Sitting of 29 January 2004

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL
IPSWICH MARKET BILL
Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    World Debt
    Rob Marris: If he will raise measures to address world debt at the G7 meeting next month. [151542]
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: When he will next discuss the proposed international finance facility with his counterparts in the other G8 countries. [151551]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I am pleased to say that next week in America the G7 group of Ministers will consider the issues of debt sustainability and the British proposal to tackle ill health, illiteracy and poverty, and to raise the necessary finance for aid and debt relief through the international finance facility. We will hold a conference on these issues with the Churches and non-governmental organisations on 16 February in London, and a Paris conference to heighten support for the facility, with more than 60 countries invited, will be held in April.
    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I can also inform the House that the date of the Budget statement will be 17 March.
    Rob Marris: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for the steps that he is taking to tackle world debt, particularly as I know that he has been very busy in recent days.
    The HIV/AIDS epidemic is a human catastrophe worldwide, especially in Africa; it retards economic and social development and so contributes to world debt
    370
    problems. Will my right hon. Friend outline what steps the United Kingdom Government are taking to support the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I know that he has taken a long-term interest in these matters. Twenty million people have already died from HIV/AIDS and 40 million people are infected with it. We are the second-biggest contributor to the global fund, which is investing not only in the prevention of AIDS, but also in tackling tuberculosis and malaria. We spent £270 million last year directly on fighting AIDS around the world. At the same time, we are a contributor to GAVI—the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation—which is a private-public partnership, with Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation in particular. I talked to him in London only this week about these matters. We shall continue to do more to tackle a scourge that requires extra resources, treatments at cheaper prices and the build-up of capacity in health care systems. We have spent £1.5 billion in all those areas since we came to power.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: I welcome the steps that the Chancellor is taking to take the international financing facility further forward, but will he assure the House that that will not detract from the UK's continuing efforts to increase the percentage of our gross domestic product that we allocate to international aid? In the spending review this year, will he consider taking further steps to increase the percentage of UK GDP allocated in that way up to the 0.7 per cent. target called for by the United Nations?
    Mr. Brown: This could be a very expensive Question Time indeed. I shall look into my hon. Friend's representations. He knows that we shall have increased the percentage of aid from 0.27 per cent., which is what we inherited, to 0.4 per cent. by 2006. He knows, too, that we are part of the Monterrey consensus, where the European Union has agreed that collectively the amounts of aid would be 0.39 per cent. by 2006 and where America has pledged an extra $5 billion to $7 billion to raise the amount of aid.
    Because the issue of AIDS demands something in the order of £10 billion and because to get every child into education and meet the millennium development goals requires another £10 billion, there can be no solution to the problem purely as a result of a few countries raising the amount of development aid. In my view, the only way forward is for us, collectively, to bring our resources together in the international finance facility, as we have proposed, and I am pleased to say that we have received support from all parties in the House for that. We have support from the Churches in this country and, only a few days ago, the Vatican made a statement supporting our facility. The conference in Paris will bring together 60 countries.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: What will be the likely cost to British banks of the proposal to write off Iraqi debt, consequent on our invasion of that country?
    Mr. Brown: This relates to question 4, which deals with the issue of Iraqi debt and I shall come to that when

    371
    that question is called. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that Iraqi debt is in the order of $120 billion and only about $1 billion of that is owed to Britain. Under the Paris Club terms, much of that would be written off. Iraq owes money mainly to Russia, Germany and France, not to Britain.
    Mr. John Redwood: In view of the great importance of this work to many sections of the House, would the Chancellor like to express his pleasure at the remarkable change in fortune this week of the Prime Minister, which means that, in all probability, the Chancellor will be able to stay in his present post for the rest of this Government in order to see it through?
    Hon. Members: Silly question.
    Mr. Brown: Absolutely. But is it not typical of the Opposition that when we are discussing world debt and the international finance facility, the right hon. Gentleman, who knows better, should reduce it purely to matters of personalities?
    Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend knows that I believe that the Labour Government's record on world debt has been excellent during his period as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does he believe that we can now make real progress with the G7 in not only continuing what this country has been doing so positively, but tackling the issues of fair trade? It is very important indeed that we not only relieve debt but give those countries an opportunity to participate in fair trade in the world.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He, too, has taken a great interest in these matters in recent years. At the G7 meeting next week in Florida in America—where I understand the weather is a bit warmer—we shall be discussing not only debt and the international finance facility, but trade. It is imperative that the main developed countries relaunch the world trade talks. That is in the interests of Europe and America, and of the developing countries. It is imperative also that we clear away the difficulties that arose from what were called the Singapore clauses. It is imperative too that steps are taken to deal with agricultural protectionism. I shall press my G7 colleagues and propose that we take an initiative to show that we are serious in persuading people that these trade talks, which have been stalled for too long, should get going quickly; and I believe that I shall have all-party support for that.
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: I understand that to qualify for debt relief under the initiative it is necessary for third world countries to increase the amount that they spend on poverty reduction, so there is a bit of a paradox there. I understand that they get quite a bit of that money from donor countries, but I further understand from a written answer that the Chancellor gave me a few days ago that there is a shortage of supply in the money coming from those donor countries. What can he do to increase that supply?
    Mr. Brown: For the heavily indebted poor countries initiative conditions to work, the debt that has to be paid
    372
    must be reduced substantially. I believe that the average payment of debt by those countries was 27 per cent. before the HIPC initiative and it is now 11 per cent., so there is a huge reduction in the amount of debt interest payments that those countries have to pay, and obviously it is a result of $70 billion of debt being wiped out under the initiative. It is not a requirement but it is morally, economically and socially right that those countries direct the resources to education and health. Sixty-five per cent. of the money that is obtained as a result of reduced interest payments goes to education and health—the vast majority to education. Uganda, for example, can now say that every young child will get primary education and that there will be schools for them to go to.
    I would therefore say to the hon. Gentleman that it is right that the amount of debt interest payments is reduced, but it is also morally, economically and socially right that the money does go to education and health, and to anti-poverty programmes that are part of the key to those countries' recovery.

    Myners and Sandler Reports
    Mr. Nigel Beard: If he will make a statement on progress towards implementing the recommendations of the Myners and Sandler reports. [151544]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): The Government are currently reviewing the progress that the occupational pension industry has made in implementing the recommendations of the Myners report. We are continuing to implement the recommendations that Ron Sandler proposed.
    Mr. Beard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I recognise the Government's policy to encourage saving, and both the Myners and the Sandler reports contained proposals for reducing obstacles to saving and making it easier. Cash individual savings accounts have proved to be very popular, especially with low-income savers who are reluctant to part company with their savings in case of emergencies. Why, therefore, does the pre-Budget report reduce the annual ceiling on ISAs from £3,000 to £1,000? Is that not inconsistent with general policy?
    Ruth Kelly: I am glad that my hon. Friend draws attention to the success that ISAs have been, both in widening access and in encouraging low-income groups to hold savings in that form. I can confirm to him, however, that the Government announce in the pre-Budget report that we intend to review the treatment of ISAs so that all Sandler's stakeholder medium-term products and life insurance products will be brought into the stocks and shares component of ISAs from 2005. My hon. Friend makes a representation on the limits, and of course my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have heard what he says and I am sure will reflect on it.
    Angela Eagle: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the recent evidence by both Myners and Sandler to the Treasury Select Committee about the current structure of the financial services industry? They

    373
    both characterised it as having excessively weak consumer power, because of the lack of transparency in the products and the fact that there are too many complex products, so that it is almost impossible for anyone to discern any meaning from the information about them. Moreover, those who make the products are far too concerned about distribution mechanisms and sales, and therefore leave consumers no power. That is a form of market failure. Will my hon. Friend look at that and see what the Treasury could do to restructure the market, in order to make it much simpler and easier for people to put their money into some of those products and make the products more trustworthy?
    Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We asked Ron Sandler to look at the structure of the retail savings industry to see how it could be made more efficient and transparent. He concluded that the current structure of the market was far too opaque and complex for consumers to be properly served. That is why we are now working with the Financial Services Authority to introduce the suite of Sandler stakeholder products, which would shift the burden away from the sales process and protect the consumer by building that protection into the product itself. I believe that the consumer will be much better served once those products are introduced.

    Iraq
    Mr. David Stewart: What discussions are being held with European Union Finance Ministers about providing debt relief to Iraq. [151545]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Iraq's debt to the international community stands at approximately $120 billion. In a country that is oil rich, with approximately 100 billion barrels of oil, the population has an average income per head of less than $2 a day. The United Kingdom view is that creditors will have to write off the vast majority of Iraq's debt to restore economic sustainability, and we are in discussion with many of our international partners, who share that view.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that debt relief is a vital ingredient in rebuilding the Iraqi economy? The loans to Saddam financed his wars, his palaces and the oppression of ordinary Iraqis. Is not Iraq's reconstruction crucial, and must we not get rid of the millstone of Iraqi debt?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has taken an interest in the matter of Iraqi debt. Iraq has the second largest reserves of oil in the world, so it is potentially very rich. It is also true, however, that the population's average income is less than $500 a year, which is less than $2 a day. Because of that, we need to take action to correct the position of Iraq. Not only does Iraq have $120 billion of outstanding debt, but it also has compensation claims to honour in relation to Kuwait approaching $80 billion. That is why we propose that, through the Paris Club, debt be written off, and why we have also said that it should be the vast majority of Iraq's debt.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor rightly said a few minutes ago
    374
    that there is a huge Russian debt. In the circumstance that much of the Iraqi oil industry is out of date and has Russian equipment—as indeed is true of the water facilities—if the oil industry is to be modernised, what discussions are going on with the Russians as to how we can co-operate to get it moving again?
    Mr. Brown: I believe that when the G7 meets next week in Florida and becomes the G8, with Russia present, we shall have a discussion on issues related to Iraq and reconstruction. More partners are being drawn in to try to help with reconstruction. I shall write to my hon. Friend after the G8 summit in Florida. It is also true that the backlog of repairs—whether in health, education or water, or generally in infrastructure—is, as my hon. Friend suggested, massive. That is why we cannot wait, and the Government have already set aside some $800 million as our contribution to reconstruction.

    Financial Services Authority
    Mr. Alex Salmond: What representations he has received on the performance of the Financial Services Authority; and if he will make a statement. [151546]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): Treasury Ministers have received a large number of representations, particularly in the context of the two-year review of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, on the performance of the FSA.
    Mr. Salmond: Is the hon. Lady fully satisfied with the performance of the Financial Services Authority in terms of its recent and ongoing discussions with Standard Life? First, is any credence at all to be given to suggestions that information about those discussions was briefed to the press by sources within the FSA? Secondly, has she considered whether there is anything inherently anti-mutual in the new liquidity requirements that are part of those discussions? Do the Government have a position on whether companies should be in mutual ownership or be plcs?
    Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman makes a number of detailed points. As I set out in my written answer to Parliament, the FSA has total operational responsibility for regulatory decisions and independence under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. However, the FSA has kept the Treasury regularly informed of developments at Standard Life, under the terms of the memorandum of understanding between the Treasury, the FSA and the Bank of England. Of course I cannot comment on press speculation, but I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the Treasury has consistently supported the development of the mutuals sector by supporting private Member's Bills, which updated the legislation for industrial and provident societies. The new realistic accounting rules have been widely welcomed by the industry—by mutuals and non-mutuals alike.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the FSA should take a lead on personal finance education and that even the

    375
    increased amount, £120,000—out of a budget of £200 million£is not very much? As it is a priority identified by the FSA, surely the industry and the FSA should be putting serious money into educating the people of this country about personal finance.
    Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Indeed, that was one of the issues raised by Ron Sandler when he looked at the functioning of the long-term retail savings market. The FSA has taken his recommendation seriously. It has set up a financial capability steering group, of which I am a member, to look at such issues from first principles. I am sure that the FSA will now take forward a proactive agenda on those issues.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Did the Minister see the comments last week by Callum McCarthy, the chairman of the FSA, who talked about what he called dangerous levels of household debt? Can the Minister say precisely who is responsible for determining sustainable levels of household debt and new flows of credit? Is it the FSA, which has identified the problem but disclaims responsibility? Is it the Bank of England, which meets next week and has also disclaimed responsibility for asset markets and debt? Who is responsible for the problem?
    Ruth Kelly: The Treasury and the Government have responsibility for the macro-economic environment in which consumers and the industry operate. The FSA has a specific responsibility for financial stability, but the Government's record on economic matters is one of which I am proud.

    Climate Change Levy
    Mr. Bill Tynan: What the revenues to the Exchequer were from the climate change levy in (a) 2002 and (b) 2003. [151547]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): The climate change levy raised £863 million for the Exchequer in 2002. Provisional receipts for the whole of 2003 will be published by the Office for National Statistics in February's "Financial Statistics".
    Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. In 1999, the reason that we introduced the climate change levy was to meet the obligations under the Kyoto agreement. Will he explain to the House why we apply the climate change levy to the nuclear power industry, which does not produce CO2? Will he consider removing that unfair burden from the nuclear industry, because it is a major problem for that industry at the present time?
    John Healey: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, particularly for his role as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy, but I have to disappoint him. He is right to say that we announced the introduction of the climate change levy in 1999, but we made it clear that nuclear generation would not be exempt from the levy, and we have no plans to change that position now. The reason is that the levy is not a carbon tax; it is a tax on energy use, designed to encourage not only greater energy efficiency, but the
    376
    development of new renewable forms of energy generation, such as solar, wind and wave power, which is why those are exempt from the levy and why the nuclear industry is not.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When the Government introduced the levy, they said that it would almost certainly be fiscally neutral. Why is the CBI now saying that the net annual cost to manufacturing is running at £142 million? That is hitting smaller firms particularly hard, and with offshoring growing apace, can the Minister do anything to make the levy fiscally neutral?
    John Healey: From the start, the levy was designed to be fiscally neutral to the Exchequer, but it is not possible to make it fiscally neutral for each and every sector. Let me make it clear that there is no financial gain to the Exchequer from the climate change levy. All revenues are recycled back: first, through the 0.3 per cent. cut in national insurance contributions that benefited all employers; and, secondly, through a series of energy efficiency programmes and support, ranging from enhanced capital allowances to the work of the Carbon Trust. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the position of businesses in competition with those in other countries. There is an 80 per cent. discount on the levy for those that are exposed to international competition and that are intensive energy users in sectors that are willing to negotiate with the Government to improve energy efficiency.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: In line with the principles of green taxation that my hon. Friend's Department set out in last year's publication, does he intend to review further the operation of the climate change levy to ensure that its proceeds add positive leverage to the reduction of industrial CO2 emissions by supporting more directly the development of lower-emission and renewable industrial energy practices?
    John Healey: I can tell my hon. Friend that we keep all taxes constantly monitored and under review. Above that, we are undertaking a full review of the first couple of years of the operation and impact of the climate change levy. That review is being led by Customs and it will indeed take account of the kind of factors about which he is concerned.

    Equitable Life
    Ann Winterton: If he will compensate Equitable Life policy holders. [151548]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): As I said in my written answer of 26 January, the Treasury intends to publish Lord Penrose's report in full as soon as possible. I shall make a full statement to the House at that time.
    Ann Winterton: Does the Minister recall the Chancellor, when he was in opposition, criticising the then Government for delaying payments to elderly, distressed savers following the failure of financial regulators in the Barlow Clowes case? If Lord Penrose

    377
    reports that regulators failed investors in Equitable Life, will the Chancellor take the very same action that he advocated so vociferously when he was shadow Chancellor?
    Ruth Kelly: The hon. Lady may choose to prejudge Lord Penrose's report, but I will not. I am afraid that she must be patient and wait until it is published.
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: Does the Minister agree that the problems with Equitable Life stem from bad management and a loose regulatory regime under the previous Conservative Government? Would she care to outline what steps this Government have taken to avoid any repetition of the situation?
    Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend will know that the Government took action to set up the Financial Services Authority, the financial services compensation scheme and the financial services ombudsman. On the detailed matter of Equitable Life, I am afraid that he, too, will have to await Lord Penrose's report.
    Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Lord Penrose's report will deal with whether the Treasury has fallen down in its job as regulator of the industry. However, we have the extraordinary situation in which the Treasury has the power to edit the report before it is published. The Financial Secretary says that it will be published in full, but she has also made it clear that it will be edited for legal reasons—as she puts it. I do not think that that will do. The situation is worrying hundreds of thousands of Equitable Life policyholders and annuitants, for whom the report is the only hope of justice. Some of them have told me that what is going on is like handing the man in the dock an advance copy of the judge's summing up for him to edit. A fortnight ago, I told the Financial Secretary that she could allay those concerns easily by handing the full report to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury—he is in the Chamber now—who could check whether the editing would be reasonable. I ask her once again: why will she not hand the full report to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee?
    Ruth Kelly: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is making allegations that he cannot sustain; he is also prejudging the content of the report. I have informed the House on several occasions that we intend to publish the report in full at the earliest opportunity. He must await the publication of the report.
    Miss Anne Begg: It is perhaps a reflection on my constituency that I have many constituents who have been caught up in the whole Equitable Life debacle. They, too, are awaiting the publication of the Penrose report. I hope that the Minister will accept that my constituents are concerned because they are not especially well off and several have lost a great deal of money. Could the whole process be speeded up so that they can get a resolution to the difficulties that they face?
    Ruth Kelly: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, and of course I sympathise with the distress suffered by many Equitable Life policyholders. Naturally, we will publish the report as soon as possible.

    Public Sector Deficit
    Brian Cotter: Whether he expects to meet his public sector deficit forecast this fiscal year; and if he will make a statement. [151549]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): An updated assessment of public finance projections will be available as usual in the forthcoming Budget on 17 March.
    Brian Cotter: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with yesterday's statement by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that, because of current deficits, the Government must increase taxation or reduce growth by 2006–07?
    Mr. Boateng: No, I do not agree, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has studied fully the IFS green budget. Had he done so, he would have seen that it confirms the sustainability of UK public finances when underpinned by low levels of debt. We would never be able to enjoy those low debt levels if we had adopted the tax-and-spend policies espoused by the Liberal Democrats.
    Hugh Bayley: What assessment have Treasury officials made of Liberal Democrat proposals for tax commitments on the one hand and spending commitments on the other? What effect would they have on the deficit? If the deficit increased, what reduction in public expenditure on health and education would be necessary, given the amount of public expenditure that would go on debt repayment?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not ask the Minister questions about Liberal Democrat policy—[Interruption.] Well, perhaps it would be better for him to write to the Liberal Democrats to find out.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: I certainly would not want to ask any hon. Member to wait that long.
    I begin by thanking the Chancellor for his courtesy in letting us know the date of the Budget. Does the Chief Secretary acknowledge that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) asked a sensible question? The IFS has produced a series of calculations that suggest that, in the next cycle, the Government will need to raise taxes to meet their own rules. Is that not true?
    Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Gentleman really ought to reflect on his own party's record in government. Under the stewardship of a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer, net debt was about 44 per cent. of GDP. The reality is that the Government remain on track to meet their fiscal rules over the economic cycle on the basis of our cautious assumptions, which were clearly stated in the pre-Budget report. IFS projections confirm that the golden rule will be met in the current economic cycle.
    Mr. Letwin: That was a wonderful assembly of unanswers to my question. Let me put it to the Chief Secretary another way. He will have noticed, as we have, that it is not just the IFS that is on to this. The

    379
    International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which are not employees of the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats or anyone else in the House, have also come to the conclusion that the Chancellor's present level of borrowing and his present path of spending will mean—not in this cycle, to which the Chief Secretary referred, but in the next cycle—that he will need to raise taxes if the Government are re-elected. Is the Chief Secretary arguing that that is not the case?
    Mr. Boateng: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman now admits that we will meet the golden rule in this cycle. That is a new departure for him—he has urged us to introduce policies that would involve a cut in our current spending plans and that would move us towards 35 per cent. of GDP, which would be disastrous for the economy and the country at a time when we are investing in the very public services that were grossly run down when his party had stewardship of the economy.
    Mr. Letwin: I do not know whether I will be able to persuade the Chief Secretary to engage in a genuine discussion of an important matter; he is so attached to policy-based evidence making that he is reluctant to engage in evidence-based policy making. Would it not be simpler for the Government to admit that the IMF, the OECD and the IFS have all concluded that in the next cycle—that is, after the election—the Government, if they are re-elected, will have to raise taxes? That is a serious problem that needs to be debated. Does he accept that it would be better if he admitted it, so that the public out there, who want us to have a serious and rational debate, could see us having a debate about whether it is in the interests of this country to raise taxes?
    Mr. Boateng: I shall resist the right hon. Gentleman's blandishments, but I urge him to have a serious and rational debate posited on the fact that we will meet our fiscal rules—fiscal rules to which he was never prepared to submit his party when it was in government. If he had done so, his party would never have met them, but if it had tried, at least we would not have had the net debt of about 44 per cent. of GDP that we inherited. We were paying back the debt that the Conservative Government had accumulated. They were paying more on interest than on health, education and transport, and we have had to deal with all that they abysmally failed to do.
    Mr. Russell Brown: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the largest number of public sector jobs involve nursery staff, doctors, teachers and teaching assistants, and that the real route to dealing with the matter is by cutting the share of administration costs?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He will welcome the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to cut administration costs and headquarters costs. My hon. Friend will also welcome the steps that we are taking as a Government, using the good offices of Sir Peter Gershon, to make sure we build that into the up-coming efficiency review.

    Stamp Duty Land Tax
    Mr. Tim Boswell: What recent discussions he has had with business representatives regarding the potential for reform of stamp duty land tax on leases. [151550]
    Mr. Julian Brazier: What steps he is taking to alleviate the effect of the new stamp duty land tax on leases on businesses. [151554]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Following consultation with representatives of interested parties, substantial changes were made to the stamp duty land tax charge on the rental element of new leases, which will be of special benefit to small and medium-sized businesses. This means that all commercial leases, which would have been liable to stamp duty land tax under the original proposals, have now benefited from a £1,500 reduction.
    Mr. Boswell: Yes, but independent evidence suggests that the average pub licensee will face a tenfold increase in their tax bill, from £600 to £6,000. How on earth can that be justified?
    Dawn Primarolo: I do not accept that. In the commercial sector 60 per cent. of all leases will be exempt from stamp duty land tax. That compares with only 9 per cent. of leases that were exempt under the previous stamp duty regime.
    Mr. Brazier: The professional association suggests that independent children's homes are facing a fourfold increase in stamp duty. When the original provisions were introduced, was it the Minister's intention that a sector so important to the most vulnerable members of our community should be hit in that way?
    Dawn Primarolo: I know that the hon. Gentleman follows these matters closely, and he has demonstrated his interest in them a number of times in the House. All homes under the threshold are exempt. That has been clearly laid out in the House by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.
    Mr. James Gray: What effect will the charge have on farmers on annual leases?
    Dawn Primarolo: The Treasury has been discussing with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the extent of the changes with regard to the stamp duty land tax. DEFRA is fully aware of the requirements under the proposals in the legislation, and the matter will be taken forward.

    Employment
    Mr. John McFall: If he will make a statement on employment levels and the effect of unemployment on the economy. [151552]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Some 1.7 million new jobs have been created since 1997,

    381
    helping to create growth on target of 2.1 per cent. last year. The latest figures show that the claimant count is now just 3 per cent., that the labour force survey rate is 4.9 per cent., and that we have the lowest unemployment since the 1970s. For the first time in 50 years, unemployment in Britain is lower than in the euro area, Japan and America together.
    Mr. McFall: Since 1997, where have the majority of new jobs been created—in the public sector or in the private sector? In the public sector, where I hope that the Chancellor will continue the drive to cut waste, where exactly have the new jobs been created?
    Mr. Brown: I can tell my hon. Friend that 1.7 million jobs have been created, and that 1.2 million jobs have been created in the private sector. Of the jobs created in the public sector, 90,000 are classroom assistants, 20,000 are teachers, 50,000 are nurses, and there are nearly 20,000 more doctors and 10,000 more policemen. Before we made that investment, the lack of nurses, doctors, policemen, teachers and classroom assistants was holding back our public services and our country.
    As for administration costs, it is true that the Gershon inquiry mentioned by the Chief Secretary is examining how we can cut the costs of administration in the public sector. I have to tell the House, how ever, that the most appropriate measure of comparison between this year and 1996–97 is planned expenditure on central administration as a percentage of total Government spending, using the measures available at the time. That yields a figure of 4.4 per cent., falling in future years, against a plan of 4.9 per cent. in 1996–97. We do not yet have final out-turns because figures are not available for this year, but based on previous years' experience we would expect this year's out-turn to be lower than the 4.6 per cent. of total Government spending out-turn figure for 1996–97. So we will take no lectures from the Conservative party about administrative costs—that is the party that gave us the worst administrative burden with the waste of the poll tax.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I congratulate the Chancellor on the policies that have been pursued, which have created so much opportunity and employment across the United Kingdom. We in Northern Ireland are enjoying the lowest levels of unemployment and the highest levels of employment in my lifetime. However, I plead with him to take account of the high costs of public liability insurance, which is crippling small businesses in Northern Ireland. Will he bear in mind the fact that success in creating employment in Northern Ireland is largely in the hands of small employers, many of whom cannot afford to pay the huge insurance costs that have been asked for and have simply sold off their businesses, making many people unemployed?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We are concerned about employers liability insurance. It has been raised with the Treasury, and the Financial Secretary has had discussions with business. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to lead a delegation to the Treasury to go through the issues again, we are prepared to listen to his representations.
    382
    I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the recent employment figures in Northern Ireland. In every part of this country, particularly in Northern Ireland, employment has been growing and unemployment has been falling. As is acknowledged on both sides of the House, that is a success story for the whole of the United Kingdom. The only people who are not prepared to acknowledge it are the Conservatives.
    Ms Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some parts of the country, particularly mine, the historically high levels of employment have created something of a problem of success—a skills shortage? What is he doing to increase skill levels, especially for those who have been excluded from jobs previously, and for women who are returning to work and want to become teachers and nurses, but face difficulties because the student finance and benefits systems do not work well together, or they find it hard to get child care?
    Mr. Brown: I know that my hon. Friend has taken an interest in the development of the new deal. There are 1 million more people in training now than in 1997 and we are endeavouring, through the university for industry—now called Learning Direct—employer training pilots, modern apprenticeships and the new deal, to give young people a guarantee of training, and every adult who does not have the skills that are necessary for a modern economy the chance to get them. We are making that investment, especially through the new deal. It is a tragedy for the country that the Conservatives oppose and would abolish the most successful employment programme in our history.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: The rising tax burden is, as we have heard, hitting jobs in shops, clubs, bars and hotels, especially through stamp duty land tax. Yet Treasury Ministers seem unaware of what is happening. In a written answer last week, the Financial Secretary told me that stamp duty land tax would
    "prevent the avoidance of stamp duty that was formerly common in commercial transactions".— [Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1030W.]
    Yet— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Front-Bench Members get some elbow room.
    Mr. Prisk: Yet—[Interruption.] This question is important—it is about jobs—so I hope that the Chancellor will listen. Despite the Financial Secretary's statement, we learn that business representatives have been told completely the opposite by the leading civil servant in this area—the director of the Stamp Office. He told business representatives that
    "avoidance of duty on leases"
    is
    "not currently a problem."
    Given the impact of the tax on jobs, who is right—the Chancellor's Financial Secretary or his officials?
    Mr. Brown: First, that was the subject of the previous question. Secondly, all hon. Members who consider the matter objectively know that there must be a level

    383
    playing field between leases and purchases, and that we must take action on distortions, especially avoidance that loses revenue that should not be lost to the Treasury. As for the hon. Gentleman's claims that jobs are being lost in record numbers in a series of sectors, he should examine the figures, not least those for the constituency of the shadow Chancellor, where unemployment is 0.9 per cent. The Conservative party should go back to the drawing board, support the new deal and scrap the vicious right-wing policy to abolish it.
    Jon Trickett: Is not it a matter of great pride that in former coalfield areas such as my constituency, where in 1997 there were 500 long-term unemployed adult males, the figure is now 60? The Chancellor should be congratulated on that. However, is he aware of the number of people in former coalfield areas who suffer from long-term limiting illnesses, that exclude them from the labour market? In Featherstone, Hemsworth, South Kirkby and South Elmsall in my constituency, 28 per cent. of the adult population are excluded from the labour market through the legacy of the coal mining industry. Can the Chancellor help those people who want to return to work to do so, and offer care to those who cannot?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work to help redundant miners back to work. Work is being done in many constituencies in the area through the reconstruction plans and coalfield regeneration plans to get many people who would otherwise be long-term unemployed into jobs. That is happening throughout the country. Hon. Members will be interested to know that long-term unemployment has fallen by more than 70 per cent. and that long-term youth unemployment has also fallen by more than 70 per cent. In the mid-1980s, there were 350,000 young people in that category, but now there are fewer than 5,000—that means that an average of eight people per constituency are unemployed for more than a year. In the shadow Chancellor's constituency, there are 10 long-term unemployed people over 25.

    Investment in Residential Property
    Hywel Williams: What assessment he has made of the likely change in investment in residential property as a consequence of his proposed changes to (a) self-investment and (b) self-arranged personal pension schemes. [151553]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): The Government's technical paper, "Simplifying the taxation of pensions: the Government's proposals", proposes allowing pension funds to invest in all types of investments, including residential property. The impact of this change, if introduced, will depend on the extent to which trustees and administrators decide that residential property is a suitable pension scheme investment.
    Hywel Williams: Will not any conscientious tax adviser advise investment that yields greater returns—for example, in areas such as my constituency, where house price inflation was 30 per cent. last year? Does the Financial Secretary believe that there will be any
    384
    regional variation in the rate of investment in housing? What would be the impact of that new money on local housing markets and the ability of first-time buyers to participate?
    Ruth Kelly:Clearly, the overall impact of the changes will depend on how attractive an investment property is seen to be. Concerns have already been expressed that property will not hold its value over the longer term or perform as well as the equity markets. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a particular concern about second homes being bought in Wales, and I understand that. I have checked this point, and a tax charge would apply if second homes were used for private purposes, so there would be no new incentives to buy second homes in Wales through that channel.

    World Debt
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What progress has been made with respect to debt relief for the poorest countries. [151556]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Twenty-seven countries are already receiving more than $70 billion of debt relief, of which 10 have completed the process. Seven others have not yet received debt relief because they are in conflict; a further three have not done so due to internal instability and governance issues; one other has not applied. A number of other countries, including Sudan, Liberia and Congo, should enter the debt relief process soon.
    Mr. Swayne: Does the Chancellor agree that the greatest leverage that we could have on the problems faced by the poorest countries would be provided by giving them greater opportunities to trade with us? What prospect is there of driving forward such an agenda with our principal allies?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of trade in the context of debt relief, because we all know that what is needed for countries, especially those in Africa, to move forward is a combination of debt relief, the necessary aid and, most importantly, the development of their economies. That requires them to be able to trade with the developed countries, which is why there is a premium on reopening the world trade talks; that is in everyone's interest. There was an American initiative only a few days ago, and we are hoping for a positive response in greater detail from the European Union. The matter will also be discussed at the G7 in Florida, and there was a meeting of Trade Ministers just before Christmas to consider some of the issues. I hope that we can move forward very quickly, and I believe that once the Singapore issues are cleared from the deck and there has been movement on agriculture, it will be possible that this will genuinely become what was originally called the Doha development round. That means development helping developing countries.
    Mr. Torn Clarke: Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor build on his truly remarkable achievements on debt by bearing in mind in his discussions with the G7 and G8 countries,

    385
    the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and so on, the problems of the countries that experience genocide, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which he mentioned? If those countries can make the most of their mineral wealth and share it widely, we shall achieve not only poverty reduction but the millennium goals, to which he is absolutely committed.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He has spoken on these issues over many years and visited many of the countries that he is asking us to consider. I have added Congo to my list, although it was previously not regarded as a country that would ever qualify for the heavily indebted poor countries process. However, conflicts are being ended in Congo, Sudan and Liberia. Because of that, although it will cost the international community substantial amounts of money—running into billions of dollars for those three countries—to give the debt relief, it is right that they should be offered the chance to be part of the process. It is also right that we should help them to reconstruct their economies after conflict, and, in particular, that we help them to get their health, education and other social services systems moving so that their people can genuinely see that out of conflict, there is a way forward.
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered the terms of the report produced by IMF researchers towards the end of last year, which suggested that the heavily indebted poor countries initiative could be running into difficulties? The report concluded:
    "Unless HIPCs improve their primary fiscal positions or grant financing is sustained at current, or possibly higher, levels, debt sustainability in HIPCs may prove elusive"
    in the long term. Does the Chancellor concur with that assessment of the initiative, and if so, which course would he like to see the HIPCs following: raising taxes or a higher level of aid coming from developed countries?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of what will happen now in the IMF and the World Bank. The issue of debt relief will not and must not be forgotten. That is why, when I chair the IMF committee that will meet in Washington in April, and when the World Bank development committee meets, we shall consider that very issue raised by the IMF report. We shall discuss whether we can reach agreement on what is called topping up—that is, getting more money for the poorest countries at the point at which their debts are being written off—and on taking into account some of the changes that have taken place. For example, in some cases commodity prices have collapsed, and in others there have been problems in relation to trade.
    Equally, we will have to look specifically at country-by-country solutions for many of those people, which is why the poverty reduction plans that have been produced by the World Bank are very important. In the long run, the way forward, in my view, is the international finance mechanism that we propose. That allows us to do exactly as happened when the World Bank was formed in 1945: to provide a mechanism for financing that involves both the public and private
    386
    sector but guarantees the up-front money that is necessary if we are to meet the millennium development targets for each country.

    NHS Funding
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: If he will make a statement on funding the NHS through general taxation. [151557]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): This Government are firmly of the view that the most efficient and equitable way of funding the NHS is through general taxation—an NHS that is free at the point of use.
    Mrs. Cryer: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very pleasing reply. Is he aware that Airedale general hospital is not only an excellent facility but is the biggest employer in my constituency? The vast majority of those employees are doctors, nurses and those giving essential support such as cleaners, maintenance workers and medical secretaries, without whom the medical care so much appreciated by my constituents could not be given.
    Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the care and attention that she pays to health care services in her constituency, whether that means a magnetic resonance scanner or mental health services. The whole NHS team, including the ancillary and support workers whom she mentioned, have enabled us to deliver 450,000 more operations a year than took place in 1997, 15,000 of which were heart operations and 90,000 of which were cataract operations, as well as 8,000 more hip replacements and 12,000 more knee replacements. Each of those numbers is higher than in 1997. That is good news, and it is achieved only by the sort of team working of which my hon. Friend is so supportive in her constituency.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I should perhaps declare an interest in that my brother is a GP in north Yorkshire. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the additional cost to the taxpayer will be of the out-of-hours service for GPs in north Yorkshire from 1 April, and of the additional costs under the working time directive of training and recruiting more doctors, particularly in the mental health sector of the NHS?
    Mr. Boateng: Certainly, I will write to the hon. Lady on the specific costs in relation to north Yorkshire. I am sure that she will fairly appreciate and give credence to the fact that none of those improvements could be achieved were we to adopt the spending policies advocated by Conservative Members.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any attempt to suck general taxation funds out of the NHS and use them to subsidise the private health sector would be disastrous for the NHS? Is that not a classic example of a cynical ploy that would attack the health of the nation and mean that the many would end up funding the privileges of the few?
    Mr. Boateng:My hon. Friend makes a fair point. That is precisely the policy that Conservative Members

    387
    seem to be suggesting. It would involve a dead-weight cost of some £1 billion, which could be met only by cutting back on the gains that we have made for the NHS since 1997. That would be an absolute disaster, and would add still further to the inequalities in health that we inherited from the stewardship of the Conservative party.

    Financial Forecasts
    Sir Michael Spicer: When he will publish revised forecasts for the public finances. [151561]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): An updated assessment of public finance projections will be available as usual in the forthcoming Budget on 17 March.
    Sir Michael Spicer: May I repeat the question that I asked the Prime Minister yesterday, to which I got a hopeless non-answer? Why are the balance of payments deficits and fiscal deficits now totally out of control?
    Mr. Brown: The current account deficit in 2002 stood at 1.8 per cent. of GDP, well below past peaks. In 1989, under the hon. Gentleman's Government, the current
    388
    account deficit reached more than 5 per cent. of GDP. As far as the public finances are concerned—the second deficit—he may know that the deficit in America is between 5 and 6 per cent., in Japan it is 7 per cent., in Germany and France it is 4 per cent. or more, and in Britain it is 3.2 per cent. I ask him to recall that the deficit in the early 1990s under the Conservative Government was not 3.2 per cent.; it was more than 8 per cent.
    Roger Casale: Is it not the case that while many countries continue to suffer from the global recession—France and Germany cannot even stay within the European Union stability pact—this country is investing more in public services against a background of economic growth? We have our public finances under control, and recent reports by the OECD, the IMF and the World Bank demonstrate that the British economy and public finances stand up well to any international comparison, despite the attempts by Conservative Members to talk down not only the British economy but the achievements of this Government.
    Mr. Brown: We meet our fiscal rules, which would never have happened under the previous Government, and we will not engage in public spending cuts. If the shadow Chancellor persists in saying that he will announce public spending cuts because people say that our spending is horrifically too much. I know what the people of this country will say to him.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill.
TUESDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Child Trust Funds Bill.
WEDNESDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Debate on Lord Hutton's Report on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will be opened by right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and closed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
THURSDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Motions On the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2004–05, followed by a motion on the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2004–05.
FRIDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill.
TUESDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [4th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats, subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Motion to approve the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2004 followed by Opposition half-day [5th Allotted Day] (1st Part). There will be half-day debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government has replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for February will be:
THURSDAY 5 FEBRUARY—A debate on the report from the Broadcasting Committee on the rules of coverage.
THURSDAY 12 FEBRUARY—A cross-cutting question session on "healthy living", followed by a debate on the report from the Science and Technology Committee on light pollution and astronomy.
THURSDAY 26 FEBRUARY—A debate on the Report from the Public Administration Committee entitled "On Target? Government by Measurement".
The House will wish to be reminded that, subject to the progress of business, we will rise for the half-term week on Thursday 12 February and return on Monday 23 February. The House may also wish to be reminded that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that the Budget will take place on Wednesday 17 March.
Mr. Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business. The local authority and police grant
390
debate will be one of the most important next week for all Members. Why has it been placed on the shortest day, given that the business on Monday and Tuesday looks somewhat light?
Can we have a proper debate in Government time on the deplorable decision, which has been implemented today, to downgrade cannabis and skunk and reduce enforcement in cases involving them? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that decision will lead to many more people experiencing the miseries of mental ill health and send out a message that the Government do not mind if our young people mix with hardened criminal pushers or join the first rung of the ladder that leads them to hard drugs use?
Why is it that this country cannot handle snowfalls, and everything just grinds to a halt? Has no one in the Government noticed that it seems to be an annual occurrence? Are Ministers aware that traffic is gridlocked; roads have not been gritted; schools are closed; flights have been cancelled; and cities such as Norwich have been cut off, leading the Salvation Army to open its hostels for the stranded? It is sheer blooming misery for commuters. Can we have a statement from the Minister in charge of our response to snow? And by the way, just who is that?
The Government suffered a narrow victory, by five votes, on the top-up fees issue on Tuesday. Should not the Standing Committee on the Bill reflect not only the party political composition of the House but the strength of opinion as expressed in the Division on Tuesday? The arrangements are set out clearly on page 693 of "Erskine May". Will the Government follow precedent and ensure that the Labour rebels are fairly represented on the Committee? Does the Leader of the House agree that the Committee should not have a Government majority of more than one?
The Leader of the House will have heard the calls from both sides of the House for a full inquiry into how this country went to war in Iraq. He will know that the Franks report followed the far less controversial Falklands war. The public want to know why the Government said that there were weapons of mass destruction, yet none were found. Can we expect an early statement—[Interruption] Hearing the noise from the Liberal Democrats reminds me that one hon. Member asked me to call for a debate on the plague of wild boars on the Kent-Sussex border. It may be that that plague has spread a little closer to this place than we had realised.
Mr. Hain: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I was interested to note that the ritual demand that we have heard from him in the past few weeks for a two-day debate on the Hutton report was not repeated. Why is that? Well, he has double standards. The report did not say what the Tories wanted it to say and that is why he is no longer interested in a two-day debate on the Hutton report. The truth is that the Conservatives should have the good grace to admit that they were wrong to accuse the Prime Minister of lying, wrong to impugn my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and wrong to accuse the whole Government machine—including civil servants—of falsifying evidence and manipulating procedures. The Leader of the Opposition should have the good grace to make a full-blooded apology, in the Opposition's time.

391
On the question of a wider inquiry, the Iraq survey group has been completing its work—
Michael Fabricant: When will it finish?
Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman reminds us. it has no date for completion of that work. Iraq is a big country, and the results will not fit into a Conservative timetable for a debate in the House of Commons. The group will complete its work, and I remind hon. Members that it has uncovered considerable evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programmes. I would be happy to quote the evidence from Dr. Kay, if the House wishes me to do so. Let us have no more hypocrisy. Instead, let us have some apologies from the Leader of the Opposition and the chairman of the Conservative party, who have criticised the Government for lying—they have been at it again in the past few days. They should come to the House and apologise because, according to Lord Hutton, their accusations are unfounded.
The hon. Gentleman raised some specific issues. On the local authority finance and police grant reports debate, the issues will not be cleared until the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments a few days before. There will be plenty of time to discuss the reports, so that is a bogus point, if I may say so.
On cannabis, I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
Mr. Heald: We want a debate.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has an Opposition day coming up soon and there was a debate on the issue in Westminster Hall only recently. The truth is that this is another example of Conservative opportunism.
The declassifying of cannabis will be done in order to ensure that we do not devalue and discredit the message on hard drugs. It is very important that we persuade people, especially youngsters, to concentrate on avoiding the really hard drugs that they might be dragged into supporting if they were put in the same bracket as cannabis.
I thought the hon. Gentleman's question about snowfalls particularly impressive. As he knows, snow has been a periodic problem. We are continually trying to improve our rate of response to it, and will go on doing so.
Let me say something about a wider question. I know the hon. Gentleman will take it seriously, because he is concerned about these matters as well. I think it important that we respect each other's integrity in the whole conduct of politics, as we do in the House. Public and political debate, in the BBC and other broadcasting outlets or elsewhere in the media, must once more involve an honest clash of policies and politics rather than constant attempts to challenge each other's integrity.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I agree with that, but may I return the Leader of the House to
392
arrangements for next week? Can he confirm information given yesterday by the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, that the Government's response to the Committee's report "Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction—Intelligence and Assessment" will be published early next week? That would enable Members to consider the information and recommendations before the Adjournment debate on the Hutton report. The right hon. Lady also said that the debate would be wide-ranging and need not confine itself to the narrow remit of Lord Hutton's inquiry, and I hope that the Leader of the House will agree to that.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the point at issue is not just whether the so-called dodgy dossier was "sexed up", but the location of those threatening weapons of mass destruction on which the Government relied so much? Does he also accept that, as I said on behalf of my colleagues last week, the circumstances surrounding that wide-ranging debate are exceptional and it should therefore continue until at least 10 pm? He may now regret telling me last week that the only exceptional circumstances that he could envisage that might necessitate such an extension were those in which Members needed to go on holiday.
Mr. Hain indicated dissent.
Mr. Tyler: Well, he can put that right now. I hope that he will now say that the circumstances are exceptional, because this is an extremely important issue.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned David Kay and the evidence that he has given in Washington. In the light of the undoubted failures of United States and United Kingdom intelligence—no one can deny that now—on the real nature of the threat that faced us from Saddam, does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that there is a case for a wider inquiry? The fact that Conservative Members swallowed those spurious threats and that dodgy dossier does not mean that the whole House should.
Mr. Hain: I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on whether the report will be published next week. That is in the hands of the Committee.
Mr. Tyler: I was asking about the Government's response.
Mr. Hain: I am sorry. Obviously it is in everyone's interest to have the Government's response before the debate. I will let the hon. Gentleman know whether that will be possible. I agree that it is important for us to have all the background.
How wide or narrow the debate is will be a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we as a Government are very confident—not just confident because we have come out of the detailed inquiry by Lord Hutton as we have, but confident about our whole policy on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Let me remind him of what David Kay actually told Congress recently, as opposed to some of the spin that has been put on it:
"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that

393
began in late 2002…A clandestine network of laboratories…A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents…Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home…BW-applicable agents…work on ricin"
and other toxic agents,
"plans and advanced design work for long-range missiles"
and a
"systematic sanitisation of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work."
Far from there being a massive failure of intelligence, as the hon. Gentleman asserts, I believe that the work of the survey group will confirm David Kay's statement to Congress:
"I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought."
And he was the person who led the investigating team.
As to the handling of the debate, I have always said that we needed to await the report before announcing who would open and close the debate and the time allowed—which I have now announced. I do not think that a longer debate is necessary, but the Liberal Democrats will have an Adjournment debate soon and could choose that subject if they wish.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Instead of bothering with a day on the Hutton report, because it has all been said—the Tories do not like the report because it comes down in favour of the Government and against the BBC—will the Leader of the House use that day instead for a debate on the few pits remaining in Britain? Most of them—about 300 or 400—were closed between 1979 and 1997 but the few left need money. Does he accept that if it is possible for the Government to step in—as they did with Railtrack, Connex and the Jarvis contracts—to save lines, it would make sense to do the same for pits in danger, such as Hatfield and Selby? If private entrepreneurs such as Budge and others refuse to do anything to save jobs, the Government should do what they have done for the railways, take the pits over and make sure those jobs are saved.
Mr. Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's passion, being myself a Member of Parliament who represents a coalfield community—which my hon. Friend was kind enough to visit some years ago. I share many of his sentiments and we will continue to do what we can to help a viable coal industry succeed. He will also understand, however, that tens of millions of pounds have recently been given in aid to pits across the country, including in constituencies in South Wales. Over the years, billions of pounds have been given to the coal industry. We must judge any further support against that background.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I take the Leader of the House back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), to which the right hon. Gentleman did not respond, concerning the composition of the Standing Committee on the Higher Education Bill? The right hon. Gentleman will remember the point of order that I raised with Mr. Speaker on the night of the Second Reading debate and
394
will have in mind page 693 of the 22nd edition of "Erskine May", which makes it plain that in nominating Standing Committee members, the Committee of Selection shall always ensure
"in the case of bills which divide the House on cross-party lines, that the strength of opinion as expressed in any division at second reading is properly reflected".
Does the Leader of the House agree that that in effect means that as the Government had a majority of five on Second Reading, they are only entitled to a majority of about one on the Standing Committee? If the Committee of Selection does not observe the precedent and rule fully set out in "Erskine May", will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement to the House next week as to why not?
Mr. Hain: The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly raises that point again, as I overlooked it when replying to the shadow Leader of the House. The Committee of Selection will want to consider that matter carefully but the rules are clear. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Division was principally if not exclusively on party grounds, but his point will be borne in mind.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I offer to help the Government out on the Committee considering the top-up fees, so I hope that will be taken into account.
Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 445?
[That this House believes that the supreme sacrifice of British servicemen and women who are killed in the line of duty, in war, peacekeeping or as a result of terrorism, should be acknowledged through a posthumous medal similar to the United States Purple Heart or the Memorial Cross of Canada and New Zealand, which can be presented to the next of kin and worn with pride on Remembrance Day; accepts that suitable criteria for such a medal need to he carefully defined and that this is best done by the Ministry of Defence in consultation with The Royal British Legion and forces' associations; and urges the Ministry of Defence to accept the policy and instigate such discussions.]
It deals with posthumous medals for British servicemen and women who have been killed in the line of duty during wars or peace-making activities or as a result of terrorism and asks that such medals should be in line with the US purple heart and the memorial cross in Canada and New Zealand. It has cross-party—and left, right and centre—support, so could we have a statement, which would compensate for the fact that I had to pull a question on the matter for Monday's Defence questions because I had duties on the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body?
Mr. Hain: I am not sure that we would want to take up my hon. Friend's. offer of help because I am not sure what kind of help that might be for the Government, but his generosity will be noted.
On the serious issue that he raised, there was the recent case of my constituent, Private Ryan Thomas, who was killed in action in Iraq. I know that individuals in the area pressed that case. There is no tradition in this country of awarding medals for which a prerequisite is the prior death of the recipient. This is a difficult issue and I know that the Secretary of State for Defence will

395
keep it under constant review because I know of the strong feelings on this matter, about which my hon. Friend rightly reminded the House.
Mr. Hugo Swire: In the last few days, letters have gone out from the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire to fire authorities up and down the country. In respect of my own fire authority, the letter announced that next year's funding would be capped at 5 per cent.—and that at a time when it has to meet pay increases of 23 per cent. That could well lead to cuts in personnel, closure of fire stations and a reduction in coverage throughout the country. Given that next week's business is fairly light, would the Leader of the House consider granting Government time to debate that serious issue as a matter of priority?
Mr. Hain: We have no plans to grant Government time to debate that matter. I am doubtful about the hon. Gentleman's 23 per cent. pay increase—I do not recognise that figure—but he can apply for a debate in the usual way if he wishes.
Mr. Martin Salter: Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate on the use and abuse of parliamentary privilege, particularly in view of Conservative Members' disgraceful allegations about the Prime Minister, accusing him of lying to the House and the country? Those are allegations that Lord Hutton has proved to be unfounded, allegations that should never have been made and allegations that should now be withdrawn and apologised for.
Mr. Hain: I would be very enthusiastic about finding time for a debate on those matters and I will certainly look into it. To add to my earlier point, some of the attacks made by the Leader of the Opposition have been despicable and contemptible and ought to be withdrawn. It is one thing to put tough questions and make strong points to the Prime Minister across the Dispatch Box—that is the Opposition's role—but quite another to challenge his integrity and accuse him of lying. I think that the Leader of the Opposition should withdraw those allegations forthwith and, if that does not happen, perhaps there is a case for a sensible debate about the way in which we conduct politics in this country.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: May we have an early debate on education in Northern Ireland? The Leader of the House will be aware that the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland announced earlier this week the abolition of academic selection and the 11-plus exam from 2008. That runs contrary to the wishes of the population at large and, in the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, can the Leader of the House ensure that time is made available for a debate on that very important issue, which affects everyone in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Hain:If the hon. Gentleman is so certain that it runs contrary to the wishes of the population of Northern Ireland, why does he not support going back
396
to devolution and the establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which the Government are seeking to bring about? I understand that the decision was taken in consultation with the now, as it were, in abeyance education Minister, so it does reflect what the Assembly would have decided to do in any case.
John Cryer: In common with the Leader of the House, I cannot imagine why the Tories have abandoned their call for a two-day debate on the Hutton inquiry—something must have changed. I would like to help Conservative Members by saying that I have some sympathy with the idea of having a two-day debate, which would allow them to tell the House why this morning Conservative Back Benchers were being pushed around the studios to smear Hutton, to attack the Government and to argue—after months of saying that we had to rely on Lord Hutton's integrity—that we can no longer rely on the integrity and judgment of Lord Hutton. It would also allow us to hear why Conservative Members, who were all gung-ho for war, ran in the opposite direction as soon as they spotted the first problem.
Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. Having failed to undermine the integrity of the Prime Minister, some Conservatives, with support in the media, are trying to undermine the integrity of the judge, Lord Hutton. That is wholly contemptible. It is extraordinary that while I was on "The World Tonight" on Radio 4 last night, the presenter asked me the question whether the Government had fixed the judge. That was on BBC Radio 4—on a serious programme. I believe that some questions really should be asked in the BBC and in the media about the level of debate if it has reached such a dreadful state. We need a regrouping and a reconsideration to discuss issues properly instead of trying to pretend that everyone in politics, whether in the Opposition or the Government, is a liar. Down that route lies the destruction of democratic debate and, ultimately, of democracy.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Will the Leader of the House tell me and the House when the Government intend to respond to the Procedure Committee's report on "Sessional Orders and Resolutions"? The recommendations are strongly pressed by Mr. Speaker—if he is able to express a view—and by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Similarly, what of another report, which is particularly important to Back-Bench Members—the report on "Procedures for Debates, Private Members' Bills and the Powers of the Speaker"?
Mr. Hain: To be fair, I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter with me across the Floor before and he has not had the response that he wishes. We are consulting with the Home Office as regards matters affecting the palace and the House. We will try to have a debate and bring a resolution of the matter to the House as soon as we can. There are complex issues at stake, but the hon. Gentleman is entitled to keep pressing me on the matter.
Jon Trickett: I remind the Leader of the House that I spoke against the war on many

397
occasions and voted against it, and that I am an equally passionate defender of the BBC. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the prevailing ethos in certain BBC programmes is very undermining of democracy in the sense that there is massive scepticism about the nature of politics and politicians? Is that not profoundly dangerous for democracy and something that is turning off vast numbers of citizens from politicians? The BBC appears to have a culture of distaste and disdain for politicians and politics.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I take it that the hon. Gentleman wants a debate on that matter.
Mr. Hain: I am not sure that I can promise my hon. Friend a debate on that matter but, for the reasons he gave, I think the House should consider it. It is not a problem that is exclusive to the BBC, though it is at fault. All broadcasters, the whole coverage of politics, the Westminster bubble that we as politicians of the Government and Opposition occupy together with the Westminster lobby—together we are all conducting politics in a way that is turning off voters, listeners, readers and watchers by the million. It is time that we got back to a position in which issues are clearly discussed and differences debated—toughly, yes, but we must get out of the spin that is endemic in the media—
Mr. Eric Forth: Oh!
Mr. Hain: Absolutely. We must get away from treating every issue as a gaffe, a split or a personality clash. There are tiny nuances of words and the media go chasing off on a new story in their 24-hour news agenda. That is demeaning of politics and, ultimately, it is not in the best interests of the media either.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: Let me bring the Leader of the House back from his Westminster bubble to an issue that worries people up and down the land—the Higher Education Bill. Let us think about the Committee stage of the Bill, which will take place shortly. I put it to the Leader of the House that with a majority of only five, it would be right and proper for the views of the House to be fully reflected on that Committee and for the Government to have a majority of only one. If that did not happen, it would bring the Government and Parliament into disrepute and would look like a fix. We would then be going back down the road that the Leader of the House just said he did not want to go down.
Mr. Hain: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, and the Committee of Selection will wish to bear it in mind, as his colleague the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) said earlier.
Mr. David Chaytor: My constituent Michael Connell, a young man of 19 with learning difficulties, is in jail in Thailand facing charges of smuggling a small quantity of ecstasy tablets, thereby facing the possibility of a life sentence in a Bangkok jail. Leaving aside the interesting question of why Michael was arrested immediately on arriving in Bangkok—and which authorities provided the information to the Thai police that formed the basis of that arrest—does my
398
right hon. Friend agree that given the growing numbers of young people from the United Kingdom travelling the world to countries such as Thailand, where the judicial system is different from ours, we need a debate on the implications of foreign criminal justice systems for UK nationals? I pay tribute to the work of the embassy in Bangkok in assisting Michael Connell, but this issue potentially affects every parent in the United Kingdom with a son or daughter travelling internationally. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this matter?
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for praising our embassy in Bangkok. All our embassies and posts overseas do extraordinarily important work on our behalf, often to incredibly high standards. The specific plight of his constituent, Michael Connell, will be of continuing concern, as the Foreign Office is involved. I know that the Foreign Office and the Home Secretary will want to look closely at the issue that my hon. Friend has quite properly brought to the attention of the House.
Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Leader of the House persuade the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on dentistry? In Teignbridge, six practices have deregistered or closed. Patients wishing to register with the NHS are now given the option of going to Plymouth or to Cullompton—32 miles away in either direction. Does the Leader of the House think that that is acceptable, particularly for people on benefits who, effectively, have been denied any NHS dental treatment?
Mr. Hain: I am not aware of the detail of the situation; obviously the hon. Gentleman, as the local MP, is. Those distances sound large to me. I know that the Secretary of State for Health will want to look closely at the matter, which the hon. Gentleman might like to follow up with an Adjournment debate or by lobbying the Department of Health.
Joan Ruddock: This week, senior members of the Government—including my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—have acknowledged the need for greater dialogue before controversial matters reach the decision stage. Why has there been no debate in this House on genetically modified crops grown in this country? It is thought that the Government will take a decision on licensing GM maize within a month. Will he guarantee to the House that no decision will be taken until there has been a debate on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Hain: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her persistence in raising this matter, quite properly, in the House. Her concern about the future of genetic modification is shared widely across the House and the country. For that reason, as soon as we are in a position to do so we are committed to having a debate. I am sure that there will be no question of proceeding with any decision until the debate has occurred.
Mr. Nick Gibb: May I say how much I agree with the Leader of the House about the conduct of politics in this country?

399
To that end, can we have a full debate on the future of the BBC? From the Hutton report, it is clear that Andrew Gilligan was wrong in the allegations that he made on the "Today" programme; the BBC management was wrong in not investigating the Government's claims properly; and the board of governors of the BBC was wrong in not making its own investigations into those complaints. In my view, the BBC is handling its response to the Hutton report in a defensive and arrogant way. In the face of the criticisms in the Hutton report, all of the BBC governors—not just the chairman—should resign, and so should the director-general and the head of news. Can we have an urgent debate to discuss these important issues facing the BBC?
Mr. Hain: I am not sure when and where there might be an opportunity for such a debate, but the hon. Gentleman raises some serious points. Essentially, I take his point to be about the standard of journalism in the BBC as identified by the Hutton report, particularly the Andrew Gilligan episode. His wider point is about the standard of journalism in the media and its interaction with politics. We are not innocents; Ministers and Opposition politicians are caught up in the 24-hour news agenda swirl. Instead of seeking to report, challenge and question what is going on, journalism now seems to be trying to set its own agenda. That is the heart of the problem that the BBC has got itself into and from which it must escape.
Mr. Clive Betts: I refer my right hon. Friend to the decision that the House took on tuition fees on Tuesday, which, for many of us, was the culmination of a highly unsatisfactory process. Will he find time for a debate—and will he consult widely—on how we can involve Back Benchers more fully in the production of policy, particularly in complicated areas such as higher education funding? In particular, will he give thought to the greater use of Green Papers by the Government, the regular use of draft Bills and the fuller involvement of Select Committees in considering such matters?
Mr. Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are reflecting on the lessons of the Higher Education Bill, and we discussed the matter in Cabinet this morning. The policy was absolutely right, but the process that led to the Second Reading debate this week could have been improved. My hon. Friend makes suggestions about pre-legislative scrutiny—which would involve all hon. Members—and, in a Labour party context, using the policy-making processes of the parliamentary party and the national policy forum. Through that process, hard choices can be made and not ducked. It is important that we bear that in mind, as the Prime Minister is emphasising in his speech today. Better understanding and consent can be created and improvements can be made, as occurred in a rather haphazard and frantic way in the last few days leading up to the Second Reading debate. That could have been done far more effectively. The short answer is that lessons have been learned and are being learned.
Mr. Eric Forth: If there is any truth in what the Leader of the House says,
400
and following his bizarre lectures to us today about integrity in politics, will he use all his influence to ensure that the Standing Committee considering on the Higher Education Bill contains a proper proportion of Members of Parliament—particularly Government Back Benchers—to cover the point that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) has just made? Surely at the very least Labour Members should be able to scrutinise the Bill to ensure that the undertakings made at the last minute to get the Government's narrow majority are held to by the Government right through the scrutiny of the Bill. May we have a simple undertaking from the Leader of the House that the Standing Committee considering the Bill will reflect the requests being made by his own Back Benchers, to say nothing of Opposition Members?
Mr. Hain: The point has been made before and I have answered it. The Committee of Selection will consider the matter seriously. During the Standing Committee's detailed consideration of the Bill, we might find out the Conservative party's policy on the future of higher education. So far, we have had some clear signals—[interruption.] Presumably, any amendments tabled by Conservative Members in Committee will project a different policy. So far, all we have had is a policy for cutting the number of students by up to 400,000, a policy for removing the grants that the Bill will bring in and a policy, briefed to The Guardian, of privatising universities in the future. If that is the alternative debated in Committee, I am confident that the Government will win the argument.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: We are promised referendums on regional assemblies in October. Would it not be a disgrace if they were carried on a tiny turnout? Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment on my two-clause private Member's Bill, which sets a 50 per cent. threshold on turnouts for the result of a referendum to be validated, not to try to derail it when it comes to the House on 27 February?
Mr. Hain: I am not impressed by devices such as that. A vote takes place democratically, people choose whether to vote and we must respect the outcome. What we have done and are doing, including in the north-west of England, which covers my hon. Friend's constituency, is to hold all-postal vote ballots, which will give electors the opportunity to vote in comfort and at their convenience and I hope that it will boost turnout. To the extent, that I agree with his points: the greater the turnout, the more legitimate the outcome, whether at a general election or a referendum. However, it should not be done by imposing an artificial threshold.
Mr. Roy Beggs: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to my early-day motion 268?
[That this House notes that with the exception of Denmark and Germany, the UK is the only country within the EU that does not apply a reduced level of VAT for tourism; recognises that the UK's tourist industry is therefore disadvantaged vis-à-vis European countries; further notes that there is a clear correlation between VAT levels and consumer demand; believes that a reduced

401
level of VAT on tourism services could create thousands of new jobs, increase the UK's tourism revenue and strengthen the UK tourist industry's international competitiveness; and therefore calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce VAT on tourism services, commencing with a reduction of VAT on tourist accommodation.]
The motion enjoys cross-party support and calls for a reduction in VAT on tourism, as I understand that only the UK, Denmark and Germany do not apply such a reduction. Research indicates that thousands of new jobs could be created in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we could help our industry to overcome the disadvantage it suffers at present. May we have a debate before 17 March, in the hope of influencing the Chancellor's Budget decisions?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman can apply for a debate in the usual way. On the specifics of the policy, however, I think that he will find that the most likely beneficiaries of a reduced rate would be major hotel chains and luxury hotels. For example, a 5 per cent. reduced rate for hotel accommodation would cost more than £600 million, so it would not really be well targeted. Our high registration threshold means that a substantial number of hotels are not actually registered for VAT, as they come under the ceiling. We can look into supporting hotels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation in other ways, because they are crucial. Tourism is a vital part of our economy, but we can target our support in other ways. I think that he will find that the general approach does not actually assist those whom he wants, quite properly, to help.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: On the concern expressed about the way that policy proposals have come before the House as Bills, does my right hon. Friend think that the present haphazard method of examining draft legislation should be replaced by a system whereby all Bills come to the House as draft Bills and all are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny? Will he consider holding a debate on methods whereby that change might be achieved?
Mr. Hain: As my hon. Friend knows, I am very sympathetic to increasing the number of Bills that are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. Indeed, over the past few years the Government have increased the number of such Bills and they are better as a result of that scrutiny. Whether all Bills can be put under that regime is rather doubtful; for example, sometimes we have to bring in emergency legislation on Northern Ireland. I give that as an extreme example, and I know that my hon. Friend will acknowledge it, but I endorse the general principle that Bills are better if they are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and I hope that we can continue to take it forward.
Mr. Michael Jack: In evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the retiring president of the National Farmers Union indicated that he anticipated a Government announcement on the implementation programme for the revised common agricultural policy on or before 17 February. To date, the House has not had an opportunity to debate any of those proposals and to
402
inform the Secretary of State's decision-making process on that matter, so will the Leader of the House look into giving the House an opportunity to discuss it? It is the biggest single change in the CAP since the MacSharry changes of 1992 and so far Parliament has remained silent on the matter.
Mr. Hain: I shall certainly look into that, as Parliament's view on the matter is important. As the right hon. Gentleman says, it is a crucial change and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will take careful note of the points that he made, especially as they come from him.
Shona McIsaac: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. I had an inkling that I might be the next Labour Member to be called.
I appreciate that there will be a debate on Lord Hutton's report next week, but given that the report stated that
"false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others, including politicians, should not be made",
could my right hon. Friend find some time for a debate on standards and ethics in public life, especially given the proclivity of the Leader of the Opposition to accuse the Prime Minister and others of being liars?
Mr. Hain: I addressed that matter earlier, but I know that my hon. Friend's feelings are shared elsewhere in the House. The point should also apply to the chairman of the Conservative party who, when The Sun leak took place, said that it had
"all the fingerprints of a Government which is willing to say or do anything to save its own skin"—
and that we
"now have a morally bankrupt Government which is as corrupt as it is corrupting."
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hain: Conservative Members say "Hear, hear"—they are at it again. All the evidence was that the leaking of the report was nothing to do with the Government. This morning, Sky news reported that the information may actually have come into the hands of The Sun over the weekend, even before anyone in the Government had seen the report. It is time that we had from the leaders of the Conservative party —whether the Leader of the Opposition himself or the party chairman—a proper approach to these matters and a proper apology for their despicable behaviour.
Pete Wishart: A week on Monday, we have the Second Reading of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill, which, as the Leader of the House knows, decouples the reduction of the number of Scottish Members in this House from the 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. The only problem is that we have not had a definite announcement from the Secretary of State for Scotland that that reduction will take place in advance of the next election. Can we, therefore, expect a statement from the Secretary of State next week? If not, the Second Reading debate will be purely hypothetical and based solely on an assumption.
Mr. Hain: Obviously, we do not know when the next general election will be and that is clearly a factor. I

403
know, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to take careful note of the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Michael Fabricant: May we have a debate on the question of—as I call them—animal rights terrorists? The Leader of the House will be aware that, recently, investment in Cambridge did not go ahead, but he may not be aware that other investment companies—biotechnological companies from Japan—have chosen to invest in Europe instead of in the United Kingdom because of the threat from animal rights terrorists. One of my constituents runs a guinea pig farm—which is controlled by the Home Office to ensure the protection of the guinea pigs—for medical research. He wrote to me saying:
"Before New Years Eve"—
[Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Members find that funny. My constituent wrote:
"Before New Years Eve the activists smashed all the downstairs windows of my 86 year old father's home whilst he was in the house, and then threw red paint bombs through the smashed windows…he was petrified…between Christmas and New Year they were also at my niece's house…and they turned off all her water and then concreted the stop cock so she could not get it back on."
The whole House will agree that those animal rights terrorists need some sort of control, so may we have a debate on the issue? Perhaps the Home Secretary could designate those people as terrorists, so that organisations for which I have the greatest respect, such as the Security Service, can be utilised to try to control their activities.
Mr. Hain:The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. It is certainly extremely serious that the construction and opening of that laboratory was prevented due to the threat of what, as he rightly says, cannot be described other than as terrorism. Many of us have a lot of sympathy with animal rights movements and support them. We want proper protection for animals and an end to cruelty, but to take things to such an extent and to terrorise scientists, doctors and others involved is wholly unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman is right and I know that the House will share his sympathies.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday two groups of primary schoolchildren were sitting on the extremely cold floor of Westminster Hall eating their sandwiches? Will he set up a process to improve facilities for school visits to the House? We should be promoting all forms of education.
Mr. Hain: I very much agree with the hon. Lady. When I first entered the House in 1991, I found myself in similar circumstances—that was before even the Jubilee café was available to visitors. We do not treat visitors with the respect that they deserve. After all, most of them are citizens of this country and, in the case of school students, future citizens, so we ought to give them a proper welcome. They should be entitled to the kind of facilities that they would expect when visiting any other
404
important building in the country. We are looking into improving reception facilities and I hope to bring a motion to the House in due course, which will address some of those points.
It is also a question of the whole attitude of the House. We treat our visitors as strangers—the title we give them, in our anachronistic fashion—rather than as visitors, many of whom are electors. They are entitled to be here and they should not be seen as being here on sufferance.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Leader of the House is very keen to provide opportunities for the Government to defend their integrity. In that context, will he find time for an early debate on the Government's abuse of taxpayers' money to fund politically motivated advertising campaigns, particularly in the light of the finding by Ofcom on Tuesday that the aim higher campaign to promote the Government's policy on tuition fees had "undue partiality" in a matter of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy, and to be contrary therefore to section 2, rule 15 of the Radio Authority advertising and sponsorship code? Given that the Government have broken the code, and given that about £600,000 of taxpayers' money has been used to promote a very contentious Government policy, should we not have a debate or a statement from the Government apologising for that?
Mr. Hain: As I understand it, although I am not aware of all the detail, the aim of the campaign was to encourage teenagers especially young teenagers, to go to university. It had nothing to do with a particular aspect of the Higher Education Bill. However, if the Ofcom report has made a recommendation that censures or criticises the Government in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes, it is obviously an important matter and the Secretary of State will want to take that on board and be accountable to the House for it.
Sir Robert Smith: In his reply to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the Leader of the House explained that the Home Office had to be consulted in connection with the response to the Sessional Orders report. However, he did not deal with the second half of the question, on how he intends to respond to the report on the procedures for debating private Members' Bills and the role of the Speaker, and in particular the innovative ideas in the report on ways to involve more Back Benchers in debates.
Mr. Hain: I am sorry that I did not pick up that point from the question asked by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) earlier, but I am happy to respond to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) now. It is an interesting report, which has raised many issues. We will respond in due course, and I hope that he will be satisfied with that.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Leader of the House expect an oral statement next week on the release of the Penrose report on Equitable Life? As it has now been available to the Government, and

405
selectively to those criticised in it, for over five weeks, at what point does he intervene to protect the House of Commons from continuing to be denied it?
Mr. Hain: Again, the hon. Gentleman has properly raised an issue of concern to all Members, as well as to many hundreds, if not thousands, of our voters. This issue must be addressed and I am sure that an opportunity will be found to do so.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
1.22 pm
Ms Diane Abbott: The Standards and Privileges Committee published its second report of this Session yesterday, and it directed that I should apologise to the House for my failure to register my work for the BBC television programme "This Week". I accept that I should have registered my work for the programme. I take full responsibility for the failure to register. I have co-operated fully with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in his investigation and I have apologised to him for my oversight. I am glad to take this early opportunity to apologise to the House.
As the commissioner notes in his memorandum, my involvement in the programme could hardly have been concealed given its nature, and most people aware of it might have assumed that I was being paid for it. But the House of Commons quite correctly has a strict code of conduct in these matters, and the Standards and Privileges Committee is rightly vigilant on this. I well remember the debates about the conduct of MPs in the 1990s, and for the House of Commons to retain the confidence of the public it is right that there should be the utmost transparency. Once again, I apologise to the House.

House of Commons Members Estimate
1.24 pm
The Leader of the House (Mr. Peter Hain): I beg to move,
That—
(1) There shall be a committee of this House, called the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee.
(2) The members of the committee shall be those Members who are at any time members of the House of Commons Commission pursuant to section 1 of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978; the Speaker shall be chairman of the committee; and three shall be the quorum of the committee.
(3) The functions of the committee shall be—
(a) to codify and keep under review the provisions of the Resolutions of this House relating to expenditure charged to the Estimate for House of Commons: Members;
(b) to modify those provisions from time to time as the committee may think necessary or desirable in the interests of clarity, consistency, accountability and effective administration, and conformity with current circumstances;
(c) to provide advice, when requested by the Speaker, on the application of those provisions in individual cases;
(d) to carry out the responsibilities conferred on the Speaker by the Resolution of the House of 5th July 2001 relating to Members' Allowances, Insurance, & except the responsibility of appointing the Advisory Panel provided for in paragraph (5)(1) of that Resolution.
(4) Paragraph (3)(b) above does not empower the committee—
(a) to create a new form of charge on the Estimate for House of Commons: Members; or
(b) to increase any rate of charge or payment determined by Resolution of this House.
(5) The committee shall report to the House from time to time, and in any case not less than once a year, the provisions of the Resolutions of this House relating to expenditure charged to the Estimate for House of Commons: Members, as codified and modified pursuant to paragraph (3) of this Order.
(6) The committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.
That this Order be a standing order of the House.
Mr. Speaker: With this we will also consider motion 2,
That the Resolution of the House of 20th March 1998 on the bicycle allowance be rescinded and the following provision be made in its place:
(1) That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made as from 1st April 2004 with respect to the rates of mileage allowance payable to Members in respect of journeys by motorcycle, scooter or bicycle for which if undertaken by car, the car mileage allowance would be payable,
(a) by Members, or
(b) by spouses, children or employees paid from the staffing allowance;
(2) In respect of journeys by motorcycle or scooter, a motorcycle mileage allowance shall be payable at the same rate as the motorcycle mileage rate approved by the Inland Revenue and then in force;
(3) In respect of journeys by bicycle, a bicycle mileage allowance shall be payable at the same rate as the bicycle mileage rate approved by the Inland Revenue and then in force.
Mr. Hain: We have before us two motions. The first would set up a new Committee to oversee Members' estimate matters; the second relates to bicycle and motor cycle mileage allowances.

407
I will deal first with the motion establishing a new House of Commons Estimate Committee, which I have tabled with the full support of the House of Commons Commission. The motion provides for a new Committee, of the same membership as the House of Commons Commission, to be established by Standing Order to oversee Members' allowances matters in much the same way as the Commission oversees matters relating to the House administration.
The motivation for the motion is threefold. First, the intention is to improve the governance of the House. Interestingly, we find that there is a crossover between the two House of Commons estimates—between the House of Commons administration estimate, for which the House of Commons Commission has statutory responsibility, and the House of Commons Members' estimate, which does not fall within the responsibility of the Commission. For example, an increase in Members' IT provision, which falls to the Members' estimate, has implications for the back-up IT services provided by the House administration. It makes sense to bring oversight of the two estimates closer together.
Secondly, the rules on Members' allowances are governed by a large number of complex resolutions, dating as far back as 1945. They are not readily accessible, and are very hard to understand and reconcile one with another. There would be considerable benefit in consolidating and updating these resolutions and in presenting them in an accessible form that we can all understand.
Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Leader of the House tell me whether his proposals have any implications for the role of the Audit Committee in monitoring and auditing those areas of expenses that he is now touching on?
Mr. Hain: To be honest, I am not sure, but if I can answer the right hon. Gentleman's question before the end of my speech, I will be happy to do so.
As the Standards and Privileges Committee had cause to emphasise last year, it is essential that Members be provided with clear, unambiguous information on what the rules on claiming allowances are. The new Committee would provide a vehicle for doing this. The motion provides that it should be its function to codify and keep under review the provisions of the resolutions of the House relating to the Members' estimate, modifying those provisions where necessary, and it provides for the Committee to report to the House at least once a year with a consolidated and up-to-date statement of the decisions on allowances that the House and the Committee have taken.
Thirdly, establishing the new Committee would reduce the need for minor administrative changes to be taken on the Floor of the House. I am ready to admit that this has advantages for the Government's business managers, but I believe that it also has advantages for the House as a whole.
Some Members may question whether it is right to give the Committee power to vary resolutions of the House. I agree that we should give careful thought before we do this. I point out that the proposed Standing Order contains safeguards. The Committee may modify the rules set by earlier resolutions only in so far as this is
408
"in the interests of clarity, consistency, accountability and effective administration, and conformity with current circumstances".
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Leader of the House has said that this allows certain resolutions to be changed. But is it not the case that at the moment we are working under dual plans? The new allowances that were introduced after the last general election can be changed by recommendations to the Speaker. What the motion does is to put all the things claimed on the same basis, as opposed to confusing the two claims. I very much welcome it.
Mr. Hain: I very much agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, very eloquently. I consider that this arrangement gives extra protection to the Speaker, and is a common-sense approach.
Paragraph 4 explicitly excludes the creation of a new form of charge or an increase to any rate of charge or payment. I emphasise that the Committee would not be empowered to create a new form of charge—such as a new expense allowance—on the Members' estimate, or to increase any rate of charge or payment determined by resolution of the House. For example, the Committee could not increase Members' pay. Such matters would have to be a matter for the House, debated on the Floor as we are debating now.
A further safeguard lies in the membership of the Committee. The Committee, like the Commission, will be chaired by the Speaker, and will contain very senior and independent-minded Back Benchers as well as the Leader of the House and shadow Leader of the House. I have no doubt that the Committee would decline to decide on a matter that it thought should properly be decided by the House. It may assist the House if I give some examples of changes that might in future be decided by the Committee.
At present the incidental expenses provision and the additional costs allowance for the allowances year beginning in April are determined by reference to the retail prices index figure for the 12 months ending in March, which is actually published in April-May. That means that we open the allowances year in April not knowing, as Members, the cash limits for the various allowances at our disposal. It would be more sensible to use the retail prices index figure for the previous December, but at present that would require a motion amending an earlier resolution of the House. This would seem to me to be an appropriate matter for the Committee to consider, rather than for the House to be detained by it.
Similarly, it has been proposed that Members who have money left in their incidental expenses provision or staffing allowance at the end of one allowances year should be able to carry some of it forward to the next, and that Members who want, for example, to move office in one allowances year should be able to draw down up to 10 per cent. of the next year's incidental expense provision early. This, too, would seem an appropriate matter for the Committee to consider, and again not a matter to detain us on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Forth: The right hon. Gentleman has said—and I very much approve of it—that the new Committee will

409
not be able to vary the rates of allowances, but can he give us an assurance that some of the flexibilities that he is mentioning will not involve a higher charge on the taxpayer as a result? I ask that because, although the rates may not be increased, it is possible that carry-overs of the kind that he is describing would increase the overall cost to the taxpayer.
Mr. Hain: That may well be the case, but some of it may be marginal. It happens at the moment—for example, decisions on the allocation of IT equipment. Being very experienced—more experienced than I am in these matters—the right hon. Gentleman will know that many decisions that enlarge the expenditure of the House are not put to the Floor of the House. We are talking about a sensible balance between such decisions and matters of real principle, including Members' pay, which I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman would have an impact on taxpayers' costs and contributions, and which should be fully open to scrutiny and decision on the Floor of the House.
As a further example, while most of us get in our claims within two months of the end of the allowances year, the resolutions allow Members to take up to six months, and this can impede the prompt publication of accounts. The Committee could decide whether the deadline should be brought forward.
On the other hand, a proposal to create a new allowance or increase the rate of an existing allowance would continue to need a resolution of the House. The proposal on the bicycle and mileage allowances falls into this category.
Members may wonder what will be the role of the Speaker's advisory panel under the new arrangements. The panel has proved itself very useful in providing the Speaker with advice on allowances matters, and we all owe thanks to the panel and its chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), for its hard work and good sense. In future, I see it continuing in much the same way, with its valuable advice going primarily to the Members Estimate Committee, rather than directly to the Speaker. I will suggest to the Committee that it invite the Chair of the panel to attend its meetings where appropriate.
I come now to the bicycle and motor cycle mileage allowances. As I have said, this is a matter that would not fall within the competence of the Members Estimate Committee. Those Members who use a bicycle can currently claim just over 7p per mile This motion would bring the allowance into line with the figure permitted by the Inland Revenue at the relevant time. The figure is currently 20p per mile for bicycle users. It also introduces for the first time a rate for motor cycle users, again tied to the Inland Revenue rate, which is currently 24p per mile.
These changes will apply to Members' mileage, and also to staff and family travel. I can assure hon. Members that, as long as the journey concerned satisfies our own rules and meets the Inland Revenue's criteria for business mileage, these rates will not incur a tax charge.
I hope that the House will agree to tie bicycle and motor cycle mileage allowances to the Inland Revenue rate. I hope also that the House will accept the arguments for a Members Estimate Committee, since I
410
believe that that would be in the interests of the good governance of the House. This is not a party matter, or a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the House to decide.
I have received a note, which may help the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and may help me as I read it out. On the question of the implications for the role of the Audit Committee, I am advised by the accounting officer that the proposal might have implications for its role in future, but that this is not an immediate consequence of the motion. I shall be happy to discuss this further to ensure that any concerns that the right hon. Gentleman may have are assuaged.
I commend the motions to the House.
1.35 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: I start by associating myself with the remarks of the Leader of the House about the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and her work, and by mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who plays a very important role on her panel—the Speaker's advisory panel.
As the Leader of the House said, the purpose of the motion is that the change to the Members' estimate provisions should introduce new efficiency, improved governance and enhanced accessibility to the Members' estimate.
One of the more important features of the motion is paragraph (3), which talks about codifying and keeping under review the provisions of the resolutions of the House relating to expenditure on the Members' estimate. The problem at present is that many of the resolutions go back to 1945 and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire said, we have a new system for the more modern resolutions. Therefore, it would be extremely helpful to have one Committee to go through the process of codifying, so that we all have the same system for modest updating of the resolutions. Clearly, issues of importance affecting the rate of charge or payment, or creating new forms of charging, should be brought to the Floor of the House, and I am pleased that the agreement on the motion reflects that in paragraph (4).
It is also more efficient for the House if House of Commons Commission members have the role of deciding these issues, because the commission already deals with the administration estimate, and quite a few of the issues overlap—for example, on information technology. To have the two kinds of governance separate, as they are now, as well as being unfair to Mr. Speaker, makes it difficult for some of the governance and oversight of the administration estimate to take place. Therefore, to bring the two more closely together is a good thing.
I chair the Audit Committee. It certainly seems to be the case at present that the Committee's role is not changed by this. Even now, the Audit Committee looks at some of the work of the internal review service that we have here, which overlaps between the administration estimate and the Members' estimate. Clearly, that is a good thing.
Mr. McLoughlin:The truth is, though, that the way in which allowances are reported will change very

411
dramatically within the next 12 months. Mr. Speaker has written to us all saying that allowances and the claiming of allowances will be put in the public domain and published. Therefore, the oversight will be not only by an audit committee but, should it be so decided, also by the electorate. That is no bad thing.
Mr. Heald:As my hon. Friend says, the amount of transparency is being increased dramatically.
The measure also improves governance, as did the Speaker's panel itself, and I believe that the new Green Book is an extremely effective and useful step forward. It will help a great deal with the Members' estimate. It will be more accessible to Members as well.
Looked at overall, the package should be supported. It will give us a codified set of rules, a better system for minor changes, stronger governance and an ability to oversee the two estimates and bring their governance closer together.
Finally, the bicycle and motor cycle allowance changes are in line with levels set by the Inland Revenue. The motion making those changes provides a mechanism for uprating in line with Inland Revenue levels, and is useful in terms of transparency, simplicity and efficiency—all the points that the first motion is aimed at.
1.39 pm
Mrs Anne Campbell: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for their kind remarks about the work of the Speaker's advisory panel. The panel plays a valuable role in providing a route for hon. Members who are perhaps dissatisfied or feel that the current allowances do not cover their needs sufficiently well. It provides a forum in which Members can voice their complaints, and all members of the panel do their very best to be accessible to other Members and to receive comments, complaints and, occasionally, compliments in the most accessible way possible.
I want to put on record my support for the motions, although I want to voice some concern. I feel that the present arrangements have worked very well over the past two years—as long as I have chaired the Speaker's advisory panel. The panel works extremely well and there is a very high attendance among its members, because they feel that they have real influence and can determine something that is terribly important to most of us in the way that we run our constituency offices and our Westminster offices. I hope that that will not change with the new arrangements because I feel that, if there were perhaps undue interference by the Members Estimate Committee, it could have the effect of making members of the Speaker's advisory panel feel that their work was not quite so valuable as it was hitherto.
Mr. Hain:May I assure my hon. Friend as categorically as I can that that is certainly not the objective? It would not be possible for the newly constituted Members Estimate Committee—especially as it will be comprised of members of the House of Commons Commission—to cover the scope of work
412
that the panel does so well in consulting and providing an excellent sounding board for opinion in the House. With that assurance, I hope that she will accept the proposals.
May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the officials in the Department of Finance and Administration and elsewhere who have given very valuable advice and continue to work extremely hard on behalf of all of us?
Mrs. Campbell: I find those reassurances very welcome. Of course, I am sure that the Speaker's advisory panel will want to monitor the way in which its recommendations are accepted by the new Committee. I should like to endorse the remarks made by my right hon. Friend in thanking members of the Department of Finance and Administration for their hard work in administering the allowances and in ensuring that they are applied fairly.
Mr. Heald: May I associate myself with the remarks about the staff? They do a fantastic job, which we all appreciate greatly. Does the hon. Lady agree that, in fact, the Committees that report to the House of Commons Commission, by and large, have a very amicable, constructive and co-operative relationship with the Commission? I am sure that that will be the same with the panel.
Mrs. Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I certainly hope that that will be the case; but, as I say, we will monitor the situation.
I should like to take the opportunity to say a few words about bicycle allowances, as I was the Member who, in 1997, urged the then Leader of the House to try to implement them. For many years, I cycled around my constituency with no allowance whatsoever. I always felt that it was desperately unfair that Members who were prepared to drive from one end of their constituencies to the other got very generous allowances—in those days, they were even more generous than they are currently—whereas I was not recognised for contributing to the environment in a different way. So I was very pleased when the House approved the bicycle allowance, which has gone up by inflation over the past few years and is currently—I am sorry that I have not had time to check this—about 7p a mile.
Given my schedule, I cycle about 1,000 miles a year on my bike.
Martin Linton: That is impressive.
Mrs. Campbell:My hon. Friend is kind., but it is easy to clock up 1,000 miles a year. It is only about 20 or 25 miles a week. In a small constituency such as mine, it is easy to cycle from one end to the other.
I have one of those little electronic gadgets that sits at the front of my bike and tells me how fast I am travelling, how far I have gone and how long it has taken me—all very useful information that helps me to put in an accurate claim at the end of the year. Members will be aware that 7p a mile and 1,000 miles a year will produce £70, if I claim it all. However, buying a new lock

413
and new lights and paying for a couple of maintenance services a year comes to a great deal more than £70, which does not allow me to put anything aside towards a new bicycle, and as my bicycle is now more than 20 years old, that is getting long overdue. So I very much welcome the raising of the allowance to the Inland Revenue recommended rate, which is 24p a mile, and with £240, my constituents may see me cycling around on a brand-new bicycle in the near future.
1.46 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and I want to come back to the role of her important advisory panel in due course, but perhaps I should put on record the fact that I cannot cycle much around my constituency. Not only is it 80 or 90 miles long, but the hills of Cornwall do not lend themselves to that form of exercise.
Sir Archy Kirkwood: Chicken.
Mr. Tyler: My hon. Friend is kind.
Before I come back to the advisory panel, I want to reflect for a moment on something that the Leader of the House said in business questions about the need for the House to be as accessible as possible to the public in every sense. Our work should be as visible and as easy to follow for the public—the people who send us here—as it is for hon. Members who have been here sometime. The right hon. Gentleman and I spent some time on Monday meeting a group of people from Birmingham who had been brought to the House. Even with some explanation about how the place works, they found it an extraordinarily alien situation. They felt like Martians coming into a different world. I think that he would agree that the way in which we conduct our business does not lend itself terribly well to making what we do here explicable to the general public. I suspect that anyone looking at this afternoon's debate might think that there was more mumbo-jumbo than clarity.
I very much endorse what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said about trying to make our work here more transparent and accessible to the general public. In that sense, I understand the logic and rationale that the Leader of the House has expressed for the motions. The phrase "an improvement in governance for the House" always sounds good. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) referred particularly to paragraph (3), which states that one function will be
"to codify and keep under review"
the new rules. However, I have some anxieties—some apprehension—not least of which is that when any Leader of the House comes to us, even at this stage on a Thursday afternoon, and says that there is an advantage to the Government's business managers, a few bells start to ring in my head.
My particular concern is that anything that brings back into the parliamentary discussion and decision-making process, or appears to do so, an issue about Members' allowances and remuneration that to a large extent has been seen to be taken out of the parliamentary arena and given to the Senior Salaries
414
Review Body is a retrograde step. I hope that whoever responds to the debate will be able to say absolutely explicitly that nothing that at present is considered by the SSRB will be brought back into the purview of the proposed Committee. That is my first anxiety. I am sure that there will be a reassurance on that point.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am pretty sure that the Leader of the House said that we are basically talking about the rules that relate to allowances, not about the level of allowances. That is the clear distinction. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is a reference to the SSRB, to which a number of people have been asked to submit evidence. I stand to be corrected, but we are talking solely about the rules that relate to allowances.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman will also agree, from his long experience in the House, that the devil is in the detail. There might be some devilish detail that might not now come under the purview of the SSRB, or that might be perceived not to. Let us remember that these sensitive issues are matters of perception, so I would like to be explicitly reassured that the SSRB will continue to consider matters objectively and independently outwith the Westminster bubble and that we will not find things drifting back.
Mr. Hain: I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that matters such as Members' pay that are currently referred to the SSRB will properly remain as such—the public should see that they will remain as such. As the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) pointed out, the motion is about rules relating to allowances. Given the nature of the business of the House, I am sure that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) would not want to take up valuable time that could be used to discuss the Hutton report by debating whether the retail prices index figure for triggering an increase in allowances should be that as recorded on 1 April or 1 January. We should be serious and use common sense, which is what the motions are about.
Mr. Tyler: I entirely agree. The Leader of the House gives us an innocent and obviously common-sense example. I just want to be reassured that it will not be possible for things, over the years, to start to drift off to the Members Estimate Committee that frankly should be out there in the light of day. I accept his assurance, but I am putting down a marker. I hope that we will find that there will be a mechanism for the Committee to report back regularly to the House on such issues because that is extremely important.
Mr. Heald: Just to reassure the hon. Gentleman, I think that subsection (5) covers that because it requires the Committee to report to the House.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman might misunderstand me—I am trying to be as speedy as possible. I am concerned that if there were any drift such as that that I am describing, we would have to consider not only the matters that the Committee was examining, but whether the boundaries between its work and that of the SSRB seemed to be moving. If there were a moving target, the House would wish to be informed.

