Sitting of 12 July 2004

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

  Law of Provocation
  Vera Baird: What steps he is taking to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission on reforming the law of provocation; and if he will make a statement. [183084]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): The Law Commission's provisional proposals would mean a major change from the way the law works at present. We will want to look at the final report and recommendations carefully before we consider taking any action.
  Vera Baird: The provisional proposals are not expected to change and they have been greeted with unusual unanimity among the senior judiciary, the academic world and many organisations that deal with domestic violence. Can my hon. Friend undertake that, if the proposals continue to meet with widespread favour, an early legislative vehicle for them will be sought?
  Paul Goggins: May I begin by acknowledging my hon. and learned Friend's substantial contribution on this issue and the campaign against domestic violence generally? She was able to share many of her experiences and insights in Committee when the Bill was debated, for which I pay tribute to her. We have debated the issue on a number of occasions recently and I can tell her that we will consider carefully the Law Commission's final report.
  It was because we know that this is a difficult area that we asked the Law Commission to carry out its report. Based on the provisional proposals, we know the intended consequences, but we need to consider very carefully whether there might be some unwanted and unintended consequences, such as gangland killers being able to cite provocation in their defence or perhaps problems with honour killings, which we debated in Committee. I beg my hon. and learned Friend to be patient and I give her the assurance that we will consider the issues very carefully indeed.

  Immigration Advisers
  Mr. Peter Pike: What measures he is taking against legal advisers facilitating unfounded claims for (a) asylum and (b) applications for work permits. [183085]
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne): An unfounded immigration application is not in itself proof of any wrongdoing on the part of the legal adviser or, indeed, of any adviser involved. However, the provision of immigration advice is a matter of concern to the Government. The Lord Chancellor has taken steps through the Legal Services Commission to improve the quality of advice provided by publicly funded solicitors and the immigration services commissioner is taking steps to raise the quality of legal advice provided by those whom he regulates. It is, of course, a criminal offence to provide immigration advice when unqualified so to do and it is also a criminal offence for anyone, including a legal adviser, to facilitate entry to the United Kingdom in contravention of the immigration rules. Evidence of any such activity will be thoroughly investigated by the immigration and nationality directorate, which will take appropriate action.
  Mr. Pike: I would certainly not like to suggest that there were some dodgy solicitors, but there is clear evidence of some solicitors dragging cases along for a long time and misleading those whom they are representing on asylum and work permit cases. How many prosecutions have there been and, if there have been any, what has been the outcome of the action taken?
  Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend, with characteristic shrewdness and subtlety, is right to emphasise the importance of confidence in advice in this area of public policy, particularly from the legal profession. As a matter of fact, 12 immigration advisers have been prosecuted by the immigration service in 2003–04 and 11 convictions were secured. In 2003, the office for the supervision of solicitors, the disciplinary arm of the Law Society, took disciplinary action against three solicitors in connection with immigration advice, one of whom was struck off, one given an indefinite suspension and one fined. Furthermore, the Legal Services Commission advises that, in London alone, 96 firms did not have their contract extended in the current financial year.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: How many of those 12 cases referred to work permits? Does the Minister accept that the quadrupling of the number of work permits each year, including for a new category of completely unqualified people in sectors such as the leisure industry, is simply an invitation for such advisers to suggest to those already here that it is a good way of getting round immigration rules?
  Mr. Browne: I am not in a position to answer the hon. Gentleman's specific question in relation to numbers. If the figures are available, I will write to him with the information, though I am not sure that that sort of information is collected separately. The main thrust of his attack, of course, is about the increasing number of

  1111
  people permitted to work in this country through permits in response to a set of circumstances that he may find difficulty in identifying—a growing labour market in which there are difficulties with the availability of skills and labour in some sectors.
  I know that, as part of its five-point plan, the hon. Gentleman's party announced that it would put quotas on work permits. Of course, to do that it would have to turn its back on its traditional approach to the labour market, which is to allow the labour market to generate demand. It may well intend to do that. If so, perhaps at some stage it will tell the House and the country how it proposes to put such a control on the work force in the United Kingdom, where 2 million more people are now working who were not in 1997.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my hon. Friend accept that the thrust of the question is about inefficiency on the part of legal officers rather than criminal activity? Does he also accept that when it comes to evaluating efficiency, the scandal of firms wasting loads of money before finally telling their clients, "Your best bet is to go and see your MP", needs structural correction in the legal profession?
  Mr. Browne: As Minister with responsibility for this matter, I am concerned about inefficiency, bad advice and possible illegal advice. That is why, in answering the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), I identified a number of criminal prosecutions and went on to speak about the other steps that are being taken.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) will know that we intend to use the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, which comes before the House later today, to increase the powers of the immigration services commissioner and improve his ability to regulate designated professional bodies. There are also provisions for unqualified advisers working for solicitors to be adequately supervised, which goes to the heart of the issue that my hon. Friend identified. Indeed, there will be a new criminal offence of advertising for an unqualified person to be an immigration adviser and a new power to enter the premises of suspected rogue advisers. It is the Government's view that we will then have an array of powers that will attack both inefficiency and illegality in advice.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: May I first pass on the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) for not being present this afternoon?
  I note that the Minister neatly side-stepped the issue of work permits. Does he agree that there is absolutely no reason for legal advisers to be involved in applications for work permits? They certainly were not in the past. Does he also agree that legal advisers are now associated with applications for work permits because of the perception that the misuse of the work permit system can facilitate entry into this country, which was exactly what went on with self-employed people in Bucharest—
  Mr. Browne: That was entry clearance.
  Mr. Grieve: It was entry clearance for the purpose of working in this country. Would the Minister now like to answer the question with specific reference to work permits?
  Mr. Browne: I answered the question asked by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) with specific reference to work permits, but I could not give him the specific information that he required. As I have not managed to get that information since I gave that answer, I shall have to write to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) if he is interested in that information as well.
  The point about legal or other advice on whether someone is fit to have a work permit is well made. It is perhaps not necessary for people to take advice because the work permit application system is comparatively straightforward, but of course the question did not relate only to legal advice, but to advice per se. I have no idea why people should be motivated to take legal advice on an application for a work permit. We would have to ask them that. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the legal profession and he will not want to be involved in closing that business down to his colleagues or perhaps to himself, if he still practises.
  If people choose to take that advice, it is a matter entirely for them. The Government's responsibility is to ensure that that advice, on immigration matters when it is given, is legal, efficient and, if it involves public money, offers good value. I do not think that the Tory party is suggesting in opposition that, were it in government, it would interfere with people's free choice on who should advise them.

  Spanish Passport Holders
  Mr. Harry Barnes: How many Spanish passport holders he estimates are resident in England and Wales. [183086]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): Figures taken from the UK labour force survey show that, for the period December 2003 to February 2004, there were an estimated 44,000 nationals of Spain resident in England and Wales.
  Mr. Barnes: Is that not a fair swap with Spain, in that there are an estimated 300,000 UK passport holders in Spain, plus all the holidaymakers? Should not we consider these things in perspective—in terms of how the movement of labour throughout the European Union benefits everyone involved?
  Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend is right that the movement of labour throughout the EU has helped the prosperity of all the countries in the Union. It is striking that, since Spain entered the EU, it has become a country of net migration from other EU countries, unlike what was predicted before it entered.
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: Is the Minister aware of a growing problem: numbers of South American economic migrants who are not entitled to come here can, and readily do, obtain in Madrid or

  1113
  Barcelona Spanish passports and travel documentation, on which they do a bit of work and then pass relatively easily, although illegally, into this country? Are her immigration officials well aware of that growing practice and receiving extra training to cope with it? Does she believe that last year's official figures for such fraudulent entry attempts tell us the whole truth?
  Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the UK leads the world in passport detection technology. I am sure that he will be reassured by the fact that, following enlargement of the EU, we are not only improving the training of all our officers but checking every passport offered by an EU citizen when seeking entry to the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Malins: What about South America?
  Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman referred to passports held by those not entitled to EU passports.
  Mr. Malins: South America.
  Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman keeps saying "South America", and I am responding in this way because he made the claim that people are entering on EU passports to which they are not entitled. I am confident that, if his allegations are true, our checking and detection mechanisms and our good relations with the Government of Spain and other EU Governments will mean that we can stop that practice.

  Dungavel Detention Centre
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: When he next plans to meet the Children's Commissioner for Scotland to discuss the operation of the Dungavel detention centre. [183087]
  Ann McKechin: If he will make a statement on his recent visit to Dungavel detention centre. [183095]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I visited Dungavel on 2 July and found the conditions and facilities entirely satisfactory. I was impressed, as I know the hon. Gentleman was when he visited the centre in May, by the caring and dedicated staff who work there. The issue of accommodation centres is a reserved matter, but in his usual generous way, my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration has agreed to meet the Children's Commissioner for Scotland, Professor Kathleen Marshall. I am sure that that will be a suitable occasion for her to express her concerns.
  Mr. Carmichael: I thank the Home Secretary for that answer. I confirm that during my visit to the Dungavel detention centre recently I was impressed by the standard of the staff and the care that they exhibited. He may be aware that the Children's Commissioner for Scotland recently described the detention of children in Dungavel as "morally upsetting". She is said to be considering taking legal action to end it. Would it not be better if the Home Secretary accepted that holding families with young children in the same institution as
  1114
  adults—some of whom have just been released from lengthy prison sentences and are awaiting deportation—is wrong and ought to be ended sooner rather than later?
  Mr. Blunkett: First, I ought to make it clear, so that there is no doubt in anyone's mind, that the individuals described by the hon. Gentleman are separated from the families, as he will have found on his visit in May. Secondly, of course we accept that in an ideal world it would be appropriate not to have children in removal centres. That matter concerns retaining the unity of the family. I am prepared—my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration and I have been discussing this—to consider whether we could use tracking and electronic methodology so that we could take families out of such accommodation centres, and whether we could provide more concentrated facilities for those for whom that would not be suitable, such as people who would abscond and use their children as an excuse for not being available for removal. These are difficult issues, but we have to take public policy into account and deal with the often contradictory pressures that come to bear when we are trying to remove people who, because of the very nature of the challenge facing them, are unlikely to co-operate.
  Ann McKechin: I, too, have visited Dungavel recently as a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, and I join my right hon. Friend in commending the staff there on their work and professionalism. To pick up his comments on detention of children, I noticed that, because of the presence of single men and women at the centre, the security regime has to be fairly tight and restrictive. Does he think that there is a convincing argument in favour of detaining families in an entirely separate unit where security arrangements can be much less restrictive, especially given that the risk of families absconding seems to be far less than that of single people doing so?
  Mr. Blunkett: One consequence of the investment in substantially increasing the number of removal places is that we can reconfigure where we place single people and families, which will help in future. The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration and I have discussed with the Churches and the Scottish Trades Union Congress the potential for reconfiguring in a way that meets my hon. Friend's understandable concerns. I thank her for her constant interest in the matter. The challenge that we face, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) spelled out in his debate last Thursday in Westminster Hall, is that some people who should know better talk a lot of nonsense about Dungavel.
  Annabelle Ewing: It seems to me that the Home Secretary is saying, in effect, that he plans to ignore the fundamental concern of the Children's Commissioner for Scotland, the unions, the Churches and civic Scotland, which would be quite contemptible. He specifically mentioned electronic tagging as an alternative to detention. Will he clarify whether he plans to tag children of asylum seekers who have committed no crime whatever?
  Mr. Blunkett: When I mentioned comments made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, I was referring to his descriptions of people calling Dungavel a "hell on earth" and politicians—some of whom have presumably never been to Dungavel—describing the centre in totally unacceptable ways. On cue, the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), representing the Scottish National party, accuses us of ignoring the Churches, when I had just said that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration and I met representatives of the Churches two months ago; of ignoring the STUC, when I had just said that we had met its representatives as well; and of ignoring the Children's Commissioner for Scotland, whom the Minister of State has just agreed to meet. What sort of nonsense is that? I do not mind those who cannot hear not understanding, but those who can should open their ears and listen.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at least for the time being, detention centres are an unwelcome but necessary part of asylum policy? Does he agree also that those who try to focus the debate on the detention of children are simply trying to erect a smokescreen behind which to campaign for the total removal of detention centres, which is a prerequisite to the introduction of the policy that they support—a completely open asylum policy, which is naive and simplistic?
  Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is substantially right. Such people also argue that immigration should be a matter for Scotland, not a reserved matter—
  Annabelle Ewing: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Lady supports that, but the consequences of such a policy would be very interesting indeed. The Scottish National party would have to put border controls at Hadrian's wall, which would be bizarre. I think that we have now exposed the SNP's policies for what they are.
  It is true that, where the family resists removal, that inevitably ensures that the children have to be held in circumstances—not necessarily only in removal centres—that would be less satisfactory than we would wish. However, it is a choice of the parents. The hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) knows that the Government would never contemplate tagging children. To suggest otherwise was a disgrace.
  Mr. John Lyons: I am sure that the meeting with the children's commissioner will be widely welcomed throughout the political parties. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider one point for that meeting, and that is the question of people being held at Dungavel who are awaiting deportation after completing a sentence. Will he consider how we can remove those people from families and their children at Dungavel?
  Mr. Blunkett: Fortunately, we are removing such individuals much more quickly than it is possible to remove families. The legislation that will come before the House later today will further assist us in doing that because it will reduce the unwarranted use of judicial review. However, I take the point, and the expanded
  1116
  removal centre facilities will help us better to segregate those of different categories. To pick up a point made by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State will welcome meeting Professor Kathleen Marshall. He has met her on many occasions because he happened to go to University with her.

  Prisons
  Sir Teddy Taylor: In how many prisons the population was in excess of the certified normal accommodation on the latest date for which figures are available; and by what percentage the prison population has changed over the Past 10 years. [183089]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): There were 81 prisons operating above their certified normal accommodation figure on 30 June 2004. All those prisons are within their operating capacity, which is the total number of prisoners that an establishment can hold, taking into account control, security and the proper operation of the planned regime. The prison Population has increased by 54 per cent. since 1994.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The official figures for June, which are published in the weekly review—although the Government have not published figures since 2002–show that 82 of the 141 prisons were above their certified uncrowded capacity, and 11 were operating above their maximum capacity. In Preston and Leicester, overcrowding was classified as 89 per cent. and 83 per cent. Given those facts, is there not a crisis that has to be faced? In particular, will the Minister say why he believes that the number of women prisoners has increased by 173 per cent. in the past 10 years?
  Paul Goggins: Eighty-one prisons are above their certified normal accommodation figure, which means that 57 prisons are not above that figure. There is no getting away from the fact that our prisons have been under huge pressure. One of the ways in which we deal with that pressure is by building additional places. That we have continued to do. The operational capacity as of today, is 76,395, which is an increase of more than 500 in recent months.
  I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the 173 per cent. increase in the number of women offenders going to prison over the past 10 years, but they were sent to prison by sentencers, not by the Government and not by Ministers. However, because of the Government's policies, I can tell him that the number of women in prison today is lower than it was this time last year.
  Gareth Thomas: Do the Government have a view of what should be the maximum overall size of the prison population? What signals should the Government be giving the judiciary on the appropriate use of imprisonment?
  Paul Goggins: The Government have an idea about that figure. We believe that, if we rebalance our correctional system appropriately so that we ensure that those who need and deserve to be in prison because they have committed the most serious offences are in prison

  1117
  while those who have not committed such serious offences are on community penalties, we can hold a stable prison population below 80,000.
  Mr. Mark Oaten: I welcome the Minister's genuine commitment to trying to get to grips with the scandal of overcrowding, but may I draw his attention to his own overcrowding targets for this year? They state that in publicly run prisons, overcrowding must not exceed 24 per cent. of the prison population, but in privately run prisons, the figure is 34 per cent. Will he tell the House why, on overcrowding, he has one target for public prisons, but an easier target for private prisons?
  Paul Goggins: The private prisons tend to have more modern facilities than the older prison stock that the Prison Service has at its disposal, but the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. What is most interesting is that, with our commitment to increasing the number of places available, by the end of this year we will have an operational capacity of 77,600, and by the end of next year it will be some 79,400. We are prepared to ensure that we have fit-for-purpose accommodation for those who are sent to prison by sentencers, but we are also building up the alternative, so that sentencers can confidently give people community sentences that are effective.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The Minister wants to have it both ways. Will he confirm that in order to rebalance the correctional system, as he puts it, and to save money, the Government are proposing to extend the home detention curfew scheme so that offenders serving seven years for drugs offences or street robbery can be set free early? Does he think that that policy will be popular with law-abiding citizens?
  Paul Goggins: Yes, I do want it both ways. I want people who need and deserve to be in prison to be in prison, and I want those whose offences are less serious and are first-time offenders to be on community penalties, putting something back into the communities where they have offended.
  I confirm now that this Government have no intention of extending the home detention curfew scheme.

  National Crime Squad
  Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on the status of National Crime Squad officers on transfer to the serious organised crime agency; and what surveys his Department has conducted into the views of NCS officers on such transfers in the last year. [183091]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): No decisions have yet been taken with regard to terms and conditions, but we hope to make a statement of approach on this matter shortly. We are undertaking a wide-ranging and inclusive consultation process. I was pleased to visit the NCS office in Wales on 16 June, where I heard the positive views of officers about the creation of the
  1118
  agency. We also discussed some of their concerns about transfer and terms and conditions, and I hope that I offered them some reassurance.
  Mr. Heath: I hope so, because this is an important development that the Minister knows we support, although we would perhaps do things slightly differently. Is she aware that, among the Police Federation members in the National Crime Squad, more than 95 per cent. of the 900 officers who responded, out of a total of 1,200, said that they would not be happy to transfer to the NCS full time in the knowledge that it would be absorbed into the new agency; and that, in the first quarter of this year, more than 80 officers have left the NCS? That is very serious, and it means that we are losing highly trained, experienced and able officers from the new agency. Will she now go back to the Police Federation and the individual officers and talk to them about their concerns, so that we can ensure that we start the agency in the best possible way?
  Caroline Flint: Of course we want to start the agency in the best possible way. That is why we are not rushing into the situation and why we have a programme team at the Home Office that is working with the NCS and he other component parts of the new agency and is in discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers. There are also monthly updates and regular bulletins and meetings involving the police officers who currently work with the NCS. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the terms and conditions package will be guided by the principle that no one should be disadvantaged by moving into the new organisation. I shall be very happy to facilitate a meeting for the hon. Gentleman with Bill Hughes, director general of the NCS.

  Women Prisoner Suicides
  Ms Meg Munn: What steps he is taking to reduce the number of suicides amongst women prisoners. [183094]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): The number of self-inflicted deaths among women prisoners is a very serious concern for the Prison Service and for me. The suicide prevention strategy that I announced on 31 March 2004 applies across all types of prisons and to all prisoners, both male and female. A specifically targeted arid separate suicide prevention strategy is being developed for women.
  Ms Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. What steps are being taken to ensure that women are given community sentences wherever possible, not just because they relieve pressure on prisons and the overcrowding that we have been discussing, but because they relieve pressure on families, particularly where there are single mothers and children may be left without their carer?
  Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is right that when a mother goes to prison, her children are affected the most, and therefore a mother should be placed in prison

  1119
  only when the circumstances warrant it. The Government are developing a range of community alternatives to prison, and I am discussing improvements to court diversion schemes with ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health. We are ensuring that the bail information systems in our prisons are suitable, and I am currently reviewing hostel accommodation to make sure that women who can be accommodated in the community are accommodated in hostels rather than in prisons.

