasons for providing that? Are there any other situations where a person can be guilty of an offence without being aware of the terms of an order? What will be the definition of "service"?
The Family Law Bar Association responded to the Government's consultation on the basis that it supported the proposal to criminalise breach of orders:
"with the caveat that we do not support the criminalisation of breaches of orders that have been made 'without notice' and which have not been served upon the defendant".
I tabled the amendment in the light of that response. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I see the point of giving the added protection of needing to have knowledge of the terms. But surely one can have a situation in which, although someone has no idea exactly what the terms of the order are, he is jolly certain that it covers what he proposes to do. Perhaps there ought to be a slightly different formulation, such as, "provided that he knows that he should not be doing it in accordance with the order". I have a nasty feeling that, at some stage, some bright lawyer will say, "He did not know about the terms", particularly if they are complex. We should not allow ourselves to get caught by that trap.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I support that view. I understand the difficulty as regards justice in knowing what is in an order. But given the number of cases in which I have been involved where a man has made certain that an order could not be served on him so that he did not know what was in it, in order not to meet the requirements, I am very uneasy about not having such a provision.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It was the concern expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that caused us to draft the provisions of the Bill in the way that we have. The Government's intention in framing Clause 1 was to avoid one of the problems identified by many of those who responded to the Safety and Justice domestic violence consultation paper. Respondents to "without notice" orders often go to great lengths to avoid the service of such orders.
Orders must be served in person and, by refusing to open their doors to the processors, respondents can continue to harass the applicant while truthfully claiming not to have been served with the order. This
GC 226
makes a mockery of court orders and the protection that they are supposed to provide. As the clause is currently drafted, a respondent who is aware of the existence of an order but who has evaded service or made no effort to ascertain its terms could be held to account for breaching the order.
However, a person can be found guilty of breaching the order only if the breach is without reasonable excuse. That is covered by subsection (1). This could operate, for example, to protect a respondent who cooperated with the service of an order but who, because of blindness or illiteracy, was unable to discover its terms before inadvertently breaching one of them. The circumstances of such a failure to comply would be considered by the court. We believe that this provides the safeguard intended by the supporters of the amendment.
The amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, would allow respondents to non-molestation orders to evade service of the order and then to breach it with impunity on the grounds that they were not aware of its terms. I know that that is not the intention behind their amendment.
I understand entirely the concerns that have been properly expressed to ensure that justice is seen to be done to both parties and not only to the complainant. We believe that the way in which subsection (1) is currently drafted enables a person who feels that he or she has genuinely not been served with an order, and/or has been unable to ascertain its content, to make use of that reasonable excuse and to put it before a court to make a determination on it.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble Baroness is right—my noble friend and I were definitely not trying to define a situation where people could get out from under and fail to obey the terms of an order that had been properly imposed by a court, merely by evading finding out what the order was about.
Can the noble Baroness indicate whether there is any other case in English statute law where someone can be convicted for the breach of an order when they do not know its terms? Is this brand-new legislation or is it replicated from a previous statute? If the Minister cannot answer today, I would be happy for her to write to me.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall certainly look at other legislation. However. "without reasonable excuse" is a catch-all phrase that has been interpreted in other circumstances. It will enable a person who has been accused of a breach to come forward and say, "I was not served; I had no notice of it; and, even if I had had notice of it, I could not have read it". That will be a question of fact in any given case because, for instance, for those who seek to evade improperly, there would doubtless be evidence to say, "The process server came and put his foot in the door. You slammed the door shut. He shouted the contents of the order through the door. You obviously had a discussion where you could have heard it and you sought to evade it".

GC 227
It comes down to a question of fact, to be determined by the court in any given case, as to whether the person had a reasonable excuse or not and should have known about the order or not. The court will then determine whether, having that knowledge, they were improperly or wrongfully in breach of the order. I shall certainly look to see if there is any other legislation and write to the noble Baroness.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful that the noble Baroness will ascertain whether this is new legislation or whether existing legislation covers a similar point. I am grateful also for her further explanation of the "without reasonable excuse" part of subsection (1). I wholly accept that it provides a route of protection. In my limited experience as a magistrate, not only are there occasions when someone may try to evade knowing what is in an order but, conversely, in some situations there is no attempt to evade finding out that there is an order but service is not affected. Even when service is available, it may be a very low priority for the police, the Post Office or whoever is delivering the order. Things can go wrong. One does not want a situation where a person who would have obeyed the order if he knew the contents—he is, in that respect, innocent—suffers the full punishment of the provision. I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No.6:
Page 2, line 2, after "punished" insert "or dealt with"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment raises a minor probing point on drafting. I hope for an explanation to clear up something that I find puzzling. Subsection (4) provides that a person cannot be convicted on a breach of a non-molestation order where he or she has been punished for that conduct by way of contempt of court proceedings. My amendment seeks an explanation of what the Government define as "punishment" in the context of this subsection.
In a case where only a costs order is made, does that fall within the definition of "punishment"? That point has been put to me by organisations outwith this House and I want to place it on the record. I note that the Explanatory Notes contain a form of wording different from that in the Bill. There is no harm in that; we merely seek an explanation.
Paragraph 25 of the Explanatory Notes states:
"where an individual has been convicted of a breach of a non-molestation order, he cannot be punished subsequently for contempt, and vice versa".
Why is there a reference to "convicted" in the Explanatory Notes but a reference to "punished" in the Bill? It has been pointed out that the Government
GC 228
may have followed the drafting of Section 3(8) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which states:
"A person cannot be convicted of an offence under subsection (6) in respect of any conduct which has been punished as a contempt of court."
Whether or not the Government are following that drafting, I would still he grateful to know whether the provision covers the situation where only a costs order has been made. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall try to respond to this amendment more fully than I would have done otherwise in the hope of addressing the points raised by the noble Baroness. In making a breach of a non-molestation order a criminal offence, Clause 1 retains the option for breach of an order to be dealt with as a civil contempt of court. For instance, there could be a situation where the first person to arrive at the scene of a breach is a police officer, and therefore that is how the incident is dealt with. Alternatively, the complainant may assert that there has been a breach and bring the matter back to the court, which will then adjudicate on whether there has been a breach and deal with any breach.
As the noble Baroness knows, the punishment for dealing with contempt could take a number of forms. The person could be sent to prison as a result of the contempt; there could be a suspended imprisonment order; the person could be made to make a payment; there could be any kind of response. The court may say that there has been a technical breach but that it will not impose a punishment save for costs and an additional warning. For instance, someone could put his foot over the threshold, not raise his voice and remove his foot when asked. That is technically a breach, but it might not be punished by imprisonment; it might be dealt with in another way. Thus subsection (4) provides that a person cannot be convicted of the criminal offence of breach of a non-molestation order if the same conduct has already been punished as a contempt of court. The Government's intention is to prevent someone being punished twice for the same breach.
As the noble Baroness has rightly highlighted, the same issue is dealt with in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, where breach of an injunction taken out under Section 3 is a criminal offence. That Act took the approach that we are taking in the Bill: preventing double jeopardy without preventing separate proceedings for separate offences arising from the same incident.
The amendment would put this Bill out of step with the Protection from Harassment Act. However, I understand that the noble Baroness has sought to probe the Government's thinking. It is also unnecessary because, in practice, the Crown Prosecution Service is most unlikely to bring a case in the criminal courts if the alleged breach has already been the subject of contempt proceedings in the civil court. However, noble Lords know that the breach of the order is a separate matter from something like an offence of grievous bodily harm that may flow from it, and those would have to be separated. However, this