415
My next point is equally specific, although I am sure that reassurance will be given. As the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and other hon. Members said, there is worry about long-established issues that go right back to 1945. I am quite clear that when a motion comes before the House in future, perhaps on the basis of the SSRB's present review of these matters, direct reference could be built into it regarding the Committee's role in dealing with the detail. However, there would be a different situation if a retrospective attitude were taken—if we were looking backwards. Something that the House agrees that the Committee should consider is different in degree to something that the House has considered previously that would then be considered retrospectively by the Committee. I understand the need for that to occur, but I want it to be absolutely clear that in such circumstances there might need to be a reference back to the whole House, although that would depend on the scale of the identified problem.
Finally, I return to the role of the Speaker's advisory panel. I entirely endorse the comments made about the panel and, indeed, the work done for the panel by Officers of the House. However, I did not entirely accept the assurances given by the Leader of the House to the chairman of the panel. I do not fully understand—I hope that somebody will spell this out—why the panel cannot take on some or all of the responsibilities that are now identified as necessitating the construction of a completely new Committee.
I respect all members of the Commission enormously, but they are already heavily loaded with work. The fact that they will have to sit as a shadow Commission on the Committee raises concerns. The great advantage of the advisory panel of which the hon. Member for Cambridge is a distinguished chair—I think that it has operated effectively—is that it is a Back-Bench committee. It responds to the concerns, anxieties, objectives and aspirations of all hon. Members. The Commission, by definition, is the establishment personified, and its members are very distinguished.
I would like to think that someone considered whether the panel could have taken on the responsibilities because it reports to the Speaker, who is the Chairman of the Commission. We may be inventing yet another bit of what the Leader of the House described as the governance of the House, but duplication should always be questioned to determine whether someone else could do a job equally well. I am unconvinced by the explanation of the respective roles. I entirely understand a point made by the Leader of the House because the last thing that I would want would be for the new Committee to take on the panel's responsibilities, but no one has explained why that could not happen the other way round.
I am seeking reassurance. Nothing is more unnecessarily controversial than matters that affect the way in which we do our job. I endorse entirely what the hon. Member for Cambridge said. When I first came to this place, I was lucky if I could find a desk. I did not have a phone and I could not pay a secretary—the whole thing was absurd. I could not do my duty by my constituents. We are now better funded, which is
416
excellent, but I want to be reassured that we are not hiding in a corner some changes to our arrangements that the public might feel were going too far.
1.55 pm
Sir Stuart Bell: I feel a bit like Winston Churchill when he was Prime Minister and he used to wander the gardens of No. 10 Downing street saying, "I had not intended to intervene in this debate, Mr. Speaker", while dictating his speech to his secretary. I genuinely had no intention of participating in the debate. As a member of the Commission, I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for his gentle and generous comments about the members of the Commission who are with us today. However, I wish to make one point in response to his question asking why we should not form an independent panel rather than have the Commission shadow itself on these matters. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take the simple answer from me and that he would have taken it from the Leader of the House.
At this moment in time, House of Commons services are funded from the House of Commons administration estimate, for which the House of Commons Commission has statutory responsibility. Hon. Members' pay and allowances, including Members' staff matters and Members' information technology provision, are funded separately from the Members' estimate, which is governed by a range of resolutions of the House dating back to 1945, and administered under the authority of the Speaker of the House. The Speaker is advised on allowance matters by the Speaker's advisory panel, under the able chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). Given the statutory responsibility of the Commission and the fact that the advisory panel reports to the Speaker, the new arrangement is logical—we welcome the fact that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) suggested it. I hope that that answers the question asked by the hon. Member for North Cornwall.
1.57 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome the motion moved by the Leader of the House. I do not think that it will change the role of the Speaker's advisory panel because it will remain as an advisory panel. In effect, the measure will create a greater stopgap because it will bring more people into the decision-making process. Although the panel, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will, I hope, continue to make detailed recommendations, it is right for another body, rather than the Speaker alone, to oversee such matters. The Leader of the House has responsibilities to the whole House and he will be here every week to answer questions if one thinks that something is going wrong.
The proposal will not reduce accountability but broaden it. Given the way in which the allowances have changed over they ears, it is important for us to enable the measure to go forward. It is nonsense that some changes can be made to allowances via the Speaker's advisory panel with no reference to the Floor of the House, yet for other changes to require such a reference. I would much prefer to be spending this afternoon

417
talking about my constituents' wider concerns than having a debate—okay, it will not be a long debate— that has had to be scheduled in parliamentary time and has thus taken away the House's chance to discuss other measures.
1.59 pm
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): This has been a short and useful debate and I am grateful to hon. Members who have spoken and intervened. I am especially grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for his support for the motions. Perhaps I should put on record our thanks to the members of the House of Commons Commission and the members of the Speaker's advisory panel. I confess that when I assumed my duties I was not aware of the intricacies of the Speaker's advisory panel. I reiterate our thanks to the chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), and the Members who serve alongside her. The discussions of the Speaker's advisory panel are extremely useful in helping us to make better decisions precisely because it is an advisory panel and not a final decision-making body. That is an important distinction.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House emphasised, the motion includes a number of safeguards. Proposals to create new forms of charge or increase any rate of charge or payment will still have to come to the Floor of the House. The circumstances in which the Members Estimate Committee may amend a resolution are tightly defined, and by linking membership to that of the House of Commons Commission, the House can be assured that the new Committee will take an impartial and considered view of what matters it should properly deal with. The motions under consideration have received support from Members on both sides on the House, and my right hon. Friend wishes to put on record his thanks to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) for the considered role that he played in the proposals.
On the bicycle allowance, some reports this week suggested that some hon. Members believe that the proposed increase in the bicycle allowance is excessive. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who takes advantage of the allowance. I can assure the House that there are very few Members—not enough, some would say—who do. However, my hon. Friend rebutted those arguments about an excessive increase. The cost of the increase to the public will be minimal.
As I have said, very few Members claim the bicycle allowance, and they are a minority of those of us who do, in fact, use a bicycle to get to work. Using a bicycle is not without cost, as has been said We wish to link the allowances to the Inland Revenue rates as that is a sensible principle. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) expressed concerns about the appearance and the reality of Members' allowances. It is justifiable to link them to other bodies' rates, which is why the Government increased the bicycle allowance in line with Inland Revenue rates. The 20p allowance has been introduced as part of the move away from car journeys, and it is right that we should encourage, and be seen to encourage, environmentally friendly forms of transport. There is a strong case for linking the allowance to the Inland Revenue rate, as that will mean
418
that we will not have to debate similar motions—to reassure the hon. Member for North Cornwall, the allowances motion is separate from the estimate motion and will introduce an increase in the rate—annually on the Floor of the House.
On the motor cycle allowance, I would have liked to declare an interest, but my motor scooter was nicked the other day, so I fear that I will not be able to take advantage of the allowance for some time. Before Opposition Members start to blame the Government for the theft of my trusty scooter, I can reassure them that the police have acted swiftly and successfully to investigate the crime—[HON. MEMBERS: "Successfully?".] Not yet, I believe, although I hope that that will be the case.
In conclusion, the proposal for a Members Estimate Committee is a sensible and innovative measure, which should enhance the good governance of the House. The proposal on bicycle and motor-cycle mileage allowances is also sensible, and I hope that the House will support the motions.
Question put and agreed to.

BICYCLE AND MOTORCYCLE MILEAGE ALLOWANCES
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Resolution of the House of 20th March 1998 on the bicycle allowance be rescinded and the following provision be made in its place:
(1) That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made as from 1st April 2004 with respect to the rates of mileage allowance payable to Members in respect of journeys by motorcycle, scooter or bicycle for which if undertaken by car, the car mileage allowance would be payable,
by Members, or
by spouses, children or employees paid from the staffing allowance;
(2) In respect of journeys by motorcycle or scooter, a motorcycle mileage allowance shall be payable at the same rate as the motorcycle mileage rate approved by the Inland Revenue and then in force;
(3) In respect of journeys by bicycle, a bicycle mileage allowance shall be payable at the same rate as the bicycle mileage rate approved by the Inland Revenue and then in force.—[Vernon Coaker.]
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you had any indication that the Government will make a statement about, first, the resignation of Mr. Greg Dyke as director-general of the BBC, especially concerning the procedures that will be employed with regard to the appointment of a new chairman and director-general of the corporation to ensure the independence of the BBC, which many of us value and over which there is a question mark at present? Secondly, have you heard, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether there will be a statement on whether the honourable culture of resignation after mistakes are made in bodies for which people are responsible will extend to the higher echelons of Government if it transpires that no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no knowledge that any such statement is proposed to be made to the House.

Scottish Banks and the Post Office
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]
2.5 pm
Mr. Calum MacDonald: I had hoped that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was going to participate in this debate, and I invite him to stay.
Mr. Alex Salmond indicated assent.
Mr. MacDonald: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman will because, as I am sure that he acknowledges, both as a Scottish MP and as a former employee of the Scottish banks, this important issue affects hundreds of thousands of loyal bank customers across Scotland. Many of those customers have been loyal to Scottish banks throughout their entire lives. I opened my first bank account on my first day at university when I was 18, and continued to maintain an account with a Scottish bank while I lived abroad for eight years on the west coast of the United States. Today, although I spend at least half of the year in London, I bank only with a Scottish bank.
Mr. Salmond:I am delighted to assure the hon. Gentleman that I have signed both early-day motions on this important matter. Moreover, I am happy to support his initiative in this Adjournment debate, and I congratulate him on securing it.
Mr. MacDonald: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support and for the support of Scottish colleagues from all parties who signed the two early-day motions.
The Scottish banks rely on the loyalty of customers throughout Scotland who bank with them because they are, first and foremost, Scottish banks. Although those customers are unfailingly loyal to the Scottish banks, I am afraid that those same banks are grossly disloyal to their Scottish customers. The Government have invested huge sums in installing in every post office, however remote or small, technology that enables anyone to go into any post office branch—I am sure that the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services will give us further details—and access their bank accounts, check their statements, make deposits or withdraw money. That is a huge step forward in post office customer service provision, and it is also a huge step forward for customers of the various banks.
For the first time ever, people are within easy reach of ordinary banking services, which are just a short walk from their homes. For pensioners, people in remote and rural areas, small businesses, hard-pressed mothers looking after children at home, and people trying to juggle their finances and lives, the change has the potential to make their life a great deal easier. One would have thought that the banks would leap at this opportunity to provide a useful and welcome service to their customers, and some have done so. Currently, the Post Office has agreements with the Alliance and Leicester, Barclays, Lloyds TSB and the Co-operative bank, as well as well as new internet banks such as
420
Cahoot, Smile arid First Direct in Scotland. Already some 20 million customers in Britain have access to an automated service through their local post offices. Those banks are to be congratulated on putting the needs and the convenience of their customers first.
Sadly, however, although the Post Office has sought to reach similar agreements with the Royal Bank of Scotland, the Halifax Bank of Scotland and the Clydesdale group. those three Scottish banks have each refused so far to make any kind of similar arrangement. Their customers continue to get a second-class service. If the Post Office had been unable to reach agreement with any banks whatsoever, there would be a case for saying that perhaps the shortcomings were on the Post Office side of the negotiations, and that it was trying to achieve too lucrative a deal for itself. But when so many other banks have signed up and are already co-operating with the Post Office, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Scottish banks are putting their profits before service to their customers and leaving their customers short-changed.
There can be no question that the post office network can provide a vastly superior service to that provided even by the banks that try to maintain a wide network of local branches. We know that banks find it harder and harder to maintain a network, but the Post Office has more than 16,500 branches throughout Britain. Not only is that more than any other postal service in Europe, but it is more than the combined total of the six biggest banks in Britain. Even if one added to that the combined total of the four biggest building societies, the total number of branches would still be well short—by some 2,000 branches—of the size of the post office network.
The superiority of the post office network is most apparent in scattered rural communities, such as in the constituency that I represent, where we have a small handful of bank branches scattered throughout the islands, but they are concentrated in local population centres that are very many miles, and long, expensive driving distances, apart. By contrast, in my constituency the Post Office has a branch in every rural district. Across Britain, the vast majority of people—85 per cent.—who live in rural areas live within 1 mile of the local post office. That is a network second to none in Britain or in Europe, and it is intolerable that the Scottish banks are refusing to take advantage of it at a time when they are making very healthy profits.
A great deal of patience has been shown during the lengthy discussions that have taken place between the Post Office and the Scottish banks. Customers have been waiting patiently for an agreement to be reached, sub-postmasters have been waiting patiently for an agreement to be reached, and politicians such as ourselves have been happy, so far, to let the banks get on with their negotiations without undue intervention. However, I know that I speak for the great majority of my Scottish colleagues from all parties when I say that that patience has run out. When even the Bank of Ireland has struck a deal with the Post Office to provide a full range of banking services, including throughout Scotland, there is simply no excuse for the Scottish banks still to be dragging their feet.
The banks should be warned. When people see tourists from England and Ireland coming to Scotland this summer and being able to withdraw their cash from the village post office, while Scottish customers living in

421
the same villages have to get into their cars or make long bus journeys to access the same services, there will be an angry backlash against this disparity and inequality of treatment.
Earlier today I received a fax from the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, informing me that they are commencing a campaign to alert their post office customers to the present state of affairs. Colin Baker, the general secretary, stated in the fax:
"The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has launched a campaign to harness the power of customer pressure to persuade banks that there is a strong customer demand for access to all types of account via the Post Office pin-pad technology."
He continues:
"We are targeting, in particular, Royal Bank of Scotland Group and HSBC."
The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has sent a pack to every postmaster, including envelopes addressed to the chief executives of both those companies and pre-printed cards that customers will be invited to complete and sign. That is the start of a campaign that will be well supported throughout Scotland, and to which the banks would be well advised to pay attention.
As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, there are two early-day motions on the subject before the House, signed, at the latest count, by 44 Scottish Members of Parliament, as well as by a good number of sympathetic, Union-minded English colleagues. Excluding Scottish Members on the payroll vote who obviously cannot sign because of that, practically every Scottish Member has signed one or the other of the motions. I know that a number of colleagues from Scottish constituencies will participate in the debate, and I am delighted that the early start of the debate did not catch them short, although their presence may have something to do with the fact that all the flights from Heathrow have been cancelled.
I know that there will be calls from colleagues in the Chamber and from my Scottish Labour colleagues for the banks to come down to Westminster to explain themselves to us. I encourage the Scottish Affairs Committee to take an interest in the issue, and I am confident that it will. The banks cannot be allowed to carry on abusing the loyalty of their Scottish customers in this way. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister to say what steps he is taking to assist the Post Office to reach agreement with the Scottish banks. Will he undertake to convey to the banks the sentiments of the House, as expressed today?
2.17 pm
Sir Robert Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) on presenting the subject for debate. It is topical and timely that we put pressure on the banks to recognise the needs of their customers. Although there is a market out there, inertia among customers gives the banks a great opportunity to make considerable profits out of their customers.
The quality of service to the community from which the banks make their money depends, in part, on the public perception of the banks and the climate in which they operate. They have a golden opportunity to step in at a vital time for the Post Office, which is the last
422
remaining focus for many communities—the last remaining source of a service in that community. The banks have an opportunity to provide a service to rural communities that they are at present unable to provide.
Last Friday I visited Strathdon in the constituency, where there is a shop and post office, and right next door is a Clydesdale bank, which is open one day a week. The customers of that bank could access their money five days a week if it had a deal with the Post Office. The Clydesdale bank should think carefully. It has quite a large rural network, which it is looking to rationalise. The public relations advantage and the benefit of the message that it would send about its commitment to rural areas if it maintained a deal with the Post Office would be vital.
These issues arise at a time when the Department for Work and Pensions is seeking to migrate pension and benefit claimants into receiving their payments by direct payment, rather than through the giro book at the post office, as they have traditionally done. Many people who have a bank account that they traditionally use only for savings purposes are being pressurised or persuaded to give the account details to the customer migration centre, and then finding that their payments are going via their bank. At the moment, they are not clear whether they can still get their money through the post office. They are led to believe that they can, but that would be the case only if they opened a basic bank account.
Most of our constituents' bank accounts are not basic bank accounts, so there is no access through the post office. Ministers and the banks sometimes tell us that constituents who want to access their money through a post office can do so if they have a basic bank account. However, that is an illusory account that exists only on paper—anybody who tries to open one will find themselves rapidly steered towards opening a standard traditional bank account. People who tend to use their bank account only for savings use their benefit book to collect the money from the post office for their day-to-day living expenses—they need ready access to that cash—and will be in for quite a shock when they find that cannot do that any more. So there is a timely and significant pressure on the banks to provide this transfer service and to do the necessary deal with the post office.
Although these are Scottish banks, they are also major banks throughout the United Kingdom, and I think that colleagues south of the border will be behind us because if we are successful it will make a big difference.
I should like the Minister to address two matters. First, although many hon. Members approach the issue from a rural angle, from the point of view of the future of the Post Office the deal would be most effective if it applied across the whole post office network. Is there any technology that would enable those in areas not served by the banking network to deal with the post office? I suspect that that would not be possible, given the way in which the banking system works, but perhaps the Minister could consider it.
Secondly, the banks often use the defence that they have made their public service commitment by investing in setting up the basic bank account. However, if that exists only on paper, so that if customers try to open one they find themselves steered towards another kind of

423
account, it is not delivering the public service commitment that it was supposed to. The Government should make it clear to the banks that far more effective would be a straightforward, effective connection with the Post Office so that the conventional accounts that people are using, and being persuaded to get their pensions paid into, can be accessed through the post office.
That would benefit not only customers, who would get a better service, but the banks, which would maintain their customer network for the other products that they want to offer. It would also provide a vital lifeline to the Post Office at this crucial time when it is losing income from conventional pension books and there are only a few years left of the guarantee provided by the Government to try to keep rural post offices open. New forms of business are required that will bring income into those sub-post offices and help to sustain the range of services that they provide, such as shops.
I urge the banks to listen carefully to the growing concern and to pre-empt the need for this campaigning by getting on with negotiating with the Post Office to come up with a sensible deal whereby our constituents, especially in rural areas, can have ready access to bank accounts on the same terms as those in urban areas.
2.24 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) rather alarmed me by saying that all flights from Heathrow are cancelled, as I am booked on to the 5.40 pm to Aberdeen. I booked that flight when I realised that the Adjournment debate was going to take place slightly earlier. If we use up the full time until 6.30 pm, that flight will go by the board as far as I am concerned, whether it flies or not.
As the hon. Gentleman said, I was formerly an economist at the Royal Bank of Scotland. I do not know whether that constitutes declaring an interest as a Royal Bank pensioner—if so, I willingly do so. My former colleagues are fond of telling me that the bank, which is now the fifth or sixth largest bank in world, depending on how it is measured, has grown rapidly since I left its employment. I like to think that the foundations were well laid before that date.
This is an important debate. We should understand more about the misgivings of all three Scottish banks, who argue that in seeking to maintain and develop local post offices, we might be jeopardising rural banks. However, as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) sensibly points out, those banks often open only for one or two days a week. The priority should be to ensure proper banking services, particularly in rural communities. I hope that the matter can be resolved, because for the life of me I cannot see why an element of good will in negotiations could not bring about a satisfactory settlement.
As regards bank closures in rural communities, the Bank of Scotland and Clydesdale bank have been particularly innovative in looking closely at the provision of services such as cashline machines, or other money dispensers, in community centres, but it has to be said that those initiatives have been quite limited. When
424
I worked at the Royal Bank of Scotland, all the Scottish banks had portable rural banking services; I seem to remember that the service in the Western Isles was operated by plane. Those services were well advertised by the banks as part of their community facilities. Now, they are not provided at all, or certainly not to anything like the same extent. As a result, many rural communities throughout Scotland have a post office that offers only basic financial transactions and some rural communities have no banking or money transaction services available to them.
The initiative to set up money dispensers in post offices is somewhat limited by the continuing confusion about the charges that are made depending on the type of account that one has. Although a warning is displayed on most machines, it is certainly not clear to me whether I am being charged, and I suspect that many people are in the same position. Money dispensing machines are therefore very limited for that purpose.
It would be ideal if an arrangement could be reached between the Scottish banks and the Post Office. That would consolidate the position of the Post Office and make a right for rural customers much more widely available than it is at present. It is strange, in a new century in which technology is widely available in so many forms, that a basic banking facility that many of our constituents still wish to conduct on a person-to-person basis is being denied to so many of them. I wish the hon. Member for Western Isles, and other hon. Members who are pushing this issue, well in forcing it to a satisfactory settlement that could be in the interests of the Post Office and the Scottish banks, and which would certainly be in the interests of our constituents.
2.28 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) on securing the debate. I apologise to him, and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being in the Chamber for the first couple of minutes. I had anticipated that the Adjournment debate might start earlier than is normally the case, but I had not realised just how much earlier. Those of our number who are responsible for ordering the business of the House may wish to reflect that, not for the first time, it will be rather more substantial than the main business of the day.
Sir Robert Smith: We have more time.
Mr. Carmichael: Indeed: on this occasion, it is a happy circumstance, but that is not always the case.
It will surprise nobody that I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Western Isles and others said. The provision of banking facilities in remote communities, especially island communities, is not new. Over the years, the number of branches in remote and rural communities has declined. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) said, several banks maintain a facility in smaller communities that is available on a restricted basis. I know from flying round my constituency that one can find oneself on a plane to Westray on the same day as someone from the Royal Bank of Scotland travels to open the branch for one day.

425
I have sympathy for the difficulties that the clearing banks experienced in maintaining facilities in smaller communities. Those facilities are not big earners for banks and there is a considerable cost in maintaining them. It is therefore all the more puzzling that the clearing banks in Scotland have adopted such a difficult attitude in the negotiations with the Post Office. I do not know whether that is brinkmanship or some sort of hard-ball negotiating technique, but it is regrettable. Any pressure that the Minister can bring to bear so that the negotiations reach a swift and satisfactory conclusion would be welcome.
As other hon. Members said, the banks have taken different approaches over the years. When I worked for a firm of solicitors in the constituency of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), it operated an agency for the Woolwich building society and the Trustee Savings bank. That was a common setup at the time. Indeed, the arrangement ended only in the 1990s, but by the time I experienced it, it was becoming exceptional rather than common. It appears logical to develop a sort of agency status for something as substantial as the Post Office, given the technology that exists for providing access for people to their money through post offices. The Post Office appears to be the sensible successor to the agency arrangements.
I want to emphasise the point of my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine about the difficulties that post offices anticipate as a result of the migration of benefits and pension payments to bank accounts. The fears that that engenders are genuine. If the facility of getting money from the Post Office were available to the public, many of the fears of Post Office employees, sub-postmasters, pensioners and benefit claimants in our constituencies could largely be allayed.
I commend the hon. Member for Western Isles for raising this matter. I was pleased to sign his early-day motion and I invite the Minister to make every effort to engage his Department in bringing negotiations to a swift and satisfactory conclusion.
2.33 pm
The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I welcome the opportunity to air the issues in the House. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) on his important initiative. I also welcome the support that the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) expressed. My hon. Friend made a telling point about the almost unanimous support of Scottish Members for his case through the early-day motions.
I listened with great interest to all the speakers. I was especially interested by the point that the hon. Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and for Orkney and Shetland made about the potential benefits for the Scottish banks in replacing costly one-day-a-week operations with six-day-a-week Post Office access to accounts. Indeed, I had discussions about the matter with sub-postmasters in Inverness last year. They were keen, for obvious reasons. My hon. Friend referred to his correspondence with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, and the group that I met in Inverness
426
was greatly looking forward to the opportunity to serve a much larger group of local residents and potential customers through access to other bank accounts.
In opening the debate. my hon. Friend referred to his first account with a Scottish bank that he maintains to this day. I used the post office regularly to obtain cash when I was a student and when I first started work. I looked at my Post Office book the other day and I noticed that the last transaction in it was conducted in 1983, which was when I switched to using a bank card. I had not used the post office to obtain cash for 20 years until my bank opened its current accounts to Post Office access. I can now obtain cash in the Members' post office and I often use the post office on the High street in East Ham near where I live. I hope that it will not be long before every current account can be accessed in that way.
Let me outline some of the background to the debate. In June 2000, the performance and innovation unit report on the post office network concluded that the business had not kept pace with change and was not exploiting the highly trusted status that the Post Office enjoys as a provider of financial services. All sub-postmasters are business people. They have found it increasingly difficult to make a living and they have been leaving the network in increasing numbers. It was clear from the PIU's work that doing nothing was not an option and that that would lead to the unmanaged decline of the network, leaving deeply damaging gaps.
The network's problems are apparent to many of us. They include past under-investment, but people's increased mobility, changes in shopping habits, more choice—including through new technology—have all played a part. The business needs to face up to those challenges and make itself more relevant to modern customer needs, or it will not survive. The task that faces the post office network is to continue to serve its existing customers with excellence but to attract new customers and have access to expanding banking markets, not simply dwindling markets, as in the past. That is the key to success.
My hon. Friend rightly made the point that the Government are investing substantial sums in supporting the transformation of the entire network. We are spending £2 billion in total, including £500 million on implementing a network that links every branch in the country. We have established a strong management team at the Post Office and given it the task of turning the business round. It continues to develop and introduce new products and services. Recently, as my hon. Friend mentioned, plans for a range of financial products, available in all post offices through a joint venture with the Bank of Ireland, have been announced. That can only be good news for the network, for sub-postmasters and their customers. A major advertising campaign for travel insurance and bureaux de change services features ants. That contributes to making the Post Office the sort of service that customers want to use.
Banking is central to the Post Office's future strategy. It has the Government's full backing. We all want the post office to become the sort of place where people do their banking so that they get access to cash in a familiar and convenient place. All the high street banks and the Nationwide building society are already making a positive contribution to universal banking services because they provide customers with free access to basic

427
bank accounts at post offices as well as making a significant financial contribution of £180 million between them to the cost of running the Post Office card account.
I want to put on record that all those institutions, including the three Scottish banks that my hon. Friend mentioned—the Royal Bank of Scotland, the Bank of Scotland and the Clydesdale group—have worked with us in a positive and constructive way, including making financial contributions to ensure that universal banking was delivered on time, on 1 April last year, despite what some people had predicted in the lead-up to that date. Without a doubt, the initiative has technically been very successful. It has worked successfully right from day one, and I want to acknowledge the support that those three Scottish banks have provided by offering basic bank accounts that can be accessed at post offices and by providing financial support for the initiative.
In addition to basic bank accounts, the Post Office provides access to a range of other bank accounts and is seeking to expand these with all the major institutions. It is already providing electronic access to their accounts for all current account holders at the Alliance and Leicester, Barclays and Lloyds TSB—some 20 million ordinary current accounts in total. The Post Office wants to expand that number, and rightly so. I would like to add my voice to what has already been said in this debate by making it clear that I would like the customers of the Scottish banks to be able to access their accounts at the post office. However, I believe that that decision properly rests with the individual institutions, particularly in view of the support that the banks have already given to the introduction of universal banking. Nevertheless, I hope that all those banks will move in the direction that my hon. Friend and the other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have called for.
I have had discussions with the Scottish banks on this issue. I have spoken to representatives of Halifax Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland. Yesterday, I received a letter from the Royal Bank of Scotland setting out its position, and it might be useful if I quote from it. The letter states:
"We recently looked again at our policy on this issue, and decided to make no change. This took into account a number of factors. We have detected no significant demand among our customers."
It goes on to talk about the size of the bank's network, and finishes by saying:
"While we have no plans at present to extend this particular facility to all our customers, we keep the question under regular review."
I hope that all account holders at the Scottish banks will be able to access them through the post office, but it is right, as that letter suggests, that the key should be whether there is a demand for that from the banks' customers. The Royal Bank of Scotland says at the moment that it has detected no significant demand, although my hon. Friend suggested in his speech that that might be about to change. If that is the case, we could well see a change of heart from the bank. That will depend on the impression that the banks form of the level of demand for this facility from their customers.
428
The Government remain absolutely committed to ensuring that those who wish to continue to do so can collect their benefits at post offices, in full and free of charge, after the move to direct payment. We have provided nearly £500 million to automate every post office branch. That has provided the technical infrastructure to support electronic banking, which gives the Post Office the opportunity to widen its customer base by increasing its offering of banking products. I welcome the fact that this debate helps to draw attention to the substantial benefits to Post Office customers that will result from the investment that the Government have made, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that point.
Under the new arrangements for benefits payments, customers have three account choices when deciding how they want to be paid. The first is a standard bank or building society account, some of which—although not yet all—can be accessed at post offices. The second is a bank or building society basic account, many of which can be accessed at post offices. All the Scottish banks offer such an account. The third is the Post Office card account. The customer chooses the account that they want.
Sir Robert Smith: The Minister has mentioned the various bank accounts available. What monitoring are the Government carrying out as part of this social contract with the banks to ascertain how easy people are finding it to open a basic bank account, and how many are being opened? Is there any monitoring of those statistics?
Mr. Timms: I do not have those figures with me this afternoon. There is certainly monitoring of the number of basic bank accounts that are being used. I am not sure that we have data on the number of accounts, but there is certainly information on the number of transactions. There are also data on the number of Post Office card accounts being applied for and opened. It is fair to say that the number of basic bank accounts opened so far remains quite modest, and that strengthens the case for opening up access to other current accounts. We are keeping a close eye on how that is developing.
In the past, Post Office income has been heavily dependent on benefit payments, but that business has been dwindling. It is worth making the point that, before the Government made the decision to switch to making all payments through direct payment, more than 43 per cent. of benefit recipients already received their cash directly into their bank account, compared with only about a quarter in 1997. Sixty-two per cent. of all new child benefit recipients and 68 per cent. of all new pensioners already have their benefits paid directly into their bank account by choice. So the direction in which things were moving was already clear, even before the transition to direct payment commenced.
The old order bock system needs to be modernised to keep in step with changing customer needs and to reflect the fact that owning and using a bank account is now the norm. About 90 per cent. of pensioners now have access to one, for example. A business built on serving people who do not use bank accounts will clearly be serving a shrinking market. Instead, we all want the Post Office to serve an expanding market, and banking provides that opportunity.

429
I welcome the initiative that my hon. Friend has taken, and the support that he has attracted in this debate and through the early-day motions. I also welcome the keen interest that Members on both sides of the House and people across the country have in the future of the Post Office. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine pointed out to me a number of post offices in his constituency when I visited it last week. I want to make it clear that the Government share the commitment to the Post Office that hon. Members have expressed. We want to help to ensure that it can move forward with confidence and that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses can look forward with confidence to the prospects for their business.
430
It is clear that the business could not prosper if it stood still. The challenge is to adapt and to meet the changing demands of customers and society. The status quo is not an option; the future lies in banking and the Government hope that all banks will provide their customers with access to their accounts through post offices. The critical issue, however, will be whether customers demand post office access. I certainly hope that they will.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Three o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Afghanistan
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Gareth Thomas.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): I am grateful to you, Sir Nicholas, and to Mr. Speaker for allowing this Government-initiated debate on the development challenge in Afghanistan. The development of Afghanistan is of considerable importance and interest to many hon. Members beyond those present today. It is appropriate that we are taking the opportunity to debate the country's future and, hopefully, to reflect on the progress that has been made over the past two years. I am sure that hon. Members will want first to join me in expressing our condolences to the family and friends of one of our soldiers who was killed yesterday in Kabul and in wishing the four other British soldiers and their interpreter who were injured in the same blast a full recovery. This dreadful incident is an all-too-powerful reminder of what the people of Afghanistan have had to endure for far too long.
Before November 2001, Afghanistan had been the scene of two decades of internal and external conflict, forcing millions of refugees to flee their homes. It was a wrecked country, one of the most heavily land-mined in the world. Under the Taliban, schools and hospitals for girls and women were closed; women could not leave their homes without a male relative; extremist religious laws were enforced; men were jailed if their beards were too short; television was banned; and, as we all know, one of the world's worst terrorist groups, al-Qaeda, was allowed to operate with impunity.
Today, women in Afghanistan are returning to work and girls are going to school again. Television and radio are flourishing, and more than 2 million refugees have gone home. Afghanistan now has a constitution that guarantees the equal rights of all citizens—men and women—and religious freedom, surely the latest sign of the political, economic and social development that is occurring there. However, the achievements and the progress of the past two years cannot and should not hide the fact that Afghanistan remains one of the poorest nations in the world. It is facing major additional and parallel security challenges, particularly in the south and east of the country where the Taliban still operates, and the destabilising impact of the drugs trade, which reaches far beyond the borders of Afghanistan and has a particular impact on this country.
Afghanistan remains a high priority for my Department and for the Government, too. During my visit there in December, I reaffirmed to President Karzai our long-term commitment to the country's development. We have already committed £322 million to humanitarian and reconstruction assistance over five
144WH
years, and we have spent £155 million of that since September 2001. We also provide significant levels of aid through multilateral assistance, through our contributions to, for example, the United Nations, the European Union and international development banks.
The debate is timely, given that it is two days after the final step was taken in agreeing a constitution that will pave the way for the country's first democratic elections planned for later in the year. It gives us the opportunity to reflect on the progress that has led Afghanistan to this point and also provides us with the chance to look ahead at the challenges that will face its first democratically elected Government. As hon. Members will know, back in December 2001 with the support of the United Nations, Afghan leaders met in Bonn and agreed the process for political transition in Afghanistan. In June 2002, a broad-based transitional Administration elected Hamid Karzai for two years.
One of the priorities of the Bonn process was to make Kabul safe by deploying a multinational force. As a result the International Security Assistance Force was created in December 2001, coming under the command of NATO in August last year, and having its mandate expanded in October to allow it to operate beyond the Kabul region. British forces have played an absolutely essential role in providing security, both as part of ISAF and beforehand. I would like to pay tribute to the work of our soldiers and, indeed, to the other staff whom we have deployed, who continue to do hugely important work in Afghanistan.
As well as providing security, the UK has also played a key role in keeping the democratic transition laid down by the Bonn process firmly on track. We have given some £2 million from the global conflict prevention pool operated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my Department and the Ministry of Defence, and £1 million from my Department's bilateral programme to support the voter registration process for the coming elections. My Department has also provided £500,000 to support the population consultation process on the constitution which involved many ordinary people throughout Afghanistan.
To complement the Bonn process international donors met in Tokyo in January 2002 to discuss the reconstruction of Afghanistan, pledging some $4.5 billion over a varying time scale. I am pleased to say that that total has now increased to some $5.2 billion, and Afghan Government figures confirm that the international community is delivering on those pledges already, with some $1.8 billion provided by donors in 2002–03.
The Afghan Government deserve considerable credit for the way in which they have taken the lead in the development process, holding the first Afghanistan development forum in Kabul in March last year. In advance of that meeting, my Department was able to fund a team of consultants to work with the Ministry of Finance to prepare its national development budget, developing the capacity of the Ministry and therefore of the Afghan Government. The international community responded at that development forum, pledging more than $2 billion for this financial year to fund some 90 per cent. of the Afghan Government's budget. The Afghans believe that they will be able to raise the remaining balance from their domestic revenues.

145WH
Another international donor conference is planned for March this year to ensure continued donor coordination and complementarity. That conference will be able to point to major development landmarks over the last two years. Four million children are back at school, and 37 per cent. of those pupils are girls; that proportion is up from some 5 per cent. in 2001. In total there are now 6,500 functioning schools with more than 70,000 teachers, a third of whom are women. Since 2002, 12 million children have been immunised against polio and 16 million children have been immunised against measles, saving in the process an estimated 30,000 lives.
At the same time UN agencies have been working to improve health facilities. UNICEF, for example, has refurbished the Malalai hospital, which is the largest maternity hospital in Kabul, with some 15,000 children being born there every year. Under the Taliban the hospital suffered from poor hygiene and a lack of qualified staff. There was no blood bank in Kabul, and patients often had to get their own medicines and find their own basic medical equipment for operations. On top of that conditions were made even more difficult by the all-too-frequent power shortages.
Women are increasingly taking part in politics. The new constitution guarantees women 25 per cent. of seats in Afghanistan's new lower House, as well as equal rights and duties before the law.
Human rights abuses, massacres, the abduction of innocent citizens and the systematic burning of houses, combined with a severe drought, led millions of Afghans to flee to Pakistan and Iraq in the five years before the end of the Taliban regime. With the help of the UNHCR, communities are returning to Afghanistan; more than 2.5 million Afghan refugees have returned so far, beginning the process of rebuilding their lives and communities after years of conflict. Thanks, too, to the end of the drought, and work by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, grain production increased by some 80 per cent. in 2002, and we are expecting to see a record harvest for last year as well. That improving harvest and the greatly improved security situation have dramatically reduced the need for humanitarian aid.
Despite the significant advances that have been made in Afghanistan, huge challenges remain. The most urgent of those is security, particularly in the south and east, where Taliban insurgents continue to encroach, and to put development at risk. Because of threats to the safety of Afghan and international staff, some non-governmental organisations and international organisations are finding it increasingly difficult to operate in certain parts of the country. I hope that the House will join me in praising the contribution of those bodies in continuing to operate where they are able to do so, despite the difficult circumstances.
The overall effect of the security threat on the provision of humanitarian aid and on reconstruction in some parts of Afghanistan is serious. The international community is heavily involved in helping the Afghan authorities to try to deal with the problems. Afghanistan's six neighbours have signed a nonintervention agreement, promising to try to help to provide the security, stability and territorial integrity that Afghanistan needs after so many years of conflict
146WH
and deprivation. International coalition forces continue to try to counter Taliban fighters in southern and eastern Afghanistan, and the deployment of joint civil and military provincial reconstruction teams, including by the British Army, is facilitating security sector reforms and building the authority of the Afghan Government.
The UK leads a PRT based in Mazar-e-Sharif in northern Afghanistan. It is one of 13 planned and operational teams in the country. It is a joint MODFCO-DFID-led operation, with some 100 military personnel as well as development and political advisers. That PRT has three main objectives in the region: to help to expand the authority of the Afghan Government, to facilitate security sector reform and to facilitate development in the region. It has had successes in all three areas, in particular in security sector reform: the police have been able to deploy from Kabul to Mazar-e-Sharif and a number of heavy weapons have been removed from local factions to the guard of the new Afghan national army. The UK is also working to support the Afghan police in helping to build the national army, and it is assisting with the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of former combatants. Recently, an agreement was signed to begin the demobilisation of some of the heavy artillery belonging to powerful militia commanders.
On 15 January, the first heavy weapons tanks and heavy artillery started to move to cantonments outside Kabul, under the supervision of the international peacekeeping force, ISAF. Weapons from militias in Kunduz, Gardez and Mazar are all being handed in under disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration programmes. To date, some 2,240 personnel have been demobilised, of whom 1,700 have completed reintegration interviews and made their final selections for their new livelihoods and the training and support that they will want. Agriculture vocation training, small business support, de-mining and joining the Afghan national army or police continue to be key choices for those who have worked and fought with the militias. Those DDR programmes aim to disarm a total of about 100,000 militia men nationwide.
The second major challenge is to deal with the drugs trade. That will be an important step towards ensuring greater security. Those who profit from the trade have a strong interest in undermining an effective Afghan state.
As the final milestone of the Bonn agreement, the elections will be an important step towards the peaceful and democratic Afghan state that we all want to see. It is essential that those are seen to be fair and legitimate. That fair, democratic process should allow Afghan policy makers to re-establish Government legitimacy and pave the way for the Afghan people to elect a representative Government that truly reflects their own aspirations.
There is still a challenge in continuing to help the most vulnerable people. Until the Afghan Government's capacity has grown sufficiently, the international community will have to continue to provide services where the Afghan Government cannot. For example, UN agencies are supporting the remaining Afghan refugees in Iran and Pakistan and assisting their voluntary repatriation to Afghanistan. In Afghanistan two vulnerable groups are receiving food and shelter,

147WH
and they are still in receipt of vaccination programmes that are helping slowly to eliminate the threat of polio and measles.
Although we are meeting those immediate challenges, there are two much longer term challenges among the underlying causes of poverty that must also be addressed. An effective, functioning Government are central to long-term development. We must work with the Afghan authorities to strengthen the public sector and build the capacity of their Government to deliver the services that we expect and have come to rely on in the UK. In that way the Afghan Government will be able to provide services, such as the schools and hospitals that the Afghan people rightly want to see in place.
We are, therefore, promoting and supporting the Afghanistan reconstruction trust fund as a mechanism to allow donors to pool their resources, reduce transaction costs, improve co-ordination and allow the Afghans themselves to prioritise how money should be spent. The private sector, too, will play a vital role in the development of Afghanistan. In the past two years we have seen economic growth at a rate of some 30 per cent. However, it will still take a concerted effort by the international community to support the development of an effective private sector and help Afghanistan to establish international trade. One important sign of progress is that the Standard Chartered Bank has opened an office in Kabul. That is, hopefully, the first of a number of major western businesses looking to move to Kabul and set up operations.
The development of a proper transport and energy infrastructure, too, will be fundamental to the development of the private sector and a functioning state. We have already provided some £12.7 million to clear Afghanistan's debts with international financial institutions. That in turn has allowed the Afghan Government to unlock further highly concessionary loans that are being spent, for example, on funding repairs to 112 km of roads in northern Afghanistan by replacing bombed-out concrete sections and broken bridges. Those repairs will vastly improve access to health care, education, employment and local markets there. If we are to tackle the drugs trade in Afghanistan, it is critical that we help the Afghans to make a living legally and work with them to develop new sources of income and new livelihoods.
I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of the figures released by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime in October last year, which showed that opium poppy cultivation increased by 8 per cent. in 2002. The production of actual poppy numbers rose by some 6 per cent. The survey also revealed that in traditional areas where the Afghan Government have been able to exert control, cultivation has decreased and moved into more marginal areas. Although the area covered with opium poppy has increased, poppy production has decreased where security has been effectively established.
That UN survey is a reference point for our work as the lead nation in dealing with counter-narcotics in Afghanistan. The increase in opium cultivation is unwelcome, but it is not unexpected when one looks at other countries, such as Pakistan and Thailand, where drug cultivation has taken place and where evidence shows that cultivation tends to increase before eventually declining. The production and processing of
148WH
narcotic drugs inevitably grossly distorts the Afghan economy and, by supporting criminal and terrorist activity, jeopardises the security and stability of the region, as well as the development of the country itself. We need to be realistic about how long it will take to end the illegal production of opium poppy.
Tom Brake: What is the Government's preferred approach to tackling opium cultivation? Do they consider it better to deal with the poppy fields first and provide alternatives afterwards, or to provide alternatives to farmers first and then tackle the fields?
Mr. Thomas: Essentially, it is for us to support the Afghan Government in making those decisions. We are working with them to achieve both objectives. We have committed £70 million over the next three years to support the implementation of the Afghanistan national drug control strategy. There are a number of pillars to that. We need to improve the enforcement of drugs laws and help the Afghans to eradicate opium fields and promote alternative livelihoods for poor farmers.
We also need to help to improve the effectiveness of the country's drugs institutions. We want to help to improve public awareness campaigns about the risks of growing opium poppy to persuade farmers to look at alternative livelihoods much earlier in the agricultural cycle than they might otherwise have done. The international community is working alongside the Afghan authorities to enforce legislation banning the cultivation of poppy. We are trying to assist with the demobilisation and disarmament of militias. We are also helping to build an effective, multi-ethnic national army and police force, under democratic control, which can work with the international community to tackle the eradication of opium poppy.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that drugs are a problem for Afghanistan not only for the reasons that he has stated but because there is evidence that the number of addicts in the country is increasing? It is estimated that there are 25,000 addicts in Kandahar, which is difficult to cope with as the country does not have the medical infrastructure to assist them.
Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend is right. It is interesting that a number of neighbouring countries have also been heavily hit by poppy growth in Afghanistan. They are working alongside countries such as Great Britain and organisations such as the UN agencies to examine what else they can do to tackle the drugs trade.
The international community is also working to rebuild the legal system, which will have an impact in tackling the opium trade. We are examining what support we can provide to a district stabilisation programme, for which the Afghan Government are seeking support, to spread the authority of the state from Kabul to other districts, particularly in the south and east. That programme will rebuild the institutions of the police—such as police stations—and courts so that the legal system and the legal authority of the Afghan state can be restored in areas which for far too long have failed to submit to the will of the national Government.

149WH
Given that 20 to 30 per cent. of those living in rural areas of Afghanistan are at least partially dependent on poppy growing, it is essential that alternative livelihoods are promoted alongside eradication. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) referred to that. He and other hon. Members will be pleased to know that we have committed £20 million over three years to our livelihoods programme in Afghanistan. In Badakshan, we are working in partnership with the Aga Khan Development Network to provide farmers with tools, training and sinks to grow alternative crops. A number of pilot projects are under way, for example in small-scale poultry farming and apricot drying, and there is a project to encourage women to grow agricultural produce.
One of the reasons why people in rural areas of Afghanistan support the poppy trade is because there is a lack of access to forms of credit. In Badakshan, we are looking at establishing a micro-credit project that will extend access to the finance that people need to buy tools and so forth, so that they can engage in more legitimate activity. In eastern Hazarajat, we are working with the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation to help farmers improve their production. We are also helping in the development of non-farm enterprises that add value to agriculture production, such as processing.
In conclusion, the people of Afghanistan, who are supported by the international community, have come a long way in reconstructing their country in the past two years. This year is crucial for Afghanistan. Elections will see the culmination of the Bonn process: the establishment, hopefully, of a democratic and representative state. The Government's capacity to administer resources and deliver services is developing quickly, and we are seeing the emergence of a police force and a national army, which are prepared to provide law enforcement. Elections will not be an end for Afghanistan, but a beginning in the truest sense. We will be able to celebrate, with the Afghan people, the establishment of a constitution and a Government whom they have shaped and chosen. However, we must remember that the challenges facing that Government will remain huge and that the continued support of the international community in providing resources and expertise will continue to be vital.
The UK remains committed to helping the Afghan people with their long-term goals of developing their country and ensuring sustained poverty reduction. I am sure that the whole House hopes to see that in Afghanistan, and I look forward to hearing hon. Members' views about the challenges that remain.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Before I call the spokesman for the Opposition, I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that although the House has adjourned, this Chamber has not, and we still have quite a debate ahead of us.
2.56 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I, too, send my condolences to the family and friends of the soldier who recently died in Afghanistan, and to the families of the wounded. The Opposition welcome most of the
150WH
Minister's comments, although we might have reached slightly different conclusions on a few things. We also feel committed to Afghanistan for a number of reasons.
The events of 11 September brought dramatic changes to the political landscape in Afghanistan. In 2001, our armed forces, despite already being overstretched, made a highly professional contribution to the operations in Afghanistan. What we achieved there with the Americans, and a number of other allies, considerably pre-empted further terrorist action. We must remember that Afghanistan was linked to Osama bin Laden and was the Taliban's principal base in the world. Although there has since been a terrorist attack in Bali and we have lost a consulate in two ghastly incidents, one can only imagine how much worse the terrorist situation would be had the Afghan operation not taken place. None the less, it is vital that we avoid the risk of Afghanistan lapsing back into the category of a failed state and it providing fertile territory for anti-western resentment and future global instability. The Minister recognises that.
Since 1980, I have been a financial supporter of an Afghan charity, now called Afghanaid. In the old days, it struggled to provide medical supplies and food behind the Russian lines. My father-in-law played a prominent role in drawing up the plans for clearing mines in Afghanistan. He is no longer the director of the UN de-mining operation, but he operated over there as a freelancer more than once. I saw the military action that we took two and a half years ago as the first opportunity in more than two decades for peace and stability in that unhappy country. None the less, I put a less optimistic gloss than the Minister on the situation there.
My first point is that the lessons that should have been learned from Bosnia and Kosovo seem to have passed unheeded. In the early stages, focus was so heavily placed on the combat phase that plans for the long-term future of Afghanistan were squeezed out. Although the MOD, DFID and counterpart organisations in other countries co-operated well over Kosovo, co-operation was not nearly as effective in Afghanistan or, indeed, Iraq, which is a matter for another debate.
Secondly, the challenges to creating security and economic development in Afghanistan are immense. That is surely uncontentious: the country is huge, the terrain is some of the most inhospitable in the world and there is virtually no tradition of political stability or institutions that date back to the pre-Taliban days. Despite that, however, had the Government spent more time considering the implications of post-conflict security and reconstruction, Afghanistan would be in better shape today. There are parallels with what happened in Afghanistan with what has gone on in Iraq, as highlighted in the recent National Audit Office report on Iraq.
The Minister reported quite a lot of progress since 2001, but it has taken us a long time to achieve that. Furthermore, there is evidence that some NGOs are starting to run down their operations because of fears for their security. Inevitably, that hits the vulnerable most heavily.
Joan Ruddock indicated assent.
Mr. Brazier: The hon. Lady nods. There have been constant reports of kidnapping, extortion and acts of

151WH
terrorism, all aimed at destabilising the country. According to the logic of the terrorist, if he kills those distributing food and bringing hope to the people, he improves the environment for reaping the crop that he wants. For many Afghans today, it is unsafe simply to get on with ordinary life. There is huge frustration in the country at the slow pace of reconstruction.
Many problems arise from three main causes: the need for the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of those whose lives have been based around a military existence, the alarming increase in the opium trade, and the risk that the financial support of international donors, which has been so critical to recovery so far, could weaken prematurely. I was glad to hear the Minister's robust remarks on the last point, but he obviously cannot speak for the international community as a whole. We can be leaders in the international community, but we cannot speak for it collectively.
There is no neat division between the military and civil parts of Afghan society. There are several different groups of armed men, which to some extent blend into each other. There are those who have been in either the army or one or more of the many militias for all their working lives and, in effect, see the military as a career, those who are conscripted or absorbed compulsorily for short periods, and a vast number of Afghan males who keep a gun at home because that has been the way of life for many generations. The soldiers and militiamen who were more recently mobilised for one reason or another find it easier to return to a civilian life, in some cases to what they did beforehand, even if that was subsistence agriculture. However, for people who have basically known nothing but soldiering of one sort or another for all their working lives, the change is much harder.
The Minister briefly mentioned measures to find other things for such people to do. It is not good enough to ask them simply to hand in their arms. They will of course not do so unless there is something else for them to do. If a line is to be drawn under the era when those who were armed were those who reaped the rewards, disarmament must go hand in hand either with real alternatives for employment that benefits the community as a whole and is seen to be beneficial by the individuals concerned, or with the training and education necessary for such employment. At a time when trust is preciously thin on the ground, links with individuals and communities need to be built.
The Minister mentioned that Afghanistan produces a substantial proportion of the world's illicit opium and talked about some measures that we are taking. He also mentioned, rather briefly I thought, the impact that that production has on our country. Let us be clear: Afghanistan is, by a very long way, the main producer of opium in the world and by far the most important factor in putting opium on British streets. As the interim Government close down production in traditional poppy growing areas, cultivation spreads to new parts of the country.
In October last year, the UN stated that Afghan opium farmers and traffickers had brought home about $2.3 billion so far that year and that production had increased by 6 per cent. on the previous year. Yet the country is nominally run through the UN by outside powers. The director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime warned that the country was at a
152WH
crossroads and that it risked falling into the hands of drug cartels and narco-terrorists. We really must not allow that to happen.
The Taliban regime was monstrous and horrible and operated on the basis of oppression. I will not bother to repeat the appalling evidence that the Minister gave us, although I acknowledge every word of it. However, we must recognise that we will be in serious danger of creating a power vacuum if we do not replace the Taliban with a full structure. There is a danger that that vacuum will be filled by something equally bad—powerful drug and terrorist factions. We must therefore tackle that illegal trade.
We should be clear about where the official Opposition stand on the dilemma mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). More active measures to stamp out opium growing and the opium trade must come alongside, not after, measures to provide alternative employment. [Interruption.] Well, the Minister could have made his reply a little clearer. He asserted that these were matters for the Afghan Government and that we could encourage them. Given that the Afghan Government are wholly supported by outside agencies, which fund them, provide their infrastructure and educate those who work within them, Britain is not simply a third party, and we must insist on the toughest possible action wherever possible.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is painting my remarks a tad unfairly. Of course we are working very closely with the Afghan authorities. We are seeking to develop their capacity to respond to the drugs trade that exists on their doorstep. We are providing resources and expertise to identify areas where drugs might be eradicated. We are also providing the alternative livelihoods that will be essential in the long term if we are to prevent the drugs trade from taking hold in the way that he suggests.
Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, but I must qualify it to some extent. We should be clear about the fact that the figures show that we are losing the battle, so more needs to be done. Six per cent. growth in drugs production in a country that is being run by outside agencies, to which we are a major contributor, is not a success.
Mr. Kevan Jones: As the hon. Gentleman said earlier, Afghanistan has had no Government structures. I was there in November, and despite its vast size and the fact that a war is going on in the south, where most of the poppy growing takes place, the efforts undertaken by the British and other members of the international community are making a difference. Does he not agree that it is very difficult job?
Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I thoroughly agree, and I do not deny for a moment that it is very difficult to operate in Afghanistan. I am glad to hear the Minister provide more evidence of what the Government are doing, but the fact remains that the country is by far the biggest player in the opium market and there have been substantial further increases in its capacity, so we should be deeply worried. We and our

153WH
allies must step up our efforts because we are losing the battle and there is a danger that a bad situation will get a lot worse.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we must not be complacent about the drugs trade. I hope that he and other hon. Members will draw further reassurance from the fact that a major narcotics conference will take place in Afghanistan next month, and we shall consider how to scale up our response to he drugs trade. I should, however, draw his attention to another small point that was flagged up in the UN survey. Last year, there was a decline in opium poppy production in those areas in which security had been reestablished.
Mr. Brazier: I accept all that. My most important conclusion is that the restoration of security has to override everything else. None of the other factors—not schools opening, not hospitals operating—are worth anything at all unless security is firmly re-established, because without security they can disappear overnight, as has happened so often in Afghanistan.
In last month's report the situation in Afghanistan, the International Monetary Fund was cautiously complimentary about some progress made in rebuilding institutions and in implementing economic policies. However, it was fearful that some huge challenges remain to be overcome to ensure that the economy continues to recover. Such challenges were tragically brought home to us by those two terrible attacks in the past few days.
The IMF points to a possible Catch-22 situation in relation to securing the necessary funding. On the one hand, aid may well be withdrawn if the political and security situation deteriorates further—either deliberately withdrawn or de facto withdrawn as aid agencies pull out. On the other hand, creating a stable and widely recognised authority requires sufficient funds. That is a Catch-22 situation indeed.
It is essential that we should not walk away from our responsibilities to Afghanistan, and I welcome the closing lines of the Minister's speech for that reason. The country has survived more than 20 years of conflict, interspersed with earthquakes and droughts. Afghanistan is a country of brave, resilient people, to whom we in the west owe a tremendous debt. The Afghan mujaheddin played a pivotal role in breaking the Soviet empire, and all that that terrible colossus stood for, and thus helped to stabilise the global dynamics of power. During the course of that incredibly brave resistance, 1 million out of 15 million Afghans died, and a further 7 million lost their homes—the biggest single refugee crisis that the world has ever seen. It also threw up that remarkable leader Masood. He had such an impact in the Islamic world that Osama bin Laden felt unable to mount his horrific attack on the United States until Masood had been murdered in the most cowardly fashion. He was only able to go ahead with the 11 September attacks two days after that murder.
154WH
We now have the chance to repay the debt that we owe the Afghan people, by helping them build a strong, free and democratic country. The Opposition endorse all that the Government are trying to do on that, although we may press for more action on certain things.
I finish on a positive note. It is excellent news that the transitional Government, led by the President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, signed a new constitution earlier this week, paving the way for elections later this year. The constitution envisages a strong presidency and enshrines equal rights for men and women. It permits religious freedom, in a thriving democratic state. Our responsibility, as part of the liberating force, is to ensure that that dream becomes a reality. We liberated the Afghan people from the repression that they had suffered for far too long. Now we must remove the instability and criminal activity that have appeared in its place. To ensure that those free and fair elections take place, we must focus on existing obstacles in a systematic manner and be prepared to invest for the future of Afghanistan. That is important for our own security too.
The Minister mentioned progress—some rather belated—in many things, from health to education. However, that all depends on security, which is critical to Afghanistan and to those developments. The people of Afghanistan must, of course, take control of their country. The UN forces, including our own, must help them to move forward and Afghanistan to become the stable and viable country that it has the right and the eventual capacity to be.
3.15 pm
Tom Brake: I join the Minister in extending my condolences to the family of the soldier who was killed and those who were injured. However, I cannot echo the Minister's optimism. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said, the Minister was quite upbeat when he gave his presentation. I understand why he has to be upbeat, but I am much more concerned about what is happening in Afghanistan and the threats to its long-term survival, which I shall talk about later.
It is worth reminding Members of the timeline of events. In November 2001, the Taliban fell. A month later, the interim authority was set up. In June 2002, Hamid Karzai was elected president. As the hon. Member for Canterbury said, President Karzai signed the Afghan constitution into law earlier this week. Much has happened in the past couple of years. It is also worth reminding Members of what the Prime Minister said a couple of years ago about Afghanistan. He said that
"we will provide strong diplomatic and economic support to the aspirations of Afghan parties committed to an inclusive, democratic political structure, committed to the welfare of all Afghan men, women and children… We want to see a country with a Government representing all the people of Afghanistan, occupying a proud place in the community of nations, growing economically, enriching its people and liberating their potential." —[Official Report, 11 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 863–64.]
It is also worth considering what progress has been made according to the criteria set out by the Prime Minister. Clearly, security is the most significant concern, and the one most likely to stop the Prime Minister's vision of Afghanistan being realised.

155WH
Developments in the past couple of days, and reports that 60 suicide bombers may have slipped into Afghanistan and may be about to take action in the way that we have seen in Iraq, are threatening the country, foreigners and NGOs based there. I wonder whether the Minister recognises the description of the security situation that I received from an agency working there.
A couple of days ago, I spoke to several organisations that are very active in Afghanistan. I was surprised to find that they were unaware that this debate was taking place. That is not intended as a criticism, but there should be some mechanism through which the Government can inform organisations of a debate in advance. Those organisations say that security in the south is deteriorating daily, which is restricting movement and making projects less effective, and that the atmosphere is tense. Very few expatriate international NGO staff are now working in the south. Extremists, bandits, local warlords and the opium mafia are causing security alerts.
I would welcome the Minister's comments on the US operations in the south, which are not conducive to the development of trust of foreigners in local populations. There are also concerns that NATO cannot do an effective security job in Afghanistan if it is not given the troops to do it. Does the Minister recognise that picture, which is not an optimistic one? He will know that on 12 December, Lakhdar Brahimi, the outgoing special representative of the UN Secretary-General, warned that the UN might soon have to abandon its two-year effort to stabilise Afghanistan unless security improved. Does the Minister concur with that view?
The agency to which I spoke said that it believed that between 5,000 and 10,000 extra troops might be required to guarantee the security of people in Afghanistan. Will the Minister also comment on that? Several agencies mentioned the provincial reconstruction teams to which the Minister referred. Although their view is that the PRTs were contributing, they have concerns that their remit, which seems to be a dual one of security and humanitarian work, is making it difficult for them to do either effectively. One of the organisations alleges that the PRTs are less effective at the reconstruction work than the NGOs, for instance. Is there an ongoing process of monitoring their work to see whether they are up to scratch?
Mr. Kevan Jones: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says about the PRTs. I visited the British PRT at Mazar-e-Sharif in November. The work that it was doing was making a real difference. It was a combined effort between staff from the MOD, DFID and the Foreign Office. One of the complaints that I received from the Royal Army Medical Corps was that the NGOs would not work with them. I find it strange that certain NGOs are putting out a line that the PRTs do not want to work or co-operate with them.
Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interesting intervention. Clearly there is a need for the PRTs and DFID and so on to establish stronger lines of communication with the NGOs, so that any issue about NGOs not being willing to work with the PRTs is resolved. We want the most effective development to be taking place. I welcome the Minister's comments on
156WH
security and the PRTs. Not having visited Afghanistan, I am not in a position to say whether that is true, but there is concern that to a certain extent the PRTs are about window-dressing and providing positive PR from the point of view of the US and other players rather than necessarily delivering all they could from the point of view of the Afghan people.
Mr. Jones: I am sorry that I have to intervene again, but I do not accept that the PRTs are window-dressing. In the north, the week before we arrived, because of the sterling efforts of the British PRT—the MOD, the Foreign Office and DFID—a cease-fire had been negotiated between the two main warlords, Dostum and Atta, which helped the security situation and the daily lives of the people whom I met in Mazar-e-Sharif.
Tom Brake: Indeed, and I respect the hon. Gentleman's experiences. However, I suspect that he was not present to see the work of all the PRTs and that he did not visit every site in the country. Although he may have seen a good example, it may be that elsewhere—I am simply conveying to hon. Members what has been conveyed to me—there are concerns about the PRTs' effectiveness. I am sure that the Minister would like to comment on that when he responds.
The second issue that I would like to raise is opium production, on which the Minister touched at some length. He will be aware of the commitments that have been made. In a debate in the House of Lords on 4 November 2003, the Government committed themselves, in the comprehensive spending review, to reducing opium production to nothing within 10 years.
I know that the Minister has said—this was said in the Lords—that it is natural for there to be a period in which we have to build up effective institutions, so one might expect an increase in production while that is happening, but does he think it realistic to achieve an eradication of opium production in 10 years? Does he want to reconsider that challenge and come forward with something more realistic, particularly given the increases in production in the past 12 months?
Associated with opium is the issue of HIV/AIDS. It seems that there is an extremely small number of cases in Afghanistan—according to a World Bank report, 11 have been reported—but that may have much to do with the fact that the infrastructure that would enable testing to be done and statistics to be collated is simply not there. If there really are only the 11 cases that have been reported, one has to wonder why the global health fund is about to allocate some $3 million to Afghanistan. Presumably, a significant proportion of that will be spent on tuberculosis and malaria, rather than on HIV/ AIDS, but I should appreciate some comment from the Minister. Have the Government any concerns that there may be a hidden epidemic that is not being picked up because of the absence of an adequate health infrastructure?
That grant of $3 million or more is due to be assigned in March, and I would welcome the Minister's comments as to how it will be possible to monitor the project effectively. I recently had a meeting with Dr. Feacham of the global health fund, who expects the

157WH
number of projects that it funds to increase significantly. He also anticipates the need to strengthen the structure at the centre to ensure that that increase in projects is properly monitored. I am therefore interested in how the Minister envisages tracking the money to ensure that it reaches the places where it is most needed.
I know that one of the Government's key priorities is to focus on income generation, but have they had any discussions with the Afghan Government about HIV/ AIDS and do they intend to play a more active role in that regard? The Minister painted a positive picture of what is happening in relation to democracy. Is he aware of concerns expressed by Amnesty International about the extent to which it was possible for some delegates to express their views about the constitution? I refer him to a press release that Amnesty issued on 6 January in which it expresses those concerns:
"Dominance by strong political and armed factional leaders and the absence of the rule of law in many parts of the country contributes to an atmosphere of insecurity"
that, it argues, actively stops delegates from expressing their views openly. Can the Minister give us some feedback on that? A significant number of Afghans are now registered to vote—upwards of 500,000—but that is out of a potential electorate of 10 million. There are clearly parts of the country where it will be difficult for voters to be registered. That being the case, does the Minister feel that it will be possible for all ethnic groups and women to participate properly in the elections and in the voter registration process? Will ethnic groups such as the southern Pushtuns be able to participate? The bottom line is, is the Minister confident that it will be possible for free elections to take place?
Next is the issue of funding. Many organisations that previously received aid are now having their funding channelled through the Afghan Government. I would be interested to know whether that process has been evaluated to see whether the distribution of aid by the Afghan Government is as effective as that of the NGOs.
I would particularly appreciate hearing the Minister's views on the time for which projects can be funded. As far as I am aware, the longest period for which funding can be granted is two years, and many projects receive funding for shorter periods. If so, from a development point of view, shorter funding periods would clearly make it difficult to ensure that longer term projects get off the ground and continuing running successfully.
The level of aid is also a concern. I understand that, at the Tokyo conference, £5.2 billion was pledged in aid to Afghanistan, but that by September last year only 40 per cent. of that aid had been delivered. Does the Minister have any more up-to-date information, and can he say whether any of those commitments have been converted from verbal pledges to something more concrete?
Mr. Thomas: I can clarify the situation. A total of £5.2 billion was pledged over a number of years, and the amounts transferred from those donors who had pledged money to the Afghan Government are proceeding as expected—£1.8 billion in the first year,
158WH
and almost £2 billion last year. As I said, a donor conference is scheduled shortly to discuss the next stages.
Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for that intervention. I take it that he is confident that the next tranche will be agreed at that conference and that the money will be made available. It is good news.
I turn now to education. The Prime Minister referred to liberating the potential of the Afghan people, which clearly involves education. The Government rightly focus on gender issues, and part of that is ensuring that girls receive education. The recent attacks on girls schools in Kandahar, Sar-e Pol, Zabol, Lowgar and Vardak provinces has not helped in that process. Notwithstanding the fact that the Government's main focus is on income generation, are they actively involved in trying to improve security at schools? That will obviously be wrapped up in the whole issue of security, but are the Government involved in any special initiatives?
Those are the key parts of the development challenges on which I wished to focus, but I have identified many more challenges than solutions. It is an extremely difficult environment in which to operate. The Minister will know that the Liberal Democrats supported military action in Afghanistan. The situation is not yet stable, and there is every risk that the country will revert to the warlordism of the past. It is possible that an unrepresentative Government may be elected in Kabul who represent the capital city and not the provinces.
The Minister said that the United Kingdom has to make a long-term commitment, and we would certainly support that. Resources have to be provided to work with the international community. I hope that the Minister will say whether he feels that between 5,000 and 10,000 more troops may be needed to stabilise the situation. If we do not stabilise it, Afghanistan could once again be the scene of a bloodbath, which has been all too common in its recent history.
3.35 pm
Mr. Kevan Jones: In the media age in which we live, it is strange to think that less than two years ago Afghanistan was in every national newspaper and on every news channel every night. I welcome the debate because it continues to highlight the problems that that country faces and reminds us that we have troops and personnel serving there. I also express my condolences to the families of those who were injured this week and of the individual who was killed.
In November last year, I had the privilege of going to Afghanistan, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby), to visit British troops in Kabul and in Mazar-e-Sharif in the north. I want to put it on the record what a privilege it was meet those individuals, not just military personnel, but people from DFID, the Foreign Office and our intelligence civil service who work out there and do not get credit for their work. They work very hard on our behalf and on trying to reconstruct a country that has gone through the tragedy described in the debate.
It has already been stated that Afghanistan has been torn apart in the past 25 years. It was on the front line of the cold war in the 1980s, and as the Berlin wall came

159WH
down it seemed to be ignored. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said that we should learn from that lesson; we should not ignore failed states. The international community took our eye off Afghanistan and allowed al-Qaeda to bankroll a terrible regime, the Taliban, which not only inflicted horrendous torture on the Afghan people, but planned the events that led to the tragic consequences of 11 September.
My speech has four main themes: the impressions that I gained on my visit and the issues of security, political stability and drugs. As I flew into Afghanistan from Pakistan, I was struck by the vastness of the country. A military person I met described it adeptly as a 12th-century country with cars. It is certainly mountainous and basic communications that we take for granted are not there. In many parts of the country, roads are either non-existent or dirt tracks. People have to recognise that when they talk about ensuring that authority reaches every part of the country.
It is also important to remember that parts of Afghanistan have never been governed by any form of government for many years. The country has gone through the trauma of the past 25 years of war. I was struck by the area in and around the Kings' palace in Kabul, which is reminiscent of Berlin in 1945 with street after street of burnt-out and bombed-out buildings. People sadly eke out an existence, living in those burnt-out buildings.
Another issue that has been raised, which we need to take into account when we consider trying to reconstruct Afghanistan, is the legacy of the conflict. There are 10 million munitions and mines that lie not only across the countryside, but in towns and villages. People are dying on a daily basis. It is estimated that 400,000 people have died since 1979, killed by either unexploded ordinance or mines. Unfortunately, many of them were women, and children playing in fields.
I also came away from Afghanistan with a sense of optimism. I was quite disappointed with the speech by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), because a lot of good work is going on there. The Afghan people I met were certainly a cause for optimism. I had the privilege, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, of going out on patrol with the Gurkhas in a suburb of Kabul. We went into individuals' houses and met ordinary Afghanis. What summed it up for me was the sense that these people are sick and tired of war; they want peace. It was summed up by a comment made when I visited the kings' tomb, from which there is a fantastic panoramic view of downtown Kabul. A 22-year-old medical student came up to me and said, in perfect English—better than I can manage sometimes—that he had throughout his life known only war and destruction, and the one thing he wanted for his family in the future was peace and security.
We make the mistake of thinking that because people speak a different language and look different they want different things from us. I do not think they do. Most people just want peace and security and a family life.
Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman has had the direct experience of a visit, which sadly I have not. I put it to him that there is nothing inconsistent between what he rightly says about the wishes of those extremely brave
160WH
people on the one hand and the fact that it takes only a small minority, through the use of terrorism, to continue to thwart those aspirations. That is why it is so important that the outside community continues to emphasise the military and security side for a long time.
Mr. Jones: I totally agree and will turn to security issues later. The hon. Gentleman is right: terrorism can wreck the fragile peace. I am not going to give the impression that everything in Afghanistan is wonderful—I do not think it is; the peace is, in parts, very fragile.
The other matter worth dwelling on is the damage the Taliban did to Afghanistan, in terms not just of physical destruction, but of psychological scars. I pay tribute to MOD and DFID staff and others who are working there on reconstruction projects. I went to a girls school just outside Kabul that had been reconstructed with the help of military personnel. It had 3,000 pupils who sat in two-hour shifts. The head teacher movingly said that she and the deputy head had been arrested during the Taliban years for the horrendous crime of teaching girls privately in their homes once the Taliban had closed all the girls schools. It is only when we face someone who has been through that—tortured and put in prison for doing something that we would take for granted—that we recognise the problems as well as the horrendous nature of the Taliban regime.
We also visited nursery school projects and a footbridge in downtown central Kabul that was being built by civil military reconstruction teams of the British Army. Those people are making a difference to the lives of ordinary Afghan citizens, for which they are being thanked and recognised. We need to place on the record the thanks to those individuals.
The hon. Member for Canterbury referred to the security situation. We are not deluding ourselves: unless we have security, not just in Kabul but also in the provinces, the transition towards democracy and the development of that country will not be achieved. However, if the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington just asks for more troops, he does not understand the process. The Afghan people must take responsibility for their own security. The key effort is the training of the Afghan national army, a difficult task because we are dealing with people who, as the hon. Member for Canterbury said, have a lifetime commitment to warlords and a way of life that does not necessarily fit clearly and easily with the military discipline of a modern army. The idea is to train that army and to get it out into the provinces to provide the security that people want. That will be better received in certain parts of the country if it is done by Afghanis rather than by foreign troops.
Tom Brake: How long does the hon. Gentleman think it will take to train the Afghan army and how long will it be before it can be deployed in the provinces, because there are security problems now?
Mr. Jones: I understand that the army is being deployed. There were elements of it in Mazar-e-Sharif when we were there. It is also moving down into Kandahar and other provinces, but that will take time. We must recognise that this will not be a quick solution

161WH
to rebuilding Afghanistan. There is a genuine multinational effort by the British, the French and others to train and equip the Afghan national army. It is important that the central authority of the Government in Kabul is spread out into the provinces.
The hon. Member for Canterbury mentioned terrorism. I agree that some al-Qaeda, Taliban and Hezb-e-Islami Gulbaddin—HIG—people are hell-bent on fracturing the delicate peace. Afghanistan has been used to the militaristic way of life, to which he referred, and there are large amounts of weaponry in the country.
There is increased activity and movement from Pakistan back into southern Afghanistan, which is causing a problem for the reconstruction efforts there. It is important to recognise that stopping that insurgence will mean more co-operation with Pakistan. Although the Pakistani Government are working closely with coalition forces to eradicate some elements and to deal with the people who are coming across from the tribal territories in the north of Pakistan, such activity is a source of money and individuals continue to attack coalition forces and Afghan projects in the south of Afghanistan. However, Task Force 180 and operations such as Operation Mountain Viper are having some success.
The Taliban are moving away from fighting in mass formations and turning towards suicide terrorist bomb attacks and small attacks, like the one that tragically occurred in Kabul this week. In addition, there is evidence that aid workers are being targeted in the south, which we were told about. One individual told us that as much as £45,000 was being offered as a bounty in parts of northern Pakistan for the death of aid workers in southern Afghanistan. That is for one simple reason: those people do not want peace or stability and they see that aid workers make a difference. Security must be a vital consideration. The situation in the south is slowly improving. It will be a long haul and we must be committed to the south militarily and in terms of aid.
On political structures, during our visit to Afghanistan we had the honour of meeting President Karzai—an impressive and brave individual—and it is important that his authority and the authority of the central Kabul Administration are extended to the provinces. There are bright hopes for the agreement on the constitution, especially with the Loya Jirga reaching that resolution.
I will think again about the constitution. We were told by President Karzai that there were about 100,000 contributions from different citizens before the constitution was agreed. That represents a new process in open democracy. I do not accept that the PRTs are window dressing. They are making a real difference in the country and need to be spread out.
I visited the PRT in Mazar-e-Sharif, in the north. It is a good model of co-operation, with the military providing security and the staff from DFID the Foreign Office working closely together. We must take credit for stabilising a tense situation in Mazar-e-Sharif, with a small group of 80 British personnel working between two heavily armed warlords. Credit is due to those individuals. A week before we arrived, they managed to separate those warlords and stop them
162WH
fighting. The Minister referred to the moves that have been made to disarm some of those groups. Those moves have yielded not only small arms, but the heavy weaponry that it is vital they give up if the central authority is to be maintained.
President Karzai has boldly taken a hard line, again with the help of the PRT in Mazar-e-Sharif, in removing police chiefs and provincial governors who were not doing their job. He could not have done that without outside intervention, but he should be given credit because he means business. There is also a general feeling that people are fed up not only with war, but with the warlords in different parts of the country. The eagerness of some of those warlords to join the central Administration shows that the way in which they used to operate is coming to an end. We must encourage them to become part of the mainstream political process in Afghanistan.
There are to be elections this year under the Bonn agreement. That has pressed the Afghan Administration into a tight time scale. I am not optimistic that it will be possible to hold both presidential and parliamentary elections by June this year because of the security situation and the huge task of voter registration. However, I hope that at least one of those elections takes place early, preferably the presidential election, because President Karzai needs something bolster his authority if he is to press on with the difficult task before him.
The drugs issue has been mentioned and it is not a positive or happy tale. Some 90 to 95 per cent. of the heroin that reaches the streets of Britain comes from Afghanistan. That is quite a remarkable feat because 15 years ago, before the Taliban, the country produced no opium. When the poppy fields in Pakistan were eradicated, production moved from that country into the lawlessness of Afghanistan. Production is increasing not only because of the vastness of the country, which makes locating it difficult, but because basic agricultural income in many rural areas is non-existent. Prior to most of the conflict in Afghanistan, the country's main product was, I understand, dried fruit. Unfortunately, over the years, as the irrigation systems were destroyed and the orchards burnt and cut down, that trade ceased. People in rural Afghanistan have a problem finding a source of income. There are two ways to deal with the problem: eradication of opium fields and the provision of employment and alternatives to those rural populations, although I gather that work is being done on that.
Drugs production is also creating an internal problem of addicts, mainly involving people returning from Pakistan and other places with a drugs habit. Drugs are also creating a huge problem for some of Afghanistan's neighbours. For example, it is estimated that there are 2 million heroin addicts in Iran. It is to the credit of the Foreign Office that its policy of co-operation with Iran is paying off in that customs officers are now liaising on drugs coming through Iran from Afghanistan. The other major route is up through the former Soviet republics. The problem has to be tackled on two fronts: eradication and the provision of alternatives.
The other aspect, which needs to be dealt with at a political level, is that some warlords are, if not directly involved in the trade, certainly taking a cut for allowing heroin to pass through their areas of control. That can be done once only the authority of President Karzai and

163WH
the central Administration have been strengthened. In the next few years, there will probably be an increase in poppy production, but we should not give up hope. As the security situation improves, certainly in the south, we can get to work not only on eradication but on the provision of alternatives for the rural communities.
In closing, I want to sound a note of optimism and give a warning. The situation in Afghanistan was allowed to happen by the international community. We cannot afford to allow Afghanistan to go back to where it was; that would be a tragedy. No matter how difficult it gets in the coming years, I hope that the British Government and others remain committed to ensuring that the people of that beautiful country who, like the rest of us, just want to get on with their lives, can do so in peace.
3.57 pm
Joan Ruddock: I join others in paying tribute and expressing condolences to the British soldier and his relatives. We also remember other soldiers, such as the Canadian who recently lost his life, the many aid workers who have given their lives in the service of Afghanistan, and the country's civilians. There were some tragic incidents early in January in which 15 civilians, most of them children, were killed near an army base. There has been great sacrifice. In post-war Afghanistan there is still hardship and loss of life.
I was delighted that the spokesman for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), referred to Afghanaid, an organisation that I support. It has been notable in staying with Afghanistan for such a long time and doing such valuable work. There are many aid agencies but, like the hon. Gentleman, I would single out Afghanaid.
I shall speak about women and girls in Afghanistan, and the gender aspects of reconstruction and the assistance being given by the international community. Without the participation of women in the reconstruction, there is no hope of real democracy and little hope of sustainable peace. The women have not waged the wars, nor have the girl children been active in them over many decades, but they hold the possibility of peaceful reconstruction because of their influence within the family and because large numbers of households are now entirely dependent on women, the men having been killed. Women are the majority of the population in Afghanistan, and whenever the international community moves to support the country, we should look critically at where and how support is being given to them, if at all.
I shall refer a great deal to the UN Secretary-General's most recent report on the issue, which is called "The situation of women and girls in Afghanistan". It refers to several very positive developments, and I want to mention some of the main ones. Of course, I shall also refer to the challenges and difficulties, which are particularly pronounced in terms of the position of women.
As the Minister said, the participation of girls in particular in education has greatly increased, which is enormously welcome. When I first asked about the position of women in Afghanistan, however, the answers that I got from Ministers suggested that we could solve
164WH
the problem of women's oppression simply by getting girls into school. I said then, and I say now, that we do not have 10 or 20 years in which to tackle the oppression of women in Afghanistan. Women of all ages have had their lives blighted, and they need the international community's assistance now. They may prioritise their daughters' needs, but they, too, require our help and support. Many of them must work; if they do not, the whole family will remain dependent on food aid. If we are to be able to discontinue food aid, as we should, so that Afghans can grow and import their own food, we must enable women, where they are the sole head of household, to be productive. If such women do not have cash to buy food, there will be no sustainable economy.
There was a 37 per cent. increase in the enrolment of girls in school in 2002—03. The "back to school" campaign has been enormously successful, and everyone involved should take great credit for that. DFID has been very supportive of the campaign. When I was in Afghanistan about 15 months ago, there had been little progress on the ground, but, as the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who have both recently visited the country, said, there have been enormous improvements, which are borne out by the statistics.
We also need to focus on adolescent girls, who did not have an opportunity to receive an education during the Taliban years and who will obviously not go and sit in a primary school class. They, too, will have a major influence on the growth of the family structure in Afghanistan and on future relationships with their menfolk and children.
Mr. Kevan Jones: It is important to note that many women in their early 20s missed out on their education under the Taliban. There were 23-year-olds sitting in the classrooms of the school that my hon. Friends and I visited. That is not ideal, but it shows the thirst for knowledge among young women.
Joan Ruddock: I accept my hon. Friend's point entirely, and I have also seen evidence of that. As he says, the situation is not ideal. We must give young women a basic education, but we probably also need to consider how to develop work opportunities for them. A lot of work has been done in a short time, but we must be cognisant of the fact that only about 21 per cent. of women in Afghanistan are literate, compared with 51 per cent. of men. That gap must be closed, and the problem needs emphasising as we provide for the education of women of all ages.
As we know, many women have returned to the work force. The hon. Member for Canterbury suggested that there had been no real stability at any time in the past. However, there was a time when women were educated and when universities and secondary schools were open. In Kabul—
Mr. Brazier: The hon. Lady anticipates what I was about to say. I said earlier that there were few enduring structures, but Kabul, which houses a relatively small proportion of the population, was the one exception. Indeed, it almost verged on the cosmopolitan for a few short years before the communist era.
Joan Ruddock: Indeed; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. However, we should remember that at

165WH
the time—this went on for quite a few years—women held half the local government jobs and formed half the civil service, took about 60 per cent. of teaching posts and were about 40 per cent. of the total number of doctors. Those women and their daughters provided the backbone of the secret teaching and health assistance given to women and girls during the Taliban period, when women dared not work and were prohibited from working, and even at times from going on to the streets.
A group of women is still active and articulating the rights of women. When I started asking questions in the House, people said to me, "Who are you to try to impose western values on Afghan women?" I said, "I do not seek to do that in any way. I seek only to echo what Afghan women are telling me." Those women continue to tell that story. Human rights are universal, and human rights are women's rights. Those women want their women's rights. It is a matter of choice for the individual woman whether she exercises those rights, but they must be enshrined in the legal process.
Women are being employed as teachers and health workers, and international agencies are beginning to employ women in other areas such as immunisation campaigns, the joint electoral management board and the UN mine assistance service. That is important—Afghan women who wish to work in less conventional fields must be enabled to do so; they will then be seen as role models. There used to be many women engineers in Afghanistan, or rather, there were not many engineers, but a significant number of them were women. It is important that the international community works hard to ensure that those women who are available are employed. If the Minister has the figures, I would be interested to know how many Afghan women are being employed in Afghanistan by the various guises of the British Government.
The Minister raised as a positive issue the recent progress in maternity services. He referred to the huge successes at the Malalai hospital. That is a success, but the figures that we have for the whole country—it is difficult to collect statistics, so they may be flawed—show that Afghanistan still has the second highest maternal mortality rates in the world. It is a shocking figure: there are 1,600 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Currently, about 15 per cent. of deliveries are attended by trained health personnel. That must be a priority, as the loss of women in childbirth is a preventable tragedy. The international community must try to ensure that support is given.
I turn to the consultations on the constitution, to which other hon. Members have referred, and the Loya Jirga, and to the participation of women in that process. It was suggested at the time of the Bonn agreement that women were unlikely to participate in the various stages of the process, but women came to that first Bonn conference and demanded their right to participate. We had it written into the Bonn agreement that the first stage of government should be set up in a gender-sensitive way. That was not much, but it was extremely important.
I pay tribute to the many women in the international community and in women's NGOs, which are particularly strong in the United States of America. Women in networks all over the world came together to
166WH
support the women who went to the Bonn conference. I was present at a parallel meeting that we held for Afghan women from Afghanistan and the diaspora to hear, alongside western women, how we could continue to support them in their new situation during the two-year transition to a democratic state.
Despite all those efforts, not enough was done to support women in the run-up to the Loya Jirga, and not enough was done to provide security. There were many reports of huge intimidation in villages where women wanted to participate but were not allowed to do so. Many women were told by their husbands and fathers that they would not be permitted to travel, because it was considered un-Islamic for women to travel alone or in groups without male protection. There was much that we could have done. However, although I believe that not enough was done, these heroic women went to the constitutional Loya Jirga and the consultation processes and said their piece. They were often ridiculed and found themselves in situations that I, as a woman of my age in this country, can remember being in when speaking in some very male forums in the past—occasionally, in the House of Commons.
As several hon. Gentlemen said, those women have been tortured and imprisoned, and they risked rape constantly as they moved around the country without male—and possibly armed—protection. They have achieved so much for themselves. I pay tribute to their enormous courage in attending the Loya Jirga, participating in it and saying what they had to say. There were more than 100 women there—they were around 20 per cent. of the delegates—and one of the vice-chairs who was elected was a woman, which was an enormous achievement. It was even more significant that the draft constitution did not contain equality of rights for women and men, despite the fact that the new state ratified CEDAW—the universal convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women—earlier this year. It was only through the women themselves participating in the Loya Jirga, and supported by pressure from the international community of women, that they managed to secure a final version of the constitution in which equal rights for women and men are enshrined. Again, that is an enormous achievement.
I pay tribute to our Government, who have been supportive of activities in support of women, albeit that much of that support is delivered as aid and assistance, and have begun to provide the help that makes it possible for women to become political candidates and participate in the political process, and enables them to have the courage to come forward and participate in a way that is, I have to say, alien in their culture. That is important.
The appointment of a woman ambassador to Kabul is inspired. I have met Dr. Rosalind Marsden. She will be able to take things forward in a way that the excellent Ronald Nash, our previous ambassador, was not always able to. It can be difficult for male representatives in an Islamic society to have that link with women; it is undoubtedly easier for a woman ambassador. I am particularly delighted by that appointment.