  Drug Misuse Treatment (Offenders)
  Mr. Ben Chapman: What steps she is taking to ensure that offenders receive adequate treatment for drug misuse. [183096]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): Drug misusing offenders damage communities, their families and themselves. We are committed to breaking the cycle of offending and drug misuse. We are investing £447 million through the criminal justice interventions programme to get offenders out of crime and into treatment. That includes drug testing on charge for some offences, placing drugs workers in police custody suites, increasing treatment places in prisons and putting in place comprehensive through-care and after-care packages.
  Mr. Chapman: Although I agree that weaning offenders off drugs, including methadone, is important in tackling drug-related crime, does my hon. Friend agree that tackling alcohol abuse is equally important? Alcohol causes half of all violent crimes in this country and probably most incidences of antisocial behaviour in Wirral, South. The issue must be tackled. and I hope that the Home Office will take all possible steps to address alcoholism as well as drug addiction among offenders.
  Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend makes an important point. This summer, we are targeting enforcement and tackling the underlying drinking problems associated with binge drinking in 70 basic command unit areas. We agree with the alcohol harm reduction strategy that drug action teams should become drug and alcohol action teams, and we are considering how we can support pilots to examine alcohol arrest referral, and are examining two pilot areas. In a recent speech at the Turning Point conference, the Home Secretary announced that we will examine the interventions for those for whom misusing alcohol becomes a criminal problem.
  Mr. James Paice: The restriction on bail project is already under way in some of our cities, and the Government are ever so reluctantly inching towards the policy that we announced two years ago. What are the Government doing to increase the number of places for drug treatment outside prison? Does the Minister agree with the chief executive of DrugScope, Mr. Martin Barnes, who said that unless the initiative is matched by investment in places and in skilled drugs workers, there is
  "a risk that already stretched services will be inundated and unable cope."
  Caroline Flint: I have crossed swords with the hon. Gentleman before, and it is a bit of a cheek to ask that question. The Government have put more money than ever before into both enforcement and drug treatment. The proof is that 140,900 people were in treatment in 2002–03, which is a 41 per cent. increase from the 100,000 baseline in 1998–99. The number of people starting treatment has increased by 47 per cent. in areas covered by criminal justice interventions programmes, and waiting times are falling across the piece. More needs to be done, but the Government are tackling the problem because we recognise that drug addiction fuels a huge amount of crime in this country. The issue involves growing capacity, which we intend to carry on doing.
  Mr. Paice: So the Minister does not agree with the chief executive of DrugScope and believes that the resources are sufficient. [Interruption.] Will she explain to the House why only 28 per cent. of drug treatment and testing orders were completed last year, and why recidivism occurred within two years in 80 per cent. of cases in the three pilot areas? That demonstrates that the system is still not right. The Minister may laud the extra resources, but they are inadequate. How many residential places—proper places—are needed to ensure that all young, hard drug abusers receive the same treatment as that provided in the best countries in the world, such as Sweden?
  Caroline Flint: I am pleased to inform the hon. Gentleman that drug services have increased to approximately 750—up a third since 1997—and treatment for young people has increased by 69 per cent. In addition, we have pooled the young people's budget to ensure that money can be spent better and more wisely locally.
  I have never said that we are doing enough. More needs to be done. However, we have prioritised and ring-fenced the resources and I am pleased to say that, as of last week, residential rehabilitation is being used.
  Mr. Paice: As of last week?
  Caroline Flint: As of last week, approximately 90 per cent. of beds in residential rehabilitation were being used. However, that is only one part of treating drug users and, as I have told the hon. Gentleman several times, one has to deal with people before they go into residential treatment and when they leave. The only way to achieve that is through a sustained policy, which means putting your money where your mouth is. The Government are doing that.
  Mr. John Denham: I welcome the Government's substantial investment in drug treatment. Will my hon. Friend confirm my impression that, in the past year or so, we have probably made more impact on speeding up access to treatment for those who are newly arrested than on improving services for those who come out of prison? Given the importance of ensuring that those who clean up in prison do not go back on drugs, will my hon. Friend make sure that the investment is applied evenly across every part of the criminal justice system?
  Caroline Flint: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. As Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, he knows the importance not only of identifying people through drug testing on charge—we are expanding the number of offences to which that will apply—but of getting people into treatment even before they go to court, whatever subsequently happens. Whether they go to prison or have a community-based sentence, they should be supported. That is why I am pleased to be working with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responsible for correctional services to ensure through-care and after-care. That is an important aspect of making the policy work and making it sustainable.

  Fixed Penalty Notices (Barnet)
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the use of fixed penalty notices for antisocial behaviour in Barnet. [183097]
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): Penalty notices provide the police with a quick and effective tool for dealing with low level, disorderly behaviour and divert those minor cases from the courts. In the past three weeks, police in Barnet have been conducting a successful operation, targeting antisocial behaviour that occurs on Friday nights. Around 40 penalty notices were issued in Barnet between April and June; 20,000 have been issued nationally.
  Mr. Dismore: The Barnet police borough commander recently told me that he was highly sceptical about the effectiveness of the notices. However, he subsequently changed his view. He originally used rather unparliamentary language, describing them as something akin to a dog's reproductive anatomy. However, he has authorised me to say to the House that he now considers them to be an effective, precision-guided impact weapon in the fight against antisocial behaviour. He has issued 75 since May and believes that relentless follow-up of the fines is required. Will my hon. Friend consider whether some of the money could come back to Barnet to enable us to continue the campaign against antisocial behaviour?
  Ms Blears: I am delighted that the borough commander has changed his view on fixed penalty notices. Perhaps I would prefer him to refer to them as the cat's whiskers rather than his original description. I am pleased that fixed penalty notices have been welcomed throughout the country. It takes approximately half an hour to deal with a case with a fixed penalty, as opposed to two and a half hours to complete the paperwork for a charge. Each fixed penalty notice saves the criminal justice system approximately £100. Police universally welcome the notices as a quick, effective way in which to get the message across. We will use many more as part of our alcohol enforcement campaign.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Angela Watkinson: For what reasons the home detention curfew scheme is being extended to a maximum of 135 days. [183098]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): The maximum curfew period available under the home detention curfew scheme was increased from 90 days to 135 days 12 months ago. That change provides earlier resettlement opportunities for lower risk offenders and helps to manage the prison population. At the same time, we also introduced a presumption against release for prisoners convicted of certain serious offences.
  Angela Watkinson: To exactly what category of offences is the scheme to be extended? Will the Under-Secretary give the House an assurance that serious offenders, who serve seven-year sentences for street robbery, and drug offenders will not be included in the scheme? If they are to be included, has a proper risk assessment of public safety been conducted?
  Paul Goggins: I am sure that I can reassure the hon. Lady. There is a presumption against people who have committed certain offences—violent offences, sexual offences, cruelty to children and so on—who cannot even be considered under this scheme. It is only available for prisoners serving sentences between three months and four years. Therefore anybody serving seven years would not be eligible. I confirmed earlier that we are not seeking to extend the scheme. Finally, of those who are eligible, only 39 per cent. are granted home detention curfew. Risk assessment is therefore taken very seriously.

  Morecambe Bay Cocklers
  Geraldine Smith: What action has been taken to deal with foreign nationals working illegally in the Morecambe Bay cockle beds. [183099]
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne): The immigration service is working closely with both Cumbria and Lancashire police forces to tackle immigration offences arising from the presence of foreign national cockle pickers in the region. That work includes sharing intelligence, planning disruption strategy and responding to calls for assistance. The immigration service participates in Department for Work and Pensions-led multi-agency enforcement work, and is co-operating in the establishment of a joint enforcement group proposed by the north-west sea fisheries committee. I know that my hon. Friend is aware of 13 visits in the 50-day period between 24 March and 12 May to contact or identify illegal workers, disrupt illegal activity and gather intelligence.
  Geraldine Smith: I thank the Minister for that response. I am sure that he is aware that there is widespread public concern about the large numbers of Chinese, suspected illegal, immigrants still working in dangerous conditions on Morecambe bay. Does he accept that there is still a public perception that the Government are turning a blind eye to this problem? That is probably because when Chinese people are picked up and identified as illegal immigrants, they are simply documented and released back into community,

  1123
  where they are once again vulnerable to exploitation. Can he tell me what his Department intends to do to remedy this unsatisfactory situation?
  Mr. Browne: I know that my hon. Friend, who has been consistent and persistent in relation to this issue, as she has a particular constituency interest in it, is fully aware of the extent of the work being done not merely by the police but by the immigration service, the DWP and others in this regard. I rely on her to a degree, as she has the ear of her constituents, to provide assurance that the information that she has been given, often confidentially, proves to be correct in terms of activity in her area. She identifies a significant problem—returning illegal immigrants to China is difficult, as those immigrants tend not to co-operate with the Chinese Government's redocumentation procedures. That issue is at the forefront of our ongoing discussions with the Chinese Government on tackling immigration. We have recently signed a memorandum of understanding with China to take forward our co-operation on illegal immigration, which will provide a framework for progress on increasing removals. In the meantime, we stand ready to continue to assist any Chinese nationals who wish to return voluntarily.

  Community Support Officers
  Helen Jones: What recent assessment he has made of the contribution of community support officers to reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. [183101]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): At the end of June, there were 3,802 community support officers on patrol, and reports from forces that deploy community support officers indicate that they play a considerable role in reassuring the communities that they serve, that they provide a high-visibility presence, and that they have significant potential for impacting on low-level antisocial behaviour and disorder. A national evaluation is being planned, which will inform the future development of this role.
  Helen Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. From my discussions with CSOs in my constituency, and from the time that I have spent out on the streets with them, may I tell her that they make a considerable contribution, not only to providing reassurance for people but to working with other agencies in the area to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour? Will she tell the House when she thinks the assessment of their effectiveness will be completed? What chance is there of making sure that there are more CSOs out and about on our streets to contribute to making the public feel safer?
  Fiona Mactaggart: The evaluation of the current achievements of the CSO force will be completed by the end of the year, but I hope my hon. Friend will find that the conclusions of the Home Office strategic plan accord with her ambitions for the improvement of CSO provision.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: In York and north Yorkshire we do not have too many community support officers, and not too many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued. How can
  1124
  we ensure that more are issued in the area, given that the Government have made them the main tool for controlling antisocial behaviour?
  Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Lady is right to recognise the importance of adequate numbers of officers to deal with antisocial behaviour issues effectively. That is why 11,000 more police officers have been provided throughout the country since this Government came to power. We find them in every community—in Yorkshire, in Leicestershire and in the west midlands. All over the country there are more police officers, and we have given them the set of tools that they require, including antisocial behaviour orders. It is up to local authorities to ensure that they use the ASBO powers we have given them to tackle this nuisance, rather than tolerate it.
  Mr. James Plaskitt: We have 40 community support officers in Warwickshire—they are very welcome, and do an excellent job—as well as a record number of serving police officers. Nevertheless, many communities in my constituency would like a still greater police presence on the streets. CSOs are ideally placed to perform that role, and to develop strong relations with the community. Can my hon. Friend assure us that we will continue to expand the available supply of CSOs?
  Fiona Mactaggart: For information about national supply, my hon. Friend will have to wait—as I hinted earlier—for the Home Office strategic plan. I hope that he finds it pleasant reading. He should, however, join us in welcoming the fact that not just Home Office expenditure is ensuring that we have CSOs throughout the country. Nearly 1,000 are funded entirely from other sources. Dealing with crime in our communities is such an important job that communities themselves are willing to raise the resources to provide CSOs who will tackle nuisance behaviour, and I welcome that where it has happened.

  Stop and Search
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of police forces to discuss policy on stop and search. [183104]
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): I have regular meetings with the Association of Chief Police Officers and other police representatives at which stop-and-search issues are discussed. We have recently launched a stop and search action team to ensure that the police use their powers of stop and search fairly, and as effectively as possible. The team will be working with both community representatives and police organisations, including ACPO, the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association. Its work is overseen by Baroness Scotland and me.
  Mr. Bellingham: Can the Minister confirm that future stop-and-search policy will be based entirely on operational policing requirements and priorities? Does she agree that at a time when the Government were

  1125
  stepping up measures against terrorist threats, it was wrong of her and other Ministers to criticise the police for recent stop-and-search statistics?
  Ms Blears: I gladly confirm that we consider stop and search to be an extremely useful power to the police when it is used in an intelligence-led and targeted fashion. That is why we are determined to ensure, along with the stop and search action team, that it is used in exactly that way.
  We have never blamed the police for the current circumstances. What I said was that I was concerned about the disproportionality in the way in which the powers were being used, and would seek to reduce it. I am absolutely determined that the powers will be used both to prevent and detect crime, and just as importantly, to prevent and disrupt terrorism. When they are used properly, they are an extremely important weapon in the armoury of the police.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Minister agree that there would be a public outcry if some terrorist had not been stopped and searched and had subsequently committed an act of terrorism?
  Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman is correct, and I want to place it on the record that the powers under section 44 can be used only when they are authorised by a senior police officer, and then confirmed by me or the Home Secretary. We take that position extremely seriously.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Clive Betts: If he will make a statement on his policies to combat antisocial behaviour. [183105]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced antisocial behaviour orders, and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 provides a further range of tools to tackle antisocial behaviour. It reinforces the powers available to deal with antisocial behaviour, and along with the "Together" campaign it aims to make a lasting difference to the lives of people who experience antisocial behaviour day after day, and to change culture in communities where antisocial behaviour is tolerated rather than tackled. [Interruption.] We will continue to listen to feedback about the powers available, and we will consider legislating where necessary. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is addressing the House; it is unfair that so much conversation is going on.
  Mr. Betts: I thank the Minister for her reply. Will she commend Sheffield city council's housing department and South Yorkshire police, who are working increasingly closely together in my constituency and using the whole range of measures against antisocial behaviour? Does she also agree with Sergeant Andy Wilson, the local community sergeant, who points out
  1126
  that although some young people are serious antisocial offenders, many simply cause nuisance and annoyance to elderly people by hanging around in large groups? Would it not be better to find extra resources to target youth facilities and other local facilities in our communities, and to ensure that the police are not wasting their time and resources by moving on groups of young people from one estate to another? For all the good work that the Government are doing in this respect—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can save that for an Adjournment debate.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Sheffield trailblazer on its work in tackling antisocial behaviour. He is right to point out that the most effective work against antisocial behaviour operates in a two-pronged way. It provides positive activities for young people, in which this Government are investing at an unprecedented level, and the tools that the police and local authorities need to crack down on antisocial behaviour. That is why we have provided the new legislative powers that have been used in Sheffield.
  Mr. David Trimble: I am sure that the Minister will agree that the initial legislation, introduced half a dozen years ago, was merely a first step, and that all the subsequent actions that the Government have taken through recent legislation and the Home Office's broad antisocial behaviour strategy have been very important additions to that first step. Will she therefore point out to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that it really is time he caught up with all that?
  Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the work that we have done. The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety will of course continue to have conversations with her colleagues in Northern Ireland to ensure that best practice is spread throughout the country.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: How does the Minister envisage that Liverpool's proposed community justice centre will be able to develop policies to deal with antisocial behaviour?
  Fiona Mactaggart: The key to the proposed community justice centre is that it involves local people in delivering justice. Until now, the conviction and prosecution process has seemed very detached from the communities in which antisocial behaviour occurs. The community justice centre can bring that process back into the hands of the community, and make sure that justice is delivered by the people who are most affected by antisocial behaviour.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. John Baron: If he will make a statement on his relations with the National Neighbourhood Watch Association. [183106]
  Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): The Home Office has worked in partnership with the National Neighbourhood Watch Association for a number of years. In 2003, the Home Office provided a grant of £350,000 to help the NNWA out with its financial difficulties. It recently came to light, however, that it has without authorisation registered the Neighbourhood Watch name and logos as its own trademarks. Those are Crown copyright and public assets, and we are taking steps to recover them into public ownership.
  Mr. Baron: I thank the Minister for that response, but she will be aware of the Home Office's very recent decision not to provide interim funding support for the NNWA, while at the same time blocking its signing of
  1128
  a commercial sponsorship agreement. Given that recent Home Office statistics show that there were 66,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour in one day alone, does the Minister think this last-minute intervention by the Home Office acceptable—an intervention that the NNWA believes will result in its closure within weeks?
  Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. It is not the case that the Home Office has scuppered the sponsorship deal. I want to place that on the record, along with the fact that the Home Office has supported neighbourhood watch every step of the way. We are determined that our local organisations will continue to involve local people in being the eyes and ears of the police, giving us that excellent community intelligence and doing the fantastic job that they do throughout the country.

Spending Review
3.30 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): In the Budget, I reported that, with inflation low, Britain is now enjoying the longest period of sustained economic growth on record. In this spending review, I can report that, with debt low, Britain can continue with historically high and rising investment in hospitals, schools and our public services, so combining the longest period of sustained economic growth for a generation with the longest sustained investment in public services for a generation.
This investment has been made possible because since 1997 our monetary policy has met our inflation target, now 2 per cent., with stability achieved; our fiscal policy has reduced the national debt from 44 per cent. of national income to 34 per cent., making our national debt today lower than that of all our main competitors; our discipline has reduced debt interest payments, which consumed in 1997 3.6 per cent. of national income and now cost just 2 per cent., the lowest since 1915; and unemployment, which in 1997 cost 1 per cent. of national income, now costs a third of that, just 0.3 per cent, lower than that of our major European competitors.
It is because unemployment and debt interest payments now consume just 2.3 per cent. of national income—half the 4.6 per cent. of national income of 1997—releasing £26 billion for investment, that we are today able to allocate substantial extra resources to front-line public services.
A decade ago, three quarters of all new spending went to debt and social security costs, and just a quarter of new spending under the last Government could go to health, education, transport, defence, and law and order. In this spending round, three quarters of all new spending is going to these vital front-line public services.
Let me tell the House the detailed figures. Holding strictly each year to the discipline of the total spending envelope, and fully affordable as we meet and will continue to meet all our fiscal rules, departmental spending, which is £279 billion this year, will rise to £301 billion next year, and then to £321 billion in 2006–07, and £340 billion in 2007–08. While overall spending in 2006–08 grows by 2.8 per cent. in real terms, low debt and low unemployment mean that departmental spending—spending on front-line services—will enjoy a real terms rise averaging over the three years of this spending review 4.2 per cent. a year.
By insisting on further reform, we will be able to do even more to get more money to the front line and raise public investment substantially in our priority areas. To ensure that new resources yield the best results, we have already introduced independent audit and inspection; strict three-year budgets; the devolution of funding direct to the front line; and more flexibility and choice in delivery.
Now, following the work that the Prime Minister and I instructed more than a year ago under Sir Peter Gershon—whom I thank—and after a rigorous review of procurement, back-office services and work practices, Departments are today publishing new plans to implement efficiency agreements with the Treasury.
1130
[Interruption.] Alongside Sir Peter Gershon, I want to put on record my appreciation of the work of our civil servants and their commitment to the ethos of public service. [Interruption.] It is precisely because the public sector has invested £6 billion in new technology— [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want the Chancellor to be heard.
Mr. Brown: It is because the public sector has invested £6 billion in new technology, modernising our ability to provide back-office and transactional services, that I can announce, with the detailed plans that Departments are publishing for the years to 2008, a gross reduction in civil service posts of 84,150, in order to release resources from administration to invest in the front line.
With the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales and the Northern Ireland Office having also announced that they are engaged in efficiency and evaluation exercises as ambitious as those in England, with reductions also in back office and related areas; and with the 2.5 per cent. efficiency savings applied also to the settlement for local government in England, this allows for—in addition to the 84,150 posts—a reduction of a further 20,000.
Following further detailed work, the merged Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are announcing today that the gross reduction in their posts, which was provisionally set at 14,000, is now set at 16,000. And because of the scale of the overall reductions, I can tell the House that in each area of the country, public servants who are asked to change jobs will be offered support with retraining, and we are ready to work with the work force and their unions to provide that help.
Today, I am publishing Department-by-Department plans to relocate further civil service jobs out of the south-east, including 5,000 staff posts relocated from the Treasury's departments, 4,000 to be relocated from the Department for Work and Pensions, 3,900 from the Ministry of Defence, and just under 1,000 each from the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills, and the Department of Trade and Industry. I can already announce the first sites for location, including 600 jobs from the Office for National Statistics moved to south Wales or Bristol, 250 posts from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs moved to Yorkshire, and just under 100 from the Department for International Development moved to East Kilbride. I know that for the remainder of posts being relocated, towns and cities across the country will want to make their case for being selected.
I can also announce that for all Departments making future decisions, our policy will be a presumption in favour of location in the regions. And I can tell the House that after Departments make their announcements today, the numbers of posts relocated to the regions will add up to a total of 20,030 civil service jobs.
I turn to further reforms in work practices. Eighty per cent. of sickness absences in the civil service are self certified, and they are not subject to formal medical certification. Because the current arrangements for sickness leave across the civil service and across the public services are open to abuse, I am today publishing