GC 229
is to prevent double jeopardy. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that her amendment is not necessary.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful for that careful explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No.7:
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new Clause—
"POWER OF ARREST
In Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 (c.27) (family homes and domestic violence), for section 47(2) substitute—
"(2) If the court makes a relevant order, it shall attach a power of arrest to such provisions of the order as will adequately protect the applicant or child from the risk of significant harm attributable to the conduct of the respondent."
The noble Lord said: Noble Lords may recall that when Albert was eaten by the lion, Ma's reaction was to say, "Someone's got to be summonsed". Clause 1, although under the heading "Domestic violence etc", is a small provision being trumpeted as much more than it is.
Making the breach of a non-molestation order—a civil order—a criminal offence will cause delay, waste resources and will not advance the Government's policy objectives to give further protection to the victims of domestic violence. I suggest that those objectives can be much better realised by strengthening the powers of the civil judge who made the non-molestation order in the first place. Noble Lords should always bear in mind that, before these provisions can come into effect, the person who is the victim of the conduct of the respondent has already gone to the civil court and obtained, with legal advice and assistance, a civil order from the judge.
The victim of domestic violence has at all times the full protection of the criminal law: protection against assault, against rape, and all other similar types of conduct. So a non-molestation order is no substitute for the protections that are given by the criminal law to the victims of domestic violence as they are to everyone else. But although victims report such criminal acts to the police, they will frequently withdraw their complaints or, if they go to court, fail to give the necessary evidence. If one pauses to consider why that should be, it is because wives and partners do not necessarily want to make their partners criminals and send them to prison. What they want is for the offending conduct towards them to stop. Because criminal proceedings against a partner are so frequently withdrawn, in the past the police have failed to take domestic violence as seriously as they ought. That is the reason why I said at Second Reading that it is good to learn that the police are now being trained to take domestic violence much more seriously than they did in the past.
Why therefore should it be assumed that victims who have already taken the step of going to the civil court and obtaining the required order will wish to pursue their partners for breach of that civil order in
GC 230
the criminal court? Why, in those circumstances, would they be willing to face the publicity and unpleasant atmosphere in the criminal courts to pursue the criminalisation of their partner? As I have said, all they want is for the conduct to stop; they do not necessarily want the person concerned to be sent to prison so that he can no longer support them or fulfil the maintenance order.
The first criticism made by the Government of the present civil procedure is that there is no automatic power of arrest attached to an order. Amendment No.7 would provide that a power of arrest shall be attached to every non-molestation order and occupation order made by a civil judge. Of course, it may not be necessary to attach a power of arrest to every provision contained in a non-molestation or occupation order, but it will be at the discretion of a civil judge to decide just what merits the application of the power of arrest. The amendment is worded to provide that the court shall attach a mandatory provision, a power of arrest,
"to such provisions of the order as will adequately protect the applicant or child from the risk of significant harm attributable to the conduct of the respondent".
Noble Lords will note that, unlike in the Bill, it is our view that the protection should extend not only to a non-molestation order, but to an occupation order.
The Government said at Second Reading that the police were confused about their powers of arrest. Amendment No.9 therefore makes provision for registering orders with the chief officer of police in such a way that the provisions of that order can readily be made available to an officer on the beat. Already, under the Family Law Act 1996, he is entitled to arrest on the reasonable suspicion that the order has been breached, with the provision that the arrested person must be brought before the court within 24 hours.
We argue that the contents of a civil order should immediately be made available to an officer so that, if necessary, he could radio in to check on the computer what precisely is stated in the order; that is, what conduct it actually prevents. The converse is that, as at present, unless the victim making the complaint can produce the order, the constable will have no idea what particular matter is covered by the order.
A further criticism is that contempt of court carries a maximum penalty of only two years' imprisonment under Section 14(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. But that maximum is stated in the section to be subject to any other provision, so that in a specific case it would not prevent the sentence being limited to two years' imprisonment. Amendment No.10 therefore extends the power of the court to the same degree as the powers given to the Crown Court and the magistrates' court in Clause 1. In practice, it is unlikely that lengthy sentences of the kind proposed in the Bill would ever be given in either the civil or criminal jurisdiction. If the defendant is to be imprisoned for up to five years, he certainly must have committed another criminal offence such as assault to merit a sentence of that length. However, in drafting the amendments, I followed the maximum of five years' imprisonment and the same level of fine.
As I said, the amendments extend to occupation orders as well as to non-molestation orders. According to paragraph 26 of the Explanatory Notes, the Government have decided not to make the breach of an occupation order a criminal offence because,
"[a] history of violence or molestation is not a prerequisite for the grant of an order".
But occupation orders play a very important part in protecting victims of domestic violence. There is no logical reason why such a distinction should be drawn if it is thought right to go down the criminal route. It has already happened, of course: breach of a civil order against harassment was made a criminal offence by the Government in contentious legislation that they passed some time ago.
I urge the Government to think again on this principle. Making the breach of a non-molestation order a criminal offence really does nothing. The objectives can be better achieved through the civil route. The advantages are manifold. Amendment No.10, for example, contains a provision that would permit the hearing of committal proceedings, where it is in the interests of justice to do so, to be held in private. It may be far easier for victims of domestic violence to go before the judge in private, as happens in children's cases at the moment, and make their complaint—provided, as the amendment sets out, that the results of that application are fully publicised in open court, with the terms of the order, the reasons for it and so on.
The evidence provisions in the civil court are more favourable to the victim. Evidence can be given by affidavit; the judge has discretion whether to order cross-examination; and he may decide in a particular case, having regard to the circumstances of the victim, that it would not be appropriate to do so. The civil evidence rules, which permit hearsay and have other advantages, also apply. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for pointing out that I was quite wrong in suggesting at Second Reading that the civil standard of proof would apply. Where the liberty of the subject is concerned, it is virtually the criminal standard of proof that applies, even in the civil courts.
There is a great deal more speed in the civil courts. Applications can be made ex parte. There was a discussion earlier about the possibility that a respondent could avoid service of the order or service of the application for committal. But an ex parte order can be made which could result in the respondent being arrested and brought before the judge who made the order as soon as he is arrested so that whatever he has to say about the matter can be properly heard. The ability to make orders of that nature is a very useful power; they cannot be made in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court.
In civil courts, applications can be made out of hours and expeditiously. Where speed is essential to protect the victim or the children, it is possible to make an application for an order of committal even in the judge's home. Those of us who have intervened in the dining arrangements of judges know that, although it is not particularly popular, such a power can be exercised.
The judge also has a discretion, which the magistrate's court does not have—for example, not to commit a person to prison for a technical breach of the order. A magistrate's court, faced with the crime of disobedience to a non-molestation order, would be obliged to find a person guilty and to impose a punishment. But the civil judge does not have to do that. He can decide that it is simply a technical breach and that on such an occasion he would not order committal to prison.
He may also, in his discretion, have the defendant or respondent before him and give him a last chance. Magistrates cannot do that; if they find a person guilty they have to make an order of some kind. On the other hand, a judge can say to the respondent, "This is the last time you are going to do it. If you breach this order again you will be back in front of me and you know what will happen to you".
Furthermore, the judge can suspend the committal. There is a limited power to suspend sentences. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 might have extended that power a little, but it is not normally done in criminal proceedings today. It is open to a civil judge to suspend committal if he believes that it is right to do so.
Finally, if a judge is satisfied that a person has purged his contempt and given satisfactory undertakings—perhaps the relationship is finally accepted as having come to an end—he can discharge the respondent from prison. All those discretionary powers make the use of civil powers much more flexible than is proposed in the Bill.
Then there are practical matters. The papers whereby the non-molestation order was obtained in the first place from the civil court will no doubt have to be passed to the magistrates' court. If there is a breach of the non-molestation order, the matter must go to the police, who make recourse to the CPS, which then decides whether to prosecute. It may take a long time for the matter to come to court. The magistrates will then start from scratch and will have to be informed of the background and all the circumstances between the applicant and the defendant. They will have to come to a conclusion in the light of all the information that they have to learn from scratch. So the bringing of proceedings for a criminal offence are less flexible, certainly less speedy and do not add to the protection that the victim is entitled to expect.
There is much to be said for leaving the matter in the hands of the judge who made the original order. He can always tell the respondent, "If you breach this order, you will go in front of me as soon as you are arrested". That is a far greater deterrent than the possibility of appearing in front of the magistrates' court, with the possibility that the wife or partner will not give evidence against you in those circumstances, and the publicity. It is therefore a much greater deterrent.
It is in those circumstances that I suggest that the Government, in Clause 1, are doing no more than making a gesture that is of no practical use to victims of domestic violence. If there are problems in the civil courts—I do not suggest that there are—and the