167WH
As the Minister said, 25 per cent. of places in the lower House are now reserved for women. President Karzai played a positive role in that change. He recognised the importance of women and their place in the future democracy of the country.
This week, I participated in the first of what will be three video conferences between women and men from London, together with Americans and a group of women in Kabul. We used the facilities of the World Bank and discussed leadership and methods of enhancing the roles of, and opportunities for, women. It was a most remarkable occasion. I thank the Government for the support that they gave to that particular programme.
As I said, CEDAW was ratified by Afghanistan earlier this year, and it would be important if the optional protocol had been signed by Afghanistan. It is to our shame that the United Kingdom has not signed it. I know that a review is under way, but I urge the Government to sign the optional protocol, not because I believe that there are likely to be many women in the UK who will have a case of inequality under the convention for which they would seek redress at the United Nations, but because it would set an important example that could be critical to an emerging state such as Afghanistan.
I wish to put on the record some other worthy positive points. I refer to the work of the Ministry of Women's Affairs in Afghanistan, which is led by Habiba Sorabi. I met her when I was in Afghanistan, and I also met Dr. Sima Samar, who was the first Minister for Women and now heads the Human Rights Commission. They are both extraordinary women and run organisations made up of many other extraordinary women. Out of the 32 Afghan provinces, 29 now have regional Ministry of Women's Affairs offices. They are desperate for more support and for training in leadership and management. They will need huge support if they are to enhance services in the provinces—that is critical. They also need to be able to widen and deepen the networks of women from which can come candidates for elections and which make possible the greater participation of women in the political process.
We have heard today that 500,000 Afghans have been registered for the elections that are due to take place in June. Sadly, only 19 per cent. of those 500,000 Afghans are women, which cannot be acceptable. The process began badly for women registrants. Those who registered were required to have their photographs and a thumb print taken. There has long been in Afghanistan a taboo on photography, which developed particularly under the Taliban regime, but it is a sensitive issue in respect of women. Initially, when women themselves and the male members of the families found that the women's photographs were required, women were prohibited from going to the registration office. That rule was then dropped, which was a sensitive response, but women still face real problems in becoming registered. I ask the Minister to consider all the ways in which UK personnel in Afghanistan, and the programmes that we support in the wider international community in support of the UN registration process, can improve the proportion of women who are registered for the election.
168WH
I hope that much of what I have said is positive. I usually try to be brief in debates. I assure you, Sir Nicholas, that 10 minutes is usually my limit. I am aware that we have a little more time today, so I crave your indulgence now by talking about the challenges in Afghanistan.
As I said, there is a need for equal rights to be written into the new constitution and to be ensured under it. We should also ensure that CEDAW has been accepted. However, the constitution contains a phrase that, translated, says that no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam. As we all know, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of interpretations of the law of Islam. There is a spectrum of interpretation throughout Islamic states. Sharia law does not have to be oppressive to women in any sense. None the less, certain interpretations of sharia law are extremely oppressive to women. I will give an example that may seem trivial, but which indicates the difficulties faced by women in respect of the constitution and Islamic law.
Early this month, a woman singer appeared on Afghan television for the first time in decades. Women singers had been banned and had not returned, even post-Taliban. The singer was completely covered, and she was also wearing a head cover. The Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction over what is or is not contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam, immediately ruled that a woman Afghan singer on television was un-Islamic, and she was taken off.
I have not yet been told or been given any evidence that Afghan women singers have reappeared, but I am delighted to report that I have been told that the television bosses have decided to put Afghan women singers back on the television. That may seem trivial in the scheme of things, but it is very important. Women's singing, and traditional Afghan singing, is very important to Afghan people and their culture, and it is heard everywhere now that tape recorders are no longer banned. So singing is important, but it is important also that we understand that that aspect of the Supreme Court's potential for rule over the constitution could disadvantage women. The international community must take every step that it can to try to influence the transitional authority, which has many progressive people in it, to support equal rights for women in the constitution. I believe, as do many Muslim scholars, that equal rights for women are in no way contrary to Islam.
Mr. Thomas: I understand my hon. Friend's point in the context of her overall argument about the need to continue to challenge the oppression of women in Afghan society. Does she agree that not only is it extremely positive that the original ban on Afghan women singers has been overturned, but the lead taken by President Karzai and other Ministers in his Government in getting that ban overturned is extremely encouraging?
Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend is correct: President Karzai was extremely important in that decision, as were the other Ministers, whose names I have momentarily forgotten, who are recorded as having supported him. One role of the international community

169WH
is to support not those who lean towards us, but those who lean towards establishing the right of law and equality within their nation state.
I spoke about the small proportion of women who are registered for the forthcoming elections. That will be one of the biggest challenges facing Afghanistan and the international community. As we are supplying so much finance and security, we have a duty to ensure that women can participate in the elections, but that will be enormously difficult. I make a plea, as I have so often done in the House, that we address the issue of security; it is not just about dealing with armed factions and warlords fighting each other, although it is important to broker peace deals where we can—that was very important in Mazar. It is also about dealing with things on a lower level. Bandits on the roads often make it impossible for aid workers and women to move about, which must be addressed. It must be made possible for women to go to polling booths, however they may be established. One can imagine that the system will be far from perfect because of the huge difficulties, but we must ensure that it is secure.
Although I am aware of the very good work being done by the British in Mazar, I rather side with the British Agencies Afghan Group, which repeatedly questions whether the provisional teams are the best security model. We must keep looking at that issue and asking, "How can we achieve the objective so critical in a democratic election of making it possible for people to vote?" We must find ways of extending the NATO security mandate so as to achieve our specific objectives for the next, most critical, stage of the Bonn process.
I now move on to the subject of Afghans developing the security sector. We have repeatedly been told that the establishment of an Afghan national army could solve security problems in the long term. I do not think that any of us would disagree with that. However, I am told, and the Minister may be able to confirm it, that 3,000 men have already deserted the new army. That is a tragedy, and we need to understand why it has happened. When I was there, soldiers were being paid nothing. I asked the Americans who were providing the support how they could recruit for the army if there were no wages. They said, "Yes, but they get their accommodation, they get their food, they get their training." I replied, "These are men who have a wife and maybe eight children. They have to have support for the families." I believe that some payments are now being made.
What intelligence does the Minister have on the reasons for those men deserting? We cannot have an international programme, costing a huge amount of money, that trains people who then go back and serve the warlords, with better training and, perhaps, weapons. That is a critical issue, and I would like to hear more from the Minister on what is happening there.
Mr. Jones: Without having the audacity to take the Minister's role, I can tell my hon. Friend that she is correct about the problem of people deserting. I have visited the Afghan national army college in Kabul, and I understand that that desertion occurred mainly in the
170WH
early days of the army's formation, when the warlords were asked to deliver up quotas of individuals. There is a question mark over how willing some volunteers were.
Joan Ruddock: I agree with my hon. Friend—that was an additional reason given to me. It is important to understand the dynamics of that, and how we can correct it.
Mr. Brazier: The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. The armed forces should give a higher priority to deciding how to divide a finite pot of resources. There is an unhappy parallel with a number of other places. I remember discovering, on a Defence Committee visit to Kosovo, that the police, who were critical to restoring some law and order there, were being paid one fifth of the salary that local translators working for the UN forces were getting.
Joan Ruddock: Indeed. That problem exists everywhere in post-conflict situations in which the international community is involved. We have to live with some of that; I am not sure that all that can be changed. The hon. Gentleman certainly raises another important point.
I turn to the development of the security apparatus in Afghanistan. I have spoken about the army, but there are also important police training issues to address. When I was there, I went to the women's prison, in which all the prisoners had committed what were termed "sex crimes"—a sex crime was a woman running away from the husband who beat her. One woman had been divorced by her husband, and had lived with her parents for four years. Her uncle then told her that she had to marry, so she married a second time. Her first husband then came back and had her and her husband arrested for adultery, and she was imprisoned. In her case and that of other women, there was no option but to take the children into prison as well.
The international community is making real efforts to support the development of the judicial process, and it is trying to ensure that women are not imprisoned for their own security, as the police chief described it at the time. Having committed sex crimes, those women were at risk of being murdered by their own families. That is a very delicate and difficult situation.
Many women also told me that when crimes were committed against them, they could not go to the police because they were unsympathetic and completely unwilling to address the needs of women, especially those who had been beaten by male family members. Amnesty International recently produced a report outlining the horrific experiences still being suffered by so many Afghan women. Many are still subject to forced marriages. We all accept arranged marriages; different cultures have different means of organising marriage. An arranged marriage is the norm; forced marriage is quite different. Under sharia law, the settling of village disputes through the gift of a girl from one family to another, supposedly offended family is not uncommon. The women whom I know in Afghanistan want that issue to be addressed.
We need to do what we can to ensure that a gender-sensitive judicial process is developed and that the police have specific gender training. Of course, women should

171WH
be recruited to the police service and to the army. The Minister is familiar with UN resolution 1325, in which we pledge to involve women in post-conflict situations and in reconstruction. I have already asked about the staffing; I hope that there will be women in the provincial reconstruction teams. If we are trying to influence security and the operation of justice, we need women in those teams who can talk specifically to women.
One important feature of the development of, and support for, rights for women in Afghanistan has been the involvement of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, UNAMA. It has done superb work. When I was there, the gender adviser to Mr. Brahimi was the key to bringing together women's organisations in Kabul and further afield. That was developing swiftly. Unfortunately, the woman who held that post subsequently left and it remains vacant. In this critical period of the progress towards elections, the post of gender adviser to UNAMA must be filled. I hope that the Minister will make inquiries about why that key post has been left vacant for so long.
Like many people who are concerned about Afghanistan, I believe that the most serious challenges are to do with security, the rights of women and, in particular, the capacity building that is taking place but which needs to be increased. The British Council is now playing a significant role in support of that. Womankind, a British non-governmental organisation, is also supporting it. However, much more needs to be done, and I urge the Minister to examine seriously every aspect of our support for reconstruction and democracy in Afghanistan so that we can see precisely how we are delivering for women on the agenda that they have set. Only a week ago, 500 women marched through Mazare-Sharif to highlight the right of women to vote. I hope that the PRT noticed that. Afghan women are visible and active, and we must respond.
Do the Government agree with the UN Secretary-General that there should be a new Bonn conference so that the international community can try to move forward on many of the issues that I have mentioned and to which the Secretary-General is particularly committed—the progress towards democracy and the enhancement of security? I would be interested to know what is the Government's view on that. I do not have a view, but that has been proposed and it could be important. I believe that I am correct in thinking that the moneys pledged by the international community to the reconstruction of Afghanistan amount to less than what our country alone has spent on the war in Iraq. As donor conferences keep recurring, it may be necessary to take the process forward through something as significant as a second Bonn conference.
4.38 pm
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I say again that I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing this debate to take place. The quality of the debate has been excellent, even though we have been few in number. There is broad agreement among all hon. Members who have spoken about the scale of the challenge that remains in Afghanistan. I am an optimist about its future.
Mr. Brazier: The Minister is right to say that there is consensus about that. However, I want to add my
172WH
support to the request of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake): the next time we have an important debate of this sort, the Government should take the trouble to send notification to the various interested parties so that they would have more opportunity with regard to briefing.
Mr. Thomas: I shall reflect on that. When debates are advertised in the usual way in the House, they often attract considerable publicity. I can only think that, sadly, other events this week have detracted from this debate. However, I will reflect on the comments of the hon. Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Carshanlton and Wallington.
We should celebrate the progress that has been made in the two years since the end of the Taliban regime. Of course I recognise that that progress has been from an extremely low base. We will have to continue to support Afghanistan over the long term if the challenges that we have discussed are to be properly addressed, and I am completely convinced that the Government will want to do so.
Many hon. Members took the opportunity in the debate to praise the leadership that President Karzai showed to the Afghan people. I join them in echoing that sentiment, and also in praising the contributions of a number of other Ministers in the Afghan Government who have shown real and remarkable leadership. I am thinking in particular of the Finance and Interior Ministers, who are doing a superb job. The one sour note, which shall touch on briefly, was the hon. Member for Canterbury's suggestion that co-operation across Whitehall had been poor in terms of preparation and for post-conflict Afghanistan. I completely reject that suggestion; the provincial reconstruction teams are a classic example of effective, joined-up government working.
Mr. Brazier: With respect, that is not quite what I said. I said that forward planning by DFID had been poor, compared to earlier operations such as that in Kosovo. Once the combat phase was over, co-operation was very good.
Mr. Thomas: Also with the greatest respect, post-conflict preparation was not poor. The fact that so much progress has been made in such a short time is a tribute to the work of the staff in my and other Departments across Whitehall, and the way we have worked effectively with other international agencies and donor countries.
Clearly the security issue is the major challenge, and hon. Members are absolutely right to flag up just how serious that situation is in the south and the east of the country. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked me specifically about the number of troops, and whether extra troops are needed. I entirely accept that extra troops would be extremely useful, but we also need to ask whether there is more we can do with existing troops. NATO, which is taking the lead on this issue, is looking to raise additional resources such as soldiers and an expansion of the support infrastructure for those soldiers. The decision of the Germans to

173WH
establish another provincial reconstruction team in Konduz is one example of the success of NATO's work; over 300 new troops will be coming online.
Tom Brake: If NATO does make a specific request for additional troops, will the UK Government be minded to provide the same?
Mr. Thomas: We continue to hold discussions with our colleagues in NATO and elsewhere, and to monitor the situation. As I say, we have troops stationed in PRTs providing security in Kabul, and we have looked at how those troops are tasked. We will continue to discuss with the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and other partners within ISAF what else we can usefully do regarding security.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington also took issue with the effectiveness of the PRTs. I join my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) in expressing surprise that he should want to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) mentioned the success of the British PRT in securing a ceasefire between the militias of General Dostum and General Atta, but the British PRT has had more successes; for example, its presence has enabled the Afghan police to deploy from Kabul into the area around Mazar, helping to establish a sense of security on the streets and in the rural areas. That, in turn, is enabling other reconstruction work to take place.
Tom Brake: I simply want to clarify the fact that I was quoting information I had received from an organisation that was active on the ground in Afghanistan. If the Minister is confident that the PRTs are delivering the goods, presumably he can demonstrate that by comparing the effectiveness of the work that the NGOs used to do with that of the PRTs.
Mr. Thomas: I am grateful for the clarification. It is not a question of either the PRTs or the NGOs operating in Mazar. To take our PRT as an example, the adviser who is seconded to it is tasked with providing a measure of communication in the Mazar area between those seeking to provide security and those engaged in reconstruction. I am confident about the success and effectiveness of our PRT because of the strength of the communication—facilitated by our adviser—between it and the NGOs. The fact that more than 50 NGOs are operating in the area is testimony to the security that our troops and our PRT have helped to deliver.
Some of my officials who work in Afghanistan are being deployed to other PRTs, to help to spread the lessons that we have learned from the success of the British PRT in Mazar. That is further confirmation of its value.
Joan Ruddock: One of the concerns that I have heard from NGOs is different from that of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. The worry that has been expressed to me is that, where there is a combination of military people enforcing security and delivering assistance, all of them may form a target for those who wish to engage in warfare. Thus, aid workers from
174WH
NGOs become targets because of the confusion that arises as to a possible dual mandate. Can the Minister tell us that that has had no effect? It would be helpful if he could.
Mr. Thomas: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The communication that our development adviser attached to the British PRT has been able to generate between those who provide the security and those who seek to do the reconstruction is having a positive effect. Sadly, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said, it is clear that, apart from any confusion that may exist with the military, aid workers are being deliberately targeted by Taliban and al-Qaeda people. They are seen as a soft target. That is the real issue for NGOs—and for those who support them, including ourselves—rather than any question of confusion with the PRT.
My final point in terms of security is that, on top of the work of PRTs, the Afghan Government are seeking to establish a programme of works to stabilise districts throughout the country, including in the south and east, and to ensure that the courthouses and police stations—out of which the Afghan police and judiciary can operate—are in place. We are working with the Afghan Government to consider the support that we can give, in terms of design and financial support, to complement such a programme. That is a further step towards providing the better security that nobody would deny is necessary.
Every hon. Member touched on the issue of drugs. The picture seems bleak when one considers the statistics, but one note of optimism is the fact that poppy growth and production have declined in areas where security has become more effective. That reinforces not only the importance of security for Afghanistan's general development, but the basic need to ensure security before we continue to tackle the illicit drugs trade. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked whether the target of complete elimination in 10 years is realistic. It is right to have that target, because it imposes pressures and challenges on all Departments, which in turn enable us to focus our work with the Afghan Government and other donors. We know that the target is challenging from our experience with Pakistan and Thailand, where it took a long time to eliminate the drugs trade, but we can learn lessons from those experiences. If we continue to increase the sense of security around Afghanistan and to develop the alternative livelihoods to which hon. Members, including me, referred, we can be confident that the 10-year target will be achievable.
A number of hon. Members mentioned voter registration and whether elections will take place. We continue to be optimistic that elections can take place on time this year, particularly the presidential elections. Electoral registration began in eight regional centres in December and is due to move to rural areas in some months. So far just over half a million Afghans have enrolled to vote, with women comprising 100,00 of that number, which is some 22 per cent. That indicates the challenge that registering women poses, because of voter intimidation, which prevents women from registering, especially in rural areas, and some cultural issues. The United Nations remains confident that it can meet its goal of registering 10 million Afghan voters, but I

175WH
acknowledge the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford made. We need to continue to focus on ensuring that woman are registered to vote and can play their full part in the democratic process.
Tom Brake: On voter registration, are the Government, if they take any view at all, seeking for 10 million Afghans to be registered as a target for the elections to be considered legitimate?
Mr. Thomas: We have not set a target. We are seeking to support the UN and the Afghans to get as many people registered as can be. I hope that we can go beyond 10 million. As I said earlier, we have already provided £3 million to help fund the voter registration drive. Were the UN to tell us that a lack of resources meant that voter registration would not be as complete as we would have liked, we would consider providing further financial support to make things happen. That is how seriously we take the issue.
Financial flows were a concern of the hon. Member for Canterbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford. Over five years, we have committed £320 million, half of which has already been spent. We are considering what other financial support we can provide in this financial year and in the longer term.
I met Finance Minister Ghani almost two weeks ago to discuss Afghanistan's financial needs for the coming financial year. We also looked ahead to the conference in March, when the international community will focus on those needs and on the issues that my hon. Friend mentioned in respect of the country's general political development. I am sure that the rights of women will also feature strongly in the discussions.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington made some specific points about money being given to NGOs as opposed to the Afghan Government. The vast majority of aid continues to go directly to implementing agencies, be they UN bodies or NGOs, and not to the Afghan Government. Indeed, only 20 per cent. of aid goes through the Government. Clearly, it will make sense gradually to scale up that amount as they develop the capacity to spend the money effectively on police salaries, health, education or whatever. The crucial point is that they should spend it on their priorities. Although I acknowledge the work of NGOs, they inevitably have an impact only in the areas where they work. They can demonstrate good practice, but we want the Afghan Government to have the capacity to decide their priorities for themselves. We want their reach to extend to all areas so that they can provide services that they want to provide.
The hon. Gentleman asked about HIV/AIDS. The initial estimate by the Ministry of Health in Afghanistan is that there are 300 cases, of which 22 have been confirmed. The World Health Organisation is conducting its own assessment, but it is not yet complete. We have committed £2 million to the WHO, which will, in part, support that assessment. A national AIDS control programme for Afghanistan was launched in June last year, and several donors are coming together to determine what else needs to be done in the fight against AIDS and perhaps to ensure that some problems that exist in other parts of Asia do not develop in Afghanistan.
176WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford spoke about the position of women, and I completely endorse her opening point. There are clearly some remarkable women in Afghanistan, who were able to defy the Taliban and who continue to campaign, in the teeth of intimidation, for women's rights. Although the lack of security and of the rule of law affects everyone in Afghanistan, it inevitably has a particular impact on women.
The social and cultural barriers to which my hon. Friend alluded, and on which the Taliban based their discrimination against women, continue to exist in many scenarios and in many communities. The international community must continue to support women's organisations that are campaigning hard against such barriers. On occasions, we must be able to raise our concerns over how things are going.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the figures for maternal mortality. We are funding several international organisations, which are taking the lead on health issues, and we will continue to consider what else we can do on the issue.
I agree with my hon. Friend that good progress has been made but that there is a massive unmet need in terms of women's education. It is encouraging that the primary schools that are opening are allowing older children and, in some cases, women to enrol. That is good news, but the fact that so many women are still illiterate is a source of concern and a challenge to the international community. Another point of optimism is that universities have started to reopen and are clearly admitting young women too.
My Department has given some £700,000 to UNIFEM, the United Nations Development Fund for Women, which is focusing on the development of women's leadership in Afghanistan, providing support to the Ministry of Women's Affairs. The Ministry is looking at the issues of livelihoods for women, increasing the involvement of women in local development councils and increasing income generation opportunities for women in all sorts of ways.
My hon. Friend also asked me about the optional protocol, which we have not yet signed. Although my Department does not have the lead on that area, I will bring her concerns to the attention of my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, who do. She also asked whether my Department employs Afghan women. We have seven staff in our Afghan office, three of whom are women. Not only is our ambassador in Afghanistan a woman, but so is the Foreign Office lead in our PRT in Mazar-e-Sharif. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
When it comes to the desertion of troops from the Afghan national army, my hon. Friend's concerns are broadly right. I cannot comment on the exact number of deserters. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham acknowledged in his audacious last intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford, we believe that that is about not finance, but the quality of those encouraged by militia leaders to join the Afghan national army in the first place. We do not believe that it will be a problem in the future.
The issue of getting salaries to those in key positions in the army and the police is clearly a major concern. One of the issues that we have grappled with is providing

177WH
support to the Ministry of Finance to ensure that it can get the salaries of policemen and the army to those stationed a long distance from Kabul. We have had some success, but I acknowledge that there is further work to do.
Tom Brake: I would like to make a final point on the issue of girls schools. I referred to a number of attacks in various provinces, and asked the Minister whether the UK or Afghan Governments were involved in any specific initiatives to improve security at girls schools so that girls are not deterred by violence from attending school.
Mr. Thomas: I re-emphasise that we do not need to see security in specific places to deal with specific situations; we need an improvement in security per se. That is why we are seeking to extend the PRTs and are considering
178WH
the district stabilisation programme that the Afghan Government want to bring forward. That is why we are training an Afghan army and an Afghan police force. We are working with our international partners to achieve that, so that not only girls who are educated in girls schools but others who want to get on with their lives, who my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham referred to, can do so safe in the knowledge that there is a secure environment in which they can live. We are not there yet; the situation is massively better than it was in November 2001, but there is an awful lot more to do, as all the speeches this afternoon have acknowledged. My Department and the Government remain committed to doing what we can alongside our international partners to achieve the progress that we know is necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Five o 'clock.

TREASURY

  Immigration
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the contribution of immigration to economic growth. [151562]

  Ruth Kelly
  The economic analysis and projections set out in the Treasury paper on Trend Growth, published alongside the Budget in April 2002, imply a contribution from net migration of about 0.4 percentage points towards the 2¾ per cent. annual trend rate of output growth. Subsequent updates have not changed this.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans his Department has to use the tax system to encourage energy efficiency in housing. [151563]

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to report on his Department's public consultation on fiscal measures to support energy efficiency. [151565]

  John Healey
  The Government are already making extensive use of the tax system to encourage energy-efficient housing. We have introduced a reduced rate of 5 per cent. VAT for certain contractor-installed energy-saving materials, and grant-funded installation of central heating systems, heating appliances, factory-insulated hot water tanks, micro-CHP and renewable energy heating systems. The HM Treasury/DEFRA consultation on the use of economic instruments to promote household energy efficiency closed on 24 October 2003. The Government received 126 responses, and published a summary of responses on the Treasury web site on 11 December. Responses are being carefully considered as part of the Government's development of policy in this area. In the pre-Budget Report (Cm 6042), the Government announced that we believe that there is a case for further use of economic instruments as part of a package of measures to promote energy efficiency.

  As a part of this work, the Government are continuing to examine the case for a domestic business tax allowance, and to explore the potential for capital allowances and VAT measures to help deliver this.

  Trade Deficits
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the long term effect on the UK economy of continuing trade deficits. [151564]
  448W
  Ruth Kelly
  The current scale of the UK trade deficit needs to be viewed in perspective. In recent years, the UK economy has been growing faster than many of our key trade partners, particularly those in the Euro area, so boosting our trade deficit. Nevertheless, the UK's trade and current account deficits have remained well below previous peaks.

  Financial Services Authority
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the supervision of banks by the Financial Services Authority. [151566]

  Ruth Kelly
  As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, responsibility for the supervision of banks moved from the Bank of England to the Financial Services Authority on 1 June 1998. The legislative framework for the regulation of banks was subsequently reformed under the Financial Services and Markets Act, which came into effect on 1 December 2001. The regime for prudential supervision of banks is kept under constant review, both at home and internationally, in forums such as the European Union and the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision.

  Central Government Spending
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of gross administrative expenditure in central government as a proportion of total managed expenditure was for(a) 1996–97 and (b)2003–04. [R] [145608]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The most appropriate measure of comparison between this year and 1996–97 is for planned expenditure on central administration as a percentage of total government spending, using the measures available at the time. This yields a figure which is 4.4 per cent. for 2003–4 and falling in future years, against a planned 4.9 per cent. in 1996–97. We cannot yet compare final out-turns because figures are not yet available for this year but, based on previous years' experience, we would expect this year's out-turn to be lower than the 4.6 per cent. of total government spending out-turn figure for 1996–97.

  Economic Indices (Wales)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) RPI, (b) RPI-X and (c) CPI was for Wales in each year since 1997. [151761]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Bill Wiggin, dated 29 January 2004

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what the (a) RPI, (b) RPI-X and(c) CPI was for Wales in each year since 1997. I am replying in his absence. (151761)

  The RPI. RPIX and CPI are calculated and published for the United Kingdom only. Comparable indices for Wales, or any of the regions or countries of the UK, are not produced because the data required to make such calculations to an appropriate degree of accuracy are not available.
  449W
  However, ONS published updated regional price levels in November 2003, in an article entitled Relative Regional Consumer Price Levels in 2003, available from the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/article.asp?ID = 612

  The data represent part of a longer-term project to develop regional price data, and reflect the need for this information expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his 2003 Budget Statement.

  Endowment Mis-selling
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the mis-selling of endowment policies. [151571]

  Ruth Kelly
  We receive occasional representations about the mis-selling of endowment policies. However, the Financial Ombudsman Service established under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 deals with individual disputes between consumers and financial firms.

  Housing Market (Wales)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the housing market in Wales. [151760]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury monitors regional housing market developments, and from time to time reports on them. For example Box A4 in the 2002 pre-Budget report (CM 5664) discussed regional house price differentials. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's "House Price Index Statistical Release" (available at http://www.odpm.gov.uk pns//pnattach/20040004/7.pdf) includes regular reporting of regional housing market developments.

  Low Pay
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make; a statement on his strategy to tackle areas of persistent low pay. [151558]

  John Healey
  Since its introduction in April 1999 the National Minimum Wage (NMW) has been increased by 25 per cent. to £4.50 per hour for workers aged 22 and over. Together with the NMW, the reforms to income tax and National Insurance Contributions and the introduction of tax credits have boosted in-work incomes for households on low and moderate earnings.

  Mutual Insurance Companies
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the regulatory environment as it affects mutual insurance companies. [151555]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 sets the overall regulatory framework for mutual insurance companies. Under the Act, the FSA has operational responsibility for regulating these companies.

  Personal Debt
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with representatives of the Bank of England regarding the sustainability of current levels of personal debt. [151560]
  450W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury and the Bank of England hold regular meetings in a number of contexts to discuss a wide range of economic issues.

  Security Passes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many security passes have been reported as(a) lost and (b) stolen by staff in his Department in the last 12 months. [151521]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on 26 January 2004,Official Report, column 115–16W.

  Stamp Duty Land Tax
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reform Stamp Duty Land Tax on leases. [151559]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All tax rates and thresholds are kept under review and can be changed as part of the annual Finance Bill. I cannot anticipate what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might announce in this year's Budget.

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

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters to the Paymaster General from honourable Members complaining about the operation of the new tax credits have been answered by(a) civil servants and (b) the Paymaster General. [150027]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Under long-standing arrangements, Members' letters to Treasury Ministers on operational matters are normally forwarded to the Heads of the Offices concerned to reply direct, unless the Member indicates that he or she requires a Ministerial reply.

  Since March 2003 around 1,500 such letters from hon. Members to Treasury Ministers have been referred to the Tax Credits Office in Great Britain for answer by officials.

  World Debt
  David Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals for debt relief mechanisms for poor countries are being considered for the period after the highly indebted poor countries initiative has ended. [151543]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Air Transport
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with his colleagues in the Department for Transport in relation to the implications for Northern Ireland of the Department's White Paper, The Future of Air Transport; and if he will make a statement. [151336]

  Mr. Spellar
  The White Paper, The Future of Air Transport, reflects the overarching perspective of the Northern Ireland administration on the key issues surrounding the development of air transport within the United Kingdom, as they affect Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland administration's input to the production of the White Paper reflected the cross-cutting and inter-departmental character of the issues previously consulted on during 2002. A senior official from the Northern Ireland Civil Service was a member, together with representatives from other regions and the Department for Transport, of the steering group that produced the White Paper. The implications of the White Paper for Northern Ireland's three commercial airports are currently being considered locally and in consultation with the Department for Transport within the 'balanced approach' of economic development, people's desire to travel, environmental impact, safety and security and the continuation of air services to the major London airports.

  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the availability of anti-social behaviour orders in tackling such behaviour in Northern Ireland. [151332]

  Mr. Spellar
  In considering measures to tackle anti-social behaviour in Northern Ireland, and the impact of this, I have been informed by Home Office research in England and Wales. Research found that in many areas anti-social behaviour orders were considered by those using them to be an effective response to such behaviour. Reported benefits were a reduction in the behaviour targeted and positive outcomes in relation to public confidence and improved quality of life.

  Car Parking Charges
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by what percentage car park charging has changed in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [151327]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Roads Service to write to the hon. Lady in response to this question. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Benefit Fraud
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were convicted of benefit fraud in Northern Ireland in the last year for which figures are available; what the average sentence was; and if he will make a statement. [150662]
  452W
  Mr. Spellar
  In the 2002–03 financial year a total of 325 people where prosecuted for benefit fraud and in the current year 2003–04 to date a further 200 people have been prosecuted. A breakdown of the sentences passed is shown in the table.

  Number of people

  Average sentence/Fine

  2002–03

  Probation

  9

  6–12 months

  Suspended sentences

  21

  6 weeks–18 months

  Conditional discharge

  83

  12 months–2 years

  Community service

  43

  109 hours

  Fines1

  178

  £191

  2003–04

  Probation

  8

  2–18 months

  Suspended sentences

  12

  1–5 months

  Conditional discharge

  78

  6 months–3 years

  Community service

  20

  126 hours

  Fines

  82

  £209

  1 9 of the 178 also received a fine in addition to either a conditional discharge or community service)

  In 2002–03 a further 24 people received a formal caution and 67 people accepted administrative penalties totalling £18,255. In 2003–04 to date 22 people received a formal caution and 94 have accepted administrative penalties totalling £32,828.

  Child Poverty
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in Northern Ireland in reducing child poverty. [150674]

  Mr. Spellar
  New Targeting Social Need (TSN) is the Government's main policy for tackling poverty and social exclusion in Northern Ireland. New TSN aims to tackle poverty and social exclusion by targeting efforts and available resources within existing departmental programmes towards people, groups and areas in greatest social need.

  An independent external evaluation of New Targeting Social Need has now been completed. This assessed the way in which the policy had been implemented and examined its impact. The outcome of the evaluation will feed into future thinking on New TSN and will soon be the subject of public consultation.

  Presently in Northern Ireland, the Government are placing significant emphasis on initiatives that are focused on the early years of life, such as the Sure Start and Book Start and the Pre-School Education Expansion Programme. These complement mainstream service programmes.

  Alongside these initiatives the Government are developing long-term strategies dealing with child poverty. To this end the Children's and Young People's unit of The Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) is currently developing a 10-year strategy of which child poverty is one of the key themes. The focus of the strategy is poverty, participation, protection and provision. As part of the development of this strategy, a multi agency group in November 2003 produced a strategic objective and related measures and outcomes specifically tackling child poverty. The group also considered how to take this forward and how the

  453W
  Children's Strategy should dovetail with the wider New TSN strategy (current and future) for tackling poverty and social exclusion in Northern Ireland.

  A total of £36 million has been made available through the Children's Executive Programme Fund with the specific aim of supporting children in need and young people at risk. £17 million has already been allocated for projects involving children and young people in areas including health, education, play and working with children at risk.

  Recent research commissioned by OFMDFM entitled "Low Income Households in Northern Ireland" shows that the concentration (proportion of those in poverty who are children) of children in poverty between 1990–94 has dropped from 36 per cent. to 33 per cent. between 1999–2002. A copy of the report has been placed in the House Library and it can also be viewed on the internet at http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/research/lowincome/index.htm

  Cot Deaths
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cot deaths there were in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years; and what advice is given by his Department to prevent such deaths. [151340]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested, based on the latest years for which figures are available, is as follows:

  Number of cot deaths

  1999

  11

  2000

  12

  2001

  10

  Since the early 1990s parents have been advised of the risk factors associated with cot deaths and how to avoid them through the Reduce the Risk Cot Death leaflets. Last July my Department issued an updated leaflet to parents on how they can reduce the risks. The new leaflet was developed after consultation with health professionals and the Foundation for Sudden Infant Deaths and contains advice on the safest sleeping arrangements for babies.

  My Department continues to monitor research findings and will issue revised guidance as appropriate.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals were provided with digital hearing aids in 2003; and what estimate he has made of how many others would benefit from these devices. [151218]

  Angela Smith
  The phased introduction of Digital Hearing Aids (DHAs) commenced in October 2003. Information on the provision of hearing aids is not collected routinely by the Department. Health and Social Services Trusts with Audiology departments will shortly be asked to provide information on the provision of DHAs for the period October 2003 to the end of January. Information will thereafter be collected on a quarterly basis.
  454W
  It is estimated that there are over 100,000 hearing aid users in Northern Ireland. Research suggests that digital hearing aids (DHAs) may benefit 80 per cent. of hearing aid users.

  Doctors (Working Hours)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of(a) junior house officers, (b) senior house officers and (c) other doctors have weekly workloads in breach of the EU working time directives. [151210]

  Angela Smith
  From the latest monitoring of New Deal compliance, 91 per cent. of junior doctors (this includes Pre-Registration House Officers, Senior House Officers and Specialist Registrars) are already working and being trained in less than 56 hours per week and are thus meeting the requirements of the European Working Time Directive which will come into effect in August 2004. It is not possible, without disproportionate cost, to disaggregate the figures in the form requested.

  The new consultant contract, which is being introduced from April 2004, aims to cap the average working week for consultants at 48 hours to ensure compliance with the Directive.

  Drownings
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many drownings there were in Northern Ireland in 2003. [148838]

  Mr. Pearson
  Mortality statistics for 2003 have not been fully collated and therefore the latest available data relate to 2002. There were 28 deaths caused by drowning1 registered in Northern Ireland in 2002.

  1 Cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code T75.1.

  Elective Surgery
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress on protected elective surgery centres in Northern Ireland. [151217]

  Angela Smith
  A number of protected elective facilities have been established, at Altnagelvin, Causeway, Erne, Lagan Valley and Mater hospitals. The unit at Altnagelvin hospital opened in 2001 and currently treats approximately 1,100 patients per year. The protected elective centre at Causeway hospital opened in November 2003 and is projected to provide 920 surgical procedures per annum. The unit at Lagan Valley hospital was opened in February 2003 and treats around 850 patients a year. The Mater hospital's protected facility opened in January 2003 and is anticipated to treat 1,100 patients per year. In addition, a new day procedures unit opened at Erne hospital in December 2003 and it will provide for an additional 300 day cases per annum.

  Work is also currently being undertaken to establish a protected elective centre at South Tyrone hospital.

  Game Licences
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many game licences were issued in Northern Ireland in(a) 1985, (b) 1990, (c) 1995, (d) 2000 and (e) in each year since 2001. [150680]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of game licences issued in Northern Ireland were:

  Year

  Number of Licences

  1985

  12,000

  1990

  1,722

  1995

  11,000

  2000

  958

  2001

  983

  2002

  1,018

  2003

  1,251

  1 This is an estimation based on the value of licences sold.

  GM Crops
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what applications to grow GM crops have been made in Northern Ireland. [151339]

  Angela Smith
  There has only ever been one application to grow GM crops in Northern Ireland. This was made in 1996 by the Department of Agriculture to carry out a small field-trial on potatoes. This application was dealt with through the regulatory process established under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1994. Papers are available for viewing by the public on a statutory Public Register at the Department of the Environment's Environmental Policy Division, River House, 48 High Street, Belfast, BT1 2AW. Telephone 028 90257362.

  High Hedges
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will include measures to deal with high hedges in his consultation on tackling anti-social behaviour in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [150683]

  Angela Smith
  The current consultation on anti-social behaviour measures is focused on such behaviour linked to criminality. Therefore, it does not cover hedges between neighbours.

  GP Vacancies
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many general practitioner vacancies there were in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997; and what steps he is taking to reduce such figures. [151322]

  Angela Smith
  There is generally no problem filling practice vacancies in Northern Ireland. The Central Services Agency (CSA) only hold information on GP vacancies where they were required to intervene to fill the vacancy. This typically occurs if the vacancy has arisen in what was previously a single-handed GP Practice. Otherwise the remaining GPs within the practice, as independent contractors, advertise and fill the position independently.
  456W
  The number of vacancies notified to, and filled by, CSA are shown in the table.

  GP vacancies notified to Central Services Agency: 1997–2003

  Year

  Vacancies reported to Central Services Agency

  Vacancies filled by Central Services Agency

  1997

  3

  3

  1998

  1

  1

  1999

  0

  0

  2000

  0

  0

  2001

  1

  1

  2002

  1

  1

  2003

  3

  3

  Hare Coursing
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer given by the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), on 11 December 2003,Official Report, columns 577–78W, on hare coursing, what sources other than the principal sources cited in his answer he used to reach his decision to refuse a licence to a coursing club to net hares. [150049]

  Angela Smith
  In addition to the two principal sources of information referred to in my previous answer of 11 December 2003,Official Report, column 578W, an unpublished research thesis by Karina Dingerkus, completed in 1997, provided contextual data reporting a decline in the population of the Irish hare in Northern Ireland over the preceding years. Her thesis, entitled "The Distribution and Ecology of the Irish Hare Lepus timidus hibernicus in Northern Ireland", is lodged in the Science Library of the Queen's University of Belfast. Her findings were summarised and discussed in the report of the 2002 Survey carried out by Dr. Jane Preston and others.

  Hospital Doctors
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which grades of hospital doctors will be required to undergo an appraisal process in 2004 in Northern Ireland. [150756]

  Angela Smith
  All consultant medical staff (including consultants in public health medicine and consultant clinical academic staff) and non-consultant career grade doctors (including Staff Grade doctors and Associate Specialists) will be required to undergo an appraisal in 2004.

  Arrangements for the appraisal of doctors in the training grades are currently being developed, and it is anticipated that all such doctors will also be appraised in 2004.

  Integrated Schools
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of pupils in education in Northern Ireland are being educated at integrated schools; and what the percentage was in each of the last five academic years. [148766]

  Jane Kennedy
  Information for the 2003–04 school year is not yet available. The percentages for the last five academic years are as follows.
  457W

  Academic year

  Percentage

  1998–99

  3.3

  1999–2000

  3.7

  2000–01

  4.0

  2001–02

  4.3

  2002–03

  4.6

  Maghaberry Prison
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recent disorder at HM Prison Maghaberry. [150684]

  Jane Kennedy
  I utterly condemn the serious rioting and wanton destruction of prison property that took place in Maghaberry on 14 to 15 January. It is to the great credit of prison staff that the incident was brought to a conclusion without serious injury to staff or prisoners.

  Charges under prison rules have been laid against all those involved who are still in custody.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the financial costs resulting from overnight disturbance by prisoners at Maghaberry Prison on 14 to 15 January. [150733]

  Jane Kennedy
  The estimated cost of the damage caused during the disturbance on 14 to 15 January is £100,000 to £150,000.

  Maze Prison (Redevelopment)
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for the redevelopment of the former HM Prison Maze site; and if he will make a statement on progress. [150668]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Government's aim is to regenerate this key strategic site to bring the maximum possible social and economic benefit to Northern Ireland. A consultation panel has been established to provide advice on the best way forward. The panel is currently engaged in a public consultation process to generate ideas for the redevelopment of the site. The consultation will end on 29 February, and the panel is expected to submit its final report in May.

  Minority Ethnic Groups (Harassment/Bullying)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reports he has received of bullying and harassment experienced by members of minority ethnic groups who are pupils, students and staff at schools and educational establishments in Northern Ireland; and what actions have been taken as a result. [149246]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department of Education does not collect information about bullying or harassment of pupils who are members of minority ethnic groups at schools in Northern Ireland. However, the Department recognises that bullying in whatever form and for whatever reason has no place in schools. The Department has issued comprehensive guidance to all schools about how to tackle bullying. Further, the Education and Libraries (NI Order 2003), which came into operation on 1 April 2003, places a duty on all 458W
  grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland to have a specific anti-bullying policy and to draw up measures to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils.

  The Department of Education has received no reports of bullying or harassment of staff at schools in Northern Ireland who are members of minority ethnic groups. Schools have a Code of Practice on Harassment which would be applied should any such case arise.

  The Department for Employment and Learning has received no reports of bullying and harassment experienced by members of minority ethnic groups who are students and staff at the universities, teacher training colleges and further education colleges in Northern Ireland.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his Department's policy is on the construction and location of mobile phone masts in Northern Ireland. [151338]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of the Environment's prevailing policy guidance for the development of telecommunication masts is set out in Planning Policy Statement 10 "Telecommunications", published in April 2002. This statement is available on the Planning Service website at: http: www.planningni.gov.uk/AreaPlans_Policy/PPS/PPS.htm and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  NHS
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many health care professionals from outside the United Kingdom were recruited to work in the NHS in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997; what positions they held; and what their nationality was. [150670]

  Angela Smith
  Information on the total numbers of non-UK health care professionals recruited into the NHS could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Information is available, however, on the numbers of staff that were recruited from outside the UK as part of specific recruitment drives since 2000; No medical or professional and technical staff were recruited in this way during this period. The number of nursing staff, their grade and nationality are shown in Tables 1 and 2 as follows.

  Table 1: The number of non-UK nurses recruited to work in the NHS in Northern Ireland in each year since 2000 by grade

  Year

  Positions held

  Number recruited by HSS1Trusts

  2000

  Registered Nurse

  8

  Total

  8

  2001

  Registered Nurse

  94

  Pre-Registered Nurse

  33

  Total

  127

  2002

  Nursing Staff

  12

  Basic Grade Nurses

  33

  Staff Nurse (no grade given)

  42

  Enrolled Nurse C

  40

  Staff Nurse E

  5

  Staff Nurse D

  11

  459W

  Table 1: The number of non-UK nurses recruited to work in the NHS in Northern Ireland in each year since 2000 by grade

  Year

  Positions held

  Number recruited by HSS1 Trusts

  Qualified Nurse

  6

  Registered Nurse

  96

  Pre-registered Nurse

  27

  Total

  272

  2003

  Nursing Staff

  12

  Basic Grade Nurses

  18

  Staff Nurse

  48

  Enrolled Nurse C

  46

  Staff Nurse D

  28

  Registered Nurse

  78

  Pre-registered Nurse

  45

  Total

  275

  1 Health and Social Services

  Table 2: The number of non-UK nurses recruited to work in the NHS in Northern Ireland in each year since 2000 by nationality

  Year

  Nationality

  Number recruited by HSS1 Trusts

  2000

  Australian

  8

  Total

  8

  2001

  Australian

  23

  Philippine

  104

  Total

  127

  2002

  Philippine

  211

  Indian

  36

  Chinese

  1

  Other country

  24

  Total

  272

  2003

  Indian

  98

  Philippine

  177

  Total

  275

  1 Health and Social Services

  Number of nursing, midwifery and health visiting vacancies within all trusts as at 30 September 2002 and 30 September 2003

  Trust

  WTE1 vacancies as at 30 September 2002

  WTE1 vacancies as at 30 September 2003

  Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust

  80.3

  33.7

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  8.8

  4.0

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  67.5

  17.3

  Causeway HSS Trust

  15.0

  33.0

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  8.7

  2.0

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  35.1

  15.6

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  n/a

  13.9

  Foyle Community HSS Trust

  29.0

  13.0

  Greenpark Healthcare HSS Trust

  41.0

  45.8

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  30.0

  n/a

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital HSS Trust

  46.0

  71.7

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  5.0

  8.2

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  26.3

  8.4

  Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust

  257.6

  96.5

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  29.5

  34.2

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust

  26.0

  16.0

  Ulster Community and Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  47.5

  23.6

  United Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  59.0

  23.5

  Total

  812.3

  460.4

  (does not include figure for Down Lisburn)

  (does not include figure for Homefirst)

  1 Whole-time equivalent.

  As can be seen from the table, the vacancy situation has slightly unproved between 30 September 2002 and 30 September 2003. A review of the Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting Review was carried in late 2001/early 2002 and a report was issued in March 2002. It is proposed to carry out another detailed review of the Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting workforce in 2004.

  Night-time Flying
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many flights(a) arriving and (b) departing (i) Belfast City Airport, (ii) Belfast International Airport and (iii) City of Derry Airport were in breach of the night-time flying curfew in the last year for which figures are available. [151334]

  Mr. Spellar
  Belfast City Airport operates under a planning agreement, which governs operations, including flight hours, at the airport. The main elements controlling flight hours are: "permitted hours" between 6.30 am and 9.30 pm for normal scheduled operations; "extended hours" between 9.30 pm and 11.59 pm for delayed scheduled operations; and, "prohibited hours" between 9.30 pm and 6.30 am, which prohibits scheduled operations. During the calendar year 2003, six scheduled flights, four arrivals and two departures, used the airport between 12 midnight and 12.30 am during the "prohibited hours".

  Belfast International Airport and City of Derry Airport have no night-time operating restrictions placed upon them.

  Nursing Vacancies
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nursing vacancies there are in the province; and if he will make a statement. [150743]

  Angela Smith
  The number of vacancies as at 30 September 2002 and 30 September 2003 are given in the table.

  Overseas Nurses
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many overseas nurses are employed in Northern Ireland. [150744]

  Angela Smith
  Overseas nurses are employed both within the private sector and the HPSS in Northern Ireland but information is only held in respect of HPSS employees. As at 31 December 2003, the total number of
  461W
  overseas nurses employed within Health and Social Services Trusts in Northern Ireland was 709. Figures are detailed by Trust as follows.

  HSS1 Trust

  Number

  Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust

  24

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  0

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  55

  Causeway HSS Trust

  14

  Craigavon and Banbridge Comm. HSS Trust

  0

  Craigavon Area Hospital HSS Trust

  50

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  42

  Foyle Community HSS Trust

  0

  Greenpark Healthcare HSS Trust

  47

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  20

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital HSS Trust

  24

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  5

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  0

  Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust

  239

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  0

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust

  40

  Ulster Community and Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  102

  United Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  47

  Total

  709

  1 Health and Social Services

  Physiotherapists
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what restrictions there are on the number of domiciliary visits by physiotherapists to a particular patient. [150735]

  Angela Smith
  Domiciliary visits are determined by clinical need. While there is no arbitrary limit placed on such visits, service provision is managed to balance total local need with available resources.

  Pre-School Places
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what basis SEELB provides a greater number of funded pre-school places to the statutory nursery school sector than to the private/ voluntary sector in Newtownards; and for what reason the playschool at Londonderry Primary School has not attracted any funded places. [149612]

  Jane Kennedy
  In Newtownards there are currently 234 pre-school places in statutory nurseries and 136 in settings in the voluntary and private sector. Of these, 52 statutory places and all of the voluntary and private places were created by the Pre-school Education Expansion Programme. The planning of pre-school provision and the allocation of voluntary/private sector places is a matter for each Board's Pre-School Education Advisory Group (PEAG), which identifies shortfalls in funded pre-school provision at local area level. The intention was that new places created under the programme for Northern Ireland as a whole would be broadly on a 50:50 basis between the statutory and voluntary/private sectors, though at local level the ratio varies considerably, depending mainly on the level of provision prior to the programme. In Newtownards, most of the statutory provision pre-dated the expansion programme.

  The number of pre-school places which the South Eastern Education and Library Board's PEAG is funding in Newtownards is already sufficient to satisfy the demand from the parents of children in their
  462W
  immediate pre-school year. It is not necessary, therefore, for the PEAG to introduce additional providers such as the playschool at Londonderry Primary school.

  Pulmonary Disease
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the cost of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the NHS in 2003. [150742]

  Angela Smith
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Racism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evidence he has received of paramilitary group involvement in racist acts of vandalism carried out on peace walls between Protestant and Catholic communities; and if he will make a statement. [151138]

  Jane Kennedy
  I am not aware of any racist acts of vandalism that have taken place on peacelines between Protestant and Catholic communities by paramilitary groups however racist graffiti was removed from the gable wall of the home of a Chinese family living in the Donegal Road area. This graffiti was removed at the request of the PSNI.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on swastika-style graffiti on peace walls in Belfast. [151139]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is a fact that in Northern Ireland many peacelines have become the canvas for a wide range of social and political comment, some of which many would find offensive.

  The Government will seek to remove graffiti that is considered likely to cause a breach of the peace

  SARS
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on preparations to deal with cases of SARS in Northern Ireland. [151213]

  Angela Smith
  In June 2003 the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety set up a Northern Ireland SARS Taskforce charged, inter alia, with preparing a contingency Plan for SARS in Northern Ireland. This in turn led to the establishment of eight sub-groups drawn from the HPSS to take forward various aspects of SARS preparation and these groups reported to a Conference in Belfast on 8 December at which the Contingency Plan was also launched. A tabletop exercise, to test the Plan, was held the following day and the lessons learned from that will be incorporated into the Plan at the next reprint.

  The Contingency Plan includes arrangements for any one (or all) of three acute hospitals to be designated to deal with SARS patients. Plans for upgrading work at these, and other hospitals with A&E Departments, are in preparation, while steps to provide personal protection equipment (PPE) for health care workers, including GPs, in contact with suspected SARS cases

  463W
  are also well advanced. A training package video/CD Rom covering a number of issues including infection control and the use of PPE has also been prepared for distribution to the service.

  The Department has also opened a special SARS website with information both for health professionals and members of the public.

  School Funding
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding(a) integrated and (b) Irish Language schools have received in each of the last five years. [148769]

  Jane Kennedy
  The total funding allocated directly to(a) integrated and (b) Irish Language schools in each of the last five years is as follows:

  £000

  Integrated

  Irish Language

  1998–99

  46,146

  5,533

  1999–2000

  53,587

  5,216

  2000–01

  52,510

  5,154

  2001–02

  51,257

  4,759

  2002–03

  58,841

  5,946

  Notes:

  1. The figures include (a) recurrent and capital funding awarded directly to both grant maintained and controlled integrated schools and Irish Language schools, (b) EU Peace I and Peace II funding awarded directly to both grant maintained and controlled integrated schools, and (c) funding provided to integrated and Irish Language schools through the Londonderry Regeneration Initiative and the Belfast Regeneration Office.

  2. The above figures exclude services provided by the Education and Library Boards for schools, which are not disaggregated by individual sector or school (for example: services such as school meals, school transport and the Curriculum Advisory and Support Services).

  School Travel
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the overall cost was of free travel to schools in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [148763]

  Jane Kennedy
  In the 2002–03 financial year the Education and Library Boards provided home to school transport assistance to almost 100,000 pupils. The cost of providing this service was £57.2 million.

  schoolchildren (Back Injuries)
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are in place in Northern Ireland to protect children from sustaining back injuries from carrying excessively heavy schoolbags to, in and from school; and if he will make a statement. [148813]

  Jane Kennedy
  School boards of governors have a duty to safeguard the welfare of registered pupils on the school premises. The Department of Education provides funding for lockers for pupils' learning materials in post-primary schools with the agreement of the school authorities. Pupils share the responsibility for ensuring that they only carry to and from school those materials and equipment essential for homework or school activities for that day. Parents are generally 464W
  responsible for making arrangements to protect the health and welfare of the children outside the school premises.

  Sexual Health
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to promote sexual health among young people in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [151324]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is working with other interested Departments and organisations to promote sexual health and wellbeing A draft Sexual Health Promotion Strategy and Action Plan, which aims to improve, protect and promote the sexual health and wellbeing of the population of Northern Ireland, was issued for three months consultation in December 2003. It sets a target to reduce the number of sexually transmitted infections and identifies those aged under 20 as a priority group. It also proposes actions in the areas of prevention, education and training, services and data collection and research.

  A Teenage Pregnancy and Parenthood Strategy and Action Plan was also published at the beginning of 2003 and it contains challenging targets to reduce teenage pregnancies. A multi-agency Implementation Group has been established to take the Strategy forward. The Group has identified education support, confidentiality, services and parent/child communication as priority areas for action.

  Solectron
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what grants have been paid to Solectron Northern Ireland towards the cost of establishing factories in Northern Ireland. [151003]

  Mr. Pearson
  None. Although Solectron accepted an offer of grant assistance from Invest NI dated 10 May 2001, the company did not seek to draw down any of the grants offered.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average time between referral of pupils for statutory assessment and receiving the required assistance for(a) learning difficulties, (b) speech and language, (c) autism, (d) behavioural difficulties and (e) medical needs within the South Eastern Education and Library Board was in the last year for which figures are available. [149784]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided by the South-Eastern Education Library Board only at disproportionate cost.

  Starter Homes
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many starter home initiative schemes have begun in Northern Ireland. [150605]

  Mr. Spellar
  A starter home initiative, the Co-ownership scheme, which is part funded by the Department for Social Development, has been in
  465W
  operation since 1978. The aim of the scheme is to provide assistance to those on marginal incomes, and who would not be eligible to obtain a full mortgage, to allow them to become homeowners. Since its inception the scheme has enabled 17,500 participants to gain a foothold on the property ladder through its equity-sharing scheme, over 13,000 of whom eventually moved to full home ownership.

  Tourist Accommodation
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) benefits and (b) grants are available when building (i) guest houses and (ii) other forms of tourist accommodation in Northern Ireland. [148765]

  Mr. Pearson
  Advice on establishing and certifying tourism accommodation businesses is available from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB). Support with operating, managing and developing tourism businesses is available through Invest NI.

  Invest NI can provide grant assistance for the upgrading of existing guesthouses certified by the NITB, the development of high quality "country type" guesthouse accommodation in existing habitable properties and the building of new guesthouses on brown field sites in traditional seaside resort towns. In addition, Invest NI can make available financial assistance and a range of business support programmes for the building and development of hotels, hostels, self-catering and bed and breakfast establishments.

  Assistance is also available from a number of other sources. For example, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development offers assistance to create new tourist accommodation bed spaces under the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the Border of Ireland (PEACE II) funded Natural Resource Rural Tourism Initiative. Through the LEADER + programme, administered through 12 local action groups, existing NITB certified tourist accommodation properties may be eligible for funding to assist with upgrading and expansion. The Department of Social Development may make available grants to support the building of guesthouses or other forms of tourist accommodation to support, where appropriate, wider regeneration in Northern Ireland.

  Travellers
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the rights of members of the travelling community, with particular reference to(a) facilities, (b) education and (c) entitlement to benefits. [150748]

  Mr. Spellar
  Irish Travellers have the same rights of access to facilities, education and the same entitlement to benefits as every other citizen in Northern Ireland.

  Ulster Hospital (Courtesy Bus)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will study the feasibility of a courtesy bus service from Belfast to the Ulster hospital; and if he will make a statement. [150746]
  466W
  Angela Smith
  The Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust is currently developing a Travel Plan that will consider existing services and future provision, including access to public transport for patients, visitors and staff.

  As part of this process the Trust will meet with Translink to discuss bus services and the viability of various options.

  Winter Influenza
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what preparations have been made to deal with a winter influenza outbreak in Northern Ireland. [151182]

  Angela Smith
  The Department's annual influenza immunisation campaign is the main element of its programme to minimise any winter influenza outbreak. There are two main groups involved in the campaign: everyone over 65 and those under 65 who are considered to be at risk because of an underlying medical condition such as asthma, diabetes, a heart condition etc. The Department has proactively promoted immunisation this year with a particular focus on those 'at risk', including children. Figures on vaccination uptake to the end of November show that the campaign is ahead of the targets set for this year.

  This year also the Department has regularly reminded the public of measures to protect themselves from influenza and of the steps to take to look after themselves should they develop it.

  The Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (CDSC) at Belfast City Hospital monitors the incidence of influenza through a network of spotter practices and provides information directly to the Department. The assessment provided by CDSC in the middle of January 2004 is that influenza is circulating at very low levels in Northern Ireland. Boards and Trusts all have plans in place to deal with upsurges in the numbers of cases of flu, should this occur.

  In 2003 the Department secured a small supply of a new anti-viral drug called Oseltamivir which can be administered, in the event of a serious outbreak, to patients and staff in nursing homes, residential homes and hospitals to prevent them catching the flu.

  Young Offenders
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young people are being held at young offender institutions in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the provision for young offenders in Northern Ireland. [151341]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are currently 191 male and two female inmates being held at young offender institutions in Northern Ireland.

  Hydebank Wood Young Offenders Centre accommodates all young male offenders aged between 17–21 years and has a dedicated juvenile landing for those under 18. Female young offenders are detained in Mourne House at Maghaberry Prison.
  467W
  All young offenders have access to a comprehensive regime, which provides for education, recreation and offending behaviour programmes.

TRANSPORT

  Rural Policing Fund
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria apply to the quantification of the Rural Policing Fund; and if he will make a statement. [150020]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  External research carried out in 1998 demonstrated that additional annual costs of around £30 million associated with more sparsely populated police authority areas, were not reflected in the general police funding formula.

  The Rural Policing Fund was introduced during 2000–01, when a specific grant of £15million was made available for policing in more rural areas, without reducing grant to the predominantly urban forces. £30 million has subsequently been made available annually to the 31 forces with the most widespread populations. The Fund has always been distributed according to the relative average sparsity of population.

  Driving Licences
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many asylum seekers have been issued with driving licences in each of the past three years; and what estimate he has made of the number of asylum seekers driving without valid UK licences. [150048]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All applications for driving licences are subject to the same requirements in relation to age, health competency and identity. A wide range of identity documentation can be produced as evidence of identity in support of an application for a photocard driving licence and most would not indicate the residency status of the applicant. It is therefore not possible to determine what proportion of applicants were asylum seekers.

  Pensioners (Free Transport)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make provision for pensioners to travel free on public transport during off-peak hours. [151636]

  Mr. McNulty
  We have no plans to introduce a statutory requirement for pensioners to be able to travel free on public transport during off-peak hours. The current statutory minimum requirement for concessionary travel in England introduced in 2001 ensures half fares for pensioners on local buses, with a free pass. From April 2003, we have extended concessionary travel schemes to men aged 60–64, bringing them into line with women of the same age. Local authorities may make more generous provision, including free travel, at their discretion.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the cost of providing free off-peak travel for pensioners. [151637]
  468W
  Mr. McNulty
  We have made no estimate of the cost of providing free off-peak travel for pensioners on all forms of public transport. However we estimate that the total cost of providing free travel on all local bus services for pensioners would be in the order of £800 million per year.

  Public Transport (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of how many people in Lancashire used(a) bus services and (b) train services in each year since 1997. [151198]

  Mr. McNulty
  Estimated figures for the number of bus journeys in Lancashire from 1999 is as follows:

  Number

  1999–2000

  57,614,463

  2000–01

  56,387,880

  2001–02

  58,672,576

  2002–03

  61,918,427

  Note:

  Comparable figures for years before 1999 are not available.

  The number of train journeys starting and finishing at Lancashire stations since 1997 is as follows:

  Number

  1997–98

  1,515,692

  1998–99

  1,535,946

  1999–2000

  1,610,520

  2000–01

  1,632,682

  2001–02

  1,581,104

  2002–03

  1,427,132

  Regional Airport (Security)
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Civil Aviation Authority and (b) international counterparts concerning security at regonal airports in the UK; [151012]

  (2) how regularly security arrangements at regional airports are reviewed. [151013]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department of Transport has policy responsibility for civil aviation security in the UK. We set practical security measures for the aviation industry to implement at all airports, based on UK security service threat information, and monitor compliance with those requirements. These measures are reviewed constantly with the industry. However, neither the UK CAA or our international counterparts have any responsibility or expertise in these areas and we do not therefore consult with them, although the department keeps in regular touch with them on a range of issues.

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much grant his Department has given to Somerset county council for rural transport in each year since 1997. [150624]
  469W
  Mr. McNulty
  All local authorities in England (outside London) receive capital funding for local transport through the Local Transport Plan system. The Government also provides revenue support for all local authority spending programmes through the Formula Spending Share system. It is a decision for each authority as to how much of that funding is allocated to rural transport. Somerset CC also received Rural Bus Challenge and Rural Bus Subsidy funding throughout most of the period in question:

  Rural Bus Challenge Funding

  Year of award

  Name of project

  Amount awarded (£)

  1998

  The Mendips flexible bus project

  130,00

  1998

  Exmoor community transport radio

  1,004

  1999

  West Somerset Social Car Scheme

  90,823

  1999

  Wells to Priddy Postbus

  25,582

  1999

  Continuation of Mendip Flexibus Funding

  225,195

  2000

  South Somerset

  182,344

  2001

  Community Transport in Mendip 'Special Rural Component'

  89,000

  2001

  South Somerset Links Langport and Chard

  197,000

  2001

  Rural Surrounds of Wiveliscombe

  100,000

  2002

  Somerset Inclusion Bus Buddy

  94,500

  The total awarded to Somerset county council under the Rural Bus Challenge since its inception in 1998 is £1,135,448. Payments are made over a number of years, usually over three years.

  Rural bus subsidy grant

  £

  1998–99

  1,017,790

  1999–2000

  974,750

  2000–2001

  980,300

  2001–02

  1,285,610

  2002–03

  1,472,445

  2003–04

  1,518,856

  Figures shown give actual grant paid since its inception in 1998, deducting any grant carried forward from the previous year. The figure for 2003–04 shows the full allocation for this financial year.

  Traffic Management Bill
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate has been made of the likely costs per(a) water, (b) gas, (c) electricity and (d) telecommunications customer arising from the introduction of permit schemes as set out in the Traffic Management Bill. [150205]

  Mr. Jamieson
  While the Traffic Management Bill provides the broad powers to set up permit schemes, the detail of how they would work will be set out in secondary legislation and a further more detailed Regulatory Impact Assessment will be produced as part of preparing regulations.

  Transport (Wales)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a), the volume of freight passing through Welsh ports (b) the volume of passengers passing through Welsh ports and (c) the number of ships and the average tonnage of ships operating out of Welsh ports for each year since 1997. [151754]
  470W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The available information is included in the table.

  Welsh ports traffic 1997–2002

  (a) Total freight (million tonnes)

  (b) Total passengers (million)

  (c) Number of ship arriving(thousand)

  (c) Average tonnage of ships arriving (thousand gt)

  1997

  62.3

  4.0

  10.9

  n/a

  1998

  56.2

  4.3

  10.3

  n/a

  1999

  56.6

  4.0

  9.9

  14.0

  2000

  57.9

  3.9

  11.1

  13.3

  2001

  54.7

  3.6

  10.5

  15.4

  2002

  52.0

  3.6

  10.4

  16.5

HEALTH

  Assistive Technology
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the 3rd Audit Commission report, "Keeping People Independent with Assistive Technology". [151947]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This report has not yet been published and an assessment is not, therefore, possible.

  Babies (Sleeping Habits)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he issues to parents regarding risks associated with babies sleeping in the same bed as their parents at night; and if he will make a statement. [150755]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department have issued guidance on avoiding co-sleeping with babies in circumstances associated with cot death. The leaflet, 'Reduce the Risk of Cot Death', has been made widely available in hard copy and on the Department's web-site at www. doh.gov.uk/cotdeath/. The Department also supports the Child Accident Prevention Trust, whose leaflet, 'Keep Your Baby Safe', includes advice to parents against co-sleeping with a baby in their bed, and a warning against falling asleep on a sofa while holding the baby, in case of accidental injury.

  Cancer
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the reasons for the changes in cancer incidence between 1995 and 2000. [150233]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 26 January 2004.]The number of cancers in England, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, increased by 6.9 per cent. between 1995 and 2000. This is mostly accounted for by increases in breast cancer, prostate cancer, testicular cancer, bowel cancer, melanoma, mesothelioma and lymphomas. However, this should be balanced against significant decreases in the numbers of lung, stomach and cervical cancers.

  There are many reasons for the changes in incidence of these cancers.

  The increased incidence of breast cancer can be attributed not only to the success of the national breast screening programme in identifying new cases, but also

  471W
  changes in factors that affect a woman's hormonal environment, such as obesity, use of hormone replacement therapy and differing patterns of child birth. The increase in reporting of prostate cancer is primarily due to the greater use of prostate specific antigen testing. Increased incidence of melanoma is due to greater over-exposure to sunlight. The increased number of bowel cancer cases is partly due to diet and lack of physical activity. For mesothelioma, the increase is due to the increased numbers of people exposed to asbestos in the 1960s and 1970s who, because of the long latency period of the disease, are only now developing this condition. The reasons for increased cases of testicular cancer and lymphomas are unclear.

  The decrease in lung cancer incidence is due to reduced rates of smoking in men over the last two decades. The reduction in stomach cancer is primarily thought to be due to changes in diet. The reduction in the number of cases of cervical cancer is almost certainly due to the national screening programme identifying abnormalities which, left untreated, would later become cancerous.

  Cannabis
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the results of recent research into the association between cannabis use and psychosis. [150747]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We recognise that a causative link between early cannabis use and later development of schizophrenia is not conclusively proven. However, the recent epidemiological research on the issue of earlier use of cannabis and risk of later development of schizophrenia, 'schizophrenic symptoms' and 'schizophreniform disorder' has shown a stronger association than was previously evident from published studies. The British Medical Journal editorial accompanying the publication of the key research papers concluded that:"whether the use of cannabis triggers the onset of schizophrenia or depression in otherwise vulnerable people or whether it actually causes these conditions in non- predisposed people is not yet resolved."

  The Department continues to monitor research in this area and has a range of expert advisors to continue to inform policy.

  Care Home Beds (Worthing)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that there are adequate care home beds available(a) now and (b) in the future in Worthing; and what mechanisms he will employ to ensure that the care homes receive sufficient fees to care for their residents. [151293]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Government have made available substantial increases in the level of funding provided for social services in recent years. Between 1996–97 and 2002–03, the overall level of funding has increased by 20 per cent., an average real terms annual increase of around three per cent. We intend to further increase resources to social services for personal social services by an annual average of six per cent, in real terms from 2003–04 to 2005–06.
  472W
  Local councils should use these extra resources to determine a range of care options, including residential care places that are needed locally. This information should then inform their commissioning strategies and decisions. It is for each council to decide what should be the level of fees paid for care services, in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Community Health Councils
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health have spent to date in establishing new arrangements following the abolition of community health councils. [149764]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The amount spent by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health within the financial year 2003–04, up to 31 December 2003, was £19.9 million.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health has spent on(a) headquarters and (b) regional offices in the current financial year. [149766]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The amount spent by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health within the financial year 2003–04, up to 31 December 2003, was £4.5 million on the national centre and £2.97 million on the regional centres.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 28 August from the hon. Member for Northavon (his reference P01035359) regarding vitamin B17. [147956]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 27 January 2004.

  Drug-related Deaths
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing the number of drug-related deaths since 1999 [151462]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The figures on drug related deaths since 1999 are shown in the table. The drop in 2001 was the first reduction in drug related deaths (DRDs) since 1993.

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Number of DRDs

  1,567

  1,662

  1,623

  Percentage change

  —

  +6

  -2

  Dual Diagnosis
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to propose the introduction of a new definition of dual diagnosis into statute. [151788]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government have no plans to introduce a new definition of dual diagnosis into statute. Under the draft Mental Health Bill it is
  473W
  proposed that there will be a single definition of mental disorder with no exceptions or exclusions, so that people can be treated according to their individual needs.

  Under the current Mental Health Act 1983 a person cannot be treated as being mentally disordered (for the purposes of the Act) solely on the ground that he is dependent on alcohol or drugs, there must be dual diagnosis of a mental illness. We believe that, in practice, these exemptions have been misunderstood and misapplied. This has meant that some people have not received the compulsory treatment which they need to prevent them from harming themselves or others.

  The intention of proposals in the draft Mental Health Bill is that strict conditions will ensure the powers are only used where the nature or degree of mental disorder requires treatment under the care of a mental health consultant; appropriate treatment is available for the individual patient and there is a risk to self or others that warrants such treatment. This will mean that there is no artificial barrier to people being treated under compulsory powers when this is necessary because the conditions in the Bill are satisfied.

  In May 2002 the Department of Health published Dual Diagnosis Good Practice Guide. The guide reaffirms dual diagnosis as a priority for mainstream mental health services and emphasises the need for them to work in partnership with other agencies, such as substance misuse services and drug action teams.

  General Practitioners (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners surgeries there are in Chorley. [151282]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not held centrally in the format required.

  The primary care trust reports that in Chorley town centre there are seven general practitioner practices, of which four own the premises and three are in one health centre.

  In the Borough Council of Chorley there are 17 practices, of which 13 own their premises and four are in two health centres.

  Health Forums
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patient and public involvement forums have started monitoring the NHS [149772]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Of the 572 patients' forums in England, 549 are operational. During December and the early part of January the majority of forums met together for the first time to begin planning their work. During January and February, most of the patients' forums will have their first meeting in public. All forums, even those not operational due to vacancies, are gathering information about their local health services, making contact with the National Health Service, and talking to their communities.

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the use of criminal guardianship powers in the Mental Health Act 1983. [149799]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I am not aware of any research that has been commissioned on the use of the guardianship powers given to courts under Section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the use of triage in mental health provision. [151790]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A number of initiatives are being put in place to improve emergency assessment and treatment of people with mental health problems.

  In line with the commitments outlined in the NHS Plan, crisis resolution services are being developed to provide intensive support for people in mental health crisis in their own home. Crisis resolution services are designed to provide prompt and effective home treatment, including medication, in order to prevent hospital admissions and give support to informal carers.

  In addition, almost 500 Gateway workers will be in place by the end of the year to help people in mental health crises access appropriate services in the community.

  People with mental health problems are also able to use the NHS Direct to get first-level advice and referral on to specialised helplines or to local services.

  National Treatment Agency
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current budgetary situation facing the National Treatment Agency, with particular reference to the South-West Region. [151789]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  From an overall pooled drug treatment budget of £236.1 million in 2003–04, the South West received a total of £18.19 million. This was an average increase of 17.40 per cent., on the previous year. The National Treatment Agency (NTA) has responsibility for monitoring the spend of this resource.

  In addition the NTA employ a team of four staff within the Government Office for the South West to support the development of drug treatment at local level. Nationally the NTA were allocated £5.5 million running costs in 2003–04 for their central and regional structure. The proportion of this allocated to the South West has not been disaggregated.

  NHS Dentists
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS dentists are required to issue a warning to patients before their names are removed from the national database of NHS patients; and what guidance he gives on the removal of names. [150068]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]: National health service patients are registered with a dentist under a continuing care (adults) or capitation (children) arrangement with a dentist for the provision of general dental services, which lapses after

  475W
  15 months. The arrangement can be extended at any time during the 15 months, usually at the regular check up.

  If the dentist does not agree to the extension of the arrangement, he/she must give notice in writing to the patient not later than three months before the date the arrangement is due to elapse and use his/her best endeavours to complete treatment before that date.

  Where a dentist wishes to terminate an arrangement, he/she must give three months' notice to the patient. The relevant primary care trust can give permission for the arrangement to be terminated with less than three months notice, having given the patient an opportunity to make representations.

  NHS Direct (Lancashire)
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls have been made to NHS Direct from(a) the constituency of Blackpool North and Fleetwood and (b) Lancashire. [150660]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  NHS Direct North West Coast covers the constituencies of Blackpool North and Fleetwood, and Lancashire. The statistics collated by NHS Direct North West Coast for the last six months—1 July to 31 December 2003—broken down by constituency, are shown in the table.

  Constituency

  Number of calls

  Blackburn

  31,632

  Blackpool

  6,343

  Burnley

  4,473

  Chorley

  1,151

  Darwen

  4,096

  Hyndburn

  7,487

  Lancaster and Wyre

  4,181

  Morecambe and Lunesdale

  1,321

  Preston

  18,289

  Ribble Valley

  1,120

  Total

  80,093

  Premature Babies
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding was provided to the premature baby charity, BLISS, in each of the last five years. [150738]

  Dr. Ladyman
  BLISS applied for funding from the Department in one of the past five years. The Department was pleased to be able to support them, with funding of £30,000 in 2003–04. In addition, we are looking to provide funding in 2004–05 for the production of guidance on the special care of pre-term babies.

  Residential Care (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on funding of independent residential care providers in Lancashire; and how many beds there are in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley. [151280]
  476W
  Dr. Ladyman
  There have been substantial increases in the level of funding provided for social services in recent years. Local councils can use these extra resources to increase local provision or to rebalance the care home market and increase fee levels if that is what is needed, taking account of local circumstances and priorities.

  The following table shows the number of care home places by type of accommodation available in Lancashire as at 31 March 2001. Figures for Chorley are not available.

  Figures for later years have been collected by the National Care Standards Commission, but comparable details broken down by local authority are not available.

  Number of care home places in Lancashire 1 by type of accommodation as at 31 March 2001

  Residential homes

  Number

  Local Authority staffed

  2,345

  Private2

  11,065

  Voluntary2

  1,035

  Small3

  590

  Nursing homes

  Independent

  7,323

  1 For residential care Lancashire has been interpreted as Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool Local Authorities. For nursing care it has been denned as south, east and northwest Lancashire and Morecambe Bay Health Authorities.

  2 Includes dual registered homes.

  3 Independent registered care homes with less than four places.

  Source:

  RA and RH(N) form A.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for a scan for patients with a suspected stroke was in each of the last three years for which there are records. [150211]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally. The national service framework for older people targeted in this area is to achieve a computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan in less than 48 hours. The summary report of the 2001–02 National Sentinel Stroke Audit reported that more patients than ever had brain imaging, with at least 83 per cent. meeting that target.

WALES

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much bovine TB compensation has been paid in Wales. [150330]

  Mr. Touhig
  Statutory responsibility to pay farmers compensation at market value for cattle slaughtered under TB control policies is made by the National Assembly for Wales. Compensation is paid to farmers in Wales at 100 per cent. of market value as specified by the Brucellosis and Tuberculosis (England and Wales) Compensation (Amendment) Order 1996.
  477W
  Between 1999 and 2003 the Assembly paid £12,939,000 by way of compensation to Welsh farmers.

  EU Funding
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding match-funding for Objective 1 projects in Wales in each of the past 15 months. [150652]

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

  The Government won Objective 1 status for West Wales and the Valleys and is providing public expenditure cover outside of Barnett for the Assembly's receipts under the Structural Funds.

  It is for the Assembly to take its own spending decisions but this arrangement ensures that the Assembly can make match funding available, for that portion of match funding which it will be providing.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the First Secretary to discuss the funding of Objective 1 projects. [150014]

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

  As at 31 December 2003, the Objective 1 Programme has committed more than £680 million of grant to more than 1,000 projects, representing a total project investment of nearly £1.65 billion. To date, projects have reported the creation of some 22,000 gross new jobs and more than 30,000 jobs have been safeguarded.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many appeals against refusal to grant the(a) care and (b) mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance were made in each year since 2000; how many were allowed in each year; and if he will make a statement. [150022]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Christina Townsend Chief Executive of the Appeals Service. She will reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Christina Townsend to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 29 January 2004:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding the number of appeals against refusal to grant the (a) care and (b) mobility component of the disability living allowance were made in each year since 2000 and how many were allowed in each year.

  The attached tables show the figures for the years 2000–2003. I hope this reply is helpful.

  As at August

  Disability Living Allowance' on benefit' load

  2000

  2,160,300

  2001

  2,271,100

  2002

  2,358,800

  2003

  2,526,700

  478W
  Notes:

  Figure is rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Based on a 5 per cent. sample.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 5% sample.

  Disability Living Allowance Appeals with issues relating to care/mobility lodged at a first tier agency, received by the Appeals Service, cleared at hearing and found in favour of the appellant at hearing: 2000 to 2003

  Lodged

  Received

  Cleared

  Found in favour

  Percentage found in favour

  2000

  78,490

  77,940

  51,925

  25,360

  48.8

  2001

  67,670

  71,920

  71,755

  37,020

  51.6

  2002

  63,405

  66,415

  59,575

  31,840

  53.4

  2003*

  52,905

  62,395

  52,900

  27,560

  52.1

  Disability Living Allowance Appeals with issues relating to care lodged at a first tier agency, received by the Appeals Service, cleared at hearing and found in favour of the appellant at hearing: 2000 to 2003

  Lodged

  Received

  Cleared

  Found in favour

  Percentage found in favour

  2000

  10,140

  10,125

  6,540

  3,560

  54.4

  2001

  8,555

  8,970

  8,535

  5,030

  58.9

  2002

  9,795

  9,885

  8,070

  4,815

  59.7

  2003*

  7,675

  9,225

  7,860

  4,640

  59.0

  Disability Living Allowance Appeals with issues relating to mobility lodged at a first tier agency, received by the Appeals Service, cleared at hearing and found in favour of the appellant at hearing: 2000 to 2003

  Lodged

  Received

  Cleared

  Found in favour

  Percentage found in favour

  2000

  5,335

  5,370

  3,355

  1,520

  45.3

  2001

  4,540

  4,645

  4,625

  2,345

  50.7

  2002

  4,480

  4,695

  4,055

  2,195

  54.1

  2003*

  3,190

  3,875

  3,450

  1,780

  51.6

  * Information for January to November 2003 only. Received appeals in any given month may have been lodged in a previous month. Therefore the number of appeals received could exceed the number of lodgements.

  Notes:

  All figures are subject to change as more up to date data becomes available.

  Figures for the latest months may rise significantly as information feeds through to the Appeals Service.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five and percentages to one decimal place.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. sample.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the waiting times are for the processing of IB50 applications in each constituency in Wales. [149717]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  The IB50 is a self-assessment questionnaire issued to people claiming Incapacity Benefit (IB); once the claimant has completed the IB50, it is forwarded by Jobcentre Plus to SchlumbergerSema to determine whether a Personal Capability Assessment is appropriate.
  479W
  SchlumbergerSema have two key targets for the provision of medical advice in respect of people claiming IB, which are being consistently met in Wales. They are: for the provision of advice without an examination, an average actual clearance time of four working days from receipt of a referral; for the provision of a written

  Incapacity Benefit (IB) Medical Test Results Cleared in 15 days in Wales

  Percentage

  Jobcentre Plus District

  April 2002

  May 2002

  June 2002

  July 2002

  August 2002

  September 2002

  October 2002

  Bridgend and Rhondda, Cynon Taf

  98.05

  97.86

  98.5

  99.9

  99.74

  97.55

  99.66

  Cardiff and Vale

  98.43

  98.43

  98.6

  99.79

  98.81

  98.09

  100

  Eastern Valleys

  99.11

  99.12

  99.18

  99.81

  99.59

  99.6

  99.87

  North West Wales and Powys

  97.59

  99.14

  97.18

  98.91

  97.16

  98.09

  98

  South East Wales

  98.86

  99.63

  98.87

  99.15

  100

  99.6

  99.34

  Swansea Bay

  99.03

  93.78

  96.2

  98.59

  98.4

  98

  98.57

  West Wales

  96.42

  95.5

  98.14

  98.64

  96.51

  87.32

  94.54

  Wrexham and North Wales Coast

  97.7

  97.7

  99.04

  98.47

  98.41

  99.39

  98.75

  Wales

  98.33

  97.17

  98.29

  99.24

  98.93

  97.4

  98.89

  GB National total

  96.73

  96.09

  95.03

  95.81

  95.57

  96.55

  96.72

  Percentage

  Jobcentre Plus District

  November 2002

  December 2002

  January 2003

  February 2003

  March 2003

  Total

  Bridgend and Rhondda, Cynon Taf

  98.31

  90.04

  98.84

  99.54

  99.6

  98.25

  Cardiff and Vale

  98.97

  99.37

  98.44

  99.61

  100

  99.09

  Eastern Valleys

  99.74

  99.55

  99.91

  100

  99.69

  99.51

  North West Wales and Powys

  70.18

  99.67

  98.61

  99.65

  99.46

  97.09

  South East Wales

  97.64

  100

  99.84

  99.64

  99.64

  99.47

  Swansea Bay

  98.72

  99.17

  97.8

  97.55

  99.12

  97.73

  West Wales

  97.69

  100

  98.96

  96.39

  99.62

  96.18

  Wrexham and North Wales Coast

  96.66

  100

  99.81

  99.82

  99.69

  98.63

  Wales

  97.34

  98.35

  99.02

  98.76

  99.57

  98.32

  GB National total

  96.94

  97.4

  96.22

  98.25

  97.96

  96.54

  Note:

  Jobcentre Plus aims to clear all IB medical test results within 15 days. The planning assumption for business delivery is that this target will be met in 98 per cent. of cases

  Source:

  DWP Management Information Data

  Learning Disabilities
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what training is given to staff to enable them to understand the needs of clients with learning disabilities. [151305]

  Maria Eagle
  There is an on-going programme of training for all staff in the Disability and Carers Service,
  480W
  examination report, an average actual clearance of 32 working days from receipt of a referral.