1131
plans to curtail uncertified absences. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will report by the autumn on the future management of public sector sickness absence and on measures to help those signed off for the long term back into attendance at work.
I can now announce, therefore, that by 2008 there will be a real-terms fall in administration costs in the Department for Work and Pensions by 9 per cent., in the Department of Trade and Industry by 15 per cent., and in the administration of the Department of Health by 18 per cent.; that Sir Peter Gershon has laid down plans that will deliver £6 billion in procurement savings by 2008; and that total annual efficiency savings that now exceed 2.5 per cent. a year will boost effective front-line service delivery by a figure higher than the Gershon plan of, by 2008, £20 billion. The savings available for front-line services now amount to £21.5 billion a year. We have also accepted Sir Peter Gershon's recommendation that to go beyond that figure would put the delivery of front-line services at risk.
As a result of this relocation and rationalisation, I can now make a further reform. I will also today set a new objective for the disposal of Government assets for the period from now to 2010. I have asked Sir Michael Lyons to work with each Department to rationalise its use of property and land and, where necessary, to arrange asset sales and disposals. I can tell the House that the objective that I am setting is an overall total of £30 billion of asset sales.
Because the three major drivers of change—the three sources of new resources that I have highlighted: a cut in debt, a cut in unemployment, and now a cut in administrative posts—are releasing substantial resources for front-line services, we can now take the next steps in a decade of rising investment for Britain and fund our priorities, the country's priorities, which are: first, to meet the security and defence needs of our country; secondly, to equip our economy technologically and educationally to meet the global economic challenge; and thirdly, to renew our public services and the public realm for this generation. In each of these services, we have agreed, in return for new investment, further reforms to achieve better results and a better service to the public.
Our first duty is the defence and protection of all citizens of our country.
Since the tragic events of 11 September, the needs of national security at home and action against terrorism abroad have rightly assumed a new and heightened importance. Recent events demand that we strengthen not just our national security—our capacity to prevent terrorist incidents—but our national resilience, our capacity to respond. To bridge the security gap identified after 11 September, we have, with the Home Secretary leading, reviewed our security needs in depth and, for the first time, our spending review brings together all security costs and sets out the responsibilities our national security budgets must discharge.
Before 11 September, overall spending on security at home was £950 million a year. Having now agreed a set of reforms that modernise our border security, and modernise also our counter-terrorism capabilities and
1132
our radio communication systems, improve our arrangements in respect of nuclear and chemical decontamination and add 1,000 staff to our intelligence services, overall security spending will rise from £950 million in 2001 and £1.5 billion this year to reach, by 2007–08, £2.1 billion—a 10 per cent. annual average real-terms rise in spending on security.
In place of the old system of civil defence, we are establishing and funding a new framework of civil protection, and there will be a doubling of current provision for local authority emergency planning.
In the last spending review the Ministry of Defence and our armed forces—upon which the defence of our country depends and to which we owe, particularly in this recent period, a debt of gratitude—were awarded the largest spending increase for 20 years. In this spending review I have matched that increase. Indeed in this spending review the increase is higher.
To enable the Ministry of Defence to modernise for the long term, and to increase its efficiency and make the changes that are now necessary to continue to adapt strategically and technologically to the threats posed by international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons and the rapidly changing global environment, I propose to increase the defence modernisation fund so that in the period to 2008 it will be worth £1 billion.
The Secretary of State for Defence will set out the detailed allocations of his full budget for our armed forces. It will rise from £29.7 billion this year to £33.4 billion by 2007–08—£3.7 billion a year higher than now, an annual average real-terms increase of 1.4 per cent. for defence. In addition, I will continue to meet the additional costs of military operations in full from the reserve, and to meet the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, we have provided, to date, an additional £4.4 billion. To meet other pressures that may arise, aside from operations, in the future, we will provide the Ministry of Defence in 2007–08 with guaranteed access of up to £300 million. Taken together, these rises provide for a faster rate of real-terms growth in this spending round for defence than in the last and ensure the longest sustained real-terms increase in spending for two decades.
Since 11 September, international diplomacy has also assumed greater importance. Because of that and the security risk faced by our Foreign Office and consular staff working in overseas embassies, the Foreign Secretary's budget will rise from £1.5 billion this year to £1.6 billion—a 1.4 per cent. annual average real-terms rise. I can also announce that, despite all our other pressures, we will not cut the budget of the British Council but will increase it from £173 million to £197 million. The budget for the World Service—whose 160 million-a-week audience is now its largest ever—will not be cut but will be increased from £225 million to £252 million by 2007–08.
As the Prime Minister has said, 2005 is the year when the needs of Africa will be the focus of the UK's G7 presidency—a presidency for development. Our country's obligation is not to cut overseas aid, but to increase it. In 1997, Africa received just £450 million of UK bilateral aid. By 2007–08, Africa will receive £1,250 million to fund health, education and anti-poverty programmes—an increase of 300 per cent. To promote treatments and cures for HIV/AIDS across the

1133
developing world, we will allocate in each of the next three years £450 million, £500 million and £550 million—£1.5 billion in total—to tackle this scourge. So to meet all our international obligations, including the recommendations of the Africa Commission that the Prime Minister set up, the Secretary of State for International Development is announcing that he will increase his budget for aid from £3.8 billion this year to £5.3 billion by 2008, an average annual real terms increase of 9.2 per cent.
Total UK aid, which fell in real terms by 23 per cent. in the 1980s and early 1990s, will by 2008 have risen since 1997 by 140 per cent. in real terms. For every £1 of UK aid spent in 1997, we will be spending £3 cash by 2008 and, along with debt relief, raising UK official development assistance from the 0.26 per cent. of national income that we inherited to 0.39 per cent. next year, 0.42 per cent. in 2006–07, and 0.47 per cent. in 2007–08. We wish to maintain those rates of growth in the overseas aid ratio, which on that timetable would rise beyond 0.5 per cent. after 2008 and reach 0.7 per cent. by 2013. I can also tell the House that if Britain's plan. the new finance facility, is agreed internationally, the objective of 0.7 per cent. could be achieved earlier, by 2008–09.
Today, the humanitarian tragedy in Sudan is deeper even than at the time of Live Aid, which started in Sudan 20 years ago. The Secretary of State for International Development is today announcing that he is setting aside now, to be made available immediately a peace agreement is signed, emergency and other relief to address Sudan's crisis—a total over the next three years of at least £150 million more for Sudan.
I thank the Churches, faith groups and non-governmental organisations for their representations. To date this year, for this spending round, the Treasury has received more than 15,000 representations that we should raise spending on aid and not cut it. I have received many other representations, of course, not just on international development, but on defence, national security and law and order, including from the shadow Chancellor, who has called for real-term Budget reductions in all these areas. But I have to tell the House that I have been more impressed by the representations of the shadow Defence Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow International Development Secretary, one of whom said that such reductions would be damaging, and another that they would be "outrageous".
Our determination to protect and defend the people of Britain is matched by our determination to equip Britain for the global economy. The future of the British economy depends on the future of British science. The 10-year framework for science that we are publishing today is designed to make Britain the best and most attractive location for science and innovation in the coming years. After rigorous selection of priorities within the industry budget, a reduction of Department of Trade and Industry headquarters posts and further reductions in its agencies, we are able to announce substantial new funding to support science teaching in our schools, improve salaries and stipends for graduate scientists and engineers, and support technology transfer and university-business link-ups, as well as pure research.
1134
Government funding for science will therefore rise from £3.9 billion this year to £5 billion by 2008–£1 billion extra for science, a 5.8 per cent. average annual real terms rise, and in cash terms a doubling of spending on science since 1997. As a result of the investment that we are making, the Wellcome Trust is today announcing a partnership with us to invest in UK research. They will match our commitment, investing over five years at least £1.5 billion more. With these two new investments—an extra £2.5 billion being invested in British science—and now the largest sustained increase in science spending for a generation, our objective for Britain is to raise overall spending on private and public research and development from 1.9 per cent. of national income, which has been among the lowest of our main competitors, to 2.5 per cent. of GDP by 2014, which will be among the best of our competitors, and the best guarantee of a successful economic future for this country.
I can tell the House that, in preparing our spending review, I have consulted not only the scientific community but the Confederation of British Industry, business organisations, trade unions and regional organisations in every part of the United Kingdom, among whom there is remarkable agreement, a shared consensus and determination that it is in the national interest not to cut science, transport, housing or infrastructure investment but to press ahead with continuous and sustained long-term investment.
To finance the detailed reforms in the rail industry and our road programme, the transport budget will rise faster than originally set out in the 10-year transport plan, from £10.4 billion this year to £12.8 billion by 2007–08£an average real terms increase in the transport budget of 4.5 per cent. a year. Total cash spend by the Department over the spending review period will be £2.9 billion more than we set out in the 10-year plan. By 2008, transport spending—even after inflation—will be 60 per cent. higher than in 1997. Full details of the rail reforms and the long-term transport strategy will be announced in statements by the Transport Secretary later this month.
For decades, our country has seriously neglected investment in housing, both in building and in improvement. Forty years ago we built 400,000 houses a year; since the beginning of the 1990s, however, we have built only 200,000 a year. Following consultation over the Barker report and the announcement of 200,000 extra homes for the south-east, the Deputy Prime Minister will tomorrow announce the next stages in increasing the supply and affordability of housing. For England, the housing budget will rise from £5.9 billion this year to £7.2 billion by 2007–08, a 4.1 per cent. average annual real terms increase. That will mean that cash investment in housing has more than doubled since 1997. The Deputy Prime Minister will give details of a new £150 million fund to finance infrastructure around new housing developments. There will be new money to speed up the planning process, a 50 per cent. increase in social housing by 2008—urgently needed in our country—and a trebling of investment in renewal and renovation in low-demand areas in the north and the midlands.
Investment not only in science, transport and housing but in enterprise, skills and economic development hold the key to modern manufacturing strength in our

1135
country and balanced economic growth in every region. To meet new and additional commitments to improve small business services, to meet adult skills needs, to support inward investment, to promote enterprise in disadvantaged areas—including supporting the Northern Way—and to devolve decision making further out of Whitehall, funding will rise from £1.8 billion this year to £2¼ billion a year by 2007–08, shared between our nine regional development agencies.
To meet our environmental improvement targets for 2010—a 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions, a target of 10 per cent. of electricity from renewable sources and a reduced reliance on landfill—the spending review will provide additional funding to sponsor low-carbon technologies to give more support through recycling landfill tax revenues for businesses that are energy efficient to minimise waste, and, with additional private finance initiative credits worth £155 million a year by 2008, to provide support for better waste management by local councils.
To take forward the Haskins report on the rural economy, the budget of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will rise from £3.2 billion this year to £3.5 billion in 2007–08, an annual average real terms rise of 1.2 per cent. a year. To tackle one of the biggest problems of poverty—the problem that many elderly people face in heating and insulating their homes—we have extended the winter fuel allowance, introduced the pension credit and improved the energy efficiency of 600,000 homes over the last three years. A further £140 million will now be set aside to enable pensioners and other families to insulate and heat their homes. The Government's objective is to eliminate fuel poverty among the elderly by 2010, and to eliminate it in its entirety by 2016.
I turn to public services and new public service agreements, which we are publishing today for the period to 2008. They set out the performance targets and reforms expected in our public services. Since 1998, we have offered every Government Department three-year budgets and three-year funding. Today, the Deputy Prime Minister will answer a persistent complaint of local authorities and for the first time they, too, will have three-year budgets allowing local authorities to plan ahead. Public service agreements will also offer high-performing local authorities greater freedom and greater flexibilities.
In the last four years of the last Government, local authorities' grants were cut by 7 per cent. In the most recent four years of this Government, they have been raised by 23 per cent. and later the Deputy Prime Minister will set out the full details of the real-terms rise in the annual grant to local authorities—an average rise of 2.7 per cent a year, substantially above the average settlements received by local authorities in the last three decades.
I can also announce the settlements for the devolved Administrations and Northern Ireland. The last spending round awarded the Welsh Assembly an additional £492 million to ensure funding of objective 1 and European social fund allocations to ensure the economic regeneration of Wales. I can now announce that, over and above the Barnett additions, Wales will receive even more for the coming three years—an
1136
additional £550 million. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive will publish full details of the allocations later. Overall, by 2007–08 there will be an extra £2.5 billion for Wales, raising the Welsh budget from £11.1 billion to £13.6 billion. With objective 1 funding, that amounts to an annual average real-terms rise of 4 per cent. For Scotland, there will be a total of £4.2 billion, raising the Scottish budget from £21.3 billion to £25.5 billion—an annual average real-terms rise of 3.5 per cent. With additional funding for the European Union peace programme, Northern Ireland will receive an additional £1.2 billion a year—an annual average real-terms rise of 3 per cent.
In the Budget in 2001, we made a decision to open national museums free to the public. Since then, museums that have abolished charges have seen their attendances rise by 70 per cent. from 7.7 million to 13.3 million a year. Today, after discussions led by the Chief Secretary and Culture Secretary, I can announce an extension of free access to university museums, too. With increased funding for arts organisations, local creative arts partnerships and the revitalisation of regional museums—and with increased funds nationally and regionally for sports and sports facilities—the budget of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will rise from £1.4 billion this year to more than £1.6 billion by 2007–08—a real-terms average annual rise of 2.3 per cent. Looking ahead, and to ensure far better co-ordination of national sports effort and resources, Pat Carter will report on the proposal to involve private and public sectors together in a new national sports foundation.
I am also announcing funding for social services, especially to improve community care for the elderly. The social services budget will increase by just under £2 billion—from £10.6 billion this year to £12.5 billion by 2007–08. That is a real-terms average annual rise of 2.7 per cent. a year. As a result of the spending review, the Secretary of State responsible for social services is also extending, in every area of the country, the provision of care alarm systems for the elderly so that elderly and disabled people can stay in their own homes and yet have access to the support that they need. An additional 160,000 of the very elderly will be able to install these care alarm systems. In total, we expect 1.5 million pensioners to benefit by 2008.
I can confirm that, as announced in the Budget, funds for the national health service will increase from £69 billion this year to £92 billion by 2007–08—an annual average real-terms rise of 7.1 per cent. allocated to health that will go to and be spent through the NHS and by the NHS on patients treated free at the point of need—not spent to subsidise private medicine.
For decades, this country neglected investment not only in hospitals, social services and schools, but in our criminal justice system, in policing, in tackling antisocial behaviour and in improving the quality of life in our neighbourhoods. So the final obligation of this spending review is to make the investments necessary to create in our country stronger and safer communities.
Since 1997, there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in crime, a 40 per cent. reduction in domestic burglary and, for persistent young offenders, we have cut the average

1137
time from arrest to sentence from 142 to 66 days by contrast with a cut in police numbers of 1,100 under the last Conservative Home Secretary, there has been, under this Government, a rise of 11,000 policemen and women. Today, this Government will not take the advice of the Opposition to cut the budget for law and order; we will increase it substantially to tackle crime, to prevent crime and to reduce the fear of crime.
First, there will be new resources to tackle crime to fund the Home Secretary's decisions—to create a new National Offenders Management Service, bringing together prison and probation; to create a reformed charging and sentencing system; and to create a new serious organised crime agency. For those treated, drugs rehabilitation has also succeeded in cutting reoffending by 50 per cent. Together, the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary will also increase the numbers benefiting from drug rehabilitation from just 100,000 six years ago to 200,000 a year by 2008.
Just as our society must make it clear that no crime is acceptable and no criminal act excused, so, too, our society must acknowledge that in past decades we have not done enough to tackle the sources of crime, particularly among young people. We are agreed that we must now provide new resources and that all Departments must play their part in an alliance with voluntary and local organisations to prevent crime.
The Deputy Prime Minister will announce details tomorrow of a new fund to finance community-based measures that, on the one hand, tackle antisocial behaviour and, on the other, build and develop the facilities and public spaces that are the bedrock of successful local communities. It is right to expect responsibility from young people, and every community knows that the answer to young people hanging around street corners is to provide other places for them to go. Later this year, starting from three-year allocations in this spending round, the Education Secretary will publish a Green Paper on the reform of services for young people in this country, and next week the Home Secretary will announce plans, financed by the spending review, to extend the support provided to troubled teenagers at risk of reoffending.
The neighbourhood renewal fund, under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, is designed to improve the safety and quality of previously run-down neighbourhoods, to tackle the causes of crime and to address deep-seated inequalities in our country. Results now show that following the agreed four-year programme of sustained investment, neighbourhood renewal areas are seeing faster improvements in job creation and in educational attainment, and there are greater reductions in property crime than in other parts of the country. So the Deputy Prime Minister will not abolish the neighbourhood renewal fund; he will extend it with a budget each year of £525 million until 2008.
With the Home Secretary in the lead, our increased support for the work of community, charitable and voluntary organisations will, in this spending round, also be focused on building stronger, more stable communities and on engaging, most of all, the young as we consider new mentoring, gap year and volunteering initiatives for teenagers and others. A £30 million pound a year fund is being established by the Home Secretary to support the victims of crime, not least those who suffer the crime of domestic violence.
1138
There is one further investment that the Home Secretary believes is essential for stronger and safer communities. There is a clear consensus among the people of this country that to modernise the way in which we tackle crime and the fear of crime we need, on our streets, not just policemen and women but community support officers at the heart of each neighbourhood who can also patrol our streets, build links with local people and prevent antisocial behaviour.
Just as reform in education means that we are strengthening the effectiveness of teachers by matching them with classroom assistants, and reform in the NHS means that we are strengthening the effectiveness of doctors by matching them with nurse practitioners—in a country that is proud of our public servants, investing in our public services—so, too, the Home Secretary proposes that reform in the criminal justice system means strengthening the effectiveness of police by matching the record number of police achieved by this Home Secretary, which is now 138,000 in total, with a new group of community-based officers.
Scotland and Northern Ireland will make their own announcements. Today, the Home Secretary is announcing that he will fund community support officers and neighbourhood wardens—numbers that will rise year on year to 2008. To pay for those and his other responsibilities, the budget of the Home Secretary will rise from £12.7 billion to £14.9 billion by 2007–08—an increase of nearly £2.2 billion, and an average real-terms rise of 2.7 per cent. With the immigration and nationality directorate budget now flat in real terms, the rest of the Home Office budget will see an annual real-terms increase of 4 per cent. Next week, the Home Secretary will announce the detail, with money now available to finance a record level of 138,000 police officers, which is matched by finance available to increase neighbourhood policing providing for a total of 20,000 community support officers by 2008, as we tackle crime and the fear of crime in our country.
The Budget set out the education settlement. I can confirm the rise in UK spending on education from £63 billion to £77 billion by 2007–08, which has led to the five-year strategy announced last Thursday by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills.
So, over the whole 10-year period to 2008, and in addition to policing, overall spending on education will have risen in real terms by an average of 5.2 per cent. a year, on transport by 5 per cent. a year and on health by 6.5 per cent. a year. That is a decade of rising investment which, taken together, is giving us in Britain more teaching staff in our classrooms than ever before, more doctors and nurses in our hospitals than ever before, and more police and support officers in our communities than ever before. Because of low unemployment, low debt and lower administrative costs, we have been able at the same time to fund the best defence settlements for 20 years, and in this spending review to fund a 4 per cent. average real-terms rise in housing, a 5.8 per cent. rise in science and a 10 per cent. rise in security spending. We have a Britain that can succeed because of stability, hard choices and rising investment.
There is one additional reform that has the potential to transform opportunity for every child and to be a force for renewal in every community, and on which the