GC 233
powers of the judge need to be strengthened, Amendments Nos.7, 9 and 10 would do that. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, dealt in his most interesting speech with aspects of this parallel system which the Court of Appeal found to be unsatisfactory in Lomas v Park. I support all these amendments, on the same basis as I supported Amendment No.2. They will serve, alongside the guidance that the Court of Appeal has given in that case, as the staging posts along the road to redress of this unsatisfactory regime. The integrated court in New York is an example of the proposed new integrated court, in which both civil and criminal jurisdictions are merged. The Court of Appeal referred to that court with considerable approval. Until the proposed new court exists, the noble Lord's amendments would serve as an essential safeguard.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Anyone who listened to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, could not be other than impressed by the force of the argument he makes. His case is really unanswerable.
Let me make three brief points. First, I agree entirely that using the civil court would mean the retention of the same judge, who would have knowledge of the facts of the case. That in itself is important. Secondly, as the noble Lord made clear, the means of getting before the courts is likely in practice to be more speedy in the civil courts than in the criminal court. Thirdly, I agree with his point that people may wish to go back to court on the breach of a non-molestation order without wishing that the person against whom they originally made the complaint should be criminalised for life as a result and in ways that may affect themselves.
There is much force in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The only difficulty at the moment is that the civil courts are perhaps unwilling to use adequately the power to attach an arrest warrant at the time when the original non-molestation order is made. If, as the amendment suggests, they could be encouraged to exercise that power more frequently than they do at the moment, I cannot see what victims have to gain by making the breach of a non-molestation order into a criminal offence. For the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, they have much to lose.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Perhaps I may make one very small point. I am impressed by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. It may well be that the Contempt of Court Act ought to he strengthened by altering the maximum penalty. But it would be very difficult to justify putting the breach of a non-molestation order higher than, say, contempt of court by interfering with judicial proceedings, which might have cataclysmic consequences, not only for the
GC 234
people concerned but also for a much wider public. It is a very minor point—this is a probing amendment—but I thought I should mention it.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: Being among so many lawyers, I again feel that I am in the lion's den. I support the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, although I recognise that the Government may not want to take such a radical step.
Many people involved in social care have long suggested more radical changes in the legal system, looking to family courts as alternatives to the split between the criminal jurisdiction and the civil jurisdiction. Clearly, one set of circumstances can be split simply by the way in which we have put our courts together.
I know that women, having taken themselves to the civil courts, find it extremely difficult to take action which criminalises their partners. Not only do they not want to do it because it may affect the fathers of their children but also because they are quite fearful. There is a range of different reasons why women do not want to take such action, from criminalisation to fear of the person involved.
The suggestion for one court, which could attach orders to give women the protection they need in one fell swoop and to where they could return to a judge with knowledge of the case, has huge merit. However, I fear that that is the kind of radical option that the Government may not yet be ready to take.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Turning first to Amendment No.7, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I have sympathy with his objective. However, I certainly cannot support the amendment today, for two reasons. First, because I only read it on Friday, there was no way that I could get policy clearance to accept it at such short notice. Secondly, I have some problems with the drafting. I am sure that the noble Lord moved it to advance the debate on the matter of principle, rather than being wedded to the detail.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I am concerned about delay in Clause 1 by making the breach of non-molestation orders a criminal offence. We must bend our minds to how we may reduce delay, which will benefit both parties, because they will know what is to be their situation.
I noticed that when introducing Amendment No.7, the noble Lord referred to the fact that the new clause used the phraseology,
"such as will adequately protect",
to give the court some discretion on whether it acted. As he made clear, non-molestation orders and occupation orders are not exclusively made where there has been violence or a threat of violence. They can be made on other occasions—I shall return to that.
So I was puzzled why the noble Lord had diverged so considerably from the existing provision of the Family Law Act 1996 in his proposed new subsection (2), because his amendment would remove the

GC 235
requirement for some evidence of violence or threat of violence before the power of arrest was attached. Perhaps he will reconsider that before Report—when I suspect that he will retable the amendment. After all, this is a domestic violence Bill.
I can see the initial attraction of a scheme such as proposed in Amendment No.9 for the register of orders. The noble Lord was beguiling, because he made it sound such good common sense that one ought to have such a register so that the police could readily have access to information that would make it easier for them to do their job. That point has been well made by organisations outwith this Chamber.
However, before one moved an amendment later, when one might try to test the opinion of the House, one would need some information about what administrative burden and cost that would impose and what research had been done into how effective such a register could be. That is especially true because, as I said on Amendment No.7, non-molestation orders do not necessarily come within the remit of the type of breach of order that would properly be the subject of such a register. Are all non-molestation orders to be subject to the register? If so, I dread to think how much information the police will have to wade through to reach the nugget of information that, as the noble Lord rightly said, they should be able to reach easily so that they can take proper action. So, again, I like the objective; I am not sure that the amendment delivers what the noble Lord wants.
Returning to the principle of the amendment, when I read it, I reread some of the original material that we have been sent by outside organisations. For example, I knew that the Women's National Commission had referred to the matter in its report—I shall not repeat its title, which is long; we have been there and done that. On page 17, it states:
"Women had mixed feelings about the proposal to maintain a register of injunctions and domestic violence offenders, which would work along the lines of the Sex Offenders Register. Records were of great importance, but women wanted to be able to access a register themselves"—
not just the police, the women want access too. It continues:
"Some women were frightened that the men would blame them for putting them on the register".
So there is ambivalence in some of the research on the matter.
The report continues:
"women felt strongly that the police must know whether there was a history of domestic violence when called to an incident".
It then makes a policing point that goes wider than the amendment, but which is core to the problem:
"Community police officers should have that knowledge at their fingertips".
The report then recognises that if we cannot have the continuity and level of policing that we want, at least a register of current and expired injunctions would provide that information. We will need carefully to consider what kind of register is intended under the amendment.
GC 236
I was really puzzled by Amendment No.10. When he introduced it, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was clear, but the amendment puzzles me for the simple reason that it refers to "an inferior court" in circumstances that make it appear that that means the county court. I think that he misunderstands the implications of that. After all, magistrates' and county courts are inferior courts. A magistrate has no power to commit in such circumstances. Because the country court is an inferior court, it would have no inherent jurisdiction. That would undermine what the noble Lord is trying to achieve by the new clause. It looks as though the noble Lord is increasing the maximum penalty for contempt from two years to five years in the superior court. That is the issue to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred in relation to the Contempt of Court Act. However, the noble Lord seems to reduce the penalty to 12 months in the inferior court. Because the county court is an inferior court, as I understand it, its jurisdiction would go down. I do not think that that is what the noble Lord intended. Perhaps I misunderstood.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I can assist the noble Baroness by telling her that the wording is lifted straight from Section 14(1) of the Contempt of Court Act, as I recall. It had not occurred to me that "an inferior court" would refer in those circumstances to the county court, which has wider powers of dealing with contempt.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: This is a problem that one would have to look at, because breaches of non-molestation orders are, and almost invariably will be, held in the county court under the procedure. With that recognition, my puzzlement continues a bit. Perhaps I will be enlightened at some later stage. I certainly welcome the noble Lord's attempt to address the important issue by extending the contempt procedure, but I am not sure that he is there yet.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: The noble Baroness is entirely right. The county court undoubtedly is an inferior court, because the divisional court has jurisdiction over it. It has no jurisdiction over the superior court.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that comment. He has saved me a few words, for which I am most grateful.
I want to start by telling the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that, although he feels that the matter has been trumpeted overmuch and is of little utility, that is not the response of those who have been subject to domestic violence. Members of the Committee know that the provisions went out to quite extensive consultation, and the respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of the proposals. However, some felt that there was a need to retain the option of enforcement through the civil courts. We have done that. Nothing in the proposals seeks to expunge the role of the civil court through the county court. Nothing in them would limit or prohibit a person going through the civil route, if they were minded so to do.