  Once the IB50s are returned, Jobcentre Plus have an internal target of 15 days to reach a decision. Information on performance against this target in Wales for 2002–03 is in the following table.

  which includes a one-day module on Disability Awareness encompassing a range of disability issues, together with two specialist one-day modules for Decision Makers covering Mental Health and Learning Disability issues. There is a commitment to review the scope of the Programme with a view to extending the specialist modules for Decision Makers to other impairments in due course.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many abandoned vehicles were collected in the Ribble Valley and Fulwood area in each year since 1997. [149793]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested for Ribble Valley borough council is given in the following table.

  Financial year

  Number of abandoned vehicles collected

  2000–01

  16

  2001–02

  35

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

  Badgers
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 20 November 2003,Official Report, column 1200W, how far in terms of linear distance badger culling extended from the buildings in reactive areas which housed cattle which were reported as TB reactors. [150489]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Reactive culling attempted to remove badger social groups whose territories impinged on those parts of cattle premises where infected reactor cattle were housed or grazed, or from which their forage had been harvested. The extent of such removal operations varied depending on the outcome of badger activity surveys and local badger density. On average culling areas extended about 1 km around implicated land/buildings and was in the order of 5 km2

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what factors determine the placing of badger traps in order to maximise the success or badger culling operations within the context of the Krebs trials; where traps have had to be repositioned to more discrete locations as a result of interference; whether that has required their positioning in sub-optimal locations; and what effect that has had on the conduct and the success of the culling operations. [150493]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Standard operating procedures for the Krebs Trial as ratified by the Independent Scientific Group advise on number and location for trap sites; saturation trapping on setts being the preferred procedure. Traps are located at other sites where consistent anti-Trial interference or denial of consent renders trapping at sites impossible. The impact of varying trap locations is unknown.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the best estimate is of the additional cost to public funds of the(a) interference with and (b) theft of badger traps in the Krebs trials. [150494]
  482W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Management records indicate that 6239 traps have been damaged during the Krebs Trial. A further 1926 have been recorded as stolen/lost, but a proportion of these have subsequently been recovered. The current replacement value of a badger trap is approximately £50.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 210W, on badgers, what measures can be taken to reduce the risk to badger cubs inhabiting the same sett as an infectious female suckling badger from infection from M. bovis bacilli. [150548]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Practical measures that could be used to prevent the possibility of an infectious lactating female from infecting her cubs have not yet been identified.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 210W, what her estimate is of the typical proportion of badger faeces and urine deposited in latrines from a given social group; what proportion is distributed more generally over grassland; and what risk of M. bovis infection these deposits present to grazing cattle. [150550]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Work carried out by Bristol University suggests that the proportion of faeces and urine deposited at latrines vary with badger density. The proportion of latrines located in different habitats is the subject of current research at the Central Science Laboratory, the results of which will be published in due course.

  The majority of cattle actively avoid eating grass contaminated with badger faeces but tend not to select against grass contaminated with badger urine. Since most faeces tend to be deposited in latrines, which are often large and obvious, while urinations tend to trail onto pasture, infected badger urine at pasture might pose a greater transmission risk than infected faeces. However, there is likely to be some risk of onward transmission wherever either infectious faeces or urine are present on land grazed by cattle.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 10 December 2003,Official Report, column 522W, on badgers, what evidence there is that viable M. bovis bacilli remaining in badger setts following the culling of infected denizens can transmit the disease to healthy badgers which subsequently colonise those setts. [150567]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  M. bovis survival is promoted by low levels of sunlight, low to moderate temperatures and high relative humidity. A typical badger sett experiences 100 per cent. relative humidity at all times of year, a fairly constant temperature, which is always higher than ambient temperature and almost total darkness. Hence, although no quantitative studies have been carried out, it seems possible that M. bovis bacilli could remain viable in badger setts long enough to infect badgers during recolonisation.
  483W
  For comparison, M. bovis has survived in manure for up to two years when buried at 5 cm deep, and for one year when buried 1 cm deep. On pasture, M. bovis has survived for five to 11 months.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the proportion of cubs born to infectious sow badgers which themselves go on to develop TB with the potential to spread to other animals; and what assessment she has made of whether this poses a significant threat to(a) other badgers and (b) cattle. [150578]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Transmission of infection between infectious females and their offspring is thought to be an important process in the dynamics of TB in badger populations. The Central Science Laboratory's Woodchester Park study has shown that there is a significant statistical relationship between the number of infected cubs in a social group and the presence of an infectious female. However, no assessment has been made of the proportion of cubs born to infectious females which themselves go on to become infectious.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 217W, what warnings were given by her officials to farmers who were asked to volunteer for participation in the Krebs trials about (a) the risks involved in participation and (b) the consequences of failure of all or any part of the trials. [150582]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The signing up of landowners agreeing to voluntary participation in the trial was carried out according to a Standard Operation Procedure ratified by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB. Information on the Government's TB strategy and on the Culling Trial in particular was available in the form of fact sheets, website pages and reports from the Krebs and Bourne Groups. The basis for the Randomised Badger Culling Trial was well documented and communicated to participants by trained staff at the time of their voluntary agreement. Questions that could not be answered at the time on the basis of the briefing available were responded to subsequently in writing or by telephone.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in cases where badgers have been translocated from the Krebs areas, whether her Department was informed of such translocations; and whether landowners were informed. [150584]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are unaware that any such translocations of badgers from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial areas have taken place.

  Bird Conservation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with her EU counterparts concerning measures to stem the decline of bird numbers in the regions of most intensive agriculture. [149829]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]Discussions regularly cover a large range of issues concerning the environmental impact of agriculture.
  484W
  Information is shared between administrations as necessary. However, I can assure you that the Government have recognised the seriousness of the decline in farmland birds and has adopted a target to reverse this long-term decline by 2020. Latest statistics show that the index is stabilising.

  I am attending an international conference organised by the British Ornithological Union in March, which will be discussing this issue in detail.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to prevent the spread of bovine TB to East Yorkshire; and if she will make a statement. [150328]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There have been no confirmed outbreaks of bovine tuberculosis in East Yorkshire since before January 1996. There are currently no farms under TB restrictions.

  Defra is shortly to launch a public consultation on a new TB Strategy for England, which will include proposals for a range of potential measures for introduction in the short-term. These are designed to halt the geographical spread of the disease, and include pre and post-movement testing of cattle and a review of local testing frequencies. One of the major concerns of the consultation is to reduce the risk of spreading TB from areas of high incidence to areas with little or no disease.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to standardise the collation of data on bovine TB in a format which allows for a comparison with the Office International des Epizootics figures for incidence of TB; what she estimates the costs of so doing would be; and what assessment she has made of the merits of so doing. [150510]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Bovine TB is a regional problem with a higher incidence of disease in the South West of Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. Defra publishes the incidence of TB in Great Britain on a regional basis, to demonstrate the regional distribution of incidents. The OIE requires a composite annual report for the whole of the United Kingdom. The composite report indicates the average incidence of TB in the UK; but does not demonstrate the localised incidence within the regions. The composite report which is provided each year, as required for the OIE, is derived by amalgamating the regional reports for GB and Northern Ireland, therefore there would be no cost benefit in providing only a UK report and the true regional incidence of the disease would remain unclear.

  In Great Britain there is an obligation under Council Directive 64/432/EEC and other Directives to provide the European Commission with herd and animal incidence figures for bovine TB every year in the prescribed format.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 210W, what the presumptive infective dose

  485W
  range of M. bovis is in respect of cattle; and whether some badgers suffering from bovine TB are capable of excreting sufficient numbers of M. bovis bacilli to constitute such an infective dose. [150526]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Determination of the minimum infectious dose of Mycobacterium bovis in cattle is part of the TB pathogenesis research programme. Early indications are that the minimum infectious dose for cattle via the respiratory tract is relatively small; the lowest infectious dose recorded so far is 70 colony forming units (CPU) when introduced by the intracheal route or 9,600 CPU by the intranasal route.

  Relatively high levels of M. bovis in the urine of badgers with renal TB have been identified. Bacterial loads of up to 300,000 CPU per millilitre of urine have been measured. This suggests that inhalation of as little as 0.03 ml of the urine could result in infection.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003,Official Report, column 217W, what plans she has to extend the restrictions on the sale of milk from farms under TB restrictions. [150549]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The new European Union consolidated Food Hygiene Regulation, which is expected to come into force in January 2006, will not permit the sale of milk from reactor animals for human consumption—including milk that has been heat treated.

  Civil Service (Disabled People)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out the number of employees in her Department who have a disability, broken down by disability type. [148986]

  Alun Michael
  The number of staff who have informed or declared a disability and listed by type of disabilities are as follows. The types of disabilities are greater than the number of staff declaring a disability as some staff have declared more than one:

  Disability

  Number of staff

  Angina

  —

  Asthma

  60

  Continence

  6

  Diabetes

  27

  Dyslexia

  20

  Epilepsy

  15

  Eyesight

  35

  Hearing

  61

  Lifting/carrying/moving everyday objects

  36

  Manual dexterity

  38

  Memory or ability to concentrate, learn or understand

  11

  Mental illness

  19

  Mobility

  39

  Other

  131

  Perception of the risk of physical danger

  —

  Physical co-ordination

  16

  Severe disfigurement

  10

  Speech

  5

  Total disabilities

  535

  Total staff

  392

  486W
  Figures less than five have been suppressed for reasons of confidentiality. Statistics on the disability profile of the civil service as a whole from April 2003 show that 3.6 per cent. of the civil service overall had a declared disability (1.7 per cent. in the SCS). Corporate data on disability by disability type is not published. Further data can be found on www.civil-service.gov.uk/ statistics. The civil service anonymous Diversity Survey (2001) showed that 15 per cent. of respondents were declaring a disability or long-standing illness against a declared level of 4 per cent. staff with a disability. This could show that disabled staff are more likely to take part in the survey, or that many people who consider themselves to be disabled or have a long standing illness have not declared this to their employer. This level of disability is consistent with the Spring 2003 Labour Force Survey which reported a level of 12.9 per cent. disability in the economically active population.

  Cabinet Office set up a Disability Working Group in January 2003 to look at disability collection issues, monitoring and non-declaration. Defra are represented on this group. The group has recently completed a consultation exercise —the outcome of which will be made available in due course.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what cuts in trade distorting support and export subsidies will result from the reforms of the common agricultural policy agreed at the Agriculture Council of the EU in June 2003. [149108]

  Alun Michael
  The CAP reform agreement will substantially reduce trade distorting support as a result of the decoupling of direct payments. There is a degree of national discretion over the extent of decoupling but we anticipate that EU Blue Box support (defined as subsidies deemed less trade-distorting because they are linked to production-limiting programmes such as set-aside, e.g. arable area and livestock headage payments) will fall by at least two-thirds. Amber box support (defined as subsidies which significantly distort trade, e.g. support prices) is estimated to fall by a modest amount due to reductions in support prices and declines in production as a result of decoupling. However, amber box subsidies have already been falling substantially due to the previous Agenda 2000 reforms.

  Both decoupling and reductions in support prices will reduce export subsidies, but the precise impact will depend on future conditions on world markets and on the exchange rate.

  Dairy Farming
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the future economic viability of dairy farming in Lancashire. [149937]

  Alun Michael
  The Government understand the problems that low farmgate prices for milk have caused farmers in Lancashire and in the rest of the UK, and the challenges the dairy sector will face adjusting to the new conditions that will be created by a reformed CAP. While the Government recognise these difficulties, they
  487W
  also believes that the UK dairy sector has a sustainable future and, in line with their "Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food", will work alongside the industry to facilitate and support its development. The UK has a comparative advantage in terms of climate, farm efficiency and size over many of its competitors. If the dairy supply chain can work together to maximise this potential and address some of the difficulties it faces, then there is no reason why it should not succeed.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average income of dairy farmers in the United Kingdom was in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [148696]

  Alun Michael
  The average net farm income for dairy farmers in the UK is shown in the table. Net farm income is defined as the return to the principal farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and on the tenant type capital of the business.

  Forecast of dairy incomes in England for the year ending February 2004 will be published on 29 January 2004.

  Net income perform

  £

  Current

  In real terms at 2002–03 prices

  1991–92

  19,900

  26,200

  1992–93

  27,000

  34,500

  1993–94

  31,100

  39,000

  1994–95

  27,200

  33,200

  1995–96

  33,900

  40,000

  1996–97

  28,000

  32,300

  1997–98

  18,100

  20,200

  1998–99

  10,700

  11,600

  1999–2000

  9,000

  9,700

  2000–01

  13,900

  14,400

  2001–02

  27,900

  28,400

  2002–03

  12,300

  12,300

  Source:

  Farm Business Surveys

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the latest figure for the average annual income of hill farmers in England and Wales is. [150058]

  Alun Michael
  The average net farm income in 2002–03 for hill farmers in England was £17,960. Net farm income is defined as the return to the principal farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and on the tenant type capital of the business.

  Welsh data are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Farming Policy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on Government policy on the place of(a) environmental protection, (b) protection of wildlife and (c) animal welfare in UK farming policy. [149830]
  488W
  Alun Michael
  The Government are committed to help develop a farming industry which is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. The Government's Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food (SFFS), published in December 2002 sets out how the Government will work with the whole of the food chain to secure a sustainable future for English farming and food industries, as viable industries contributing to a better environment and healthy and prosperous communities.

  One of the strategy's key aims is to protect the environment and reward farmers for providing environmental goods. Last year's agreement on CAP reform will help further this objective by removing an incentive to overproduce. In addition, the cross compliance measures to be introduced as part of the agreement will help farmers to reduce damaging environmental impacts by making farm subsidies dependent on meeting good agricultural and environmental conditions. The CAP reform deal also provided for the switching of support from production subsidies to environmental and rural development schemes. In England, we have been running a pilot Entry Level Scheme designed to link key elements of good environmental management across a wider area than the current schemes. Provided that the pilot is successful, the scheme will be made available across England during 2005.

  Defra is also carrying out a strategic review of options to reduce diffuse water pollution from agriculture, and will be consulting further on this in the near future.

  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000) provides protection for wildlife and their habitats and sets out comprehensive statutory protection for all species and habitats. All wild birds are afforded statutory protection under the 1981 Act, which fulfils our obligations under the EC Wild Birds Directive. Certain animals and plants are also protected under the 1981 Act. In addition to the protection given to certain animals by the 1981 Act, further protection is also granted to certain species via the Habitats Regulations 1994.

  Furthermore, England's Biodiversity Strategy builds on the foundations already laid in conserving habitats and species and aims to go further by ensuring that the implications for wildlife as a whole are considered an integral part of agriculture policy. The strategy encourages the management of farming and agricultural land so as to conserve and enhance biodiversity as part of SFFS.

  Also as part of the SFFS, an outline Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain was published for consultation in July 2003. The strategy sets out the direction for animal health and welfare related policy over the next 10 years. It aims to improve the health and welfare of kept animal, and protect public health from animal disease. The strategy is underpinned by the principle of partnership between government and all those involved in and affected by animal health and welfare. It sets out the factors that will help inform Government decisions and the rationale for

  489W
  Government intervention in animal health and welfare including the need to protect and promote the welfare of animals.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the difference is in(a) species and (b) size of fish caught between paired trawling and single vessel towing. [150296]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In 2003 fishing vessels using single trawl gears caught a much wider range of species than those using pair trawl gears. While both single and pair trawlers caught predominantly more pelagic species, a greater proportion of landings by pair trawlers comprised pelagic species than by single trawlers.

  Information on fish sizes is collected for marketing purposes. However since this is recorded as size bands which differ between species, and because the grading of fish is often not recorded, it is not possible given the data available to determine how the size of fish caught differs between the two fishing methods.

  Relative percentages of the main species caught by UK fishing vessels using single and pair trawl gears (excluding nephrops gear) in 2003

  Percentage of landings by volume

  Species

  Pair trawls

  Single trawls

  Mackerel

  53

  28

  Herring

  15

  17

  Haddock

  7

  6

  Blue Whiting

  5

  11

  Sprats

  4

  1

  Pilchards

  3

  1

  Horse Mackerel

  3

  1

  Saithe

  3

  2

  Cod

  2

  5

  Whiting

  1

  1

  Plaice

  1

  4

  Nephrops

  1

  4

  Others

  2

  19

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at what level in her Department the decision is made to pursue through the criminal courts the prosecution of persons or companies alleged to have committed or suspected of fraudulent activity in matters within the jurisdiction or responsibility of her Department; and whether such decisions are confirmed or reviewed by her or any member of her ministerial team. [150560]

  Alun Michael
  Decisions to prosecute for fraudulent activity are made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors (4th Edition) (2000) by prosecution lawyers in the Criminal Advisory and Prosecution Division of the Legal Services Directorate General of the Department. The lawyers are bound by Code for Crown Prosecutors (4th Edition) (2000) and their task is firstly to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" and only then, if there is a realistic prospect of conviction, whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
  490W
  Such decisions are not confirmed or reviewed by any Ministers although quite properly Ministers are informed of certain high-profile cases and may make representations to the prosecutor.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria are applied by her Department in determining whether to pursue through the criminal courts the prosecution of persons or companies alleged to have committed or suspected of fraudulent activity in matters within the jurisdiction or responsibility of her Department. [150562]

  Alun Michael
  Decisions to prosecute for fraudulent activity in matters within the jurisdiction or responsibility of the Department are made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors (4th Edition 2000) by prosecution lawyers in the Criminal Advisory and Prosecution Division of the Legal Services Directorate General of the Department.

  The lawyers are bound by Code for Crown Prosecutors (4th Edition) (2000) and their task is firstly to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" and then, only if there is a realistic prospect of conviction, whether a prosecution is in the public interest. In their overall assessment of the public interest in prosecuting such cases, the lawyers take into account all relevant circumstances relating to the commission of the offence including those set out in paragraphs 6.5 (c) to (e) of the Code and the personal circumstances of the offender including those set out in paragraph 6.5 (f) to (h) of the Code.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what audit mechanisms are in place to determine whether information technology(a) hardware and (b) software products are being used properly in her Department. [150930]

  Alun Michael
  A considerable amount of work is going on in Defra to improve our IT facilities and systems. We are also seeking to improve usage and exploitation of the capacity of the Department's systems in the interests of efficiency and service delivery. It is against that background that the variety of audit mechanisms need to be understood. They are:

  1. Departmental audit:

  The IT Audit Branch of the Department's own Internal Audit Division conducts a continuous programme of audit assignments (approximately 15–20 per year) in order to provide an assurance concerning the management of our IT systems' (hardware and software) lifecycle—specification, procurement, development, implementation, operations and decommissioning. The scope of audit assignments included in the programme is determined using a risk-based approach and ranges from in-depth examination of single projects or operational systems, to "horizontal" reviews of management processes which can be expected to apply reasonably consistently across projects or systems—for example, software licensing, infrastructure change management, IT governance.

  Internal audits contribute to an assurance that hardware and software products are being used properly within the Department, in the sense that projects/systems contribute effectively and efficiently to the achievement of Departmental objectives, are compliant with legal and regulatory requirements,

  491W
  apply mandated or claimed standards and acknowledged best practice, and are appropriately economical in the use of funds and other resources.

  The Department's Security Branch conducts a rolling programme of IT security audits focusing on compliance with Departmental IT Security policies throughout the Defra estate. It also co-ordinates the implementation of BS7799—the British Standard for the Management of Information Security. Internal Audit Division is responsible for independent review of achievement of compliance with tis standard.

  2. Other internal tools and mechanisms:

  There are IT-supported administrative systems in place to assist with the identification and management of IT assets (hardware and software).

  A fixed asset inventory is maintained on the Department's Resource Accounting and Management Information System (RAMIS) and holds details of fixed assets valued at£2,000 or more, including IT assets.

  The e-Business Directorate holds information about the software installed on our Office Systems network as well as about major server and application development software, and ensures that the correct number of software licences is held. An IT inventory management application is used to identify hardware on Defra's Local Area Networks.

  "Audit Logs" recording information concerning users' access to and activity on the Department's IT systems are automatically specified and implemented for all significant IT systems. These are generally for the benefit of system owners in day-to-day management of the system, but may sometimes be used by Internal Audit to examine for signs of improper use of the systems.

  3. External audit bodies and mechanisms:

  External audit bodies which may examine IT management functions include reviews by NAO, and by EU Audit (where the system/function in question is involved in administration of EU-funded schemes). As with internal audit, external audits of administrative functions may also touch upon IT management issues and may prompt internal audit follow up.

  All new major IT-enabled business change programmes within Defra are subject to OGC Gateway Reviews and Health Checks, which examine and report on the management of Programmes, and can also be regarded as a form of external audit.

  Ivory
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to ban the import of all ivory products; and if she will make a statement. [150962]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 January 2004]The EU CITES Regulations, which implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in the European Union, already prohibit trade in products made from wild-taken elephant and narwhal ivory.

  Powers are also available:

  (a) to control trade in all other ivory products, including pre-convention and antique specimens, by means of a permitting system; and

  (b) to suspend the issue of such permits where we consider, on the basis of scientific advice, that the trade would be detrimental to the conservation of the species in the wild.

  Mr. Tony
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of imports of mammoth ivory products in each of the last five years. [150960]
  492W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 28 January 2004]Under the system of classification used by HM Customs and Excise for categorising UK trade in goods it is not possible to distinguish between mammoth ivory and other ivory. The value of UK imports of ivory were as follows:

  £000

  1998

  20.6

  1999

  62.7

  2000

  0.7

  2001

  0.1

  2002

  2.7

  Jan-Nov 2003

  63.5

  Note:

  Ivory is defined by commodity codes 0507 1000 (unworked) and 9601 1000(worked) of the Combined Nomenclature.

  Lead Content
  Mr. Desmond Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 737W, on lead content, what assessment she has made of the implications for the (a) treatment of cathode ray tubes as hazardous waste and (b) the cost of their disposal of the readiness with which the lead content leaches. [149452]

  Mr. Morley
  The draft study being finalised for Defra, referred to in my earlier answer, shows that the lead oxide paste which welds the face plate of a cathode ray tube to its funnel, is prone to leach. Lead bound up within the glass of the cathode ray tube does not leach very readily. Research conducted by the Defra sponsored Market Transformation Programme estimates the cost of disposal for an average television set, after it has been deposited at a public waste disposal facility, to be in the region often pounds.

  Medicines/Pharmaceuticals
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many investigations the Environment Agency has undertaken in respect of sites licensed by the Drugs Inspectorate for disposal of medicines and pharmaceuticals. [150437]

  Mr. Morley
  The disposal of medicines is not licensed as such by the Home Office Drugs Inspectorate. However, the storage of controlled drugs at any site is subject to a Home Office Drugs Inspectorate licence.

  The Environment Agency authorises processes for the destruction of wastes such as controlled drugs for disposal. It regularly inspects sites for conformity with the requirements of the authorisation, and investigations may be carried out where breaches of authorisations or other environmental legislation are believed to have taken place, and evidence may be sought in relation to enforcement action. One such major investigation has been carried out.

  Additionally, other investigations may relate to technical matters, such as reasons for plant malfunctions, and are Carried out as necessary in accordance with the Agency's inspection programmes.

  Recycling
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what
  493W
  recommendations she has made to local authorities for recycling levels of (a) domestic refuse, (b) commercial refuse and (c) industrial refuse. [149957]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have set statutory performance standards for local authorities in 2003–04 and 2005–06 for the recycling and composting of household waste. The targets are based on the amount of household waste recycled and composted in 1998–99 and require each authority, on average, to double its recycling and composting rate by 2003–04, and triple it by 2005–06.

  Local authorities are not required by law to collect commercial and industrial waste but can do so if asked to by an occupier of premises in their area. The occupier is required to pay the local authority for this service. There is no obligation placed upon local authorities to recycle this waste and, if they do, it will not contribute to their statutory performance standards, which only cover household waste.

  Commercial and industrial waste collected by local authorities does, however, fall within the definition of municipal waste and is therefore subject to the Landfill Directive requirements to reduce biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill. All waste disposed of in landfill site is also subject to the Landfill Tax. Both the announced increases in the Landfill Tax to raise it to £35 a tonne in the medium to long-term and the introduction of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme from 2005, to implement the Landfill Directive requirements, will encourage more recycling.

  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of(a) domestic refuse, (b) commercial refuse and (c) industrial refuse was recycled in (i) Brent, (ii) London and (iii) England in the last year for which records are available. [149958]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The most recent year's figures for household waste are found in the Municipal Waste Management Survey for 2001–02.

  Percentage

  London borough of Brent

  7

  London

  9.3

  England

  12.4

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

  Percentage

  Commercial waste

  Industrial waste

  London borough of Brent

  Not collected

  Not collected

  West London (including Brent)

  25.5

  29.5

  Greater London

  30.6

  37.6

  England

  22.5

  34

  US Vessels (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the status is of the four ships from the US ghost fleet sent to the UK for decommissioning. [150029]

  Mr. Morley
  The four ships are currently being stored at Hartlepool. Conditions attached to the site's waste management licence prevent any dismantling work on the ships. The site is inspected by the Environment Agency on a fortnightly basis.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what explanation she has received from(a) the US authorities and (b) the US Marine Administration on why warnings given by the Environment Agency on (i) 3 October 2003, (ii) 8 October 2003 and (iii) 10 October 2003 that the four ships from the US ghost fleet should not set out for the UK were not heeded. [150032]

  Mr. Morley
  Discussions with the US authorities and the US Marine Administration which occurred once the vessels had already left the US concentrated on securing the objectives of safety and environmental protection on the vessels. It was considered that temporary storage in Hartlepool best met those objectives. Consequently, no explanation in relation to warnings has been sought or given.

  Warm Front
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many households she estimates are eligible for assistance from her Department's Warm Front Scheme; and how many households qualify for the Warm Homes Plus element of the programme. [150085]

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

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

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Boxing Day Trading
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will take steps to introduce legislation prohibiting trading on Boxing Day. [149970]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 22 January 2004]I have no plans to do so.

  Employment Directive
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to ensure that the Employment Directive improves the work opportunities of older people from disadvantaged groups. [146429]
  495W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]We shall bring legislation into force on 1 October 2006 under the Employment Directive outlawing age discrimination in employment and vocational training. Such legislation will improve the work opportunities of older people from all groups. Our consultation on proposals for this legislation ended in October 2003. We shall consult on draft regulations later this year. People who experience discrimination on other grounds will continue to be protected under the relevant current discrimination legislation.

  In the meantime the Government encourages employers, through the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment, and the Age Positive campaign, to adopt non-ageist approaches to recruitment, selection, training and development, promotion, redundancy and retirement.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average percentage level of availability was for each(a) onshore and (b) offshore windfarm in the UK in the last year for which figures are available. [R] [147518]

  Mr. Timms
  Figures for average levels of availability for individual windfarms are not available for reasons of commercial confidentiality. However the most recent figures available show an average load factor of all UK windfarms as being 29.9 per cent. in 2002.

  Separate figures for offshore windfarms are not yet available as UK's first major offshore windfarm at North Hoyle has only been operational since November last year. However, we would expect average load factors to be greater due to the superior offshore wind resource.

  Source:

  DUKES 2003 available on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/energy-stats/renewables/index.shtml. Data for 2003 will become available in June 2003.

  Enterprise Act
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers were introduced by the Enterprise Act 2002. [148898]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The main provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002 are:

  Office of Fair Trading

  The Act establishes the OFT on a statutory basis as a corporate body. The Act provides the OFT with a number of new powers, including the following:
  power to compel persons to answer questions or otherwise provide information or documents relevant to an investigation;
  powers of surveillance, in accordance with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000;
  power to apply to court for orders disqualifying directors of companies which have committed a breach of competition law;
  power to enter premises under a warrant.

  Competition Measures
  expert, independent, competition bodies take decisions on mergers and markets against a new competition-based test within a more transparent, predictable and accountable framework;
  there is a new right of appeal to the Competition Appeals Tribunals in merger and market inquiries;
  496W
  there are rules for the conduct of the Competition Commission's inquiries allowing for a more transparent remedies-setting phase;
  criminal sanctions with a maximum penalty of five years in prison to deter those individuals who dishonestly operate hardcore cartels—agreements to fix prices, share markets, limit production and rig bids;
  there are greater opportunities to gain redress for victims of anti-competitive behaviour, consumer bodies who are able to make claims on behalf of individuals who have suffered.

  Consumer Protection Measures
  the Stop Now Orders regime has been extended to protect consumers from traders who do not meet their legal obligations;
  the OFT is able to give formal approval to codes of practice;
  consumer bodies are able to make 'super-complaints' to the OFT.

  Insolvency Reforms
  The Crown's preferential right to recover unpaid taxes ahead of other creditors have been abolished;
  reform of corporate insolvency law and a streamlining of administration;
  a new Bankruptcy Restrictions Order regime has been introduced;
  the financial regime of the Insolvency Service has been modernised.

  Estate Agent Ombudsman Scheme
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received on the operation of the Estate Agent Ombudsman scheme; and if she will make a statement. [150881]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  None. I expect the OFT to publish its report on estate agents shortly. I will study the recommendations carefully.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many young people in(a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) the UK have entered the manufacturing industry following school in each year since 1997; [145121]

  (2) how many young people in (a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) the UK have been employed in the manufacturing industry in each year since 1997. [145122]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from J. Pullinger to Mr. Stephen Hepburn, dated 29 January 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about young people employed in the manufacturing industry. I am replying in his absence. (145121 and 145122)

  The attached table gives estimates of the number of people aged 16 to 24 resident in the United Kingdom and the North East region employed in the manufacturing industry, for the twelve month period ending November of each year from 1997 to 2003.
  497W
  These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). The LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates for South Tyneside or the Jarrow Parliamentary Constituency.

  Although the LFS can provide some retrospective information, its principal focus is on the current labour market status of people when they are interviewed. No estimates of young people who left school to enter manufacturing industry are available.

  As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability.

  Young people1 employed in the manufacturing industry2 by area of residence

  Thousand

  12-month period ending November

  United Kingdom

  North East

  1997

  679

  33

  1998

  654

  32

  1999

  604

  29

  2000

  537

  27

  2001

  530

  24

  2002

  502

  22

  2003

  447

  20

  1People aged 16–24

  2People whose main job is in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 1992 Division D: Manufacturing

  Note:

  These LFS estimates have not been adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census results.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Ling Dynamics Ltd.
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the letters of 13 November 2003 and 15 December 2003 from the hon. Member for North -East Hertfordshire on her Department's relationship with Ling Dynamics Ltd. of Royston. [150357]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]Following his letter of 13 November, the hon. Member will recall that I telephoned him to discuss his constituent's concerns. The hon. Member will also recall that, in early 2003, we both met with Mr. Williams to discuss various export control-related issues. We are well aware of the difficulties that Mr. Williams of Ling Dynamics Ltd. has been facing and are doing as much as we can to assist him.

  Miners Compensation
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what mechanisms are in place to ensure that miners' compensation claims for respiratory diseases are settled within a reasonable period of time. [149914]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department and our contractors are doing all we can to speed up the process for respiratory disease claims.

  The company currently contracted to provide the Medical Assessment Process (MAP), Schlumberger, have recruited 250 respiratory specialists to work on this scheme. This represents 40 per cent. of those available in the UK.
  498W
  To enable the medical assessments to be converted in to offers, IRISC, the Department's claim handlers, have increased their staff from 160 in November 1999 to around 1,150 at present.

  To assist solicitors in turning round these offers, we have re-launched our website—www.coalclaims.com—where-solicitors are able to send in forms electronically and agree aspects of the claim online, particularly employment histories. Solicitors can also identify from the website their highest priority claims so they can better target their efforts on those cases that are most important.

  The Department has received nearly 400,000 claims so far. We have made some 167,000 individual payments and settled 110,000 claims, totalling £959 million.

  Note:

  The Handling Agreement was approved by the judges concerned who still preside over the process of paying out the compensation. The Department and the claimants' solicitors are required to report back to the judge on progress three to four times a year. The next hearing is 3 February 2004.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley have benefited from the minimum wage since its introduction. [149165]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not possible to provide estimates specifically for Lancashire or Chorley. However based on the Office for National Statistics' low pay data released in 2003, the DTI estimates that around 140,000 people in the north west stood to benefit from the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999.

  The DTI estimates that between 130,000 and 160,000 people in the north west benefited from the increase in minimum wage rates in October 2003.

  National Power Provision
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the capacity of the national power grid is. [151264]

  Mr. Timms
  Figures published in National Grid Transco's Seven Year Statement of March 2003 show that the capacity of the England and Wales transmission system is 69.1 GW.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the projected demand for power is in the United Kingdom over the next 25 years; and what steps she is taking to ensure that this demand is met. [151265]

  Mr. Timms
  The latest provisional DTI energy projections which update those in Energy Paper 68 available in the Libraries of the House, project a demand of 375TWh in 2005, 385TWh in 2010, 386TWh in 2015 and 399TWh in 2020. The projections relate to gross supply to the grid and cover all major power producers and renewable generators and exclude the effect of a number of climate change programme measures whose exact impact had not been estimated at the time of publication.
  499W
  The Government attach great importance to reliable energy supplies—reliable supply is one of the four goals of energy policy as set out the Government's Energy White Paper, published in February of last year.

  We believe that a market based approach for provision of electricity generation will work. But if the market is to work it needs confidence that Government will not intervene. We have said we will not intervene in the market except in extreme circumstances, to protect safety, and that remains our position.

  Through the Joint Energy Security of Supply working group (JESS), we and Ofgem continually monitor developments in the gas and electricity markets over the medium to long term and look for ways to improve the

  Name

  Appointment ends

  Remuneration (£)

  (a) National Consumer Council

  Deirdre Hutton (Chair)

  31 December 2006

  48,567

  Robert Chilton (Vice-Chair)

  30 September 2004

  13,100

  Graeme Millar (Member and SCC Chair)

  30 April 2006

  10,481

  Vivienne Sugar (Member and WCC Chair)

  31 March 2007

  10,481

  Stephen Costello (Member and GCCNI Chair)

  31 December 2005

  10,481

  Mark Boleat (Member)

  31 December 2005

  10,481

  Andrew Dilnot (Member)

  30 June 2008

  10,481

  Dianne Hayter (Member)

  30 September 2004

  10,481

  Sir Christopher Kelly (Member)

  30 September 2004

  10,481

  Stephen Locke (Member)

  30 September 2004

  10,481

  Julie Mellor (Member)

  30 September 2004

  10,481

  Julia Unwin (Member)

  30 September 2004

  10,481

  (b) Welsh Consumer Council

  Viv Sugar (Chair)

  31 March 2007

  6,902

  Heather Coates (Member)

  30 September 2004

  100 per day

  Stephen Delahaye (Member)

  30 September 2004

  100 per day

  Carys Evans (Member)

  30 September 2004

  100 per day

  Gerallt Hughes

  30 September 2004

  100 per day

  Chris Neary

  30 September 2004

  100 per day

  Anne Morgan

  30 September2004

  100 per day

  Thelma Parry

  30 September 2005

  100 per day

  (c) Scottish Consumer Council

  Graeme Millar

  30 April 2006

  16,192

  Heather Brash

  31 October 2007

  100 per day

  Ann Clark

  31 May 2006

  100 per day

  Neil Edwards

  31 May 2006

  100 per day

  John Hanlon

  31 May 2006

  100 per day

  Kay Blair

  31 May 2008

  100 per day

  Liz Breckinridge

  31 May 2008

  100 per day

  Peter Hunter

  31 May 2008

  100 per day

  Alan Hutton

  31 May 2008

  100 per day

  Adriene Kelbie

  31 May 2008

  100 per day

  Ashok Khindrea

  31 May 2008

  100 per day

  Isabelle Low

  31 May 2008

  100 per day

  Mukami McCrum

  31 May 2008

  100 per day

  Drew Ratter

  31 May 2008

  100 per day

  (d) The Hearing Aid Council

  Christopher Hughes (Chair)

  31 August 2006

  189.50 per day (max 50 days)

  Christine Pearce

  31 December 2004

  189.50 per day (max 25 days)

  Deepak Prasher

  31 December 2004

  189.50 per day (max 25 days)

  Victoria Skeels

  31 December 2004

  189.50 per day (max 25 days)

  Jonathan Ormerod

  31 December 2004

  189.50 per day (max 25 days)

  Maurice Hawthorne

  31 December 2005

  189.50 per day (max 25 days)

  Mark Geogevic

  31 December 2005

  189.50 per day (max 25 days)

  Margaret Hughes

  31 December 2005

  189.50 per day (max 25 days)

  Denise Yates

  31 December 2005

  189.50 per day (max 25 days)

  Huw Thomas

  31 December 2006

  189.50 per day (max 25 days)

  John Irwin

  31 December 2006

  189.50 per day (max 25 days)

  Peter Ormerod

  31 December 2006

  189.50 per day (max 25 days)

  Anthony Corcoran

  31 December 2006

  189.50 per day (max 25 days)

  (e) Gas and Electricity Consumer Council

  500W
  operation of the market. The latest JESS report was published on 12 November and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Public Bodies (Membership)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who the members of the(a) National Consumer Council, (b) Welsh Consumer Council, (c) Scottish Consumer Council, (d) Hearing Aid Council and (e) Gas Consumer Council were on 1 January; what their term of office is in each case; and what their remuneration is. [151289]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The information requested is as follows:
  501W

  Name

  Appointment ends

  Remuneration (£)

  Andrew Horsler (Acting Chair)

  31 March 2005

  33,324 (as acting chair)

  John Hanlon

  31 March 2005

  10,796

  Bob Wilkinson

  31 March 2005

  10,796

  Tim Cole

  31 March 2005

  7,556

  Sharon Darcy

  31 March 2005

  7,556

  Neil Menzies

  31 March 2005

  7,556

  Les Roberts

  31 March 2005

  7,556

  1Following the passage of the Utilities Act 2000, the Gas Consumers' Council and the Electricity Consumers' Committees of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) were abolished in November 2000, and replaced by the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council(GECC)

  Note

  The GECC's Chief Executive, Allan Asher, is also a member of the Council.

  Sellafield (MOX Facility)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the current operational status of the MOX demonstration facility at Sellafield is; and if she will make a statement. [149533]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]Since February 2002, in accordance with a licence issued by Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII), BNFL has operated the MOX Demonstration Facility (MDF) as a support facility to the Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP).

  Supermarket Code of Practice
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government will publish the report of the Office of Fair Trading inquiry into the operation of the voluntary Supermarket Code of Practice. [150986]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is expected to conclude its review of the Code of Practice governing supermarkets' relations with their suppliers shortly. The OFT will then send its report to DTI for formal consideration. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will then decide if any action is necessary and publish the report.

  TETRA Masts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with Scottish Executive Ministers about TETRA masts. [151792]

  Mr. Timms
  Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have had discussions with Scottish Ministers on the subject.

  Transport of Nuclear Fuel (Essex)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what measures she has taken to protect trains carrying nuclear fuel and spent nuclear fuel through Essex from terrorist attack; [150523]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the vulnerability to terrorist attack of trains travelling through Essex carrying nuclear fuel and spent nuclear fuel; [150524]

  Mr. Timms
  The transport of nuclear fuel strictly adheres to the stringent international and national regulations that govern such movements. In the UK security for the transportation of nuclear material is regulated by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security 502W
  (OCNS). OCNS is kept fully briefed about terrorist threat intelligence and in turn keeps security arrangements under review at all times. It is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures or nuclear fuel movements, which may be of potential use to terrorists.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many trains per month travel in Essex carrying(a) nuclear fuel and (b) spent nuclear fuel. [150525]

  Mr. Timms
  On average the movement of flasks containing spent nuclear fuel through Essex amounts to 12 separate rail movements per month. There are no fresh fuel movements currently through Essex by rail.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which members of the World Trade Organisation have still to implement fully the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Basic Telecommunications. [149080]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The WTO agreement on basic telecommunications came into effect on 5 February 1998. To date, 70 WTO members have adopted the agreement. The nature of the GATS agreement means that members are free to choose the pace and extent of any commitments they wish to make.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on admitting Russia to the World Trade Organisation; and if she will make a statement. [151251]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 27 January 2004]The Government supports Russian membership of the WTO, on the right terms, as both in our interests and in the interests of Russian economic development. We support the negotiating position taken by the European Commission on behalf of the EU, and we call upon the Russian Government to respond positively to the points raised by the Commission on our behalf. We also call upon the Russian Government to address the issues that have been identified by their WTO Accession Working Party as material to the readiness and ability of Russia to implement WTO rules upon accession. Since December 2000, the UK has provided £1.2 million worth of technical assistance to Russia to support their efforts to accede to the WTO.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Queen (Diamond Jubilee)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if the Government will make arrangements for a Diamond Jubilee Baton Relay should London host the 2012 Olympics; [149929]

  (2) what plans she has to link the 2012 Olympic Games bid to the celebrations of the Diamond Jubilee; [150391]

  (3) if she will recommend to the organisers of the London 2012 Olympic bid that they place more emphasis in their bid on the fact that 2012 will also be the Diamond Jubilee. [150392]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government and the bid company, London 2012, are fully aware that it would be a momentous occasion to host the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in the same year as Her Majesty the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Some of the events to celebrate the Golden Jubilee were successfully integrated into the staging of the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games. It is too early to consider what specific celebrations will mark the Diamond Jubilee but London 2012 will consider what links could be made should we stage the Games. The IOC will select the host city on 6 July 2005.

DEFENCE

  Airfield Support Service Project
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Airfield Support Service Project; when it was put out to tender; how many times bidders have been asked to resubmit their bids; what the projected date for conclusion of the bidding process was; when it will take place; and when the public sector comparator was finalised. [149056]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Airfield Support Services Project tender was issued on 20 September 2001.

  Since receipt of their responses in April 2002, bidders have been requested to review their prices on three occasions— in December 2002, May 2003 and September 2003.

  The original projected date for conclusion of the bidding process (Contract Let) was October 2003. The latest revised programme is mid-2004.

  The Public Sector Comparator was originally set in September 2001 and communicated to bidders in November 2001. Since then there have been two revisions, which were advised to bidders in March 2002 and February 2003.

  Colchester Garrison
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on proposals for the building of the new garrison at Colchester; what has caused delays; and when he expects work to start. [151784]
  504W
  Mr. Ingram
  The project to redevelop Colchester Garrison and to provide facilities management for the site has been complex to negotiate. It is very important to our people that we secure these much needed improvements to the Garrison and we have been working hard with our preferred bidder, RMPA to resolve all outstanding issues. I expect to make an announcement on the project in the very near future.

  Procurement (Outsourcing)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [147586]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) on 29 October 2003,Official Report, column 220W.

  Remembrance Day
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the laying of wreaths on Remembrance Day at the graves of Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers on behalf of the Royal Irish Regiment. [151613]

  Mr. Caplin
  There is no official policy regarding the laying of wreaths on behalf of the Royal Irish Regiment on the graves of fallen soldiers from antecedent regiments. However, this does not prevent Royal Irish Regiment battalions from carrying out individual acts of remembrance at the discretion of the Commanding Officer and where resources and appropriate personnel are available. Where it is not possible to carry on such acts and where Regimental Associations consider that a requirement still exists, the Royal Irish Regiment would encourage the respective associations to take on and carry on the tradition.

  Reservists
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions apply to the renewed call-up of a reservist who has completed a six-month operational deployment; and what time must elapse before he or she can be called up again. [150863]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Reserve Forces Act 1996 (RFA 96) sets specific limits for mobilised Service under different call-out orders. Under a section 52 call-out order (national danger, great emergency or attack on the UK), reservists may serve for a total of three years in five; under section 54 (warlike operations), reservists may serve for a total of one year in three; and under section 56 (essentially peacekeeping and disaster relief), reservists may serve for a total of nine months in 27.

  Once mobilised, and subject to the needs of the Services and their Commanding Officer's approval, it is possible for a reservist to volunteer to extend their

  505W
  mobilised Service beyond the limits set by RFA 96; usually for six months at a time. However, there are normally theatre specific limits to the period a reservist can serve. This is to ensure that no one serves too long in an operational environment.

  Once demobilised, it is possible to call-out a reservist immediately, provided he has enough mobilised service available. However, in general we would not do so unless there were overriding operational reasons.

  Sea King Helicopters
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions have been reached by his Department's review of the investigation into the collision of two UK Sea King helicopters, from RNAS Culdrose in Cornwall, off Iraq on 22 March 2003; what the implications were of the non-availability of night vision goggles for the pilots; and if he will make a statement. [150198]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 January 2004]A Board of Inquiry into the circumstances leading to the collision of the two Sea Kings from 849 Naval Air Squadron on 22 March 2003, was completed last November. The purpose of the Board of Inquiry was:to establish the facts surrounding the incident;
  to discover whether there were any shortcomings in Service equipment or procedures which either caused or contributed to the incident; and
  where necessary, to make recommendations.

  The BOI concluded that:
  Both aircraft had reported visual contact with each other, but apparently lost situational awareness and collided. The aircraft were responsible for their own safety at the time of collision.

  Following the BOI operating procedures are being reviewed.

  A full technical investigation by the Royal Navy Flight Safety and Accident Investigation Centre is still under way, and the report of its findings is not expected for some time.

  Helicopter flight safety is achieved through a number of measures including air traffic control, radar detection of hazards, communications, lighting and lookout. Night Vision Goggles (NVG) can, in certain circumstances, enhance these capabilities. However, NVG can be operated only in aircraft that have been specifically modified for this role and from compatible ships. Naval helicopters are fitted to allow operation with NVG according to their tactical role in operations. The operational role for the helicopters of 849 Naval Air Squadron involved in Operation Telic did not require the modifications to the helicopters that are necessary for the provision of NVG We are currently considering whether to adopt as policy a fleet-wide NVG capability.

  The next of kin have been informed of the outcome of the BOI.

  UK Nuclear Weapons Tests
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to categorise into sub-groups by(a) operational activity and (b) incident
  506W
  those covered by the National Radiological Protection Board study of participants in UK nuclear weapons tests. [150844]

  Mr. Caplin
  The results of the epidemiological studies published by the National Radiological Protection Board have been presented in terms of mortality for all types of cancer, cancer incidence and risk relative to a comparison group within the following sub-categories:(a) by operation; (b) for participants with a recorded radiation dose as well as monitored participants with no recorded radiation dose (with information provided on the relative risks for these categories plus an analysis for any trend in mortality or cancer incidence for those with a recorded radiation dose); (c) personnel identified by MOD as liable to exposure to radiation (for example those aircrew involved in sampling radioactive clouds); and (d) personnel directly involved in the minor trials at Maralinga.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funding has been granted to the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association to commission scientific advice on the epidemiology of exposure to nuclear tests. [150845]

  Mr. Caplin
  To date no funding has been granted to the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association (BNTVA) for purposes of commissioning scientific advice. The three independent studies by the National Radiological Protection Board into mortality and cancer incidence among nuclear test veterans were commissioned and funded by the Ministry of Defence.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Brent Housing Partnership
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of Brent Housing Partnership homes are fitted with(a) smoke alarms, (b) fire doors and (c) double glazing. [150815]

  Keith Hill
  This is primarily a matter for Brent Housing Partnership (BHP), the Arms Length Management Organisation that manages 13,500 tenanted and leasehold homes owned by the London Borough of Brent. BHP reports that 34 per cent. of these homes now have smoke alarms, 23 per cent. have double glazing, and that planned works will increase these figures to 80 per cent. by April 2006 and 32 per cent. by September 2004 respectively. The hon. Member may wish to contact BHP to discuss the information she requires on fire doors.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage increase in council tax he considers to be profligate; and how he defines low single figure percentage increases. [150135]

  Mr. Raynsford
  With the significant extra investment we have put into local government and the scope for efficiency improvements, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's view is that local authorities can and should deliver council tax increases in low single figures in 2004–05. It would not be appropriate for the
  507W
  Government to specify a figure at this time. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not want to use its powers to cap local authority budgets but is prepared to use them, if necessary, to protect council taxpayers from excessive council tax rises.

  Fire and Rescue Service
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether his regionalisation agenda for the Fire and Rescue Service envisages a single control room for all Fire Brigades in each region. [149360]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government accept the conclusions of the Mott MacDonald report, on the "Future of Fire and Rescue Service Control Rooms in England and Wales", published in December 2003. It believes that control rooms at regional level are appropriate for reasons of governance, resilience and intra-service working. It is seeking the views of the Practitioners' Forum, authorities and the service on the conclusions of the report and the Government's response. Copies of the report are available in the Library of the House.

  Gypsy and Traveller Sites
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the likely change in demand for gypsy and traveller sites following the admission to the EU of the accession states on 1 May. [151065]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not made an assessment of the likely change in demand for gypsy and traveller sites following the admission to the EU of the accession states on 1 May.

  Research undertaken by the Home Office on migration flows into the UK after enlargement concluded that there would not be a significant increase from current levels.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will keep the issue of the possible demand for additional sites in mind while it reviews its policies on gypsy and traveller site provision, which is due to report to Ministers in the summer.

  Housing
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the availability of affordable housing in each of the Lancashire districts; and what plans he has to increase availability. [151203]

  Keith Hill
  This is a matter for local assessment. National planning advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 "Housing" (PPG3) makes it clear that each local authority should assess the local need for affordable housing within its area.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has published for consultation proposed changes to the current policies for affordable housing set out in PPG3 and in Circular 6/98, 'Planning for Affordable Housing'. They include allowing local authorities to seek affordable housing on smaller sites where this is justified. The proposed changes are designed to help
  508W
  deliver more affordable housing where it is needed, and deliver a better match between a community's housing needs and supply.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether it is the Government's policy that the proposals for elected regional assemblies will not involve any review of the Barnett formula. [150078]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are no plans to review the Barnett formula as a result of elected regional assemblies. The Government keeps all aspects of public spending under review, with allocations to the devolved administrations and the details of the Barnett formula updated in the spending review process in the normal way.

  Robson Rhodes Review
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on when the Robson Rhodes review on the operation of supporting people is expected to report. [151787]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government have received the report on the independent review and are considering their recommendations carefully. The Government will publish the report and announce their response shortly.

  TETRA Masts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidelines have been issued by his Department on the siting of TETRA masts. [151794]

  Keith Hill
  Current planning guidance for all electronic communication developments is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (revised) (PPG8). The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also issued a Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants, broken down by grade, there are in the Department and the agencies for which the Department is responsible; and what the figures were in January 1997. [150269]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is as follows.

  Staff numbers by grade

  Grade

  1 April 19971

  1 October 20031

  SMS

  450

  474

  D7

  85

  194

  D6

  581

  702

  C5

  362

  565

  C4

  1,081

  1,260

  B3

  1,490

  1,323

  A2

  1,327

  1,188

  Al

  236

  351

  Total

  5,612

  6,057

  1Includes Wilton Park.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many directives that should have been transposed into national law have not yet been transposed in(a) France and (b) Germany. [151488]

  Mr. MacShane
  The European Commission recently reported that France had transposed 97.41 per cent. and Germany 97.33 per cent. of directives that were due for implementation by 31 December 2003.

  The European Commission report is available on the European Union website: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/pdf/mne_country_20031231_en.pdf

  European Union
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mid-term Lisbon process targets the European Union has said it will(a) meet and (b) miss; and if he will make a statement. [151343]

  Mr. MacShane
  The hon. Gentlemen will be interested in the European Commission's "Delivering Lisbon'" report, published on 21 January—copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The report notes that although the EU has made some progress in job creation, market liberalisation and creation of a knowledge-based economy, there remains considerable work to be done if the EU is to meet its 2010 goal of becoming the most dynamic economy in the world. The Commission notes that the 2005 mid-term employment targets are likely lo be missed and it therefore urges member states to reinvigorate their commitment to the Lisbon reform agenda. The UK Government support this aim and will be looking to the March 25–26 European Council to provide this impetus.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the entry requirements are for visitors to the Falkland Islands; what visa restrictions are in place; to residents of which countries they apply; and what procedures are in place for those arriving without the correct documentation. [151644]

  Mr. Straw
  Entry requirements for visitors to the Falkland Islands are the responsibility of the Falkland Islands Government and are implemented by the Falkland Islands Immigration Service.

  All visitors must have a valid passport. A valid visa is also required except by citizens of the UK, USA, Chile, Israel, Japan, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, San Marino, Andorra, Vatican City and countries of the European Community, the EEA, Mercosur and the Commonwealth. Transit passengers
  510W
  do not require a visa if they are continuing their journey immediately. Tourists are required to demonstrate on arrival that they have onward travel arrangements, accommodation and sufficient funds for their visit.

  A visa national arriving without a valid visa may apply for a visa at the airport on arrival. Individuals arriving without a valid passport would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

  Liberia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the UN peacekeeping force in Liberia; and if he will make a statement. [151201]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UN peacekeeping force in Liberia (UNMIL) currently consists of 9,000 troops, increasing to 15,000 by the end of March 2004, UNMIL initially deployed to Monrovia and its immediate surrounds. As numbers increase the force is extending its reach throughout the country. UNMIL is responsible for the disarmament and demobilisation process. It has collected about 9,000 weapons; is constructing three cantonment camps; and is sensitising ex-combatants towards the peace process. It is also actively involved in humanitarian relief and has made several valuable interventions to protect Liberian citizens.

  Overseas Bribery and Corruption
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance diplomatic posts offer to UK companies about the use of agents and intermediaries. [151387]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  UK Trade and Investment, which operates overseas through UK Diplomatic posts, offers guidance as appropriate on agents and intermediaries in overseas markets. Guidance varies according to the circumstances of the local market or sector. Examples of advice can be viewed on the Sectors and Markets area of UK Trade and Investment's public website: www.uktradeinvest.gov.uk

  Road Map
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had within the last six weeks with the representatives of the(a) US Administration, (b) Russian Government and (c) EU in relation to progress on the Middle East Road Map; and if he will make a statement. [151162]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 28 January 2004]In the last six weeks or so, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has discussed progress on the roadmap for peace in the Middle East with President Bush, President Putin and with EU leaders at the European Council in Brussels. In the same period my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed this issue with US Secretary of State Colin Powell and EU Foreign Ministers. Most recently my noble Friend the Baroness
  511W
  Symons of Vernham Dean has discussed these issues with Marc Otte, the EU representation on the Middle East on 27 January.

  The Government are committed to progress towards peace in the Middle East based on the Quartet's roadmap. We have been disappointed by the lack of progress on Phase One of the roadmap. Israel should implement a settlement freeze and remove the settlement outposts erected since March 2001. The Palestinian Authority should undertake sustained, targeted and effective operations against terrorists.

  Singapore (Death Penalty)
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Singaporean Government in relation to the use of the death penalty in that country. [151329]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised this issue during a meeting with his counterpart in Singapore on 8 January 2003. He stated the United Kingdom's opposition to the use of the death penalty and explained our experience of using long custodial sentences as an alternative. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Director General (Economic) also drew attention to the UK position when he met the Permanent Under Secretary of the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 4 March 2003.

  South Africa
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which(a) Ministers and (b) officials from his Department met the former South African Defence Minister, Mr. Joe Modise, when he visited the UK during 1998; and whether his Department was informed of the visit and its purpose. [151389]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no record of Mr. Joe Modise visiting the UK in 1998.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Minutes
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Prime Minister whether recordings are kept of telephone conversations to and from 10 Downing street. [151615]

  The Prime Minister
  Telephone conversations to and from Downing street are not recorded.

  Prisoners (Egypt)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 26 January 2004,Official Report, column 50W, on prisoners (Egypt), if he will meet President Mubarak to discuss the case of the three detainees held in prison in Cairo. [151861]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no current plans to do so.

  I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave him on 26 January 2004, Official Report, column 50W.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Clergy Terms of Service
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners if he will make a statement on the first report of the McClean Review on clergy terms of service. [151117]

  Sir Stuart Bell
  The McClean report was published on 23 January and will be debated by the General Synod on 12 February. Subject to the views of Synod, the Report will then be the subject of consultation throughout the Church.

  It recommends conferring through Church legislation a new package of rights and responsibilities for clergy. This will include: access to Employment Tribunals to claim unfair dismissal (at the same time as retaining the office holder status of clergy); legal entitlement to the rights covered by section 23 of the Employment Relations Act (except for the right not to work on Sundays); a new form of tenure, known as common tenure under which appointments for clergy without the freehold would normally be made until retirement; new Clergy Terms of Service Regulations which would clarify the responsibilities of clergy on a national basis; and a capability procedure to be invoked where clergy are failing to reach minimum standards.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Arms Trade Treaty
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what response he has made to the recent representations from international charities about an international arms trade treaty. [151118]

  Hilary Benn
  I wrote to Oxfam, Amnesty International and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) on 18 October, welcoming the launch of the Arms Trade Treaty as a useful contribution to the international debate on arms issues. The UK supports the goal of an international instrument on arms transfers, although to be effective any such measure would have to enjoy the support of all major arms exporting countries.

  The UK Government are working to promote tougher controls on arms exports at an international level. In January 2003, DFID, FCO and MOD hosted a conference at Lancaster House on strengthening international controls on arms exports. The UK organised a meeting during the July UN Biennial Meeting of States on Small Arms, which sought to follow up on the Lancaster House conference.

  These consultations suggest that there are many areas of common ground and significant political will among States. They also demonstrate that more needs to be done before we can secure a universal commitment to strengthening export controls.

  In the next two years the UK will continue to call for international controls and support a series of regional meetings, to build consensus on the need for common, harmonised controls. We hope that if there is sufficient support at the regional level, then an international agreement could be reached by the 2006 UN Review

  513W
  Conference on Small Arms. Although the draft Arms Trade Treaty covers all arms, not just Small Arms and Light Weapons, many of its principles are similar to those we are promoting as part of the UK initiative on strengthening transfer controls.

  Between 2001 and 2004, the UK is providing over £20 million to programmes targeted at controlling the supply, demand and availability of arms.

  Colombia
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has held with the UN High Commission for Human Rights about the future of the Commission's office in Colombia. [151225]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Neither the Secretary of State nor myself have personally spoken to the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights (UNHCHR) about this, but officials in DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office keep in close contact with their work in Colombia.

  Global Health Fund
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the$200 million pledged by the Government to the Global Health Fund over five years has been disbursed. [149976]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK has pledged an additional US$80 million to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM). This will bring our total contribution to US$280 million and extend our current funding commitment to 2008.

  To date, the UK has disbursed £75million to the GFATM, or approximately US$120 million.

  South Africa
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the underlying cause of the 50 per cent. rise in basic service prices in South Africa; and what is being done to remedy this. [150344]

  Hilary Benn
  It is difficult to make an overall assessment of the rise in prices of basic services in South Africa. The latest consumer price index figures published by Statistics South Africa suggest that overall inflation was 4.8 per cent. for the year to November 2003, while the price of fuel and power in urban areas rose over the same period by 6.8 per cent.

  The Government of South Africa is committed to providing free basic services to the poor. The Free Basic Water policy entitles poor households to 6,000 litres of water each month, and the Free Basic Electricity policy to 50 kilowatt hours of electricity each month, free of charge. Poor households must pay for their use of services above these thresholds.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance his Department has provided to South Africa broken down by(a)programme type, (b)programme name and (c) funding provided in each of the last six years. [151286]
  514W
  Hilary Benn
  DFID's assistance to South Africa over the last six financial years has totalled:

  000s

  Financial Year

  Number

  1997–98

  25,549

  1998–99

  28,858

  1999–2000

  29,557

  2000–01

  30,115

  2001–02

  25,485

  2002–03

  36,435

  I will write to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington with a list of the programmes which make up this total.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research his Department have(a) conducted and (b) commissioned into numbers of (i) pharmacists, (ii) doctors and (iii) nurses in South Africa; and what assessment he has made of South Africa's ability to implement its plan to distribute anti-retroviral AIDS drugs to its HIV-positive citizens. [151284]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID have not commissioned or conducted any such research. The South African Government's plan for the comprehensive care, management and treatment of HIV/AIDS envisages that anti-retroviral drugs will be introduced progressively, with all who need them having access within five years. The plan takes into account the need to train additional health professionals. DFID are in discussion with the Government of South Africa about how the UK can best support the implementation of the plan.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance his Department has provided to fighting HIV/AIDS in South Africa broken down by(a) programme type, (b) programme name and (c) funding provided in each of the last six years. [151285]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's assistance for HIV/AIDS in South Africa over the last six financial years has totalled:

  000s

  Financial Year

  Number

  1997–98

  1,925

  1998–99

  3,056

  1999–2000

  3,088

  2000–01

  4,345

  2001–02

  4,442

  2002–03

  8,758

  I will write to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington with a list of the programmes which make up this total.

  UK Aid
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the Department's bilateral aid projects which have been evaluated as successful; and if he will publish the most recent criteria. [149193]

  Hilary Benn
  All DFID projects and programmes,
  515W
  which are at least two years old and have a commitment value of £1 million and over, are reviewed annually and scored on likely success. The outcome of the review is recorded on DFID's central Performance Reporting Information System (PRISM), and is used to track DFID's performance against its Public Service Agreement (PSA) Value for Money Target.

  The success rating consists of a 5-point scoring system ranging from 1 (Likely to be "Completely" achieved') and 2 (`Likely to be "Largely" achieved') to 5 ('"Unlikely" to be realised'). In the context of the PSA,

  Value for money divisional breakdown for calendar year 2003

  High

  Medium

  Low

  Risk category

  Number of projects

  Percentage of commitment value

  Number of projects

  Percentage of commitment value

  Number of projects

  Percentage of commitment value

  Africa

  30

  34

  188

  48

  80

  85

  Asia

  30

  14

  125

  62

  69

  79

  Europe, Middle East and Americas

  23

  66

  108

  67

  58

  67

  Others

  6

  94

  67

  55

  76

  63

  A list detailing the individual projects of £1 million and over covered in the table has been placed in the Library of the House, entitled 'Projects in 2003'. The project list is broken down by DFID department and region.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Speeding
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the net figure remitted to the Home Office in respect of speeding fines raised by police forces in England and Wales was in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003. [150018]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  All fines for speeding offences are paid to the courts. Some revenue from speeding fines resulting from safety camera activity is netted off and returned to local authorities and police forces within safety camera partnerships for the operation of approved safety cameras. The balance is passed to the Consolidated Fund and none are passed to Government Departments.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Expert Witnesses
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Solicitor-General (1) if she will list experts who(a) are currently and (b) have been in the last 10 years on the official list of expert witnesses for cases related to harm of children by their parents or carers; [151030]

  (2) how long Sir Roy Meadow has been included on the official list of expert witnesses; [151031]

  (3) what the procedure is for (a) including, (b) removing and (c) reviewing the appropriateness of continued inclusion of individuals on the official list of expert witnesses. [151032]
  516W
  successful projects are those that have been scored as 1 or 2. Projects scored 3 ('projects likely to be "partially" achieved') are not counted when measuring progress against our PSA target. However, they will also include a range of successful outcomes. Projects are disaggregated by risk.

  The following table shows the total number and proportion by commitment value of bilateral projects of £1 million and over that were reviewed as scoring 1 or 2 in calendar year 2003 (broken down by geographical region and risk category).

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Solicitor-General what requirements were placed on Sir Roy Meadow in his capacity as an expert witness for the prosecution in criminal and civil cases to retain his notes for those cases after guilty verdicts have been secured. [151027]

  The Solicitor-General
  There are no specific requirements for the retention of personal notes following either a criminal of civil trial. Experts may be required to annex their original reports to a statement in order to explain their findings. There is also a statutory duty on expert witnesses to ensure that any information, which may undermine the prosecution's case, is disclosed.

  The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health does not issue guidance to practitioners on retention of data. However, there is a professional duty upon all expert witnesses to consider carefully the possible use to which notes and records may be required in the future, for example possible appeals.

  The Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners is implementing a system of registration of forensics practitioners. Each expert will be bound by a code of practice which will require practitioners to retain their work in order that it can be reviewed if necessary at a later date by another member of the Council.

  The Intercollegiate Working Group chaired by Baroness Kennedy is examining issues surrounding the provision of training for expert witnesses and their use in the investigation process. The Group will report its findings in the Spring.

  The Solicitor-General
  There is no single official list of persons considered expert witnesses. Various organisations and bodies hold lists of expert witnesses for the purpose of assisting both their own members and other bodies which may require the assistance of an expert. The National Crime and Operations Faculty of the police force retains a database of persons with expertise in a wide range of areas, which is available to other law enforcement agencies. Other similar databases
  517W
  include those held by the Law Society, which retains a database for the use of its members. The Home Office retains a database of pathologists, registered to conduct post mortems on behalf of police or coroners. The Crown Prosecution Service does not retain a central database of experts. Some CPS Areas do keep a list of suitable experts for use in cases.

  The National Crime and Operations Faculty (NCOF) and its database have been in existence since 1997. It currently retains details on a wide range of experts, both medical and non-medical, which is used by police forces, security services and the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The various bodies maintaining a database will each have different methods of inclusion and exclusion of experts. With respect to the NCOF database individual experts will be included usually following a referral by a police area as to suitability for inclusion. Professional credentials and experience are then carefully considered prior to any decision being taken to include the expert on the database.

  The NCOF does not delete experts from its database, in order that a historical record is maintained. If concerns arise over a particular expert then a decision would be taken over his or her continued use. If the decision were not to use that expert again the record would be marked accordingly.

  The National Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners is in the process of implementing registration of forensic practitioners nationally. This will cover all types of forensic practitioners but at present does not include paediatricians. Registration with the Council as a forensic practitioner is only possible after an assessment of an applicant's professional experience and credentials. Once suitable assessors are identified the scheme will be extended to paediatricians. This is a voluntary scheme, however once completed it will represent a definitive list of suitably competent practitioners.

  Foreign Public Officials (Bribery)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what criteria are used by the Serious Fraud Office to determine whether to initiate an investigation into bribery of a foreign public official. [151400]

  The Solicitor-General
  The key criterion the SFO uses when deciding whether to accept a case is that the suspected fraud appears to be so serious or complex that its investigation should be carried out by those responsible for its prosecution. The following factors are taken into account:

  1. The sum at risk is estimated to be at least £1 million (this is simply an objective and recognisable signpost of seriousness and likely public concern rather than the main indicator of suitability).

  2. The case is likely to give rise to national publicity and widespread public concern. This would include cases involving Government Departments, public bodies, the governments of other countries as well as commercial cases of public interest.

  3. The investigation requires a highly specialised knowledge of, for example, financial markets and their practices.

  The case has a significant international dimension.

  518W

  5.There is a need for legal, accountancy and investigative skills to be brought together in a combined operation.

  6. The suspected fraud appears to be complex and one in which the use of Section 2 powers (Criminal Justice Act 1987) might be appropriate.

  The SFO does not have separate criteria that apply to allegations of bribery of a foreign public official. Allegations of this nature would have to meet the above criteria for the SFO to commence an investigation.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many referrals there have been since 1997 to the Serious Fraud Office where bribery of a foreign public official has been an ancillary offence to another offence; and in how many instances since 1997 the SFO has investigated or prosecuted a company or individual for an offence to which bribery of a foreign public official was ancillary, or in which bribery of a foreign public official may have played a part. [151402]

  The Solicitor-General
  The SFO have identified five referrals since 1997 where bribery of a foreign public official may have been an ancillary allegation of the wider matter referred. One case is currently under investigation for other offences. The other cases have not resulted in prosecution for any offences.

  The SFO does not routinely record all potential offences that may exist within a referred matter. As such there may have been other referrals that included an element of bribery of foreign officials that was not recorded.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General whether investigation and prosecution under Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 are included in enforcement priorities of the Serious Fraud Office. [151406]

  The Solicitor-General
  Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act crates new offences. The SFO investigates and prosecutes offences of serious and complex fraud. In selecting cases, it gives priority to those that meet its published criteria agreed by Ministers. The SFO does not prioritise by reference to specific offences.

  Once a case meeting the published acceptance criteria has been accepted for investigation, the SFO must consider which offence/offences are the most appropriate to prosecute. The offences falling under Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 can now be considered.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will state the average class size of(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) Chorley and (ii) Lancashire in each year since 2000. [151277]
  519W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools 1: average class size2— Chorley parliamentary constituency and Lancashire local education authority

  Classes taught by one teacher

  Chorley parliamentary constituency

  Lancashire local education authority

  Position in January each year: 2000 to 2003

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  2000

  28.3

  23.6

  27.7

  22.7

  2001

  27.3

  23.1

  27.3

  22.6

  2002

  26.9

  23.6

  26.7

  22.4

  2003

  26.8

  23.3

  26.5

  22.5

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2Classes as taught during one selected period in each school on the day of the Census in January.

  Source:

  The Annual Schools' Census.

  Departmental Policies (Plymouth)
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the(a) Plymouth, Sutton constituency, (b) Plymouth, Devonport constituency and (c) South-West Devon constituency, the effects on (i) Plymouth Travel to Work area and (ii) Plymouth Unitary Authority area of his Department's policies and actions in (A) 2001, (B) 2002 and (C) 2003. [147924]

  Mr. Miliband
  Outlined as follows is background on a range of the Department's policies and actions, and their impact on Plymouth and Devon local education authorities. Where analysis has allowed, constituencies requested and the Plymouth Travel to Work Area are detailed.

  Specialist Schools Programme

  The Specialist Schools Programme is contributing to the creation of a specialist system in which every secondary school has its own special ethos and works with others to spread best practice and raise standards. The programme helps schools, in partnership with private sector sponsors and supported by additional Government funding, to achieve their targets to raise standards. It promotes school improvement by providing opportunities for schools to work to their strengths, enabling them to deliver effective teaching and learning in their area of expertise, as well as across the curriculum, and to drive innovation.

  Any maintained secondary school in England may apply to be designated as specialist in one of 10 areas: arts, business and enterprise, engineering, humanities, language, mathematics and computing, music, science, sports and technology. Schools can also combine any two specialisms.

  There are currently 1,444 specialist schools operating in eight of the 10 specialisms (this represents 46 per cent. of all secondary schools). We expect the first music and humanities colleges to begin operating in September 2004. Over 1.5 million pupils now attend specialist schools— half of all pupils attending secondary schools are attending specialist schools.
  520W
  The number of applications from schools wishing to be specialist is at record levels. In October 2001, 267 schools applied; in October 2003 it was 411.

  Specialist schools raise £50,000 from private sector sponsorship (less in the case of schools with less than 500 pupils attending) and prepare four-year development plans for improvements in teaching and learning and involving other local schools and the wider community. Designated schools receive a £100,000 capital grant and £126 per pupil per annum for four years. Schools making good progress in meeting their targets can apply for extension funding for another four years.

  The Government have set a target to increase the number of specialist schools to 2,000 by 2006. The aim is that all secondary schools will become specialist schools.

  Beacon schools:

  The Department is currently phasing out the existing beacon schools programme.

  The leading edge partnership programme is specific to secondary schools and builds on the success of the beacon schools initiative to encourage an accelerated pace of change and improvement. We need our very best schools and departments to play a leading role in this; to encourage excellence, to develop curriculum expertise and to work with other schools to raise standards through improved teaching and learning. Leading secondary schools will work with other secondary school partners to find solutions to the most critical learning challenges and those most likely to have the greatest impact on closing the attainment gap. We are committed to establishing a network of 300 partnerships by 2006.

  In primary, the leading practice programme, described in the recent primary strategy document "Excellence and Enjoyment'", a strategy for primary schools, will build on successful practice developed through the beacon programme. We intend to develop a leading practice programme with common national criteria and branding. It will focus on identifying outstanding work in particular areas, within schools that are performing well across the board. The LEA will have a role in working with leading practice schools to ensure they contribute to local networking arrangements so that excellent practice is spread widely.

  Excellence Clusters:

  Excellence Clusters are designed to bring the benefits of Excellence in Cities (EiC) to smaller pockets of deprivation. Some 197 secondary schools and over 440 primary schools are involved in Excellence Clusters. Like EiC, the clusters focus on some of the most deprived areas of the country, using a structured programme designed to raise standards.

  Clusters benefit from extra resources to provide the three core strands of the EiC programme:

  Extended opportunities for Gifted and Talented pupils

  Access to full time Learning Mentors for pupils who need them

  Learning Support Units to tackle disruption.

  A fourth strand of funding is available to target particular local issues, as identified by the schools in each cluster.
  521W
  Under our transformation strategy for Education Action Zones (EAZs) established under the Standards and Framework Act 1998 41 of the 73 EAZs will transform to Excellence Clusters. This process will be completed by the end of April 2005.

  Leadership Incentive Grow:

  The Leadership Incentive Grant is intended to accelerate the improvement in standards and to strengthen leadership at all levels in schools. The grant also enables schools to work together to share expertise, resources and effective practice to strengthen teaching and learning.

  Primary Leadership Strategy:

  In 2003, primary schools in every LEA were invited to take part in the Leadership Programme, funded by the Primary National Strategy and developed in partnership with the National College for School Leadership (NCSL). (The National Primary Strategy is a holistic whole-school improvement strategy, building on and incorporating the Literacy and Numeracy Strategies.)

  The programme seeks to support schools in improving the leadership of the teaching and learning of English and mathematics, helping to ensure that the rate of progress of children within the school community continues to improve as more reach the standards expected.

  Sure Start:

  Sure Start programmes work with parents-to-be, parents and children to promote the physical, intellectual and social development of young children—particularly those who are disadvantaged— so that they can flourish at home, when they get to school and during later life. The programme aims to help strengthen families and reduce child poverty by enabling parents to maximise their opportunities to work, learn and study, confident their children are being cared for in a safe and stimulating environment; and contribute to building and sustaining strong local communities through high quality and innovatively delivered family services, which respond to the needs of the communities they serve.

  Connexions:

  Connexions is the Government's front line support service for all young people in England aged 13–19. Connexions will play an integral role in the delivery of the agenda for reform on services for children and young people proposed in the Green Paper "Every child matters".

  Through multi-agency working, Connexions provides integrated advice guidance and access to personal development opportunities to help remove barriers to learning and progression and ensure young people make a smooth transition to adulthood and working life. Personal advisers play a lead professional role. They provide advice on careers and lifestyle issues as well as barriers such as homelessness and drugs. They refer young people to specialist support where needed.

  The new vision statement for Connexions launched in November 2002, signed by eight Government Ministers, re-affirmed the universal nature of the service.
  522W
  Connexions' overarching objective is to reduce the number of 16 to 18-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training (MEET). Connexions Partnerships have a target of reducing local MEET numbers by 10 per cent. by November 2004.

  Plymouth, Devonport

  Four specialist schools covering Arts and Technology;

  One beacon school (primary);

  14 EiC Excellence Cluster schools;

  Four secondary schools receive Leadership Incentive Grant;

  One primary school is part of Primary Leadership Strategy;

  Sure Start and Connexions programmes in operation.

  Plymouth, Sutton

  Three specialist schools covering Arts, Engineering and Technology;

  Two beacon schools (one primary/one secondary);

  Seven EiC Excellence Cluster schools;

  One primary school is part of Primary Leadership Strategy;

  Sure Start and Connexions programmes in operation;

  Lipson Community School is in the top 100 improving maintained schools based on sustained improvement in the GCSE/GNVQ five plus A*-C indicator 2000–03.

  South-West Devon

  Covers two local education authorities:

  Plymouth:

  Three specialist covering Language, Maths and Sports;

  One beacon secondary school;

  Two primary schools part of Primary Leadership Strategy;

  Sure Start and Connexions programmes in operation.

  Devon:

  One specialist covering Sports

  One beacon primary school;

  One primary school is part of Primary Leadership Strategy;

  Sure Start and Connexions programmes in operation.

  Total for South West Devon constituency:

  Four specialist covering Language, Maths and Sports;

  Two beacon schools (one primary/one secondary);

  Three primary schools part of Primary Leadership Strategy;

  Sure Start and Connexions programmes in operation.

  523W

  Key Stage 1 test/task results at schools in Plymouth areas: 2001–03

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Percentage of pupils at level 2 and above:

  Percentage of pupils at level 2 and above:

  Percentage of pupils at level 2 and above:

  Area

  English reading

  English writing

  Maths

  English reading

  English writing

  Maths

  English reading

  English writing

  Maths

  Plymouth, Devonport

  80

  82

  88

  80

  80

  88

  80

  77

  88

  Plymouth, Sutton

  78

  81

  86

  81

  81

  86

  81

  80

  88

  South-West Devon

  88

  89

  93

  88

  90

  94

  89

  87

  93

  Plymouth Unitary Authority

  81

  83

  89

  82

  83

  89

  82

  80

  89

  Plymouth TTWA

  83

  84

  90

  84

  84

  90

  83

  80

  90

  Key Stage 2 test/task results at schools in Plymouth areas: 2001–03

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Percentage of pupils at level 4 and above:

  Percentage of pupils at level 4 and above:

  Percentage of pupils at level 4 and above:

  Area

  English

  Maths

  Science

  English

  Maths

  Science

  English

  Maths

  Science

  Plymouth. Devonport

  68

  67

  83

  68

  68

  83

  70

  68

  84

  Plymouth, Sutton

  72

  69

  87

  69

  70

  81

  66

  68

  82

  South-West Devon

  82

  80

  93

  81

  82

  92

  83

  82

  93

  Plymouth Unitary Authority

  72

  71

  86

  71

  72

  84

  72

  71

  85

  Plymouth TTWA

  75

  73

  88

  74

  74

  86

  75

  74

  87

  Key Stage 3 test/task results at schools in Plymouth areas: 2001–03

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Percentage of pupils at level 5 and above:

  Percentage of pupils at level 5 and above:

  Percentage of pupils at level 5 and above:

  Area

  English

  Maths

  Science

  English

  Maths

  Science

  English

  Maths

  Science

  Plymouth, Devonport

  53

  57

  58

  57

  58

  59

  60

  61

  59

  Plymouth, Sutton

  73

  76

  78

  69

  74

  75

  75

  76

  77

  South-West Devon

  73

  75

  77

  71

  74

  77

  82

  82

  83

  Plymouth Unitary Authority

  64

  67

  68

  63

  67

  68

  69

  70

  69

  Plymouth TTWA

  65

  69

  70

  66

  73

  70

  73

  73

  73

  Key Stage 4 attainment at schools in Plymouth areas: 2001–03

  2001

  2002

  Area

  Percentage gaining five plus GCSEs at A*-C

  Percentage gaining one plus GCSEs at A*-G

  Percentage gaining five plus GCSEs at A*-G

  Percentage gaining five plus GCSEs at A*-C

  Percentage gaining one plus GCSEs at A*-G

  Percentage gaining five plus GCSEs at A*-G

  Plymouth. Devonport

  34.3

  94.1

  87.8

  39.0

  93.7

  87.1

  Plymouth, Sutton

  64.6

  97.0

  92.1

  68.7

  97.2

  92.8

  South-West Devon

  62.9

  97.4

  94.5

  57.7

  96.7

  93.2

  Plymouth Unitary Authority

  50.3

  95.5

  90.3

  51.4

  95.3

  90.0

  Plymouth TTWA

  51.4

  95.8

  91.3

  52.5

  95.9

  91.2

  2003

  Area

  Percentage gaining five plus GCSEs at A*-C

  2003 Percentage gaining one plus GCSEs at A*-G

  Percentage gaining five plus GCSEs at A*-G

  Plymouth, Devonport

  41.0

  93.3

  85.6

  Plymouth, Sutton

  67.3

  97.5

  93.2

  South-West Devon

  61.6

  98.0

  94.8

  Plymouth Unitary Authority

  53.0

  95.5

  89.9

  Plymouth TTWA

  54.9

  96.3

  91.4

  DORE Achievement Centres
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the Answer of 12 January 2004.Official Report, column 503W, on DORE achievement centres, when the meeting between
  524W
  officials and representatives of the DORE achievement centres and the dyslexia, dyspraxia and attention deficit treatment programme will take place. [150207]

  Mr. Miliband
  A meeting between officials from the Department's Special Educational Needs and Disability Division and representatives of the DORE Achievement Centres/DDAT programme has been arranged for the afternoon of 19 February 2004.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the formula spending share figure for Cambridgeshire for 2004–05 takes account of the requirement for Cambridgeshire to spend
  525W
  £4.5 million more on schools set out in the direction notice from his Department to Cambridgeshire county council. [151584]

  Mr. Miliband
  The direction notice sent to Cambridgeshire county council asks the authority to increase its Schools Budget to a level consistent with full passporting. Full passporting means increasing the 2003–04 Schools Budget by the increase in the Schools Formula Spending Share from 2003–04 to 2004–05. Therefore the direction notice is based on the Schools Formula Spending Share figure for Cambridgeshire.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what audit mechanisms are in place to determine whether information technology(a) hardware and (b) software products are being used properly in his Department. [150934]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  All members of the Department for Education and Skills have access to the internet. Filtering software is installed to block access to inappropriate sites and all accesses are monitored and recorded. Attempts to access inappropriate sites are referred for disciplinary action— staff have to accept the conditions for use of the equipment each time they log into the network.

  Much of the software used by the Department are purchased on a corporate licence— where this is not the case records are maintained to ensure that only the number of licences purchased are used. All hardware is configured to prohibit the loading of unauthorised software.

  The Department have started to use auditing software to reconcile the amount of software in use against the central records of software purchases. It is planning to conduct three monthly audits to achieve this.

  Hardware is purchased centrally and details of all hardware items are held in an asset database. Hardware is subject to an annual audit where every item on the asset database is checked either physically or using auditing software to ensure it is still in being used correctly.

  Appropriate action is taken in any cases where hardware cannot be found.

  The Department's Internal Audit Division conduct regular audits to ensure that the conditions for use of hardware and software are both appropriate and are being enforced.

  Landfill Tax Credit
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how mach funding for environmental educational initiatives will be lost by schools following the end of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme; and if he will replace such lost funding from his departmental budget. [150644]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Landfill Tax Credit Scheme (LTCS) has not ended, although two of the objects of the scheme were withdrawn in April 2003, those which concerned research and development, and education on sustainable waste management. Since April 2003 a number of projects in categories c and cc have continued to be financed by legacy funding through the Department for Environment,526W
  Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies and the Northern Ireland Authorities but the current arrangements will cease at the end of March. The value of environmental education projects funded in calendar year 2003 under these categories is £71,300, although that amount may increase since claims can be made until April 2004. However, some types of education projects are currently, and will still be, eligible for funding under some of the remaining objects of the scheme, for example biodiversity.

  As part of the sustainable waste delivery public expenditure programme established as a result of the reform of the LTCS, and managed by Defra, work will be taken forward on waste awareness. Therefore. my Department has no plans to increase the level of funding for environmental educational in schools.

  Local Government
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what aggregate percentage of central Government funding provided to Staffordshire local education authority is made up of the formula spending share. [150618]

  Mr. Miliband
  For 2003–04 Staffordshire's local education authority formula spending share made up 84 per cent. of the total resource funding for education made available to the authority, the remaining 16 per cent. being revenue grant funding within DfES Departmental Expenditure Limits.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money has been spent on school buildings in Chorley, broken down by school, in each year since 1997. [151279]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect detailed information about work carried out, but this should be held by Lancashire LEA. The following table sets out the capital allocations made by this Department to Lancashire LEA and its schools from 1997–98 to 2003–04.