1139
Government wish to make progress today. While the 19th century was distinguished by the introduction of primary education for all, and the 20th century by the introduction of secondary education for all, so the early part of the 21st century should be distinguished by the introduction of pre-school provision for the under-fives and child care available to all.
Today I can announce that, having already provided nursery education for three and four-year-olds six months ahead of our plans. we will pilot as an experiment in 500 areas of the country the extension of nursery education to two-year-olds. Because it is our basic belief that every child should have the opportunities available only to some, we will extend the Book Start scheme, and at nine months, 18 months and then at two years old we will provide free books for every child. For 2 million children a year, that will be their first introduction to learning: an investment not just in every child but in the long-term future of our country. I can also inform the House that this spending review will set aside funds so that by 2008 we will have created at least 120,000 more child care places.
The challenge that we are setting today goes beyond this spending round, so we will publish in the pre-Budget report a plan for the years from now to 2015, to make a reality of our vision of choice for parents and high quality provision for all under-fives. As a first step, I can today say that, in order to bring forward the building of new children's centres in our country, I can now allocate from the capital modernisation fund an extra £100 million. From the 260 today, and the 1,700 proposed in the Budget, we can move the number of children's centres we build and open between now and 2008 up to 2,500, as we advance further and faster towards our goal of a children's centre in every community and in every constituency of this country.
All those investments are possible because I have rejected the proposals of those who would cut spending on important services: more investment, not less, now and into the next Parliament. We are rebuilding our communities; there is such a thing as society. Our prudence is for a purpose, and I commend this statement to the House.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: What we have just heard is a manifesto for fat Government and fake savings. The last time the Chancellor told us that he was going to make tens of thousands of cuts in the civil service was three months ago. Why has he been adding to civil service numbers since then? What the review really means is more bureaucracy, more targets, more initiatives, more taskforces, more centralisation, more regulation, more borrowing and more taxes.
The Chancellor told us about waste—£21.5 billion of waste£yet the entire spending review is about spending more money. Why is the Chancellor the only person in Britain who thinks that the way to waste less is to spend more? [Interruption.] People up and down the country
1140
will be asking themselves this question: who was it that wasted all that money? Who was in charge when 52,000 civil servants were added to Whitehall? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough of that noise. I will not tolerate it, and someone might well be expelled from the Chamber for making it.
Mr. Letwin: Who was in charge when the number of senior managers in the national health service increased three times faster than the number of nurses? Who was in charge when the Home Office built a new building—for £311 million—that is not even big enough to accommodate all the extra civil servants that have been hired? Who is the mystery man who was in charge of all that waste? The Prime Minister knows the answer: it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Chancellor told us today that he has wasted £21.5 billion—and not a word of apology. Now, he sets himself up as the great wastefinder-general. Does anyone think that he will succeed? Not the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services, who said:
"we've paid a lot of taxes, but what has really been achieved with all that money?"
Not the Minister for Local and Regional Government: when he said that it would be a miracle if the Government found the savings, the right hon. Gentleman was not only honourable, but right.
Why do the latest figures on public sector employment show that of 88,000 extra jobs in education in the last recorded year, only 14,000 were for teachers and teaching assistants? Now, that is a miracle. The Chancellor first announced massive reductions in the number of Department for Work and Pensions staff two years ago. Why has the number of DWP staff increased by 3,500 since then? That, too, is a miracle. The Chancellor said two years ago that his new smart procurement initiative would save £750 million on defence procurement, so why did the defence procurement budget overrun by £3 billion last year? That is not just smart—that is definitely a miracle.
When will the Chancellor acknowledge that while Ministers have been preaching about obesity, their Departments have been getting fat on taxpayers' money? When will he accept that if government is really going to cut out the flab what is needed is a complete change of lifestyle? The fact is that fat Government is not fit enough to deliver.
Why, after £305 million a year of spending on the new deal for young people, are there still 1 million young people not in work, not in training and not in education? Why, after an increase of £30 billion in NHS spending, are there still 1 million patients on NHS waiting lists? Why, after the Chancellor has doubled spending on the Home Office, are there still 1 million violent crimes a year? Why, after all that spending, can he not even match our commitment to 40,000 extra police officers?
The only thing that the Chancellor's fat Government have delivered is fat taxes. He is planning to spend £1 million a minute of taxpayers' money by 2007. As the Governor of the Bank of England has pointed out, the Chancellor cannot go on borrowing to pay for that big

1141
spending. When will the right hon. Gentleman admit that he is spending beyond his means and that his policies mean third term tax rises under Labour?
I confidently predict that in a moment or two when the Chancellor stands to respond, he will—with huge bravura—proclaim that his vast expenditures of other people's money contrast with so-called Conservative cuts—[Interruption.] Yes, Labour Members are already cheering at the thought, so may I tell them about those Tory cuts? We will cut bureaucracy. We will cut inefficiency. We will cut the quangos. We will cut the regulations. We will cut the armies of interferers who do nothing good for the people of this country. We will cut borrowing. We will cut waiting lists. We will cut failure in schools. We will cut crime. We will cut this big, fat Labour Government down to size.
Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor does not seem to realise that administrative spending is falling substantially as a result of our proposals. He also does not realise that as a result of his statement, while we are spending more on defence—£33 billion—he will be telling the shadow Defence spokesman that he can only spend £30 billion—a £2.6 billion cut. While we are spending £14.8 billion on law and order—I have the figures and the right hon. Gentleman has announced them—the Conservatives would spend £1.6 billion less. While we are spending £12.8 billion on transport, they would spend £1.8 billion less—£11 billion. While we are spending £5.3 billion on international development, they would spend £4.5 billion. The shadow Chancellor cannot escape the consequences of his statement. He announced that outside health and education there will be real reductions in spending in all other Departments.
The glummest faces in the Chamber are those of the shadow Defence Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary, because they know exactly what will happen. I will tell the shadow Chancellor what waste is about. Waste was 3 million unemployed. Waste was the poll tax. Waste was two recessions under the Conservative Government—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not like to interrupt, but Members are getting very excited.
Mr. Brown: It was the shadow Defence Secretary who said that the cuts proposed by the shadow Chancellor were unacceptable. Other shadow Cabinet Ministers know that the Tory party of Robert Peel is now about cutting the police. The Tory party of Winston Churchill is proposing to cut defence. The Conservative party will sooner or later have to face the fact that its policies make it weak on defence, weak on law and order and weak on infrastructure investment. As far as health and education are concerned, we know what its policy is—it is to transfer money out of the health service into the private sector and out of the school education sector into the private education sector.
The shadow Chancellor had better go back to his drawing board and think again. Unless he can tell us that his cuts will not be imposed on those Departments, the public will draw the conclusion that we all draw, and Conservatives will have to explain in every constituency how many community support officers, how many police, how many wardens, how many home helps, how
1142
many carers, how many NHS nurses and how many teachers will be sacked. That is the problem that the Tories now have.
Dr. Vincent Cable: May I start by saying that there are elements in the statement with which I agree? I welcome the sustained commitment to more resources for education, health, law and order and foreign aid, in marked contrast to the Conservatives. I also welcome the fact that the Government have taken up our proposal to put the Treasury at the head of Government Departments to be relocated to the provinces. It is a timid programme but the Chancellor has put the Treasury at the head of it, at last.
Fundamentally, the statement is about reducing the rate of growth of public spending. Hence we have the mock battle between the Conservatives' slash and burn versus the Chancellor's somewhat more cautious trim-and-singe approach to public spending. However, conceptually they are the same. They are both arguing that we can have lots of good things—more public services or tax cuts, or both. It is all going to be funded by the magic ingredient that is called cutting waste.
I am happy to subscribe to an agenda for cutting waste, if it can be genuine and if it can be found. It strains credibility when the Government argue that they can suddenly produce a rate of growth of productivity in the public sector of about 2.5 per cent. a year. Even the Treasury does not believe in it. It put out a statement last week on this new productivity target, saying
"because it has not been possible to measure efficiency for the whole of the Treasury in these terms"
the Treasury will not be adopting it.
If the Treasury does not believe in the Government's productivity target, why should anybody else?A more fundamental question is: if this waste is so easily available, why has it not been dealt with already? Had it been, we would have decent pensions and there would be no university tuition fees.
Our approach is different. We believe that, in order to fund priority areas, clear choices have to be made. That is why we argue that, in order to have decent state pensions without means-testing, a lot of money has to be found. We argue that we should take industrial subsidies and other subsidies and cut them, making a clear political choice. If more money has to be found for the police force, some of the Home Secretary's extravagancies, such as the £3 billion identity card scheme, must be cut. If more money has to be found for early years and primary schools, the Treasury's extravagance, the baby bond, must be cut.
One of the things that was very striking about the Chancellor's statement was that it contained no reference whatever to the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for choice in public services. The phrase was not even mentioned. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was."] If the Chancellor did mention it, can he be a little bit clearer? What choice in public services means is building in spare capacity. How much spare capacity is he building into the next spending plan to allow for choice, and how much will that cost?
The core of the Chancellor's proposal was the loss of public sector jobs. Anybody who has worked in the private sector or has had anything to do with it will be amazed that he has entered into a competition with

1143
those on the Conservative Front Bench for headcount reductions. Employing Ministers and senior civil servants costs 10 times as much as hiring tea ladies, but when there is a headcount reduction, it is the low-paid staff who get sacked. Will he spell out clearly how many Ministers and senior civil servants there are among the 84,000 redundancies?
Can the Chancellor explain how the 40,000 cuts in the Department for Work and Pensions will operate? If there is not going to be a reduction in complexity and means-testing, is it not inevitable that our pensioner and other constituents will find the service even more inefficient than they do already?
In conclusion, the search for waste, desirable though it may be, is evading the key issue—choosing the areas of government from which the Government can withdraw and then deducing the manpower implications, rather than starting with an arbitrarily chosen headline cut in numbers and then working out what the implications for services will be.
Mr. Brown: When the Liberal spokesman said that he was going to be tough and make the hard choices, but concluded that he was not going to go ahead with the 84,000 job reductions that we were proposing, it showed exactly what the Liberals are like—always looking in two directions at the same time. As for his hard choices, I have looked at all the press releases he has allowed to be issued over the past week. They mention state-of-the-art schools and more for care homes, child care, local authorities, buses and rail and small businesses. There is no discipline at all in the Liberal party when it comes to spending commitments.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about industrial subsidies, we have already announced in the Budget, as he knows, that we are eliminating permanent ongoing industrial subsidies in the old industries that exist around the country, but is he really saying that there should be no launch aid at all? Is he really saying that we should do nothing to support the innovative developments in the modern industries of this country, when every other country does so? Does he not know that on the issue of identity cards, the Home Secretary is arranging that that be by charge? Is he really going to fight the election telling every parent that he is against the baby bonds that we are introducing, which I believe do something not only about inequalities in income in our country, but about the vast inequalities in wealth that also exist? It seems to me that those in the Liberal party should go back to their constituencies and decide whether they have a policy at all.
Mr. John McFall: May I join the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the shadow Secretary of State for Health, the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Secretary of State for International Development in welcoming the extra spending announced by the Chancellor today? In particular, I welcome the 0.7 per cent. target for international development by 2013, which will be warmly welcomed around the world. Will the Chancellor indicate his plans for Africa during the UK's presidency of the G8 in 2005?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is Chairman of the Treasury Committee. He is a
1144
powerful advocate of reforms in how the economy is managed and of international development. We will pursue our Africa agenda, and the Commission for Africa has been set up. At the same time, we take the view that more resources will be needed in Africa for health care and for economic development, particularly if we get results in the trade round. I assure my right hon. Friend that we will continue to push faster and further, so that the international community adopts our proposals on an international finance facility.
It is right to point to the shadow Secretary of State for International Development, who said:
"If we are to be taken seriously as a party of government which cares about the most vulnerable people on the planet, then there has to be a public spending commitment."
That is the shadow Secretary of State for International Development telling the shadow Chancellor that he does not agree with his policies.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Chancellor will win all the prizes going for sheer brass neck, but not those for consistent policy making. Will he acknowledge that he has just announced a sharp reduction in the growth of public spending, but tried to make it sound as though he is dispensing largesse in all directions? He tried to make the announcement sound like a pre-election spending spree, but he is dealing with the consequences of the last pre-election spending spree, which started in 2000. Does he accept that the warnings that he was given that he could not increase public spending at the rate that he has in the past six years without reducing productivity and value for money in the public sector were right, however much the statistics are changed?
Does the Chancellor now accept the advice that it is complete folly to believe that rapid job reductions and efficiency savings—however worthy they may be—will achieve such savings without policy changes? He announced no policy changes at all in the domestic sphere, except for the introduction of nursery education—and no doubt a national curriculum—for two-year-olds. Given that the slow-down in the growth in public spending still sounds as though it is above the likely trend growth for the economy, does he accept that he has not corrected all the errors of his tax and spend years? He would almost certainly have to raise taxes again if a Labour Government were returned to office.
Mr. Brown: I am surprised that a former Education Secretary is so against improving learning opportunities for two-year-olds and laughs at such a serious proposal. Everyone knows that the first few months of a child's life are crucial to their later educational development. With the help of Sure Start and other programmes, we can do more as a community. I would have thought that he would support those measures, rather than encouraging his Conservative supporters, who do not want public spending, to ridicule them.
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's general point about public spending, he knows that when we came to power in 1997, we had to deal with a situation in which inflation was rising. We had to bring interest rates and inflation under control, and we froze public spending for two years at the same time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we could not

1145
implement the freeze, but we did it. Because of the need for investment in our country and the neglect of infrastructure over the decades, we have invested more in education, health, transport and policing, and I would have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would support that.
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's idea that we have made mistakes in macro-economic policy, the general view is that, uniquely, Britain has survived a world recession without going into recession itself. He should praise us on the conduct of economic management by the Bank of England and on our fiscal policy, rather than criticising. As for his advice for the future, he advised us that we were wrong to make the Bank of England independent, so I have been careful about taking his advice ever since.
John McDonnell: I declare an interest as the chair of the parliamentary group of the Public and Commercial Services Union. Will the Chancellor receive a delegation from that group to discuss the consequences of the 100,000 jobs that will go from the civil service? The vast majority of our civil servants provide us with an excellent service and have supported the Government well. Many will face compulsory redundancies. That will have an effect not only on their lives and future careers but on service delivery. I would welcome an opportunity for members to meet my right hon. Friend to go through the implications of today's announcement in some detail.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary met my hon. Friend and his delegation only days ago. Obviously, meetings will take place and I am happy to meet civil service union leaders to discuss those matters. However, my hon. Friend must put them in their proper perspective. We have invested £6 billion in new technology so that we can modernise the services that are available. With changed back-office services and the introduction of technological change, it is right to consider whether we need the same number of people to administer them and the transactional services in the next few years.
Investment in new technology and decisions that, although difficult, are necessary for the future mean that we can finance the development of front-line services. That means that, by 2008, there will be 80,000 more nurses, 20,000 more doctors, 90,000 more classroom assistants and more than 20,000 more teachers. I should have thought that most people, including my hon. Friend, supported that as the right way of moving to build up front-line services in the future.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I am asking this question on behalf of the Liaison Committee, whose Chairman cannot be here, as well as myself. Does the Chancellor believe that, if Parliament is to carry out its traditional role of scrutiny of public spending, Select Committees should be as well informed as possible? Will he therefore publish the letter that the Chief Secretary sends all spending Departments every July, which outlines their public service agreements and spending plans? It is currently kept under wraps, even inside Departments. Does the Chancellor agree that, if
1146
he published the letter, he would not simply pay lip service to openness but do a great deal for accountability of spending before Parliament?
Mr. Brown: Obviously, I shall examine anything that the Liaison Committee or the Treasury Committee submits to me. I shall answer questions at a meeting of the Treasury Committee on Thursday. The hon. Gentleman is unfair if he suggests that there has been a lack of transparency in the Government's operation of economic policy since 1997. We opened up economic policy in a way that had not previously happened both in the operation of the Bank of England and our fiscal policy. All our assumptions on fiscal policy have to be audited.
Under the previous Government, one could pluck out any figure from the air on, for example, privatisation revenues, unemployment, or indirect effects of savings, and make figures look as one wanted them to appear for a specific spending round. Under this Government, we have audited assumptions, which must be published. The National Audit Office reports on them and Parliament can question us on them. On Thursday, Treasury questions and a meeting of the Treasury Committee will take place. There is therefore a great opportunity for people to question us on the public spending figures. On Wednesday, we shall hold a debate on today's public spending pronouncements.
Mr. Tom Clarke: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about international development and I recognise that he is the first Chancellor in history to commit himself to a date on which the United Nations target will be achieved. Will he use his undoubted moral authority to appeal to British business and commerce to respond to a policy of fair trade so that the objectives that he wants to achieve are seen to be widely shared?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has taken a great interest in those matters over the years and been active in work in Africa and other parts of the world in promoting development. We are one of half a dozen countries that have recently said that they are setting a date for achieving the objective of 0.7 per cent. That is part of a wave of opinion that, in 2005, will insist that the developed world does more for the developing world. That is why we have set up the Africa Commission, proposed the international finance facility, and increased aid so substantially in the last few years and as a result of our decisions today.
As far as business is concerned, I will meet many international businesses in the next few days to try to persuade them that they should also be involved in the development process, particularly in relation to our Africa Commission. As my right hon. Friend has suggested, I will tell them that they too must play a part in unlocking the trade talks that are now stalled. It is necessary that large companies take a far bigger interest in the development of the continents that we are talking about. I see a greater interest than there was a few years ago, and it is now time for us in Britain to bring together business, exactly as the United Nations has done in the business round table.
Mr. Peter Lilley: The Chancellor promised a gross reduction of 80,000 posts in the civil service over coming years. Can he tell us what the net reduction, or increase, will be over that period, and how many posts will simply be outsourced? Of the 88,000 extra posts that he created in education last year, how many does he now propose to abolish?
Mr. Brown: First, the figures that I announced were 84,000—
Mr. Lilley: Gross.
Mr. Brown: The figures were 84,000 for the UK Administration and 20,000 for the devolved Administrations. I announced in the Budget—[HON. MEMBERS: "Net."] Hon. Gentlemen do not want an answer; they want to provoke the House into not having a proper debate on these issues. I am going through the figures for the benefit of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who was, after all, the shadow Chancellor some years ago.
We announced in the Budget that as far as the Department for Work and Pensions was concerned, there would be a gross reduction of 40,000 and a net reduction of 30,000. I believe that the figures are 84,000 and 69,000 or 70,000, and on top of that, 20,000 from the devolved administrations and local government. Of course, we are relocating 20,000 jobs in total. That is why the administrative costs of the Government will fall to 3.7 per cent. I should have thought that the Conservative party—which has brought forward not one proposal about how to make those changes, despite all the talk of a so-called commission to examine the issue—would have welcomed the fact that we have done the serious and rigorous work that no previous Government have done, to make sure that we have the right civil service numbers for the future.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The paragraph at the top of page 6 refers to the additional £4.4 billion in relation to Afghanistan and Iraq. What exactly are the figures for the costs, which none of us would grudge? What we ask, however, is whether extremely expensive projects that looked important 10 years ago, such as the Eurofighter, should not have their expenditure at least contained, when the military objectives of such projects are now open to question.
Mr. Brown: One of the recommendations of the Gershon report is to improve procurement, and of course, one of the major areas for savings is in the Ministry of Defence, which is one of the biggest procurers in the country. Sir Peter Gershon has recommended that £6 billion of savings could be achieved by a better system of procurement. As for my hon. Friend's other questions about Afghanistan and Iraq, I shall write to him on the different costs relating to those countries. As far as the Ministry of Defence and costs are concerned, I shall write to him about the savings that will be achieved in relation to procurement in that Department.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Can the Chancellor confirm that he said that he hoped to raise £30 billion from the sale of assets? Can he tell the House what sort of assets he has in mind?
Mr. Brown: I think that I also said to the House that land and property sales would form the major part. A further piece of work is to be done by Sir Michael Lyons, who did the relocation inquiry for us, in which he will work with Departments to identify land and buildings that are no longer necessary, partly as a result of the changes that we are making in the structure of the civil service and the public services, and partly to examine whether they are being efficiently used. He will work with Departments to arrange whatever dispositions of those assets, both land and property, are required.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the expenditure on science, and particularly on the moves that he is making to facilitate technology transfer. Can he guarantee that any fiscal obstructions that might have appeared can be dealt with as soon as possible to enable those companies to be established? Can he also tell us what he proposes to do to let traditional manufacturing take more advantage of emergent technologies and incorporate those in its investment plans? I am not suggesting simply another handout, but I think there is a case for more imaginative thinking so that our manufacturing base can be enhanced to take advantage of emerging technologies.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has worked hard with universities and business to build up the country's technological base. In answer to his recommendations about fiscal policy, let me assure him that we will look at the problems experienced by spin-off companies from universities, to which he was undoubtedly referring. As I have said, that is something for the pre-Budget report. We shall also consider the tax treatment of assets, and what is happening in such companies. I shall report to the House on that in due course.
As for science generally and its effect on manufacturing industry, the £1 billion of extra money that we are investing in science as a result of the review will be of great help to the industry. It is also benefiting from the research and development tax credit—indeed, it is the principal beneficiary—and from the permanent self-assessment allowances that we have created and built on over the last few years. It is benefiting, too, from the closer financial links that we are encouraging between universities and companies.
We hope that in all those areas, our new science and innovation investment will do more. Our future as an industrialised country in a restructured global economy depends on value-added companies—companies that are technology-driven, making precision and niche products. With high technology invested in them, those are the companies that will create both wealth and jobs in the future. It is our duty as a Government to support the pure and applied science that can make their development possible.
Angus Robertson: On behalf of the Scottish National party, I welcome the announcement of the 0.7 per cent. aid target. It is only a shame that it