GC 237
A complaint that has for many years been a running sore with complainants is that those who have an officer come to their door seeking to assist sometimes do not have the clarity of their position sufficiently understood by the officer, in terms of whether the person can be arrested. Sometimes the fact that the complainant is able to call for assistance, so that the officer can arrest and remove the perpetrator from the scene, provides valuable succour to the complainant. Therefore, I was troubled to hear how the noble Lord described the matter. I am sure that he would not wish to cause offence to victims of domestic violence, for whom the provisions have been much sought.
With the indulgence of the Committee, I will deal with Amendments Nos.7 and 10 at the same time, as it appears that they are linked. Amendment No.7 would remove the criminal sanction from a breach of a non-molestation order as envisaged by Clause 1, and would instead retain contempt of court as the sanction for breach. Amendment No.10, as we have just discussed, would increase the term of imprisonment available to the courts for breach of non-molestation and occupation orders from two to five years.
There are a number of reasons why contempt of court is not a sufficient or effective sanction. Contempt of court is of course a very serious matter and has always been so. However, many victims with whom we have spoken have stressed to us the disdain in which the offender holds the non-molestation order—even where a power of arrest is attached to that order. We are concerned that the sanction for breach of a non-molestation order must bring home to the respondent the seriousness of that breach. That is why we wish to make breach a criminal offence.
Members of the Committee will know that a difficulty that has plagued those who have sought to address domestic violence is that there is an erroneous belief that, somehow, beating and abusing one's partner differs significantly from beating and abusing a stranger in the street. It is thought that one can beat a stranger in the street and expect to be arrested and brought to justice for assault, grievous bodily harm and so on, but there is an erroneous belief that abusing and mistreating a spouse or partner is somehow permissible and differs in nature to what is visited on a stranger. That has caused us difficulty in the system for some time.
Making breach a criminal offence would also extend the range of sanctions available to the courts to punish the offender. Contempt of court limits the sanctions to imprisonment or fine. Where a breach is a criminal offence, the courts would also be able to impose the usual range of community sentences. I listened with great interest to the comments that the noble Lord made in relation to criminal cases, but I wondered whether he had forgotten the many hours that we enjoyed together on the then Criminal Justice Bill. Sections 189 and 190 of that Act provide that, on conviction, conditions can be imposed to do with curfew, mental health, drug treatment, voluntary activities, residence and supervision. If the person does
GC 238
not comply with those conditions, a suspended sentence can take effect. Until now, it could do so only if another offence were committed.
That gives the court an opportunity to deal with the offending behaviour. Many partners who find themselves involved in domestic violence are in need of anger management, drug treatment and a whole series of other interventions that will inure to the benefit not only of that partner, but of partners who may come afterwards. Members of the Committee will know that, in the analysis of partners who kill, it is very unusual indeed if those persons have not had a series of partners whom they have abused on the way to the murder that they eventually commit. It is not simply the complainant on the day whom we have to protect, but all the other partners who may come afterwards. That should exercise our attention, because of the nature of domestic violence.
There is a separate issue of enforcement of non-molestation orders and the potential for operational confusion. Information on orders and powers of arrest is not recorded centrally and the arrangements for passing such information both within and between police forces can be inconsistent. That can be a problem if both the applicant and the respondent have moved to a new police-force area. As a result, the police may be unclear to which part of the order any power of arrest may be attached. As it stands, Amendment No.7 would not remove that potential for confusion because it does not require the power of arrest to attach to the whole of the order. Rather it specifies that it would attach to those provisions which adequately protect the applicant or child from significant harm.
Our aim is to ensure the immediate safety of the applicant and any children, and we want to underline the seriousness of any breach. That is why Clause 1 makes a breach of the order a criminal offence. We also want to ensure an effective police response, so that in all cases the police will know what powers they have when called to incidents of domestic violence where a non-molestation order is in place. So Amendment No.7 would not provide the clarity needed to enforce the order and, even when coupled with Amendment No.10, would not underline the seriousness of the breach.
I turn now to the issue of attachment to occupation orders. Noble Lords will no doubt have noted that paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 4 puts the court under a duty to consider whether a non-molestation order should be made when considering whether to make an occupation order ensuring that any necessary protection is in place. We understand that there may be cases where it is not appropriate to make a non-molestation order, but a specific duty is provided to make sure that the court is aware of the difficulty and can address it.
Amendment No.10 also seeks to allow a court to hear applications for an order of committal in private if it appears to be in the interests of justice to do so. Those noble Lords who have participated in committal hearings will know that, like criminal trials, they are generally heard in public with counsel or a

GC 239
solicitor fully robed. If one is talking about contempt, one may he considering the removal of an individual's liberty. That is something the court always takes seriously and which in the ordinary way takes place in open court. This is important to maintain confidence in the justice system, ensuring—in that time-honoured phrase—that justice is seen to be done. However, the court has the power to sit in private in certain situations, such as where the case relates to the welfare of a child or to a person suffering from a mental disorder. We believe that this strikes the right balance.
Amendment No.9 would oblige a court that made an occupation or non-molestation order under the Family Law Act 1996 to cause a certified copy of the order to be sent to the chief officer of police for the place where the applicant resides. It also imposes a duty on chief officers of police to prepare and maintain a register of such orders for use by officers under their command. I should say that the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on how in practice this would operate were well made.
We suggest that Amendment No.9 is unnecessary because the Government are already working to create a register of orders, a point I made clear at Second Reading in my response to the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn. The register does not require legislation. Instead of the separate register for each police force implied by this amendment, we intend to create a single database of orders. This will deal with one of the problems raised in the responses to Safety and Justice: if an applicant travels to a different area and the respondent pursues them and breaches the order, the police in that area will not be aware of the existence of the terms of the order. A central register would give all police forces access to information about orders and with that the ability to enforce them wherever a breach occurs.
Rules of court already make provision for service of orders on the police, and we intend to look at revising them to clarify the obligations. Placing the courts under a statutory obligation to do so in primary legislation is not necessary. The effect of Amendment No.9 is also unclear as it does not specify the time frame within which courts would have to send the order. I hope that I have dealt with the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
In response to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, which we shall discuss shortly when we deal with the amendment on integrated courts, the requirement for a court to be able to respond appropriately will not necessitate the change advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It is to be hoped that the way in which the provisions will be applied by all courts that deal with domestic violence will give us an integrated and appropriate approach. I should add how pleased I am that the noble Lord has stayed with us in Committee. I hope that we will have a long and fruitful association through the many days on which we will enjoy together the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, in many ways took up the refrain on the concerns echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. As regards
GC 240
continuity, all the provisions will continue to be in force. I take on board the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, that some women do not wish to criminalise their husbands but wish to have the abuse stopped. It will be possible to continue to do that through the civil route. But we should also take on board that the very abusive nature of domestic violence often erodes the will of the woman, who may need the greater support offered by the criminal court as well as that of the civil court, and that an intervention of that nature may prove necessary.
Many have said that they have benefited from having a police officer come to the door to arrest and remove the assailant. The courts can apply those provisions with flexibility and speed. We do not accept that they will be longer drawn-out as a result of the procedures. We will be assisted greatly by the way in which case management is currently dealt with and the fact that the CPS is working very closely with the police and the courts to get together protocols so that we have a holistic approach to domestic violence.
I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. In fact there will be equal—or greater—opportunity to respond to technical breaches as a result of the new provisions in the Criminal Justice Act as ever there was in the county court. This is not least because the criminal courts are likely to have a more extensive palette from which to operate. We cannot accept the amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am most grateful to the Minister for her response to what has been a very interesting discussion. I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, the noble Lords, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and Lord Campbell of Alloway, and, to a limited extent, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
Lord Anelay has made very welcome criticisms—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I think there has been a reference to the gender Bill. Suddenly I seem to have changed my gender even before the Bill has been enacted. That is a worry.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: It is no longer important. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her criticisms.
In Amendment No.7 I seek to get away from the necessity for proof of violence before a power of arrest is added to a non-molestation order. There are other ways of molesting people that do not involve violence—for example, excessive telephone calls, e-mails and so on—all of which should be subjected to a power of arrest.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble Lord has raised a very important point. I wondered whether that point lay behind his original argument. There is concern that how one interprets behaviour is a matter of balance. As the noble Lord says, excessive e-mails—what is excessive?—and pestering might amount to