  Lancashire capital allocations 1997–98 to 2003–04

  £000

  Capital allocation made

  1997–98

  13,288

  1998–99

  16,957

  1999–2000

  35,179

  2000–01

  38,021

  2001–02

  29,778

  2002–03

  46,470

  2003–04

  62,607

  Physical Education
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average number of hours per week of physical education in schools in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire was in the last year. [151318]
  527W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is not currently held in the format requested. Detailed data on physical education and school sport is now being collected for the first time—for publication in April 2004—including the amount time spent each week on physical education in schools.

  Pupil Funding
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the(a) average funding of each schoolchild in England and (b) the level of funding for a schoolchild in Shrewsbury and Atcham. [151407]

  Mr. Miliband
  The average national funding for 2004–05 provided through the Education Formula Spending Share for 2004–05 is £3,515. The formula for the main primary and secondary sub-blocks comprises a basic entitlement for each pupil, which is the same across the country, plus a top-up for each pupil with additional educational needs, which is again the same across the country, plus top-ups for areas where it costs more to recruit and retain teachers. Local education authorities with a greater proportion of pupils with additional educational needs or higher average earnings will receive a higher level of funding per pupil. The Government do not directly fund school children in Shrewsbury and Atcham. The Government provide funding to Shropshire county council which is then responsible for funding its schools.

  School Meals Service
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many representations he has received on the decision of Essex local education authority to delegate the school meals service to primary schools; and if he will make a statement. [151763]

  Mr. Miliband
  Since December 2003, the Department have received five representations about meals provision in Essex; three have been received from schools, including correspondence from a school via my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich. There have also been two emails— one from an Essex County Councillor and a general inquiry from Governor Line.

  School Teachers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time (i) primary and (ii) secondary school teachers were employed in the Ribble Valley and Fulwood area in each year since 1997. [149802]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the number of regular teachers in maintained primary and secondary schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency at January in each year since 1997.

  Maintained primary

  Maintained secondary

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1997

  290

  110

  430

  70

  1998

  300

  110

  440

  60

  1999

  300

  140

  450

  80

  2000

  300

  130

  460

  70

  2001

  310

  150

  460

  60

  2002

  310

  150

  470

  70

  2003

  310

  150

  480

  90

  Notes:

  1.Includes middle schools as demand.

  2.Includes teachers on schemes leading to QTS and teachers not recognised as qualified.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Scottish Botanic Garden
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding the Scottish Botanic Garden in Edinburgh receives from his Department. [150664]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  This Department does not provide any funding for the Scottish Botanic Garden in Edinburgh. This is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Specialist Comprehensive Schools
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the comparative performance of the 2003 Key Stage 4 performance tables of(a) specialist comprehensive schools whose admissions arrangements include selection by aptitude and (b) all other specialist comprehensive schools in respect of (i) raw scores and (ii) value added scores. [149537]

  Mr. Miliband
  No assessment along these lines has been carried out by the Department.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Alternatives to the Baton Round: Publication of Phase Four Report
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy)
  On 9 April 2003, I issued a press statement on the use of baton rounds in Northern Ireland. It contained the following paragraph:"On the basis that an acceptable and effective and less lethal alternative is available, the baton round would no longer be used after the end of 2003. In the event that that has not been achieved, the Government would report on the progress of the fourth phase of the research programme and review the options for less lethal alternatives consulting widely with a range of interested parties including the Chief Constable and the Policing Board".

  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the report on the fourth phase of the research programme into alternative policing approaches towards the management of conflict.

  A multi-agency steering group was set up in 2000, following publication of the Patten report on policing in Northern Ireland. Its purpose was to take forward the programme to establish whether an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the baton round is available and to review the public order equipment which is presently available or could be developed in order to expand the range of tactical options available to operational commanders.

  As Patten envisaged, it has been a wide-ranging and substantial programme. I am grateful to many contributors, including the police, those in government service, academics and other experts, for their sustained commitment.

  This fourth report of the steering group, that I have published today, concludes that there is as yet no commercially available product that meets the criteria of an acceptable and effective and less potentially lethal alternative.

  The Government will continue to keep all commercial products and technological research under review. It will ensure that those appearing to have real potential are tested and medically evaluated if appropriate.

  Against this background. the Government have concluded that it would be right to continue with the development of the attenuating energy and discriminating irritant projectiles (AEP and DIP) which represent the best opportunity to get an alternative to the L21 A1 into service as rapidly as possible. The progress made in their development is set out fully in the report. While significant challenges remain, it is projected that the attenuating energy projectile would be available by the end of 2004, ready for operational use before summer 2005. Its development also follows up one of the recommendations for research by the
  16WS
  independent medical advisers in their evaluation of the existing baton round, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House on 2 April 2001.

  Work is also continuing on a second new projectile, the discriminating irritant projectiles. This is inevitably a longer-term project. It is by no means certain that it can be successfully achieved, although the signs are positive thus far.

  We believe that there is real value in this combined programme, which has the potential to provide an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the current baton round. The Government intend to consult with a range of interested parties, including the Chief. Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Policing Board.

  In publishing the report today, I am inviting comments on it from interested parties.

DEFENCE

  Army Technical Foundation College
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  In my statement to the House on 27 November 2003,Official Report, column 35WS, I announced that I had approved in principle, and subject to full trades union consultation, plans by the Army Training and Recruiting Agency (ATRA) to close the Army Technical Foundation College (ATFC) at Arborfield, and transfer students to, principally, the Army Foundation College (AFC) at Harrogate, where a technical training stream will be introduced. There will be other changes to the way in which junior recruits are trained within the ATRA, but these do not envisage closures of any establishments.

  I can now confirm that the consultation exercise has now been concluded and no serious objections have been raised to the proposal. I have therefore agreed that the closure plans may be implemented. Training at the College will therefore cease with effect from August of this year (the last students being accepted at the beginning of this month (January) and the College will close in March 2005.

  The principal aim of this proposal is to improve the quality and efficiency of training provided to junior entrants to the technical trades. It will not affect the Army's commitment or ability to accept suitable junior applicants onto appropriate courses at either the AFC or other ATRA Junior Entry establishments. I do not anticipate that this will have any major impact on the Army's recruiting plans in general.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Isle of Wight Council (Benefit Fraud Inspection)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Isle of Wight Council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.
  17WS
  Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The performance standards for housing benefits allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  The BFI inspected Isle of Wight Council against the performance standards for housing benefits. The report finds that the council is not at standard for any of the seven functional areas of the performance standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments.

  Isle of Wight Council's performance on benefit administration was mixed. Verification of evidence to support new and renewal claims was generally completed to standard. However, delays in processing of claims, and in processing changes of circumstances, meant that performance was significantly below targets. New benefit claims were taking an average of 75 days to clear compared with the national target of 36 days. Overpayments were being allowed to continue because notified changes of circumstances were not being dealt with promptly.

  A new benefits claim form based on the Department for Work and Pensions' national model was introduced from April 2003 which fully meets the requirements of the Standards.

  The performance of the council's fraud investigation team was variable. The team appeared to take the majority of investigations through to their natural conclusion, but the action taken on cases and the reasons for decisions made were not adequately recorded.

  Benefit overpayments were being recovered effectively from ongoing benefit, but the process for cases where benefit was no longer in payment was less effective.

  In 2002–03, Isle of Wight council administered some £39.5 million in housing benefits, about 18 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to further improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Work Programme
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and 18WS
  Pensions, the benefit fraud inspectorate (BFI) has today announced its Phase 9 programme of activity for 2004–05.

  The BFI is an independent unit within the Department for Work and Pensions that inspects and reports directly to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the standard of benefit administration and counter-fraud activity in local authorities and the Department's operations.

  As part of its Phase 9 activity, the BFI will be undertaking shorter, targeted inspections focusing on the area of claims processing for housing benefits. The BFI will be selecting authorities that are taking 80 days or more to process housing benefits claims. Authorities will be selected on an on-going basis, depending on their quarterly management information returns to the Department for Work and Pensions.

  Inspections on three other authorities—Breckland, Copeland, and Wyre—whose claims processing performance has improved significantly will be used to identify and disseminate good practice.

  The BFI will be undertaking full inspections on 14 local authorities whose benefits administration has been identified as poor or fair in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment programme. Authorities whose assessment results have already been announced include Allerdale, Broxtowe, Hart, North Norfolk, Rossendale, Rutland, Torridge, and West Berkshire.

  Full inspections on two other authorities—Herefordshire and Rotherham—who have shown significant improvements in their benefits administration during the comprehensive performance assessment programme will be used to identify and disseminate good practice.

  The BFI will also be undertaking full inspections on Caerphilly and Merthyr Tydfil councils whose benefits service performance has been identified as at risk during the Wales programme for improvement.

  The BFI will also be undertaking follow-up inspections on authorities to assess progress made since earlier BFI inspections.

  Working with the Audit Commission, the BFI will continue to undertake the comprehensive performance assessments programme, undertaking assessments on 30 district authorities and re-assessing the performance of 116 single-tier authorities.

  Working with Audit Scotland and the Audit Commission in Wales, BFI will continue its involvement in the Scottish best value programme and the Wales programme for improvement.

  The BFI will also continue to offer practical support and advice to local authorities as part of its successful performance improvement action team. a service that has proved both popular and effective in improving performance in benefits administration. Demand for this service continues to increase.

  Subject to further discussions, the BFI will be undertaking a specialist inspection on local authorities' compliance with disability discrimination Acts, and four specialist inspections on the business of the Department for Work and Pensions.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Iraq
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now set up an independent inquiry to investigate whether the United Kingdom's declared reasons for war against Iraq were justified by the available evidence.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we have no plans to do so.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Given that up to 20,000 people may have died in the war against Iraq and a similar number may have been maimed or injured, is it not reasonable for people to want an answer to the question which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, quite understandably, declined to enter into—namely, whether the intelligence on which the decision to go to war was taken was soundly based? Whenever this question has been asked in the past, the Government have said we should wait for the survey group to report. Now that the chairman of that group has resigned, telling a US Senate Committee yesterday that we were almost all wrong, is there not an argument for following the precedent of my noble friend Lady Thatcher after the Falklands War and setting up an independent inquiry?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord must bear it in mind that there have already been three inquiries. The inquiry conducted by the Foreign Affairs Committee produced its report on the decision to go to war on 7 July. The inquiry conducted by the Intelligence and Security Committee reported on 11 September. I remind the noble Lord that that committee was not in being at the time that the Franks committee was set up—it is important to remember that. In addition, the Hutton inquiry reported yesterday.
Mr Kay was very clear in what he said to the Intelligence Committee in a number of respects. But he also said that his views were partial; they were his own; and that more evidence may become available. So I suggest that we are patient on this issue. I know that there is a bit of disappointment on the Benches opposite over what happened yesterday, but instead of
314
repeating the errors of rushing to judgment in the light of what Mr Kay has said, it would be sensible to wait for the ISG to report.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, when the ISG reports, will we be given a chance to debate that report as well as the US Congress? Is it the settled policy of Her Majesty's Government that all further inquiries on the wider case for war will be conducted by the US Congress and not by the British Parliament?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that there may be issues around the report that cannot go into the public domain. He will know that with the interim report, we put as full a report as possible into the public domain. I want to be clear about this because I do not want there to be any misapprehension over what I am saying. In the same way that we have had an enormous number of opportunities to debate the issues around why we went to war with Iraq in the first place—even last night we were debating the issues around the costs of that war—I am sure that there will be opportunities, and the usual channels will be able to fix those opportunities, to debate anything appropriate.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister recall that many of us on these Benches strongly supported the Prime Minister and saluted his courage at the time of the invasion and his decision to ally ourselves with the Americans in invading Iraq? All we questioned at the time was the clarity of some of the justification given by the Prime Minister. We questioned the two dossiers which are now universally reckoned as dodgy—indeed, the second dossier being very much dodgier than the first one.
Would it not now be very helpful to all—including the Government's case, which is not looking very good in Iraq—to have an investigation or inquiry, which, as my noble friend has reminded us, is being proposed in the United States, to show the real and good reasons for regime change in Iraq, for removing the hideous Saddam, and to bring home to all people the considerable achievements which are now taking place in Iraq but which hardly ever get reported? The wheels of commerce are now turning in that country and there are many benefits which we do not hear enough about from the media or the Government.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am bound to say that if the noble Lord had been in his place yesterday evening, he would have heard a great deal about that. I know that there were others taking part in that debate, but the fact is that we debated a lot of the benefits to flow from Iraq, only last night in this House. I, like him, wish that that received more publicity.
I do recall that the noble Lord was among many who—very rightly in my view, but courageously as well, given the politics—supported the Government at the time we went into military conflict with Iraq. I also recall that much of the intelligence we had available was shared at that time. I believe that more evidence

315
will be found of weapons of mass destruction, but let us see what the ISG reveals and whether those programmes existed. At that point, the noble Lord will no doubt be able to make his case again. However, it is important to remember that this was not the sole reason for going to war. The reason for going to war was the way in which Iraq had repeatedly flouted the United Nations—the way in which the whole world believed, in passing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, that Iraq was in material breach of its obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687. We had a debate about that in this House before the military conflict started. So to be partial about this is a mistake.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that rather than spending a great deal of time going back over the genesis of every detail that led to a war which the vast majority of Members of both Houses of Parliament supported, it would be more useful now if we concentrated on winning the peace and heard something from opposition parties calling on all parties in the United Nations fully to observe all the requirements of Resolution 1441? Many of their political friends in other countries are currently ignoring their responsibilities there, and if they called on their political friends to observe that resolution, perhaps we could do something constructive towards securing the peace.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with that wholeheartedly. I hope, given what the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, has said today, that he will be on the front foot on this issue about winning the peace and that the Opposition will be on the front foot about telling the world what a good job we are making of many issues in Iraq. We do not hear that from the party opposite. I remind those who attack the Government on this issue that the United Kingdom's declared reasons for war against Iraq were discussed fully in both Houses, with a vote in the House of Commons, a move unprecedented in modern times. I look forward to what the noble Lord will say as a result of these exchanges, to the media and elsewhere, about how well the coalition is doing in Iraq.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, when the ISG report or part of it is published, can the Minister assure the House that it will be published in the words of the ISG alone and that there will not be any suggested "adjustments", shall we say, to the wording from any member of the Prime Minister's private office?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in the light of the findings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, the implication behind that question is totally inappropriate. The noble Baroness is trying to revisit issues around the accusations of spin. The Government were cleared entirely of those accusations by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. If the noble Baroness does not understand that, she can read the report in full.

UK Economy: OECD Report
11.14a.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they respond to the latest report on the United Kingdom economy by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, the OECD's assessment of the UK economy was published on 20 January 2004. The Government welcome the report and note the positive assessment of the performance of the economy over the past few years.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, glowing as the report is in parts, nevertheless it points out that the budget deficit will exceed the euro-zone's 3 per cent limit by next year. Furthermore, the report casts doubt on whether the,
"massive spending increases will fully pay off in terms of improved service".
Is not the Chancellor's golden rule on balancing the budget of the economic cycle under serious threat? Should we not be encouraging him to think about cuts in public spending as he himself suggested at the enterprise summit earlier this week, before he increases taxation or we return to the dreaded boom and bust?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said about glowing in parts. My copy of the OECD's statement is festooned with flags to positive comments. It looks rather different from Michael Howard's copy of the Hutton report, I have to say.
On the more serious issue, clearly there is a distinction between the wholly favourable opinion expressed by the OECD about the UK economy at present and its projections for the future. The OECD is entitled to its projections for the future; the Institute for Fiscal Studies has produced comparable projections, which are published today. They are fully entitled to their views; it is the Government's that the Chancellor will not break his golden rules.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the report was really very positive about the UK economy, as he rightly mentioned? Should not notice be taken of the fact that in the whole of the past century—if we take that into account—we have had seven years of stability? That was never equalled in the whole of the previous century and for much of the century before then. This is a wholly new phenomenon, and we should pay tribute to the Chancellor for producing it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that we should, but I cannot resist recalling the view of the bursar of an Oxford college, who criticised the college's investment policy on the grounds that the past 200 years had been wholly exceptional.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, would the Minister agree that one element of the report that was somewhat critical of the UK economy dealt with the long-term productivity performance? In particular, the report identified the low levels of R&D as being a cause for concern. International comparisons indicate that British industry, with the noble exceptions of the pharmaceutical and aerospace industries, has a very poor record in that regard. The Government have introduced a series of measures, including a rather expensive R&D tax credit, which so far has had very little effect. Has the Minister any suggestions as to other measures that might be introduced, which might help industry to improve its performance?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on the measures that have been introduced to improve productivity. I am sure that the Chancellor in his Budget, which is the only occasion on which such matters can be announced, will consider further measures if necessary. However, it is worth pointing out that, using the definition of productivity that the OECD uses, we have in fact already caught up with the European average. We are still behind the United States, of course, but we are catching up in relation to Europe and Japan.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the OECD report would be more or less optimistic if we were already in the euro? Secondly, can he remind us of the latest estimate of the budget deficit for this year and for next year, both in billions of pounds and as a percentage of GDP?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the first question is of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, knows, a try-on. It is a hypothetical question that invites me to anticipate any future statements about British membership of the euro.
On the second question, yes, I believe that I can give percentage figures, at any rate. The projection in the OECD report for the rest of this financial year—from 2003–04—is that the deficit will be 3.3 per cent. The projections for next year and the year after are 2.4 per cent and 1.8 per cent respectively.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, will the Minister consider advising the Chancellor that the best contribution he could make to increased productivity in the years ahead would be to promise to introduce much shorter finance Bills than he those he has produced so far?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know from personal experience that the Chancellor is particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe,
318
for the work that he does as regards the simplification of taxation and we are sympathetic to it. As I have said on many occasions in this House, complication of taxation arises because of the concentration of legal and financial support for those who wish to find new ways of avoiding taxes.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the OECD statement that,
"improving the quality of public services in a cost-effective way in such priority areas as health and education will be a major challenge"?
If so, will he explain why the Government's approach to public services is one of more tax, more spending and more failure, rather than enacting any meaningful reforms?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the noble Baroness's first point, the OECD report is very cautious indeed:
"The jury is still out on whether the massive spending increases will fully pay off in terms of improved service".
That is a warning to us. On the second point, I disagree with all of the statements that she makes.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions
11.21 a.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are still on track to meet the goal, accepted at Kyoto, of a 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2010 and a 60 per cent cut by 2050.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I shall first, unusually, correct the noble Lord. The UK target under the Kyoto protocol is actually to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent below 1990 levels. Provisional data show that UK greenhouse gas emissions were 14.9 per cent below 1990 levels in 2002. Therefore we shall meet the Kyoto target. We remain confident that by delivering appropriate policies we can meet the domestic goal of a 20 per cent reduction by 2010. Further step changes will be needed if we are to meet the 2050 target.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful for that minor correction. Is the Minister aware of the growing anxiety that DTI Ministers continue to fight shy of any real conclusion about the need for more nuclear generation? In doing so, they are losing a valuable opportunity that would take them on the way to meeting those commitments, which begin to look more like a PR exercise than real undertakings.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord has on occasion been with us in Committee on the Energy Bill. He knows that the discussions about a nuclear

319
component of energy policy have been fairly robust and will, no doubt, continue to be so. The point about meeting the Kyoto targets is that we need no new nuclear capacity to meet them. We believe that the policies set out in the energy White Paper, if fully delivered with the energy efficiency and renewables contribution, can ensure that we meet those targets without new nuclear power. Particularly after 2010, this will require some step changes in both consumer and business behaviour. Of course, we are keeping the nuclear option open and constantly under review.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although he is quite right to say that we need no new nuclear capacity, we do need all our existing nuclear capacity unless and until alternatives are in place that generate the same volume of electricity and the additional electricity needed to meet the productivity demands such as those set out in the OECD report?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not entirely agree with that. Certainly on present policies there will continue to be a nuclear component until the mid-2030s, even if there is no new build. But that will be a diminishing component. Indeed, we can meet our projected energy requirements in 2020, provided that the policies enunciated in the White Paper are maintained, with a much reduced nuclear component by then.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in spite of the optimism expressed by the Minister, in order to make sure that we achieve our targets, would it not be prudent for further steps to be taken now to support other energy technologies, apart from renewables, that are likely to lead to a reduction in emissions?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, further steps are being taken on renewables, on more energy efficient use of carbon fuels and the development of alternative technology. That includes keeping the nuclear option open by research and expertise being maintained, so that we could, if necessary, revert to a nuclear option. But if the various components outlined in the White Paper are delivered on current policies and on policies which are envisaged in that paper, then we do not need to rely significantly on any technology that is not so far included within that calculation.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, are the Government adopting contraction and convergence as the just and intelligent way forward on global emissions?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in energy policy we are not talking about the contraction of economic growth, but of decoupling the demand for energy from economic growth, so that the coefficient for energy in developed countries would become negative. That would allow greater scope for developing countries to grow their own economies at a rate that brings their standards of
320
living closer to those in developed countries. It is not exactly contraction, but it provides for some reduction in the energy take of the northern countries.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, will the Minister clear up a misunderstanding once and for all? Nuclear is not included in renewables, yet nuclear does not have carbon dioxide emissions. Why can it not be counted in the percentage that is necessary to achieve the Kyoto targets? Surely, on that basis there must be some sense of urgency in going for new nuclear as well as, as the noble Lord said, maintaining existing nuclear.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in one sense the nuclear component is taken into account in meeting the Kyoto targets as, as long as we keep a certain nuclear component, it does not contribute to the carbon figures. Although for the future nuclear technology is a low carbon or near-nil carbon technology, it is not a sustainable technology until we have found ways of dealing with nuclear waste. Once that is dealt with in a satisfactory way, then one reopens the question of the contribution of nuclear. But we are not anywhere near that point. It has economic consequences, as the costs of disposal and decommissioning need to be taken into account, which make nuclear power a not very cheap form of carbon saving.
Lord Lea of Crondail: My Lords, it may be that the anomaly arising from the noble Baroness's question is why the carbon levy does not allow a dispensation for nuclear. On the Question that is actually on the Order Paper, is it not timely to remind ourselves that although Britain has gone well ahead of other countries in Europe, and certainly in the world as a whole, in going for Kyoto plus, the fact is that, although competitiveness can be an argument, having given a lead, we now see countries such as India and China starting to move in the direction of signing up to Kyoto? Britain should be congratulated—under both parties, going back to 1992 at Rio—on giving a lead on this question.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The lead given at Kyoto and that given by the UK within the EU in the EU's contribution to Kyoto have been very important. It is also important that we maintain that lead. The UK and Germany are leading the EU contribution to deliver our Kyoto targets. This has not been, and will not be, to the economic disbenefit of UK industry because, if we are ahead of the game in the technologies that are needed for this new era, UK industry will be competitive and will gain as a result of being ahead of the pack.

Criminal Record Systems
11.29 a.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to co-ordinate better the different criminal record systems within the United Kingdom, and across the European Union, to improve vetting and selection procedures in employment, so as to afford better protection to children.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are keen to support measures within the UK and across Europe to strengthen the protection of children through the sharing of criminal record and other information. To this end we are putting in place links between the different jurisdictions within the United Kingdom for sharing conviction information, and information about people who are disqualified from working with children. We are also examining with other EU member states how the arrangements for sharing information can be improved.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, does he recognise that it is a matter of public concern that better co-ordination of criminal record systems across the United Kingdom should be effected with the greatest dispatch and accuracy? As regards the European Union, does my noble friend recognise that a number of existing states and a number of applicant states still do not have lists of those with criminal records in respect of children? Will he make it a priority of the British presidency of 2005 to ensure that all those 25 countries have proper lists and that there is a proper sharing of information across the European Union?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord that it must be a priority to work with jurisdictions outside the United Kingdom. I am not sure that we should wait until 2005 to do that although, of course, it ought to be one of our priorities in 2005. As it is, we are working with our European partners to encourage them to have an EU-wide sex offenders register. We already have a register. We are leaders in the field in international law enforcement in this area. I believe it is generally recognised that our EU partners have much to do to catch up with us. We consider that this is an extremely important matter. Although our objective may not be achievable in the immediate and short term, it is one to which we are working.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, in noting the Minister's reply to the original Question, will he comment on claims that the inability of Disclosure Scotland to access directly certain criminal records in England and Wales has created a legal loophole potentially putting children at risk? Will the Minister also note that, on the evidence of the chief executive of the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in a recent press article, vetting procedures are grossly inadequate in comparison with the systems in place in England and Wales? Will the Minister therefore bear in mind the potential dangers posed to children in these two adjacent jurisdictions when he is addressing the wider context of harmonisation of vetting procedures across the European Union?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I certainly accept the premise of the noble Viscount's question; namely, that our procedures are more advanced than those of other jurisdictions, as I have already said. However, as regards Scotland, important work is being undertaken to ensure that the systems are
322
compatible. It should be remembered that Scotland enters conviction data on the PNC. Although it does not have quite the same concept of recordable offences, in recent years a number of steps have been taken to ensure greater compatibility. Most Scottish cases are recorded on the PNC, so there is that important sharing of information. The Irish system is very much modelled on the United Kingdom system. The Irish are, like us, working towards securing high standards in terms of enforcement. Their model is very much based on ours. We are delighted with the progress that has been made in adjacent jurisdictions but, of course, there is much more to be done.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, while agreeing with everything the Minister has said, will he ensure that the improved co-ordination applies also to vulnerable adults who are covered by the same procedures and face the same loophole?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I note very carefully what the noble Baroness has said. That is an important point. It is something of which we are very mindful and on which we undertake to secure more work.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, following the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, is the Minister aware of the evidence of the relatively free movement of sex offenders across the border between England and Scotland in both directions? While we are waiting for changes and information-sharing systems to be put in place, what are the Government doing to address that issue in the short term?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have worked extremely hard on this matter. The Government have an extremely good track record in this field. I summarise the situation. In the past five years we have tightened the laws on sexual abuse of children; we have strengthened the sex offenders register; we have introduced new orders to protect children from grooming; we have introduced a new order which requires sex offenders who commit offences overseas to go on the sex offenders register; we have established a multi-agency public protection arrangement; we have introduced sex offender orders which can stop sex offenders being alone with children; and we have introduced post-release supervision. All of those are very important. We work very closely with all of the jurisdictions that make up part of the United Kingdom to ensure proper enforcement. Important steps are being taken to work more closely with our colleagues in Scotland, as I indicated earlier.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when will the Scottish and English systems be compatible?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding is that work is being undertaken to ensure compatibility. I cannot give the noble Lord a precise date but I am happy to write to him on that point.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned—

National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
11.36 a.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): 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 Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 38 [Sustainable development]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 111ZF:
Page 21, line 21, at end insert —
"( ) under Part 4 in relation to all development control matters;"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 111ZF, I note that grouped with it are our Amendments Nos. 111ZG, 111A and 112ZC. Also grouped with the amendment are Amendments Nos. 111ZFA, 111B and 112—to which I and my noble friend Lord Addington have added our names—and Amendments Nos. 112ZA, 112ZB, 112A and 113B together with the Question whether Clause 38 shall stand part of the Bill. Of course, if I had mentioned sustainable development rather than recounting a list of the amendments in the group as noble Lords were leaving the Chamber, that might have attracted them to stay. I want to record that in Hansard
We have reached a hugely important part of the Bill. I suppose that it is in the nature of scrutinising legislation that not only do the scrutineers from time to time seek to delete or alter provisions, but when we support them we seek to improve them, if I can use the term without incurring too much wrath, or, as is perhaps the case here, to extend their effect. I make all my remarks on this group of amendments with that in mind and hope that the Committee will understand that that is our intention. We are keen to strengthen the provisions regarding sustainable development and to ensure that they have a practical effect.
At present Clause 38 provides that persons or bodies exercising certain functions must do so,
"with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development".
I am aware that the Government are concerned not to use primary legislation to lock us all into a definition of "sustainable development" when the concept and the term are developing, if I can put it that way. I believe that a new version of planning policy guidance note 1 is to be issued shortly which will address that. I share
324
the Government's concern about the matter. It is important not just to get it right for this moment but to get it right in a way that will stick.
My name is added to Amendment No. 112. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, will be able to speak to it because she is not in the Chamber, but it is her amendment. I wish to speak about paragraph (a) of her amendment, which raises the issue of access as part of the question of sustainability. I had prepared a probing amendment to cover just that aspect, but as this amendment had been tabled my name was added to it.
The noble Baroness rightly raises the question of access as part of the social limb of sustainable development because there is a risk of it being sidelined and limited to development control rather than to strategic planning.
Amendment No. 111ZF seeks to extend the duty to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, or whatever term we end up with in Clause 38(2), to development control. Clause 38(1) refers to the regional spatial strategy function and to local development documents. It may be that the Minister will tell me that it is not necessary to refer specifically to development control because of the reference to Part 2 and local development documents which will obviously have to be had regard to when a local planning authority exercises development control functions. That reference means that the concept does apply.
Amendments Nos. 111ZG and 111A go to the heart of our concerns. The words "the objective of achieving" sustainable development, as they appear in Amendment No. 11ZG, have been urged on us—and no doubt on the Government—by a very large number of organisations. The words "with a view to", "contributing to" or "having regard to" in the Bill are not as strong as we would like them to be. The amendment is designed to make the actual achievement of sustainable development a primary rather than a peripheral concern.
I understand that the term "objective" has been litigated, so it will not be new to the courts or something which they would have to define. Amendment No. 111A suggests that the persons exercising the functions must do so with a view to the "principles of sustainability". That is a home made amendment, but one which seems to me to express something more than sustainable development as it is now. It takes us back to what sustainability and sustainable development are about. I believe that it might be helpful.
Amendment No. 111ZC requires impliedly that policies and advice are the subject of Clause 38(3). We want guidance in this instance. Whatever form it takes it must address what is meant by sustainable development.
We disagree with the view that sustainable development, if it is not capable of definition or if there are difficulties with it, should not be part of the Bill. That seems to us not to meet the argument at all. The definition may change as we as a society understand

325
the concept more and as culture changes. So we need to find a way to ensure that the legislation remains up to date.
At Second Reading the Minister spoke about finding a form of words which would meet the Government's requirements—he referred particularly to the sustainable communities plan—while not meeting with adverse comment from lawyers. On this occasion it is the lawyers who need to find the words to say what almost all of us seek to see the Bill achieve. I beg to move.
11.45 a.m.
Baroness Hanham: I have three amendments in this group. All of them relate to the extremely important point about the definition of sustainable development. Part 4 of the Bill relates to development control in England and Part 6 to planning in Wales.
Clause 38 is a potentially beneficial clause of substantial effect in planning decision-making. However, at the moment it fails to achieve its objective on three counts. First, it excludes from its ambit local development orders and statements of development principle, the former being found under Clause 39 and the latter under Clause 41. Although at the moment we object to the statements of principle, they are in the Bill at present. Together with the local development orders they form the bedrock of the Government's local planning decision-making and local development control under the new system.
Excluding Clauses 39 and 41 from Clause 38 would unreasonably limit the statutory requirement for the achievement of sustainable development at a local level in making day-to-day planning decisions. By doing so the Government would be abdicating their responsibility in this respect and causing an apparent anomaly. The requirement would be applicable to the planning of schemes and plans but not to the coal-face, which is development control.
Secondly, an undeniably important part of the planning system in this country is to stimulate economic activity and regeneration. The Department of Trade and Industry relies on it. It is recognised by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Adherence in the clause to sustainability alone gives insufficient weight to economic regeneration. It is a vital component of planning decision-making for business and commerce, and hence the amendment to ensure sufficient recognition of economic regeneration factors in the decision-making.
Thirdly, sustainability can mean all things to all men. However, it is capable of definition as we demonstrate in our succinct new clause. But to leave the definition to secondary legislation or policy made by the Secretary of State, or to leave it to the courts to sort out later, would be to shirk responsibility within the terms of the Bill and it is unwarranted.
A definition is important to give guidance to the public and those in the planning system as to what the Government and, more importantly, Parliament
326
means by this otherwise potentially nebulous word. As it carries a couple of clauses with it, it is important for people to know what it means.
The meaning that we propose in our new clause has legal basis. It has as its derivation the definition concluded at the UN Human Environment Conference 1972 in Stockholm. It appears on the Government's own website. As time passes and definitions become more and more extensive and complicated, as Amendment No. 112 demonstrates, our amendment takes us back to the root definition of 1972, updated by the words "and natural". It is simple, universal and it has been recognised for the past 30 years. We believe, therefore, that this is a definition which will stand not only the test of time, but put on the face of the Bill, will stand as the definition of sustainable development which, after all, is what the Government are seeking to achieve in many ways in this planning Bill.
Lord Greaves: I have two amendments in this group—Amendments Nos. 112ZA and 112ZB—which are amendments to Amendment No. 112 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Addington.
As I understand it, Amendment No. 112 has been tabled in order to engender a discussion on the aspects to be included in the concept of sustainability. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has just said that sustainability is very often all things to all men; I would no doubt add "to all women, too". However, that is the precise difficulty. What "sustainability" means to a business person and what it means to an environmentalist are entirely different. It risks becoming a weasel word about which everyone says, "Yes, it's a wonderful idea. It's like motherhood and apple pie, and we are all against sin". But, unless we talk about what it means, it becomes relatively meaningless.
Amendment No. 112 talks about social progress and the environment. Paragraph (c) refers to,
"prudent use of natural resources",
and paragraph (d) talks about,
"maintaining high and stable levels of economic growth and employment".
All those things are important. Yet neither in this amendment nor in the debate about sustainability is there a recognition of the ways in which different types of sustainability may conflict and the best ways in which they can be maximised in order to provide the best possible outcome involving trade-offs, compromises and, inevitably, priorities.
My first amendment would merely add the word "communities" to the concept of social progress. I am not sure that it would provide the most elegantly worded amendment in that there would then be a reference to "access to communities". However, at this stage, these amendments are for discussion and not for writing into the Bill. Therefore, I am not too concerned if the wording is not as elegant as it might be.

327
However, it seems to me that communities are the most fundamental part of the concept of social sustainability. Ultimately, everything else—whether public services or access to education and employment or housing—comes down to the local communities of which they form an important part.
My second amendment—Amendment No. 112ZB—is rather more important. It is an attempt to tease out from the Government what they see as the priorities between economic growth and all other desirable issues, particularly environmental ones. We cannot get away from the fact that a conflict often arises there and one must make a choice. You can engage in some form of development which results in higher economic growth in the short term or you can say, "No. Considerations of protecting the environment", in this case, "or perhaps longer-term sustainable economic growth must take priority over the immediate—perhaps selfish—interests of those of us who live here and now and would benefit from that immediate economic growth".
There are conflicts. Most of the arguments surrounding major planning applications encapsulate the conflict between people who say, "This has to happen because it produces more jobs or more housing for people", and those who say, "Yes, no doubt it may do that, but the environmental or ecological consequences, or whatever, are not worth it. The short-term economic gain is not worth the longer-term environmental loss". Therefore, this amendment suggests that the emphasis should be firmly on the environmental aspects and the prudent use of natural resources rather than on short-term economic growth. That is certainly where I stand.
I tabled the amendment to find out what the Minister has to say about it and to tease out again just how far this Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is intended to stimulate economic growth at the expense of other factors, such as the rights of people to object to that growth or to take part in the system. In particular, I want to find out how far it is intended that the planning system, as amended by the Bill, will make economic growth easier at the expense of other factors, such as environmental ones.
Lord Marlesford: This group of amendments highlights the problem that exists in respect of planning law in deciding what should be on the face of the Bill—that is, in primary legislation—and what should be in secondary legislation. I believe that the old system of PPGs, which is now the system of PPSs, has served us well. It has two big advantages. First, it is possible to put into the PP system far more detail than one can ever really put into a Bill. Secondly, as the world moves on, it is possible to amend the PP system in a way in which, on the whole, one cannot amend primary legislation.
I believe that primary legislation should give an indication of the major considerations to be taken into account in framing secondary legislation. It should be
328
an indicator of the constraints and of the areas to be addressed by such secondary legislation. However, I do not believe that it should be too tight. That is why I support my noble friend's Amendment No. 111B. It would merely add the words "and economic regeneration", whereas I consider Amendment No. 112, for example, to be far too detailed to be included in primary legislation. It would be quite unsuitable. There are many good aspirations in it but it is not suitable for primary legislation. Frankly, it could lead to endless examples of judicial review and other problems, which would be a barrier to making any kind of progress.
I speak, of course, with an environmental hat on due to my concern for rural England. However, I recognise that, if the Bill is eventually to come out well, it must help, where possible, to speed up planning legislation and make it more efficient. That is why I hope that the Government will feel able to support my noble friend's amendment as an appropriate insert into the Bill. It is merely one of the factors to be taken into account in framing the secondary legislation, which I believe will always have to give the detailed indications of the planning policy.
Lord Cobbold: I am one of those who has serious problems with the concept of sustainable development. I am afraid that I cringe every time I hear the word "sustainable" mentioned. It seems to me to be a classic bureaucratic mantra. It is planning-speak for "good intentions". How long will anything be sustained? Who is to sustain it? How is it to be sustained? To me, sustainable development can only be a subjective concept; it defies objective definition.
Amendment No. 112 attempts to provide a definition but it lists only a range of factors against which development plan documents and development plans should be judged, many of which, as has already been said, by their nature are conflicting. One person's or one authority's desire to maintain high and stable levels of economic growth and employment is likely to conflict with another's effective protection of the environment, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has just noted. At the extreme, airports or motorways and wind farms generate fiercely opposing views.
Clause 38, as it stands, contains no definition of "sustainable development", perhaps because the Government recognise that it is impossible to define. Yet, elsewhere in the Bill, as we have already seen—namely, in Clause 18(5)—local planning authorities are required to carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of their proposals and to prepare a report on their findings. That seems to me to be an unnecessary piece of bureaucracy.
The origin of the phrase "sustainable development" was, I believe, from a 1994 paper entitled Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy. But the most common definition is in PPG1, which describes sustainable development as,
"development which meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

329
That definition has the beauty of brevity, but leaves plenty of room for disagreement on whether a particular development is or is not likely to compromise the needs of future generations. It is hard to see how any appraisal of success or failure can be made without the benefit of an opinion from those future generations.
Planning is an art form. No one can accurately predict the future. Planning is the art of reconciling a range of competing and often conflicting aspirations and finding the optimal compromise between various interests in any particular situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, was right to call for objectives to be set out in planning and to attempt to meet them. But objectives will vary from one part of the country—region, county or district—to another. I believe that the Bill should set out a range of objectives against which planning documents and applications should be measured. That could be done in secondary legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, suggested, rather than on the face of the Bill. One of those conditions should have to be good design, as has been mentioned.
Local authorities would then need to prioritise the objectives and criteria that they deem to be important in their development documents and plans, against which planning proposals would be judged. But there is likely to be a variation in the relevance of different objectives to different parts of a district. Flexibility and judgment must always have a place in the planning process.
I hope that the Minister will at least acknowledge the impossibility of providing an objective definition of "sustainable development", but I expect it is too much to hope that the dreaded phrase can be completely left out of the Bill.
Noon
Baroness Hanham: Will the noble Lord take it from me that "sustainability" goes back earlier than 1994—it comes from the United Nations conference in Stockholm in 1972? The exact effect of my amendment was agreed in Stockholm and is on the Government's website—I can tell the noble Lord how to find it. But the phrase dates from much earlier than 1994. I, too, agree with him that sustainable development is subjective.
Lord Lucas: I am attracted to Amendment No. 113B, tabled by my noble friend, because it gives the first definition of sustainable development that I have seen anywhere that can be evaluated in individual planning applications. There is so much guffery surrounding the subject. If one is trying to balance the benefits to the current generation against the benefits or costs to future generations, how can that be evaluated when someone wishes to put an extension on the back of their house? In Amendment No. 113B one can make that equation. For example, someone can be given permission to extinguish a small amount of grass, with the loss of life of a few ants, because his proposal to put up bat boxes would be acceptable as a reasonable compromise. Something practical would
330
have been agreed. In any case, if the amendment is accepted, we shall need secondary legislation to ensure that enough information is available, so that people making planning applications can understand how they are to make their proposals, and, taken as a whole, contribute to sustainable development. It will be a difficult piece of secondary legislation to write, but I hope that the Minister will indicate some of its contents and the practical effects of Clause 38, of which I thoroughly approve.
My own Amendment No. 112A looks at one aspect of the way in which the introduction of Clause 38 might affect the way that we look at planning decisions. It goes back to points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, at Second Reading. He said that a sustainable city is a multi-centred city. Yesterday, I had the dubious pleasure of spending a considerable time in Willesden Junction, where the undertaker seems to be the most prosperous business. It is probably the happiest, too, because at last one could leave Willesden Junction if one was a customer of the undertakers. But it should not be that way. It is reasonably accessible to the centre of London and has plenty of space. London has become too centre-heavy. The parts around the periphery rely too heavily on the centre and become as denuded, desolate and unkempt as Willesden Junction. I have been in smarter streets in Kabul than in Willesden Junction. It is a decrepit place. That it should be part of our capital city is not what is meant by sustainable development.
We should develop concepts of the type espoused by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, which seem to encapsulate the idea of sustainable development. That concept should also apply to little villages. My home in Hampshire is not in a sustainable village. It relies heavily on facilities provided outside. It no longer has a shop or a school; one cannot exist there without relying on a car for transport. Every need other than having the house is supplied from outside the village. If we are looking at sustainable communities, we must develop villages in a more sustainable way and make them large enough to command some level of local provision. I would like to see practical evolution of that concept and its effects on the development of the countryside and towns. When we consider the secondary legislation, the Government will have to give many steers and pointers on how Clause 38 will work in practice if we are to use it effectively. Otherwise nothing will happen, because it will be possible to argue any case in any way and there will be no way of reaching even decisions around the country.
Lord Chorley: Like many noble Lords, I supported Clause 38 at Second Reading. Most of us probably regarded it as a starting point to the debate we are having now. I will not speak to all of the amendments in the group as there are many of them. Amendment No. 111ZG, tabled by noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is important because it makes Clause 38 operational rather than a pious hope. I do not particularly mind Amendment No. 111B, tabled by noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on economic regeneration. Although I

331
am not sure that it sits comfortably in a clause about sustainable development, it is there and I do not mind it.
Regarding Amendment No. 112, like everyone who has spoken, I agree that it goes too far in trying to define that elusive and developing concept of sustainable development. It is far too ambitious and detailed and for that reason alone is dangerous, because it ties the legislation down in many odd areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about access under paragraph (a). I agree with her. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, spoke about the issue in general terms and I agree that it is not right. The proposal embroiders far too much and muddies what I understand to be the Government's definition. It calls for,
"social progress which recognises the needs of everyone … effective protection of the environment … prudent use of natural resources … maintaining high and stable levels of economic growth and employment".
That is better, but it goes a little too wide.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that we need to return to the original concept of the Stockholm conference of 1972. All things considered, I would prefer that route and not the Government's definitions.
Finally, I want briefly to comment on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. When I read it, I thought that he was somewhat dotty—if he will forgive me saying so—because I did not understand what he was getting at. I now understand, but I am not sure whether his amendment achieves his aim. I like the concept of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, that properly designed cities are the only way forward for sustainable development, but I do not know whether it is worth putting that into the Bill. I like the idea of the importance of design, contained in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and probably I would leave it at that.
Baroness Maddock: I support Amendment No. 111ZG tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee because it is important to try to beef up what is contained in the clause, however difficult that may be. At Second Reading, that seemed to be the desire of many noble Lords. If we can include sustainable development as an objective, that will be a step forward and perhaps during forthcoming debates we can agree measures that will make it more forceful.
I agreed with much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I want to comment on the sustainability of our housing. The Minister has said many times that one of the objectives of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is to speed up the process by which we provide homes. We have been creating households at a much greater rate than we have been building homes. All of us share that objective. However, we have seen what has gone wrong in the past and we have demolished some of the developments of the 1960s.
332
It is important that we address that issue and that in drawing up plans at whatever level we are aware of the problems. Today we need to think about the different tenures which make a community sustainable; about the materials that are used in construction; how much waste we create; and what its removal means in traffic movement.
We also need to think about the natural resources that our homes use. I am concerned in particular about water, on which I have spoken previously. Climate change brings an increased risk of flooding, yet we build many estates on ground that does not allow water to drain away and where there is much more hard-standing. We still install in houses water and sewerage systems that are uneconomical in their use of resources. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, when we are designing new home developments we must be aware that people need to be near to schools and hospitals.
However we resolve the issue of sustainable development today or at later stages of the Bill, I hope that the Government will ensure that the points I and other noble Lords have raised appear in all other aspects of the Bill, whether in guidance or in secondary legislation. We all want to ensure that the issues we have raised today improve the Bill as it passes through your Lordships' House.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I am genuinely grateful for all the speeches that have been made today. Most were extremely helpful to the debate. I take note in particular of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about separating out the primary legislation and deciding what detail we want. For obvious reasons, it is easier to change that. I was speaking at a conference earlier today when that very issue arose in terms of planning policy guidance. It can be changed and does not necessarily require a legislative slot.
This is an important debate on an important part of the Bill and I want to make a few preliminary comments. But one thing I will say—and this gives nothing away because I am in no position to do that—is that I do not want to be dogmatic. I do not want to sound dogmatic. I have to resist these amendments at this stage, but that is not to say that we have finished looking for other forms of wording.
I have previously explained why Clause 38 is drafted in the way that it is. We accepted at the outset that there were strong arguments to have in the Bill a statement of what we are planning for. We wanted something that would work and be practical. There are two extremes. We could include a lot of fine words that will look good and make us feel good, but which are quite meaningless—I have seen drafts of such paragraphs—or we could attempt legal definitions which could get us into all kind of problems. There is one that I will share with the Committee when I come to address a particular amendment because it is an example of a possible problem over legal definitions.

333
We decided not to tie the requirement to specific functions. We have a planled system, so the right place for the duty is at the plan-making level. That is how the clause is currently drafted. It bears on the regional planning body and local authority when they are preparing a revision to the regional spatial strategy or preparing local development documents. The planled system provides for decisions to be taken in accordance with the local plan unless there are other material considerations.
The local plan provides the policy framework for the planning decisions and, as a consequence, does not specifically cover development control, as would happen under Amendment No. 111ZF, or any of the procedures covered by Part 4, such as those referred to in Amendment No. 111ZFA. It simply does not need to do that.
A plan in itself cannot achieve sustainable development, as noble Lords will accept. It sets out a framework, but it is the actions that follow which lead to sustainable development. That is why we used the "contributing to the achievement of wording.
We used the words "with a view to" in order to make it clear that the regional planning body or local planning authority should have a positive intent towards sustainable development in exercising the duty. If we had simply said, "with the objective of achieving", there would be a risk that we would place a weight on the plan-making function that we do not believe that it could bear.
Achieving sustainable development will require action on a far wider front than is provided for by what we can do through planning and the planning system. People may argue that the plan has not achieved sustainable development because of issues that the plan could not hope to have addressed. On the other hand, issues that were covered in consultation or the examination, but which were rejected by that process, could be reopened through a legal challenge under the terms of the amendment. That is what we seek to avoid.
We are keen to ensure that the wording in Clause 38(2) is effective. We want to ensure that it works and sends the right message as well as being robust legally. So we shall study the words,
"with a view to contributing",
further, to see whether they can be improved. That is why I can say I am not being dogmatic. I also have to say—because it says it in the brief—that after the work it took to get to where we are, I cannot give any guarantee that we shall be able to find better words.
I can genuinely assure the Committee—of course in the early days the Bill was in my policy ownership—we spent an enormous amount of time with various drafts on this aspect of the Bill and that has continued with the current planning Minister, Keith Hill.
The varying definitions offered up in contribution to this debate all help to underline the point that I am sure Members will expect me to make. That is not to belittle the amendments or the importance of the subject matter. To take the amendments as they stand, the issue is whether one puts a definition on the face of the
334
Bill or whether one uses guidance. The specific amendments use words that are fine in guidance—giving advice on when the concept of sustainable development could apply. None of them causes me any problems in the sense of what is implied behind the words.
The problem is the idea of putting them on to the face of the Bill. They would bring uncertainty in legislation. If the matter went to court, a court would be required to define "social progress", or there could be a debate in a court about maintaining high and stable levels of economic growth. We have the problem of putting words in the Bill that could be used to delay and tie up the planning system in the courts.
Recently—last week or the week before—we published a consultation paper on a proposed urban development corporation for west Northamptonshire. The areas covered in the document included Northampton, Daventry and Towcester. By common consent, when we discussed this matter with our partners in the area, there was a concern that Brackley should be included in that list. Frankly, we wanted to include it, but we were prevented doing so on legal advice. The reason was that to set up an urban development corporation under the current legislation there has to be a regeneration reason. The point was that the case could not be made strongly enough in legal terms to put Brackley on the list, although in that general area it would be impacted by other changes.
In regard to the words of Amendment No. 111B—"and economic regeneration"—I can give one example, on which I have not taken advice. It is an example that I have dealt with recently, in which we could not make the case for regeneration for Brackley, but that does not mean that it should be excluded from the benefit of being in the growth area and what we will operate with the UDC in the other areas. It came down to the fact that there was a problem with the legal term "regeneration"; we could not satisfy the requirements of legislation that has been put on the statute book for those reasons.
I give that as one example, but that is not the reason why we shall not look at it. Certainly it is an example that comes to mind and it appears to be a good idea—we all agree with economic regeneration in areas—but putting it into principal legislation could give rise to all kinds of difficulties if it ever came to court. That is why we should make it clear what we mean by "sustainable development" and why it should be put in guidance. That is the purpose of subsection (3), that in fulfilling the duty the regional planning body and the local planning authorities should have regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State. That guidance will explain what we mean by "sustainable development" in this context.
On a number of occasions, in earlier debates, I have mentioned what the Government see as the four broad objectives for sustainable development that will be set out in the forthcoming consultation draft of planning policy statement 1. I shall say more about that in a moment. The four objectives are sustainable economic development, social inclusion, protection of the

335
environment and prudent use of resources. I am extremely disappointed that I have not been able to provide a draft of planning policy statement 1 before now. It is a document that we have to get right. From what I know about it so far, I am confident that it will meet many of the concerns expressed in today's debate.
Without talking out of school or misquoting anyone in particular, in an interview in Planning on 5 December, Jonathan Porritt, who is the chair of the Sustainable Development Commission and one of the Prime Minister's advisers on the issue, indicated that,
"he has seen a draft of PPS1 and is happy with what he saw".
That comes from a rather long article. In other words, the early drafting meets the point. It comes down to the main argument of whether one puts it into principal legislation or into guidance.
Another question is whether one has it right in the first place. First, we need to get it right; whether in guidance or in primary legislation, we have to get the definition of what we are talking about right. Secondly, there is the practical issue, in terms of the legal process and the parliamentary process, of putting it in guidance or on the face of the Bill.
I hope that in due course we shall be able to convince the Committee that we have the matter right. I can give a firm promise to have a draft of planning policy statement 1 ready for the next stage of the Bill. That means that we need it before Report stage so that people can look at it and table amendments. I must not just give it out as we start Report stage. It must be available before Report stage.
Planning policy statement 1 will make it clear that planning authorities should facilitate and promote sustainable patterns of urban and rural development by making suitable land available for development in line with economic, social and environmental objectives to improve the quality of life; by contributing to sustainable economic growth; by protecting and, where possible, enhancing the natural environment and the quality and character of the countryside and existing successful communities; by ensuring good quality and good design; and by ensuring that development supports existing communities and contributes to the creation of safe, sustainable and liveable communities.
I hope that that gives a flavour of the way in which we are working. Although I have not referred to them specifically, each set of paragraphs has covered a group of amendments. I am afraid that Amendment No. 112ZC is unacceptable. It would result in different types of guidance based on the way they impact on the planning authority. Currently, planning authorities must have regard to guidance. That is right because it recognises that, however comprehensive and up to date, there are likely to be situations that the guidance has not foreseen or that the guidance has not addressed in detail, or other issues may need to be considered. That is why the concept of material considerations allows the planning authority to take account of those situations so it is not forced to follow only guidance in
336
developing policies or making decisions. That is crucial. The guidance is important but that concept of material considerations allows a degree of flexibility at local level.
The effect of the amendment would be to remove any discretion from the planning authority. I understand that the term has been used in other legislation, but it would send an unwelcome precedent in planning legislation. I understand also that case law has confirmed that the effect of this formulation is to remove all discretion from the relevant authority. That is a highly dangerous way to operate. We could find ourselves in a position where local authorities are forced to follow the guidance come what may, even when they know it is the wrong thing to do because there are other issues that need to be addressed. We could also end up with a different hierarchy of guidance depending on whether it is guidance which must be followed or guidance to which regard must be had. This is a recipe for confusion and challenge and yet more time in the courts.
I regret that I do not have available the draft guidance. I hope that I have said enough to indicate that we are on the right track. In the end it will come down to the issue of whether or not we put the wording in the legislation. I have given an example of Brackley and regeneration. In order to sustain my argument, before the next stage I shall try to find examples where there has been a court case about such words as are used in the amendments so that I can explain to the Committee why it might be a dangerous route to follow.
We do not want a form of words which those who wish to stifle development out of a principled ideological argument can use to frustrate. I do not claim that any noble Lord has remotely hinted at anything like that; nor do I cast aspersions on outside bodies. But the law is for everyone to use. Therefore, we have to be very careful how the Bill is drafted. We are in some ways in uncharted waters because we have not attempted anything like this before. A planning Bill comes along about once in a decade. We need to get it right, therefore, so that we do not have to wait a decade before correcting a mistake.
I hope that that gives a flavour of the Government's approach. I hope that we shall have available more substance before the undoubted debates on Report.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I was encouraged by the noble Lord's remarks. As I listened, I considered again Amendment No. 113B. From the Minister's remarks on PPS1, I understand that most of that amendment will be included. However, I hope that he will include "and" which is a crucial piece of drafting. It provides that any development must enhance the natural environment. That is "do-able" already at the big end. If one wants to build a new port facility on the Solent, displacing some ducks and wading birds, one has to include in the development another bit of coast which one spends some time enhancing. I cannot see why that would not be a constructive way of looking at development in the future.

337
if one wished to add 300 houses to a village, by building them in a wheatfield one does not harm the environment very much, a wheatfield being a pretty desolate thing as regards the environment; the odd pond would probably satisfy. However, if one were developing on a more slightly attractive area (in environmental terms), why not be obliged to improve some of the neighbouring woods and meadows so that the environment as a whole was improved by the development? I cannot see why that would not be a good route to follow. It has been adopted very constructively for some big developments and, I would hope, for small ones too.
Lord Cobbold: I thank the Minister for his response. It was excellent. He understands the problems that we have with this clause.
Baroness Hanham: I am sorry that the Minister did not reflect a little more closely on Amendment No. 113B about which I am most interested and concerned. If it would be helpful, I am happy to give the Minister's researchers the website on which this definition appears. While the words "and natural" have been added to help with exactly the matters the Minister spoke about which will appear in draft PPS1, the definition is universally accepted and has been since 1972. It seems a great pity that we go round trying to reinvent the wheel.
Economic and social exclusion and prudent use of resources are all encompassed in the amendment. I accept that the Minister refers to draft PPS1. The amendment would put on the face of the Bill a definition of sustainable development and it would then be explained in the guidance. At present, the real flaw is that it is just a heading. If we are not careful, "sustainability" becomes jargon. Everyone uses the word without having the faintest idea what they are talking about. It is a wide definition. The amendment confines it to areas about which we are concerned: housing, education, health, land, newts, trees—it encompasses everything.
I do not want the Minister to think that I was so clever that I found this definition myself—perhaps I should say that that was so—but I have been guided towards it. I have also had checked by planning counsel how they would handle it if they ever had to defend it in court. The planning counsel I have asked see it as acceptable.
I am pushing the Minister slightly. As it stands, "sustainable development" in Clause 38 is unacceptable. It gives no clues as to what is being talked about. One can hardly put on the face of the Bill, "Please see draft PPS1" because that will not work either.
"Sustainability" is mentioned not only in Clause 38 but throughout the Bill. Somewhere along the line there has to be a broad definition of it. I urge the Minister to think again about the amendment to which we shall return and perhaps have a longer discussion on it. I believe that it does exactly what the Minister suggested it needs to do and is then susceptible to guidance thereafter if that is what is required. But to
338
leave the Bill without any clues about the meaning of "sustainable development" will probably be unacceptable. I leave the website with the Minister, if it is helpful for him. It is based on the conclusions of the United Nations meeting in Stockholm in 1972 which were agreed by the entirety of the United Nations so for once I have other people on my side.
Baroness Hamwee: It is tempting to start the discussion all over again. I shall indulge myself to this extent. The way in which my noble friend Lord Greaves raised the important issue about communities was helpful although he said that it was his secondary point. I have always considered that one could not achieve sustainable development without including economic issues and economic regeneration as part of the whole approach.
The Minister has been helpful. No doubt messages are winging their way to many organisations that he is not dogmatic and that the Government are still looking for the best way. We all look forward to seeing the draft PPS1.
I turn to the particular amendment. I should be willing to forgo Amendment No. 112ZC if we can make Section 38(2), as the Minister said, both robust and send the right message. That is one aspect of the matter to which I am sure we shall want to return, but it is perhaps time to move on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 111ZFA to 112A not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 113 to 113C not moved.]
Clause 39 [Local development orders]:
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 113D:
Page 22, line 23, at end insert "following the expiration of the period of one year commencing on the date on which it shall have given notice of the intended revocation in accordance with regulations under Schedule 4A"
The noble Lord said: We come now to a part of the Bill that seems to me—in microcosm—to sum up some of the difficulties with which we must concern ourselves on planning legislation.
As we have heard throughout our debates on the Bill, planning is a matter of carefully calibrated checks and balances. Indeed, the objection of many noble Lords to the Bill is that it disturbs that carefully calibrated balance.
Local development orders illustrate the point well. In principle, I am in favour of anything that aids local autonomy. It seems right that we should trust our democratically elected representatives to lead their communities and that we should hold them accountable for their actions.
Local authorities are well placed to exercise their judgment on what development is needed for their communities and how best to pursue that development. As I understand the matter, these provisions mean that local planning authorities will

339
now be able to determine local development orders by themselves, whereas currently this power is held by the Secretary of State.
I hope my understanding is correct. If so, I restate my position. In principle we support providing local authorities with the power to exercise responsibilities towards their communities. In practice, we believe that local authorities are better able to carry out that task than the Secretary of State.
I would encourage the Government to try removing a power from the Secretary of State and giving it to local authorities more often. At the same time, we believe that the existing planning system has served this country rather well for a great many years. We are somewhat nervous of major innovations that would sweep away many of the protections afforded by the current system.
On the whole—balancing these imperatives—we are not opposing local development orders in the amendment. We seek to engage constructively with what we think they are trying to achieve.
The amendment simply ensures that there is an element of stability in the system. There is a concern that developers will simply not understand the parallel planning jurisdictions operating in a specific area. In order to share that, we do not find ourselves in a situation where confusion reigns. The amendment is designed to ensure that proper notice is given on any changes to planning designations.
I hope my understanding of this part of the Bill is correct; that the Minister will understand why I have moved the amendment; and that he will answer my points. I beg to move.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: Our Amendments Nos. 113E and 113F are grouped with the amendment. Amendment. No. 113E seeks to clarify the basis on which the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales should review a local development order which has been called in for approval. In new Section 61B, subsection (3) requires account to be taken of any matter which the appropriate authority thinks is relevant. I am advised by the Law Society of its concern that the wording is too vague. The Minister has talked this morning—quite rightly—about the dangers of vagueness and how that can give rise to legal challenge. Is the Secretary of State right to think that an issue is relevant? The term "material considerations", contained in Amendment No. 113E, would narrow the factors to be considered to purely planning considerations.
In Standing Committee, the Minister said that there was nothing magical about this—although he accepted that it is an accepted phrase—in dealing with individual applications. He went on to say:
"The reason why the clause is slightly broader is that broader issues may well arise".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee G, 21/1/03; col. 313.]
340
He also said that those matters might not be captured by a narrower definition of "material considerations". They are captured by using the word "relevant", although that is a clumsy phrase. As the Minister then said that he would look at the wording again, can he take the matter any further now?
Amendment No. 113F seeks to require the Secretary of State to give reasons for any direction to a local planning authority to modify a local development order. I accept that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales will give reasons. I again refer to what the Minister said. He stated:
"When informing the LPA of the changes that it should make, the appropriate authority will need to explain how the document is deficient. How can it ask the LPA to modify what it considers to be deficient if it does not point out the deficiencies, which are the reasons for the directions?".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee G, 21/1/03; col. 315.]
Indeed. But one needs to be sure that the reasons are adequately explained. There seems to be no burden on the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to be required to give reasons. When a similar point was raised on Tuesday by the Conservative Front Bench, in a different context, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that there was,
"comity … with a measure of agreement".—[Official Report, 27/1/04; col. 141.]
He also said that he would consider how to deal with the matter. Perhaps the comity can also extend to this provision.
Noble Lords on these Benches have indicated an objection to Clause 39 standing part of the Bill. Perhaps I can address that now. This is not least because when the matter was dealt with in the Commons, the honourable Member for Cotswold read into the record some extensive comments by the Law Society. It appears from reading Hansard that the Minister had to leave the room. On his return he merely referred to "LDOs"—he does not have the same distaste for acronyms as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. He continued:
"LDOs in no way impinge on the environmental impact assessment process … [and] I am grateful for the committee's acclamation of the clause".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee G, 21/1/03; col. 318.]
I am not quite sure about that point.
I understand that local planning authorities already have the power to make local development orders covering a specific area or about a particular type of development—for instance, they can provide that there should be no restriction on development for industrial use within the area of the business park; but it is not a widely used power. I thought that it might be worth tabling an objection to the Question whether the clause should stand part in order to give the Government an opportunity to explain their thinking and the need for the provision, particularly given the retention, in effect, of powers by the Secretary of State and the National Assembly to direct the local planning authority to submit the local development order for approval and to bar the local planning authority from making the order unless it is specified as necessary by its local development plan or a development plan document.

341
I am not clear—I do not know whether the Minister can help me on this today—about the extent of a local planning authority's powers. For instance, could it amend a general development order to vary the amount of floor space that could be added to an existing building? At present the amount is 10 per cent. Could it be changed locally to a different percentage?
Other concerns have been voiced about whether, because of different arrangements in different areas, local development orders will create and add to the confusion that we have already outlined in our concerns relating to a good deal of the Bill. Of course, we must always be aware that that may damage public understanding of and confidence in the planning system. It has also been said—I do not wholly share the view—that local development orders could lead to widespread environmental damage. Clause 38 certainly needs to be robust enough to protect from such damage.
We all know that relatively small developments and a disproportionate amount of time spent on them by planning officers, local councillors and Members of Parliament can cause enormous anxiety to neighbours. Therefore, a local development order could be a helpful or very unhelpful tool in the new tool kit.
Viscount Ullswater: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Hanningfield in his approach to this section. General permitted development orders have proved very successful in helping householders to undertake minor alterations to their properties without the need and cost of applying for planning permission. It appears that local development orders extend that principle on a locally determined basis and should be given a cautious welcome. Until now, the Bill has taken away from local authorities much of their present power of determination. Development plans approved by an inspector must be adopted, and the Secretary of State, even at the end of the road, can adopt a plan on behalf of a local authority. They should therefore be given a cautious welcome.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just said, it is unclear on the face of the Bill what can be undertaken under a local development order. If such an order is to provide for minor relaxations of planning control that everyone can understand, albeit variably applied across the country, so be it. However, will the Minister confirm that, perhaps under new Section 61 A(2)(b) of the principal Act, structures such as wind turbines will not be included in a local development order? Structures of that nature would be most worrying. I understand that, when first erected, mobile phone masts were allowed under general development planning orders.
Baroness Hanham: Before the Minister replies, I clearly support what my noble friend Lord Hanningfield said about welcoming greater power for local authorities. However, prompted by my noble friend Lord Ullswater, I have two questions.
342
First, it seems that local development orders will be local Article 4 orders, in that they will grant permitted development by way of a local development order. Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether that is correct.
Secondly, what sort of consultations will have to take place with local communities before a local development order grants planning permission? Under Section 61 A(2), a local development order may grant planning permission, which may relate to all land in the area of the relevant authority, any part of that land and a site specified in the order. In relation to wind turbines and large areas of land, therefore, it would have very wide powers that may affect people quite substantially. At the moment Article 4 directions are sometimes applied to prevent nearby buildings being composite, but also to stop development that would affect other people. I should like to know the extent of that power and what kind of consultation it is expected will take place before those orders are made. If it is correct that the order itself will grant planning permission, what redress will there be by way of appeal?
1 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: To set matters in a useful context, I am tempted first to describe the effect of Clause 39 before I deal with the various amendments.
Clause 39 allows local planning authorities to introduce local development orders that grant planning permission for development without the need for a specific planning application. In effect, it introduces local permitted development rights—a point made by one Member of the Committee—which extend those set nationally in the general permitted development order.
Local development orders can be used by local authorities to implement only policies set out in an adopted development plan document. For example, a development plan document may contain policies aimed at reducing the number of offices in a town centre and increasing the number of shops. A local planning authority might implement that policy by granting specific planning permission by a local development order for the change of use of an office to a shop anywhere in the desired area.
The use of local development orders would have benefits for both local planning authorities and developers, because it would reduce the number of applications that an authority would have to determine, but where its consent was expected to be given. It has that streamlining beneficial effect. It will be entirely up to a local planning authority whether to introduce a local development order. Therefore, that important element of local autonomy—the useful expression used by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield—will be preserved.
An authority may also revoke an order at any time, although it will be liable to pay compensation if an application for development that would have been allowed under the order is submitted within a year of the order being revoked and is refused or approved subject to conditions.

343
Clause 39 also introduces Schedule 1, which sets out the procedure for making local development orders. The clause inserts new Sections 61A to 61C into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Section 61 A(5) allows the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to make an order to specify areas or kinds of development for which a local development order may not be made. At present we expect to use that provision to exclude development related to listed buildings, conservation areas and development for which an environmental impact assessment is required.
Section 61B provides the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales with an opportunity to intervene before a local development order is adopted. In such cases, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may approve or reject an order or may direct a local planning authority to modify it. New Section 61B also allows the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to revoke a local development order that has already been made by an authority. That power would be used only in extreme cases, but may be needed where, although the policy in a development plan is acceptable, the effects of a related order had unwanted, adverse impacts that became apparent only after it had been made. So it is a fall-back provision.
New Section 61C enables planning permission granted by a local development order to be granted unconditionally or subject to conditions specified in the order. That may answer the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who asked whether the local development order can be varied. Conditions may be placed or it may be granted unconditionally.
Schedule 1 introduces a new Schedule 4A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 4A allows the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales by regulation to make provision for the procedures to be followed in preparing, submitting, approving, adopting, revising and withdrawing a local development order. It also allows the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to introduce requirements in respect of notice, publicity, inspection and consultation—consultation is important so that there is transparency to the order.
The processes from preparing to adopting a local development order will generally mirror those for the local development plan document to which it relates, although independent testing will not be required. It is generally expected, although it is not a requirement, that an order will be prepared at the same time as the development plan document to which it relates, so the burden of preparing an order should be minimal.
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4A concerns the revision of a local development order. An authority may revise an order at any time. It must do so if so directed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, or if a policy in a development plan document that the order implements is revised or revoked.
344
I hope that that context has given some reassurance to Members of the Committee who have asked questions, because it explains quite well how we see the process working. I shall now go back through the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 113D and 113G would require a local planning authority, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to give a year's notice of an intention to revoke a local development order. I understand the caution that motivated the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, to table those amendments, but they would allow developers who intend to take advantage of the permitted development rights granted by the order the opportunity to carry out works before the rights were withdrawn. We cannot agree that any notice should be required. The local planning authority, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly may discover that a local development order has unwanted impacts that were apparent only after it had been made. Orders should be revoked as soon as possible in such situations.
The Bill has already been amended in response to concerns raised about what should happen where a developer had already started work permitted by a local development order only to find that the order had been revoked before the development had been completed. Clause 40 allows a local development order to provide that any development started under the order power may be completed even if the local development order is revoked. There is no time limit on when such development should be completed. That ensures that if development is permitted at the time it is started, it remains valid if a local development order is revoked.
Revoking a local development order does not mean that the development cannot take place, merely that planning permission will be required. As I said, compensation is payable under Section 108 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 if an application for development that would have been allowed under the local development order is submitted within a year of the order being revoked and is refused or approved subject to conditions other than those imposed by the order. That will ensure that a developer is not disadvantaged if local permitted development rights are withdrawn.
I turn next to Amendment No. 113E, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is not directly consequential on the other amendments, and I am unclear why the noble Baroness proposes it. I assume that she wants to narrow the effect of that part of the clause. It is certainly true that the words "material considerations" are well known. They are used in the context of determining planning applications, as Section 70 of the 1990 Act requires regard to be had to the development plan,
"so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations".
It may be thought that it would be helpful to use the same words in new Section 61 B(3). We think that to be mistaken. The matters to which the appropriate authority may wish to have regard in considering a local development order made by a local planning

345
authority may not be the same as the material considerations that need to be taken into account in a planning application.
The Secretary of State may want to take a wider view. He may, for example, want to take account of public opposition expressed through the consultation process that he may consider relevant to the issue of approval of a local development order, but which has been held not to be a material consideration in relation to a planning application. It is for such reasons—so that a broader view can be taken of wider public opinion—that our wording is superior and more flexible. He may also want to take account of emerging policy that has not yet reached the stage of being a material consideration.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 113F, which was also tabled by the noble Baroness. I have read it and am attracted to it. We want greater transparency in the planning process. In general, the Government's view is that reasons should be stated. If the noble Baroness will agree not to press the amendment today, I am happy to take it away to see how we can meet the concern that has been raised and add an extra layer of transparency.
Those are my considered views on the issues raised. I think that I have answered most of the questions posed. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, asked what could be done under local development orders. Our view is that they can be used only to implement policies as part of the local development plan document. I think that his example and particular concern was wind turbines. We do not think that the practical working of the legislation would be likely to include wind turbines. I understand his caution: he does not want the general capacity that the LDO creates to be exploited. I think I made clear when speaking generally that because of our concern about environmental impact, and so on, we envisage such things being ruled out by the working of the process. I hope that provides the reassurance that he sought.
I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Baroness Hamwee: I, for one, want to reflect on what the Minister said about the scope of local development orders. They are clearly important, and I want to think further about what he said. He said that he was unsure why I tabled Amendment No. 113E. It was tabled because of concern that the Bill's wording was a little vague, and because the Minister in the Commons said that the Government would reconsider. One always wants to give the Government the opportunity to say that they have reconsidered, just in case they do not volunteer that information themselves.
In planning matters, I always find the extent to which we take account of emerging policy a difficult issue. It emerges through consultation processes, and so on, but how far should it bite until it is finally adopted? So that again goes to the heart of the issue about the scope of a local development order. Having
346
said all that, I am grateful to hear that the Government will consider the points made under Amendment No. 113F and of course I do not intend to press it today.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that reply. As I said right at the beginning, I welcome anything that gives more autonomy to local government. This is one of the better parts of the Bill. As the Minister has explained, as long as the local development order is very much tied into the local development plan, it removes some of the fears that my noble friend Lord Ullswater highlighted. I reiterate my noble friend's remarks and give this a cautious welcome. It is important that it does not increase confusion about the changes in planning legislation. It needs to be presented and explained well. However, I thank the Minister for that answer. He has covered the points raised and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 1113E to 113G not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 40 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hamwee: I apologise for not warning the Government of this. I certainly do not expect an answer today. This is another of my lawyer's points which I apologise for in advance. Late last night I realised that the term used in Clause 40 for the start of development was that the development is "started". But the principal Act in Section 56 uses the terms "initiated" and "begun". There may be no subtle difference, but can I raise it—certainly not expecting an answer now—because if we do not address it, it could earn a lot of other people a lot of money in the future?
Lord Rooker: Ten out of ten. I guarantee that I will get an answer and I will not wait for Report before I tell the noble Baroness.
Clause 40 agreed to.
1.15 p.m.
Clause 41 [Statement of development principles]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 113H.
Page 25, line 11, leave out "must" and insert "may"
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 113J, 113K, 113L, 132B, 134A, as well as the issue of whether Clause 41 stand part. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has Amendment No. 113M in this group. This takes us to Clause 41 dealing with the statement of development principles and alongside that, the whole issue of what happens to outline planning permission.
There has been a great deal of concern, both at local authority level and in the construction and development industry about the workability of new

347
Clause 61E. Is this clause capable of independent life outside of the old Section 92—the outline planning permission clause? I hope that the Minister can reassure us today and take the opportunity to amplify the Statement made by the Minister for Planning on 15 December. He indicated that government thinking has moved on a good deal in the year or so between the consideration of these provisions in another place and when the Statement was made. The Minister said on 15 December that on the basis of representations he was content to consider further the removal of provisions from this Bill that abolish outline planning permission.
Amendment No. 113H relates to new Clause 61 E(1) and provides that the local planning authority must issue a statement of development principles on request. Subsection (5) allows it to decline to do so only on limited grounds, such as disagreeing with a similar request within the previous two years. There are obvious concerns about workload here. Will speculators go on fishing expeditions and get the local planning authority to do the work for them? If the local development documents are worth anything—and I hope they will be—then what would be the value of this particular subsection? I wondered whether it was equivalent to what I am accustomed to referring to as a site brief. This is where the local planning authority sets out criteria for development deals with parameters and perimeters, access and so on. However, I believe this is quite different. Therefore I have tabled the word "may" rather than "must" in this context. I have written down what worried me when the Minister said in another place:
"I see no reason why the Local Planning Authority should not be obliged to form and state its view on that question."—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee G, 21/1/03; col.327.]
Is that equivalent to letting the authority decide whether it should determine an application for planning? Local authorities may well not understand what would be required of them. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether the work that would be done in these statements is something for which a local authority can charge? I say that because I was the chair of the local planning authority which imposed a charge only to recover costs for advice to developers. The judgment was heard in your Lordship's House in the case of McCarthy & Stone. I felt very sad that the outcome was not as I would have wished it. However, we have the recent Local Government Act which may or may not affect this.
Amendment No. 113J is not one that I wish to make too much of. As all these amendments are also in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, they may wish to speak to them. Amendment No. 113K requires sufficient information to have been provided by the applicant to enable a decision to be made. Again I was worried by what was said in another place. The Government said that they intend to specify in a development order that someone requesting a statement will need to provide as a minimum a site location plan and a description of the proposed development. If they wish to provide more
348
information such as detailed drawings, they will be able to do so, but the Government do not intend to require more. I thought that that amounted to making the local planning authority do the potential applicant's work. Although planning should be a cooperative, deliberative process with a lot of dialogue, not just something to which the local planning authority reacts, there are limits to that.
Amendment No. 113L relates to an environmental impact assessment of the proposed development. I see from a letter—it is only a letter, so perhaps something should be put on the record—sent to Members of the other place that the Government do not intend to introduce a requirement for an environmental statement to be prepared. The Minister may want to explain that, as it will be of concern to many people, myself among them. If an environmental impact assessment is not required, can the planning authority say, "We've got to do it before making the statement"? If the statement amounts to an agreement to the principle of development, an environmental impact assessment after the statement can do nothing more than address compensation and mitigation. It certainly cannot prevent the development.
Amendments Nos. 132B and 134A are about the repeal of Section 92, which relates to outline planning permission. Statements from the Government before last December were on the lines that, as and when statements were up and running, the Government would repeal the provisions relating to outline planning permission. I do not want to take too much longer, but, as I said, it must be understood that we do not see the statements as an effective alternative to outline planning permission, and neither, it is clear, does the industry. The statements are not fundable, and there will be no certainty for investors. If no outline planning permissions are available, there will be difficulties for the development industry.
I can sum it all up as being too simplistic. Outline permissions are a tool in major proposals, and the industry, which has been consulted and, I hope, will be consulted further by the Government, does not want the change. Local planning authorities are fearful. The Government would need strong justification to go ahead. Certainly, they should give an explanation, as none of those scrutinising the Bill appears to have found their reasons convincing. The Government must give a more convincing explanation. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield: I am happy to support the amendments. I realise that we are under pressure of time, but I am afraid that I have a lot of comments to make.
As has been said, we welcome some of the changes that the Government propose in Part 4. Nevertheless, Amendments Nos. 113H to 113M and 132B are necessary, as the Government have not thought through properly the introduction of statements of development principles.
Amendment No. 113H would give local authorities more discretion in the issue of statements of development principles than is proposed in the Bill.