1149
has taken us so long to emulate the small, independent European neighbours that have already undertaken that obligation.
Today's statement contained the biggest announcement of job losses since Margaret Thatcher closed down the coal industry. The Chancellor spoke repeatedly about front-line services. I hope that he had in mind our service personnel, who are of course in the firing line in the Prime Minister's war in Iraq. Can he assure us that none of Scotland's historic regiments will be amalgamated or disbanded?
Mr. Brown: We have just produced a defence settlement involving a larger real-terms rise than earlier rounds, which will give our defence forces the resources necessary for investment in the future. That includes Army personnel, both in Scotland and the rest of the country and elsewhere.
I must say that for the Scottish National party to tell us that its policies for the break-up of Britain and the complete separation of Scotland could ever defend the British armed forces is quite ludicrous.
Chris McCafferty: May I join others in welcoming the increase in the aid budget for developing countries, particularly for the purposes of health, education and anti-poverty strategies? May I also join others in congratulating the Chancellor on grasping the nettle and adopting a 0.7 per cent target for the very first time? Does he agree, however, that the best anti-poverty strategies are holistic? Should they not include good policies on reproductive health and maternal care, both before and after childbirth, and programmes to combat HIV/AIDS? Will he ensure that such programmes play an important part in the increasing aid budget?
Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, and her support for the statement of our objectives for international aid policy. She may have heard me announce that as part of the international aid budget, £1.5 billion will be provided over the next three years specifically for treatments and cures for HIV/ AIDS. That will rise from £450 million to £500 million, and then to £550 million, over those three years. As for maternal services and dealing with the problems of infant mortality, our contributions to both the global health fund and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation fund for immunisation have increased in recent years. As part of the international aid budget, we will spend considerably more on health generally, both in Africa and elsewhere. What my hon. Friend suggests will be very much part of that budget.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: In 2002, the Chancellor announced that he was going to reduce the number of staff in the Department for Work and Pensions by 18,000. Why has the number increased by 3,500 since that reduction programme started?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been following the news in the past few days. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced the locations of the DWP closures, the job losses in particular areas and
1150
the first stage of the gross reduction of 40,000 in civil service posts. The hon. Gentleman must look again at the facts. It is we who are taking the action necessary to cut back on bureaucracy, and we who rightly introduced the pension credit, which the Conservatives oppose. Of course we want the pension credit to be administered properly; the trouble is that the Conservatives do not want it at all.
Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know how important the housing renewal pathfinder project is in Burnley and east Lancashire. What is the exact nature of the Government's commitment to that very important project over the next three years?
Mr. Brown: Tomorrow, there will be a statement by the Deputy Prime Minister on the issues affecting his Department, which include housing. My hon. Friend will be able then to get more details on what is a threefold increase in the money available for improvements to low-demand housing areas in his constituency—to which I believe he is referring—and elsewhere in the north and the midlands. We understand the representations that he and others have made, and that the housing stock needs renovation. That requires resources, and a special amount of money must be set aside, which is exactly what the Deputy Prime Minister has done. The question of the impact on individual areas is a matter for my hon. Friend and the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss—hopefully, when we debate these matters tomorrow.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The Chancellor surely cannot be too surprised by the degree of scepticism about his plans, given that he is pre-committing expenditure before he has made the savings that he announced in order to justify such expenditure. Such savings will not come easily. As we know, many of the 84,000 people in question will be under contract, so redundancies will be necessary.
On a specific point, can the Chancellor assure the House that the budget for the research assessment exercise, which relates to the Department for Education and Skills, will increase in proportion to the welcome proposed increase in the science and technology budget? If the research assessment exercise budget is not increased in matching form the universities will have a real problem.
Mr. Brown: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the science budget covers all Departments, not just one. I hope that his question about the science budget—which relates to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and is a matter for the Secretary of State—will be answered. However, the science review was a cross-departmental review and does not relate to just one Department.
The Conservatives seem to be taking a very strange position on the question of job reductions in the civil service. We have announced that these jobs will have to go, and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has announced closures in particular areas. People now know where the first tranche of job losses will occur and

1151
how they will be affected, yet the Conservatives' position seems to be that nothing is happening. This is a painful process and we regret the tact that people have to lose their jobs, but we are helping them to get new ones. It really does nobody any good for the Conservatives to suggest that the big change that is taking place, and which has to take place, is not happening at all.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I listened carefully to what the Chancellor said to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), and I want him to know that east Lancashire has the worst housing in the country. There are 4,000 empty properties in Burnley and 2,000 plus in my constituency. I welcome the trebling of resources for the nine pathfinder areas, but can he reassure me that the money on offer will make a material difference and turn things round?
Mr. Brown: This could be a very expensive afternoon indeed if I were to agree to the representations made by my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). The overall sum was announced today, and the precise allocation to different areas is a matter for the Deputy Prime Minister and his budget. Indeed, my hon. Friends should make their representations to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the relevant local authorities. However, such representations now have the effect that they want. Money has been set aside, and we will help them to deal with this important issue, which must be dealt with soon. I agree that empty properties and those in a dilapidated state must be dealt with as a matter of urgency.
Sir Teddy Taylor: While it would be wrong for any true Conservative not to applaud the Chancellor for his target of reducing the civil service by 84,000 jobs, which is more ambitious than anything proposed by Lady Thatcher's Government, is he confident that it can be done, bearing it in mind that, according to the figures that I have, the number of civil servants has been increasing by more than 500 every week over the past two years?
On relocation, will the Chancellor promise to bear in mind the fact that seaside towns such as Southend-on-Sea have far more unemployment and deprivation than other areas in the south-east?
Mr. Brown: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is making a representation for civil service jobs to come to his area, but the issue that he rightly raises is that a reduction of 84,000 jobs is a very serious matter. It is wrong of Conservative Members to suggest that it is nothing, or merely something flimsy—it is a serious issue, which deserves to be treated more seriously than they have done this afternoon. The fact is that 84,000 jobs are going; 20,000 jobs are being relocated; 20,000 additional job reductions will come as a result of what is happening in local authorities and in the devolved areas; £22.5 billion of efficiency savings will result; and then we will proceed to £30 billion of asset sales.
We have already started the process of reducing jobs, and it will happen, but I certainly understand the difficulties of areas, such as the hon. Gentleman's
1152
constituency, that have higher unemployment rates than others, perhaps in some cases seasonally, and that is why the new deal is being brought into play to help with the transition, including help for public servants moving to new jobs as a result of the changes. Our desire is not to leave people isolated as they face change but to help them through it and to equip them for the jobs that certainly are available, as witness the 600,000 vacancies in the economy today.
Linda Perham: I warmly welcome the increase in the transport budget to £12.8 billion, but does the Chancellor acknowledge the importance of the Crossrail project to equipping Britain for the global economy and to the regeneration of east London? Will Government funding for the project feature in the comprehensive spending review?
Mr. Brown: There is a rise of 4.5 per cent. in real terms over three years in the transport budget. The Secretary of State for Transport will make announcements about the future allocation for that project in the next few days, and I hope that my hon. Friend will wait for those announcements and question him on them then.
Bob Russell: Do the calculations for defence expenditure involve the closure or amalgamation of any regiments, battalions or other units of the British Army? Will there be more soldiers, fewer, or the same number? The Chancellor must know the answer. Why will he not tell us?
Mr. Brown: The precise decisions about the configuration of our forces are a matter not for the Treasury but for the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of Defence Staff, working with the Defence Secretary. What I can say, however, and what Opposition parties cannot deny, is that we have made available the money for the next few years, until 2008, to ensure the proper equipping of our forces. The Liberal party is now urging that we spend more on defence in addition to all—[Interruption.] Now the Scottish nationalists are shouting, so I remind the House that their proposals for the future of UK defence would mean that there was no UK defence at all.
Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Chancellor give us some estimate of the redundancy costs of the 84,000 job losses in the civil service? What consultations will be held with the civil service trade unions? What proportion of the work will be outsourced to private sector organisations? What impact assessment has been made of the likelihood of local unemployment in particular areas where there are large numbers of civil service jobs?
Mr. Brown: It is precisely for those reasons that change is taking place. I said in my statement that we are ensuring that the new deal and the Employment Service will be involved in helping people as they try to move between the jobs that they have at the moment and the jobs that exist in the economy.
As for consultation on these issues, that has already begun. I have had meetings, and other meetings will take place. Some have been taking place today. I assure my hon. Friend that the proper consultation process will be

1153
gone through. In the interests of our defending public services in the longer run, he must face up to the fact that if we are investing substantial sums in new technology and do not need the same numbers of people to provide back-office or transactional services, it would not be the right policy for us to maintain them in jobs that no longer need to exist. It is right to release these resources so that we can have more nurses, doctors and front-line people in the health service, and more people in our schools, community services, and law and order services. That is the right way forward.
My hon. Friend talks about the effects of redundancies. I have to tell him that as a result of the new deal and the Employment Service, thousands of people find new jobs every day. There are 600,000 vacancies in the economy. I hope that the House will give the Government credit for the 2 million new jobs in the economy since 1997.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Does the Chancellor accept that any business man will tell him that efficiency savings are always easier to announce than to secure? If his are not realised in full, what guarantee does the taxpayer have that taxes will not have to rise to fund the difference?
Mr. Brown: As everybody knows, the decision in the last Budget was whether to cut taxes or to invest in public services. I believe that I made the right decision for the country in saying that we wanted to invest more in education, in health, in transport, and in law and order and policing. The decisions on investment that have been announced today resulted from that decision in the Budget.
As for efficiency savings, we have already started the process of making reductions. Announcements have already been made, and more will follow. The Opposition seem to be taking the view that we will not go ahead with these reforms and reductions, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are already doing so. It is not a very good Opposition campaign to tell people who are losing their jobs that they will not lose them.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: May I, too, warmly welcome the increase in science spending and tell the Chancellor that that will be extremely popular in my constituency? In the lead-up to his statement today, did he receive any representations on abolishing the Department of Trade and Industry, and if so, could he say why he rejected them?
Mr. Brown: There have been representations from the Liberal party; the same people wanted to move the Treasury to Liverpool.
Mr. Richard Bacon: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree with GP magazine that the national programme for IT in the health service is
"more likely to be a fiasco than the Dome";
and should not he be rather worried that the Department of Health is about to squander £6 billion?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should be cautious about what he says about these things. A great deal of
1154
work has been done in setting up that very extensive IT programme. As I understand it, the national health service uses more IT than any organisation outside NASA—the space centre—in the United States of America. It is therefore very important that it is got right. New people have been brought in and the whole system has to be modernised. It is important that electronic records can be properly developed and that nurses and GPs' surgeries can be in regular contact with hospitals. It is in all our interests that the programme works. Before the hon. Gentleman pronounces that it is not working, he should look at the evidence of all the efforts that have been mad to ensure that it does. It is certainly very important to the future of our health service—we would agree on that.
Mr. Harry Barnes: In connection with the welcome increase in expenditure on social housing, how much of it would be directed towards council housing being democratically controlled by its local authority?
Mr. Brown: That is a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister will make further announcements on how he sees housing developing in future. It will also depend, of course, on the decisions that are made by local people about what they wish to do in terms of housing associations and the control of local housing. I can say, however, that we have recognised the great need for social housing, for which my hon. Friend has always campaigned, in all parts of the country. There is a need for affordable housing and for new build. Achieving the level of house building and house improvement that is essential will necessitate combined efforts on reforming the planning system, releasing more land, encouraging reform in the house building industry, encouraging the rented sector to move forward, and financing the housing associations and housing authorities to which my hon. Friend refers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I want to try to call the remaining hon. Members who want to ask a question. There is big pressure on the business of the House today, so I appeal for very short questions, as well as very short answers. I call Angela Watkinson.
Angela Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the Chancellor tell the House how much he has added to the national debt in each of the years since 1997, and how much will he add this year?
Mr. Brown: The national debt was 44 per cent. of national income when we came to office; it is 34 per cent. now. That is a substantial reduction in the proportion of debt to income.
Mr. Owen Paterson: For the third time of asking, can the Chancellor say, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), how many of the

1155
posts whose number he intends to reduce will be outsourced to agencies offering services such as IT, and so will effectively remain a burden on the public purse?
Mr. Brown: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition that the reductions that we are bringing about are somehow transfers from the public sector to the private sector. That is not the case. We are not proposing to outsource those jobs to the private sector. We have decided, as a result of our review, that the hack-office services provided need fewer people to administer them. That is why we are making the reforms, which involve a gross reduction in staff of 84,000. His question is based on a misunderstanding: we are reducing the number of staff, not using the proposals to outsource staff.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has painted a rosy picture of the economy this afternoon. Can he explain what he is doing about last month's almost record balance of payments deficit of £3.6 billion—or, for that matter, why the savings ratio has halved under his Administration?
Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the American trade deficit, he will see it is a great deal higher than ours, and I suppose that he would say that the American economy is moving forward with one of the highest growth rates in the industrialised world. I remind the House that he has said:
"I give the Chancellor credit for achieving his predicted growth rate this year".—[Official Report, 23 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 775.]
He really should use his own questions, and not those given to him by Conservative Front Benchers.

Point of Order
5.2 pm
Mr. Humfrey Malins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I may seek your guidance in relation to this afternoon's proceedings. The Joint Committee on Human Rights published its report on the new clauses of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill a week ago. It condemned the Government for introducing what my noble Friend Baroness Anelay called a "torrent" of new clauses at such a late stage, saying that the practice undermined proper democratic scrutiny of the human rights implications.
Even Lord Rooker, a Minister, said that the Government's treatment of the Committee in the other place
"could be bordering on contempt",
and he stressed the need for this House to have
"plenty of time to talk about the recommitted issues".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2004; Vol. 663, c. 723.]
The Bill is almost twice the length it was. With possible Divisions, we have perhaps only three and a half hours to discuss major new clauses. Given the way we have been treated, I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether there is any way in which we can today debate at greater length both the programme motion and the clauses before us. Conservative Members are terribly upset that the House is being treated with such disdain by the Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The House has heard what the hon. Gentleman says, but he must know that that is not a matter on which the Chair can rule. Matters such as those relating to the motion before the House are determined under Sessional Orders, and the Chair has no scope to alter its terms.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill (Programme) (No.3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
That the Programme Orders of 17th December 2003 and 1st March 2004 relating to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill be supplemented as follows—
Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be taken at this day's sitting in the order shown in the following table and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified.

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of

proceedings

Amendments Nos 28, 29, 42 to

1 hour 15 minutes after the

62

commencement of proceedings

Amendments Nos 15, 30, 31, 17,

3 hours 30 minutes after the

18, 14, 16

commencement of proceedings

Amendments Nos 21 to 27, 19,

10.00 p.m

20, 32, 40, 41, 33, 34, 1 to 13, 35

to 39, 63 to 69

Subsequent stages
2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any question being put.
3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement—[Margaret Moran.]
The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 125.

Division No. 221]

[5:03 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Challen, Colin

Alexander, Douglas

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Allen, Graham

Chaytor, David

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Clapham, Michael

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

Atkins, Charlotte

Pentlands)

Bailey, Adrian

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Baird, Vera

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

Banks, Tony

Chryston)

Barnes, Harry

Clelland, David

Barron, rh Kevin

Coffey, Ms Ann

Beard, Nigel

Colman, Tony

Beckett, rh Margaret

Connarty, Michael

Begg, Miss Anne

Corbyn, Jeremy

Benn, rh Hilary

Corston, Jean

Bennett, Andrew

Cousins, Jim

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Berry, Roger

Cranston, Ross

Betts, Clive

Crausby, David

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cummings, John

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Brennan, Kevin

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

Dalyell, Tam

Wallsend)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Browne, Desmond

Davidson, Ian

Bryant, Chris

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Buck, Ms Karen

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Burden, Richard

Dean, Mrs Janet

Burnham, Andy

Denham, rh John

Byers, rh Stephen

Dismore, Andrew

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Doran, Frank

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Casale, Roger

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

1158

Edwards, Huw

Linton, Martin

Efford, Clive

Love, Andrew

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Luke, lain (Dundee E)

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Farrelly, Paul

McAvoy, Thomas

Fisher, Mark

McCafferty, Chris

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McDonagh, Siobhain

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

MacDougall, John

Flint, Caroline

McFall, rh John

Follett, Barbara

Mclsaac, Shona

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

McKechin, Ann

& Rye)

McKenna, Rosemary

Francis, Dr. Hywel

McNulty, Tony

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

McWalter, Tony

Gerrard, Neil

McWilliam, John

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Gilroy, Linda

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Godsiff, Roger

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Goggins, Paul

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Martlew, Eric

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Merron, Gillian

Grogan, John

Michael, rh Alun

Hanson, David

Miliband, David

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Miller, Andrew

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Mole, Chris

Healey, John

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Moran, Margaret

Hepburn, Stephen

Morris, rh Estelle

Heppell, John

Mountford, Kali

Hesford, Stephen

Mullin, Chris

Heyes, David

Munn, Ms Meg

Hodge, Margaret

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Sefton E)

Olner, Bill

Howells, Dr. Kim

O'Neill, Martin

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Owen, Albert

Humble, Mrs Joan

Perham, Linda

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Picking, Anne

Hutton, rh John

Pickthall, Colin

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Illsley, Eric

Plaskitt, James

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Pollard, Kerry

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Jamieson, David

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Jenkins, Brian

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

Prosser, Gwyn

Hatfield)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Purnell, James

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Quin, rh Joyce

Jowell, rh Tessa

Quinn, Lawrie

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Rammell, Bill

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Raynsford, rh Nick

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Bellshill)

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Robertson, John (Glasgow

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Anniesland)

Khabra, Piara S.

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kidney, David

Ruane, Chris

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

Ruddock, Joan

Bow)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Salter, Martin

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Sarwar, Mohammad

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Savidge, Malcolm

Lammy, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Shaw, Jonathan

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Sheerman, Barry

Lazarowicz, Mark

Sheridan, Jim

Lepper, David

Singh, Marsha

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Skinner, Dennis

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

1159

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Finsbury)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Lunesdale)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Southworth, Helen

Wareing, Robert N.