GC 241
violence. As the noble Lord will know from his own experience, the courts have had to take careful consideration of when behaviour alleged to be excessive by one party is not so at all. There is particular concern that improper allegations of such behaviour can be made. It is a very delicate area. I am glad that the noble Lord mentioned it as we will need to consider it very carefully before returning to the subject.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful for that contribution.
I turn to the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal. I maintain that Clause 1 is a gesture that has no significant practical effect. Organisations that are concerned with victims of domestic violence may have supported the Government's plan to criminalise the breach of a non-molestation order, but the Government have been promoting the Bill. They have not trumpeted the defects, as I have outlined them, in the proposed procedure, nor have they trumpeted the advantages of strengthening the present civil powers. I am not surprised that the organisations concerned with victims are ready to seize on anything that appears to advance their cause.
The noble Baroness said that one of the problems of following the civil procedures is that, often, the victim's will has been eroded by a long series of acts on the part of a respondent who is in breach of a non-molestation order. Why should it be assumed that a person whose will has been eroded will turn up in a magistrates' court and give evidence, rather than withdraw the complaint of breach of a non-molestation order? Such people do not turn up to give evidence and support claims of assault, and so on, that have already been brought before the court.
The noble Baroness referred to the disdain that respondents had for the non-molestation order. Why do they have such disdain, if they are to be locked up, as proposed? If the non-molestation order is enforced and a person is brought before the courts for contempt and sent to prison, it is difficult to see why, within the prison walls, he should maintain such disdain. That argument carries no weight.
The Minister made a good point about sanctions. I considered whether it would be possible to include in my amendments the range of community sentences that is open to the criminal courts. It is possible, but I did not have time to do it. Between now and Report, I propose to consider whether it is possible to include in the powers of the civil judge a power not simply to imprison and to fine but to put into effect the sort of community sentence that may, in certain circumstances—not in all—be advantageous.
The other matter that the Minister mentioned was the effectiveness of the police response to civil orders. They have no clarity about powers of arrest and no clarity about the terms of the order. I seek to deal with that through the amendments, and I propose to improve those provisions, with regard to the criticisms made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns.
GC 242
As for hearings in private, we in our party would be the first to demand open justice, but the provisions of the Family Law Act at present permit, as the noble Baroness said, for hearings involving children and people with a mental disorder to be heard in private, which is exactly along the lines of the amendment. Proposed new Section 58B(2) mirrors those provisions for children and people suffering from a mental disorder. It is arguable—it should be considered further—whether the victims of domestic violence should, where it is in the interests of justice, have the protection of private hearings.
If that were put to organisations concerned with the victims of domestic violence, would they support it? I am certain that they would. They know that it is the publicity of the criminal courts that deters victims from seeking the protection to which they are entitled.
As for Amendment No.9, the criticism made is that I have not gone far enough. One often hears such criticism of resolutions in Liberal Democrat assemblies. It is often said: "Your resolution does not go far enough". That is the case here. I am pleased that there is the suggestion of a central database. I did not dare to suggest it. But if the Government prefer that suggestion and are pursuing it, it would be far better than the provisions I have set out in the amendment.
Consequently, I shall adopt it in a further amendment on Report and hope that the noble Baroness will feel ready to support a better database than the one I have suggested. The proposed database will have a wider application and will make clear, wherever she may be in the country, what order and protection a victim is entitled to and where the powers of arrest of the police officers concerned will arise.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but I should make plain that we are not proposing a statutory database and therefore we do not seek any amendment to this or any other Bill. My response to the noble Lord is likely to be, "Yes, we are doing that, but not under the auspices of a statutory regime".
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We can discuss at a later stage why it should not be under the auspices of a statutory regime, which would ensure that the principle is carried out with as little delay as possible. Rules can be promulgated and brought into force at any time. It might be better to use this opportunity to lay down the framework of a central database that would cover such orders.
There is much more to be done on my part in drafting further amendments for Report. I shall return to the topic. I will consider everything that has been said on all sides. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No.8:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"INTEGRATED COURT FOR CASES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
An integrated Court shall be set up having criminal and civil jurisdiction and remedies over cases of domestic violence."
The noble Lord said: The circumstances in which the amendment was tabled at the request of the Court of Appeal have already been spoken to on Amendments Nos.2, 7, 9 and 10. The only practical effective response the Committee may give to the request of the Court of Appeal is to support the amendment and to assert the principle that the integrated court should be set up. This is no occasion on which to examine a closely reasoned judgment of the Court of Appeal. Put quite simply—although it is not simple—the two jurisdictions operate in parallel; they are not mutually exclusive; they deal at diverse times with the same offence and afford disparate remedies. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, said that the parallel system was not satisfactory. Some of the reasons she gave certainly square with the reasons given by the Court of Appeal.
The amendment is wholly consistent with the intention of the Bill. It is free standing of the Bill and of any amendments. There is an urgency to introduce some measure. I hope that the amendment commends itself to Members of the Committee and, in particular, to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. It is quite apparent that she is all too familiar with these matters. I assume that she has read the transcript of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling the amendment, giving the Government the opportunity to respond to views expressed by the Court of Appeal in Lomas v Parle, and to the views expressed by several organisations which briefed noble Lords at Second Reading.
The Women's National Commission report of its consultation exercise recorded strong support for dedicated domestic violence courts. It noted that going to court was an ordeal and that very few women were afforded vulnerable or intimidated witness status, which would have made the process of giving evidence easier. It also noted that some areas around the country have pilot specialist courts which are considered to work very well.
I was also intrigued by the response of the Family Law Bar Association—which supports my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway's proposal—when the matter was the subject of government consultation last year. The FLBA stated that the advantages of specialist courts are clear. First, it would provide a streamlined process that should help to address delays in listing. Secondly, a specialist court would be better placed to deal with issues around disclosure and publicity. Thirdly, the special jurisdiction would be better informed in terms of sentencing for first offences and reoffending, and could also deal with breaches of civil orders.
GC 244
Fourthly, the FLBA argues that an holistic approach would be more likely to ensure the protection of the victim and family than is the case when different issues are assigned to different courts. Fifthly, family judges are highly experienced specialists well able to deal with evidential issues arising between civil and criminal proceedings. Family courts are familiar with the kind of expert evidence presented in these circumstances; namely, evidence of the impact of domestic violence on the victim and the family.
Finally, if courts with special jurisdiction were incorporated into the family court structure, the FLBA believes that there could be a reduction in the number of hearings required, potentially providing greater continuity of approach. The association acknowledges that for the proposal to work there would have to be a commitment to create an infrastructure able to cope with the additional demands of such a scheme.
Have the Government considered fully the proposals of the FLBA and the response from the Women's National Commission? Do they have any thoughts about creating a specialist court in the future? Is it a discussion in the background that may continue? I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us the chance to have this debate.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord for providing me with the opportunity to place on record what the Government are currently doing and why I shall suggest that the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lord will be minded to agree with me when he has heard my remarks.
The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that civil and criminal courts make consistent decisions and provide "joined-up" protection for the victims of domestic violence. Criminalising breach of non-molestation orders, as proposed in Clause 1, will ensure that future breach hearings usually will be heard in a criminal court. That should prevent the current situation whereby there could be proceedings in the civil court for breach of a non-molestation order at the same time as prosecutions in the criminal court for offences arising out of the domestic violence that caused the breach.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, would require the establishment of an integrated court, with both criminal and civil jurisdictions and remedies in domestic violence cases. The Government share the noble Lord's objectives, but the effect of the amendment is somewhat less clear. For instance, it does not explain how the integrated court should be set up, how it should operate and what categories of case it would be able to deal with.
In addition, we do not think that the amendment is necessary for some further reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out al Second Reading that the Government made a manifesto commitment to consider whether specialist domestic violence courts would offer more effective protection for victims than the current system. Specialist courts typically reserve one day a week to hear criminal