349
Amendments; Nos. 113Kand 113L are complementary to that aim, in that they support specific aspects of local authority discretion. The three amendments would enable local authorities to decline to issue statements of development principles on the basis of insufficient information.
Amendment No. 113J is a probing amendment. With the amendment, we simply seek clarification from the Government of whether it will be local authorities that ultimately decide whether the development plan is material to the request for a statement of development principles.
Amendment No. 132B would mean that provisions for outline planning permission would not be omitted, at least not yet, from the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Finally, Amendment No. 113M is a probing amendment designed to test the Government's thinking on how they propose to minimise the level of deliberate frustration in the planning system. If Amendment No. 113H were accepted, Clause 41(5) would be unnecessary anyway.
As far as I can judge, the statement of development principles is being introduced as an eventual replacement for outline planning permission. Apparently, that will provide speed and certainty for a developer, when considering a project. The Government should explain exactly why they believe outline planning permission to be deficient in either speed or certainty. We strongly believe that the Government have not yet made the case for how statements of development principles will add value to the planning system in this country. We have met a lot of developers and have heard a lot of concern. They use outline planning permission to obtain finance and acceptance for the development. They borrow from the bank on the basis of outline planning permission, but they are not certain that they will be able to do that under the new process. There is a lot of fear in the system.
We appreciate and support the Government's aim of adding transparency and, by extension, more certainty to the pre-application process, but it seems doubtful that statements of development principles will achieve that. As far as I can see, there is no discernible benefit to applicants, local authorities or the public. If the overall aim is to address the weaknesses associated with outline planning permission, why not address those problems directly—for example, by encouraging earlier discussions in the application process between developers and planning departments? Why must we get rid of the outline planning permission process completely, albeit not immediately, to achieve more certainty? It is worth pointing out that developers and planning departments have not been persuaded that statements of development principles will add more certainty to the process, as I said.
Amendments Nos. 113H and 113K would ensure that local planning authorities will not feel compelled to approve or refuse applications, when they simply do not have sufficient evidence by which to judge the merits of an application. That could happen because,
350
as the Bill stands, there is no provision to allow the local authority to decline a request to issue a statement of development principles on the grounds of insufficient information. Local authorities may be put in a position in which they do not have the confidence in their legal position to say that an application is entirely unacceptable, which, I believe, is the only ground on which they can decline to issue a statement of development principles, even if they also feel that they have not been provided with sufficient information—for example, information about design or infrastructure—on which to base their decision.
As organisations such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England have pointed out, that would put pressure on local authorities to issue statements of development principles that agreed with the proposed developments and then spend valuable time and resources trying to decide what safeguards and conditions should be placed on them to meet any eventuality. With a national shortage of skilled planning personnel, the Government should not be devising extra unnecessary work for planning departments. It will simply clog up the system, and we are trying to speed it up. Of course, it is important that a statement of development principles is not used inappropriately. Just as with outline planning permission, it may be an important material consideration in the final decision on planning permission.
Amendment No. 113L would address our concern that the statement of development principles does not have to take into account whether a proposed development would require an environmental impact assessment. We are aware that the Government have stated that, because the statement of development principles does not itself grant consent to allow a development to go ahead, an environmental impact assessment is not a requirement. We would like reassurance from the Minister that this arrangement, whereby the principle of a development has been agreed prior to the outcome of an environmental impact assessment, will not undermine the integrity of the environmental impact assessment and its capacity to reach a different conclusion from the statement of development principles.
As I have already mentioned, with regard to the workload of planning departments, we also believe that statements of development principles would mark an unacceptable shift in the burden of planning applications away from the applicant to the local authority.
This is not simply an argument about planning authorities having had insufficient information and then dealing with the consequences. It is also partly because the number of requests for statements of development principles will be much higher than outline planning applications. It flows from the fact that anybody can ask a local authority for a statement of development principles.
Thus, in relation to Amendment No. 113M, I would like some reassurance from the Minister that the new procedures for statements of development principles

351
will not be used to frustrate legitimate development. Our concern is that in some circumstances, local authorities might be asked to determine requests for statements of development principles before the information on which requests should be judged is available.
New Section 61E(5) states that,
"a local planning authority may decline to issue a statement of development principles before the end of the period of two years",
if it disagrees with the principles of the development. Thus, a local planning authority could quite legitimately issue a new statement of development principles that agrees with the developer's proposal before the end of that two-year period.
As I said earlier, I am really probing the Government's thinking at this late stage about whether they see the discretion afforded local planning authorities in subsection (5) as a mechanism by which to deal with any potential exploitation of statements of development principles by those who just want to stop all development, regardless of its benefits. I would be grateful for clarification on that.
I also believe that deleting subsection (5) of New Section 61E would be in line with the preceding amendments, the fundamental point being that it would be much simpler and more democratic to give local planning authorities the discretion to decide whether to issue statements of development principles to any particular development.
This is a very complicated process. We will obviously have to discuss it further, but I have put it on the record, and I would like the Minister to give us some assurances on these issues.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: I will not detain the Committee. However, as I heard the Minister say a moment ago when my noble friend rose to speak, this is a very important clause and a very important matter. Although one commends the Government for devising the statement of development principles as a means of increasing transparency, and so forth, it could be very dangerous. Ultimately, what matters is that developments do not take place if they should not take place. That is what this should be about.
I fear there are echoes in the way in which the clause could be used that might result in that happening. I have one example; it is not directly related but it has often been a worry to those of us who are concerned with these matters. I refer to the way in which, so often in the past, local authorities have been intimidated by developers in certain cases more or less threatening to claim damages in instances where a planning application is refused and then granted on appeal. That philosophy could be used by people in getting these outline permissions without having given sufficient information so that a proper decision can be made by the local authority. So I would be happier without the clause, unless it can be reworked.
Lord Avebury: The clause says that the local planning authority must issue a statement of development principles in relation to a proposed development. My noble friend suggests that "must" should be replaced by "may". In that context, will the Minister explain how this clause interacts with the policies of the local authority under the Licensing Act 2003? So far we have not had the guidance under the Licensing Act, and we do not know to what extent local authorities will be allowed to impose limits on the number of licensed premises to which planning permission will be awarded. Until that guidance is published, I cannot see how the local authority would be able to interpret a requirement that it must issue a statement of development principles. If it does not have guidance under the Licensing Act, it does not know to what extent the local authorities may impose some numerical limits on the number of licensed premises to which planning permission is awarded.
As the Minister will be aware from the debates on the Licensing Bill many months ago, there is considerable anxiety among local authorities about the extent to which they can exercise limits on the number of licensed premises by means of planning controls.
Lord Rooker: In answer to the question about licensing from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I do not have a clue but I will find out and write to him. I will not be able to give him an answer today.
I am delighted with the new-found interest in the proceedings of this Bill, given the greater attendance in your Lordships' House at this part of our proceedings. On the other hand, if I was misunderstood and anyone has come for the other Bill, I suggest they go and get a cup of tea, because I have the largest speaking note on this group of amendments than on any other.
As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, heard me say, this clause is very important. To keep everyone happy, my officials have ruthlessly edited the speaking note, so it will not be the 17 pages that I had planned to use, but I will do my best. I will not curtail my speech unnecessarily because this is a crucial part of the Bill. It is where the Bill starts to get interesting and sexy, if you like. It has been a little boring until now, but when we get on to outline planning permissions and situations such as this it becomes much more interesting.
The statement of development principles is a new procedure for anyone wishing to obtain an indication from a local planning authority about whether all or part of a proposed development would be acceptable in principle. The statement of development principles is halfway between an officer's informal view and an outline planning permission. A statement of development principles will be a material consideration for the purposes of determining an application for planning permission for a similar development that is submitted within three years. A statement of development principles does not grant the applicant any consent to do the works. That being the

353
case, it may stop the applicant raising finance, and I fully accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.
As far as the relationship between the statement of development principles and outline planning permission is concerned, there has been much debate about this proposal. Statements of development principles will at first supplement and might eventually replace outline planning permission. We believe that the way in which outline planning permission is currently handled by some authorities has significant faults. At its worst, it allows redlining on a map of an area or site for development for a particular use or uses of land with no detail shown. This is not an acceptable state of affairs. Local communities should have early opportunities to engage in discussion of proposed developments. The Government are laying increasing emphasis on the importance of pre-application discussions. Good developers will undertake such discussions. The Government want this best practice to become standard practice. A statement of development principles is one means of formalising the dialogue between a developer and a local planning authority.
We said in a Written Statement on 15 December—I cannot go further than that today—that if we retain outline planning permission, we will need more detail. We are waiting for a response from the development industry. I certainly hope that by the time we reach Report we will be able to have better particulars in that respect.
The outline planning permission would need to provide sufficient information for a local authority to make an informed decision about whether an environmental statement is required. On community involvement, the Government consider that a local planning authority statement of community involvement should set out how the community should be involved in significant planning applications. Outline planning applications should provide sufficient information to allow the community to comment in a meaningful way.
We are considering possible mechanisms for ensuring that additional information is required at the stage of application for outline planning permission. One mechanism might be guidance; another might be the use of secondary legislation.
Clause 42 allows for a development order to make provision as to documents or other materials that are to accompany a planning application. The general development procedure order might be used to require a design statement to accompany an application for outline planning permission. That is by way of an example that could be given. If we were to pursue that approach, the new system of development control could include both statements of development principles and outline planning permission. Statements of development principles would provide developers and local planning authorities with an additional tool for building up an agreed development prospectus for a site. Outline planning permission could be used either after or instead of a
354
statement of development principles. That would be for the applicant to decide. I understand that the issue of being able to raise the funds necessary is a crucial link, but the developer would have the opportunity to decide. Full planning permission, requiring the submission of all details of the proposed development, would not change. It would therefore remain the case that development could not commence until reserved matters had been approved.
We do not agree with Amendment No. 113H. If an application for a statement of development principles is received, a local planning authority should be required to come to a decision. In issuing its decision, the local planning authority will have to indicate whether it agrees with the principle of all or part of the proposed development.
Amendment No. 113J would require the local planning authority to have regard to the development plan rather than having regard to the plan so far as it was material to the request for a statement of development principles. The existing wording mirrors existing provisions such as Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which requires local planning authorities considering planning applications to have regard to the development plan,
"so far as material to the application".
The deletion of those words cannot be right, because it cannot be right for a local planning authority to have regard to the development plan if it is not material to the application.
Amendment No. 113K is coupled with Amendment No. 113H. It would give the local planning authority discretion whether to decide on a statement of development principles depending upon the adequacy of the information submitted. By itself, it would have no effect, since the authority would be obliged to issue the statement of development principles whether or not sufficient information had been provided. I consider it right that a local planning authority must issue a decision, but it can only make its decision on the basis of the information submitted by the applicant. If the application lacks detail, so will the statement of development principles. But in issuing its decision, the local planning authority would be able to include details of any information that it would require to accompany an application for planning permission.
Amendment No. 113L would make an environmental impact assessment a possible requirement and a possible material consideration for a local planning authority in considering a statement of development principles. We see no need for that. An environmental impact assessment will not be required on an application for a statement of development principles, because such a statement is not a development consent. We propose to provide in the secondary legislation that if a local planning authority considers that a proposed development would require an environmental impact assessment, it must state in the statement of development principles its opinion as to the information to be provided in an environmental statement. Its agreement to the principle of the

355
development would be subject to such information being provided with an application for planning permission.
Amendment No. 113M would prevent a local planning authority from declining to issue a statement of development principles where it had issued a statement disagreeing with the principle of all or part of a similar development within the previous two years. I can understand the concern that an authority might decline to issue a statement even where a potential developer has changed some factors of a proposed development in order to address concerns raised by the local planning authority in the first statement. However, it would be illogical to require an authority to deal with repeated requests for statements of development principles when, elsewhere in the Bill, we are proposing to provide them with the power to decline to determine repeated requests for planning permission. That is an issue that we shall come to, though certainly not today.
Amendments Nos. 132B and 134A would retain outline planning permission in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. We are considering the retention of outline planning permission. That would be on the basis that it provided a level of information that would enable local authorities to assess all the significant environmental impacts from proposed developments. Discussions with representatives of interested parties, including the development industry, are ongoing as I speak—but probably not at the rate of pace at which I am speaking. But it will be okay, Hansard—honestly—because I stuck to the script.
I hope that I have given a flavour of how we want to proceed. This is an issue on which we do not have a closed mind; we made that clear in the Statement on 15 December. There are important financial aspects; nevertheless, we wish to get over the problem that exists at present, with the sometimes scandalous situation that arises regarding outline planning permissions. I had that as a constituency Member in the other place. Some of the issues that arise as a result of an outline planning permission being granted are quite disgraceful. The noble Lord, Lord Rogers, or another noble Lord, made the point that the development that turns up later may have no relation whatever to what people believed was in the outline consent. We have to deal with that, and we are trying to find ways in which to do so; I hope that, by the time the Bill reaches the statute book, there will be an agreed way by consent across the Floor to find a solution. Therefore, I hope that the amendments can be withdrawn.
1.45 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the noble Lord for that answer. He had a lot to read, just as I did when I had my notes to read through.
Many concerns were raised, and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will address some of them in a moment. The Minister said that discussions were ongoing, but discussions must speed up, because
356
before we get to Report stage we would like to know more of how the Government can accommodate many of the fears within the industry and a lot of the bureaucratic nature of the work for the planning authorities. Those hard-pressed authorities will not have the resources to fulfil some of the Government's requirements. However, the fears are there in the development industry in particular. As the Minister said, discussions are going on, and Report stage will be the next opportunity to discuss those matters in detail. I hope that the Government are then able to accept some of our amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not believe that the Minister dealt with my question about charging, but I do not blame him for that.
Lord Rooker: No, I can do—at least, I did have a note on that, although I seem to have lost it. We retain an open position on the work under the statement of development principles. It may be that there will be an element of charging, but no final decision has been taken. I am sorry that I do not have an answer to the noble Baroness's question.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the Minister, and hope that the open mind comes to the right decision.
At this point, I do not want to go through the Minister's comments in detail. I do not want to impugn the Government's good faith in pursuing the issue—and I take the Minister's point about the difficulties regarding outline permissions. Some people refer to them as "trophy architects". However, that strongly suggests to me that Clause 39 should not remain in the Bill and that Section 92 of the 1990 Act should not be subject to abolition when the Secretary of State decides, unless the matter has progressed very considerably by the next stage in the Bill.
The Bill began its passage in October 2002, and I cannot remember how long before the Bill the Green Paper was published. Of course, I do not for a moment object to consultation; it is absolutely essential to hold consultation with everybody who is concerned. However, it would be quite wrong for the House to be asked to agree to take a very substantial step in the absence of something much closer to a conclusion about what will be put in place. We shall put that to the House next time, unless there is a lot of progress before then. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 113J to 113M not moved.]
Clause 41 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Gender Recognition Bill [H.L.]
1.50 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Applications]:
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 3, leave out "gender" and insert "sex"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a re-run of our discussions in Committee and, bearing in mind the rules of the House, there is no need for it to delay us long. There is a major defect in the Bill in its confusion over sex and gender. Is the Bill about a change of sex or a change of gender? In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin:
"The Government do not base their argument that there is a simple or conclusive medical definition on whether a person is of one gender or one sex or another".—[Official Report, 13/1/04; col. GC5.]
That is a view that many people outside this building would find remarkable. He has made it plain that even when the biological evidence—which is not a single test, but three tests, those of chromosomes, genitalia and gonads—points conclusively to a person being of one sex he, like Lord Justice Thorpe, would allow the one subjective test of what a person thinks, perhaps as a result of a psychological disorder, to decide whether he or she should be regarded as male or female. The overriding test would be the subjective one as opposed to the objective one.
Then, in a masterly and concise summary of the Government's position, at the same column he went on to say:
"I do not wish, partly out of ignorance but partly because I do not think that it is central to our debate, to engage in the great medical diversity on this matter".
At heart, the Government's view is that this is a legal issue. I notice a nod from one of the lawyers in the House. It does not make sense to say that a person's sex is decided by the law, as opposed to biology. However, I am always willing to offer a way out. I am willing to give the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, the benefit of the doubt and to offer him the chance to use the word "sex", rather than the word "gender" in the Bill. I hope that he will now do what he would not do in Committee and will tell noble Lords what he thinks to be the difference between the two, why he regards the word "sex" as inappropriate and why he prefers the use of the word "gender".
In order to try and help him, I have also tabled a new amendment, Amendment No. 128, which adds to the clarity of the Bill by offering clear definitions of gender and sex. This will improve the Bill, whatever other amendments the House chooses to make. I would be happy to add to the definition of gender in the amendment that I have tabled, Amendment No. 128—I shall direct the attention of noble Lords to it. I have suggested that in the definitions clause we should add that:
"'Sex' means the biological categorisation as male or female by virtue of chromosomes, genitalia and gonads.
"'Gender' means the social and cultural categorisation as male or female by virtue of personal choice or lifestyle".
358
I would be happy to add, "or by legal decision", if that made the lawyers more comfortable.
There is no necessity to argue that case any further and I shall be extremely interested to hear whether the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has had any further thoughts about it.
I think it may be helpful to him if I say, before I sit down, that at a later stage I shall try as regards some other amendment—I am not yet sure which—to raise the question of how the Armed Forces will deal with the question of transsexuals who wish to join the Armed Forces and present themselves with a certificate of their re-registration of birth. I know that that will have been heard outside this Chamber and that it will give the noble Lord an opportunity to make a comment on it later. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, this is the first time that I rise to speak on Report. I am distressed that the minimum allowable time between Committee and Report has been applied to the Bill. There were a number of difficult issues raised in Committee, which really demanded much more discussion, dialogue with officials and consultation than has been possible—except for a meeting, for which I was very grateful, that I had with the Minister yesterday evening. In no way do I wish to appear churlish, but I suggest that consideration should be given to those of us who do not have hordes of officials to support us and who, as in my case, could be involved with another Bill at the same time. It is in the interests of the House that greater thought should be given to the logistics and practicalities involved in ensuring that such complex legislation is thoroughly considered on its passage through this House.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it may be of help to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for me to comment that my understanding is that the timing of Bills is a matter that is discussed through the usual channels. Her Front Bench will have been involved in those discussions. I am sure that those concerned will take note of the point that she has raised.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those remarks. It is really for poor, humble, little Back-Benchers who do not have the resources to deal with these matters that I made the point.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness stretches my imagination to breaking point by describing herself as a poor little Back-Bencher.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I echo what my noble friend says. I attended some of the Committee sittings and it was a Bill that, for all kinds of reasons, revealed

359
the defects of considering legislation in Committee. That makes the point that my noble friend has brought to our attention more relevant.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, having made that point, and after thanking the Minister for accepting it, I shall move on.
I support my noble friend Lord Tebbit in his amendment. He needs no assistance from me, because he is doing a masterful job, as he did in Committee. He has the advantage of having truth and logic on his side because the basic proposition of the Bill is mistaken. A man cannot become a woman. A woman cannot become a man. He also has the advantage of being able to point to considerable disagreement among the medical profession world-wide. I have made the point before that we normally legislate only when we are sure about the science and when we can be sure that what we are doing is the best thing for the people affected. Psychiatrists and psychologists are far from being of one mind that attempting to change sex is the best solution.
The Minister will probably say that the European Court of Human Rights compels us to legislate in this way. But it causes one to ask whether, if Europe required us to legislate that sheep could become goats and goats sheep, we would do it. Is there no point at which common sense would override and the Government would say, "No, that is simply too much. Enough is enough"?
Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and his proposed Amendment No. 132 to the Title have the virtue of at least making it plain on the face of the Bill that we are not just saying that a person can change his or her gender in law under this Bill but rather his or her sex.
Amendment No. 128 gives a succinct explanation of the difference between gender and sex. As has been pointed out, sex is a clear biological categorisation. Save in a tiny number of cases worldwide, doctors have absolutely no difficulty in determining a person's sex by reference to physical indicators. Gender, on the other hand, is really a modern invention. It conveys the idea of a fluid, changeable view of your own sexual identity that is governed not by any physical, medical or biological criteria but solely by perceptions—your own and those of other people.
I have said before and say again that I feel genuine compassion for those who struggle with their sexual identity. The overwhelming feeling of being trapped in the wrong body must be just awful. However, sex change is not the only solution. During our debates there has been little consideration of the possibility that a person who feels this way might overcome it by reconciling with reality. Transsexual rights groups obviously promote the idea that a sex change is the answer, but others disagree, especially the families who get left behind.
Let me quote from an account of the struggle faced by a family when a husband became obsessed by the idea of becoming a woman. The wife tells how selfish
360
he became, including spending the family budget on makeup and beauty treatments for himself. Mercifully, he changed his mind after being challenged by a sermon. The wife says:
"We had 2 weeks of battling and anguish, and he clearly was in turmoil, but it did make him realise that he had a family that cared for him and wanted the best for him. He decided to stay and change, realising that he was about to destroy everything he had worked so hard for over thirty plus years … The thought of what could have been leaves me cold. If he had been encouraged by others, or legislation to pursue his own way, he would have left six devastated lives in his wake".
Clearly, that family could all have saved themselves a lot of grief if they had just gone along with him. There would have been a form of resolution if the wife had been willing to pretend to be his lesbian lover, as he wanted. But they could not. They did not believe it was true that a man could become a woman. They could have avoided conflict by abandoning their absolute beliefs about sex and gender, but it was unthinkable for them to do so.
This Bill abandons absolute beliefs about sex and gender. In so doing it makes it more difficult for people who are not willing to do so. I hope that by having this debate again on the basic mechanism employed by the Bill, the Minister will again address his mind to the impact this Bill will have on third parties.
I believe we may hear that some consideration is to be given to wives and children in the gender recognition process. This is a concession which has to be welcomed warmly, but the Bill itself is wholly misconceived. I remind the House again of the words of that tortured wife who believed that if legislation had encouraged her husband to believe that he could change his sex,
"he would have left six devastated lives in his wake"
2 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I must first apologise to your Lordships for not being able to be present during the earlier stages of the Bill. I regret that but I say in mitigation that I have read every word of those debates in great detail and very carefully. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will forgive my intervening in this set of amendments. I should express my interest as a retired physician and retired professor of medicine, but in neither capacity have I been involved in the care of transsexual people, so to that extent I am neutral.
In earlier debates and today the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, made a robust case for the belief that a person's sex is determined at birth by the genes on their chromosomes and that it is these which determine the development of those characteristics which we recognise as male or female—sexual organs and other characteristics. It all seems so straightforward and black and white, but unfortunately that is not quite the whole picture. One's sex is only a part of one's gender. It is an important and essential part but not the only part as it is now clear that genes, although having a strong influence on a person's inherited characteristics, are not the only determinant. We now know that genes determine only the likely trajectory of development and not the final picture. In the case of a

361
person's gender that is certainly the case. For example, hormonal makeup, psychological development and probably some features of brain structure do not necessarily follow a specific set of genes. Indeed, other genes on other chromosomes all play a role in determining sexual characteristics, and this says nothing of the role of environmental factors which we cannot ignore.
In the case of the genes on the X and Y chromosome it is, of course, undeniable that they are extremely strong determinants of gender, but even there we know that there is an infinite variation in the degree of masculinity and femininity which an individual displays. The point here is that in a very small minority of individuals it is clear to them and often to others that the X and Y genes which determine their perceived sex at birth are quite out of sync with everything that they feel and know about themselves now. That is determined by a whole host of genetic and non-genetic factors. Therefore, I am not convinced by the noble Lord's arguments for these amendments; namely, that the X and Y chromosomes are the final arbiters.
The Bill has nothing to do with whether such individuals should or should not change their gender—they have already made their decision and gone ahead and done it—it is about whether, having done it, they can be recognised in law. These are people who have suffered torments about their identity for years until they are convinced that they are expected to behave in one gender when they know in their hearts that they are another.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I think that I would be able to follow him even more closely were he to say how he defines "sex" and "gender". It seems to me that he is using the words in a rather muddled fashion.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, what I am suggesting is that sexual determination does not necessarily coincide with gender determination. Sex plays a part but it is not the whole part. Sex is determined by one particular set of genes whereas gender is determined by a whole host of genes together with other factors.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord but that is not the point. I understood that to be the case that he was making but what he has not told me is what is his definition of the words "sex" and "gender".
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, that can mean a variety of things. The noble Lord is talking about a person's sex. That you may define biologically if you so wish—that is determined by X and Y chromosomes—but even that is not distinct. Some people are born with two Xs and a Y. In any event it is not as clear cut as the noble Lord suggests.
I am talking now about the people who have gone through the process and have decided at long last after a long struggle that they are another sex than the one they had at birth. When they accept the need to
362
change, it takes enormous courage. It is not a trivial pursuit. Then they have to go through an elaborate and searching set of procedures over a prolonged period of time. That, again, is not trivial. These are the people we are talking about who have made enormous sacrifices. I can see absolutely no reason why such individuals, having already made an irrevocable decision, should be deprived of the status and rights that this Bill would allow them. I am afraid that I cannot support the noble Lord's amendments.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, who stated his position so clearly—a position that I think helps many Members of this House to understand the issues in this Bill. At this early stage of our debates this afternoon I apologise in advance—as I already have to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin—for my unavoidable absence after about six o'clock this evening.
I thank the Government for the very intensive, high quality and continuing level of consultation that has taken place since the Committee stage of the Bill. It is entirely unreasonable to complain about the short time that has passed. I believe that we have all had plenty of time to consider this Bill over the months since we knew it was going to be introduced. Compared with many Bills there has been a predictable type of correspondence at a predictable level which has not overwhelmed us. I believe that we have had plenty of time for consultation.
I invite the Government to adhere to a now almost classical adage. I hope that I shall be forgiven for using a few words of Latin: Et timeo Tebbitos et dona ferentes. I am perfectly prepared to translate for the noble Lord if he would like me to.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, spoke with her usual persuasiveness, candour and conscientious approach to what she really believes. She is wholly opposed to the Bill, as is the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. They have made that clear on numerous occasions. Understandably from their viewpoint, they would wish to find a way of wrecking the Bill at any stage including the present one. One accepts that that is a conscientiously held view.
However, I say to the noble Baroness that what she has said was not fair to the legal profession. The anecdote she used illustrated the danger of using carefully chosen anecdotes which misrepresent what occurs in the very real and difficult world of those who make the extraordinary decision to have gender reassignment. The idea that it is made over a short time is completely unrealistic.
I have the advantage shared by one or two other Members of the House in having been a lay member of the General Medical Council for 10 years. A number of other Members of this House have been professional and academic members of the General Medical Council in its old, unwieldy, massive and thankfully now over-and-done-with form.
The Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council, of which I was an active member for five years, would take an extremely dim view, I am sure, of

363
any doctor or group of doctors who did not start from the viewpoint, as they always do, of trying to discourage people who are interested in the possibility of gender reassignment from going through that process. The psychological profiling and the social as well as medical care that is given to people who go through the process starts from the viewpoint that it is all extremely painful, literally; that it involves enormous adjustments to one's body and one's life and that one should have it done only if absolutely certain. It is a process which lasts not one minute less than a few years. They have to live in their acquired gender for a period of two years at least. That is enshrined in the proposed legislation.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments about the approach I have taken to the Bill. There is a slight misunderstanding here which I would like to clear up. It is not necessary to have the gender assignment process to get to the stage in the Bill where one obtains a gender recognition certificate. It is not necessarily true that in cases where there have been problems, as I have indicated, they would be the result of the operation or the gender assignment process. There a great deal of difficulty arises. If people say that they have always felt that they wanted to be man and that they will live as such for two years, they can then go to the gender recognition panel and say, "I am a man, please give me recognition. That is the way I feel". That is my understanding of the matter.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, she should re-read the Bill because that is not what it says. It is an extremely difficult process which includes two years of living in the acquired gender to obtain a gender recognition certificate. One of the requirements of the Bill is that the tribunal which hears the case should be satisfied that there is a permanent intention to live in the acquired gender.
I am saying that there are guarantees in the medical and legal processes that protect members of families from a temporary whim. The ways in which the human mind works, even within the bounds of what is generally called "normality", are extraordinary and unpredictable. As I say, the protection is built in. I am sure that the General Medical Council would take a very severe view of any doctor practising in this area who did not use the utmost care.
One should not forget that if a person undergoes severe and detailed psychological treatment or, even more to the point, major surgery without the proper procedures being gone through by the medical profession, the perpetrators of the changes would be committing very serious criminal offences for which undoubtedly they should be convicted by criminal courts. We say to the Government that this is an issue about which they should stand firm and hold to the purpose of defining gender as a matter of law.
364
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, seems unable to distinguish sex from gender. I suggest to noble Lords that it is a male, female or ambiguous biological component of humanity whereas gender is the legal status of a person as a man or woman in law. Surely, that is a difference which anybody can understand.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I do not know what is the inability which causes the noble Lord not to understand, not to be aware of or to ignore the fact that I have tabled amendments to precisely define the difference between sex and gender. The noble Lord will have heard the exchange I had with the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, on the subject. How can the noble Lord then say that I seem to believe that they mean the same thing?
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, the noble Lord has made an attempt to create a distinction, but I do not accept that he makes it. Furthermore, with great respect to the noble Lord—and I mean that because I respect him enormously especially as a parliamentarian—it is the purpose of this legislation to provide for the legal status of a group of people who have been defined by national and international courts, as well as by the usual political process, as requiring not just the protection of these Houses of Parliament, but also definition in law. The clarity of the definition offered in the Bill is considerable. In so far as there is any clarity in the definitions offered by the noble Lord, it is not a clarity that would offer anything to anyone except myself and my learned friends.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I rise to return to this interesting element to our Bill about which we have spoken on a number of occasions. I have even less confidence that there will be a meeting of minds at the end of the debate. I perhaps signalled my dubiety when we spoke about it at Second Reading. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is entitled to hear the Government's position on these issues even though neither he nor I expect that we will necessarily agree or rejoice in that.
I share some of the pain that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, feels about parliamentary timetabling. This is one of three Bills that I am currently taking through this House. Two of them are being debated at the same time this afternoon. I find it difficult to be in two places at once and therefore I am being helped in relation to the other Bill. I am told by the Chief Whip's Office that, when it comes to taking any notice of people on timetabling considerations, the government Minister's view is about the last in the queue. That is perhaps for good reasons.
The noble Baroness spoke about the ECHR. She is quite right. As we said previously, we have an obligation—it is one with which we are perfectly comfortable—to adjust our domestic law in order to be compliant with ECHR law. That is not the centrality of our position and, even if there were no ECHR obligation, we believe that it would be right to

365
act in that way. We consider it right to give legal recognition to the very small number of people in our society who, I believe, currently suffer an injustice. I shall develop that argument later.
The noble Baroness is also right to trail the subject of third parties. I hope to be able to say something helpful about that when we reach later amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his kind offer to translate the Latin. However, even my hopeless Latin was just about good enough to give me the gist of his sentence.
I turn to the centrality of this issue. In essence, the Government's view is that a person's sex, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, signalled, is more than his or her chromosomes. I do not want to detain the House for too long on this matter but I believe that the Oxford English Dictionary gives about four separate meanings for the word "sex", none of which is reduced simply to "chromosomes".
There is not a great deal of fruit in spending a lot of time on trying to define the meanings of those words, although there are distinctions between them. The meanings have changed over time and are still changing. The word "sex" now has more of a social and psychological connotation than it would have had 20 or 30 or so years ago. As we all know, language is mobile.
However, the reason that I do not consider this matter to be central to our deliberations or that we should spend a great deal of time debating it is that I suspect it is not the central dividing issue between us. While I accept that chromosomes are one of the primary sexual characteristics, there is also a range of secondary sexual characteristics. Gender identity is also determined by a range of psychological factors.
In Committee, I quoted a little from the judgment of Lord Justice Thorpe in the Court of Appeal on the Bellinger case. With the patience of the House, I shall repeat it because it may have relevance for those who were not present on that occasion. Lord Justice Thorpe said:
"Can the legal definition of what constitutes a female person be determined by only three of the criteria which medical experts apply? Are judges entitled to leave out of account psychological factors? For me the answers do not depend on scientific certainty as to whether or not there are areas of brain development differentiating the male from the female. In my opinion the test that is confined to physiological factors, whilst attractive for its simplicity and apparent certainty of outcome, is manifestly incomplete. There is no logic or principle in excluding one vital component of personality, the psyche".
I believe that there is eminent sense in that and the Government consider it to be good advice to us in our deliberations.
We do not believe that continuing disputes about linguistic terminology is a reason for delay. The Government's position is that there is an injustice for a very small number of people in our society who are absolutely convinced that their real-life gender, as they believe it, is out of congruence with what is recorded on their birth certificate. After a very thorough, careful, proper and patient process of testing and validation by the state and by medical experts, the state
366
believes that it is right and fair, as well as in accordance with European law, to adjust that anomaly in the very limited number of circumstances in which it applies. Perhaps I may remind the House that that is relevant. Our best estimates—no one has a final figure—are that probably about one in 17,000 people suffer from gender dysphoria. The fact that there are so few does not mean that as a society or a state we should not be concerned with trying to give them the legal recognition that they believe they are owed.
Therefore, the Bill is about legal recognition and it will define a person's sex in law. We consider the arguments about the meaning of the words "sex" and "gender" to be beside the point. There is no stark dichotomy between the meaning of the words. Language, as I said, is fluid. Our sense of the words "sex" and "gender" has changed over time and no doubt will do so in the future. While the meaning of the word "sex" is not the same as that of "gender", the word "sex" is increasingly in use in ways that go beyond a narrow biological definition.
In addition, medical recognition of gender dysphoria has never been wider. The Chief Medical Officer recognises that, and treatment has been available on the National Health Service for many years. A small number of people are convinced that their real-life gender is out of congruence with what is recorded on their birth certificate as their legal status. We believe that, after a process of proper testing and validation, it is right and decent, as well as in accordance with law, to close that discontinuity.
I also say, with courtesy, that, while I respect the differences of opinion, I struggle to see the great mischief or harm in what we are doing in this respect. It seems to me that it is an act of a civilised society and I cannot see the damage that would result to others. By that, I do not seek to provoke those who have put many hours of debate into these issues because I respect their difference of view. However, at this point, I should state my view on this as well. Therefore, with regret, I cannot accede to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am, of course, disappointed but not unduly surprised by what the Minister said. He tempts me to enter into a Second Reading debate. It is a temptation that I shall resist manfully. As we proceed through some of the other amendments, he may see more clearly my objection to the Bill—not least the objection that it would require officials to certify something which was simply not true.
On the subject of the way in which the business is managed, which has received some criticism today, I should say that I am extremely grateful to the Government Whips' Office for moving out of this group Amendment No. 86, which I did not believe belonged there. We can deal with it later. Therefore, I am grateful for that.
I understand the dilemma facing the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, who is expected to be in two places at once. It is a very difficult situation. I can only offer him

367
the possibility of the judgment of Solomon as one way out, although I do not think that he will be particularly keen to take it.
The Minister seemed to introduce a new concept, which I believe we might call "linguistic relativism". It seems to have led him to the conclusion that we should legislate using words whose meanings we do not understand and which mean different things to different people. I do not believe that that is a good way in which to legislate. If we use a word in legislation, we should be prepared to state its meaning clearly and unequivocally and say how it differs from the meaning of other similar words which might be used as a substitute for it in legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, suggested that I might not understand the relationship between the words "sex" and "gender". However, sadly, when it came to the point, he could not define either of those words, which he used quite freely, nor say what he meant by them. Again, if I may say so, it seems to me that that is a lacuna in his argument.
I was brought up in a profession which, like that of the noble Lord, places human life in the hands of its practitioners. However, it was one in which we were expected to know precisely and absolutely the meaning of the words that we were using because, if we did not, it would prejudice life. Recently we have seen in the medical profession one or two spectacular cases where doctors did not understand the meaning of the words "left" and "right", let alone anything else, and thereby prejudiced life.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, says that to substitute the word "sex" for "gender" would wreck the Bill. It must be a very delicate Bill if it would be wrecked by substituting a word that we can not define with another word that we can not define—but which says pretty much the same thing anyway. That does not seem to have the savour of a wrecking amendment. I find the matter profoundly unsatisfactory. Of course, I am a realist and we need to move on with the debate on other amendments. I do not propose to divide the House on this amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 11 not moved.]
2.30 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Gender Recognition Panels]:
Lord Chan Lord Chan moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 13, line 11, leave out "or chartered psychologists" and insert "recognised as currently practising in the field of gender dysphoria in the United Kingdom, or who have an entry in the specialist register held by the General Medical Council which confers their eligibility to practise as a consultant psychiatrist within the National Health Service"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 12 and all of the other amendments in my name—Amendments Nos. 13,15,16,20,22 and 23. In Grand Committee I did not speak on the composition of the gender recognition panels, because
368
I was researching the requisite qualifications of the medical members proposed in Schedule 1. Therefore I shall dwell first on Amendment No. 12.
Clearly, the role of medical members of the panel is to determine the validity of applications, in particular the clinical diagnosis of the applicant. Gender dysphoria, as the Minister said, is accepted as a medical condition by the Chief Medical Officer of England and patients are entitled to treatment on the National Health Service.
In clinical practice consultant psychiatrists validate the diagnosis of gender dysphoria. As it is a specialised area of medical expertise only a limited number of consultant psychiatrists are recognised as specialists in gender dysphoria. I have taken the liberty of excluding chartered psychologists, because in current practice they do not diagnose independently people with gender dysphoria. Clinical psychologists are technically members of the medical profession. Diagnoses of that medical condition are made by consultant psychiatrists, who may use the services of a chartered psychologist to determine the psychological profile of the patient.
When considering something as important and, literally, life changing as an application for gender reassignment and for a gender recognition certificate that overrides and cancels a person's birth certificate, I am convinced, as I hope other noble Lords are, that the expertise of the gender recognition panel must be of the highest professional proficiency. Therefore, Amendment No. 12 is designed to identify registered medical practitioners who are currently practising in the field of gender dysphoria in the United Kingdom, or consultant psychiatrists in the National Health Service who are registered with the General Medical Council.
In Amendment No. 13 I ask for two medical members to be appointed to all gender recognition panels. My reason was influenced by the current re-examination called for by the Attorney-General of all criminal cases involving more than one sudden infant death in a family, where a medical expert has been used by the prosecution. A similar situation has arisen in the past week in the case of the United Kingdom's best known expert on trans-sexualism, who is a consultant psychiatrist at Charing Cross Hospital, and is being investigated by the GMC after claims by a dozen patients that he put their health at risk—according to an article in the Guardian on 20 January. I quote:
"Consultant psychiatrist Russell Reid, a specialist in gender identity disorders, allegedly breached standards of care by prescribing patients with sex changing hormones and referring them for genital surgery without adequately assessing them".
The standards by which Dr Reid should have conducted his practice have been recognised by other consultant psychiatrists in the field, who say that the guidelines they use are set by the Harry Benjamin Gender Dysphoria Association, based in Minneapolis. The guidance states, the article continues,
"that patients should have been living in their desired gender role for at least three months before prescribed hormones, or had at least three months of psychotherapy. Patients should also undergo

369
a minimum of 12 months' hormone therapy and live in the desired gender for the same period before referral for gender change surgery".
Therefore, as other noble Lords and the Minister have mentioned, it is a long process and a decision that the person wanting to change his or her gender has to consider very carefully. Regarding that problem of medical experts, we see that the recommendation in Schedule 1 states that there should be just one medical practitioner as a member of a panel. That position is no longer tenable because of the difficulties that arise from expert witnesses with a medical background. In view of such allegations it would be best practice to have two medical members on a gender recognition panel.
Amendment No. 15 arises from the need to be sure that applicants for gender recognition certificates have been convinced that their condition is permanent. The period of two years in which the applicant has lived in his or her acquired gender needs to be verified to avoid complaints such as those levelled against Dr Reid. The GMC is investigating allegations that the patients did not have enough time to change their minds about their preferred gender. Although all transsexuals consult their GPs, who refer them to consultant psychiatrists, the nature of their condition may lead some to change their minds about gender reassignment. I hope that all transsexuals have the support of their families and partners when they apply for a gender recognition certificate. To establish that support, the transsexual person should obtain confirmation from two qualified witnesses—naturally one would think of doctors, but they could also include close family members and partners—to verify that the person has indeed been living in the chosen gender for two years.
That leads me on to Amendment No. 20 which deals with evidence: evidence which makes it clear that any applicant for a gender recognition certificate should have been under the care of a registered medical practitioner practising in the field of gender dysphoria or a consultant psychiatrist specialising in gender dysphoria.
I have not come across the names of non-medical practitioners who currently practise in the area of gender dysphoria. It is therefore appropriate that the Bill specifies the qualifications of medical practitioners who are recognised and whose reports are the evidence needed by the gender recognition panel. After all, we have identified that gender dysphoria is a medical condition recognised by the Chief Medical Officer, so it is only appropriate that medical evidence is produced from reports by medical practitioners.
I tabled Amendment No. 16 because it is true that the majority of applicants have undergone sex reassignment surgery because of the two years which has been given for them to be convinced that they would live in the gender of their choice. Sex reassignment surgery is a sign that the applicant is convinced that it will be a permanent change. From experience of transsexuals in Australia, New Zealand
370
and parts of the United States, there should be no doubt that such an individual should be given a gender recognition certificate.
Of course there will be some transsexuals who on medical grounds of serious life-threatening diseases are unable to undergo sex reassignment surgery. Those cases can be judged on individual merit by the gender recognition panel.
Another reason in favour of the amendment that requires applicants to have undergone sex reassignment surgery has been the regular reports of the rape and murder of transsexuals that I have read. They have taken place in Australia and in this country. The view I have gained is that most such tragedies affect transsexuals who have not undergone sex-change surgery. When an individual has undergone sex-change surgery, there is no reason to deny her or him a gender recognition certificate.
Finally, I tabled Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 so that objective evidence is obtained of the applicant's determination to live in the preferred gender. These amendments should also help to exclude applicants who are not qualified to obtain a gender recognition certificate. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I apologise to the House that I have been unable actively to participate until this stage. I want simply to reinforce most strongly the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, particularly that of protecting the patients and the medical member of the panel. The wording of the Bill strikes me as containing a small wording conflict in that it includes clinical psychologists as medical rather than clinical members of the panel. That might have been a more accurate description. But the importance of being trained in this very small and highly specialised area, dealing with people who are undertaking complex decisions—the rigors of which were eloquently outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—indicates that Amendment No. 13 in particular is crucial to protect all involved in the process.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: I want specifically to address the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, which introduces the need for surgical intervention. I can well understand the noble Lord's desire to be absolutely convinced that the people who wish to be given a gender recognition certificate should have demonstrated beyond doubt that they are sufficiently determined by having surgery to change their gender. But I am afraid I cannot accept that as being a mandatory procedure.
Of course many will have had surgery, but it is worth remembering just what this type of surgery entails. In a woman who wishes to be regarded as a man, it would involve the removal of the uterus and the ovaries, probably a bilateral mastectomy, and possibly plastic surgery to construct a phallus. In a man, it would involve removal of the penis and testes, with the possible construction of a vagina.

371
I am sorry to be so graphic, but I want to emphasise that these sorts of operations are not undertaken lightly. And as with all operations, they are not without risk. Most individuals are likely to be fearful and others may simply not be fit. The fact that most do go through with all this is a testament to their determination, but to insist that they all do so seems quite unnecessarily cruel. To demand surgery to confirm a diagnosis of dysphoria also seems perverse: we do not insist in law on surgery to make any other sort of diagnosis—cancer and the like. I am afraid I cannot support that particular amendment.
Perhaps I may be forgiven for returning to the dilemma of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, over sex and gender. The sex of an individual may be defined entirely in biological terms as possession of X or Y, or both, genes. It cannot be defined in terms of other sexual characteristics such as external genitalia because they do not always coincide at birth with the chromosomal determinates. Some babies at birth are difficult or impossible to sex. So if we are to be entirely clear, it is the chromosomal features only.
When we come to gender, this is the state that can be defined only in terms of possession of multiple factors which take into account the physical and psychological make-up of an individual, which can be defined and which make up the totality of that individual.
Baroness O'Cathain: One does not have to support the Bill to support these amendments, which impose a much more rigorous standard of testing on those who wish to go forward for gender recognition. There is evidence that there are people who have been railroaded through sex-change operations without any consideration of the alternative. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, has just given us a graphic description of what is involved in all this. I touched on the subject when I spoke to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Tebbit and I shall return to the point when I move my Amendment No. 19.
It is an obvious failing that the Bill as drafted contains no requirements of psychiatric evidence. It could be that there are severe psychiatric reasons why such a change should not be made. Yet such evidence could be excluded. The panel may never see it and I do not believe that that is right. Furthermore, these amendments would create a system of assessment which was left open to abuse. By selecting the right medical expert and learning to say the right thing at the right time, transsexuals could quite easily pass the test laid down by the Bill at present.
I read recently that there are websites which teach transsexuals the right things to say when being interviewed by medical professionals. They advise them, basically, on how to cheat; on how to present the classic symptoms of gender dysphoria in order to get the operation they feel they want. I have no doubt that with the growth of cyberspace there will soon be websites advising on the best way to get a gender recognition certificate. We must take steps to limit the scope of that kind of abuse.
372
A more rigorous regime is all the more necessary because the medical profession itself seems to be in turmoil over the appropriate standards to be applied in these cases. Some medical professionals working in this area feel that some of their colleagues are less than rigorous in assessing people. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Chan, has given us a description of one such case. Perhaps some professionals feel that their duty is simply to give the patient what he or she wants. I suggest that that is a dangerous approach to take. Not only is it a dangerous approach, but it is an enormous step to take.
Sadly there is plenty of evidence that people regret having a sex change. Only today my attention was drawn to a television programme broadcast in September of last year on ABC, the Australian broadcasting network. It was called "Boy Interrupted" and was about Alan Finch who, with the support of health professionals, had sex-change surgery at the age of 19. He now says,
"Anatomically, I was never a woman … Everything was fake about it from top to toe".
At age 31 he decided to change back to his biological sex.
There are many unresolved issues and many uncertainties about the whole process. That goes back to the points that I made at Second Reading and in Grand Committee. Today, just as an aside, we have another uncertainty: the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, suddenly made me realise that as a lay person I did not have the definitions clear in my mind. I would like confirmation that a medical doctor is a member of the medical profession, but that a consultant clinical psychologist is not a member of the medical profession. Is a consultant clinical psychologist a member of the health profession? There are health professionals as well as medical professionals. It is just so complicated.
In the Bill the least we can do to try to make matters less complicated is to ensure that the medical assessment through which applicants go is thorough and genuine and not just a rubber-stamping of their current wishes.
Lord Tebbit: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, for his post-mortem comments on amendments that have already been debated. Turning to the present matter—Amendment No. 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chan—it seems to me that the extra precautions that he would insert as regards additional members of panels and matters of that kind, are thoroughly sensible and reasonable. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, I hesitate to follow him on the subject of Amendment No. 16. He said that it would indicate whether a person had been willing to undergo the sex reassignment surgery, which I prefer to call sexual mutilation. In parenthesis, we Westerners criticise primitive tribes for their sexual mutilation practices, but perhaps those people should read the Bill and consider this kind of matter.

373
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, said that a person would have to be convinced that he or she really was a transsexual. Yes, but that conviction could come about through a serious psychological disorder. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to persuade people who were suffering from a severe psychological disorder, which may perhaps be temporary or which certainly may not be completely permanent that, to achieve the objective which their disorder told them to follow, they should be subjected to irreversible surgery. That would be going too far. I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Chan, on all the amendments in this group, barring Amendment No. 16. I believe that that amendment goes too far and that it would be unduly cruel to people for whom we all have very great sympathy in their dilemma.
Lord Filkin: Before the moment passes, I celebrate the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and I agree on one point. That is a comfort to me, if not to him.
The problem with these amendments is that while I respect the objectives behind them in terms of trying to ensure that there is a credible process, they tend to add to the complexity and they tend to focus on the process rather than on the outcome. By doing that, they attempt to fetter the discretion of the panel. I shall return to why I believe that the panel needs to carry the burden that we. as legislators, will impose on it, rather than us over-specifying the mechanisms by which it is to fulfil those duties.
The panel must be satisfied that the criteria set out in the Bill have been met. That is its job. First, it has to be convinced that the person has or has had gender dysphoria. I shall not speak at length about the process of diagnosing and treating gender dysphoria. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, spoke about that earlier and we may have spoken about it also in Committee. In essence, it is not a sudden process; it takes many years. It requires an initial diagnosis which is likely to involve psychotherapy, psychological tests and other medical tests. That is followed by a process of real life experience, so that before further medical treatments are given, the reality of the person's conviction is tested in the fierce crucible of living out in the real world in the gender that they believe to be true for them.
After that process has been under way for a good period of time and if it is appropriate after a further assessment process, hormone treatment can be undertaken. Subsequently—again if it is appropriate and advisable—there can be surgery. I shall not go into detail; the process is available from a number of sources, and I stress how necessarily cautious and lengthy it should be and needs to be.
Clearly, the test of gender dysphoria has to be carried out by a specialist. A person working in the area of gender dysphoria will have to make the critical judgment of whether a person has gender dysphoria as a precondition of an application to succeed. Amendments Nos. 20 and 22 provide that there must be two diagnoses of gender dysphoria, one from a registered medical practitioner and one from a consultant psychiatrist. We do not see the need for that. The panel will not simply take the diagnosis of
374
gender dysphoria from anyone at large. It will have a list of people who work in the area of gender dysphoria, which will be drawn up in conjunction with the professional bodies to ensure that evidence comes from reliable sources. If there is any doubt in the minds of the members of the panel they will make further inquiries. Therefore, the burden is on the panel to be satisfied that the diagnosis of gender dysphoria is one on which they can lean and if in doubt they should not do so.
Next, the person must prove that he or she has lived in the acquired gender for at least two years and provide medical evidence of treatment that has been received. That evidence will be considered by the panel. So a person will have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist and evidence of living in the acquired gender for at least two years. A person must provide evidence of medical treatment and will have to convince the panel that he or she intends to live permanently in the acquired gender. That is a proper and substantial process of testing.
Amendment No. 15 would add that a person must have lived successfully in the acquired gender. I do not know what weight to put on that, but it also adds that two witnesses must attest to the fact that the person has lived for at least two years in the acquired gender.
Quite rightly, the approach taken by the Bill is that the panel has to satisfy itself that an applicant has lived in the acquired gender for the past two years. It leaves open the evidential requirements, which is how one should treat judicial panels. They should be at liberty to decide what evidence they believe will satisfy them; if they are not satisfied they should ask for further evidence; and if they are still not satisfied they should refuse the application. We do not need to specify exactly how they go about their business. The panel will be chaired by a circuit judge. Such people are not unaware of proper process.
The panel must satisfy itself that an applicant has lived in the acquired gender for the past two years, not two witnesses. The applicant can submit further evidence if he or she wishes; or the applicant can be required to do so if the panel is not satisfied.
Finally, the amendment also requires that the two witnesses attest to the applicant's assertion that he or she intends to live permanently in the acquired gender. Again, we think that it is the job of the panel to take what tests, measures, evidence or inquiries it thinks appropriate to meet that test. It is not a good use of our time to seek to fetter the discretion or specify the processes by which a judicial panel should meet the burden the legislation imposes on it.
If, on the sum of the evidence, the panel is convinced that an applicant has taken decisive steps to live permanently in the acquired gender, has or has had gender dysphoria, and has demonstrated a commitment to live in the acquired gender, only then will it give a certificate. If it is not satisfied, it will not do so, nor should it.

375
Amendment No. 16 seeks to add an additional criterion: that a person must have first undergone reassignment surgery. I do not wish to add much. A number of noble Lords have said why they believe that that is wrong. I start with an explanation. Most people who have gender dysphoria undoubtedly wish to have surgery. The individual wishes to bring his or her bodily state into alignment with that person's profound belief. Most will have done so. To require those persons to do so is wrong for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and others. One should not force that process on people as a necessary test.
Some people may be too old to be able to cope with the rigours of surgery. It would be wrong to deny them legal recognition if the three tests in the Bill were met. Let me not labour that point.
I turn the argument round the other way. It does not mean that the process is any the less severe. Clearly a person who has gone through the horrors of surgical realignment in this way does in a sense demonstrate how severe his or her conviction is that there is a problem which needs to be remedied. I signalled in Committee that where a person has not had surgery I would expect the panel to be more alert in inquiring whether there were sufficient evidence of commitment to a permanent change. That is not the same as saying that a person who has not had surgery should not be recognised. It is to say that the panel would want to inquire why the person had not had surgery. If it was because at heart there was doubt in the person's mind about whether he or she was going to make a committed and permanent change the panel would not grant a gender certificate. I do not think that we are at risk in this respect. The panel is likely to want to inquire more in such circumstances.
3 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. That is my point. If a person goes to a gender recognition panel, the individual can have in mind the fact that he or she wants to change gender but does not want to undertake surgery for all the reasons that have been explained. That person can convince the panel yet be in a situation where he or she was going to cheat. I am sorry, but that is the reality. When I made the point earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, chided me.
One of my great concerns about the Bill is that an individual can have a gender recognition certificate without having surgery. It depends on how determined that person is in his or her own mind about the belief that he or she is of the opposite sex. I find that very distressing.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not want to labour the point because we have given these issues considerable attention in Committee and today.
Such people who do not have surgery are few. There are usually good reasons for them not having done so. If the panel is not convinced that those persons are
376
committed to living in a permanent state it will not grant them a gender certificate. However, to turn it the other way, for the state almost to say that unless people go through a process of bodily mutilation they will not have a legal recognition is wrong. I regret that we shall not agree on that issue.
I turn next to the composition of the panel. The medical member is not there to make a diagnosis. The diagnosis is to be provided by the person practising in the field of gender dysphoria. The medical member is on the panel to ensure that the medical evidence is properly understood and can be inspected or further inquires made if appropriate. The panel will be working with a list of medical practitioners and chartered psychologists who practise in the field of gender dysphoria.
With regard to there being several on the panel, few practitioners could be described as working in the field of gender dysphoria. Putting two on the panel would have significant disadvantages. It would also mean that they would frequently be seeking to make judgments on their own clinic or clinical work which, again, is clearly judicially flawed and, therefore, there would be further practical problems. So they are there to inquire into the medical evidence not to make the diagnosis.
On the interesting point about members of the medical profession raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, clinical psychiatrists are covered in Clause 3 under the term "registered medical practitioner". Chartered psychologists are members of the British Psychological Society, a professional body with which we shall work in developing the process. Having said that, I shall look further at what the noble Baroness said. If I have missed the point and dropped the ball, I shall come back to her before Third Reading.
I am sorry to have spoken at length but it is an important group of issues. I hope that I have stated clearly the Government's position.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and all noble Lords who spoke. I accept that surgery is the end point and should convince anyone that the applicant is genuine. I concede that it would be difficult to make it a ground on which to provide a certificate. That would be seen to be cruel.
However, with regard to evidence and diagnosis, as I sought to outline, there are suspicions that within the medical profession medical opinions are given which may be extreme and not necessarily balanced because the medical practitioner is convinced of a certain point. With two medical members on the panel that issue would not arise.
Whether or not we like it, the ultimate issue is the diagnosis—being convinced—particularly if the applicant has not had surgery and there are other issues to consider. I admit that I am not familiar with the process and legal composition of a panel but that was the main purpose underlying Amendment No. 13. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Chan Lord Chan moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 14, line 7, leave out "one medical member" and insert "two medical members including

(i) a registered medical practitioner recognised as currently practising in the field of gender dysphoria in the United Kingdom, and

(ii) a registered medical practitioner recognised as currently practising in the field of gender dysphoria in the United Kingdom, who has an entry in the specialist register held by the General Medical Council which confers their eligibility to practise as a consultant psychiatrist within the National Health Service."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 2 [Determination of applications]:
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 18 not moved.]
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
"(4) The panel must reject an application under section 1(1) if the panel has issued a gender recognition certificate to the applicant on two previous occasions."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I tabled an amendment in Grand Committee which raised the issue of whether a person can go through the gender recognition procedure a second time in order to return to his or her biological sex. The Minister may remember that in Grand Committee on 14 January I moved a similar amendment. In dealing with Clause 9 I said that,
"many people change their minds and revert to their real gender, or oscillate between the two".[Official Report, 14/1/04; col. GC64.]
I quoted the Government as being behind that statement. The Minister cited a percentage figure of 1 per cent. Of course 1 per cent does not square with "many". I have since discovered that the source of the "many people" quotation was from page 5, paragraph 5.1 of the Home Office report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People published in April.
One does not have to look hard to find examples of people who wish they had never changed. The Sunday Telegraph Magazine of 15 November 2003 reported the case of a person called Claudia, who deeply regrets his decision to have reconstructive surgery and assume the identity of a woman. He said:
"I changed for all the wrong reasons, and then it was too late … I was seen for 45 minutes by a psychiatrist in private practice, and I believe I was railroaded into thinking that an irreversible operation was the only solution. It made me feel they were just in it for my money".
He went on to say:
"I feel like this sex change has just made me into some kind of freak. I'm not a real woman, I am a sex-change".
That is tragic. It is a side of the transsexualism debate that seems to be swept under the carpet, although I notice, as has been said already, that the Guardian of 20 January 2004 reported that the UK's best known "expert" in transsexualism is being investigated by the General Medical Council after claims that he sent patients for sex-change surgery without adequately assessing them. The Sunday 0
378
Telegraph Magazine stated that the same person was involved, while running a private practice as well as working in the National Health Service,
"in controversy over the condition known as body dysmorphic disorder, (BDD), where sufferers can experience a desperate urge to rid themselves of a limb".
Dr Russell Reid was one of the psychiatrists who referred two patients with BDD to a surgeon for leg amputations. The article continues:
'"When I first heard of people wanting amputations it seemed bizarre in the extreme,' he said in a television documentary at the time, 'but then I thought, T see transsexuals and they want healthy parts of their body removed in order to adjust to their idealised body image,' and so I think that was the connection for me. I saw that people wanted to have their limbs off with equally as much degree of obsession and need.'
But to what degree should doctors be acquiescent to the 'obsessions' and 'needs' of patients?"
It appears that the sex-change proponents have created all the running on this issue, yet there are genuine deep concerns by professionals which do not seem to be considered. The same article in the Sunday Telegraph Magazine referred to:
"Dr Fiona Mason, a forensic psychiatrist with an expertise in gender issues, is seriously concerned about the practices of some private clinics dealing with transsexualism".
She said:
'"I can't imagine assessing anyone suffering from a serious disorder in under three hours. It can take three years to assess patients with complex problems. The trouble with some private clinics is that the patients are just given hormones after an hourlong appointment, which can have an irreversible effect on the body.'
Some critics are even going as far as to say that psychiatrists have not, in fact, 'discovered' transsexuals but created them. That is, that once 'transsexual' and 'gender-identity disorder' (GID) become common currency more people began interpreting their experience in these terms. Specialists working in gender-identity clinics made similar complaints about their patients as early as the mid-1970s".
Clearly, there will be some people who will go through gender recognition only to want to change back again.
In Grand Committee, the Minister assured me that the Bill already provides for that. However, it must be said that it is not clear on the face of the Bill. I know he will tell me that we must not put words into the Bill that do not need to be there, but we should have some reassurance, if only for people like Claudia, that it is possible to go back to your true sex in law, even if the surgery is not reversible.
My amendment would make it clear that reversal is possible at the same time as limiting a person to only two changes. That would allow a person to change his sex to a woman and then back to a man, or vice versa, but he or she could make no further changes after that. Otherwise, of course, it is possible that person could change back and forth throughout life. That would clearly be ludicrous, not to say very damaging for the person himself or herself. I know the Minister will say that the gender recognition panel will always be terribly sensible and it would never allow that, but we cannot be sure under the current wording. If he thinks a person should not be able to make multiple changes back and forth, he should be prepared to see a limitation placed on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for clarifying almost the double elements of this issue. The first element—and I do not think there is an issue between us about whether it is possible—is on the limited number of tragic cases where a person who might, after having gone through this enormously difficult and traumatic process, decide that they had made a mistake and wish to revert. Let me put it on record that while the number of such cases is likely to be extremely small, under the Bill it is completely open for the panel to grant the application to revert if it is convinced. The panel will be applying those three tests very seriously, and it will be applying them even more seriously because the person is reverting back.
On the second element, the noble Baroness suggested that we should put a provision on the face of the Bill to stop people making changes back and forth. I do not think that is necessary. The panel is there with expertise to make judgments. The central judgment it has to make in this respect is whether it is convinced that the person is committed to living permanently in that gender. I cannot think of circumstances—for example, in the extreme case of a person who has changed once and then has changed a second time—in which a panel would be convinced that it would grant legal recognition for a third change. I cannot conceive of a situation where a panel would be open to persuasion that that was possible.
One might ask, "Why not put the provision on the face of the Bill?" But why should we fetter the role and the duty of a judicial panel? We will give it clear criteria and through this legislation it should be left to get on with that job. Therefore, I think the law will allow exactly the change the noble Baroness wishes to allow. If the panel is convinced that a person has genuinely made a mistake then reversion is possible. I cannot see that there is a need to go further than that in the legislation.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. As always, he listens carefully to my arguments, and I to his. The onus is on the panel. My simple amendment would be helpful to the panel, so that another client could never come back, and would remove any doubt about it. The Minister and I are at one on the point that there should be a limit. However, the Minister is placing the onus on the panel, whereas I believe that it would be better to have it on the face of the Bill so that we could help the panel.
The Minister made the point that the amendment would fetter the role and judicial competence of the panel. I say that it would be a belt and braces measure to ensure, first, that the panel is not put into a very difficult situation and, secondly, that it could not happen, which I am sure neither of us wants.
I will read carefully what the Minister said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Evidence]:
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 42, after "required" insert "by order made"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns Clause 3(6)(b) of the Bill, which states:
"Any application under section 1(1) must include any other information or evidence required by the Secretary of State".
It does not specify the form in which that requirement is to be made. It is a general requirement, not a specific requirement relating to a particular case. Presumably, therefore, it must be made in some kind of document that will be circulated to all people who need to know about it.
The purpose of Amendment No. 24 is to provide for the requirement under Clause 3(6)(b) to be made by statutory instrument, but not one that involves any parliamentary procedure. The requirement that it should be made by statutory instrument reflects the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As was explained when I raised the question in Grand Committee, in paragraph 7 of its report, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said:
"The prescription by central government of the particulars or evidence to accompany applications as part of a formal procedure is often made the subject of rules or regulations, whether or not subject to a Parliamentary procedure. This accords with the view that the prescription of general rules about these matters has the characteristics of a legislative, rather than a purely administrative, act. For this reason we considered whether, in this instance, the particulars and evidence should be specified in a statutory instrument, to which the usual publication requirements will apply".
Paragraph 8 continues:
"The reason given by the Government for wishing the matter to be left to 'administrative' action only is that the details are likely to change. We recognise that this is a good reason why the details should be left to regulations, but, given the flexibility of the delegated legislative procedure, it does not provide an explanation why there should be no formal procedure of any sort".
The report makes further comment, which I shall not read now.
In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, the Minister speaking to this amendment, said:
"It might help if I clarified what the power will be used for. It will be used to set the questions that are asked on the application form. Its purpose, therefore, is very narrow. That is why we do not believe that any parliamentary scrutiny is necessary. The application form will ask questions that will enable the panel to determine an application. Contact details, for example, will have to be requested. At the same time, the application form will contain questions relating to the criteria in the Bill. The application form may, for example, ask an applicant to specify what evidence is being supplied to satisfy the panel that the applicant has lived in the acquired gender for at least two years". [Official Report, 13/1/04; col. GC 31.]
The difficulty is that the power could be used to cover fields very much wider than those referred to by the Minister on that occasion. It could, for example, be used to bring into effect a provisions similar to those contained in Amendments Nos. 15 and 23, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Chan—the requirement that

381
evidence be given of a particular fact by two witnesses. Although the Government may intend to use it simply to specify what is put on the application form, if one looks at the language, it is quite clear that it could be used to set out the nature of the evidence that the Secretary of State will require for presentation to a panel in order to prove any of the conditions that have to be satisfied before a gender recognition certificate can be granted.
I am not suggesting that there should be a parliamentary procedure. However, it seems to me that we require a degree of formality and accessibility to Government websites, which would be provided if the matter is dealt with by means of a statutory instrument rather than a circular. I hope that the Government will feel able to think again about that issue. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in preparing for today's debate, it struck me, perhaps belatedly, that that may have been what was behind this amendment, so that the Bill would not be open to being twisted and turned in the future. I shall reflect on that point. In so doing, I do not want to raise any optimism, but I believe that that will probably short-circuit our discussions.
Our argument is as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, in terms of the benefits of flexibility. We also believe that the ability to ask for information is clearly circumscribed by the three criteria set out in the Bill by which the panel will have to be tested. Nevertheless, that does not satisfy the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that it could be taken away over the hills. Therefore, without for a moment signalling that we shall accede to it, I should like to reflect on the point.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) In the case of an application under section 1(1) from a person who is married, a Gender Recognition Panel may take evidence from the spouse and children of the applicant before making any determination under section 1.
( ) Evidence from the spouse or children may include a report from a chartered psychologist or a registered medical practitioner on the effect of issuing a certificate on the spouse or children of the applicant.
( ) The spouse or children of an applicant shall have the right to offer oral and written evidence to a Gender Recognition Panel and, before issuing a certificate, the Panel shall have due regard to the effect of issuing such a certificate on the spouse or children of an applicant.
( ) In the case of an application under section 1(1) from any unmarried person, a Gender Recognition Panel may take evidence from the partner or children of the applicant before making any determination under section 1.
( ) In the case of minor children, evidence may be given by a representative appointed on their behalf."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I begin by suggesting to the Minister that in order to overcome his dilemma or compromise position of having to be in
382
two places at once because he is involved with another Bill, which is in Grand Committee, if we did not have Grand Committees and all our legislation was considered on the Floor of the House, that problem would not arise—
Lord Goodhart: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I intervene to say that I am also involved elsewhere at this time. I am rather pleased at that, because it spares me from having to spend another day on the Committee stage of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I return to what I consider to be the issue of paramount importance: that of the family of the applicant. As noble Lords will have noticed, I have altered the amendment tabled in Grand Committee to introduce the element of choice, so as to enable the gender recognition panel to be able to lake evidence from the spouse and children of the applicant before making a determination under Clause 1. That evidence could take different forms, as proposed in my amendment.
We had a good, thoughtful debate on the issue in Grand Committee. I was grateful to all noble Lords who took part. Some points raised gave me pause for further thought. I said then, and still firmly believe, that the concerns of the family should be taken into account during the process of gender reassignment; that a holistic approach to the process is the right route; and that my amendment would help, rather than hinder, the process. That said, I take on board the cautionary note proffered by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in Grand Committee. I would not want to encourage a climate similar to that of the contested divorce. In most instances, that would be unhelpful.
The trouble with the Bill is that only the interests of the applicant appear to matter. When I first read it, I could find no reference to children, spouses or partners of the applicant, except in two lines of Clause 12. I found that deeply disturbing.
I am reminded of the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester in Grand Committee, when he said:
"At this point it seems crystal clear that the Government are, without remainder, giving rights to one set of people and taking no notice of the rights of another".
In response, the Minister was also crystal clear. Although confirming that central to human rights legislation is the balance between rights and responsibilities, he said:
"The tough answer is that the right which the panel will decide whether or not there is evidence in the application to grant"—
gender recognition—
"is not a right that can be balanced".—[Official Report, 13/1/04; cols. GC36–39.]
That is tough, and I keep returning to the fact that our hands are tied.

383
We have no choice but to respond to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. We have obligations under human rights law. In Grand Committee, the Minister offered to consider the matter further. I am pleased to confirm that we had a helpful meeting; the Minister has encouraged me to listen to what he has to say today in response to the amendment.
We have considered the matter at great length. I, and several other noble Lords, want to be reassured that the rights, interests and concerns of the family will be taken on board throughout the process of gender reassignment and should be considered by the gender recognition panel. I beg to move.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, we have sympathy with the aims of the noble Baroness. It is vital that in the process—and at the right stage—the views of the family, if it has views on the matter, should be taken into account in an assessment of whether the person who makes the application is appropriate for a certificate.
It is to be noted that one test under Clause 2—indeed, the primary test under Clause 2(l)(a)—is that the panel must be satisfied that the applicant has, or has had, gender dysphoria. One would assume that if a proper medical and psychological process is carried out, an assessment of the views of the family will be part of the evidence-gathering of that process. By the time the case reaches the panel, there will have been detailed psychological and psychiatric assessments—as already happens in all such cases.
Further, what the noble Baroness asks for is already provided under the Bill in appropriate cases. Clause 3(6)(c)—Clause 3 being entitled, "Evidence"—states that an application must include
"any other information or evidence which the Panel which is to determine the application may require".
If that means what it says, if the panel has any doubt about evidential aspects of the process that has led the applicant to the panel, the panel has absolute discretion to inquire into those matters set out—or summarised, at least—in the amendment.
The hearing before the panel is too late for the evidence for which the noble Baroness provides in her amendment to be considered. In making its decision, the panel must decide on the four criteria set out in Clause 2(1). In a few cases, the family may remain implacably opposed at that stage. Nevertheless, if those criteria are satisfied, the determination of legal status must be made; that is a requirement placed on the panel.
What I have said, in a rather long-winded way, is that the Bill already provides for the process that the noble Baroness has in mind in the disciplines that are applied to each applicant before they ever reach the panel. I therefore suggest that, although I agree with the spirit behind the amendment, it is superfluous.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has retabled the amendments. Notwithstanding the points made in Grand Committee by both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and what the noble Lord just said—I have read Hansard and listened carefully to him now—it is important that in the second line of the first paragraph of the amendment, we now have the word, "may", not "must". I welcome that change.
It is still important that written in the Bill should be the clear encouragement to the panel, even at what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is right to say is a late stage, to take seriously the concerns of the spouse, partner or children, and for them to know that they are being taken seriously. The panel should be required to take them seriously, and they should have the opportunity to be heard.
It is not simply a matter of a family being, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, suggested, implacably opposed. That puts the whole matter in far too adversarial a context. It is entirely possible and, to my knowledge, sometimes the case, that there is profound concern and anxiety about the mental, spiritual or physical well-being of the person—who may indeed be well down or through the process of gender change; or of that of the children, spouse or relatives; or of both intermingling.
It is worth noting that the amendment does not suggest that the panel must do what it is asked by those to whom the amendment would give the right to offer advice—to whom the panel would be asked to listen. It states that the panel should have "due regard". As I understand it, that phrase makes entirely clear that it must take note of, but need not be bound by, that advice. It means that it must listen to what is being said to it; not that it must agree with it or, in the end, that its decisions must be bound by it.
That seems to me both proper in itself and—to take another element in the amendment—because I take the noble Baroness to be testing, I believe extremely importantly, whether in the Bill the Government really are committed to what she correctly reported as the Minister's tough line in Grand Committee. To the extent that I as a lay person in these matters can read the human rights legislation—in Grand Committee I pointed to some parts of it that were quoted by the Court of Human Rights in the Goodwin case—it requires all concerned to be engaged in a balancing act, or a holding intention, of one right and another.
I was surprised, even shocked, by the Minister's tough line because as a layman in this regard it seemed to me deeply questionable. It is extremely important that this should be explored both in this matter and others. If the Government are prepared to note this tension between rights and duties in the matter of sport, and I judge them to be doing so correctly, they also need to be seen to be doing so for their own good, let alone for straight justice, in relation to children—in other legislation, the rights of children are said to be paramount—spouses, partners and the proper concerns of the churches and faiths, which are

385
reflected in a series of amendments to the Bill. I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has brought these amendments back in this slightly revised form. I will listen to the Minister with great interest. From her discussions with the Minister, she has whetted my appetite and I hope that he may have something of real interest and significance to say.
Finally, I. too, am required to be in two places at once. I made my apologies to the Minister earlier and I apologise to your Lordships' House now. There is a point beyond which I shall have to attend an unavoidable engagement in a church in my diocese this evening.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to support my noble friend's amendment. One of the obvious gaping holes exposed during Grand Committee was that the gender recognition process gave no right to the family of a transsexual to have any say. I said that this emphasised that the Bill was about the rights of transsexuals and nobody else. Whispers have told me that there is likely to be some movement from the Government on this.
I hope that this bodes well for some other concerns we have about the Bill. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments again. Suffice it to say that it seems unthinkable that a wife and children of a man—or indeed the husband and children of a woman—who went forward for gender recognition would be denied a say. I refer back to the story I read earlier about the terrible pain endured by the family of the transsexual man who thankfully changed his mind before it was too late. It was clearly tortuous for all of them, not just for the man involved. It is right that at the very least people in that situation should be allowed to put their views before the gender recognition panel.
It is possible that the Human Rights Act will come into play. I understand that the European Convention on Human Rights includes a right to fair trial and a right to be heard when a tribunal determines one's rights. I am sure there are some good legal minds who would be able to extend that to encompass the family in relation to the gender recognition panel. A wife whose husband was being changed in law to a woman could make a convincing case that her human rights were being breached if she were denied a right to be heard. Her rights would be very seriously affected by the decision of the panel. I do not believe that the panel should have absolute discretion.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, drew our attention to the Bill. It does not make it clear that the family would necessarily be encompassed in that consultation. I welcome the right reverend Prelate's great contribution that due regard has to be taken. I have absolutely no hesitation in congratulating my noble friend on her amendment. I hope that I can welcome the Government's willingness to think again.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, before the Minister responds, may I say that I very much hope that he will agree to the amendment. It seems almost impossible to
386
believe that in the case of a man changing to a woman, his wife or children should not at least have access to the gender recognition panel so that they can give their views. The panel does not necessarily have to accept them but at least they ought to be heard. I hope the Minister will agree to the amendment.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, this is probably one of the most interesting and difficult issues we have to address in relation to the Bill, although there is probably some fierce competition for that title. When I talked about toughness in Grand Committee I was not talking about social toughness; I was talking about intellectual toughness. What I meant by that was that, under the statute that we are considering, the panel had a duty to make a decision as to whether the tests had been met to grant a change of legal gender to the applicant. Those three tests have been discussed many times. What I said was tough and difficult—whilst being emotionally sympathetic to the issues we have discussed—was having a process by which a judicial panel was asked to make a decision as to whether a person met those tests for their gender to be recognised and then to decide not to give it because the wife was unhappy. That was the toughness of the issue which we face and which we have been reflecting on in Government to see if nevertheless we can find a way of addressing what one has respect for—the human issues that lie behind that.
I shall now set out our thinking on this. I will also write to participants about this issue because it is important. That will give a little time for us to reflect on it before Third Reading. However, I can at least set out the position. In summary, there is not much problem in principle with allowing wives' and children's views or evidence to be put into the panel. The problem is about whether that should affect the decision of the panel. I am relieved to see the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, nodding and agreeing with me on the intellectual toughness of that. We have been thinking about finding a way, which is consistent with the tests that the Bill sets out—including dysphoria, permanence, the two-year requirement and so on—of ensuring that the interests of the wife and child are properly considered at a time when it is possible for them to have an effect on the process. To put that at its shortest, we think it hinges around the consideration of permanence. By that I mean the panel has to be convinced that the test is permanent. There is a line of thought that goes that a person who applies for gender change to be recognised and is married and may have children, is in probably the most difficult situation. We want to ensure that that person and their family have fully considered the very painful and difficult implications of what the person wishes to go through throughout that process.
In short, the process of testing for gender dysphoria and treating it—the process set out in the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association standards—emphasises that professionals should discuss all the consequences of a change in gender for the person, their family and their work colleagues. It further says that the therapist should work with a transsexual person

387
to accept the need to maintain a job, provide for the emotional needs of children, honour a spousal commitment or not to distress a family member as currently having a higher priority than the personal wish for constant cross-gender expression. So, good clinical practice already sets the issues out.
The issues should be explored as part of the therapeutic investigation early in the process. That seems right. In a sense, it is too late, two or three years down the line, when the case is with the panel, for that to be dealt with effectively, apart from allowing the family to give supportive evidence that may be relevant to the application to the panel. In many cases, applicants will wish their family to give evidence in that way.
In the guidance that will be given to the panel, we will make it clear that, if an applicant is married and/or has children, it is particularly important to recognise the burden placed on that person by the social situation that they are in and to test whether they have thought through the seriousness of the change that they are making and the effect that it will have on others, as well as themselves. Therefore, if there is guidance to the panel that it is to look for evidence that that has been properly tested, it leaves the door wide open for the applicant to put evidence from the wife and child into the panel's processes. More importantly, it gives a clear signal, at the start of the process, that the applicant will be tested at the end of the process on whether the issues of concern to the family have been properly considered as part of a therapeutic process. That will not be done in order to balance the interests of the family against the application—that cannot happen, for the reasons that I gave—but to see whether there is a greater risk of impermanence because of the social pressures on the applicant as a consequence.
I fear that I have spoken at length, but I hope that I have set out the argument clearly. I will put it in letters to noble Lords. Without completely impossibly corrupting the responsibility of the panel, one can build into the process a mechanism to ensure that the interests of the wife and children are given proper consideration. In any event, any decision by the panel is only an interim one, for a married couple. A divorce cannot take place until the court has considered whether appropriate ancillary relief decisions have been made and the interests of the children recognised. The court process for married applicants also has a check. Unless the court is satisfied that the normal divorce tests of ancillary relief and care for the children are met, the applicant cannot change the interim gender certificate into a permanent one. There are, in a sense, two tests. That allows us to build up a robust process that is fair to the applicant but is also fair to the wife and children.
As the House will have noticed, I speak without looking at my notes. I would welcome the House's liberality and ask it to reflect on the matter. I shall put
388
it all in writing to the House, so that we can see whether we have found a way through the difficult moral dilemmas that does not corrupt the integrity of the process. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for her thoughtfulness on the matter, but I ask her to withdraw the amendment, at least at this point, for the reasons that I have given.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank particularly my noble friends Lady O'Cathain and Lord Ferrers for their support. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for his sympathy for the spirit of the amendment, although I cannot agree with the noble Lord that the amendment is otiose. In a sense, I am considering the perspective of the spouse and the children. I believe that Clause 3(6)(c) focuses on the perspective of the panel and the information that the applicant might wish to include, as opposed to the information or evidence that the spouse or children might wish to include.
That said, I am grateful to the Minister. I welcome also the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, who has clearly thought the matter through in a way similar to the way in which I have done with regard to the difficult dichotomy between rights and responsibilities. When we come down to it, the Bill focuses on the rights of the applicant.
There is no question but that the Minister has responded to our concern. Of course, I would prefer to see our amendment made. I accept the difficulty that the Minister highlighted with regard to including in the Bill a provision that relates to a late stage in the process. I hope that the Minister will assist me and other noble Lords by writing to us, first, with regard to the timing of the introduction of the guidance that will be attached to the legislation and, secondly, to help us to understand better how the process will be effected, such that the interests of the spouse and family, where they exist, are tested. In other words, at what stage will their evidence be included? Will it be an ongoing process, leading up to the application to the gender recognition panel? Will it be enough for evidence from a wife, spouse, partner or family to be offered once, or will consideration of the interests of the family continue right through the difficult process leading to gender re-assignment and the application to the gender recognition panel?
I am grateful to the noble Lord for the opportunity between now and Third Reading to consider what he tells us in writing before deciding whether it is enough to have the matter dealt with simply in guidance—I accept why he wants to do that—as opposed to having it in the Bill. I am grateful that the Minister and his officials took considerable time to tackle such a difficult and important issue. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Mollis of Heigham)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Mollis of Heigham) moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) If the Panel which is to determine the application requires information or evidence under subsection (6)(c) it must give reasons for doing so."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move the amendment and speak to this disparate group of amendments on behalf of my noble friend. The amendments arise from discussions in Committee, and I hope that they will address the concerns raised at that stage and be welcomed by your Lordships. In moving Amendment No. 26 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 46, 71, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123 and 125.
Amendment No. 26 relates to a request by the gender recognition panel for further information when determining an application from a transsexual person for recognition in the acquired gender. In Grand Committee, the Government indicated that it was not uncommon for judicial panels to request further information when they consider a case. We agreed that it was good practice for a panel to give its reasons for such a request, not only to assist the individual to provide the correct information but to reassure him that it is necessary. Therefore, on behalf of my noble friend, I propose that a requirement to give reasons should be enshrined in law.
Clause 7(2) allows the Secretary of State to determine the fee that should be charged for making an application to the gender recognition panel. At present, this power is not subject to any parliamentary procedure. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not recommend a change, but invited the House to question the Government about why no parliamentary procedure was required.
Of course, fees are routinely changed, often increasing annually with inflation. However, I am alive to the concerns of the Members of this House that Parliament should have some scrutiny over the fees that are charged. Subsequent to comments made in Grand Committee and given that all other court fees are set by order, subject to the negative resolution procedure, we agree that the fees for an application to the gender recognition panel should be set in the same way. Amendments Nos. 46 and 123 achieve this. Again, I hope that the House welcomes this move.
Clause 22 sets out a power to modify statutory provisions in relation to persons whose gender has become the acquired gender, or any description of such persons. This power is delegated separately to the Secretary of State, to the Scottish Ministers where the provision to be made is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, and, similarly, to the appropriate Northern Ireland department. It is a narrow power, designed to ensure the proper working of Clause 9 and the fundamental proposition that once a full gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person, that person's gender becomes, for all purposes in law, the acquired gender.
Legislation has used gender-specific terms and categories for centuries, and while we have been thorough in trying to identify what problems may arise
390
from a person changing gender in law, we cannot discount the possibility that problems requiring an adjustment of statutory provisions will be needed. These adjustments will be to give effect to the principle that a person is to have all the rights and responsibilities appropriate to the acquired gender.
if the Bill is enacted, Parliament will have agreed the basic principle—that a person is to have the rights and responsibilities appropriate to the acquired gender. The power to modify statutory provisions will be used only to ensure that this principle has full effect. The question of ensuring that before exercising those powers there should be appropriate consultation was raised in Grand Committee. The amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, was entirely sensible and an important safeguard. I am therefore introducing government Amendment No. 118, which I believe will achieve the desired objective.
The next two amendments in the group, Nos. 119 and 120, are consequential. The Bill makes provision for the particulars to be held on the gender recognition register to be prescribed by secondary legislation. This is the same provision as for other registers—for example, the birth register. From time to time, the set of details held on these registers is changed. The same flexibility should exist vis-a-vis the gender recognition register. That is the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is therefore necessary that the powers in Clause 23 should extend to the Chancellor as well as to the Secretary of State. The two amendments achieve that purpose.
Amendment No. 122 implements two recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Again, I hope they will be welcomed by the House. Applicants who already have recognition overseas may apply on a simpler procedure whereby they have to prove that they have recognition overseas and that the country in which they have recognition is an "approved country or territory".
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, just to put the record straight, the noble Baroness referred to Amendment No. 122 when I think it should be Amendment No. 121.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, whenever the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has challenged parliamentary counsel, as he has done on at least three previous Bills, he has been proven to be correct. I am sure that he is correct about this, too, in which case I apologise.
Applicants who already have recognition overseas may apply on a simpler procedure. As the Bill stands, under Clause 2(4) the Secretary of State has the power to specify a list of approved countries or territories. The power will be exercised only after consultation with the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland.
At present, Clause 23 provides that countries are "approved" by an order made by the Secretary of State subject to the negative resolution procedure. In its

391
report, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee agreed that it is appropriate that approval should be given by order, as the list of approved countries will change from time to time. However, it was concerned that on the face of the Bill it was not explicit that only those countries that have criteria equivalent to our own would be approved. It was concerned about future policy changes which might change the criteria by which other countries were approved for these purposes. The committee therefore concluded that the negative procedure would not provide an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny for a power of such potential significance in the context of the Bill and recommended that the affirmative resolution should apply.
Taking into account the views of those noble Lords who, in Grand Committee, expressed similar reservations and the recommendations of the committee, we are proposing an amendment to Clause 23 which I hope will find favour. It will provide the assurance sought. The power to prescribe approved countries will now be subject to the scrutiny and approval of both Houses.
Let me turn to the amendment as it relates to paragraph 11 of Schedule 3. At this point, Amendment No. 71 is also relevant. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended a change to the provision in Schedule 3, paragraph 11. That provision seeks to accommodate a regulatory reform order that is already under way and which relates to the registration system for England and Wales. We explained that the original purpose of the paragraph was to enable the registration provisions contained in the Bill to be amended so that the gender recognition register conforms to the forthcoming changes being brought about by the General Register Office in England and Wales. I think this is a matter of some concern to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee accepted this argument and that the scrutiny process for the order could be shortened as proposed. However, rather than altering the requirements for an order under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, the committee recommended that the Bill should give an express power for Part 1 of Schedule 3 to be amended, and that any such amendments should be made by affirmative resolution.
The amendment to paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 fully meets the committee's recommendation and I hope that it finds favour with noble Lords who, in Grand Committee, drew our attention to the matter.
The final amendment in this group, Amendment No. 125, is, again, a drafting amendment. Clause 21 includes the power to specify further exceptions to the prohibition against disclosure. Clause 21 provides that the power may also be used by Scottish Ministers in areas within their competence. Unfortunately, however, the present version of Clause 23 does not subject this power, in contrast to the power given to the Secretary of State, to any parliamentary procedure. The amendment corrects this unintended omission.
392
I hope that your Lordships will agree that we have sought to meet the concerns expressed in Grand Committee and by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and are happy to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as a number of the amendments result from points made by us in Grand Committee, we naturally welcome them. The amendments on points that we did not make ourselves all seem perfectly sensible. We are therefore entirely happy with all the amendments.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I also welcome the Minister's response to the concerns that we raised in Grand Committee, and entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the other matters that the Minister raised today make sense. We support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Successful applications]:
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes): My Lords, I remind the House that if Amendment No. 28 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 29 due to preemption.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 9, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 28 stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew and myself, and in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. We and the right reverend Prelate come at the amendment from different directions, but we reach the same objective.
A number of transsexual people have entered into marriage before gender change with a person of the opposite sex. If a transsexual person wishes to obtain a gender recognition certificate in their required gender and the marriage in the birth gender still subsists, the panel under the terms of the Bill as it now stands can grant only what is called an interim certificate. Such a certificate has no effect at all in itself; it will, however, be converted into a full certificate if, and only if, the marriage is annulled or dissolved in proceedings commenced within six months of the interim certificate being granted.
In many cases, gender dysphoria of one of the parties to a marriage and the consequences of that dysphoria will lead to a breakdown of the marriage. However, there is a small number of marriages, thought to be in the order of 50, in which one party to the marriage is a transsexual person who wishes to obtain the same right as other transsexual people to legal recognition in their required gender, while both parties wish to keep the marriage in existence. The fact that the marriage has to be terminated for the transsexual partner to obtain a gender recognition certificate is a cause of great distress.