Spellar, rh John

Watts, David

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Squire, Rachel

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Winnick, David

Stewart, David (Inverness E&

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

Lochaber)

C)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Woodward, Shaun

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Worthington, Tony

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Yarmouth)

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Wyatt, Derek

Timms, Stephen

Truswell, Paul

Tellers for the Ayes:

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

Ms Bridget Prentice and

Kernntown)

Vernon Conker

NOES

Allan, Richard

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Ancram, rh Michael

Carmichael, Alistair

Arbuthnot, rh James

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Barnet)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Chope, Christopher

Bacon, Richard

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Baldry, Tony

Collins, Tim

Barker, Gregory

Conway, Derek

Baron, John (Billericay)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Barrett, John

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

Bellingham, Henry

Howden)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Ewing, Annabelle

Blunt, Crispin

Fabricant, Michael

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Fallon, Michael

Brady, Graham

Field, Mark (Cities of London &

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Westminster)

Brazier, Julian

Flight Howard

Breed, Colin

Flook, Adrian

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Forth, rh Eric

Browning, Mrs Angela

Foster, Don (Bath)

Burns, Simon

Garnier, Edward

Burt, Alistair

Gidley, Sandra

Butterfill, Sir John

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

1160

Goodman, Paul

Paterson, Owen

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Portillo, rh Michael

Grieve, Dominic

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Hague, rh William

Redwood, rh John

Hammond, Philip

Rendel, David

Hawkins, Nick

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

Heath, David

M-Kent)

Hendry, Charles

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'bry)

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Rosindell, Andrew

Hogg, rh Douglas

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Holmes, Paul

Salmond, Alex

Horam, John (Orpington)

Sanders, Adrian

Howard, rh Michael

Sayeed, Jonathan

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Selous, Andrew

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Shepherd, Richard

Jenkin, Bernard

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Keetch, Paul

Soames, Nicholas

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

Spicer, Sir Michael

Inverness)

Spring, Richard

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Stanley, rh Sir John

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Steen, Anthony

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Lamb, Norman

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Lansley, Andrew

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Leigh, Edward

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Teather, Sarah

Lidington, David

Thurso, John

Lilley, rh Peter

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Loughton, Tim

Tyrie, Andrew

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Watkinson, Angela

Mackay, rh Andrew

Weir, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Whittingdale, John

Malins, Humfrey

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

May, Mrs Theresa

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Mercer, Patrick

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

(Macclesfield)

Coldfield)

Wishart, Pete

Moss, Malcolm

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Young, rh Sir George

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Ottaway, Richard

Tellers for the Noes:

Page, Richard

Mr. John Randall and

Paice, James

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
  [Relevant documents: The Third Report, HC 252, Fifth Report, HC 304, Thirteenth Report, HC 640, and Fourteenth Report, HC 828, of Session 2003–04 from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on the Committee's continuing scrutiny of Bills.]
  Lords amendments considered.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 18, 27 and 28. If the House agrees to the amendments, I shall arrange for the necessary entries to be made in the Journal.
  Lords amendment: No. 28.
  5.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): I beg to move Government amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (h), Government amendment (b), amendment (i), and Government amendments (c) to (g) thereto; Lords amendments Nos. 29 and 42 and Government motion to disagree; Lords amendment No. 43 and Government motion to disagree; Lords amendment No. 44 and Government motion to disagree; Lords amendments Nos. 45 and 46, Government motion to disagree and Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof; Lords amendments Nos. 47 to 60; Lords amendment No. 61, Government motion to disagree and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu thereof; Lords amendment No. 62 and Government amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
  Mr. Lammy: Let me summarise the effect of the Government motions that we are proposing. We are proposing that the House agree to most of the Lords amendments to clause 14, schedule 1 and schedule 2. Lords amendment No. 28 brings in the bulk of the new policy, and to that we are proposing further amendments to the High Court review process. We aim to change the time limits back to five days; to allow other written submissions in limited circumstances; and to give effect to an agreement with the Opposition in the other place that the variable fees element of the new legal aid system should be removed.
  Although we are technically disagreeing with Lords amendments Nos. 42 to 44 and 61, as I shall outline later, the new amendments have the same effect of retaining lay members in the new tribunal. We are also disagreeing with Lords amendment No. 46 and moving an amendment to restore the discretion of the president of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to direct how many members should hear each case. Finally, Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 62 also restores the five-day time limit in the new filter process.
  Mr. David Heath: Just so that we are absolutely clear about what the Minister
  1162
  is saying, will he confirm that he is talking about five calendar days, not five working days, as he is amending the phrase "10 working days"?
  Mr. Lammy: I am indeed talking about five working days. The issuing of the decision is taken as being from two days after the case hay left the court, allowing for post and other things. So it is five days from that period. I am sure that we can discuss such matters later.
  Hon. Members will recall that when the Bill left the House, we were proposing to oust the jurisdiction of the higher courts. As my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, said on Second Reading in another place, we have listened carefully to the arguments made by Members of both Houses and the senior judiciary. We have also had regard to the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendments, in particular amendment No. 28, reflect our considered response to those arguments and take forward a number of constructive proposals. I am pleased that we have been able to move forward with consensus among stakeholders in the legal profession and the judiciary and the majority of both Houses on this important legislation.
  Let me remind hon. Members of the delays and abuse that we are seeking to remedy. It is important that the system for asylum and immigration appeals is fair, but it must also provide finality and be speedy. A swift, final decision is in the interests both of genuine refugees and of the British taxpayer, as was said on Second Reading. The British taxpayer should not be expected to bear the cost of supporting those with unmeritorious cases as they play the multiple tier s of appeal over and over again. It is important to emphasise that fewer than one in 10 challenges to an adjudicator decision results in a different outcome, which shows that the system can and must be improved. Our intention in introducing the single tier is to target delay and reduce abuse in the system. I am confident that our proposals will achieve that by reducing what can a 62-week process to under 20 weeks.
  Let me explain how the new system will work. I will refer to the High Court and Court of Appeal but, of course, for cases in Northern Ireland and Scotland, the appeals will be determined by High Court or Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland and the Court of Session in Scotland.
  Amendment No. 28 replaces subsections (6) and (7) in clause 14 with the new system of judicial oversight of tribunal decisions set out in proposed new sections 103A to 103E that will be inserted into the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Under the new system, a party to the appeal will be able to make a review application to the High Court on the grounds that the tribunal may have made an error of law. During a transitional period, these applications will be considered in the first instance by a senior member of the tribunal. Our intention is that applications must be made within five days unless the appellant is abroad. There is provision to vary the time limits by order.
  If the High Court is of the opinion that there may have been an error of law, it will send the case back to be reconsidered. In cases in which the High Court thinks that the case raises a question of law of general

  1163
  importance, it can refer the case to the Court of Appeal. If a case has been considered by a three-member panel, there is a direct right of appeal to the Court of Appeal with permission, and if an appeal has been reconsidered by the tribunal, there is also a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal with permission. We have also introduced an enabling power to make regulations for a new legal aid scheme for both the High Court review process and for reconsideration of cases by the tribunal. I shall set out that process in more detail when I speak to Government amendments (f) and (g) to Lords amendment No. 28.
  Lords amendment No. 45 clarifies the role of the senior judiciary in the new tribunal, and Lords amendments Nos. 47 and Nos. 50 to 60 are consequential.
  Amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 28 and amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 62 restore the Government's original intention that five-day time limits should apply to the High Court review process under section 103A. Time limits of one working week for making a review application to the High Court are central to achieving our aims of speed and finality. We are confident that five days are sufficient for an appellant to consult their legal representative, for the representative to prepare the application and for the application to be lodged.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Is there not a problem? The Minister and, indeed, the whole House want a system under which unmeritorious appeals are not brought; we all share that view. Therefore, it is important that lawyers who are advising their clients should have a proper opportunity to consider matters, especially in light of the fact that we are properly to introduce sanctions, including the loss of legal aid, for an unmeritorious appeal. Does that not in itself mean that five days is a very shot t period? The Minister will see that I have tabled an amendment suggesting an alternative of seven days, which would go some way to providing extra flexibility. Surely 48 hours' difference will not grind the system to a halt.
  Mr. Lammy: I hope to make some progress, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that we must go back to basics to ensure that we have the right amount of time. We are dealing with an error of law. The applicant has made his case to the IND, and gone on to do so to the tribunal. If we look at the current working arrangements on statutory review, we see that lawyers are taking about five or six hours to make such a determination, with some additional hours—say two or three—taken up if they have asked counsel to draft advice. That is effectively one and a half working days, but we are allowing them five working days, give or take the two days for issuing a decision. A working week is a suitable and appropriate amount of time in which to make an application.
  Mr. Heath: I am sorry to labour the point, but I want to be absolutely sure. The Minister keeps on referring to five working days, yet that not what would appear in the Bill if his amendments were accepted. The Bill would simply say five days, which must be five calendar days.
  1164
  If we are to interpret five days as five working days, we must interpret the reference to 28 days in the following subsection as 28 working days. Will the Minister clarify his intention, because he is mixing two terms?
  Mr. Lammy: I really think that there is not much between us; I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the rules of court. I ask him to check his facts against section 103A(4)(a) and the rules of court, under which courts allow special provisions.
  Mr. Grieve: The point raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is perfectly valid. There appears to be an ambiguity in the Bill. It would be useful if the Minister confirmed through his officials during this debate my understanding that five days is not described as five working days, because under the rules of court, a period of under a week automatically excludes weekends.
  Mr. Lammy: Absolutely. Perhaps because of my own period in practice I accept that five working days means, in effect, the Monday to Friday that most lawyers work.
  Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend explain the status of bank holidays in this context?
  Mr. Lammy: Bank holidays will be taken into consideration under the rules in the same way as weekends.
  Normally the legal representative will already be familiar with the case and the tribunal will have provided reasons for its decision. We expect the process to involve about six hours for a legal representative and up to five hours for counsel, if counsel is used in the case.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Mark Oaten: The Minister just said that normally the legal adviser would be familiar with the case. On what evidence does he base that assertion? I should have thought that quite a number of individuals will want to change their legal adviser, especially if they are about to mount an appeal, so new advisers will have to get to grips with their case.
  Mr. Lammy: The overwhelming number of clients stay with their legal adviser. We are discussing cases involving an error of law. A new legal adviser should be able to establish that error of law on appeal within five days. If—it is a big if—that were not the case, a new legal adviser would be able to go to the court and ask the judge to exercise his discretion to extend the period. Provision is made for that in new section 103A(4)(b), which gives the court the power to vary the period.
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: The Minister seems to be saying that, whether it is five days or 10, the period is arbitrary. It is certainly extremely short compared with the time normally allowed for appeal procedures—the shortest period that I know of is 14 days. What is the assessed benefit to the system, the Government or anyone else of five days rather than 10?
  Mr. Lammy: As I said, only one in 10 applications succeed and there are far more appeals in this part of the

  1165
  tribunal system than in any other; it is therefore important that we consider the time scale. Hon. Members have been telling Ministers for some time that they are worried about the quality of some—not all—of the legal representatives in the asylum field. What we do not want is an extended period that allows individuals time to shop around for various opinions and then make an unmeritorious application. We had this debate on Second Reading. The figures show that five working days—a working week—and giving the judge discretion to vary the period will be sufficient, especially when one considers that, on average, it takes about six hours to prepare an application on an error of law. I stress that in the exceptional cases in which one working week does not provide sufficient time, both the tribunal and the High Court will have discretion to extend the period and to allow a late application to proceed. That clearly provides an important safeguard for applicants for review. I urge the House to recognise the balance that we seek to strike and to support the amendments.
  Government amendments (c) and (d) to Lords amendment No. 28 introduce an additional flexibility to the procedure for review. Rules of court will be able to permit the court to consider additional written submissions.
  I move on to Government amendments (f) and (g) to Lords amendment No. 28. As I explained, section 103D provides an enabling power for new legal aid arrangements. Under the new scheme the intention is that regulations will provide for the tribunal to order legal aid to be paid after the reconsideration of an appeal if the case is successful and decided in favour of the appellant, or the case is a near miss. In exceptional circumstances the High Court will have the power to order legal aid to be paid for the review process. At this stage the court is considering only whether or not there may have been an error of law which the tribunal or the Court of Appeal should consider.
  Government amendment (f) recognises concerns raised about the proposal for the fee to vary depending on the result of the reconsideration or referral. Our amendment meets those concerns by removing the ability for payments to vary.
  Government amendment (g) is in response to the helpful discussions about the importance of funding cases that have merit. The amendment links the power to order funding more closely to the prospects of success of the application. We have always intended cases with significant merit to fall within the scope of the scheme and this amendment ensures that they will. Through these new arrangements, we are asking lawyers to share the risk with the taxpayer when deciding whether a case should be pursued beyond the single tier. We recognise that there are many good immigration lawyers, but we also know that unfortunately there are some in this area of the law who have continued to bring unmeritorious cases. The new arrangements will encourage good practice throughout the profession, and sit with all the other things that we have done: accreditation, the establishment of the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner, bringing cases earlier to the Legal Services Commission to determine and ensuring that we have quality and value for money across the field in terms of legal provision for asylum and immigration.
  Mr. Grieve: I confess that I had some difficulty following the Minister's argument a moment ago and I may have misunderstood the position. He will be aware that in the other place there was a debate on 6 July at columns 741 and 742 relating to the extent to which there should be a conditional fee system. It was made quite clear in the other place that the official Opposition and, indeed, others, would not accept a conditional fee system. Lord Filkin indicated that he accepted that, as long as there was a tough merits test. My understanding is that although the Government have removed the conditional fee system for reconsideration, they have not removed it for review. That may be an accident that is curable, but I would like an assurance that that is what is going to happen.
  Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman knows that there have been discussions as recently as a few minutes before I rose to move these amendments, and it is the Government's intention, following those discussions between Lord Filkin and Lord Kingsland, to move further amendments, as was indicated in another place.
  Annabelle Ewing: The Minister referred a moment ago to a scenario where there would be a near miss; that is a new concept to me as a lawyer. What definition is set out of what a near miss means?
  Mr. Lammy: As I indicated, we are taking an enabling power in this legislation. There are a number of scenarios where it would be right for the lawyer to receive payment where he had not been successful on behalf of the applicant, but we can define that, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, as a near miss or a case that has merit. For example, if an application was made under the law as it stood at one time, but the House of Lords or the Court of Appeal made a decision in the intervening period that changed that legal basis, it would probably be right for the lawyer to receive funds. Furthermore, even if an applicant has been unsuccessful in making their claim, their case may have established important case law that defines a particular group or community and will have a lot of bearing on immigration and asylum cases. In such circumstances, it would also be right for the lawyer to receive funds.
  Those are the circumstances that have been discussed. We are keen to continue to discuss how we should define in regulations the scope of s meritorious case. On that basis, we wanted to include cases in which the lawyer was right to bring the case, but was not successful in acting on the applicant's behalf.
  Mr. Oaten: If a lawyer thought that there was a 50:50 chance that a case would be won, would it be appropriate for them to proceed?
  Mr. Lammy: I have already said that these circumstances are a matter for regulations. There will be instances in which the lawyer has not won, but the case was of some merit. That issue has been discussed in the other place, which is why we have tabled the amendments. Let us leave the technical discussions, as I think is right, to the legal profession and the

  1167
  Department for Constitutional Affairs in going forward to regulations. We will discuss the matter when we come back on the affirmative procedure.
  Mr. Grieve: I apologise for returning to this point. I would not have done so if the Minister had not spoken at the Dispatch Box about the lawyer sharing the burden of responsibility, which suggested that the Government still had a conditional fee agreement in mind. My understanding is that it was made absolutely clear in the other place that the Government would not get a conditional fee agreement through the other place, but that Lord Filkin indicated—I shall quote him later—that he appreciated that that was the case and said that the matter could be reconciled by a tough merits test. I assume that that is what we are dealing with, and that the lacunae that seem to exist in terms of the drafting of Government amendment (g) will be cured along the lines of the assurance that the Minister has given. I am sorry to ask again, but in view of the words that he used—I realise that forms of words can be used in a slightly odd fashion and that people can mean different things—I would be grateful for reassurance on that point.
  Mr. Lammy: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance.
  Through the new arrangements, we are asking lawyers to understand that the Government take the matter seriously and that it is right that we seek to limit the sort of unmeritorious cases that have been brought in the past. That is why I ask hon. Members to agree to our amendments.
  I turn now to Lords amendments Nos. 42, 43, 44 and 46 to schedule 1 and Lords amendment No. 61 to schedule 2. Together, those amendments would retain lay members in the new tribunal and require the majority of appeals to be determined by a panel. The Government are proposing three amendments in lieu, which accept that there is a role for lay members in the new tribunal and tidy up the drafting. Government amendment (e) to Lords amendment No. 28 is consequential upon the reintroduction of lay members.
  We disagree with Lords amendment No. 46, however, and Government amendment (a) in lieu does not require the majority of appeals to be heard by panels. Instead, it allows the president to make arrangements having regard to the complexity of the case and other circumstances. We must ensure the appropriate level of scrutiny, and giving the president discretion, having regard to the complexity of the case and other circumstances, will create a flexible and efficient approach to case management. Our amendments will ensure that panels hear the right cases, which will benefit from the input of lay members. I urge hon. Members to support the Government amendments in lieu.
  5.45 pm
  Lords amendments Nos. 48 and 49 relate to appeals before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. Lords amendment No. 48 provides for a more streamlined procedure for appeals against deprivation
  1168
  of citizenship, which reflects our intention to run deprivation and deportation appeals concurrently, and it also protects the interests of the individual if a deprivation order is overturned. Lords amendment No. 49 would confer a parallel jurisdiction on the Special Immigration Appeals Commission covering appeals to that body against deprivation of citizenship under section 2B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.
  On that basis, the Government are pleased to return with the amendments, which have been discussed for some months.
  Lynne Jones: I have been listening to the debate, which I find extremely confusing, and gather that further discussions will occur in the other place. I note that the Government have yet to respond to the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has expressed reservations. Can the Minister provide an assurance that the Government will respond to that report before the matter is dispensed with?
  Mr. Lammy: The Home Office Minister with responsibility for asylum and immigration has responded to the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Because we have listened to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Constitutional Affairs Committee, hon. Members of this House and Members of another place, we have reached a broad consensus on this important legislation, and we heard in this afternoon's debate that procedural points about time limits are all that remain between us.
  Mr. Grieve: I start by saying to the Minister, in the same spirit as that in which he concluded his remarks, that, if the sinner repents, it is wise for those who see the repentance at least to acknowledge it. The Bill left this House in the most dreadful condition—as far as the rule of law in this country is concerned, it was not far off being an obscenity—and despite our attempts to persuade the Government on Report, the Government appeared obdurate.
  That said, an overwhelming majority of Members of the other place, including many who take the Government Whip, have persuaded the Government to see sense. Once again, we have had to rely on them to save this country from a form of tyranny, so hon. Members, and perhaps even Ministers, should be grateful. As the Minister says, we are left, as a result of their hard work, with a number of areas of detail. I acknowledge that and hope that we can satisfactorily resolve them. The question whether that can be done depends on whether the Government will now show a little flexibility.
  I shall start with the main bone of contention, which might appear to be small, but precisely because it is so small, I find it puzzling. On Report, I tabled an amendment that provided seven days in which to appeal to allow a statutory review procedure rather than the ouster of the judicial scrutiny of the asylum process. When the matter went to the other place, Members were particularly concerned about conditional fee agreements. It became clear that, if the Government persisted with conditional fee agreements, also known as no win, no fee agreements, the time that it would take to secure the services of a lawyer—who would need to