GC 245
domestic violence cases. They emphasise close co-ordination among relevant agencies, including the civil and criminal courts. Five such courts are now operating, in Leeds, Cardiff, Derby, Wolverhampton and west London.
Local agencies in Croydon are also establishing a specialist domestic violence court and are considering how it might develop into a more integrated system. The CPS and the Department for Constitutional Affairs are undertaking a full evaluation of specialist and integrated courts in fulfilment of our manifesto commitment. Once we have had that assessment, we will be able to judge how and if these courts could or should be rolled out.
I remind noble Lords of the good work that we did together in the then Courts Bill, now the Courts Act 2003. We now have the benefit of far greater flexibility and will further enable courts to operate under integrated systems. Section 4 of that Act provides for the establishment of courts boards for each area of England and Wales, which will have the specific statutory duty to scrutinise, review and make recommendations about the way in which the Lord Chancellor is discharging his general duty in relation to the Crown Court, county courts and magistrates' courts in the area. Your Lordships will remember that Section 66 provides that every judge or deputy judge of the High Court, circuit judge or deputy circuit judge and recorder shall have the powers of the district judge magistrates' court in relation to criminal and family proceedings. Obviously, that is subject to training, which we spoke about earlier.
Section 69 provides for common criminal procedure rules in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, the Crown Court and the magistrates' court. Section 75 provides for common family procedure rules in the High Court, county courts and magistrates' courts. One can put that package together with the fact that the Children Act 1989 and the Family Law Act 1996 apply across all courts; that is the High Court, county courts and magistrates' courts. I hope that your Lordships see that we now have the tools to provide an integrated system in those areas where that would benefit the local people and is justified on the facts. I hope that that will give the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, a little pleasure and comfort him after events earlier today.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I attempted to send a copy of the transcript of Lomas v Park to the Minister at Christmas time. I suggested that it might make good Christmas reading for her. However, there is some rule in the Government that prevents attachments to an e-mail from being received, in case there is something scurrilous in it. It was bounced back, so I apologise that she does not have it at this time.
That judgment demonstrates the problem outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. As some Members will not have seen the report, perhaps I may refer to the judgment in which Lord Justice Thorpe tried to discuss the interrelationship between the Family Law Act 1996 and the Protection from
GC 246
Harassment Act—it is a criminal offence to breach a civil order made under the Protection from Harassment Act. He said:
"However effectively the proceedings are managed a perpetrator may face sentence for the same act which amounts to both a breach of an injunction made in family proceedings and also a crime under the Protection from Harassment Act. Of course the sentencing courts do not share the same objective and operate in different ranges. The judge in family proceedings has to fit a custodial sentence within a range of 0-24 months. An important objective for him is to uphold the authority of the court by demonstrating that his orders cannot be flouted with impunity. Nevertheless there will be a shared deterrent objective in the punishment of domestic violence by imprisonment.
"Clearly therefore the first court to sentence must not anticipate or allow for a likely future sentence. It is for the second court to sentence to reflect the prior sentence in its judgment in order to ensure that the defendant is not twice punished for the same act. It is essential that the second court should be fully informed of the factors and circumstances reflected in the first sentence. The defendant is often publicly funded to defend the proceedings in each court and may well have different solicitors and counsel in each justice system".
That is the cost that arises if you go to both jurisdictions. The judgment continues:
"There is therefore an obligation on the first court to ensure that the basis of its sentence is fully expressed and that a transcript of its judgment is made available to the second court, as Judge Harris directed in the present case".
That is an example of having to move the papers from one court to another.
"Experience suggests that proceedings in the criminal justice system are likely to require more extensive preparation and to prove more protracted than committal proceedings in the family justice system".
That is the delay to which I referred earlier. It continues:
"Therefore the application to commit should be issued promptly after the alleged breach and listed without delay. That discipline will ensure that, if proved, the contempt would have been punished before any sentence in parallel criminal proceedings".
All the problems that I have outlined in relation to earlier amendments—or some of them anyway—are illustrated by that judgment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is to be commended for his attempt to bring that case to the Committee's notice and to table such an amendment for a joined-up court.
7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. At this hour that is all the Committee would wish me to say, save that I shall seek to consult with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, over the puzzle of why she says that the amendment is wholly unnecessary when the Court of Appeal says that it is precisely what it wants. I am not trying to start another argument today. We will consult, and I hope that I shall be able to devise a more acceptable form of amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.9 and 10 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Extension of Part 4 of 1996 Act to non-cohabiting couples]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No.11:
Page 2, line 24, leave out "significant duration" and insert "such significance as to justify the making of an order"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No.11 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman. It is supported by the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Thomas of Gresford.
I have tabled the amendment to probe whether the Government's drafting of the relationship that is given the protection by this clause is appropriate. I have adopted the drafting put forward by the Law Society, whose objective is to ensure that victims of domestic violence can be given protection by the Bill even when their relationship is short-lived.
Clause 3 extends the availability of non-molestation orders to those in domestic relationships who have never co-habited or have never been married. The new category of "associated" persons will be able to apply for an occupation order under Section 33 of the Family Law Act 1996 so long as the requirements of Section 33(1) are met.
In paragraph 31 of the Explanatory Notes the Government state that the definition of the relationship in Clause 3 is intended to cover,
"a long-standing relationship which may, or may not, be a sexual relationship. bin which is an intimate and personal one".
The notes go on to say that it does not include one-night stands. I recall that, when the noble Baroness gave the helpful briefing to noble Lords on the Bill, she referred again to the fact that the Government were trying specifically to exclude the very briefest of relationships.
One then has to go back and answer what the definition actually includes, because the court will need to consider that on each and every occasion. Surely the test should not be whether the relationship is a one-night, two-night, three-night stand or whatever. The court should be able to make a decision based on the information before it that the relationship is or has been of such significance that it justifies the making of the order.
The Law Society points out that the Government's use of "duration" suggests that there is a particular length of time for which a relationship must exist before its members are given the protection of the Family Law Act. However, there are relationships that are very intense but very short in duration. Where there is violence or the threat of violence, one partner may require protection from the other, regardless, one might argue, of the actual duration of the relationship. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We support the amendment. It is a question of definition. A "significant duration" is, of course, what appears to the judge to be a significant duration. That can mean anything. However,
"such significance as to justify the making of an order",
limits the interpretation to something that we can all understand. The intimate personal relationship may last a very short time but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said—I think that I have it right this time—it can still be of sufficient significance to justify the making of an order. We see no reason why the amendment should not be accepted.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government's intention in Clause 3 was to close a significant loophole in the protection afforded by the Family Law Act 1996, by including within it non-cohabiting couples. The aim was to include within it intimate personal relationships of significant duration. That would cover long-standing relationships which might or might not be sexual in nature, but which were none the less intimate and personal. It was not our intention to include long-term platonic friends or the briefest of sexual encounters, such as one-night stands, as the Family Law Act is concerned with relationships of some standing where the opportunity for abuse and control is greater. It is that combination of abuse and control that is usually the trigger.
The provision does not mean that the court would not be able to determine for itself a significant duration on a particular set of facts. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord are right: certain relationships, because of their intensity, become significant. Although they may not be as long as others, they are still of significant duration. It is a qualitative issue that the courts will have to determine.
As drafted, the clause already assumes that the court would decide whether there was a relationship sufficiently significant to justify making the order. If the court did not judge that there was in fact an intimate personal relationship, it would not go on to make the order. The amendment attempts to spell out that element of significance in the clause. We do not believe that it adds to the clause or clarifies the way in which the court would approach the making of the order. However, I reassure the noble Baroness that the reason that "significant" and "duration" are put together is so that the court may make that determination, which may differ given the facts as presented.
The amendment has one other effect, which may or may not have been intended by the noble Baroness. By deleting the reference to "significant duration", it would be possible for the courts to make an order on the basis of the shortest relationship or sexual encounter, provided that the court considered that it was of sufficient significance. That would be a fundamental shift in the scope of the Family Law Act 1996, which deals with relationships of standing and the issues of abuse and control within them.