393
The Joint Committee on Human Rights took evidence on a draft of the Gender Recognition Bill. Thirty individuals or couples submitted written evidence, and 11 of those 30 were letters from one or both parties in a subsisting marriage protesting at the need to terminate the marriage before a full gender recognition certificate could be granted. That is a very high proportion of those affected by the Bill to have responded to that issue.
We believe that allowing a subsisting marriage to continue will alleviate distress and cause no harm. We have therefore tabled a long series of amendments. Most of them, in fact, are minor consequential amendments and do not need to be referred to in any detail. The purpose is, first, to eliminate the existence of interim certificates so that anyone, whether married or not, will be able to obtain a gender recognition certificate if he or she satisfies the conditions for obtaining such a certificate. The grant of the certificate will continue to be a ground for the termination of the marriage if either party wishes to terminate it. Secondly, the amendments provide that the marriage shall be treated as dissolved for the purpose of state benefits and pensions, as the Government have managed to persuade us that leaving the marriage in existence for those purposes would cause undue confusion.
Why do the Government not accept our amendment? There appear to be three reasons. The first is a philosophical reason: namely, that it will recognise same-sex marriages. However, we are talking about marriages that were all legitimate when they were entered into. We see no need to extend the principle that marriages must be between people of the opposite sex to say that the marriage cannot continue if one party changes gender in law.
Secondly, the Government say that the changes would cause serious administrative difficulties. I am unpersuaded of that, despite the best efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, to persuade me otherwise. She has sent a long letter to me on the issue. As the letter is not a confidential one, I shall read your Lordships a couple of paragraphs from it. The Minister said:
"Schedule 5 makes provisions for the treatment of social security benefits and contracted-out private pension arrangements when a person registers in their acquired gender. If an existing marriage is allowed to subsist for all purposes other than Schedule 5"—
which would of course be the effect of our amendment—
"a married couple would have to claim some state benefits as individuals. However, as not all state benefits are covered by Schedule 5—for example, income-related benefits—they would still be able to claim some state benefits as a married couple. This would cause considerable administrative difficulties and confusion for the couples involved. It would be difficult to explain to such a couple why they have to make individual claims for some benefits, while being able to claim other benefits as a married couple, and why they would not be able to claim survivor benefits when it would be appropriate for other married couples to do so. The current proposal to end the marriage for all purposes ensures that all transsexual people are treated in the same way and that generally they acquire the same benefits and pensions as others".
394
I do not dispute the truth of what is said there, but if people sufficiently strongly wish to retain their marriages, then they are likely to be perfectly happy to put up with a degree of difficulty and confusion. I see the Minister shaking her head, but that seems to me to be the case. In a very small number of cases, I believe that couples will say that that is a price worth paying for the retention of the marriage. In view of the small number of cases involved, it is easy to have any claims that arise handled by a single officer at the Benefits Agency, rather than at local offices. Other problems, in addition to the one that I have read out, are raised in the letter, for example, certain problems relating to pension schemes. I do not regard these as likely to make the retention of an existing marriage unworkable.
The third argument put forward by the Government is that parties can wait until the civil partnerships Bill is enacted. They could then get a divorce and a full certificate one day, and enter into a new civil partnership the next day. There are two objections to that. First, we cannot yet tell when, or if, a civil partnerships Bill will be enacted. Although I understand that it is the Government's intention to bring one in fairly shortly, there is no guarantee that that will be done. I believe that the Government, understandably and rightly, do not intend to delay the coming into force of this Bill until it is clear that there will be an effective civil partnerships Bill that can be brought into effect at the same time. There is at least a risk that transsexual people who want both a certificate and to maintain a legal relationship with their former spouse will find themselves in a limbo that might last for years or, if something goes wrong with the civil partnerships Bill, if it gets squeezed out by the pressure of other legislation or for some other reason, perhaps indefinitely.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, what this very small number of parties clearly wants, if one has read the often very moving letters, is a continuation of the marriage. These people do not want to give up their marriages and enter into a new and quite different legal relationship. These amendments will substantially improve the very difficult situations of, admittedly, a very small number of people and will do so without doing any harm to either the administration of the benefits system or to anyone else. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I identify myself with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has just said. I thank him and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for their graciousness in agreeing to me adding my name to their amendment.
The noble Lord has excellently expressed the needs of this small number of people—I have been made aware of some seven or eight couples, as I think he has. I noted the letter that he quoted from the Minister, but this situation cannot possibly be beyond her well-known skill and ingenuity and that of her officials if they set their minds, as I am sure that it is their nature

395
to do, to seeking to assist this tiny group of people whose situation, if the Bill goes through in this form, is simply deplorable; indeed, the proper word is cruel.
if people have committed themselves to a marriage, whether or not out of a religious understanding, of any faith, it is part of the Government's responsibility to sustain that marriage if they wish to sustain it; I have made this point in other circumstances in this House. To force them to be broken apart and then to suggest that they be placed in some other legal relationship which—quite apart from the fact that it does not yet exist—if it were to exist, they do not want, is not a sustainable way of behaving on the part of the Government. I think the Minister knows my reasons for disagreeing with him—I shall not repeat them— that what we are discussing necessarily constitutes a same sex marriage.
I want also to underline the point that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made that there is an extraordinary retrospectiveness in this element of the Bill. We are talking about couples, many of whom have been married for years and a significant number of whom have begotten children and brought them up, in which case children are involved too. I refer to the earlier comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in that regard.
I applaud the fact that the Government are making clear that they do not support same sex marriages. The Minister will know that for me the illogicalities of the Bill in principle are revealed if it says that a marriage which has not been a same sex marriage for many years suddenly at a certain point becomes one. However, that is not the main point at issue here—that concerns a quite unnecessary piece of cruelty. Noble Lords opposite and I are to a great extent in agreement on the matter for similar reasons. I hope we shall hear that the Government have had further thoughts on the matter and that they will not be thrown off course in that regard by looking to the kind and gracious nature of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, to find a way through the detailed problems.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, in Grand Committee I spoke in support of this measure. I should like to thank the Minister for the letter that he sent in response to my intervention. I am very grateful to the Minister for what he said in that letter but it still does not cover the concerns that I sought to express, which have been put before the House very forcefully this afternoon by both the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the right reverend Prelate.
I think of the couple who have been happily married as man and wife and one of whom has, as a consequence of the change that we are discussing, become of the same gender as the other. However, both are anxious to continue the marriage with all that goes with it, not merely in terms of a social relationship but also in terms of the legal rights that go with it. What the Government propose is that the courts have to interpolate themselves into this relationship by way either of a decree of nullity in England or a decree of divorce in Scotland. Noble Lords will be well aware
396
that a divorce involves the question of division of property. Indeed, one of the issues involved in property is that the property that is to be divided is not necessarily the whole of what each party has. There is something in Scotland called matrimonial property. The consequence of that is there has to be a division of that which the parties do not want to divide in order that they then may, as it were, resume the relationship but call it a civil partnership. It seems to me that that is a very odd way of going about dealing with a problem which exists even now. The Bill will, of course, have consequences for all those who in future undergo the whole process of gender reassignment.
I feel very strongly that issues such as those which have been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, are matters that we shall have to look at again anyway in another context. Today I received the transcript of a judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case of KB v National Health Service Pensions Agency. The facts are different because in that case they were two persons. One was transsexual in an established partnership. KB was entitled to an occupational pension under the National Health Service, which gave rights to a widower. But the partner, not being married or being capable of marriage, was not so entitled. That is precisely the kind of thing which arises on a decree of divorce. The person cannot be a spouse at the time of death in that relationship. These are the kinds of much deeper factors which we shall have to look at in another context and no doubt will have to make changes to the various schemes and the like which attach to these new relationships brought about by gender reassignment. But for the moment it is enough to say that I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I disassociate myself from this amendment because I cannot support it for all sorts of reasons. It is one of the trickiest issues in the Bill. One can say on the one hand that we have a Bill which will force divorce and, on the other, that we have a Bill which creates same-sex marriages. Many noble Lords will have received a letter from Janet and Sarah Wood. Clearly, Janet has chosen to reconcile herself to her husband's wish to be a woman. He would like to change his sex in law, but he also wants to remain married to Janet.
Surely, he must choose between being a woman in law and being married to Janet. Many will feel huge sympathy for him, but that is the situation which pertains at the moment before the Gender Recognition Bill becomes an Act. Some have said that they must simply make the choice and some argue that the Bill is already bending over backwards. It might be said that transsexuals in this position want to have their cake and eat it.
Legalising same-sex marriage in law is obviously a step too far even for the Government. That ignores the fact that they are already creating same-sex marriage

397
if this Bill becomes an Act, where a person who was born a man will be a woman and will be able to marry a man who was born a man. That is same-sex marriage.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am saddened because I thought that I was going to have the opportunity of saying that I agree with everything that the noble Baroness has said. She has spoilt my fun.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I do not believe that it is fun. We are dealing with it in a slightly light-hearted way, but it is a very serious issue. The Bill allows a biological man to marry another biological man. That is my contention. I know that is not agreed by other noble Lords. Returning to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Tebbit, just because a woman wants to be a man, whatever gender recognition certificate the person has they were born either as a man or woman and they will always be so.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the Bill allows two persons to marry, both of whom have borne children and are still capable of bearing children, and who might do so in future. If that is not same-sex marriage then I am deeply puzzled to know what is.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his intervention. Perhaps I should not have caught his eye at the beginning of what I had to say. The matter is becoming more and more complicated.
There is real concern that if we create same-sex marriages, every other group of whatever kind will say that they want same-sex marriages. The option is simply for people to stay the way that they are and, if they want to go that far, they do not apply for a gender recognition certificate. People may be in a close, harmonious relationship which has existed for 20 or 30 years and they may have two, three or four children and even grandchildren. If they cannot bear the thought of breaking up and divorcing, with the assets being split and the family being torn apart, is it not better that they do not go through the process in the first place? I really cannot support the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in rising briefly to support the noble Baroness, perhaps I may urge your Lordships to bear in mind the well known maxim "Hard cases make bad law".
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I recollect that on this issue in Grand Committee, I started by quoting the old adage that our mothers taught us:
"O what a tangled web we weave. When first we practise to deceive!".
I then went on to get myself into a thoroughly big tangle over the difference between dodos and doornails.
398
I find this an extraordinarily difficult issue. I take on board entirely what my noble friend Lady O'Cathain said, as I do what I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, is going to say. But then I think to myself that, in my view, the certificate and the amended birth registration are both lies. They are simply untrue. The individual concerned has not changed sex. I might go so far as to please some other Members of the House by wondering whether he or she has changed gender. But I am sure that the person has not changed sex.
If the individual has not changed sex but, through the process of a perverse piece of legislation, he or she has been issued with a false certificate stating what is demonstrably a lie—that is, not only that that person is not of the sex that he or she is but that he or she never was—where does that take me? It might easily take me to the position where I would say, "There is no ground for annulment because nothing has happened. This man and this woman are still a man and a woman. In that case, why should the marriage be annulled?" That would get me off an awkward hook because I have the greatest sympathy with people who are in that position. I believe that if this matter were to go to a Division, I might plead for extra time so that I could sit here and finally make up my mind as to which Lobby to enter. I hate to say that because it is not a problem that I normally have. Perhaps I am suffering from voting dysphoria.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the names of Janet and Sarah Wood have already been mentioned in this debate. I was very surprised to see a copy of a letter to them from an official in the Gender Recognition Division of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. That letter, in part, said:
"The issue of what to do with existing marriages is a complex one"—
well, that is what the whole debate is about; of course it is complex—
"and the decision to require that existing marriages should be annulled was not an easy one to make. The Government is not about undermining strong and stable relationships that have survived the upheaval of one of the parties going through the transition to a different gender. It is the marriage that cannot continue, not the relationship".
We are not talking about same-sex marriages here; we are talking about same-sex divorces, which are an entirely different thing. This sparked my interest for a totally different reason. Many of us—most of us, probably—who are present in this Chamber are, or have been, married and we went through the marriage service, part of which, I seem to remember, said:
"Those that God has joined together let no man put asunder".
That is extremely important to me. It is clear that such people and many like them are strong and committed Christians. Why should the law make them divorce? That is the issue.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, particularly his last quotation. That is what is happening. I am also sympathetic to my noble friend Lord Tebbit, who said that the longer he listens to the debate the longer he

399
wants it to continue, so that he can make up his mind. I may not be able to help him with that, but the issue is a deceit whichever way it is looked at. We all know the reasons for it and we have sympathy for them, but it is a deceit. If a person is born a girl and has a birth certificate to say so, but later decides to become a man, the registrar has to say that the certificate was wrong and "You are now a man and you always have been". That is wrong and is a lie. The registrars are being forced by law to make a lie.
What happens if a person who was born a man, decides to change sex and become a woman, but has been living with his partner as her husband? What happens if that man, who is still biologically a man, contracts and subsequently dies from, for example, cancer of the testicles? What does the doctor put on the certificate—that the woman has died of cancer of the testicles? That is curious and one of the sort of absurd cases that will emerge. It comes back to the basic point of my noble friend Lord Tebbit—it is a deceit whichever way one looks at it.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I support the amendments, yet I find myself supporting my noble friend Lord Tebbit at the same time. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. The key is the sanctity of marriage and the vows that are taken and supported by the state at the time of marriage—although I am still annoyed that I was not allowed to use the Anglican vows of marriage in my civil marriage service, which was an affront that I may attack on another occasion. People are married on the basis of "'til death us do part", or many of us are, and that is the basis on which marriage holds its privileges and should be respected. There are other circumstances where marriage has caused problems. There was another such problem of gender recognition when the Church of England agreed to have women priests, which led to some male priests moving to the Roman Catholic faith. They were accepted as priests with their wives, despite the rule that Roman Catholic priests are forbidden to marry. However, the sanctity of marriage was respected. It was the right decision although it created a class of married Catholic priests who could not have first become Catholic priests and then been married.
Marriage involves an important set of vows. It is an important relationship and should not be broken in such a way—even if it involves surgery. So what? A person who has his testicles shot off is not then compelled to become unmarried. It is a matter of tiny importance compared with the importance of the vows that have been taken. As my noble friend Lord Tebbit says, the reality is that they are still a man and woman married to each other, whatever they may call themselves or whatever lie may have been put on the statute book and the birth certificate. To separate and destroy that, when both parties wish to continue with the commitment that they have given, is entirely wrong.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I did not take part in the debate during Grand Committee. I want to make it
400
clear that, bearing in mind that members of the Conservative Party have a free vote on all aspects of the Bill, I am offering my personal view of the matter.
At Second Reading, I said that to legislate for divorce goes very much against the grain. I suspect that I speak for all noble Lords on that and all will have great sympathy with the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester in that regard. However, these amendments, if accepted, would mean in law same-sex marriage. That is clear and I cannot accept or support it.
I am sure that all noble Lords have sympathy for everyone who has written in. Several have referred to Janet and Sarah Wood, who wrote to a number of noble Lords. In their letter, they say:
"To allow such marriages to continue will not undermine the principle against same-sex marriage any more than the main thrust of the Bill for allowing transsexual marriages".
That simply is not true. There is a point which I am sure the Minister will make clear in response. It is that if people like Janet and Sarah really do not want to divorce, they have a choice: they do not have to undertake this process; they do not have to seek legal gender recognition. I accept that it compromises what they had sought to succeed in through the process of this legislation, but there is that strong element choice. As my noble friend Lady O'Cathain commented, they can continue just as they are. I support everything my noble friend said.
In any event, I am more persuaded by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, than by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, with regard to the enormous difficulty of creating a whole system of welfare and benefits for what in fact will be a small number of people.
I return to relying on our obligations under the ECHR. Perhaps it is because I am a lawyer and because of those obligations that I am just able to justify what we are doing in passing this legislation.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, perhaps I may speak from these Benches with just a touch of Episcopal dysphoria. I do not quite agree with my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. He was sorry to have to leave for a diocesan appointment this evening. It is such a difficult issue.
I believe that it comes down to which decision would best uphold the dignity and institution of marriage in our country. We are caught between our absolute sympathy for the individuals concerned, which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and my noble friend expressed, and an unholy alliance. They come at the issue from totally opposite points of view, which reminds one of some of the alliances we hear about in the other place between those on the more Right-wing Conservative Party and those on the more Left-wing of the Labour Party.
What will uphold the dignity of marriage by making every concession, which our emotions draw us to do, to the small number of individuals who are affected? Will we simply put one more nail in the coffin of the

401
institution of marriage and the way it is perceived in society at a time when the institution of marriage is under huge pressure? That ultimately leads me to the position expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady O'Cathain.
I have an anxiety that to agree to these amendments now might subtly pre-judge some of the debates that need to happen under the civil partnerships Bill. The Government's consultation papers have gone too close to the notion of same-sex marriage in the way that has been set out. That representation has been made by the Churches—it is not just me saying it now. When that Bill comes before us, there is a real discussion to be had as to how civil partnerships are to be construed.
I speak as someone who is very much in favour of having a system of civil partnerships in our country to remedy injustice and bring better order into our social relationships. But the devil is in the detail in that Bill as to how those partnerships are construed. If we agree to this amendment, we could be seen to be pre-judging some of those discussions.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I think that he has just about brought me back on side.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, this is one of the really difficult issues. I find it even more difficult because part of the privilege of being a Minister for such a Bill is that at times it is important to meet people who feel passionately about these dilemmas. Therefore, in a number of meetings people have explained to me their passionate feelings about wishing to have the gender change and, at the same time, the status of marriage. I have had the unpleasant duty—I believe this is right as well as being our policy—to look them in the eye and say, as I said at Second Reading, "We are not going to do that".
The reasons why we are not going to do that have already been stated, eloquently and clearly, by the noble Baronesses, Lady O'Cathain and Lady Buscombe, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. Fundamentally, marriage means something to everyone in our society—a legal union between a man and a woman. It is a sophistry to play games and to pretend that because one does not think that the Bill is a good Bill, in some sense the two people are not married and so we can pretend that it is not a same-sex marriage. In law the position is absolutely clear: if the state, through the processes that the Bill sets out, gives legal recognition to a change of gender, then that will be, in law, the gender of that person. If we allow a marriage to continue we shall allow a same-sex marriage to continue.
One could argue that this concerns only 50 people, but I am sorry, that will not do. We are not going to allow same-sex marriage; I said that very clearly at Second Reading and that is our position. However, we shall do our utmost to make the process of change, for those who wish to continue a close relationship into the future, clear and possible. They will have to have a
402
divorce; and they will receive an interim gender recognition certificate which will be turned into a final gender recognition certificate only after they have been through the divorce courts and received a divorce.
We also signalled at earlier stages of the Bill that we intend to bring in the civil partnership Bill. When that is enacted, if people so wish, they can have a legal relationship, sustaining their emotional relationship, but it will not be marriage. On the timing of that, we intend to bring that Bill into the House as a substantive Bill before Easter and, if it passes, it will become legislation and implementable by about October 2005. This Bill, if and when it passes, will become legislation by April 2005. Therefore, there will be a short gap of some six months between our best forecast of when the two Bills will be in place. Those who do not want to go into a legal limbo, awaiting civil partnership, after their divorce as a result of gender change recognition, will not need to do so; they can wait until the civil partnership process is in place. They will still be able to have the fast-track process of gender recognition, of which we have spoken. As noble Lords will know, in later amendments we shall allow the fast-track process to run for two years.
Therefore, we come back to the point that we are not forcing people to get divorced. We are giving them a choice, which is what the state should do in such a situation. It should say to people who believe fundamentally that they have a discontinuity in their gender, "We are giving you the option of legal recognition of your change of gender; you can take that if you want to; we are not forcing it on you, but you cannot pick-and-mix; you cannot have both at the same time; if you want to stay married you can"—God bless them; long may they do so—"but you cannot have gender change". If they want gender charge that is their choice. There will be a facility for doing so. But they cannot stay married at the same time. That is the Government's position which we shall stay with. For those reasons—with concern for humanity, respect for the people who move the amendments and understanding of the pain of people in that situation—I believe that that is a right and principled position.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, it has been an interesting debate to which many noble Lords have made contributions about which they feel strongly. I respect the views of everyone who has spoken.
I welcome the fact that the amendment received support from the Bench of Bishops, the Cross Benches and the Conservatives Back Benches. I regret that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester—for reasons he explained to me—has had to leave in order to attend a function in his diocese.
I found the objection of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, somewhat difficult to understand. She plainly regards a gender change as not having taken place. Therefore, there should surely be no obstacle to people remaining married who were married in the birth gender of both of them.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. That is not the point. I certainly

403
did not want to force divorce. But individuals do not have to go down the gender recognition route. They can stay married with their own family surroundings and behave exactly as they do now. Were it not for this Bill, this future as regards divorce would not face them.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. He clearly regards it as a difficult issue, as I do. He thought that the sanctity of marriage was best preserved by the defeat of the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I do not think that I used the term "sanctity of marriage" but referred to the social standing of marriage. That is a slightly different concept regarding the place of marriage in our society. However, I shall not delay the noble Lord unnecessarily.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate is right, the couples who are now married but where one of them wishes to change gender will divide into three classes. The first will be people who decide to retain their marriage and forgo a gender recognition certificate. They would have retained their marriage anyway. The second group will be those who divorce and enter into a civil partnership. That means giving up a marriage which is recognised by Christians as a sanctified relationship and entering into an unsanctified relationship. The third group will divorce and enter into no form of new relationship. None of those solutions advances or protects the role of marriage in any way. In this case I would much prefer to see the marriage continuing.
I have made the arguments for the issue. It is one on which I feel strongly and on which Members of my party, as well as others, have views, which they are—of course for reasons of conscience—free to express. But on this issue, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 28) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 120.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller]

Greaves, L.

Avebury, L.

Hamwee, B.

Barker, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Lucas, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Maddock, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller]

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Miller of ChilthorneDomer, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Newby, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Razzall, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rea, L.

Geraint, L.

Rennard, L.

Goodhart, L.

Roper, L.

404

Sandwich, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Seccombe B

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Tordoff L

Walmsley, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Andrews, B.

Howe, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bach, L.

Hughes of Woodside. L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hylton, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blackwell, L.

Joffe, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borrie, L.

Listowel, E.

Bragg, L.

Liverpool, E.

Buscombe, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Byford, B.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Carter, L.

Marlesford, L.

Chalfont, L.

Marsh, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Chan, L.

Mitchell, L.

Chester, Bp.

Monson, L.

Chorley, L.

Montrose, D.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Moynihan, L.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Craigavon, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Crawley, B.

Ouseley, L.

DarcydeKnayth, B.

Palmer, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Pitkeathley, B.

Denham, L.

Puttnam, L.

Desai, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

RendellofBabergh, B.

Dubs, L.

Renton, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rotherwick, L.

EdenofWinton, L.

St. JohnofBletso, L.

Elder, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Erroll, E.

Sawyer, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sheldon, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon, V.

Feldman, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Filkin, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gavron, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gilbert, L.

Swinfen, L.

Glentoran, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Tebbit, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Triesman, L.

Grabiner, L.

Turnberg, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Walpole, L.

Grenfell, L.

Whitty, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Wilcox, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Harrison, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hayman, B.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.5 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 32 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Interim certificates: marriage]:
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 41 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Subsequent issue of full certificates]
[amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Errors in certificates]:
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grenfell): My Lords, I call Amendment No. 44.
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 4, line 7, leave out from first "person," to "for" in line 8 and insert "an application may be made"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope I shall be excused for my slight lateness; it is a hangover from finding it so difficult to know which way to vote on the previous amendment.
Turning to the amendment, it seems to me that it would be right for persons other than the Secretary of State to make such an application. We debated that in Grand Committee and, afterwards, I tried to find another way to write an amendment that would allow someone other than the Secretary of State who had reason to believe that a certificate had been issued on a false premise to seek to have it amended.
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, suggested that the clause was not the right place for the provision, because it was concerned with amending minor—what I described as bureaucratic—details. I see the force of that argument, but hope that he will see the force of the argument that there should be some way by which persons other than the Secretary of State who have cause to believe that the certificate was issued on a false basis could apply to have it amended or overturned. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall not repeat all our discussion in Grand Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has helpfully focused on the thrust of his concern. As I probably said in Grand Committee—I am racking my brains to recollect it—I have not yet seen the force of the problem. I agree with the noble Lord that it is right and proper that there should be a process for inspecting, addressing and, if substantiated, redressing a fraud that someone discovers. However, such a process will exist because Clause 8 contains provision for quashing fraudulently obtained certificates.
I therefore genuinely believe that if evidence is brought to the Secretary of State that a fraud has been committed, he would be obliged to inspect the case and decide whether to exercise his powers under the clause. I should like to reflect further on that. It may be efficient for us also to have a few words to see if he would tell me what he thinks is wrong with that process or whether there are things that I can say to emphasise how that process would operate. I am with him on
406
principle, but am struggling to see how the current legislative framework does not achieve the objective that he and I want. Can I leave that invitation to him?
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, if such an application was necessary, to whom would that application be made? I am not clear on that.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Bill specifies that the application would be made to the Secretary of State.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. It seems to me that the nub of it is whether the application should go direct to the panel or to the Secretary of State who, if he thought there was a case to be made, obviously after discussion with the panel, would seek to quash the certificate under the powers in, I think, Clause 8(5). On the basis that he said that he would turn his mind to it, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Applications: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 46.
Page 4, line 25, leave out from "amount" to "for" in line 27 and insert "prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State unless the application is made in circumstances in which, in accordance with provision made by the order, no fee is payable; and fees of different amounts may be prescribed"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Appeals etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 47 to 48 not moved.]
Clause 9 [General]:
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 50.
Page 5, line 13, leave out "all purposes" and insert "the purposes of this Act"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return to this issue of Clause 9 and its blanket assertion that a person who gets a gender recognition certificate changes sex in law "for all purposes". It is notable that the Government chose to call this the Gender Recognition Bill, "gender" being a political term favoured by sociologists who like to think of one's sex as a fluid concept and something which can be changed. "Gender" is the word used to write most of this Bill.
However, in Clause 9 where it really counts, the word used is "sex". In law it is a person's sex that is said to change. In Committee we have had all the arguments about how ludicrous it is to suggest a person can change sex, but the Government are determined to legislate for it. However, it is not yet clear why it is that a person's sex must be changed in law for all purposes. I fear that if we leave this clause in, the law of unintended consequences will occur in spades. Who knows what speculative litigation could be launched by a person with a gender recognition certificate on the basis that he should, for all purposes,

407
be recognised as a woman? Sadly, some transsexuals seem to be extremely litigious, and very anxious to use the law to try to force other people to accept them in their chosen sex. It may be that they have felt excluded for many years and then, having got what they think they want, wish to parade it. I think it is probably a human failing, but that seems to be the way it happens.
The reason we are here with this Bill is that Christine Goodwin insisted on pressing his case all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. Before him we had Rees, Cossey, Sheffield and Horsham all of whom sued all the way up to Strasbourg. The Government believe that they have to conform to the ruling in Strasbourg. Do they need to go so far that, in UK law, for all purposes, a person's sex is changed? Is that the case in all 14 other European Community states, or are we, once more, gold-plating? I need not explain to your Lordships what "gold-plating" means. We seem to have been doing it for ever. I base that statement on all the experience that I had in the agriculture sector many years ago.
Once the Bill becomes an Act, a man really will become a woman in law. On the second day in Grand Committee, I gave the example of the BBC programme:
"At the moment there is an example in the news of a BBC programme in which a transsexual man was referred to as a man. Press for Change, the transsexual rights group is campaigning for the BBC always to refer to transsexuals in their chosen gender".
That is even before we have the Gender Recognition Act. I also said:
"That is indicative of the Orwellian nightmare that the Bill encourages. Will people who refuse to call a transsexual man a woman routinely face that kind of hostility? Given what we established yesterday"—
the first day of Grand Committee—
"which is that the Government believe that many people change their minds and revert to their real gender, or oscillate between the two"—
I must qualify that once more by saying that the Minister did not say "many"; it was the joint working party to which I referred earlier today—
"how are people to know which gender a person wants to be known as at any particular time? I say again that it is absurd to say that a man can become for all purposes a woman or vice versa".—[Official Report, 14/1/04; col. GC 64.]
There are recorded instances in the United Kingdom of individual transsexuals using legal threats to intimidate people into accepting their change of sex. Only last week, Elizabeth Bellinger, who took his case for recognition as a woman all the way to your Lordships' House threatened legal action against the Christian Institute. The institute published a briefing describing Mr Bellinger as a man, and Mr Bellinger says that that is libellous.
The Government seem to think that all transsexuals are delightful, kind and tolerant. Most people are delightful, kind and tolerant, but we cannot accept that transsexuals are different from any other sector of the population and that there are not some who are nasty, unkind and intolerant. The Bill potentially hands the more aggressive transsexuals a legal stick
408
with which to beat those who disagree with them. We must do more to limit the scope for vexatious litigation. We must do more to prevent the courts running amok with the legislation, forcing it to new extremes of which, no doubt, the Minister would disapprove.
Later at this stage, I shall come back to crucial issues of religious liberty in respect of which clear, unambiguous protections must be put in the Bill. In the mean time, I move the amendment to find out from the Minister the purposes for which a person's sex changes. Why must the provision be so broad? Why must it make an assertion that not only conflicts with common sense but could be used in whole areas of law to force acceptance of a person's sex change on unwilling conscientious objectors? Why cannot Clause 9 say simply that the legal change is only for the purposes specifically enumerated in the Bill, which is, after all, pretty comprehensive? I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, in making the argument for her amendment, the noble Baroness chose, one assumes, to describe several people known to me as nasty, litigious people.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords—
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, she used the word "nasty". I remind the noble Baroness, if she will bear with me, of the grotesque unfairness of what she said. Some of the people she cited went to law to obtain precisely that right which, it is to be hoped, this Bill will give them. Some of those people went to law and actually won in the end, but not in their own individual cases. We are talking about only a handful of cases, which resulted in one crucial victory in the European Court of Human Rights.
I invite the noble Baroness, when she responds to the debate, to withdraw what I am afraid is the slur that she has cast upon people such as Goodwin, and Mr Rees, who is very well known to me. I invite her to reflect upon the fact that it is she—and she has used her pronouns in a way that demonstrates it—who cannot accept the legislative purpose of the Bill and that it is colouring her view of those honest people who disagree with her and have fought for their rights.
This is a House, above all, that should support people who are prepared to go through difficult litigation in support of their rights. I have never advised in such a case and I have never appeared in such a case, but I have seen some of the papers in such cases. In every one of those cases, advice has been given by some of the most eminent international lawyers in this country that there was a reasonable prospect of success. The funding of the cases depended upon such advice, and the cases were brought on that basis.
I reject the argument that the noble Baroness makes in favour of her amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is slightly mistaken about what my noble friend said. It

409
was not that these individuals or that the whole of this class were nasty or whatever other adjectives she used, but that they did not differ from the rest of society in the proportion who were either good or bad, in those terms. Therefore, it was not quite the black-tarred brush to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am certainly prepared to accept that it may not have been quite the tarred brush to which I referred. Of course I will read the noble Baroness's words with great care. I will be the first to apologise if I have misunderstood either the words or the import of those words, but at the moment, I am afraid, I will take some persuading.
The noble Baroness is missing the whole basis of legislation. Legislation does not change our consciences at all—it merely confers legal status. When it says in the Bill "for all purposes", it means for all legislative purposes. We cannot change the cast of the noble Baroness's mind, if that is the cast she chooses to adopt on this issue. It can be cast in bronze, indestructible. I would not pretend that I could destroy the indestructible cast in her mind on this issue.
Please may we at least have some intellectually sustainable argument on these points? It is my belief—and I regret having to say this, but I feel extremely strongly about the way in which the argument is put—that we have not had intellectual robustness on this point; we have had an amendment presented on an entirely untenable basis.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support my noble friend. I do not pretend to know much about sex changes; I really came here to support Amendments Nos. 99 to 101 and to support the exception of religious bodies. However, I have listened to the argument and knowing, as I say, not very much about sex changes, it seems to me that we cannot be concerned with whether people are nasty or litigious or whether they receive advice from distinguished international lawyers. I was rather upset at the way in which my noble friend Lord Carlile put his objections, but that is beside the point. What matters is not the way in which objections are put or exactly the way in which the case is put for the amendment, but what the legislation actually entails. That is what I find difficult to understand.
I have never seen a statute quite in this form before. The Bill says "becomes for all purposes", and it is not limited to the purposes of the Act. I do not understand what all the purposes are if they are other than the purposes of the Act. If they are other than the purposes of the Act, why are they dealt with in the statute? I hope that I am not being tiresome, but I feel that this is a curious way in which to legislate. I listened to my noble friend's argument, and it seemed to me to make total sense. If one casts aside irrelevant considerations about the quality of the persons that we are talking about, which is really nothing to do with the Bill, I suggest with respect that the amendment should be accepted.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I sought to set out in Committee that the Bill's basic principle is that the
410
issue of a gender recognition certificate by the judicial panel would mean that a person's gender becomes for all purposes in law the acquired gender. That is in truth the absolute heart of the Bill; in essence, after the process of inquiry and testing, which we have discussed at length today, when or if the panel comes to that conclusion that the tests set out in the Bill have been met, the person's gender in law becomes for all purposes the gender as granted by the Act. That is the central thrust of the Bill.
Clause 9 allows for relative simplicity in the Bill itself. It contains a general proposition about the effects of the issue of a full gender recognition certificate and hence avoids the need to spell out each and every instance in law for which gender is relevant. Why does that matter? It matters because, pretty obviously, we have been legislating for hundreds of years with reference to gender. There are literally thousands and thousands of references to gender in legislation.
There is nothing malign here. In a sense, this is the reverse of our previous debate about marriage. The intent of the Bill is that if gender has been changed and a person is recognised in law as a woman as a result of the process, they are a woman for all legal purposes relevant in other legislation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister mean for all purposes recognised by law?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do exactly, yes. That may be of some slight comfort. For example, because there is reference to pensions and benefits within the Bill, it is clear and transparent that the Bill would apply to pensions and benefits. However, if we passed the amendment, it would mean that the Bill would not apply to all the other thousands of situations in which gender was recognised and which had a relevance in law. That would mean legal chaos, which I do not believe was the intent of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, with this amendment. Her amendment at heart goes into issues that we shall discuss later relating to the social or religious situations in which it is or is not legitimate to discriminate. Without prejudging those issues, we shall come to them; it is important that we test them.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the Minister said that if the Bill became law a man who changed his sex would become a woman for all legal purposes. Is it not the case that the Bill provides that he will not be entitled, if he becomes a woman, to start drawing his pension at the age of 60? So it is not really for all legal purposes.
Lord Filkin: No, my Lords, not so. He would become entitled to draw his pension at the age at which a woman can, so it is an exact parity. We have sought to make that clear because it seems to us that there should be an absolutely clear, black and white position. It works both for and against people, but it follows the gender.

411
I turn to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, about what other countries do. All the other members of the Council of Europe, not the European Union, with the exception of Ireland and Albania—we found one more—already have a recognition system in place. Not all countries have passed legalisation to enable gender recognition to occur. Some rely on the courts or on administrative processes. Our laws and constitutional arrangements quite properly require us to legislate to require recognition of the acquired gender.
We touched on the question of whether we are gold-plating. The European Court of Human Rights made t quite clear that the recognition of a change of gender meant recognition of a new gender in law. The court specifically mentioned the areas of birth registration, access to records, family law, affiliation, inheritance, criminal justice, employment, social security and insurance. We can ensure compliance with international obligations only by ensuring that a person has recognition for all purposes. To avoid doubt, even if we did not have that obligation, we would want, as a position of policy, to be consistent on this. I shall say no more on that.
The noble Baroness also asked whether people who refuse to call a gender-changed man by the changed gender would be open to action. No, they would not, unless they had information about the person's gender history in an official capacity and they disclosed it otherwise than is allowed for by Clause 21.
We shall come to some of the other issues later on in our discussions and I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw at this point.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, before the Minister sits down will he say whether, if a man changed his gender at 60, to claim a pension early, and then changed it back at 65, it would be regarded as fraud?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, if a man changed his gender to a woman at 60 he would not be able to change it back to a man at 65, unless the tests set in law by the gender recognition panel were met. As we have signalled in previous discussions on this very small proportion of cases, the panel would look very closely at whether the tests were met: that there was gender dysphoria and a permanent intention and that they had lived in the changed gender for two years. It would be fraud if, as a result of that process, it came to light that evidence that he had given to the panel as part of the first application had been dishonest. In theory, the fact that he had applied to change back would not automatically mean that there was fraud. It would depend upon whether he had given fraudulent information to the panel.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, would the Minister have been able to accept my noble friend's amendment
412
if she had used the words of my noble friend Lord Campbell; that is, "all purposes in law"? Would he have found that satisfactory?
Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I would like to thank practically everyone who took part in this debate. I shall start by referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said. Frankly, he wholly misrepresented what I said. I did quote the names because I said they were litigious. I also said that one should not think that some people are litigious for the right reasons at times. I never said anything about the people who had litigated. I said that, like in the rest of the population, there are some nasty, vexatious, and all the rest of it, people. I definitely said that. Then I was accused of having a mind cast of bronze. He said that I would never be moved. I think that that is most unfair. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, will reflect on what he said. If he knows anything at all about me, he knows that I am very ready to listen to arguments and that I do change my mind—it is, they say, a woman's privilege, although I do not back that. The reality is that I do listen to the strength of the arguments. The opinion of Lord Carlile, as expressed in your Lordships' House tonight, is that I am absolutely immovable—that I get hold of one set of ideas and am not prepared to budge. That is quite wrong.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that third party interests are involved. I refer to litigation that has been instituted against religious bodies, which I shall discuss on later amendments. The Christian Institute is being sued. There seems to be no compassion in the noble Lord's mind regarding those who have been sued by transsexuals. It occurs to me that perhaps the only people we are worried about are transsexuals. We want to be sympathetic towards transsexuals and we want them to be embraced by the whole of society. We want them to be content as they have obviously undergone a huge amount of trauma. I do not want to say that transsexuals experience mental problems as I shall be taken to task on that, but I appreciate that they experience unease and lack calmness. We want to try to avoid that situation. I am the first to say that we accept that these people are genuinely worried about their situation and that we must do what we can for them.
I return to the amendment. I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and particularly my noble friend Lord Elton for standing up for me. I also thank my noble friend Lord Marlesford. I should also like to thank the Minister very much. We had a bit of a canter round this course yesterday afternoon. I gave him notice of the points that I intended to make with regard to the practice in various countries. It is interesting to know that there are only two countries in the Council of Europe, Ireland and Albania, that do not have a system in place vis-a-vis gender recognition and that they would approach the matter on a case-by-case basis. I have a lot to do with one of those countries but nothing to do with the other. I can see the merit in that approach.

413
I am still very concerned. I shall read everything that was said. I was slightly knocked off course by the first contribution to the debate after I sat down. Therefore, I am not perhaps doing justice to what the Minister said. However, I shall read what he said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Clause 10[Registration]:
[Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Registration]:
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 17, line 18, leave out "not"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 55 to 67 relate to Schedule 3. They are all designed to reverse the duty of secrecy placed on the Registrar General.
It seems to me that in logic the amendment to the birth certificate of an individual who is judged to have changed gender should be dated on the date on which that event occurs. It seems to me fundamentally wrong that it should be dated at the date of birth of the individual. This Bill, of course, legislates otherwise. That persuades me all the more strongly that there should be on grounds of public interest a general right to know that the register of births has been amended. The register of births is itself a public document. It is a document of record, of fact. It seems to me that it should not be allowed, or required, that an amendment to it should be secret.
Amendment No. 114 would amend Clause 21 and would provide a public interest defence for a person who discloses information in addition to that listed in subsection (4). Again, it seems to me that there is a public interest issue here. We should not penalise a person who comes across information in the way described in Amendment No. 114 and who then realises that in his view it is in the public interest that it should be disclosed. We should provide a defence for him to do that and he should not be penalised for it. It should be for a court to decide whether it was a genuine belief that it was in the public interest which caused him to disclose. We went around this matter very briefly in Grand Committee when I was unable to be present. I believe that the Minister did not go very deeply into the arguments against these amendments at that stage. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I support the point that my noble friend made. A certificate which does not in any way reveal the fact that it is different from the one issued at birth is mendacious. It is making a false statement in law. It is extraordinary that we should be asked to do that. If I am wrong I apologise, but if I am right I am adamant.
Lord Chan: My Lords, the information is important particularly if there has been a change in gender from the medical viewpoint. Let us take the example of a person who says that he is male and is in fact female from the point of view of the chromosomes. We know
414
of a rare but dangerous syndrome of people who have been transfused with blood from women and there is a transfusion reaction. It is an interesting fact which has come to the notice of blood transfusion services and of clinical haematologists.
Therefore, as regards health the original birth certificate should be produced because it will determine whether we are dealing with a man or a woman. There is a transfusion reaction which arises particularly when a woman has had one or two children. I accept that this reaction to female blood is exceedingly rare. But it has been recorded in the United Kingdom in about 50 cases. On medical grounds there is a need for a person who has received a gender recognition certificate to disclose what their sex was at birth.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, almost supported my recent amendment, I am unable to support his. In this case it is important that people who are transsexuals should be entitled to privacy. It is a condition which attracts a good deal of hostility. In many cases there will be a fairly large circle of the transsexual's friends and family who will know anyway. No doubt it will be a matter of general knowledge. But it is not desirable that the ability to find out facts of this kind should be increased.
I am particularly concerned about Amendment No. 114, which adds another defence to prosecution for disclosure under Clause 21. It seems to me that it is plainly right that people who come by information about transsexuals in the course of their official business should not be allowed to make disclosures of it except in clearly controlled circumstances. I do not consider that a subjective belief that disclosure is in the public interest would be a satisfactory ground for exemption from the criminal penalties.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am not happy with the amendment, and was about to say so for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, concerning the protection of privacy. He put it so much better than I could have done. However I am particularly worried about a gender recognition register being open to certain sections of the press which could well, apart from the medical considerations, use it for wholly improper purposes with total impunity as a public document. I am worried about the amendment.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, we legislate against many things that we dislike, such as racial discrimination and discrimination of many other kinds, but we have not tried to rewrite the fact of what people are—that is, we have not tried to redefine people as being something else. It concerns me that we are trying to turn matters of fact into something else One cannot legislate to change history, but that is the effect of what we are doing. Once we start down that path, what else shall we redefine retrospectively?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. Essentially, they state that other people should be entitled to know about a person's change of gender, that all new birth certificates should be marked to indicate that a change in gender has taken place, and that the gender recognition register should be open to public inspection. In addition, Amendment No. 114 states that that information can be disclosed if the person disclosing it believes it to be in the public interest to do so.
Perhaps I may quickly respond to the precise point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. Guidance will explain to transsexual people the medical risk that he mentioned—I am pleased that he did so—and it will state that they must make the risk known when presenting to hospital. The same protection applies to a person who is, say, allergic to penicillin. However, if the noble Lord feels that that is not a sufficiently full answer, we shall be happy to engage in correspondence with him on how to provide the medical protection that we all agree is necessary in those situations.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will be kind enough to give way. She is saying that the person who has changed gender should advise the hospital. But what is the position if people are taken into hospital unconscious and are unable to advise those who are looking after them or if they have a mental problem which, again, means that they are not in a position to give such advice?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the situation may be no different from that of someone who is at risk of being allergic to penicillin but is not able to disclose that information. However, as I said, because this is a very precise point and because I very much respect the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, on this matter, we shall try to give a general assurance through guidance. I am happy to follow up this matter to make it more robust as obviously no one wants the type of situation anticipated by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, to arise. However, it is not unknown, in a whole range of circumstances, for medical practitioners not to know about a problem that a patient may have if he is unconscious or has a severe mental health difficulty. Established protocols exist to deal with that situation.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I do not believe that that was the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. It is not the people who have changed gender who will be at risk; the point is that they will pose a risk by giving blood to a third party. They may give blood and wish to conceal their gender change, thereby putting a third party, who knows nothing about it, at risk. If it were the other way round, I would not have a problem.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was trying to cover both contingencies. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, raised the question of the risk to another person—a matter which I hope would be covered by
416
the guidance to that transsexual person. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, made concerned the equivalent of someone being unconscious and therefore being at risk. There, I was trying to make the analogy with a person who is allergic to penicillin. However, perhaps I may follow that up in writing and, if the noble Lord, Lord Chan, or other noble Lords feel that we have not addressed the issue satisfactorily, we can obviously pursue it because we would not wish that risk to be realised.
Perhaps I may return to the core of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and the argument put forward in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. The argument was that there can be a public interest, if a person so believes it, in being able to find out, disclose, and claim a public interest defence as regards someone having changed their gender. If we do that I do not know where we stop on the line between privacy and outing. It could end up like the pursuit of witchcraft. I have thought about the amendment and I believe that it cannot hold.
It would allow any person to disclose that protected information on his or her own understanding of the public interest. Any parent might think that it was in the public interest for other parents to know about a teacher in a school; any landlord or neighbour might think that it was in the public interest for other neighbours, tenants or residents to know; any employer who knew that an employee was transsexual might think it was in the public interest for other employees to know that; the secretary of any voluntary society might believe that it was in the public interest for any member of that society to know. I am sure that any tabloid newspaper would believe that it was, if not in the public interest, of public interest for everyone to know.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but she gave an example that a parent might wish to tell other parents at a school that one of the teachers was a transsexual. It is regrettable, but I do not believe that that would be an offence under Clause 21, because it might apply only if the parent had acquired that information in an official capacity. If they simply happened to know, that would not be an offence.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is not correct. It refers to a person in a public capacity; but the point is that if one opens up records in such a way, then there is no protection against people having access to that knowledge and claiming a public interest defence, should they need to, after spreading the knowledge about. The amendment means that anyone who is a transsexual could not expect or hope to live a life of privacy. If anyone could check any birth certificate and then spread that information, whether they are in a public or private position, because they have access to that relatively freely available information, I do not see how the line between that and fully outing any transsexual can be drawn, because someone will always argue that it is in the public interest of other people to know. I find that impossible

417
to defend, because everyone would have a different version of the public interest, according to their subjective, personal belief—however genuine that may be.
I do not believe that Amendment No. 113 has been spoken to and the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Winchester has not spoken to his amendment either, because he is absent. Having made that argument, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will not pursue the amendment further, because if he does, the right to privacy, which is currently protected by the restrictions around information on birth certificates and others, would be blown apart by anyone who wished to find out. That would leave no transsexual person comfortable in their right to privacy.
Baroness James of Holland Park: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I would like to ask a question. I apologise to the House that I did not attend the Grand Committee. We know that certain illnesses—including those that are dangerous and horrible—are passed down through one sex only. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, could confirm that haemophilia is one such condition. Would descendants of a woman with haemophilia, who had changed her sex, have the right to ascertain that fact?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, certainly the immediate children would know, because they would be the offspring of that person. The question is relevant to an amendment to be moved later by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, which says that if someone has the date of birth and the original name of the person they can check that record, thereby obtaining the information on a "need to know" basis for the descendants of that family.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate. I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chan, who lit a candle of light in a dark room. He said that whatever the certificate states, whatever the legal status of a person's sex, he or she is still of the sex into which they were born. If someone was born a woman, she is carrying a woman's blood and that is it—end of message, complete and absolute. That so conflicts with everything in the Bill, it undercuts the basis of the Bill and all the arguments that have been put about it. He was saying that one's sex is immutable. From my inadequate understanding of these matters, I had always believed that and it is greatly comforting to me to have that assurance from the noble Lord. Lord Chan.
I turn to the arguments that have been made and the talk of "outing" people. The first thing we must understand is that a very strong case indeed must be made that the kind of information that is held by the state should be maintained secret. That conflicts with the very idea of a Freedom of Information Act. It absolutely and completely conflicts with that. I believe that there should be a right to know.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is right in saying that it is most inconvenient that we have in our press some people who would want to use the
418
information in an unpleasant and unfortunate manner. But that is true of all information that can be extracted about anyone. One might equally well say that divorce should be kept secret; that no one should know that a person has been divorced; that no one should know that his or her parents were not married; and that no one should know—one can go on and on.
I do not believe therefore that transsexualism is so different from all the others that we must totally reverse our normal ideas on the right to know. In any case, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, a large circle of people would know. It will not be made a punishable offence for those who know already to tell others who do not, so the information will spread. In any case, it cannot be kept secret. We are saying that as regards the state the normal ideas and attitudes that are embodied in a Freedom of Information Act should be stood on their head. I do not believe that that is right.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. In relation to what he is saying about freedom of information, I am wondering whether we have joined-up government. I understand that the Government are to make it possible for sperm-donor fathers to be named. It seems that we have in the Bill an attempt at concealment while on the other hand there is an attempt to "out" the sperm-donor fathers of children. Does the noble Lord agree that we do not have joined up government?
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right; the Government are facing in two directions at once. They have got themselves into a totally illogical position.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. The reason the Government face in two directions at once is because, as everyone in your Lordships House will accept, there are two pieces of legislation. One is the Freedom of Information Act, which is the right to know, and the other is the Data Protection Act, which protects sensitive, personal information. Under freedom of information and the right to know, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has no right to the knowledge of any of our private medical records. That is protected by the Data Protection Act.
I accept that it is a matter of balance. In any walk of life there would be a balance between the right to know and the protection of personal, private information. Given all that we know about people seeking to live with an acquired gender—let alone other people, whether alleged paedophiles or whoever—I believe that people have a right to the protection of their personal information unless and until the need to know falls within very defined categories; I refer, for example, to the investigation and prevention of crime and the matters that were discussed in Committee. That is where the Government have drawn the line.
6 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Baroness has every right to inspect my birth certificate and she has

419
every right, when she inspects it, to believe that what it says is true and correct. In the case of a transsexual she said that if anyone inspects his or her birth certificate, that person would not have the right to know that it falsely represents that the person was born male when the person was born female or vice versa. It seems to me that there is a case for saying that such information should be freely available.
The Minister was very dismissive at one stage about the circle of people who had some right to know and who would know. In that she included the offspring. Of course she is completely wrong. What about the case of a marriage that has broken up, where the father has left and, as usual, the mother is left with the children? The father goes away completely, becomes a transsexual and his birth certificate is amended; the children and the mother make no contact with the father; but eventually the offspring track down their parentage—most people want to know about their parentage; they find that they were born to a father, Mr Joe Bloggs; and they find his birth certificate, but it says that he is a woman. Do they have the right to know how that has come about?
Lord Elton: My Lords, would my noble friend enlighten me as to what the birth register, of which the birth certificate is a copy, would say? Would the register be amended as well as the certificate?
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before my noble friend answers my other noble friend, surely if the offspring are unable to find a birth certificate showing that their father was male, they may believe that they were born out of wedlock and therefore bastards.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, as I understand it, that particular description of being born out of wedlock is no longer one that we use. It certainly is not true that the offspring will necessarily know of those matters, but it is certainly true that they ought to know of them. Of course, if they go to the registrar and seek a certificate, they will receive a copy that is a false copy. That is the heart of the matter. As I understand it, the registrar would commit an offence if he told an inquirer that it was a false copy. I believe that that makes a very strong case that there should be an obligation on the registrar to disclose. There should be an obligation on the registry not merely to be true, but to be true and open to everyone who inquires about the matter. There should not be two classes of persons: those who have discovered the truth, perhaps through gossip, and those who seek to discover the truth by applying to the registrar, who should be the custodian of the truth.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: Does the noble Lord consider that the distinction in this case, and in all the other cases to which we have referred, is that a genuine medical condition is being addressed by this process and that the presumption of secrecy applies in the case of all medical processes? I recognise that the noble Lord does not acknowledge the validity, authenticity
420
and truthfulness of that medical condition. The plain fact is that the strong, predominant—although not unanimous—balance of opinion is that there is a genuine medical condition. For that reason, the presumption of secrecy should apply unless there are recognised reasons—we shall discuss these matters on later amendments—that a balancing of right needs to take place. Generally speaking, I believe that the presumption of privacy goes alongside the recognition that there is a genuine medical condition. That is at the heart of why the Government are so proceeding.
It is one of the areas where a practical matter touches upon the deep division of opinion as to whether the process of gender reassignment is to be recognised. As so often is the case, it is practical matters which bring out those divisions rather than theoretical discussions.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may ask one question of him on a point that he raised. A person asks the registrar, "Can I see my father's or mother's certificate?" It is a changed certificate. If that person were to ask the registrar, "Is this an original or is it changed?", is the registrar not bound to say, "No, it is an original", in which case is not the registrar obliged to lie?
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, yes, the registrar is obliged to lie. I say this to the right reverend Prelate. Yes, there is a controversy in the world of medicine as to whether it is a medical or psychological condition. We also know that the world of medicine changes its mind quite frequently, sometimes in a spectacular fashion as we have seen recently in the press in relation to cases of infant cot deaths, and matters of that kind.
We have to go back and say that the birth certificate should record what is true. If a birth certificate states, as the Bill provides that it should, that where a person was born as a female, has borne children and subsequently has suffered from transsexual dysphoria, the birth certificate which would be shown on any inquiry would say that that person was born a male. That is manifestly untrue. There should be a very high threshold for us to legislate that something which is manifestly untrue should not only be certified as true but that all mention of it being untrue should be concealed. That is the point.
I place a considerable regard upon truth. If there is a conflict between truth and untruth I think that the House should come down on the side of truth even if it is uncomfortable.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, clearly we need to hear the Minister's response. There has to be demonstrated a contemporary relevance for the information to be made available pertaining to the birth gender—or whatever one wishes to call it. I do not think that there is a case for the general availability and openness of the register.
Lord Tebbit: No, my Lords. A case has to be made not for the release of the information but for maintaining secrecy about the information. I think

421
that is a different balance, but I do not wish to detain the House longer. I can see that the noble Baroness is slightly uneasy. Was she intending to rise?
Baroness Mollis of Heigham: My Lords, I wish to intervene because the debate has gone in a direction that I had not expected. In a way it trespasses on a subsequent amendment. I thought that a lot of these matters would come up then.
Basically, there will be two birth certificates. The original birth certificate will not be destroyed. If someone goes to the registrar he could be provided with a copy of the certificate requested. The original birth certificate remains. Anyone knowing the original name, date and place of birth—as one would expect a child or grandchild with access to relatives in the family to know—would be able to obtain it.
The certificate consists of either the original birth entry or the entry on the gender recognition register, which is the alternative. Both will be genuine. There can be no question of the registrar having to lie. So the original records are there. Those who are privy to such information—usually because they are the son, daughter or a grandchild, and it may have some concern for them if there is a medical history and so on—would be able with that information, as now, to get to the original records. But if we do not have that—so to speak—firebreak, there is no protection to privacy.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, there is no protection to privacy about one's birth anyway. I do not see why one group of people should have it and not others. But I am concerned that we have had an exhaustive discussion about this issue and I would not wish to carry it further.
However, I might leave one thought with the noble Baroness; that is, if we are not careful this will play merry hell at some stage with those who go in for genealogical research, unless we can be sure about it. Perhaps there should be a sunset clause somewhere which states that after 100 years or so the information is freely available.
That is not related to my original point but it had occurred to me. With that thought in mind, and in the interests of getting on this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 17, line 19, at end insert "during the lifetime of a registered person"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the rights of third parties. Indeed, some of the debate that has just taken place may see some light when we discuss these amendments.
Basically, these amendments are in two parts. The first group relates to determining the timing when details in the register can be made public; that is, to the general public. The other amendments relate to the family.
422
First, I deal with the amendments which relate to the public. Amendments Nos. 56, 62, 72, 74, 77 and 79 determine the timing when details in the register can be made public. In Grand Committee we suggested in our amendments that details should be made public and generally available after 75 years. Our amendments have changed to suggest that the information should become generally available, but not within the lifetime of the applicant.
Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carlilc, first made the proposal during our debate in Grand Committee. In response to that suggestion the Minister stated that the proposition "during the lifetime" and not during the lifetime of the applicant may be useful.
My purpose in tabling these amendments on Report is because I am looking to the Government for reassurance that this proposal really will be seriously considered.
In Grand Committee, the Minister explained that a consultation period on civil registration records, as such, finished at the end of October 2003, a major part of which sought views on the ways in which records of births, deaths and marriages should be held and accessed. I accept that and indeed welcome that that review has taken place. I seek reassurance from the Government that this matter is being taken seriously with regard to the Bill. It is unfortunate that the Minister has so far felt it preferable to await the outcome of that consultation process rather than to include something specific on the face of the Bill.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 68, 76 and 82. These amendments relate to the rights of families. They would make provisions in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland so that with the consent of individuals holding gender recognition certificates, or following their deaths, a child or grandchild could be provided with a copy of the original birth certificate. I stress again—my noble friend Lord Tebbit may be interested to hear this; it is an issue on which he asked questions in the previous debate—that we are looking to the question of whether, and if so when and by what means, members of the family can have access to the original birth certificate.
In Grand Committee, the Minister responded that the family is able to access information about the name and date of birth. The Minister said that if a member of the family knew the name and date of birth, they would be able to obtain a copy of the birth certificate. In a sense, that is a good answer. However, where does it say that in the Bill? It is clear from paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 3 that information kept by the Registrar General for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c)— that is, information to make traceable the connection between the entry in the gender recognition register and the UK birth register entry—is not open to public inspection or search.
However, some of the difficulties that we are debating arise from the fact that so little of that is clear on the face of the Bill. I have spent some considerable time trying to understand the process with regard to what happens to the original birth certificate and where it is kept. The Minister has been very

423
forthcoming and helpful in confirming in writing to me and other noble Lords that, for example, the original birth certificate is not altered or destroyed. However, it is regrettable that the process with regard to what happens to the original birth certificate is not clear on the face of the Bill. I therefore urge the Government to think again about making clear on the face of the Bill who can access what information and by what means. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to say that although I think the amendment is defective because it refers to the register as a whole, I have sympathy with the ideas behind it. Since the concealment of information is due to the wish to maintain the privacy of and prevent embarrassment to an individual during his or her lifetime, in due course that information should be made available for the purposes of the historical record. The question of what is the right time to make it available may be open to debate. It certainly would not be appropriate during the lifetime of the person concerned, but it may be after death or at least after a certain interval after death.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there are two separate issues. The first concerns access to information, which may or may not be medical, for the immediate descendants of that family. The second issue concerns the point at which the information becomes a matter of public record, so that genealogists and historians can track family histories. In a way, those are separate issues.
In Committee, we gave reassurances on the first issue and spoke to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. The original birth records will not be destroyed. As now, the original birth record will remain in existence and be available for inspection to anyone who has the relevant birth details: name, date of birth and, usually, place of birth. It is difficult to conceive of a situation in which that information would not be known to the spouse or members of the family and therefore available to children. I think that the noble Lord wants to intervene.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Baroness recognises the mischievous look in my eye. Why should the record be maintained? If a certificate has been issued to say that it was wrong and that the person was actually born in the old sex, why not alter it and throw away the old record? Or is the noble Baroness a bit unsure of her case?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my grandmother had a house in Plymouth that was bombed during the war. Opposite was some land that was also bombed and was cleared. Subsequently, new housing was built on it. As a result, her address went from No. 76 to No. 82. Both were true statements: No.
424
76 applied until the bombing; No. 82 applied after the rebuilding. Both were true statements; as a result, no lie or deception was involved.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Baroness gives a very good answer, except that no one says that the date on which the number of the house was changed was the date on which it was originally built. The number changed after the house was bombed.
Baroness Mollis of Heigham: My Lords, we could continue to discuss the state of my grandmother's house opposite the Marine barracks, which would be fun. My point is that information can be changed in that way and still remain authentic.
As for the wider issue of when the information would become more widely available—to people other than children and grandchildren with the detailed knowledge that one would expect family members and only family members to have—whether after 75 years or in the person's lifetime—
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I may foreshorten her response by asking whether, if, for whatever reason, we cannot have the information in the Bill, we can have it in the guidance.
Baroness Mollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not sure whether Pepper v Hart will do this for us, but I should have thought that our helpful exchanges in Committee and on Report should serve that purpose. If not, I shall take further advice, but I understand that when judgments are made on such issues, the context of parliamentary debate and the parliamentary record to that effect are taken into account. My understanding is that that should serve the noble Baroness's purpose; it certainly has done for previous Bills with which I have been involved. If not, we will return to the matter.
I sympathise with the point about genealogy. As someone who has been involved in historical reconstruction, and so on, I, too, would like access to such records. We mentioned in Committee that consultation is under way on civil registration reform, a major part of which seeks views on how records of deaths, births and marriages should be held, assessed and released. Some people are concerned about ethnicity as a source of information in records. We may or may not need information at that level of detail.
In Committee, we asked the noble Baroness and now ask the noble Lord to let us take the issue on board as part of that general review, rather than seek to prejudge it. I am entirely sympathetic, but any rule—whether for after 75 years or even after a person's death—could produce distress to others such as descendants. We could argue about how we weigh that against the need and right to know when the individual is no longer alive, but, given that the review is under way, we prefer, and think it reasonable to ask, to submerge the issue within the general review of civil registration reform.

425
No doubt when and if a Bill is introduced, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord can move amendments if they feel that their concerns have not been met. Given that the review is current, it is unhelpful to try to subtract that issue in advance.
Finally, I refer the noble Baroness to paragraph 32 of the Explanatory Notes.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I thought Pepper v Hart only applied if there was ambiguity on the face of the Bill or a conflict with European law? Otherwise, what is in the Bill applies and you cannot look at Pepper v Hart.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as far as concerns Pepper v Hart, if there is any ambiguity or division of opinion as to what may be the situation, then, as I understand it, you may refer to the columns of Hansard in so far as they clarify the policy intent of Parliament.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, could she also clarify one point for me? It relates to what my noble friend Lord Tebbit said. He said that when you go down to inspect the register, if the birth certificate has been changed, why keep the original? The Minister says there are reasons for that, but does that not mean that there are then two birth certificates—the original one and the amended one? If so, what is the point of saying that nobody must refer to the original if it is still there?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this is all about privacy and the right to privacy circumscribed by certain considerations—national security, crime, public health—that may impinge on that. There are indeed two birth certificates. People would have access to the acquired gender birth certificate. It would not be distinctive in any way. But the original one would exist in the same way as when studying the maps of Nottingham, I found that streets that later got called Corporation Street were originally known as Asylum Lane. I did not, as a result, suggest to my students that they got rid of the original maps. They kept both sets.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, surely the birth certificate is a certified copy of the entry in the register of births. Is the Minister saying that that original entry is to be changed?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no. If someone goes there they do not inspect the full register; they get a certificate. They will normally get the certificate of their new acquired gender. I suspect that the transsexual person will get half a dozen copies of these birth certificates for passport purposes or whatever. The original records remain. People who have exceedingly detailed information—the name, date of birth, place of birth—would also have access to the original records. These are likely to be members of the immediate family. Both of those birth certificates are legitimate. But nobody has access to the full register until it is generally released.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and also all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It is clear that there is a genuine lack of clarity with regard to what happens to the original birth certificate and the whole process of accessing the information either on the part of the family or for the public record. With regard to the public record I accept what the Minister has said. I agree that we should wait for the results of the general review of civil registration and approach this issue when we discuss civil registration reform.
I would urge the Minister to consider my suggestion for having in the guidance a clear set of instructions or explanations as to this whole process. One of the reasons why this issue has been put down again on Report is that I have personally been asked by a number of noble Lords what actually happens with this situation. When the Bill was first published there was enormous concern as to whether this meant that the original birth certificate would be in some way destroyed or altered. I have to say that if that were the case I would certainly have great difficulty in supporting it. It really would be rewriting history.
I accept what the Minister has said. I do not want to delay the House, but I urge the Minister to consider making it as simple as possible for all of us. particularly applicants for gender recognition, to understand the process that they are entering into. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 57 to 65 not moved.]
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 18, line 28, at end insert "without the consent of the person to whom the entry relates"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments is split into five separate groups. I had every intention of speaking to the whole lot together, but, by leave of the House and after consultation with both Front Benches, I will try to get through as many as I can. In moving Amendment No. 66, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 75 and 81. All the amendments deal with religious issues in the Bill.
The Bill takes away rights from religious people. By giving transsexual people an officially altered birth certificate, it creates an official way of concealing their true sex from religious groups that they might try to join. That is an issue of great religious importance. As Christian teaching is that sex is determined by God from conception, Christians believe that to reject one's God-given sex is to reject God's will for one's life. They also believe that the male and female sexes reflect the image of God and that to attempt to switch the two is a desecration of the image of God in oneself.
If one is in a Church that teaches that, it matters very much whether a person really is the sex that they claim to be. If someone considering an application for membership, which means being an integral part of the Church's fellowship, has any doubts, they need a way of getting to the truth. At present, a person who attempts to conceal his true sex from a Church does not have the assistance of the state. A Church can, like

427
anyone else, obtain from the Registrar General a copy of the person's birth certificate, which will state their true biological sex. If somebody presents under a false name and sex, there will be no birth certificate for that person. That will set alarm bells ringing. If the person is asked to produce a copy of his certificate, he must either decline, in which case the Church can draw its own conclusions, or present the real thing, which tells the truth. When the Bill becomes an Act, such a person will be able to give the Church a birth certificate that conceals his birth sex. Even if the Church approaches the Registrar General directly, it will only get a certificate that states the opposite of the truth.
A Church that relies on official information could be duped into accepting into membership a person who fundamentally rejects some of the basic teachings of the Church. It could even inadvertently marry such a person to a member of the congregation or employ them on the church staff. In Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, expressed incredulity that a person who professed faith could perpetrate such deception on their place of worship. I do not say that all transsexuals would do so, but some might. Sadly, not all people who claim allegiance to a faith are honest and straightforward—I am not talking about transsexuals now. Transsexuals tend to rewrite their own history. That is undeniable. Almost by definition, some will have a strong desire to keep their true sex secret. They may even effectively blank out the truth from their own mind. So somebody could try to deceive a Church with assistance from the state. There is a real need to have clear and water-tight protections on the face of the Bill to protect religious bodies from this possibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that the state should not get involved in this relationship between a Church and an individual worshipper. In fact, the noble Baroness stated in Grand Committee that,
"the state should have as minimal a role as possible".—[Official Report, 14/1/04; col. GC78.]
But the state is already getting involved in this relationship by giving the transsexual the official paperwork he needs to dupe the Church.
The Bill already represents a major intervention in the relationship between a transsexual and his place of worship. I suggest that the Government cannot create this totally new legal situation and then step back and wash their hands of the consequences.
Amendments Nos. 66, 75 and 81 are part of a group which specifically address marriage, membership and employment with a religious group, as well as use of a church for services. I will say more about the rest of these amendments as we come to them. But the purpose of this amendment is to make it clear on the face of the Bill that, with consent, the Registrar General can disclose the fact that a person has an entry on the gender recognition register.
We have heard from Ministers that Churches which are concerned to protect their beliefs about sex can simply ask the person concerned. I have taken this to
428
heart, and these three amendments enshrine that. A request always has to be made with the person's consent. It makes it explicit that a person's consent can be obtained in order to establish categorically whether he has changed his sex under the Bill.
I suggest that there is no invasion of privacy here. The Registrar General can provide a third party with official notification of a change of sex only with the consent of the person concerned. If there is no consent, there is no disclosure.
The Government clearly believe that the people who would have gender recognition certificates as a result of the Bill would be open and transparent with Churches. But in the Bellinger case, it is quite clear that the registrar was duped because in the certificate that was presented for the marriage of Bellinger, it specifically said, according to the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that Mrs Bellinger was a spinster. Surely the Government must realise that if the registrar can be duped, Churches can also be duped.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said in Grand Committee:
"In any case, if a religious minister or organisation needs to know whether a person is or is not a transsexual person, the solution would be to ask the person, particularly if their co-religionist is within a specific faith. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the question being asked. I do not understand why we should assume that a person who is asked this question—a person who is a member of the same religious community—will refuse to answer or will lie, particularly to his priest. Essentially, I cannot believe that a member of a faith group will base his faith on bad faith. That is what the amendment impugns".—[Official Report, 14/1/04; GC.79.]
Sadly, I disagree. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hope that I can be fairly brief. I was slightly baffled because on some occasions the noble Baroness seemed to be arguing amendments which were benign—that X could not be done unless the transsexual consented to it. Yet on other occasions she felt that it was necessary because the transsexual might dupe some organisation, possibly a religious one. As these are diametrically opposed positions, I was not sure which one she was arguing.
I shall take Amendments Nos. 66, 75 and 81, as I understand them. The amendments would allow a certified copy of an entry on the gender recognition register to reveal that it comes from that register and so to reveal the gender history of that person if that person, he or she, consented. I have two points. First, I am advised that it would be unworkable in practice as the registrar would have to keep a record of the consent of the person concerned. Secondly, in practice, I wonder whether it is at all necessary. If the transsexual person agrees that the registrar may reveal it, why should the transsexual not agree that he or she would reveal it to whoever directly asked them for that information or identity? I do not understand why, in the case of any transsexual person who is willing and has given consent to have that information revealed,

429
the information needs to be looped through the registrar. Perhaps I have misunderstood the import of the noble Baroness's amendments.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, it seems to me that that question answers itself. If a minister of a Church were to ask a person whether they were a transsexual, they might quite easily say no. The minister now has nowhere to go. But if the minister says, "Do you give your permission for an inspection of the register" and the person says, "No, I don't", the minister would be well advised to conclude that they were concealing something.
Baroness Mollis of Heigham: My Lords, in which case, the minister can withhold consent to what is being asked for.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, indeed, and it is the withholding of consent that would be the very answer that the minister wanted, would it not?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as a later amendment seeks to establish, in that case the minister could draw from it what conclusion that minister saw fit, and therefore refuse to solemnise the marriage, for example. That position is covered.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I shall consider the matter. I was probably confused by the way in which I delivered the amendments. I thank the Minister. I shall read the Official Report and talk to her afterwards. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 67 to 70 not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 20, line 9, leave out paragraph 11 and insert—
"11 The Chancellor of the Exchequer may by order amend this Part in consequence of any order under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (c. 6) which includes provision relating to the system of registration of births and adoptions in England and Wales."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 72 to 84 not moved.]
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Effect on marriage]:
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, I remind the House that if Amendment No. 85 is agreed, I shall not under the rules of preemption be able to call Amendments Nos. 87 to 91.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 26, line 3, leave out paragraph 3 and insert—
"After section 4 insert—
"4A MARRIAGES INVOLVING PERSON OF ACQUIRED GENDER

(1) No person shall be under any duty whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement to solemnise the marriage of a person—

(a) whose gender has become the acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, or

430

(b) who will not consent to the disclosure of any entry relating to him contained in the Gender Recognition Register.

(2) No clerk in Holy Orders of the Church in Wales shall be under any duty whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement to permit the marriage of such a person to be solemnised in the church or chapel of which the clerk is the minister.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government concede that there is a problem for Churches over marriage. The Bill as introduced contains a limited conscience clause for Anglican clergy in England and Wales, in recognition of their statutory duty to marry people from their parish. It allows them to refuse to marry a person who has a gender recognition certificate. However, the conscience clause immediately ran into difficulties when it was pointed out that the Bill gives clergymen no right to know a person's true sex. It allows them only to refuse if they knew that the person had a gender recognition certificate.
The Government have now tabled Amendments Nos. 87 and 90, which would allow an Anglican clergyman to decline to conduct a marriage if he reasonably believed that one of the parties had changed sex. While that doubtless moves in the right direction, it still falls a long way short. For a start, it still places an onus on the clergyman to prove the reasonableness of his belief. It still leaves him at risk of litigation over whether his belief is reasonable. Courts may spend days deliberating on the question of reasonableness. Is that fair to the clergyman?
It is also too narrow in scope. In Committee, I mentioned that the wedding ceremonies of some nonconformist denominations are carried out by laymen. The amendment still deals only with Anglican clergymen, so how will the Government amendment help them? The Minister will say that only Anglicans are under a statutory duty to perform weddings, so only they need a conscience clause. Why could a similar action to that in the case of Parry v The Maesteg Christian Centre—part of the Vine Christian Centre, to which I have referred on previous occasions—not be launched over marriage? In that case, a man wanted a court order forcing a church to recognise him as a woman and allow him access to the ladies' prayer meeting and the ladies' toilet. Why should Churches be laid open to the possibility?
After the Bill becomes an Act, the legal landscape in relation to transsexuals will fundamentally be changed. The Minister cannot say with certainty how far the courts will go with this. He cannot assure us that our judges will not seek to impose new obligations on bodies that perform wedding ceremonies. This is especially so when one takes into account Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 which states that public authorities must act in compliance with the convention on human rights. It gives a wide definition of public authorities, which includes any body that carries out functions of a public nature. The Minister will probably say that Churches are not public authorities. However, when they are conducting wedding ceremonies they are standing in the place of the state.

431
They have the duty, given to them by the state, to conduct weddings. Baptisms and other religious ceremonies are not public functions, but weddings are. The former Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, MP, made this clear during debates in the other place on the Human Rights Act. He said:
"On the occasions when Churches stand in the place of the state, convention rights are relevant to what they do. The two most obvious examples relate to marriages and to the provision of education in Church schools… We think it right in principle… that people should be able to raise convention points in respect of the actions of Churches in those areas on the same basis as they will be able to in respect of the actions of other public authorities".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/5/98; col. 1017.]
So Churches could be sued under the Human Rights Act over the way they carry out weddings.
There is another crucial new factor that greatly increases the risks that courts might take issue with Churches that will not conduct transsexual weddings: the Goodwin and I case. Since the Strasbourg court handed down its judgment in that case in July 2003, it has been a human right, under the European Convention on Human Rights, for a transsexual to wed. Mr Straw said that when Churches carry out weddings, convention rights are relevant to what they do. The convention gives a right to transsexuals to marry. This means that a transsexual who wants to sue is being handed several enormously powerful new legal arguments. There is ample scope for litigation against the Churches over marriage. Even if it is ultimately unsuccessful, why should Churches have to put up with this? The Government have not thought this through. This is an issue of fundamental importance. Do the Government believe that religious rights come such a distant second to the rights of transsexuals?
Does giving effect to the Goodwin judgment really mean that we have to expose Churches to this kind of litigation? What about registrars? I accept that they are civil servants who do the bidding of the state but when they signed up for the job transsexual weddings were illegal. Under this Bill they will be compelled to perform such weddings. Registrars, after all, have consciences too. Because of their religion or for other reasons they may well feel unable to solemnise a marriage between two people who are biologically of the same sex.
In Grand Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, compared registrars conducting weddings to Benefit Agency employees handing out payments. She asked in effect that, as the Benefits Agency employee could not allow his conscience to override his employment duties, why should a registrar? But a wedding is of far greater significance than a benefits payment. Surely the Government believe that there is something special about solemnising a marriage that distinguishes it from the other much more mundane duties of civil servants. Surely they accept that one's conscience about something as important as matrimony—the building block of society, after all— is worth protecting.
In Holland the human rights courts believe that civil registrars should not be compelled to conduct transsexual weddings if they have a conscientious
432
objection. Will the Government allow our registrars the same right? I have brought up my next point before. There is a comparison to be made with the Abortion Act 1967. There Parliament legalised something that was highly controversial. In recognition of the controversy, and the fact that people held strong conscientious views about abortion, Parliament included a conscience clause. That allows medical personnel, including public sector employees—that is, National Health Service employees—to decline to participate in abortions.
With all that in mind I have tabled several amendments that take different approaches to solving the problem and I have offered different ways to let the Minister off the hook. However, having had an opportunity to consider the different approaches I am convinced that Amendments Nos. 85, 92 and 93 provide by far the best solution. These amendments would replace the existing government conscience clause altogether and, if supported, would preempt government Amendments Nos. 87 and 90.
Amendments Nos. 85, 92 and 93 operate on a UK-wide basis and would allow any person to refuse to conduct a marriage, whether they are a registrar, a layman conducting a Church wedding or a clergyman. The grounds for refusal are that the relevant person has a gender recognition certificate or that he will not allow disclosure of his gender recognition status. These amendments would make clear that not only can a person decline to marry someone they know to have a gender recognition certificate, they can also refuse to marry someone who will not consent to disclosure of their gender recognition status.
The amendments would also make explicit that no new duties to conduct a marriage may be imposed by litigation, nor could anyone be pressured by employers. That is important as it is government policy to make all those who solemnise civil marriages employees of the local authority. A registrar who would not carry out transsexual weddings could find himself out of a job. A local authority could make it a requirement of the job that all registrars must be prepared to carry out such weddings. Certainly there are some local authorities we know that impose these kinds of politically correct litmus tests. As I prefer the solution provided by my Amendments Nos. 85,92 and 93, if the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 56 were to be supported, I would not move Amendments Nos. 88, 89 and 91.
I know that there are technical problems, but they could be ironed out. Nothing is insurmountable. All it needs is the will to do it. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, in our society, which is multi-cultural and multi-faith, we should be careful not to foist what one might classify as liberal western concepts on those of other faiths. Therefore, it is important to include in these provisions those of other faiths who might be asked to conduct marriages.
Baroness Mollis of Heigham: My Lords, I assume that we are talking to Amendments Nos. 85,88,89,91, 92 and 93, which I believe was the agreement. We have de-grouped the two sections. I emphasise yet again that when a person is recognised in the acquired gender that person becomes in law of that gender. The person is then entitled in law to marry a person of the opposite gender.
I do not want to go back to the arguments which we have explored as to whether that really happened whether in the eyes of God, man or law. The Bill seeks to state a legal proposition that is in accordance with European human rights law and which has been accepted in all the countries of Europe with the exception, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, ruefully noted, of Ireland and Albania. Therefore, should this Bill be enacted a person who gains recognition in the acquired gender will have changed gender in law. Marriage in no small part is an institution defined by law.
Marriages contracted by transsexual people once the change of gender has been legally recognised, will therefore be valid marriages between a male and a female. In such a circumstance, registration officers would have no legal grounds on which to refuse to provide the service, and it would be expected that the service be provided to the same high standard as other services.
We see no reason why a registrar who did not agree in conscience should have the liberty to inquire into it and refuse to exercise his function. I do not doubt that some public officials may very well have private views about the appropriateness of some of the laws they are to discharge. But that is the commitment they have made and the territory they occupy. I suggest that there is and must be no scope for private discretion in the public discharge of the legal requirements of a public post by a public official. Otherwise we would be horrified, for example, if someone began to pick and choose who they would or would not marry or provide with benefits. We would be horrified if a schoolteacher were, because of her beliefs, to treat differently children whose parents are not married. We would be horrified if a lone parent—or a homosexual or transsexual—were refused housing benefit because the housing officer disapproved of their lifestyle on religious grounds.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, nurses have the right not to participate in abortions if they do not wish to do so.
Baroness Mollis of Heigham: My Lords, my understanding is that nurses are not public officials. I am talking about somebody who is a public official. People discharge the law and it comes with the territory.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps I should have stopped the noble Baroness a little earlier because she was enunciating the defence which has been put up by every junior officer concerned with a war crime that he
434
was only acting on orders. Does not the noble Baroness recognise that she is giving that same defence?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, anyone who feels that their conscience is at odds with the requirements of the job in a civilian and democratic society has the right to resign from that job. That is the point. If one does not accept the full discharge of one's duties as laid down by law, democratically arrived at, and if one begins to exercise discretion, the law becomes a lottery. Where one lives and which official one deals with determines what the outcome must be. That is for Parliament to decide subject to the rule of law. In exactly the same way civil servants may not entirely agree with what Ministers propose. They do the job or they leave it. Local authority employees do the job or leave it and the same applies to registrars.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Baroness not only says that there is no defence on the part of a civil servant who leaked information in a particular case a few years ago, which I recollect well. The court upheld that she was acting on her conscience and it was right for her to leak that information although it was clearly contrary to her contract. She is also enunciating the defence which was made by policemen in South Africa under the apartheid regime. She is enunciating the defence which was made by officials and soldiers in the Balkans War. Any public official who feels strongly that it is an issue of conscience has a right to stand up for that.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, particularly in the light of the events of the past few days, I do not believe that we should introduce the issue of whistle-blowers here. I am referring to a public official v/ho occupies a post which is to be legally discharged within the framework of Parliament. Frankly, the noble Lord is inviting any junior civil servant in a benefit office or any school assistant in a school to take odds with Parliament over the fact that a child or benefit book recipient should be treated in the same way as any other child or benefit book recipient. He is inviting such a person to say, "I put my judgment, which I shall call 'belief, which may or not be religiously inspired, community-inspired or ethnically inspired, ahead of the will of Parliament".
I say to people that they have the right to make that choice but, if they do so, they should not do that job. It is their choice. If they feel that they cannot, in good faith, undertake the responsibilities of a public post and discharge public responsibilities within the framework of a law laid down by Parliament, they have the choice that we all have—to walk away from that job. Anything else becomes a lottery concerning where you live, whether you receive your housing benefit or whether the person dispensing it approves of your lifestyle. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, would not wish us to follow that route.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand that the noble Baroness is saying that other people have to do the jobs that they are given, whether they are civil servants or whatever. But, in this case, people are being invited to tell lies. Surely if one has a conscience about that, one should be permitted to say, "I can't fill that in because I shall be telling a lie and I don't want to do that".
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, at the heart of this debate is the fact that these will be valid marriages in the eyes of the law. Therefore, no one who was asked to solemnise such a marriage, being a public official, could in any way say that, in terms of the law, that was a lie. I believe that many people would find such a view offensive.
If that person, through religious beliefs, considers that he should not authorise such a marriage, he need not hold that job. That is his choice. But these are not lies; they will be marriages validly contracted within the framework of the law, should your Lordships and the other House so agree. If that is not the case, then, frankly, we might all just as well go home. That is the nature of law. One may disagree but, if Parliament has so determined, one then has the choice of either doing the job or walking away. No one is putting a gun to one's head. A person does not have to do the job. But no parliamentarian could accept that a decision of Parliament should be subverted by the private view of any public official. We cannot organise ourselves in such a way. On reflection, I am sure that your Lordships would not wish to go down that route.
In Committee, I also said that I was sure that a registrar could find a way around the issue if it was so troublesome to him. Of course, any couple could go to any registrar's office in the country if it was felt that the strong views held by an official in one particular office would cast a shadow over the marriage. We explored that point in Committee and I believe that it is still valid.
The amendment also seeks to go beyond providing an exception for registrars. It seeks to provide an exception for any person who is under a legal duty to solemnise a marriage. As was made clear in Grand Committee, no other religious minister is obliged to solemnise a marriage. He or she may be an authorised celebrant—that is, if he or she solemnises the marriage, no separate civil ceremony is necessary. Nevertheless, there is no obligation on that registrar to solemnise a marriage and he or she is therefore free to conduct or to refuse to conduct the marriage of a person who has changed gender. That is why the existing provision in Schedule 4 extends only to ministers of the Church of England and the Church in Wales. All others already have that right.
It has been argued that ministers of other religions may be "public authorities" within the meaning of the Human Rights Act. They may therefore be vulnerable to a claim on the basis of human rights law. "Public authorities" within the meaning of the Human Rights Act include any person,
"certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature".
436
It has been argued that that could apply to ministers of the Church of England.
On that basis, we suggest that nothing would make a religious body a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. The receipt of occasional grants from English Heritage or the lottery fund—the example that I was given in Committee—would not convert a private body into a public authority. The cross-reference that I have is to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, recognised in Aston Carlow PCC v Wallbank. So there appear to be perfectly secure grounds on the matter.
In addition, people should not be allowed indiscriminately to reveal information about a person's gender history in the form of malicious gossip or damaging rumours, which is why the prohibition on disclosure is required. We have to be careful to understand the scope of that prohibition. Disclosure is prohibited when the information has been acquired in an official capacity. For example, if an employer acquires information about a person's gender history, he or she is not permitted to disclose it, unless the disclosure falls within one of the exceptions in Clause 21; for example, criminal activity and so forth. Clause 21 does not involve the criminalisation of activity that is purely in the private sphere. That would not be appropriate. The Government are, therefore, firmly of the view that Clause 21 is necessary, that it is drawn up in the right terms and I hope that your Lordships will continue to support it.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I have always had the greatest admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and that has grown tonight. She has much greater staying power than I have. I thank her for dealing with those amendments and for giving me some comfort, although not much, regarding the last point about religions, other than the Anglican clergy, not being regarded as public bodies in the solemnisation of marriages. That is fair. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is not in his place, but I also realise that if the Bill is enacted and a registrar has a conscientious objection to marrying people who he or she suspects are transsexual, the registrar should not really be in the job or should make the people go to another registrar. There are ways and means of achieving that. I thank the Minister very much for her comprehensive reply to the amendments, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration of the Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seven minutes past seven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill [H.L.]
  (Second Day)
  Thursday, 29 January 2004.
  The Committee met at quarter past three of the clock.
  [The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]
  Clause 2 [Pilot order]:
  [Amendments Nos. 17 to 21 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
  "( ) Any information or literature sent out with a postal vote must include a secrecy warning."
  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 22, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 44. The amendments focus on voter secrecy, one of the most fundamental issues to those who, like me, have grave concerns about the safeguards lost in an all-postal ballot. The Committee has already been made fully aware of our concerns in regard to secrecy and I shall not weary it by repeating the excellent arguments articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others.
  Having identified the problem, our amendments attempt to provide the solution by reasserting the principle of secrecy in voting in elections. Amendment No. 22 would make it obligatory for any information or literature sent out about an all-postal ballot to include a secrecy warning within it. Again, this is not foolproof, but it is an extra safeguard.
  I am sure that the Minister will respond with the kinds of comment that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, made at Second Reading, where he said:
  "We have also been working with the electoral administrators to ensure that literature and systems are used that provide for secrecy, and that people are reminded of the importance of secrecy".
  Time will not allow me to say any more, but I mark the importance of the matter.
  I am not impressed. If the voters' right to secrecy cannot be guaranteed, we would like it at least to be emphasised on the face of the Bill. An explicit and strongly worded secrecy warning might be of some help in reducing pressurised voting within the home. We have referred to that on previous amendments.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 44. We should like to see on the face of the Bill a requirement for the Electoral Commission to explore the effect of all-postal voting on the secrecy of the ballot. There is
  GC 180
  already a requirement to consider the effect of fraudulent activity and malpractice, but the amendment is concerned with undue influence at home—for example, a pushy husband wanting to know how his wife has voted or insisting that she vote in a certain way. Of course, it could happen the other way round. It is not the kind of action that should attract the attention of the police, but it should be discouraged and prevented as far as possible.
  The Minister envisages the commission carrying out such an inquiry, as he made clear when he said:
  "One can conceive the possibility of pressure, although it may not be extensive. Certainly under Clause 4 the Electoral Commission will be required to report on the elections and, in doing so, we shall expect it to consider issues of secrecy".— [Official Report, 8/1/04; 348.]
  I hope that an assessment of the secrecy of the ballot will be a positive obligation on the Electoral Commission, rather than merely expecting that it might consider it.
  Many noble Lords have expressed concerns in regard to secrecy and the ECHR. Paragraphs 23 to 26 of the Explanatory Notes recognise that there is a problem but I shall not test the patience of the Committee by reading them out. However, the thinking behind the four paragraphs is deeply flawed. An all-postal ballot clearly fits the criteria set out in paragraph 23 as being in direct conflict with Article 3. There is no doubt that it both undermines the secrecy of the ballot and the free expression of the electorate's opinion. Apparently we are meant to turn a blind eye to this because the pilot scheme is merely generating evidence on new and innovative systems. This is hardly justification for jeopardising a human right that every citizen of this country should be guaranteed, especially when the so-called pilot scheme is to be trialled—if the Government have their way—in more than one region.
  Paragraph 25 states that the wider benefits to the community that postal voting is intended to bring in terms of greater voter participation are also relevant to Article 3. Are the Government therefore implying that the loss of secrecy in voting can be offset by the expected greater voter participation? It is a dangerous and unjustifiable line to take that it is okay if you cannot freely express your right to vote in secrecy because we have an extra 5 per cent of voters bothering to fill out their ballot papers. What worth can be given to a greater percentage of returned postal ballots if there are grave suspicions about how many of them were freely completed by the rightful person to whom they were sent? This could make a mockery of our electoral system.
  It has also been drawn to my attention that the Government have had internal advice that the whole concept of postal ballots is challengeable under the ECHR. Can the Minister confirm whether or not that is the case?
  In conclusion, I should like the Minister to state exactly what statutory and non-statutory steps are being taken to address the issue of secrecy. Our amendments would put in place some safeguards to secrecy, although I freely admit that they are hardly likely to be 100 per cent effective in halting any

  GC 181
  potential abuse. There are fundamental issues at stake and I look forward to hearing from the Minister some justification for what appears to be a breach of human rights. I beg to move.
  Lord Greaves: I am given authority from my noble friend Lord Rennard to say that we as a party approve and support the amendment. As this is the first time I have spoken today, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on her stamina in running two important Bills together as a Front-Bench spokesperson. When she said to me, "You are coming to them all, aren't you?", I said, "Well, I am a Back-Bencher. I'm able to nip off and have a brew when I want to". However, I probably owe the noble Baroness a favour because I suspect the fact that the two Bills are being kept apart is for her benefit. So perhaps I am benefiting from that.
  In supporting the amendment I should like to recap on one or two of the comments that my friend Councillor Suzanne Fletcher of Stockton-on-Tees Council received when it had an all-out postal ballot in May last year. She was one of the few councillors who spent their time—perhaps because she had a safe seat—not only trying to get elected and trying to get votes but delivering a questionnaire to everyone in her ward in order to obtain their opinions on the system. She received some extremely interesting comments.
  One of them was from people who had been placed on the electoral register late. They wrote to her to say that they had received the ballot papers in the end and stated:
  "These were not handed to us personally but posted through the door. Either of us could easily have intercepted both and voted twice, thus depriving the other of their vote. There is nothing on the Ballot Paper to confirm who has completed it. Clearly this situation could apply to any 'multiple occupancy' property".
  That was from two electors who did the right thing but were nevertheless concerned that they had been given the opportunity not to do the right thing.
  Another elector—this is not quite the same point but perhaps the Minister might take it away and consider it—made a further observation:
  "I note that the envelope delivering the Ballot Paper to the voter can be re-sealed without any indication of it having happened when the votes arrived in the council building".
  In other words, it had presumably a "stick-on" seal that could easily be peeled off and put back again.
  There is a further concern—which comes from Birmingham—that the envelopes into which the postal ballot papers were put were made of thin paper. You could actually see through them and see how people had voted. These issues have no relation to the amendment but I take the opportunity to raise them.
  Many comments were received from genuine electors, none of whom believe or engage in fraud. For example:
  "Mine's been sent in, and I filled his in for him as well".
  GC 182
  Other comments included,
  "I've filled all ours in … but they were all for you";
  "I did his for him as well, he'd never have got round to it, you know what he's like";
  and,
  "We've filled in our (son's) paper for him. X would have wanted me to vote for you though."
  A more famous example took place at 8 o'clock in the morning, when a woman at a bus stop was seen to get three envelopes out of her bag, fill in all three ballot papers and then post them. Those are just some examples.
  Finally, a letter was received explaining how one elderly couple were called on as part of what we call the "knocking-up" operation. This lasts for a fortnight from the ballot papers being sent out, rather than only on polling day. The wife asked her husband where the voting papers were. He replied that he had filled them in and sent them off. She asked who they had voted for but he could not remember. The letter continued:
  "She was most upset as she had wanted to vote for our candidates herself. We felt most uncomfortable leaving them having a row between themselves".
  The case in favour of the noble Lord's amendment is strengthened by those anecdotes.
  Lord Norton of Louth: I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 22 and to speak briefly to Amendment No. 44 which is grouped with it. As my noble friend said, they are complementary amendments. Thanks to what he said, I shall keep my comments on these amendments brief. The query raised by my noble friend about compatibility with the European Convention is one that I propose to return to in the stand part debate, where it is most appropriate.
  I suspect that in respect of both the amendments the issue is not one of ends but of means. The need to maintain the secrecy of the ballot is paramount for reasons discussed at Second Reading. The Government concede the need for a secrecy statement to accompany the ballot paper and for the Electoral Commission to consider the impact on secrecy when it reviews the operation of all-postal ballots. The issue is whether those requirements should be included in the Bill. I believe that they should.
  We need to take all necessary steps to ensure that, as far as possible, secrecy is maintained. Otherwise, as I said at Second Reading, we shall be undermining the purpose of the Ballot Act 1872. Given the crucial importance of the issue, I see no reason why the requirements embodied in Amendment Nos. 22 and 44 should not appear in the Bill.
  As my noble friend said, Clause 4(6) stipulates those matters that the Electoral Commission must consider in its assessment of all postal ballots. There is therefore an acknowledgement that certain matters are essential and that these should appear on the face of the Bill. As he said, the purpose of the Bill is to try to achieve an improvement in voter turnout. That is embodied in subsection (6). Other potential benefits are also listed.