  1169
  make an assessment and obtain the necessary insurance, if they could get it at all to take on a no win, no fee case—made the proposed seven-day period insufficient. That is why a period of 10 days, which is still short, was inserted. Under the influence of the other place, the Government have considerately suggested that they will not persist with no win, no fee. They said that they would set a tough merits test, which we wholly support as long as we can ensure that that is what appears on the statute book. I therefore accept that there is at least an argument for seven instead of 10 days. However, I am mystified about the Government's determination to maintain a five-day period in which an appeal can be lodged. That must be considered in the overall context of the time periods for processing asylum applications.
  Two points are worth noting. First, in the other place, we tabled an amendment to provide that the Home Office had to make the determination in six weeks. If anything will speed up the asylum process, it is the Government and the Home Office making a determination in six weeks, not three months, six months, nine months or even longer. However, the Government did not want our amendment. They said that they were not prepared to live with the six-week period and, consequently, we do not have it.
  Secondly, we made another suggestion in the other place. At the end of the process, there are often delays before someone is removed because judicial review can still be invoked to delay removal or argue that removal should not take place. We proposed a statutory review procedure to speed that up but the Government rejected it. They said that they were determined to keep the judicial review procedure for the tail end of asylum applications. That threatens to delay the process at the end.
  The Government insisted that they would not have a statutory review procedure at the end of the process and would not stick to a six-week determination process, yet they are fighting over an extra 48 hours so that lawyers can consider whether to launch an application for review or reconsideration. That is odd and I fear that the only reason for it is the cheapest form of No. 10 Downing street spin.
  Throughout the proceedings, the Government have wanted to be able to say, "We're trying and we'll ensure that everything happens quickly. Look at those dreadful people on the Opposition Benches—they're trying to hold up the process." The Prime Minister has presented precisely that sort of cant at the Dispatch Box. I have not heard a proper explanation from the Under-Secretary of why 10 days would make a difference whereas seven days would not.
  I do not know what the other place will do when it reviews the matter. The Government will get their way here and we can do nothing about it. However, I urge the Under-Secretary to reconsider whether we can end our proceedings on the Bill on a note of amity. That is why I tabled the two amendments that proposed seven days. Given that the Government have dropped conditional fee agreements, seven days, although a short period, at least provides a little extra. I hope that the Under-Secretary will examine that proposal positively and listen to other hon. Members' comments on it.
  I believe that the Under-Secretary has resolved my next point, but I want to make our position absolutely clear. We will have nothing to do with a conditional fee
  1170
  system. It cannot work in asylum appeals because it will mean that people are unrepresented. I believe and hope that we have persuaded the Government of that. It is therefore bizarre that the Under-Secretary appeared to be reading from an old text, which clearly suggested that he was still trying to persuade the public that the conditional fee agreement applied. I think that he subsequently explained himself. However, it is clear that the measure will have to revert to this place because a further amendment will be required in the other place to ensure that it covers not only reconsideration but review. In the light of the Under-Secretary's assurances and crystal clear assurances from Lord Filkin, which were the only reason why my noble Friend Lord Kingsland did not press his amendments, I am content to let the matter rest.
  The Under-Secretary will be pleased to learn that we are prepared to accept the other amendments. We are pleased that the Government have conceded that scope should remain for lay members of tribunals. We regard that as essential. We are broadly content that the president can exercise discretion to ensure the presence of lay members to help with the decisions of fact in any case of factual complexity. I hope that the Under-Secretary can assure us that there is no intention through the publication of guidelines or Government pressure to try to influence the president's exercise of discretion. I would expect the president to conduct the hearings fairly and equitably. I shall not seek to oppose the Government.
  I do not wish to take up time because others want to speak. I have broadly covered our response to the Government amendments. The great thing is that the Government have given way on the main issue. For that, they are entitled to take some credit, although it would never have happened without many hon. Members, including the Government's supporters, showing a great deal of courage. It is greatly to their credit that they did so.
  I hope that the Government will respond positively to my points and I look forward to hearing other hon. Members' views about whether the Government are right to push for five rather than 10 days.
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: First, those of us who argued on Second Reading and on Report that the provisions on appeal were wrong must say to the Government that we are glad that they have listened. A significant shift has taken place. It is a pity that we had to wait until the measure went to another place for it to happen. Hon. Members of all parties who spoke about appeals on Report argued that the Government were wrong. However, I acknowledge that the Government have listened and we are grateful for this significant move.
  Two matters have been flagged up as being of major concern. The first is the number of days for an appeal to be lodged and the second is legal aid. On the second point, I am more confused than when the debate began about the direction that we are taking. The discussion about whether the number of days should be five, seven or 10 resembles that about angels dancing on pinheads. The number is arbitrary. I question whether it would allow a proper appeals system to work. I await the first case after the introduction of the system in which the Home Office fails to meet the five-day target and it wants

  1171
  to appeal against a decision by the tribunal. I am sure that one will occur before too long. The five days apply to the Home Office as much as to an asylum claimant. I should be interested to note the number of such cases.
  I can envisage circumstances in which asylum claimants will experience problems with a five-day timetable. We appear to be moving towards a system whereby asylum claimants are almost encouraged not to worry about getting legal advice, especially at the start of the process. I recently saw a transcript of an asylum seeker induction briefing DVD that is shown to asylum seekers in induction centres. It says about legal advice:
  "You can seek legal advice if you want it; but the Home Office do not believe that you need legal advice to tell Asylum Casework about your reasons for claiming asylum".
  I appreciate that that is at the beginning of the process rather than at appeal, but it does not really encourage people to get their cases presented properly in the first place, which would cut many unnecessary appeals.
  6 pm
  I can also envisage situations in which someone would want to change their lawyer, either because they do not believe that the lawyer who has been dealing with their case when it has gone to the tribunal has handled it properly, or because the lawyer who dealt with that stage was not available, for some reason, to deal with any further reconsideration.
  Mr. Oaten: The hon. Gentleman has touched on an issue that concerns me. As the process gets more complex, and as the grounds for appeal get more technical and detailed, people may want to switch to much more specialist lawyers. There is a good case, therefore, for individuals to be encouraged to move to a different lawyer to tackle those complex legal arguments.
  Mr. Gerrard: That may well be the case. I know that there are proposals along with the new systems to produce different levels of accreditation for people handling asylum cases, and I welcome some of what has been done over the past year or two to weed out some of the poor representatives around. I can think of examples from my local citizens advice bureau, which has a legal aid franchise to handle asylum and immigration cases, and in my view does it extremely well, although the person who does most of the work in that CAB does not have a legal qualification. I am sure that, were he faced with the situation of someone who had gone through a tribunal, and if he felt that there might be a point of law on which to argue, he would want to go to someone else to get that specialist advice. Five days will not always be enough to allow people to do that. Although the Minister said that it would be possible to make an application and to try to put an argument that a longer time limit should be allowed, five days is too tight in this area.
  On the question of legal aid and no win, no fee or conditional fee arrangements, I am not sure about the direction in which we are going, given the promise that there will be further reconsideration in the other place. I have had some concerns about the way the amendment
  1172
  that came to us was drafted—it seemed to give extremely wide discretion to the Secretary of State to make regulations that would restrict the exercise of the power to make payments, depending on the outcome of the appeal. One phrase that I still do not understand is
  "the nature of the appellant's legal representatives",
  which would remain even with the Government's proposed amendments.
  If we are to have a merits test, that is the right direction. I do not want cases with absolutely no merit being funded out of public funds. Certainly, I have seen cases in the present system in which solicitors have told asylum claimants who have lost at an adjudicator's appeal that they will put in an application to the immigration appeal tribunal. When one sees the paper that has been sent to the IAT, it has scribbled on it something along the lines of, "The adjudicator made an error in law." That is all that it says. It gives no indication of what the error in law is supposed to be. Clearly, there is no basis on which to assess that, as the argument is about credibility. The adjudicator has made a decision on credibility and the IAT is not going to get involved in an argument about credibility, as it will say that that is a matter for the adjudicator, and not for it.
  I do not have a problem with trying to weed out cases that do not stand up or do not have genuine points of law to argue. One must give the solicitor the opportunity to have a proper merits test, however, and not after the event. That is what worried me about the proposal—decisions would be taken after the event, which would discourage lawyers from taking cases that were 50:50 or that they were doubtful that they would win.
  On the whole issue of appeals, the direction in which we appear to be going still concerns me—we are squeezing appeal rights all the time. It is not encouraging to see a paper from the Department for Constitutional Affairs, issued just a few days ago, about its 2004 research programme, in which asylum was one of the areas in which it was asking for offers of research. It described the current system, and the proposals in the Bill, and went on to say:
  "In the current Bill, the Government had originally proposed a judicial review ouster of IAT decisions. However, the ouster clause was replaced with the arrangement described above",
  which are the arrangements that we now have. It continued:
  "Both lay and expert views are sought on whether asylum seekers and immigrants should have the legal right to challenge Home Office decisions either to a Tribunal or a court."
  If we are getting research done along those lines, I wonder what we will get next on changing appeal rights, on top of the proposals in the Bill.
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration has moved significantly. All of us who argued about this section of the Bill tried to say on Second Reading that we could live with a single tier of appeal provided that there was a possibility of changing errors of law and provided that we were not removing the ability of people to go to the appeal courts and higher courts. I welcome the shift that has been made, and I look forward to seeing what we get back on the legal aid sections when we no doubt debate this again, either in a week or two or in the autumn, when the other place has had a chance to have another look at it.
  Mr. Heath: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). As he said, many of us made trenchant criticisms of the Government's initial proposals when we last had the Bill before us. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has already described the obscenity of the original proposals. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who was with us earlier, described the Bill as
  "not only illiberal but grossly unfair".—[Official Report, 1 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 721.]
  Unfortunately—I say this is in the gentlest possible way—those two hon. Gentlemen could not quite bring themselves to vote against the Bill. as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and my hon. Friends did at the time. Nevertheless, clearly, a strong view was held on both sides of the House that there was a need to do something about the worst excesses of the original proposals.
  If I welcome the proposals that the Government have now brought forward, I do so only because they are better than the alternative. The grudging way in which the Minister made his statements this evening suggested not so much a repentant sinner as someone who had been dragged kicking and screaming to the House, who had had to make changes because he knew that he would not get the Bill through the other place without them, and who was still not prepared to listen to what people were saying. Hence, we found that we needed further amendments from the other place to bring the Bill into conformity with what some of us felt had already been agreed.
  I will not cover ground that has already been adequately covered by others, as other hon. Members wish to speak. I find it extraordinary, however, that the Government are fussing about the period of 10 working days, and trying to bring it down to five. For heaven's sake, we now have a simplified procedure. How many belts and braces do they need to achieve their objective? Adding another two days, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield proposes, or leaving the period at 10 days, will make not a ha'p'orth of difference to the efficiency of the system, except in one way. If people are asked to present cases that are ill prepared—if they are asked to find legal assistance within a period that does not allow for that—cases in our courts will be dealt with less effectively, less efficiently and in a way that is less in the interests of justice.
  Mr. Lammy: The Government are insisting on the provision because we want to stamp out delay. We should remember that 70 per cent. of people who arrive in this country—Europol's figure, not the Government's—are trafficked by criminal gangs. Why do they come here? Because they are exploiting parts of the system. What is the central part of the system that they are exploiting? Delay.
  It is right for us to go back to basics, to consider what is necessary to lodge an appeal, and to look at the evidence before us. The evidence suggested that six hours were required, and, if the use of counsel was needed, one and a half working days. It was on that basis that we arrived at five days. It was not because the Government had not thought about the issue in depth.
  Mr. Heath: Had the Minister been an applicant, he would probably have used one working day with that
  1174
  intervention. I hear what he says, but let me say this to him: if he wants to speed up the process, let him start with the Home Office. Let him get the Home Office working correctly, making proper assessments and presenting cases appropriately. That is how to speed up the process, not denying people the opportunity to make a case that can be made only on grounds of merit, as in the Minister's belt-and-braces proposal. We are talking about meritorious cases, not about people who are exercising some sort of delaying tactic.
  I despair of this Minister, above all, because he never seems to listen to what people say in debates. He pointed out that new section 103A(4) would permit an application outside the specified period. That is true, but the grounds are very limited, involving reasonable practicability. An appeal cannot be made in the interests of justice. I happen to believe that the interests of justice ought to be paramount, but the amendment makes no reference to them. Appeals can be made only in the event of a specific practical problem that cannot be overcome.
  Vera Baird: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but surely reasonable practicality is what Opposition Members have been talking about. If there is a change of lawyer, for instance, the question of whether it is reasonably practical for the new lawyer to submit the appeal on time is exactly what we should consider. The amendment hits the nail on the head.
  Mr. Heath: All I can say is that I hope so, but I envisage circumstances in which it will not. We should bear in mind that we are dealing, potentially, with matters of life and death. I believe that we have a responsibility to ensure that the interests of justice are upheld in any circumstances on that basis.
  Let me deal briefly with conditionality. All that I heard this evening about fees sounded very much like a conditional system by another name. There are some deeply imponderable proposals. There is, for example, the concept of the near miss. What if the client secures the right result—leave to remain—but by the wrong means? The lawyer, presumably, will be considered to have failed entirely, although he or she will have done the preparatory work, because the client no longer wishes to test the point of law on which an appeal would be held. The client now considers that he or she has secured his or her objective, which is to remain in the country safe from harm or persecution. Is that a near miss? It may not be a miss at all. The matter may not even come to court.
  6.15 pm
  There is serious anxiety about the possibility that people will not be able to obtain the legal support that they need. I hold no brief for bad practitioners, but how many filters must the Government introduce before they can do the job of weeding out the bad practitioners, leaving those who are genuinely concerned for their clients and want to do a good job? We have the quality controls and the devolved powers that are available to the firms involved, but when there are no devolved powers, the Legal Services Commission will decide the merits of the case in the first place. Are we to suppose that the commission is incapable of deciding whether a case is meritorious? Will it be necessary to wait until the

  1175
  end of the proceedings to find out whether the lawyer contracted, in effect, by the commission will be paid? Who on earth would take a case on that basis? It is unfair to the applicant.
  We have heard mention of the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and it was pointed out earlierߞfrom a sedentary positionߞthat the Government had responded to its criticisms. I may be corrected, because I have only the briefest acquaintance with the Government's response, but I felt that they had answered some of the criticisms. In fact, I think that that was said explicitly. There did not, however, appear to be a section on clause 14, which we are discussing now. There were serious criticisms that the Government have not addressed. No doubt we shall have to address them, both here and in another place.
  Rob Marris: I shall confine my remarks to amendments (a) and (b). I declare an interest: I am a member of the Law Society of England and Wales, although I have not practised law since I was elected three years ago because I do not believe in moonlighting.
  Looking around the Chamber, I see a fair smattering of barristers and some solicitors. I would hazard a guess, although I stand to be corrected, that during my many years of practice I have issued and run more civil proceedings than anyone else present; and I must tell the Government that changing 10 working days to five strikes me as extraordinary. It suggests, for example, that a sole practitioner who is a solicitor is not entitled to go on holiday: such people would be deemed negligent, and could be sued for missing the deadline.
  Since my election, I have written hundreds, if not thousands, of letters to Ministers. I do not recall ever receiving a written acknowledgement within 10 working days, let alone five. I have never received an answer that looked as if it had taken anything like six hours to draft. Ministers are not able to complete six hours of drafting in five working days, but they want those representing asylum applicants to do it. That seems extraordinary.
  I urge both the Government and the Opposition to withdraw their amendments, and stick to the 10 working days proposed by the other place. I think that that is, in any event, a very short time.
  Mr. Grieve: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I will not take an opportunity to put my amendments to the vote. I tabled them as a sort of tempter, in an attempt to entice the Minister to explain his obsession with five days and suggest an alternative. Clearly, however, if that is unacceptable to the Government, it is unacceptable to the Government.
  Rob Marris: I will not comment further on that. Let me end by asking the Minister to assure us that his ministerial correspondence is answered within 10 working daysߞwhich is being generous to himߞand that all of it is answered within that time.
  Annabelle Ewing: As many Members have pointed out, the clause has been greatly improved since Second Reading, Committee and Report, although I still have
  1176
  some concerns, not least that reconsideration will be handled by the same tribunal and that there is a lack of provision for oral submissions.
  On the key outstanding issue, I find it quite incredible that the Government insist on a period of five working days. We are dealing with a right of appeal, which is much more important than mere administrative convenience. The Government have begun by making a series of unsound and unrealistic assumptions. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) pointed out, the provision seems to take no account of the fact that the lawyer concerned might be a sole practitioner who is on holiday; nor does it take account of the practitioner's case load or of the possible complexity of a case. Citing repeatedly an average time of six hours is meaningless in a field such as law, in which each case must be dealt with as it comes and on its merits.
  Mr. Lammy: Has the hon. Lady not read proposed new section 103A(4)(b), which allows the judge discretion in the rare circumstances in which the five-day deadline cannot be met?
  Annabelle Ewing: I have, but the point is that if one sets a deadline for appeal, it will be the norm; such discretion will, by definition, operate on a discretionary basis. I do not know why the Minister appears not to understand that basic point about our legal system.
  This is a very important issue and as has been pointed out, the existing period of 10 working days is already a very short one within which to be required to bring an appeal. The other place will insist on this matter, and we will have to discuss it again. In the light of the clause's history, I expected the Minister to have learned a little humility, but he obviously has not.
  I am pleased to note that the Bill's legal aid provisions do not seem to apply to Scotland. That is entirely proper, because the Scottish legal aid system is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. As I understand it, I have received an assurance from the Government that no hidden small print seeks to apply such provisions to Scotland, and I am very pleased that the Scottish Parliament will decide how to administer its legal aid system.
  Vera Baird: How is the Scottish Parliament to decide whether there will be a way to allocate legal aid in time for an appeal, if, as the hon. Lady agrees, the time limit for an appeal must itself be very short? Surely the reason why such aid will be ex post facto legal aid is that there is no time beforehand for an independent examination of the merits. She does not have the escape clause that she fancies she has.
  Annabelle Ewing: I was talking about the broad policy and the question of whether we in Scotland would wish to go down the road of a conditional, or "no win, no fee", legal aid system. Such policy will be decided not by this place but, quite properly, by the Scottish Parliament. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) says from a sedentary position that that is the consequence of devolution, and quite so, but the problem is that some 60-plus Sewel motions have delegated our legislation-making

  1177
  competence to Westminster. That is an important point, but I shall not go down that route tonight. The Minister will have heard my comments about the number of days, and I hope that the Government will show a little flexibility.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short and sad contribution to this short and sad debate. It is sad because I had looked forward to the unusual—indeed, unique—experience of offering my unalloyed and unadulterated congratulations to the Government. I had thought this an entirely appropriate moment to do so, not least because I expected the Chamber to be nearly empty. It is also a sad occasion because I have immeasurable respect for my hon. Friend the Minister, who, of course, did not have the burden of carrying this iniquitous Bill through its early stages. It would indeed have been a worthy occasion on which to congratulate him, as it is the first time that I have seen him on the Front Bench in his current role. Unhappily, I am unable to do so, and to explain why that is so, it is necessary to look back at the history of the Bill.
  On Second Reading and on Report, we had a magnificent debate on what is an historic matter. Had the Government succeeded, it would have been the first time since the days of the Star Chamber that a public tribunal was relieved of the responsibility of judicial review. The debate had enormous historic undercurrents, and it was characterised by strong speeches in this Chamber and the usual vulgar abuse outside about wet liberalism versus authoritarian government. It was enormous fun because, as most of us realised, the Government were bound to give in; otherwise, they would have provoked the biggest constitutional crisis for 300 years. They were told as much when the Bill got to the House of Lords, and when they gave in, my noble Friend Lord Falconer also gave in with characteristic charm and emollience. Indeed, in doing so he found time to pay a little credit to the Back Benchers in this House who had attempted to assist him, for which we were enormously grateful.
  So when I heard what Lord Falconer had to say, I looked forward to coming to this Chamber in order, on an historic note for me, to. congratulate the Government. Unhappily, that is not possible because of their amendment (a), which characteristically states:
  "leave out '10 working' and insert '5'.
  It is, in truth, a miserable, snivelling little amendment that has no valid reason behind it. It is entirely meretricious, and it smacks of petulance. As all who know about the law realise, there will as a result of it virtually always be applications to extend the time limit. The burden on the tribunal and on lawyers will be immensely increased, rather than decreased.
  The question of a five-day or 10-day limit is entirely arbitrary. When I asked the Minister, who was doing his best in the circumstances, what the perceived wisdom of the five-day limit was, the answer, I am afraid, was grossly unsatisfactory. He said that it does not give people the chance to shop around. The idea that an asylum seeker who cannot speak English and needs assistance can shop around in 10 working days but not in five is pure myopia, and the Minister knows it. This is a wholly arbitrary and unnecessary qualification. Ten
  1178
  days is too short a time limit, but one could have lived with it. A limit of five days is simply an attempt on the part of the Government to save a certain amount of face, and I am very sorry that they have chosen to do that.
  Notwithstanding what I have said, I will support this measure, but I will not be able to go through the Lobby with that light skip in the step that I hoped to be able to employ. Unhappily, I shall go through with the more familiar leaden feet.
  Vera Baird: I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) feels unable to let go and to congratulate the Government in the wholehearted way that I know he has been longing to do for many months, whenever possible. This measure is such a lot better than it first was that "congratulations" is the lowest point at which one can pitch one's approach to it. It is better not to be mealy mouthed, although no one could accuse my hon. and learned Friend of that: care, consideration and detailed conversations have helped to clarify this measure, which is now as good as it is going to get. There will be an independent appellate process, which is the most important thing; to be honest, time limits are much more of a minor-key issue. They will be applied where appropriate, via what I am satisfied is a tough merits test.
  I am worried about the time limit of five days. To be honest, I cannot see why anyone is arguing about whether it should be five days or 10. There does not seem to be any principle to be found here. Surely 10 days is short enough, so what is the advantage of having five instead? I do not understand why the Government are sticking out for that.
  6.30 pm
  I understand, although I do not especially care for, the allocation of legal aid ex post facto, but it seems to me that we cannot have one without the other, and if an appeal's time runs out in 10 days, there is no time for an application for legal aid to test the merits in the meantime. That is a funny idea, running in the opposite direction from other aspects of the legal system. The new criminal defence legislation says that criminal legal aid, currently awarded by the courts, will go instead to the Legal Services Commission, which is where the decisions under discussion are currently made. The Government are running contrary to the thread of what I consider a proper policy route.
  However, there it is. We cannot really have time for an application for legal aid if we are going to have a very short appeal application time, so everyone must accept that if they want to be sweet about the one, they must be sweet about the other. I am sure that the judiciary will exercise the proper discretion and will understand which cases were worth bringing, even though they were not successful. I do not foresee great problems about that.
  Frankly, lawyers such as myself—I should have declared an interest, although I did not do much in the way of asylum work until I was confronted with it as a constituency Member—will have to take the cases that they think in all conscience should be taken and simply get on with them, trusting that they can convince the courts after the event that they were right to do so—