GC 249
Other remedies exist for those not in relationships of standing; for example, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the general criminal law, where an offence has been committed. For those reasons, we are not attracted by the amendment, but we hope that the noble Baroness will feel satisfied by our response to it.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The amendment seems to place importance on the significance of a relationship rather than its length. When a judge or anybody else must determine the significance of a relationship it seems unlikely that they will deem particularly significant a relationship that consists of a one-night stand. It is unlikely that, under this Act or the Family Law Act 1996, the courts will be diverted to take on a new line of business that they do not already carry out. They will continue to treat date rape or violence against a partner during a single sexual episode, with no other encounter before or after, exactly as they do today. If, on the other hand, judges must consider the significance of a relationship, they will almost inevitably consider its duration also. As I understand it, under the amendment, the significance, not the duration, would carry the main weight. That would be a significant change, but one that is entirely beneficial, not the reverse.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I made clear in responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that it is both. The noble Baroness is right in saying that there is a distinction between a date-rape type of situation or a one-night stand and a relationship of some standing that brings about domestic violence. We are dealing with a different species of activity. We are trying to address a situation where two people are in a relationship of some significance for some duration, and the operation of control that comes with that duration disables one of the parties better to protect themselves from domestic violence.
Our problem is that the Family Law Act 1996 was predicated on dealing with married couples or those in quasi-marital relationships of long standing that could equate to marriage. If we enact the Bill, the court will have a panoply of options: is it a relationship of some duration, standing or moment that should be covered by this legislation; is it a more transient relationship in which someone has been abused and/or continually harassed, where the Protection from Harassment Act applies; is it a date rape or offence that falls within the usual ambit of criminal legislation, in which case all the relevant Acts that impinge on it apply?
The court now has three species from which to choose; therefore, the duration and significance of the relationship will determine whether it goes into category one—this category of domestic violence, involving a relationship of some standing; whether it is a more transient relationship that could be better dealt with under the Protection from Harassment Act; or whether it should be dealt with under criminal legislation. In this context, duration is significant.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. I shall read the Minister's explanation carefully. I was interested by the way in which she rightly drew particular attention to the Family Law Act 1996 and the basis on which it works. I appreciate that one is trying to adapt legislation to new circumstances. I shall consider carefully the unintended consequences of what I am trying to achieve.
I take to heart what the noble Baroness said about the fact that the courts would have a panoply of options available and that it was the Government's intention that discretion should be available to the courts. It has been put forward by the Law Society and my first recourse will be to check with it for its reaction and then discuss the matter with colleagues. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No.12:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
Amendment to Part I of the Family Law Act 1986
Use of recovery orders
In Part I of the Family Law Act 1986 (c.55) (child custody), after section 34 insert—
"34A USE OF RECOVERY ORDERS IN CASES INVOLVING EITHER ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR A POTENTIAL RISK TO THE CHILD
(1) If an applicant claims that their partner has abducted a child of the family, the court may grant a recovery order if the applicant already has a residence order in their name.
(2) If there is no residence order in favour of either parent, the court may grant a recovery order.
(3) The recovery order will require both parties to attend court within 24 hours of the discovery of the child, or the first working day thereafter.
(4) Before returning the child to the applicant or giving the applicant any information as to the whereabouts of the child, the police must—

(a) check their records to see whether either party has committed acts of violence;

(b) check to see whether either party is included on the register of domestic violence perpetrators;

(c)having located the child without notifying the applicant of the child's whereabouts, make enquiries with regard to the child's welfare.

(5) If records show that the applicant has a history of violence or the police have concerns about the welfare of the child if the child is returned to the applicant, the police will—

(a) not remove the child from the respondent;

(b) advise the respondent to seek legal representation;

(c) notify the court of their action immediately.

(6) If there is no record of violence and no reason to believe that the defendant or the child is at risk, the police will return the child to the applicant.
(7) Ex parte residence or contact orders should only be made if there is evidence that a party is wilfully refusing to attend court."
The noble Baroness said: I could move the amendment but I was under the impression that we were to stop at half past seven. We might have rather a long discussion on the amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am happy to take that helpful indication from the noble Baroness. This may
GC 252
be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Wednesday at 3.30 p. m, if that meets with the Committee's approval.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): The Committee stands adjourned until Wednesday 21 January at 3.30 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at seventeen minutes past seven o'clock.

  House of Lords: Post Received
  House of Lords: Post Received
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  North/South Language Implementation Body: Budget 2004
  North/South Language Implementation Body: Budget 2004
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman: Budget 2002–03
  Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman: Budget 2002–03
  Waterways Ireland
  Waterways Ireland
  Northern Ireland: Civil Servants and Smoking
  Northern Ireland: Civil Servants and Smoking
  Northern Ireland Assembly: November 2003 Elections
  Northern Ireland Assembly: November 2003 Elections
  International Financial Institutions
  International Financial Institutions
  Africa: Primary Education
  Africa: Primary Education
  Employment Tribunals: Exceptional Funding
  Employment Tribunals: Exceptional Funding
  Indonesia: Human Rights in Aceh
  Indonesia: Human Rights in Aceh
  Gypsy/Traveller Pupils: Key Stage 4 Participation
  Gypsy/Traveller Pupils: Key Stage 4 Participation
  Higher Education: Recruitment of Director of Fair Access
  Higher Education: Recruitment of Director of Fair Access
  Hutton Inquiry and Open Government
  Hutton Inquiry and Open Government
  Gender Recognition
  Gender Recognition
  Health Cash Plan Providers: Tax Treatment of Surpluses
  Health Cash Plan Providers: Tax Treatment of Surpluses
  Construction Industry: Raw Materials
  Construction Industry: Raw Materials

  Independent Review of Government Communications
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  The full report of the independent review of government communications, chaired by Bob Phillis, has been published today. The Minister for the Cabinet Office is grateful to the review for its work and consideration of these issues.