  GC 183
  There is a possibility that postal voting may lead to an increase in,
  "personation or other electoral offences".
  The Electoral Commission is therefore required to consider whether postal voting has affected the incidence of such offences. However, there is no requirement to consider whether the secrecy of the ballot has been compromised. This issue is wider than just personation and other electoral offences. To pick up on what my noble friend said, intimidating someone to ensure that they vote in a particular way is one thing; a wife showing her husband how she voted is another.
  There needs to be a consideration of the impact on the integrity of the ballot. If that is not in the Bill, the impression will be given that it is not as important as the other conditions that the Electoral Commission has to consider.
  Undertaking such an exercise will be difficult and will require considerable resources on the part of the Electoral Commission. It will need to encompass more than asking returning officers if they believe that any instances of fraud have occurred and that the secrecy of the ballot was affected. The commission must be given the resources to explore precisely the sort of occasions and events to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred.
  Given the fundamental importance of the issue, the requirements imposed by Amendments Nos. 22 and 44 should appear in the Bill. As a corollary, I ask the Minister to consider ensuring that a requirement is imposed on returning officers to provide whatever information is required by the commission in order to fulfil the conditions of subsection (6). If we want the commission to do the job properly, it must be given the means to do it.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The issue of secrecy is of enormous importance. We will take away what has been said because, between now and Report, we obviously need to look at details such as those suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, concerning transparent envelopes and envelopes that can be resealed. I am grateful to Members of the Committee for raising such issues, which we shall consider.
  The Electoral Commission recommended in its report on the 2003 electoral pilots, The Shape of Elections to Come, that secrecy warnings should be included on postal and proxy voting literature. There is a whole range of measures that can be adopted in all postal elections to maintain the secrecy of the ballot. Previous pilots used secrecy warnings, which were sent both to voters and electoral staff, and the Government intend to do the same with these pilots.
  We also agree with the commission, as we agree with members of the Committee, that it is vital that any literature that accompanies the ballot papers sent to electors needs to make it absolutely clear that security statements and ballot papers will be separated when received by the returning officer.
  GC 184
  The Electoral Commission also recommends that the following information is included: that the vote is personal and voters should complete it themselves unless they require assistance; that official assistance is available and that no one should forcibly complete their ballot for them; and that postal vote fraud is an offence. That seems a sensible approach. Such matters have already been considered and are best dealt with through the detailed pilot order, as indeed has been the case in previous pilot schemes.
  We shall return to the issue of the pilot order later. At this stage I should like to reiterate a point made by my noble friend Lord Filkin about the development of the policy that will inform the detail of the order. The policy is being developed in conjunction with regional returning officers and other key stakeholders. In fact, there is a meeting on Tuesday of next week, to be attended by RROs, Royal Mail and the Electoral Commission, which will result in a near-final draft of a policy paper. That will then be circulated more widely, including to those noble Lords who have expressed an interest.
  Amendment No. 44 would require the commission to report on the extent to which the manner in which the elections were conducted undermined the secrecy of the ballot. In fact, the commission is already required by Clause 4(6)(c) to report on how the pilots affected the incidence of electoral offences or malpractice as part of the evaluation. Breaches of secrecy will form part of that, so the amendment is not required.
  In previous evaluations, the commission has looked at the issue in various ways. For example, its 2003 strategic report, The Shape of Elections to Come, included opinion polls which tested attitudes on postal voting's safety from fraud and abuse as well its ability to provide privacy for the voter. It is interesting to note that 72 per cent of people rated postal voting as good at providing privacy. Only 13 per cent rated it as poor.
  As a consequence of the assurances and information that I have given, I hope that opposition members of the Committee will recognise that we have taken account of their concerns and will continue to do so in respect of these important issues. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
  Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister for that thoughtful response. I urge him to consider bringing forward at a later stage his own amendments because I am not convinced by his argument that we can rely on the pilot orders; this is too fundamental an issue. I am also not convinced about the provisions already set out in the Bill and I suspect that we shall be able to table amendments on Report that will pick that argument to bits.
  The Minister referred to opinion polls. I am not wholly convinced that opinion polls are a good way of determining exactly how we should make provisions in the Bill. I shall read carefully in Hansard what he has said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment, subject to the usual caveats.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Norton of Louth: Although listed as "already debated", we have had no dedicated debate on this clause. In the light of the statement issued by the Electoral Commission, I think that we should now discuss the clause and invite the Government to consider withdrawing it.
  I had intended to table an amendment to take out subsections (4) to (7). However, having considered the statement issued by the Electoral Commission on 23 January, I decided that it was more appropriate to invite the Government to withdraw the clause and to come back with a new one. The Electoral Commission issued its statement having taken the advice of counsel on the compatibility of the supply of the marked register with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1998. Given the opinion of counsel, I think that new provisions are necessary.
  At Second Reading I raised the problem generated by requiring the returning officer to provide polling progress information to parties prior to the close of poll. In existing elections, where people vote at polling stations, those entering and leaving the polling stations are under no obligation to tell party tellers who they are. Under the provisions of this clause, the parties will know who has voted because the registration officer will be required to give them that information. That distinguishes the situation from what happens at present.
  The justification for the provision offered by the Minister at Second Reading was that voting is a public act. I can see the point of his argument, but the problem is that if voting by post is a public act, then so too is voting at a polling station. If one cannot opt out of the public aspect of postal voting, why should one be able to opt out in respect of voting at a polling station? My concerns have been reinforced by the statement of the Electoral Commission and by the opinion of counsel.
  The statement of the Electoral Commission essentially repeats the point I made at Second Reading. In the view of the commission, the requirement imposed on the returning officer to disclose details of who has and has not voted,
  "significantly alters the balance between the party/candidate and the elector in a way that could amount to an invasion of privacy".
  The Minister will have read the legal opinion obtained by the commission in which it is stated that tipping the balance in this way could potentially render the interference with Convention rights so much more intrusively as to be a disproportionate infringement of Article 8 and/or Article 3, of Protocol 1 of the ECHR.
  Given the risk of infringement, the options identified in order to avoid it are either to prohibit access to the marked register before the close of poll or to introduce a number of safeguards. Those safeguards include an "opt out" option for those who do not wish to be solicited by the political parties.
  GC 186
  Rather than speak at length—the opinion given by counsel is quite extensive and encompasses existing provisions governing the use of the marked register— I think it sufficient to invite the Minister's comments on how the Government intend to proceed. Will the Government withdraw the clause and come back on Report with new provisions, ensuring that—if information is to be supplied by the returning officer— adequate safeguards are embodied in the Bill?
  Lord Rennard: While the Electoral Commission is saying that many voters will not like the fact that it becomes known that they have returned their postal vote, they are probably ignoring the fact that in any public election you can find out afterwards who has voted. That has not been a barrier to people in the past. Since you can find out after the election who has voted and, if necessary, harass the voter, we are choosing little between harassing the voter before polling day to say, "vote", as opposed to harassing them afterwards to say, "you did not vote for my party".
  Lord Norton of Louth: Will the noble Lord give way? He has doubtless read counsel opinion, which raises questions about making the marked register available after the poll as well. There are significant issues arising from that.
  Lord Rennard: Indeed. My point is that there are two halves to this argument. I am not sure that I agree with the Electoral Commission's reservations about the inconvenience to voters. That is not such a problem. Indeed, it illustrates the problem of extensive postal voting in elections and why in many ways it is an inappropriate technique for conducting elections by postal vote.
  In a traditional election, you have the opportunity to see whether someone has voted. In my experience— and I have a great deal—very few people ever object to giving you their number if they have it, or their address, or something that identifies them as having voted. That is not such a problem. I accept that there may be some legal problems with this. Insofar as there may be legal problems with publishing a marked register after an election, or publishing an updated marked register during the course of a postal vote election, I accept that the Government must take their own legal advice and consider what they will do.
  Baroness Hanham: The principle of how on earth political parties will get to know who has voted and either make their views known to them or not has been discussed extensively. If this opinion stands, and there is no way around it, the political parties will have to make other arrangements. It hugely brings into question again the policy of having all-postal voting. The rationale behind it is pretty tenuous anyway. We supported only a limited pilot on this, to see whether it works. As we walk into four regions—as the Government wish and as I made clear earlier on—of potentially half the electorate, we are beginning to look at how we are disenfranchising the electorate and making it difficult for any political party to have any impact at all.

  GC 187
  I agree with my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth that this is something now, in the light of the Electoral Commission's view, which we are going to have to look at afresh. I am also conscious that, if we are not careful, all politics will drop out of elections. That may be something that people will be glad about, but that is not true all round. If all-postal voting is going to become a part of our lives—and I sincerely hope that it will not—but if it is, somehow, somewhere people must take into account the fact that elections take place by and large for political parties and the people in them.
  If political parties do not and cannot tell whether someone has voted, there would have to be caveats about the amount of harassment that could take place. The point was extremely well raised. I saw the Electoral Commission's recommendations and realised that this amendment was sound, so I did not push it myself.
  I was not sure that the Minister responded to the whole question of the ECHR, the human rights issue, which my noble friend Earl Attlee raised under the previous amendment. Again, this is of considerable importance. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has already said that he believes that the Bill complies, but we are already beginning to question whether this new system actually does.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Greaves: As the noble Baroness said, most people involved in elections are involved through political parties, and some even join political parties, or rejoin them after they have been elected. I am glad that the noble Lord has introduced this debate, because it worried me a bit that we were not going to have it. Whatever the conclusion is, and whatever our individual conclusions are as Members, and as members of parties, we ought to think about it, and think about the implications. At the previous meeting of this Grand Committee, I said:
  "There are major questions on whether that is a desirable practice in postal voting".—[Official Report, 26/1/04; col. GC28.]
  That is to say, issuing a tally of who has voted officially as it goes along. Last May, which seemed to be the first time this happened, at least to my knowledge, when I discovered that this was happening in Blackpool and various other places, I was shocked, and my instinctive reaction was that it was wrong. It conflicts with the practice at polling stations, where no official information about who votes comes out until afterwards. Perhaps the principle should be changed. If we are doing that, at least it ought to be thought about and debated.
  The noble Lord said that questions are raised about whether the marked register should be made available at all. If the marked register is not made available at elections, the opportunity for people to challenge election results and to investigate all kinds of election offences—personation, dead people being on the register and voting, people voting twice and so on—is greatly reduced. I do not think that we could do that.
  GC 188
  In a number of cases, successful election petitions have rested on close investigation of the marked register. There was a case in Richmond some years ago that is famous, in our party at least, and is referred to as the Richmond judgment. It may be famous because it gave the seat to us instead of the Tories. We will have to be able to look and see who voted if we are going to be able to investigate whether the people who voted were real people entitled to vote, and whether they voted only for themselves. That is the principle.
  The problem with postal votes is that we have no means of engaging in what all parties call "telling"— sticking people outside polling stations and getting a less than 100 per cent accurate list of who votes. Nevertheless, we all do it, because it is efficient. If it is 80 per cent accurate it helps us, not least to avoid badgering people who have already voted. It helps us to badger people who have not voted. It is always a bit disquieting to go along a street knocking up and discover that the Tories are in front of you and have just knocked up the same house, and that the Labour Party are coming along behind you to knock up the same house. It is not an exact science by any means. Nevertheless, it is useful.
  We ask the Government to look at and come back to us on the four bullet points on the second page of the Electoral Commission's submission. If such action is to be taken, one disclosure is no good; there must be at least two or three during the campaign to make it worthwhile. The introduction of a specific criminal offence relating to candidates and agents assisting the completion of postal ballots would be extremely helpful. That is my view—I do not know the party line.
  At one stage, the Electoral Commission was suggesting that political parties should not handle sealed envelopes containing postal ballots. If someone asked such a person to post an envelope for them, that would not be allowed. In practice, defining a political agent and banning that practice is almost impossible. There is no way of making it legally watertight, if it were desirable. However, banning political parties and agents from handling ballot papers—whether filling them in, giving them to people, or carrying them around the streets, as I have seen—would be extremely helpful. I ask the Government to look at that seriously for reasons that I will explain—I regret at slightly greater length—in my next amendment.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for not answering his question on human rights in relation to the last amendment. The Venice Commission, which, as noble Lords know, looks at electoral matters in Europe, has reviewed postal voting and regards it as compatible with European human rights law.
  Baroness Hanham: Does it include all-postal voting? Is it postal voting as part of a system, or is it all-postal voting? They are different.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am being told that the answer is complex, but I agree that it is an

  GC 189
  important question that needs to be answered. I shall ensure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, receives a full answer before Report.
  That was a good discussion about the marked register. It is interesting that the Bill was amended to provide for so-called marked registers in another place after the idea received strong cross-party support. That shows that we were listening to points made and decided to incorporate them into the Bill. It is also interesting that we are now trying to work out whether it is a good idea or not.
  The impact of piloting the provision will be specifically assessed by the Electoral Commission in its reports on the pilots. Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee—it is a rather obvious point—that it applies only to the pilots that we hope will take place in June.
  We have seen the recent Electoral Commission statement, to which reference has been made today. We are considering our response. Obviously, we would not have amended the Bill to provide for that information were we not confident that it did not breach human rights obligations. In particular, we consider it important to note that the provision is being introduced on a pilot basis. It will also be important, after those pilots, for the Electoral Commission to analyse the practical impact of the use of the marked register. That will be done.
  The commission makes specific recommendations, which I will outline, even though everyone has read its statement. It suggests that we need to put in safeguards, primarily to stop candidates and agents putting undue pressure on voters. There are significant safeguards already in place, such as it being an offence for someone to interfere with, or attempt to interfere with, a voter when recording his vote. It is also an offence to unduly influence a voter. That will continue to be the case for the pilot elections, and no change is needed to existing regulations to achieve that.
  However, some current provisions regarding attempts to obtain information as to the candidate for whom a voter is about to vote or has voted apply only to polling stations. Putting in place all-postal voting will obviously require amendments to ensure that existing provisions are applied, as appropriate, to the form of voting in the pilots. However, we consider that it would be more appropriate to deal with those changes, along with other relevant detailed changes to existing legislation, in the pilot order. That is what we plan to do.
  The commission also recommends that voters be able to "opt out" of having their name on the register, to which political parties will have access. We very carefully considered that when the inclusion of so-called marked registers was first suggested in another place, but we felt that it would not be practicable to implement such a system prior to the June 2004 elections. I remind Members of the Committee that the provision is being introduced on a pilot basis only.
  GC 190
  The commission also suggested that an additional safeguard is to define more narrowly the phrase "electoral purposes". The use of the register is limited by existing regulations to use by particular persons for specific purposes. Political parties can use the register for "electoral purposes". The commission questions whether the term "electoral purposes" is sufficiently narrowly defined. We are considering its comments on that and will come back at a later stage.
  I hope that what I have said will reassure Members of the Committee, and that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, will withdraw his objection to the clause standing part of the Bill.
  Lord Norton of Louth: As the Minister has implied, there is a clear conflict between the politics and legal compliance with convention rights. As I said at Second Reading, I am not surprised that the political parties support making the information available to them, as they will get free information. Therefore, they are in favour of the provision—quelle surprise!
  However, that must be set against whether the provisions of the clause comply with convention rights. Therefore, it is important that the Bill is compliant, regardless of what may be put into the orders. Even though this is a pilot, that is not particularly germane in terms of the Bill needing to be compliant with convention rights.
  I welcome what the Minister said in terms of looking at the matter again in certain respects, but I stress the importance of getting an assurance that it will be looked at thoroughly in the light of the statement by the Electoral Commission, as well as of its polls. We shall return to the matter on Report, when we might have to look at it very thoroughly. Given that we are in Grand Committee, I shall not pursue my objection, but I want to put on record that I think it extremely important that the matter be looked at thoroughly.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 24 to 27 not moved.]
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 28:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
  "ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS IN RESPECT OF POSTAL VOTING

  (1) The Secretary of State may not make any order under sections 1 and 2 which provides for all-postal voting unless the chief executive of each of the postal authorities involved has made a written statement that he has made alternative arrangements for the delivery and return of postal ballots in the event of a postal service being suspended for whatever reason.

  (2)The Secretary of State must place a copy of each statement made in pursuance of subsection (1) in the Library of the House of Commons not less than two months before the election."

  The noble Baroness said: We have already mentioned, at both Second Reading and in earlier debates, the potential problems of trusting the postal service to guarantee the delivery and return of votes. At Second Reading, many noble Lords gave specific examples of instances when groups of people had been disfranchised due to delays or problems with the Royal Mail service. I particularly draw attention to the

  GC 191
  speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, reported in Hansard at cols. 311–12 on 8 January, in which we were given many examples.
  The problem is all the more pertinent because we have had a series of industrial strikes by postal workers over the past three years or so. There cannot be any member of the Committee who has not been frustrated by delays in the post and letters or documents that failed to be delivered or were lost in the post. I was reminded the other day by my postman that we are going to get the really tip-top service of one delivery a day, probably around lunchtime. The propensity for the postal service to collapse and be less than useful is coming on us quickly.
  As I mentioned when speaking to an earlier amendment, we know that, on average, 1,500 items of post are lost per week in each parliamentary constituency. I do not want to denigrate the efforts of the chief executives of postal authorities in ensuring the safe delivery of postal votes. I take on board the Minister's statement at Second Reading that:
  "There have been considerable discussions with the Royal Mail. Adam Crozier, the chief executive, has affirmed to us that its contribution to a postal election is the highest priority the Post Office has, apart from the delivery of money to the post offices themselves".—[Official Report, 8/1/04; col. 346.]
  In the light of Post Office strike action in parts of the country, however, there are genuine concerns about the reliability of the postal service during an all-postal election. The Government may argue that all-postal voting encourages people to vote because the process of voting is easier. However, we must be careful about weighing that against the danger of disfranchisement due to problems with the postal service. For example, how many days must voters allow for sending off their postal ballot form and for it to arrive on the main day of polling?
  Our amendment offers a different perspective. It ensures that the Secretary of State may not make an order under Clauses 1 and 2,
  "unless the chief executive of each of the postal authorities involved has made a written statement that he has made alternative arrangements for the delivery and return of postal ballots in the event of a postal service being suspended for whatever reason … The Secretary of State must place a copy of each statement made in pursuance of subsection (1) in the Library of the House of Commons not less than two months before the election".
  We envisage the alternative arrangements as being some kind of courier service, not merely the sign-up of the postal service administrator to the guarantee of delivery. At the moment, the Post Office is almost a monopoly service and if it falls down there are no other arrangements within the postal service to deal with the problem. Therefore it will have to look outside and make sure that there is another means of delivery if it should fail.
  I appreciate that an alternative service would probably be costly, but we think it vital that such a provision be in place, if only as a last resort that will not have to be called on. I beg to move.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Rennard: I do not want to repeat everything I said on Second Reading about my scepticism of the Royal Mail's capacity to handle an all-postal voting operation. I simply say that this amendment may help address some of those problems. However, I remain very fearful of the Royal Mail's capacity to deal with these matters given its failure on a number of occasions. I referred on Second Reading to problems in an election last year in Dudley where many of the postal votes were returned on polling day, despite every assurance that a check would be made on the eve of poll to ensure they were all processed through the system. Moreover, a considerable number arrived the day after the election and were not counted.
  Apparently that is now subject to an appeal. However, unless such an appeal succeeds, no candidate, agent or party will have legal recourse to say that the election should be invalidated, even if it can be proven that, through the inefficiency of the Royal Mail, large numbers of postal votes were not received until polling day or the day after and it was too late. I have also drawn attention to last November's council by-election in Islington where the assurances that are being sought in the amendment were given—that alternative arrangements were in hand and that, despite the industrial action, there would be no problem in the postal votes being counted. Yet in last November's Hill Rise by-election, one in three postal votes was not counted because the Royal Mail failed to deliver in time.
  While I support this sensible amendment, safeguards should be put in place before we have all-postal voting. I am not convinced by assurances that safeguards will prevent the problems.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As we have heard, at Second Reading there was a long discussion about the postal service, the Royal Mail, and whether it would be able to handle these pilots. My job is to try to convince the Committee that a great deal is being done to secure the efficient operation of the Post Office for postal votes in June.
  The first thing to say, as I think my noble friend Lord Filkin mentioned at Second Reading, is that there is absolutely top-level commitment to these pilots from the chairman, Allan Leighton, and the chief executive, Adam Crozier. I notice a smile on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. Today we have had an assurance from the Post Office that a letter will be coming to us shortly, setting out what measures the Royal Mail will take to ensure that all-electoral post is provided to administrators in the event of industrial action. We will be happy to share this information with noble Lords when it arrives.
  Royal Mail representatives underlined their commitment only last week at an implementation workshop attended by representatives from the four intended pilot regions, the Electoral Commission and government officials. There is also a commitment to working at local level with the administrators who know the issues for their areas.

  GC 193
  The Royal Mail has assured us that it has the resources to address any issues. These pilots are a major operation and commercial interest for the Royal Mail; after all, they could affect up to 14 million people. The organisation will be aware of the risks to its reputation if it were to fail to play its part.
  I have extensive speaking notes intended to convince the Committee that the Royal Mail will do a good job. However, with the Committee's agreement, I think it would be particularly helpful to move to what would happen if there should be a national strike, which is, I think, the nightmare scenario for these pilots. The Royal Mail will use local managers and national administrative staff to identify electoral papers—by machine-sort and hand if necessary—and pass them to electoral administrators. What happens to them would depend on what stage the documents were at. If uncompleted ballot papers were received from the local authority for dispatch but were not sent out, the Royal Mail would give them back to the local authority, which would have to make alternative arrangements to deliver them. There would be contingency planning by local authorities for alternative delivery.
  If electoral mail was delivered and put in postboxes by electors, the Royal Mail would empty the postboxes before sealing them. All collected electoral mail would be given to the electoral administrators—possibly RROs—in bulk and unsorted. They would be separated from all other post and not sorted into local area batches. The RROs would need resources to tackle sorting, which they would be given. If such mail was in the sort process at Royal Mail centres, Royal Mail managers would identify them from special postcodes that would be given to all local authorities for elections for the pilots and from specially marked envelopes. All such mail would be given to RROs.
  I read out that brief because I wanted to indicate the detail that the Royal Mail is going into with other stakeholders. Having read that material and having heard that the Royal Mail is prepared to write the sort of letter that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, would like to read, I hope that I have done enough to reassure the Committee that we are doing everything we can. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
  Lord Norton of Louth: One thought occurred to me while the Minister was speaking. In the event of any of the options that he mentioned occurring—the ultimate being a national postal strike—what would be the alternative? Should one not make provision to revert to the old format of opening polling stations?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Yes; the advice is that we might consider that as a last resort.
  Baroness Hanham: That shows the wisdom of us asking to have somewhere in every local ward in the pilot areas. We were discussing earlier whether there should not be somewhere that people could go to vote if they wished or to drop off their votes. Under these circumstances, that seems even more sensible.
  GC 194
  The possibility of there being a complete all-out strike may not be likely. However, wildcat strikes can never be completely cut out or anticipated. I am concerned about whether all those administrators in the Royal Mail will be able to run round emptying all the postboxes and sealing them up. I am not at all happy that they will have the option of throwing electoral mail back to the local authority. A system must be set up for delivery. If we have to give mail back to the local authority, the local authority then has to make its own arrangements for a courier system for delivery, which is then no longer the responsibility of the Royal Mail.
  Under those circumstances, the Royal Mail would discharge its responsibilities by handing what it had hooked out of the postboxes back to the local authority. I do not think that that is fulfilling the obligation. Our clear view is that every area administrated by the Post Office should set up detailed arrangements, with some form of courier service to guarantee the collection as well as the delivery of postal votes. The other alternative is simply to revert to polling stations or to a manned drop-off point. That takes us back to the utter rationale of having far more drop-off points than the Government envisage, with people on hand to help. There would then have to be a system of advising people that that was going to happen.
  Despite Adam Crazier's great assertions about this matter, I will wait to see what the letter says—and I would be grateful if we could have it before Report so that we can see what is anticipated. I remain extremely concerned about this matter, because the arrangements do not sound as if they will hold up. I appreciate that this sort of situation may not arise. However, we have been in situations before when opportunities are seized—I put it no higher—to cause trouble.
  The Government are now talking—although we are not—about 14 million people taking part in the pilot, which is half the nation. That is no longer a pilot: that is a substantial vote throughout the country. We need far more assurances. I understand that the Minister has not been able to give those today. I look forward to seeing the letter, but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 29:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
  "REQUESTS FOR BALLOT PAPERS TO BE SENT TO ALTERNATIVE ADDRESSES

  (1) An elector may request in writing that a ballot paper is sent to an address other than that at which he is registered as an elector where to do so would be for the convenience of the elector in casting his vote.

  (2) Such a request shall be made in writing and signed by the elector; such a request shall provide a clear explanation of why the request is being made, and shall be made not later than three full weeks before the date on which the ballot papers will be issued.

  GC 195

  (3) The returning officer shall consider each request made under subsection (1) individually and shall accept the request if he considers that the reasons given are reasonable.

  (4) But if the returning officer is not satisfied by any reasons given he shall make such enquiries as may be practical and shall only agree to the request if he is so satisfied as to the reasons for the request on the basis of his enquiries."

  The noble Lord said: I apologise that I shall need to take a little time explaining the amendment. I do not make a general apology, but I apologise to the individuals in the Committee. However, I am pleased to be doing so in the relatively painless environment of the Grand Committee.
  Amendment No. 29 would deal with the situation where people ask for their postal vote to be sent to a different address from that at which they are registered on the electoral register. I assume that in all postal ballots that arrangement will still be possible, in the same way that people can now apply for postal votes to be sent to a Butlins holiday camp, a student hall of residence or wherever they happen to be staying.
  The new clause would put a duty on the returning officer to scrutinise such requests, to look at the reasons and to grant them straightaway only if the requests seem reasonable and are not being put forward for such vague reasons as "away" or "going shopping"—I have seen that—or even an explanation such as "student". Electors must give some evidence that at face value makes the request a reasonable one. By implication, a request to have a ballot paper sent to a house across the street would not be reasonable unless the elector had moved there. Subsection (4) provides that the returning officer should make enquiries to see whether the request is reasonable if he thinks that it is not.
  So far as I am concerned, the provision arises from events during the Pendle local elections in May 2002. As I have explained on several occasions, across four small, marginal wards almost 1,000 postal votes were sent to common addresses that had nothing to do with the electors concerned. That happened in the Bradley, Brierfield, Southfield and Whitefield wards, and there is no doubt that it made a difference to the election results in the Pendle election that year.
  I am aware of instances of the same kind of thing in Burnley, Oldham and Birmingham, as well as allegations that it has been going on in other places. I have to say that although the people concerned in Pendle were the local Labour Party, I am aware that in other places more than one party may have been involved.
  During the all-out elections in those wards, a plan was drawn up by a group of organisers for the local Labour Party that involved signing up as many electors as they could on postal votes and then manipulating and controlling those electors to ensure that as many of them as possible voted the straight Labour ticket. That operation must be stopped. There is no way to avoid it, and nor should we. It was confined mainly, but not entirely, to the Asian community, involving 90 to 95 per cent Asian electors. One Asian landlord extended it to some of his white tenants. The problem of landlords voting on behalf of
  GC 196
  tenants—a problem that I referred to during our previous consideration in regard to Oldham—was taking place here as well.
  The first thing that they did was to allocate postal votes to common addresses that were the homes of known Labour supporters or relatives of one of the Labour candidates. We believe that many voters signed the application forms before the addresses were filled in—that is what they told us—and certainly did not realise that their postal votes would not be sent to their home addresses. Indeed, many did not even realise that they were applying for a postal vote. All those applications were handed in at the town hall on the latest possible date.
  I have a list of the common addresses concerned— around 35 addresses across all the wards. In the Whitefield ward, for example, 35 postal votes were sent to the address of a Labour candidate's nominator at 16 Albert Street. I keep referring to Labour, because that is what happened in this case, but I am not making a party political point. I believe that the problem is more widespread, but it just so happened that the Labour Party was involved in my area. Thirty postal votes were sent to 10 Carr Hill Road, Barrowford, the home of a Labour candidate's cousin in a different town in Pendle. Twenty postal votes were sent to an empty house two doors away, which, I believe, belongs to the same person. Sixty-one postal votes were sent to two addresses in Rochdale—16 King Street, East Rochdale, and 6 St Luke Street—which were ordinary two-up two-down terrace houses. We ascertained that all 61 people affected had not gone on holiday to Rochdale to live in those houses.
  It was a scam that allowed people to control votes on their delivery more effectively than by the standard technique of following a postman and picking up papers from people's doorsteps or going to their houses and sorting out how they will vote as soon as they receive their papers.
  We complained immediately, as did the local Conservatives, to the chief executive. He said that under existing legislation there was nothing that he could do, because the request forms had been filled in properly. Although he was very concerned about the situation, he said that he had to send the voting papers to the addresses given on the request forms. That is why my amendment is couched as it is.
  A great parcel of votes was delivered to each of the addresses involved, where party activists, helpers and, in some cases, candidates collected them and brought them to central locations, which I shall refer to as committee rooms. They even took some postal votes requested by residents at those addresses. They then distributed the votes or, in some cases—we have strong evidence to prove this—they sat around a table and filled in the papers. It is generally accepted in the community and it is clear from talking to many of those affected that residents at the common addresses knew little or nothing of the operation, and that the common addresses were simply used as dead-letter drops.

  GC 197
  The media became interested in what was happening, as one might imagine. On 28 September 2002, the Guardian published an article about postal-vote fiddles in various areas, including east Lancashire. It said:
  "Some say they did not want their votes to be sent to these addresses. The vote of Carol Passmore, 54, a retired nurse, was sent to an address several streets away, along with 29 other postal votes. She insisted she had not wanted it sent anywhere else: 'I'm not that daft—it's my vote.' Days before the election, her postal vote was brought to her home by a Labour activist. While the party worker watched, she was asked to mark her ballot paper in front of him. Miss Passmore claimed. 'I thought a postal vote came to your house, and you did it privately and sent it back. He was looking over my shoulder while I was doing it. I won't vote again.'"
  In those circumstances, party activists then took the voting papers away. They insisted that the documents remain unsealed because they had to be checked in the committee room to ensure that they were right. The article continues:
  "The address Miss Passmore's vote was sent to is the home of a Labour candidate's cousin. He was not available for comment, but his father said he did not know Miss Passmore. He referred inquiries about her vote to Mohammed Iqbal, deputy leader of the Labour group on the council".
  Channel 4 News also interviewed Miss Passmore on 24 May 2002, because, unlike most people, she was willing to talk to them. They also contacted the Labour candidate's cousin to whom all the ballot papers arrived. He said that he could not possibly explain why all the papers had been sent to his home, that he knew nothing about them, and that someone had come along and picked them up after they had arrived.
  Channel 4 News also interviewed a young Asian man whose voting papers had been delivered along with 44 other postal votes to 126 Chapel Street, which it claimed was the home of a Labour candidate's brother-in-law. The young man said that his vote had been stolen from him. He lived around the corner from 126 Chapel Street—most of the voting papers were delivered just across the street. When Channel 4 News interviewed the residents at that address on their doorstep, they said that they knew nothing about the matter.
  That year a lot of complaints were made at polling stations. Pendle Borough Council's returning officer made a report of the complaints made. In the case of one family living at Fir Street in Nelson, none of whom had applied for a postal vote, six votes were sent to 77 Barkerhouse Road. They found that their voting papers had been sent to that address when they went to vote. When one of the voters went to that address, he was told that nothing was known about it.
  There is a lot of such evidence. I am sure that the Committee does not want to hear all of it, but I could provide a huge pile of cases. It is a very serious scam that needs to be stamped out.
  GC 198
  In addition, we discovered that a small number of people had witnessed the declaration of identity on a large number of the votes. As I mentioned in Committee last week, in one ward 200 votes were countersigned by three councillors.
  Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is doing a fabulously detailed job of explaining what the problem is. Can he tell us how his amendment is going to stamp out the problem? I am desperate to know.
  Lord Greaves: I shall do that in a minute. I am grateful to the noble Earl, but if he will be patient for a little longer I shall explain that.
  We saw the votes concerned at the count. Experienced politicians know what postal votes are like; various colours of ink are used, and numbers can be ticked or crossed out, especially in the Asian community, where voting is often by numbers. It was clear that the voting papers had been filled in centrally and that the votes were not genuine.
  What are the excuses given? The then leader of Pendle Borough Council, Azhar Ali, when interviewed by BBC's "Northwest Tonight" on 30 April 2002, said:
  "It's about extended families; it's about groups in unity and I think that's a strength not a weakness".
  That sums up our worries: the idea that block-voting by families at the behest of one or more people is not acceptable. It is certainly unacceptable for a third party to look over someone's shoulder while they vote or, even worse, to ask them to sign a declaration without ever seeing their own ballot paper or to forge a declaration.
  I have a file of more than 100 cases in which we believe that either declarations or signatures—by either the witness or the voter—were forged. I have photocopies of them here. I do not understand why the police have not been able to deal with the evidence that we have provided.
  Quite rightly, the noble Earl asks, "What is the answer?" The first answer is to give the returning officer real powers to investigate applications that he thinks might be dodgy, as this amendment would do. That means inevitably investigating applications on an individual basis. Perhaps in most places that would be regarded as a very formal procedure, but in areas such as Pendle, I am afraid, it is not. At present, the returning officer tells me that he does not have those powers.
  I submitted a Written Question on the issue on 30 April 2002, when, as Members of the Committee might imagine, it was exercising my mind. I received an answer from the then Minister of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who stated that it is for each individual who applies to say where the voting paper should be sent. He continued:
  "If an electoral registration officer (ERO) or an acting returning officer (ARO) has a suspicion of electoral fraud, it is for them to notify the police".

  GC 199
  I shall come on to that in a minute.
  "Where an application meets the statutory requirements, it must be accepted, and, where practicable, the ERO will confirm the arrangements by notifying the elector".
  Given the very tight timetable for elections that we now have, that is very often not practicable. But it can be done, and in my area it is.
  "Once these arrangements arc in place, the ARO has no discretion to disregard them".—[Official Report, 30/4/02; col. WA83.]
  The officials have to accept the form, request or application they receive on the basis of the information on it. They can refer it to the police. Indeed, our local returning officer has made it absolutely clear that if he receives many more applications for common addresses this year he will pass them straight to the police. But he would still have to accept them, and it would take the police a long time to investigate. I am afraid that such investigations in our area are less than effective and efficient.
  In moving the amendment, I do not expect the Government to say, "Yes, this is brilliant. We shall write it into the legislation now". Indeed, the problem goes wider than pilots; it covers the whole issue of postal voting and applies to the whole country. I hope that the Government, together with the Electoral Commission, will seriously consider the matter. Despite the fact that I have written to the chairman of the Electoral Commission about it, I do not believe that it is taking the matter seriously. It needs to be taken seriously because it concerns an electoral abuse which appears to be growing in a number of different parts of the country. It has to be stopped and stamped out. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has identified a very serious problem but his arguments would carry more force if they were a wincy bit more succinct. I agree with his analysis of the problem and look forward to hearing from the Minister.
  Lord Greaves: I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I believed this was a good opportunity to have the issue written into the record so that I could refer people to it in future. I apologised to the Committee at the outset.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. He prefaced his remarks by saying that he would be speaking at some length. He has read the issue into the record and so presumably, on Report, we shall be able to read Hansard rather than listen to these very interesting arguments again.
  Lord Greaves: I shall not say it all again on Report.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Thank you. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke at great length; I shall be very brief. We find the amendment particularly interesting. It would provide, as we have heard, that before a request for ballot papers to be sent to an alternative address were granted, a valid reason must be given. We believe that is very important. We can see the purpose of this and believe that potentially it could provide a valuable safeguard.
  GC 200
  However, this level of detail is more appropriate for the pilot order. We are currently in discussion with returning officers and electoral administrators regarding this and other points which would be useful in helping to reduce the potential for fraud. The noble Lord's comments in Hansard should be part of the discussion.
  As I said, we intend to share the policy paper that is currently being developed with noble Lords in the near future. Specifically on the provision suggested by the amendment, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, agrees that some issues need to be addressed—for instance, how electoral administrators would determine whether a redirection should be permitted. However, it is a very important issue and we are considering including it within the pilot. Given this assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Greaves: I am almost thrilled and excited by that answer. It is the first time that I have raised the matter in any place and I have begun to get through to people that there is a serious problem. I do not want to patronise the Minister or the Government by saying that. I am delighted by what he said and thank him, and I look forward with gleeful anticipation to what happens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.30 p.m.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Electoral Commission report]:
  [Amendment No. 30 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 31:
  Page 3, line 8, leave out "such relevant" and insert "all"
  The noble Baroness said: I need not be very long on the matter. Amendments Nos. 31, 33 and 34 focus on Clause 4 and the Electoral Commission's report after a pilot has taken place. We very much support the inclusion of Clause 4 in the Bill. It extends the Electoral Commission's duties so that it must report not only on the election in general, but on the pilot itself. That is vital as we know that the pilot is intended to trial new and innovative methods.
  We have a problem with the clause, however, in subsections (2) and (3). Subsection (2) reads:
  "The Electoral Commission must consult such relevant local authorities in the region as they consider appropriate in connection with the preparation of the report",
  while subsection (3) states:
  "Every relevant local authority in the region must give the Commission such assistance as they may reasonably require''.
  Will the Minister explain why the Electoral Commission must consult "such relevant local authorities", rather than simply all local authorities in the region, and why every "relevant" local authority in the region must give assistance rather than every local authority in the region?

  GC 201
  I can see no basis for the Electoral Commission to consult only relevant local authorities rather than them all. Every local authority will have taken part in the pilot scheme on the European election, so why should some be consulted and not others? The only local authorities that will have additional information are those where there have been local elections, which presumably will automatically be consulted by the Electoral Commission as to whether those elections work.
  It is very important that every local authority be consulted. Our wording seems correct, so I ask the Minister to explain the rationale behind it not being all local authorities that are consulted. I beg to move.
  Lord Rennard: I wondered why the Government did not immediately suggest that all local authorities should be consulted. Perhaps there could be a Machiavellian reason for only consulting some, but the logic might well be simply that the principal local authority—the county council, the district council, the metropolitan council—should be consulted. Perhaps the Government did not think it appropriate to consult every parish or town council. My suggestion to the Minister is for an appropriate government amendment to clarify the matter using, "all principal local authorities". That might deal with the issue.
  Baroness Hanham: It might, but it might not. I shall be very quick; I can see the Minister looking impatient with me already. In the European elections the principal local authority will probably be relevant, but everyone will have voted. Whether the councils are town, county or parish councils, everyone will have voted in the European elections. They may not absolutely have had a role in organising them, but they will have a view on how they have gone. In the running of local elections, how the pilot works is still important. In that instance, I agree that the relevant council may not be the parish council but more the principal one. However, all local authorities will have something to say.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I hope that I can manage to convince the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for his very helpful contribution, in which he anticipated a good part of my reply. This group of amendments increases the obligation on the Electoral Commission regarding its report on the pilot. It seeks to oblige the commission to consult all local authorities. If I work through each amendment separately, our position will become clear.
  Amendment No. 31 seeks to remove the Electoral Commission's ability to make a judgment about which local authorities it consults by removing "such relevant" and replacing it with "all", as we have heard. On the face of it, it could seem that the commission could avoid consulting authorities that it did not deem relevant. However, the word "relevant" is a link to Clause 9, which deals with interpretation of the terms used. In Clause 9 "relevant local authority" is defined in terms of local authorities—both parish and
  GC 202
  principal area authorities—which would have local authority elections under the orders. So no discretion is given to the commission here about what is a relevant local authority.
  Similarly, Amendment No. 34 seeks to remove the word "relevant", which applies to the obligation of local authorities to give the commission assistance in its evaluation. Again, that use of the word "relevant" needs to stay for the purposes of interpretation.
  Amendment No. 33 adds a constraint to the commission, removing discretion about whom to consult. In this case there is no linkage with the interpretation clause, Clause 9. However, we and the commission believe that the commission needs some discretion; otherwise it might have to consult every parish council holding elections. That would be very resource intensive—which I suspect is jargon for "expensive"—and add little to what it could achieve by consulting more selectively.
  To give some idea of the numbers involved, 49 parish elections are to be held in the East Midlands region alone. I am sure that Members of the Committee with much experience of local government will understand that it is not fruitful to require the commission to undertake consultation that will not add anything to the report and could hinder the commission in completing its work in time.
  The commission's officials have a great deal of experience in reporting on pilots and will, I am sure, ensure that they consult as necessary to produce a comprehensive and effective report. I am aware that they always seek to consult all returning officers, if possible, in any event. I think that this is something we can leave to their considered judgment without imposing constraints. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will withdraw her amendment.
  Lord Norton of Louth: Perhaps I can intervene to suggest a compromise on wording, and we can see how it goes with the Minister and with my noble friend in the light of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. What if it were to read: "The Electoral Commission must consult principal authorities and such other relevant authorities in the region as they consider appropriate"?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We would be more than happy to consider that very constructive suggestion.
  Baroness Hanham: I said yesterday in speaking to the planning Bill that I would quit while I was winning. After this perhaps I should say that I should quit doing anything. The Bill needs to contain further provision. If my noble friend's suggestion satisfies that need, we will not return to it; if it does not, we will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 36:
  Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
  "(c) making arrangements for the inspection of ballot papers to ascertain whether there is evidence (even where no allegation has been made to that effect) of personation or other electoral offences or malpractice."
  The noble Earl said: This amendment focuses on personation and electoral malpractice. It builds upon the difficulties identified by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. These are obviously a grave concern in the Bill because the methods being piloted are innovative and designed to generate evidence on the efficacy and security of these new methods. We welcome the extension of the powers of arrest on personation that Clause 6 proposes. This would remove the present restriction on arrest for personation at polling stations only and would therefore allow arrest for personation at other locations.
  We support this provision, recommended as it was by the Electoral Commission and the police. It is certainly a greater safeguard and, coupled with the Clause 7 provisions on the time limit for prosecution, it shows that the Government have to some extent carefully considered the issues surrounding electoral malpractice in pilot elections. However, I hope that the Minister will not rely exclusively on Clauses 6 and 7. We do not think that the clauses currently provide enough protection against electoral malpractice when viewed against the potential abuses in an all-postal ballot in a whole region or several regions which have been highlighted throughout our debates in Committee.
  Our amendment tries to bring the issue of personation and electoral practice into Clause 4 more explicitly. Currently, Clause 4(6)(c) states that the Electoral Commission's report,
  "must also include an assessment of the extent to which the manner in which the elections were conducted and the different provision…affected the incidence of personation or other electoral offences or malpractice".
  Our amendment would add a positive obligation on the local authority under Clause 4(4) to provide assistance. This would include making arrangements for the inspection of ballot papers to ascertain whether there is evidence of personation—even when no allegation has been made to that effect—or of other electoral offences or malpractice.
  Under subsection (6)(c), the Electoral Commission may simply ask the local authority if any instances of electoral malpractice had been reported to it. More than likely the answer would be "No". We want to go further. We believe that a lot of electoral malpractice takes place behind closed doors, as the Committee has already discussed.
  Our amendments would make it the duty of the local authority, in assisting the Electoral Commission, to carry out a spot check inspection to find out if any electoral malpractice or personation has taken place. It does not rely only on an allegation. This would go beyond the situation of complaints being made. It
  GC 204
  would place a duty on the local authority to double-check in order to have a clearer picture of whether the new methods of voting encouraged electoral malpractice. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: It has been made clear through the process of the Bill that the Government regard the security problem and the fraud problem as major issues. We intend to do everything that we can to minimise and extinguish malpractice in these areas.
  Amendment No. 36 would add a provision that local authorities may assist the commission by making ballot papers available for inspection for consideration of fraud. In any event, it is the duty of the returning officers to deal with issues of fraud and to be responsible for the ballot papers, both during the proceedings and afterwards. Once the ballot papers have been counted, an order for their inspection can be made only by the election court. The returning officers are responsible and they are best placed to deal with issues of fraud as they process the papers in the course of the poll.
  However, it is worth noting that under current regulations the Electoral Commission can attend the verification of ballot paper accounts, counting of votes, and proceedings on opening of postal ballot papers. These provisions will remain in principle in the pilot order, amended as necessary to take into account the all-postal nature of the ballot.
  In addition, the Commission will report on specific issues of fraud if it identifies cause to do so, and it is obliged in the Bill to assess the extent to which postal voting affected the incidence of personation or other electoral offence or malpractice. Fraud is an issue that has been raised in general with regard to remote voting. Given the nature of these elections, it is clear that the Electoral Commission will concentrate on this issue and give it most careful consideration.
  We are doing a number of things to combat fraud. We recognise that that is a major concern and are taking many actions; for example, to assist the Electoral Commission in its duty to report on fraud, the Bill provides that local authorities must report to the commission any allegations of personation or other electoral offences or malpractice.
  An important additional measure for the pilots that has not existed previously is the extension of the offence of personation to make it arrestable outside a polling station in pilot regions. That measure has been informed by the Electoral Commission's recommendations on the future of postal voting. We hope that it will provide an important safeguard.
  The maximum penalties for personation are, on summary conviction, either a maximum fine at level 5—£5,000—or six months' imprisonment or both, and on conviction on indictment, either a maximum of two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both. In addition, the Bill provides that the magistrates court is given a power to allow, in exceptional circumstances, an extension of time for prosecution to

  GC 205
  be commenced, up to a maximum of 24 months after the date of the offence. Current legislation allows only 12 months.
  Taken together, those steps will produce a more secure environment for the pilots to succeed. Other measures to help reinforce security and secrecy will be included in the pilot order. As I have said on several occasions, Members of the Committee will have an opportunity to look at them, and any further suggestions will be warmly welcomed.
  The detailed policy on reducing the risk of fraud in the pilots is being developed in partnership with the Electoral Commission and other stakeholders. I have given a commitment—a moment ago—to give Members of the Committee early sight of the policy. I have a list of issues that we are looking into with the Electoral Commission. The matters that currently we are looking into include: comparing signatures on security statements with signatures on file; checks to be made with a sample of people marked as having returned a ballot paper to ensure that they did send in the papers and were not coerced in the process of completing and returning them; inclusion of secrecy warnings on voting; warnings as to the penalties for fraud; and extending the scope of the secrecy rules to cover all postal provisions to require those serving in a delivery place, those providing assistance, and observers to abide by secrecy rules.
  We are taking the matter extraordinarily seriously. We will welcome any comments from Members of the Committee that will help us to give maximum effect to extinguishing fraud. Although we cannot accept the amendment, I hope that I have been able to give some reassurance about our plans on security, and that, therefore, the amendment can be withdrawn.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Greaves: The noble Lord's amendment refers to inspection of documents. It actually refers to ballot papers, but, usefully, it could refer to other documents as well. The Minister referred to Clause 7, which refers to a possible extension of the time available to commence a prosecution of fraud, impersonation, and so forth, from 12 months to 24 months. At the moment the deadline is 12 months.
  Two other deadlines seem to be related to that. The first is the ability to inspect those documents that are inspectable—that does not include the ballot papers because they are sealed. If I remember correctly, at present there is a six-month deadline on that—I should remember because I carried out that task last year. Secondly, if my memory serves me, there is a 12-month deadline for destroying documents. Documents must be kept for 12 months but may be destroyed at any time after that, although sometimes they are kept for longer if a case is being pursued.
  Are the Government considering extending those two deadlines—perhaps to 12 months and two years— to correspond with the extension of the other deadline? People seem to be shaking their heads. Will the Government consider extending those deadlines,
  GC 206
  because they seem relevant? There is no point in being able to commence a prosecution within 24 months if, for the second half of that time, all the documents involved have been incinerated.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I think that heads were being shaken because we do not know the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I can see the logic of his point, particularly as the other deadline has been moved to 24 months. We will go away and think, and I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I am grateful to him for raising the point.
  Lord Greaves: I am most grateful.
  Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the response given by the Minister. I am anxious that he still seems to be relying on allegations, whereas I suggest having spot checks. I am not convinced that great enough attention has been given to having spot checks as part of the process. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said. Subject to the usual caveats, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 37 to 42 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  [Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
  Lord Rennard Lord Rennard moved Amendment No. 45:
  Page 3, line 28, at end insert—
  "( ) For the purposes of subsection (6)(c) the report must be wholly or in part based on information obtained in response to questions put to a random sample of electors."
  The noble Lord said: The amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Goodhart and myself perhaps shows signs of having been worded by a lawyer rather than a politician. Perhaps I may explain what my noble friend Lord Goodhart means when he says, "a random sample of electors". In my words, I might have put, "a proper opinion poll", which is what I am referring to here.
  The fundamental principle of the review that the commission must undertake of the pilots is that it needs to be proactive. It should look at people's perceptions of all the different issues that we have debated so far in relation to the pilots. My fear is that the Electoral Commission's assessment of various local authority pilots has relied, to quite a considerable extent until now, on the number of complaints that may or may not have come forward.
  My noble friend Lord Greaves has raised a considerable number of issues in relation to Pendle. But in many of the pilots we know that there have been very few problems or very little evidence of any. We should have bigger-scale pilots—I hope that there will be at least two on a very large scale. In a proper and measured way, we must seek people's perceptions of the kind of problems that we have talked about; in particular, the fundamental problem of secrecy in relation to postal voting. We need to approach a random sample of voters, using a proper opinion poll company.

  GC 207
  Very soon after the elections—perhaps the Friday or Saturday after the normal polling day—we need to conduct a proper, thorough opinion poll. One check that could be made would be to ask people whether they voted in the elections. That would help us to determine whether the sample was representative. We might also ask in which way these people voted. Of course, that information must be kept confidential until later, but it would be useful as a check on whether the sample is representative. People could be asked some important key questions such as, "Did you fill in your ballot paper yourself?
  There have been a number of allegations during the debate about how people fear that ballot papers may be taken away and may be completed by others in the household—for example, other family members. We need to know that information specifically from those people, perhaps through a private opinion poll. I would suggest that telephone interviewing would be the best way. People could be asked whether they filled in the ballot paper themselves and, if they did, whether they thought that anyone else may have seen how they voted. They could be asked whether anyone else could have seen how they had voted or could have interfered with their vote, and how comfortable they felt about the process.
  I fear that until now, where the commission has tried to evaluate pilots, it has dealt with areas where there has been very little abuse or problems, whereas my noble friend Lord Greaves has shown that in his part of the world there has been a considerable number of problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, will well remember the problems in Liverpool in the 1980s. While she was involved in sorting out some of the problems within her party, I was involved in sorting them out in a different way by opposing the militants in the elections. We saw how a group of extremists could manipulate the electoral process. During the militant era in Liverpool, I believe that personation was widespread in elections.
  Of course, there are only a small number of places where there are those kinds of problems. I think that the commission will say that it is safe to proceed with all-postal voting on the basis that in many areas, most of the time, it appeared very safe and was not a problem. But if, in a sufficient number of areas, there is a problem, I am not sure that we should proceed in this way. The only way that I can see of doing an objective assessment of how people have felt about the pilots is to conduct a proper opinion poll of reasonably large samples of people in each region where there are postal vote experiments asking these kind of questions.
  Lord Norton of Louth: I rise briefly to comment on the amendment. I wholly agree with the motivation behind Amendment No. 45; namely, that the commission should be proactive in exploring whether any offences have occurred, rather than simply relying on whether, say, acting returning officers know of cases. I think that the motivation is correct. I have a problem with the actual phraseology in that it allows
  GC 208
  for the report wholly or in part to be based on the random sample. My concern is with the word, "wholly".
  The Chairman of Committees: There is a Division in the Chamber. Therefore, the Grand Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes until 5.5 p.m.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.55 to 5.6 p.m.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): We will start again. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, was in full stream.
  Lord Norton of Louth: Thank you, my Lord Chairman.
  I agree with the principle underlying the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard—that, the commission must be proactive in seeking to fulfil its functions under subsection 6(c). My concern is that the wording of the amendment allows the commission to fall back on a random sample of electors. As drafted, an opinion poll is necessary, which is fine. However, under the current wording, it could be necessary and sufficient.
  I have a suggestion that might deal with that problem. The amendment could instead read: "For the purposes of subsection (6)(c) the report must include information obtained in response to questions put to a random sample of electors". That would be slightly more acceptable, because it would not be so clear that the commission could fall back on a random sample. However, I am sympathetic to the reason for the amendment. There should be some provision that requires the commission to be proactive in fulfilling its functions under subsection (6)(c).
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I should declare an interest: my first job was in market research. I examined the amendment, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and immediately thought that using "random samples" would be quite inappropriate. I prepared an effective demolition job on the notion that random samples were a good thing, and I will deliver that because, clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, feels that random samples are the way ahead. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that they are not. The idea that an opinion poll is based on random sample is not true. We should be looking at representative samples.
  Amendment No. 45 would require the commission to include information obtained from a random sample of electors in the base for the part of its report relating to incidence of personation and other electoral offences. This is an interesting amendment because it seeks to ensure that the views of electors are taken into account in any assessment and evaluation. In that respect, it has an intention that we support.
  The Electoral Commission's report on this year's pilots included information provided by MORI on a number of issues including security and fraud. In producing this information, MORI conducted telephone interviews and held focus groups. However,

  GC 209
  those would not meet this amendment's requirement of "random samples" as they were specifically designed to provide more representative results, which a random sample would not do. A "random" sample could easily reduce the range of electors consulted and so omit important views, opinions and experiences.
  If this amendment were revised to remove the word "random", we might accept it. We would like to discuss this further with the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Goodhart, before Report. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, should advise me on whether we should discuss it with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
  Lord Rennard: I thank the Minister for that kind and helpful reply. I relayed a tiny flavour of the argument to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, a few minutes ago. I apologise if I embarrassed him slightly in the course of this debate. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for his helpful remarks. I am sure that we will be able to draft something that will be satisfactory to us all at the next stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 46:
  Page 3, line 38, after "Commission" insert ", all the local authorities in the areas affected by any pilots and all the national political parties contesting the elections"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47 to 49. Clause 4(8) states that the assessment that will be included in the report from the Electoral Commission,
  "must include a statement by the Electoral Commission as to whether in their opinion—

  (a) the turnout of voters was higher than it would otherwise have been;

  (b) electors found the procedures provided for their assistance easy to use".

  Our amendments would provide that that statement must be from not only the Electoral Commission but,
  "all the local authorities affected…and all the…political parties contesting the elections".
  Obviously, as currently drafted, the Electoral Commission is likely to consult local authorities before making a statement under subsection (8). We know that it is also under an obligation to consult local authorities—not all, but the relevant ones that it thinks appropriate. The Minister may clarify that relevance is the defining matter in this case, as discussed on an earlier clause.
  However, we do not believe that that consultation at the Electoral Commission's discretion gives sufficient authority to the statement that it will make under subsection (8). The statement should include the views of all local authorities, candidates and political parties involved in elections held under the pilot scheme. Essentially, subsection (7) implies already that the Electoral Commission should consult local authorities, candidates and national political parties, but only about the effect of the provision of information about polling progress, as specified under
  GC 210
  Clause 2, on the running of the campaign, and the conduct and administration of the election. Their views are then sought only on the issue of the marked register—we understand that that is a matter of contention. We think that that is wrong.
  Our three amendments would make explicit that the statement under subsection (8) must be based on the views of both local authorities and national political parties. It is they who will have the best idea about whether the turnout of voters was higher than otherwise and whether electors found the procedures easy to use. I believe that national political parties have a right to give their views to the Electoral Commission, if they feel that the pilot elections caused any disadvantage to their campaign and to the election procedure itself.
  Amendment No. 47 would ensure that any reports published for the purposes of subsection (7)—that is, reports submitted by candidates and political parties on how the pilot election went—must be included in the assessment, which is part of the Electoral Commission's report. We want as much information as possible in that report and we see no reason why, if reports have been published under the requirement of subsection (7), they should not be included in the final report issued by the Electoral Commission.
  On Amendment No. 49, after the pilot elections in June 2004, the Electoral Commission must publish a report for each region in consultation with local authorities, assessing how the pilot elections went as regards voter turnout, the ease and accessibility of voting provisions, the administration of the elections, the provision of polling progress information and its effect on the campaigns of candidates and political parties. We all know that those new and innovative voting methods are being put on trial, albeit in half of the regions available, and that the report will form the basis of the Government's decision on whether the new methods are adopted wholesale for future elections. That is why the report must be as comprehensive as possible and include the statements to which I referred.
  Our amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish his response to the report within three months and to lay copies in the Library of each House of Parliament. It is only right that the Secretary of State should give a speedy response to the Electoral Commission's report. We know how important timing is on election issues; we have had complaints this year from local authorities in regions that have claimed that they would not have sufficient time to prepare the necessary infrastructure, were they to be chosen for the pilot scheme.
  Our amendment would ensure that the conclusions that the Secretary of State draws from the Electoral Commission's report are public knowledge within a sensible period. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Before I speak to the noble Baroness's amendments, perhaps I may confirm that whenever "relevant local authority" is used, the meaning is as set out in Clause 9.

  GC 211
  This group of amendments seeks to mandate some additional content for the report to be produced by the Electoral Commission in setting out further whom it is to consult, what it is to consider and what the report should contain. It might be helpful if I work through the amendments individually.
  Amendment No. 46 would impose a requirement for the commission to include within its report a statement by itself, the local authorities involved in the pilots and all the national political parties contesting the election as to opinions on turnout and procedures. That is an inappropriate addition, as it would require the commission to produce a statement that includes the views of others—views that may not be consistent between all those involved. The commission will produce a report based upon consultation with others but which includes an independent assessment. That reflects the basis and role of the commission.
  Amendment No. 47 would mandate that the commission's assessment include,
  "any other published reports which are relevant"
  in respect of polling progress information. Again, that should not be mandated. The commission can consider other views in making its assessment, but its report is to give its independent assessment. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that that would be unnecessary direction of an independent statutory authority, particularly as the commission has proven itself able to produce effective and considered reports in the past.
  With respect to Amendments Nos. 46 and 47, it is important to note that the commission has no power to require such other bodies to provide reports and opinions to it by any specific time. The commission is required under the Bill to report within three months of the pilots, and that timing could be impossible to achieve if reports from others were not available.
  Amendment No. 48 would require the commission to include in its report a statement by the commission of the views of the candidates and the political parties on the conduct of the election and impact of the pilots on the turnout and result. The commission will comment on the nature of the pilots and how that affected turnout. That is already provided for in Clause 4(8). However, the commission is not required in the Bill to report on the elections per se, as that would mean the overall European and combined elections rather than just the pilots. That is a very important distinction. Neither should the commission be required to report upon the result of the election. Its role is to look at the process, not the outcome, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, pointed out earlier. In any case, it is difficult to see how that could be achieved.
  Amendment No. 49 would require the Secretary of State to publish a response to the commission's report within three months. Although the Government have, in the past, responded to the commission's reports on local authority pilots and are likely to do so in this instance also, we do not accept the amendment, as it would create a precedent for a statutory duty for the Government formally to respond to such reports. We appreciate the consideration and recommendations
  GC 212
  put forward by the commission and see it as assisting the progress of the electoral modernisation agenda. Should a report be produced—as I said, we are likely to, in this instance—we would make copies available to the House Libraries, as we have done in the past. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
  5.15 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I can ask one or two questions on the other bodies I mentioned; namely, the political parties and the local authorities. It would seem obvious that if there were going to be one report it should include a composite of other views. Many reports do so; they say that they have attached reports or have taken account of other views. One of the problems with this system is how one can properly engage political parties in the procedure. Somewhere along the line there has to be an official response to that; otherwise all of us as parliamentarians are simply ignoring and discounting the party political aspect of the issue. If we are not careful, at some stage party politics will be completely written out of postal ballots. I think that that would be an enormous mistake. We need to take great cognisance of the issue.
  We know that this arrangement is going to make it difficult for politicians to get their message across. I think that we need a report that recognises that party politics is a more than relevant part of all this; it is a major ingredient. I shall not press the amendment. These amendments are imperfect in any event. However, perhaps the Minister would like to respond on how the Government will ensure that the views of each of the political parties and local authorities taking part will be taken into account. We should know how they managed the whole process. From where will that information come if not from the Electoral Commission's report?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I shall respond very briefly to that interesting point. The Electoral Commission has traditionally not seen it as part of its duty to report on the political parties. It is concerned with the process of elections, and I think that we would all agree that it has done a very good job. However, I hear the noble Baroness's point. Between now and Report we will have a discussion among ourselves and with the Electoral Commission. Nevertheless, my guess is that the commission will not be happy with this new responsibility. We will take the point away and reflect on it.
  Baroness Hanham: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. Meanwhile, perhaps we will consider how to involve party politicians in reporting back. It is a major aspect of the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 50 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Revision of procedures in light of report]:
  [Amendment No. 51 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Personation: arrestable offence]:
  [Amendments Nos. 52 to 55 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Time limit for prosecution of offences]:
  [Amendments Nos. 56 to 61 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Other elections, etc]:
  Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 62:
  Page 5, line 15, at end insert "in those regions where pilot schemes take place"
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 62 is at the head of a group which includes Amendment No. 76, a government amendment on the same subject, and Amendments Nos. 77 and 78, which are Conservative amendments. In moving my previous amendment I think I tested the patience of the Committee. I shall not do so this time—and perhaps I can win back a few brownie points.
  These amendments are concerned with whether by-elections should be possible for parliamentary, local authority, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly seats, and whether it should be possible to hold them in the period before or after or on the same day as local elections. My amendment is not properly drafted, but it should say that by-elections should not be allowed on the same day. I raise the point for discussion. I think that I prefer the government amendment, and if it is moved I shall support it. I am not sure that that is the unanimous view in my party, but we will see. Meanwhile, I beg to move.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: As Amendment No. 76 is in this group I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 76 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 77 or 78.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 62, the purpose of which is to alter Clause 8 to state that the schedule applies only in the pilot regions. The amendment is not necessary as the Bill clearly states in each paragraph of the schedule that the provision applies only in a pilot region. I am very happy to make that clear.
  As to government Amendment No. 76, as the Committee is aware, included in the Schedule to the Bill is a provision preventing Westminster by-elections, other elections, by-elections and referendums from taking place within a window of time around the European parliamentary elections in pilot regions. In the case of Westminster by-elections, the specific details are that no by-election can take place, either on the same day as the European parliamentary elections or at any time within three weeks before or after that date. The intention is that undue complexity and confusion is avoided for electoral administrators and the electorate.
  GC 214
  The provision regarding Westminster by-elections has been raised as a concern by the Select Committee on the Constitution in its consideration of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is the chairman of that Select Committee and we are delighted that he is here today.
  The report of the Constitution Committee states:
  "So far as we are aware, there is no direct precedent for the imposition of such a restriction, which would cause the electorate in the affected constituency to be without a representative in Parliament for longer than would otherwise be the case. This may be perceived as setting a precedent with constitutional implications".
  My noble friend Lord Filkin agreed during the Second Reading debate to consider the provision further and, after so doing, we have tabled an amendment. Government Amendment No. 76 would retain the current provision but amend it so that the excluded period is reduced to only the date of the European parliamentary election. If the election was on the same day, then either it could be combined with other elections or held in parallel. If it were combined, this would effectively mean piloting at a parliamentary election and increase administrative complexity considerably. It would also be moving the goal posts as we have never proposed piloting in parliamentary elections through the Bill.
  Alternatively, the election could be held on the same day in parallel, in other words traditional voting arrangements, including polling stations, would need to be run in addition to the all-postal vote on polling day. Voters would need to be aware of where and how to vote for each election and it is likely that a great deal of confusion would be generated, almost certainly impacting negatively on turnout.
  Given the comments of the Constitution Committee, we have taken the view that although a Westminster by-election must not take place on the same day as the European elections for the reasons I have described, it would be acceptable to allow the possibility of a by-election in the surrounding period.
  Additionally, should they so choose, it would be possible for the parties to take steps in order that by-elections were not scheduled in the period immediately surrounding the European election. This would be in their interest given the possibility of voter confusion and low turnout that this could cause.
  I hope the Committee will support the amendment. I believe that it meets the objections of the Constitution Committee while still ensuring that the success of elections is not endangered.
  Perhaps I may now turn to deal briefly with Amendments Nos. 77 and 78.
  Baroness Hanham: You may. But under the circumstances I would rather hear what my noble friend Lord Norton has to say. I may well withdraw the amendments.
  Lord Norton of Louth: I shall respond to that invitation with some enthusiasm. I am delighted to give my support to government Amendment No. 76. I appended my name to Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 in

  GC 215
  order to push the Government in the direction I believe they should he going. I did not table an amendment similar to government Amendment No. 76 because I was not sure that I would obtain agreement on it. The Government have tabled an amendment which meets precisely what I would like to see happen. I am therefore very pleased to support that amendment in preference to Amendments Nos. 77 and 78.
  There is a very important principle embodied in the Constitution Committee's report. It was not passing judgment on the issue but calling attention to the constitutional implications and leaving it for the House to make its own judgment.
  My view is that the principle of voter choice is extremely important. Voters should not be denied the opportunity to choose a parliamentary representative for any longer than is necessary. For that principle to be overridden there would have to be a compelling reason and I do not think that an admitted complexity by itself is sufficient. I can appreciate the difficulty of organising a parliamentary by-election very close to the holding of these pilot elections, but I do not think that that should be the overriding point relative to the principle involved. I am delighted that the Government have recognised that and therefore Amendment No. 76 has my full support. I am quite prepared to support the Government against any alternative views that may be put forward.
  Baroness Hanham: In view of those remarks, I can save the Minister some time in responding to Amendments Nos. 77 and 78; I shall not move them.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Rennard: Without wishing to cause bad feeling because we have agreed what we are going to do, may I express some reservations? A little more explanation and consideration of this issue will be required before I will feel able to agree with Amendment No. 76.
  Everyone is agreed that in the areas where we will have the all-postal ballot pilots, it will not be possible to have a piloted by-election on the same day as the election for the Euro MP, perhaps the metropolitan district councillor, the district councillor and the parish councillor as well. Logistically it would be impossible to hold four sets of elections on the same day using different systems: all-postal voting for the local and European elections and traditional polling stations for the parliamentary by-election. On that we are agreed.
  However, what is a greater difficulty than those mentioned by other noble Lords so far is the way we are now changing the nature of elections, with all-postal voting and, increasingly, more postal voting even in parliamentary elections. The time-scale within which elections are taking place is now quite different from what it was previously. No longer are we able to say that the election campaign covers a neat period that runs up to polling day. Polling day now takes place over two or three weeks. Rather than having a polling day, we have polling weeks.
  GC 216
  Over that period, people apply to vote by post in a parliamentary election, or they are sent their postal ballots if it is an all-postal ballot pilot election. I am concerned about the problematical logistics of people either applying or not applying for a postal vote if potentially a parliamentary by-election takes place in the same area as an all-postal vote election. People will say, "I don't need to apply for a postal vote to elect my MP in the by-election. It's all postal voting around here. I read about it in the papers and I will be sent a postal vote". So they will not apply for the postal vote that they might need.
  Different postal votes being sent out for different elections to be held simultaneously—for up to four different bodies—are going to be rather more complicated than we anticipate.
  I noted immediately the principled issue of postponing the election of a Member of Parliament. Back in 2001 I expressed my concerns about the precedent of postponing the local elections that year and voiced my doubts about whether it is right to postpone an election and how it should be agreed to do so. I am concerned about the principle. However, perhaps I am not quite as concerned as the Constitution Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. Noble Lords will know that I have taken a long interest in parliamentary by-elections and the time-scales for those contests. The committee appeared to think that six weeks was a huge delay in selecting a Member of Parliament for a parliamentary by-election.
  Some 10 years ago we had the Eastleigh parliamentary by-election. The period from the tragic date of death to polling day was something like 19 weeks. I know that because I spent nearly every one of those 19 weeks in the Eastleigh constituency. It has been suggested that a six-week delay in an election like that is wholly unreasonable. Six weeks is nothing compared with the 19 weeks it took on that occasion to organise an election from the sad death to the by-election. These days by-elections take place rather rapidly, occasionally rather too rapidly, I believe. The Ipswich parliamentary by-election held in December 2001 involved a three-week campaign between the sad death and polling day, although other by-elections take rather longer.
  The convention related to the timing of by-elections was established after the controversy over the Berwick-upon-Tweed by-election in late 1973 when the then Conservative government under Edward Heath was very concerned not to allow a Liberal by-election if they could possibly avoid it. They dragged out the election period for as long as possible to avoid having the people of Berwick-upon-Tweed voting for a Member of Parliament. I think they went without an MP for around a year before eventually, hugely embarrassed about denying people their representative in Parliament, the government agreed that a by-election could go ahead. They lost it by about 57 votes to Alan Beith, who is still in the other place today.

  GC 217
  That was a delay of one year. I do not therefore regard a potential six-week delay as a huge problem for the democratic process, provided that the Chief Whip of the party that has lost the Member gets on reasonably expeditiously and moves the writ at a proper time. The six-week period is not a problem for me.
  However, there are logistical difficulties with the election, particularly with different systems of postal votes: in a parliamentary election the voter applies for a postal vote; in an all-postal ballot the voting papers are sent to the voter directly. People will be confused about whether polling stations are open. For the parties, we have reached a point where it was right to combine the elections on 10 June, when, by and large, we will have local elections where they exist, Welsh elections, metropolitan elections, London elections and European elections.
  To have a parliamentary by-election at Westminster level at the same time will be confusing for some voters and difficult for parties to get across all their different messages, at different levels, at the same time. A little further consideration is needed, particularly for the period in the run-up to 10 June, when there will be more political difficulties with a parliamentary by-election at the same time as there would be if it was held afterwards. For that reason, we should consider the matter a little more carefully, and perhaps get back to the commission on it, before we agree to make the changes suggested in government Amendment No. 76.
  Lord Norton of Louth: Perhaps I may intervene to give the Minister some ammunition, if he cares for some, in response to what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, has just said. The noble Lord said that he does not see it as a problem given the instances he cited. When he says that it is not a problem, he means that it is not a problem for the political parties. The electors may have a somewhat different perspective, and that is the aspect that we should look at. The noble Lord identified the problem of delays under the existing system. That is an argument for reform of the existing system to expedite it, so electors are not left for too long without a Member of Parliament; it is not an argument against the amendment.
  I notice that the noble Lord's party, when advocating reform of the electoral system, does so on the basis that electors will be able to understand the new system because we have a sophisticated electorate who will be able to get their heads around it. The logic of that is that they will have no difficulty getting their heads around the parliamentary by-election followed shortly thereafter by a pilot election.
  Lord Greaves: The argument that we use is that people are not capable of counting.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Clearly, we cannot please everyone. This discussion has shown that we must consider what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, before Report. We invite the noble Lords, Lord
  GC 218
  Norton of Louth and Rennard, to discuss with us how we can get an amendment that will make everyone happy. In the mean time—
  The Deputy Chairman: Amendment No. 62 is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
  Lord Greaves: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 63 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 [Interpretation]:
  [Amendment No. 64 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 5, line 28, leave out paragraph (b).
  The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to probe whether the Government's piloting might extend to innovative ways of counting votes as compared to manually separating them, putting them in piles and so on. Will they consider using electronic machines or other mechanical contrivances rather than people? I would view such proposals with less than enthusiasm but, at the moment, the amendment merely seeks to probe the Government's view. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Amendment No. 65 would remove a specific reference to how the votes cast at an election are to be counted. Currently the pilot order can make provision regarding what is termed the "pilot matters". These are defined as when, where and how voting takes place and how the votes cast are to be counted. This needs to be retained in particular as we may wish to allow for electronic counting.
  However, the good news is that no decision has yet been taken on this. A meeting is scheduled for Tuesday of next week, to be attended by government officials, the pilot regional returning officers or their deputies and the Electoral Commission. The meeting will inform the Government's view on the use of e-counting within these pilots and we shall return to this issue at a later date. It may be helpful to discuss this with noble Lords opposite after the meeting and before the Report stage. The settled policy will then be set out in the policy paper which, as I have said on a number of occasions today, will be sent to interested Peers prior to the next stage.
  With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Earl Attlee: I am a little confused. The Electoral Commission report suggested that the decision had to be made by mid-December. We are now nearing the end of January. I am extremely concerned whether there will be sufficient time to set up the system of all-postal votes. How does the Minister know to which pilot regions he will be talking when he has not made a decision about which regions will be piloted?
  Baroness Hanham: My recollection is that there was a pilot at the previous European elections—at least

  GC 219
  one of which took place in London—on electronic counting. It was extremely slow and the result came out hours and hours late. The Minister may wish to concentrate on that issue as well.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I can see the point that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is making. I can assure him that if we have the meetings and move quickly we will be able to have everything in place by 4 June. He said previously in Committee that it has not yet been agreed how many regions we shall be piloting. I made the point then and I shall make it again that it is a chicken and egg situation. Obviously we cannot be specific until we know the number of regions, but we are carrying out an enormous amount of preparatory work so that when the decision is made, we can move very quickly.
  If we felt that we would not be able to fulfil our obligations by 4 June, we would obviously be very troubled—but we are not.
  Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for the information he has provided. Whether it amounts to assurances I am not quite sure. He referred to "4 June". Was that a slip of the tongue?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am sorry. It is 10 June. The earlier date is my son's birthday.
  Lord Greaves: So the noble Lord is not changing polling day on the hoof and holding elections on a week-end as my noble friend would like. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 66 to 69 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 [Orders]:
  Lord Rennard Lord Rennard moved Amendment No. 70:
  Page 6, line 11, leave out "under section 1"
  The noble Lord said: This concerns an interesting principle about a great deal of election legislation. I thank the Minister for explaining how he intends elections to be conducted. I understand particularly the reservations of some noble Lords that, if this is to happen, local authorities will need to prepare effectively for the elections and to know as soon as possible how they are to be conducted.
  There have been a number of controversies over orders relevant to elections such as these. I recall particularly the rules for the election of the Mayor of London four years ago, which caused significant dispute within the House.
  At this stage, until we have a little more detail about the Government's proposals for the regulation of these elections, we are not prepared to allow them to go ahead by order without at least some parliamentary scrutiny. I am not saying that that is our fixed and final position. As more detail emerges we may, in the interests of haste, maximum efficiency and getting the elections agreed quickly, at a later stage agree that the elections should proceed as the Government intend.
  GC 220
  But at this point I feel uncomfortable about agreeing that matters should proceed by order without parliamentary scrutiny. I beg to move.
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: My amendment simply supports the amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and to which the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is added. We believe that both Clauses 1 and 2 should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, which is what these amendments would ensure.
  Perhaps I may raise one question. The Minister said that everything would be ready for 10 June. In fact, everything must be ready by 22 May if the three-week time-scale is to be met, so time is short. I should correct what I said about electronic voting being carried out in the European elections. It was used in the mayoral election in London and proved to be very slow.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: These amendments seek to subject the detailed pilot order to parliamentary scrutiny. I understand why noble Lords are pressing for this. The pilot order will make detailed changes to electoral procedures in the pilot regions. I must remind noble Lords that we are talking about the fine detail here. For example, I have here the all-postal voting scheme 2003 for the district of Herefordshire. When the orders are published for these pilots, they are likely to be three times the size of this scheme. Given that people are as bound by the regulations as they are by the Act, we feel that the most efficient way of handling this is by order.
  We have taken as our precedent Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000. This allows pilot orders for local authority election pilots to be made without being subject to parliamentary scrutiny. There is admittedly a difference in that under RPA 2000, local authorities volunteer to run pilot schemes, whereas under this Bill they will be compelled to do so. However, we feel that this is compensated for by the fact that Parliament must approve where the pilots will take place and, in broad terms, the method of piloting to be undertaken; in this case, postal voting. Last autumn we also consulted local authorities and other stakeholders on our proposals for the pilots.
  The Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform has already considered this Bill and in its fourth report of this Session agreed that parliamentary procedure was not necessary for the pilot order. It recommended wider publication of the pilot order than that which is specified in the Bill. We have agreed wholeheartedly with this recommendation and we are looking at ways of making the order widely available using printed and electronic means of dissemination to, for example, electoral administrators, political parties and representative organisations.
  We are not attempting to avoid scrutiny of our policy. After all, the Bill itself requires that the Electoral Commission is consulted on the contents of the pilot order and will be required to carefully assess each pilot after it has taken place. Additionally, we are developing the policy that will inform the pilot order

  GC 221
  in conjunction with regional returning officers, the Electoral Commission and other stakeholders. We have been open in presenting our policy during our debates on specific issues such as, for example, supported delivery points or access for those with disabilities. However, I take the point that the details are important and, perhaps for the tenth time today, I shall mention that we are absolutely committed to sharing our policy intentions further with noble Lords of all parties between now and Report, and we welcome their responses to this policy.
  I must finish, however, by reiterating that our view is that parliamentary scrutiny of the pilot order is not in itself appropriate. An important balance is to be struck between scrutiny and maximising the time that those implementing the pilots have to proceed with legal authority. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Norton of Louth: I want to make a point related to our earlier discussion. We said that it was very important that certain points should be put in the Bill in relation to Clause 2. The Minister's argument was that that was not necessary, as they would go into the order. He is now saying that the order should not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It cannot be both. If it will not be subject to affirmative resolution, there must be consideration of putting the points that we raised earlier into the Bill. If they are not in it, we have to subject not only the main order but the pilot order to parliamentary approval.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am grateful for that contribution but am left with the problem that, if we put the order in the Bill, it will be a very large Bill and will create a precedent that may not be acceptable. We will consider the noble Lord's point, and I will write to him well before Report.
  Baroness Hanham: Can we get the matter clear? There must be some common principles on the pilot orders. If all that we have discussed throughout the process is not to go into the Bill—we will all still want it in the Bill—it has to be in the pilot order. There must be principles that go all the way across every pilot order, and they must be agreed in Parliament and by the Committee. The Minister may not be able to answer now, but consideration has to be given to how what our discussions finally conclude is taken into account for the legislation. We need some more clarity.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I hope that I can provide that clarity. We are consulting all noble Lords interested in the orders. If, during that consultation process, there are principles in the orders that noble Lords feel need to be in the Bill, they can raise such matters at the next stage. We are not trying to avoid any issues. I have told Members of the Committee that they will see the policy document so many times that
  GC 222
  they are bored. In that way, we can look at the matter as we look at the orders and get a satisfactory resolution for everyone, I hope.
  Lord Rennard: I thank the Minister for his contribution for the 10th time, or whatever it is. Obviously I recognise that there is a trade-off between efficiency and accountability. We would really all like to have both. Perhaps the choice is between consultation with the Electoral Commission or approval by parliamentarians. As the Minister implies, the devil is sometimes in the detail. The more detail we see and feel assured of, the less we will need to scrutinise the matter rather more thoroughly than might otherwise be the case. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 71 to 73 not moved.]
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 [Extent]:
  [Amendment No. 74 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Schedule [Other elections, etc]:
  [Amendment No. 75 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  [Amendments Nos. 76 to 78 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 79 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 80:
  Page 7, line 29, at end insert—
  "(4) In the event of a poll having to be postponed under the provisions of sub-paragraph (3), any expenditure incurred by a candidate shall be disregarded for the purposes of keeping within the maximum permitted expenditure."
  The noble Baroness said: In light of the government amendment relating to elections, I do not think that I need to move the amendment today.
  [Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  [Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 84 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  [Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendment.
  The Committee adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock.

  Supreme Court
  Supreme Court
  Domestic Violence: Supporting People Programme
  Domestic Violence: Supporting People Programme
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Children: Financial Support
  Children: Financial Support
  VAT
  VAT
  Disability Sports
  Disability Sports
  Northern Ireland: Sport
  Northern Ireland: Sport
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Azinphos-methyl: Inveresk Study
  Azinphos-methyl: Inveresk Study
  Agricultural Exports
  Agricultural Exports
  Countryside Stewardship Scheme: Payments
  Countryside Stewardship Scheme: Payments
  NHS: National Programme for Information Technology
  NHS: National Programme for Information Technology
  NHS: Sexual Health Services
  NHS: Sexual Health Services
  Mental Illness
  Mental Illness
  A12: Capel St Mary Link Road
  A12: Capel St Mary Link Road
  Road Schemes: Public Inquiries
  Road Schemes: Public Inquiries
  Congestion Charging
  Congestion Charging

  Baton Round: Alternatives
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement:

  On 9 April 2003, I issued a press statement on the use of baton rounds in Northern Ireland. It contained the following paragraph:
  '"On the basis that an acceptable and effective and less lethal alternative is available, the baton round would no longer be used after the end of 2003. In the event that that has not been achieved, the Government would report on the progress of the fourth phase of the research programme and review the options for less lethal alternatives consulting widely with a range of interested parties including the Chief Constable and the Policing Board".

  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the report on the fourth phase of the research programme into alternative policing approaches towards the management of conflict.

  A multi-agency steering group was set up in 2000, following publication of the Patten report on policing in Northern Ireland. Its purpose was to take forward the programme to establish whether an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the baton round is available and to review the public order equipment which is presently available or could be developed in order to expand the range of tactical options available to operational commanders.

  As Patten envisaged, it has been a wide-ranging and substantial programme. I am grateful to many contributors, including the police, those in government service, academics and other experts, for their sustained commitment.

  This fourth report of the steering group, which I have published today, concludes that there is as yet no commercially available product that meets the criteria of an acceptable and effective and less potentially lethal alternative.

  The Government will continue to keep all commercial products and technological research under review. It will ensure that those appearing to have real potential are tested and medically evaluated if appropriate.

  Against this background, the Government have concluded that it would be right to continue with the development of the Attenuating Energy and Discriminating Irritant Projectiles (AEP and DIP) which represent the best opportunity to get an alternative to the L21A1 into service as rapidly as possible. The progress made in their development is set out fully in the report. While significant challenges
  WS 12
  remain, it is projected that the Attenuating Energy Projectile would be available by the end of 2004, ready for operational use before summer 2005. Its development also follows up one of the recommendations for research by the independent medical advisers in their evaluation of the existing baton round, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House on 2 April 2001.

  Work is also continuing on a second new projectile, the Discriminating Irritant Projectile. This is inevitably a longer-term project. It is by no means certain that it can be successfully achieved, although the signs are positive thus far.

  We believe that there is real value in this combined programme, which has the potential to provide an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the current baton round. The Government intend to consult with a range of interested parties, including the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Policing Board.

  In publishing the report today, I am inviting comments on it from interested parties.

  Army Technical Foundation College
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  In my Statement to the House on 27 November 2003, (Official Report, col. 35WS), I announced that I had approved in principle, and subject to full trade union consultation, plans by the Army Training and Recruiting Agency (ATRA) to close the Army Technical Foundation College (ATFC) at Arborfield, and transfer students to, principally, the Army Foundation College (AFC) at Harrogate, where a technical training stream will be introduced. There will be other changes to the way in which junior recruits are trained within the ATRA, but these do not envisage closures of any establishments.

  I can now confirm that the consultation exercise has been concluded and no serious objections have been raised to the proposal. I have therefore agreed that the closure plans may be implemented. Training at the college will therefore cease with effect from August this year, the last students being accepted at the beginning of this month (January), and the college will close in March 2005.

  The principal aim of this proposal is to improve the quality and efficiency of training provided to junior entrants to the technical trades. It will not affect the Army's commitment or ability to accept suitable junior applicants on to appropriate courses at either the AFC or other ATRA junior entry establishments. I do not anticipate that this will have any major impact on the Army's recruiting plans in general.