  The report builds on the review team's interim report published in the summer. The Government accepted the interim report's recommendations. Central to the process is the appointment of a new Permanent Secretary, Government Communications, which the Cabinet Office is currently in the process of recruiting.

  Departments have the responsibility to devise and implement communications operations and strategies appropriate to their needs. Bearing this in mind, the new Permanent Secretary will take forward, in consultation with departments, recommendations relating to a redefinition of the overall role of government communications, the structures necessary to deliver this activity and the improved training and development of all communications specialists.

  The Permanent Secretary will also consider whether the existing rules and guidance are fit for purpose and whether any additional clarification is required. We note the committee's conclusion on ministerial involvement in the selection processes for communications professionals, which will be taken forward in discussions already under way with the Civil Service Commissioners.

  The Government also agree that they must communicate with the public in the widest possible way, including greater use of regional briefings and electronic communications. We will look at how departments' websites could be better co-ordinated and structured to encourage greater public participation in the development and communication of government policies.

  The Government remain committed to the principle, reflected in the Ministerial Code, that when the House is sitting announcements of Government policy should, in the first instance, be made in Parliament. We agree that more Ministers should host lobby briefings and that these should be open and televised. The Government will now enter into discussions with the relevant public authorities, including Parliament and the parliamentary Lobby, on how best to pursue these proposals.

  The Government also note the review's recommendations on the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. A great deal of work is going on to ensure that departments are fully prepared
  WS 38
  for the legislation that comes into force on 1 January 2005 and the Government are fully committed to ensuring full and effective implementation of the Act across the whole of the public sector. The review's recommendations will be taken into account as part of this implementation process.

  On the use of statistics, the Government welcome the review's acknowledgement that some important steps have been taken to reinforce the independence of the statistical service. The Government note the review's recommendations on access to pre-release national statistics. Under the national statistics code of practice and its associated protocol on release practices, issued in September 2002, there are already long-established and effective procedures in place to restrict early access to certain data to a small number of Ministers and officials, so that they are able to provide an authoritative response when questions arise at the time of release. There are no plans to change this.

  Angela Cannings
  The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)
  Today's judgment in the Court of Appeal in the appeal against conviction of Angela Cannings has serious and far-reaching implications. The judgment has demonstrated that, in relation to unexplained infant deaths, where the outcome of the trial depends exclusively, or almost exclusively, on a serious disagreement between distinguished and reputable experts, it will often be unsafe to proceed. I share the unease expressed by the Court of Appeal in relation to such convictions.

  Following similar reported comments of concern by the Court of Appeal at the conclusion of the hearing of this tragic case in December, I asked for all cases potentially involving sudden infant death syndrome to be identified as quickly as practicable. To date, some 258 convictions over the past 10 years have been identified involving the murder, manslaughter or infanticide of an infant aged under two years by its parent. These cases will be considered further as a matter of urgency to establish whether they bear the hallmarks of a conviction which the Court of Appeal judgment today has indicated may be unsafe. I expect this process to be completed swiftly over the coming weeks. I propose that in all cases which appear to meet the criteria laid down by the Court of Appeal the convicted person will be informed of these developments as soon as possible. The possibility then will be for the case to be referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) or for the convicted person, with legal advice, to consider an appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal. The CCRC has the power under the Criminal Appeals Act 1995 to consider whether the convictions should be referred to the Court of Appeal.

  I am particularly concerned about cases where the defendant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment which is still being served. We have so

  WS 39
  far identified 54 such cases which may involve sudden infant death syndrome. These will be accorded the highest priority.

  I have already spoken to the chairman of the CCRC and will be meeting him in the coming week to discuss how the review of these cases can be expedited.

  I have also asked the Crown Prosecution Service to conduct a review of the 15 ongoing cases involving an unexplained infant death of the sort described in today's judgment.

  Schengen Convention: Article 40
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  Article 40 of the Schengen convention sets out the basis for cross-border surveillance by police officers from member states. Subject to a Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council decision authorising the United Kingdom to begin applying the relevant provisions of the Schengen acquis, we have decided that in strictly pre-planned operations, and on a basis of full reciprocity, overseas surveillance officers should be able to travel armed by sea or rail to the UK, but not by air.

  Foreign officers would not be able to carry their firearms beyond the confines of the port or rail station at which they arrive. The purpose of this agreement is to allow for continuing, without putting officers at additional risk, the surveillance of a dangerous individual leaving the UK or of one coming to the UK who will then be followed from the port by armed UK surveillance teams.

  Each foreign officer will require authority from the Home Secretary to carry firearms under Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, and an import licence. Before an authorisation is given to allow the carriage of firearms, the operation will be risk assessed by an UK police officer of at least Assistant Chief Constable rank.

  Foreign officers on urgent operations under Article 40(2) of the Schengen convention will not be able to carry firearms in any circumstances.

  Falkland Islands
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  Air links between the Falkland Islands and the South American mainland are the subject of two understandings reached between HMG and the Argentine Government, under a sovereignty umbrella (which protects both sides' positions on the question of sovereignty). Following the UK/Argentine Joint Statement of July 1999, LAN Chile resumed its weekly flight between Punta Arenas (in southern Chile) and the Falkland Islands. Once a month this flight makes a
  WS 40
  stopover in each direction in Rio Gallegos (in southern Argentina). In February 2001 a further understanding was signed to permit private flights. Under these arrangements aircraft, including Argentine aircraft, can undertake private flights between Argentina and the Falkland Islands. These arrangements continue in place and are unaffected by developments set out below.

  In recent years there have also been a number of charter flights to the Falkland Islands, mostly originating in Chile and servicing tourist cruise ships. These charter flights are not covered by either of the two understandings described above. They require permission to use Argentine airspace between Chile and the Falkland Islands. Until this season Argentina has not raised any difficulties with these charter flight authorisations, though it had periodically indicated that it would wish to review the situation at some point.

  On 3 November 2003, without warning, Argentina announced the suspension of permission for charter flights to use Argentine airspace and proposed that a scheduled air service between Argentina and the Falkland Islands by an Argentine carrier be put in place. The weekly LAN Chile scheduled flight was not affected by this announcement.

  We made clear to Argentina that while we were prepared to enter into discussions about ways of building on existing arrangements for air links between the Falkland Islands and the South American mainland, any future arrangements must be acceptable to the Falkland Islanders, and that the Falkland Islanders were not prepared to accept a scheduled service by an Argentine carrier. We also made clear that such discussions needed to take place against the backdrop of charter flight authorisations proceeding normally.

  Regrettably, despite considerable efforts it has not been possible to reach agreement with the Argentine Government on opening talks on air services on acceptable terms. This means that there is little prospect of charter flights to the Falkland Islands being authorised to overfly Argentine airspace for the rest of this tourist season. Unless such an understanding can be reached with the Argentine Government, it seems likely that charters for the next tourist season will also be affected. Falkland Island councillors have been kept fully informed of our exchanges with the Argentine Government.

  The cancellation of the charter flights will obviously have some negative impact on the tourist industry in the Falkland Islands. However, Falkland Islanders believe that there are principles at stake here which outweigh short-term economic costs. We respect and agree with that view. Argentina is fully aware of our position and we hope that an acceptable arrangement can be reached in the interests of all parties to resolve the charter flight issue.