  1179
  It being one and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Government amendments (a) to (g) to Lords amendment No. 28 agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 28, as amended, agreed to.
  Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 62 agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 62, as amended, agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 42 to 44 and 46 disagreed to.lb/>
  Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 46 agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 61 disagreed to.
  Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 42 to 44 and 61 agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 29, 45 and 47 to 60 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 15.
  Mr. Humfrey Matins: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider amendments (b), (c) and (e) to the Lords amendment.
  Mr. Matins: The first three amendments are essentially probing, but I shall seek to divide the House on amendment (e), on prescribing the circumstances that constitute a breach of a requirement to participate in community activities, if the Government are not prepared to accept it.
  The new clauses inserted by the Government in another place are broadly welcome, because any reasonable person would support the proposition that people should, where they are able, give something back to the community that has been supporting them. Having offered general support, I shall be a little unkind and say to the Government that I am disappointed and disillusioned by the approach that they have taken in introducing changes so late in the proceedings. There has been no meaningful consultation and not one of these new provisions has ever been debated in this Chamber, in Committee or on Report.
  It is worth remembering that we started the Committee stage on 8 January. At that stage, the Bill was about 25 to 28 clauses long, and it has now almost doubled in size to 50. Many hon. Members of all parties—I see the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) here today—would have welcomed the chance to debate these provisions in Committee.
  In the other place, my noble Friend Baroness Anelay referred to a "torrent" of new clauses and policies being made up on the hoof. Today, we have about two and a quarter hours to debate up to seven major new add-ons
  1180
  to the Bill. It is a pity that we have so little time. Lord Rooker said that the Commons
  "will have adequate time—rightly so, because when the Bill goes back it will have a substantial chunk of amendments sent from the Committee here. There has to be proper scrutiny in the other place."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2004; Vol. 662, c. 650.]
  He was right. There will not be enough time properly to scrutinise the clause particularly in relation to the provision of accommodation being dependent on work done.
  I do not expect the Government to apologise, but I hope that they will be able to give us some reason as to why these major new policies were not in their heads last December, when they could have been put into the Bill for Second Reading; in January this year, when the Bill went into Committee or at Report stage.
  Although we offer a broad welcome to the principle behind the clause, I turn now to my amendments, which are essentially probing. Amendments (a) and (b) would require the Government to consult a wide range of bodies before introducing the provision on work being linked to the right to accommodation. Amendment (b) lists those bodies—they include Citizens Advice and others of some importance. Some are relevant because of their experience in the refugee world—for example, the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Council. Some are particularly relevant to the issue of work in the community—that is why I included the probation service, which runs what are now called community punishment orders and were hitherto called community service orders. Some have useful knowledge about specific work that would benefit a community in which the asylum seeker lives—I refer to the Local Government Association. I do not think that the Government had a prolonged period of consultation with any of those organisations; if they did, I must have missed it. Why not, and will they undertake, even at this late stage, to do so?
  Amendment (c) would require the Government to explain exactly how they propose to link accommodation with work. I am not clear what they mean by subsection (b) of the clause, which says that regulations may
  "provide for the continuation of the provision of accommodation to be subject to other conditions".
  That is extremely vague.
  The most important amendment, by which I should like to test the opinion of the House, is amendment (e). The general sense of the clause is that the Government will require some failed asylum seekers to undertake some community work or activity as a condition of keeping their accommodation. What will happen if he fails to do the work, fails to do it properly or does not turn up? In the criminal justice world, criteria would be in place to judge what constitutes, for example, failure on the part of a person who is subject to a community service order. In this case, however, if a Home Office official takes the view that the person is not complying properly with the work that they have been asked to do, he can take their accommodation away. Can that possibly be right? If so, it is a somewhat sorry state of affairs.
  Amendment (e) would require the Government to prescribe the circumstances that would constitute a breach of a requirement to participate in community

  1181
  activities. If they are unable to include that in the Bill, they could provide for the making of regulations. But here we are, at the eleventh hour, with the whole House of Commons potentially present for the debate—I say "potentially", because it is always a pleasure to speak to a packed House—and we still do not know. The amendment would remedy that.
  6.45 pm
  How many failed asylum seekers will be covered by the provision? As I understand it, they will be those who are here because they cannot reasonably be removed from the country. Can the Minister tell us not only how many he thinks there are, but which countries they have come from? The Government cannot readily or properly remove many of those who fail in their asylum claim. Zimbabwe is a case in point. In the early part of 2003, the Government suspended removals to Zimbabwe. I thank them for doing so because the situation there rendered it unsatisfactory for people to return to that country.
  Mr. Gerrard: I believe that the people involved would be those who are now described as receiving National Asylum Support Service hard case support. The question is not so much that of how many failed asylum seekers from such countries are not being returned, but of how many apply for and get hard case support. All the figures that I have seen suggest that their numbers are quite small, and that many of those who might be eligible for that support either do not apply for it or are refused.
  Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman. whose expertise in such matters is well known and well respected by the whole House, suggests that we are talking about failed asylum seekers in receipt of hard case support. I understand that. However, if we were in Committee and had plenty of time, the Minister would be asked to deal with the whole scenario of failed asylum seekers who cannot be removed and the duties that are placed on them. The purpose of the debate is to try to draw out some of the Government's reasoning—for example, would those who are not in receipt of hard case support be exempt from the provisions, and if so, why? When the issue of failed asylum seekers who cannot properly be removed cropped up in the other place, questions were put to Ministers about their position, as is proper.
  Of course, the Government face difficulties in removing failed asylum seekers to Iraq and to Afghanistan; they sometimes, but not always, go on the assisted voluntary return package. There are sometimes difficulties in returning Somalis. As the Minister has acknowledged, and as a recent parliamentary question revealed, there are difficulties in removing people to China. The same is true of Iran, despite the fact that that country is a signatory to the Chicago convention. The position is not easy.
  It was said in the other place that only a few hundred people are relevant to the clause. However, given that this is the last opportunity that this House will have to consider the clause, which was never debated in Committee, it would be helpful if the Minister clarified the numbers involved.
  Jeremy Corbyn: It is not just a question of the numbers—of whether it is 10, 500, or
  1182
  whatever—because an important principle is involved. If people who are not allowed to work legally are to be forced to work in a voluntary capacity to carry out unspecified tasks, that is surely a step that has never been taken before.
  Mr. Malins: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and indeed I was going to make it myself in my own way—although perhaps not so effectively—in a moment. I suppose that the issue of the numbers was the first point, if not the most important, that occurred to me. There are more important points of principle, to which I will come in a moment. Surely what we are talking about is a system of directed labour for those who have not been before our courts and convicted of a criminal offence, and for whom the penalty of failing to comply with the work order—the directed labour—is loss of accommodation. That is a serious matter. They are being told, "Do the work, otherwise you'll lose your accommodation."
  Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that such individuals have committed no criminal offence, but does he agree that, as failed asylum seekers—illegal immigrants, in other words—they are outwith the law by being in the country at all?
  Mr. Malins: I understand that we are talking about failed asylum seekers in receipt of hard case support, but the important principle is that we are telling people to do the work or lose their accommodation. I do not know whether any other EU country has that system; I would be glad if the Minister told me.
  As I mentioned in relation to the amendment on which I want to test the House's opinion, I do not see any criteria in the Bill for judging whether the work has been done properly and efficiently. Also, who on earth is to make that judgment? That troubles me a bit, because I do not feel particularly easy with a situation in which a Home Official can say, "Go and do this, and do it on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday." There is nothing in the Bill about how often the work has to be done—or indeed where. There has been some reference in debate to the fact that it might be done locally, but, equally, Lord Rooker said, as reported in Hansard, that it might have to be done in another area. I do not feel particularly easy about the fact that when there is a decision as to whether someone loses their accommodation because they do not do the work properly—says an official—that decision is made by an official against whom there is apparently no right of appeal to any judicial person.
  What has the Minister got to say about the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published only about a week ago? We are talking about a Joint Committee involving, I would say, leading members of all parties, including the Government party. The Minister will know that that Committee was unanimously scathing about the Government's approach to this and other clauses. It concluded that there is a significant risk that making the provision of accommodation to failed asylum seekers conditional on the performance of community work would be in breach of the prohibition of "forced or compulsory labour" in paragraph 2 of article 4 of the European convention on human rights.

  1183
  In the other place, Lord Rooker said—I do not quote him exactly, but give the gist of what he said—that, if he were an Opposition Member, he would be absolutely furious if there was not a full Government response to the Joint Committee's report in time for this debate. I mentioned in my point of order that he, as a Minister, said in terms that there was a prospect of the Government's treatment of the House of Lords being one of contempt.
  The Government have, I think, responded by letter—I have not had chance to digest it fully—in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998 point on whether there is breach of paragraph 2 of article 4 of the European convention on human rights. My understanding is that the lawyers advising the Joint Committee say that there was a significant risk of a breach, but that the Government take the view that that is not the case. Let me ask the Government this: who are the lawyers who advise the Joint Committee and what is their standard of advice? Are they right or wrong? Who are the lawyers who advise the Government and are they right or wrong? What chance does the House really have today to consider the position in respect of a possible breach under paragraph 2 of article 4? Let us hear from the Government on that point in due course, please.
  Let us also hear from the Government about the work that these—to some extent unfortunate—people will have to undertake. Who will select the work? What kind of work will it be, and who will monitor it? Who will enforce attendance? What will the cost be and is there a maximum period for which they will have to do the work?
  As I have mentioned, the nearest parallel in the criminal justice system is what used to be the community service order, now called the community punishment order, under which a court can tell a convicted defendant to perform unpaid work for the benefit of the community for a minimum of 40 hours and a maximum of, I think, 240 hours. That order is administered and supervised by the probation service. If the probation service thinks that there has been a breach, it brings the matter back before the court, which has to make a determination on the point. I want to learn from the Government exactly what the parallel points are with the scheme that they suggest.
  I have a feeling that the proposal to make failed asylum seekers work as a condition of their accommodation may not really involve anything worth doing; I think that the work might just be something to do. I do not see that there will necessarily be huge benefits, and I am concerned about the costs. Anyway, we have not yet heard what the costs of the procedure will be. I do not know whether the Government think that the failed asylum seekers in question will have the skills to do the work that they are required to do. Let the Government tell us exactly what that work will be.
  I have been trying to calculate what the cost might be of putting a failed asylum seeker in receipt of hard case support through the work programme. I simply do not have the resources available to find out whether it will be expensive, but I was able to do a little research on the community punishment order. According to the London probation service website, the average cost for
  1184
  a community punishment order is £1,500 per defendant. Those figures, incidentally, do not tally with the information that the Government gave about a week ago, when Baroness Scotland explained that the average cost of a 40-hour community punishment order—the minimum duration—is £706. However, we are confused about costs because a costing exercise undertaken in 2002–03 with local probation boards suggested that the average length of a community punishment order is 116½ hours and the average cost is £2,005.
  For how long would someone be required to do the work? Would it be weeks or months? With what frequency would they be required to work? The Minister has a duty to tell us a bit more about the proposal. How many hours a week would be involved? Has he any idea? Does he feel able to tell us about the expense involved in the scheme?
  Those are important questions and I hope that others in the House will want to ask questions of the Minister. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, one cannot have an objection in principle to the idea of people putting something back into a community in respect of what they are taking from it. Nevertheless, all of us should try to scrutinise the legislation carefully.
  I conclude my remarks on that note. I have posed many questions, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer in the course of the debate. I hope that he will take on board with acclamation the various amendments that I tabled, and in particular that he will give an absolute commitment to the House that my amendment (e) will be accepted by the Government and incorporated into the Bill forthwith; otherwise it will be necessary to test the opinion of the House.
  7 pm
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne): In my remarks I shall endeavour to deal with the issues raised by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and to anticipate some of the matters that might be raised by right hon. and hon. Members, such as the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
  I should say at the outset, and it will come as no surprise to anyone, that the Government agree with the Lords in amendment No. 15 and disagree with amendments (a) to (e). That may mean that we need to divide at some stage this evening, but that would surprise me, given that when the matter was discussed in the other place, Baroness Scotland wrote to Baroness Anelay on 2 July explaining in some detail our views on the issues raised by amendment (e) on withdrawal of support. As a result, Baroness Anelay subsequently withdrew her amendment on Third Reading in the Lords. But I suppose that what the Opposition do in this House need not necessarily be consistent with what they do in another place.
  As the hon. Member for Woking rightly identified, new clause 15 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying additional criteria to be used in determining whether to provide, or continue to provide, accommodation to failed asylum seekers under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The House will be aware that that is commonly referred to as hard case support.

  1185
  It is important to state at the outset of my contribution that hard case support is available by and large to single failed asylum seekers who have come to the end of the asylum process, including any appeal, and have had their claim finally rejected. Other than a handful of cases—for example, where a mother has given birth shortly after existing support has ceased—families will not be in receipt of section 4 support. I shall come to that in more detail later. It would be helpful if we did not have hon. Members creating the spectre of families being subjected even to such limited conditionality, which I do not believe can be described in the extravagant way in which it has been described by others.
  Mr. Oaten: Perhaps we can clarify that once and for all. I interpret the Minister's remarks to mean that individuals who have to look after a child would not be forced to work as part of those conditions. He says it is unlikely that they would apply to individuals in that category, but can he state that even if people fell within that category, they would not have to work?
  Mr. Browne: We are told that time for debate is limited and I am reluctant to repeat what I have already said. I made it perfectly clear that hard case support is available to single failed asylum seekers, and other than a handful of cases—for example, where a mother has given birth shortly after existing support has ceased and she has already been in receipt of section 4 support—families will not be in receipt of section 4 support. So they do not come into the category of people to whom the conditionality applies. I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands the provisions of the existing support, and I do not propose to take any more time by explaining them. From the lack of reaction of other and very knowledgeable Members, I suspect they understand the distinction.
  There are already conditions attached to the provision of hard case support; it does not come on its own. For example, failed asylum seekers must continue to co-operate with efforts to return them to their country of origin. The conditions are set out clearly in policy bulletins published by the National Asylum Support Service and we now advise failed asylum seekers routinely of the availability of section 4 support.
  It may be appropriate to give the House some sense of the scale of the proposals and the number of people who will be affected, which I have been asked directly and indirectly. Since January 2004 there have been in total 945 applications for section 4 support, and there are currently fewer than 500 people receiving section 4 support. It is not to be concludes from that, as some people do in this area of policy, that half the applications were refused. I have no idea how many applications were refused, but there are fewer than 500 people receiving the support at present.
  I was asked which countries those people come from. They come from a wide range of countries—including the countries identified by the hon. Member for Woking—where there are difficulties, particularly in re-documenting citizens of those countries for return. However, the key point about the provisions is not the countries that people come from, but how the provisions relate to the individual circumstances. I repeat that we
  1186
  routinely advise failed asylum seekers of the availability of section 4 support. There is no reluctance to give that support to people who are entitled to it.
  The new clause allows regulations to make the continuation of hard case support dependent upon a person's performing or participating in community activities; to place the existing criteria for provision of such support on a statutory footing; and to provide for a right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator against a decision not to provide support or against termination of support under section 4.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend have any estimate of the number of people who might be eligible for hard case support but do not wish to participate in putative removal, so simply disappear? Has he any estimate of the costs of administering a system that will apparently apply to a maximum of 500 people?
  Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend pointed out in an earlier intervention—not on me—that there is a point of principle involved. That will presumably be the focus of the bulk of his contribution to the debate. The matter is as much a point of principle for the Government as it is for others who seek to adopt other principles in relation to it. I shall refer to that later. The principle was established in this context for reasons other than numerical reasons.
  To answer my hon. Friend's first point—I think he was making a rhetorical debating point, rather than expecting a detailed answer from me—without examining the individual circumstances of all failed asylum seekers, I am not in a position to know whether they qualify for section 4 support. That depends on their applications and the processing of those applications, so I cannot give him the figures. If he wants to know how many people fail in their application for asylum, those figures are available and are published quarterly.
  Mr. Gerrard: I understand my hon. Friend's point that from the Government's viewpoint, this is a matter of principle, but if we are setting up systems, do we not want them to provide value for the money to be spent on them? Is it implied that people in receipt of hard case support will be required to go to certain places to live? If they are scattered across the country through dispersal, the system will become an administrative nightmare to operate and ineffective in terms of return for the cost.
  Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In the course of my contribution, which is designed to be as comprehensive as it can be given all the circumstances, I hope to address all the points that he makes. He ought not to, and I do not believe he does, accidentally lead the House to believe that those who are already on section 4 support decide where they will go. They do not.
  Mr. Gerrard: No.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's agreement to that. Recipients of the support do not decide where they will go. It is a directive process. People in receipt of that support are required to live in certain accommodation and to that extent there will be no

  1187
  difference. My hon. Friend is right, however, to suggest that this part of the process involves public money and will be required to give value for money. Value for money can be judged in a number of ways, and I hope that when he hears everything that I have to say, he will be persuaded that this process will be fair to everyone including the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, and that it will not make unreasonable demands on people who have been given support—which some people might say they were not entitled to, although I am not saying that—when they have reached the end of the process. Many of those people could return voluntarily to their country in different circumstances, and they should give something back in return for that support.
  Let me develop these arguments in the order in which I have laid them out, rather than jumping back and forth, in the hope that I can cover the points that have been raised by various hon. Members and persuade them of the appropriateness of this policy.
  The Government need to explain the rationale behind these provisions, and I agree with the hon. Member for Woking that it is not ideal to introduce substantive amendments to a Bill at a late stage. In my experience of the United Kingdom Parliament, however, it is not unknown. I have watched legislation being introduced here for many years, and the introduction of amendments at a late stage is not ideal but it happens a lot and for a variety of purposes. Having done that on this occasion, however, the Government did something relatively unusual, in that we offered the new measures for consideration in the other place on recommitment. Indeed, they were debated extensively in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading there. It is also our intention that they will be subject to further consultation before regulations are introduced, and that the regulations will be introduced using the affirmative resolution procedure.
  We remain committed to the principle of offering support under section 4 to failed asylum seekers who, for certain specified reasons, are not immediately in a position to leave the UK. For example, if a person cannot return home because there is no viable route, and provided that they are complying with re-documentation procedures and co-operating with efforts to help them to return voluntarily, we should in the interim be prepared to give them support to insure against destitution. However, we believe that it is right to require persons in receipt of state support to give something back to the community in return for their board and lodging. We have made it absolutely clear that we do not see this as a punishment, and it is unhelpful for people to cite analogies relating to punishments delivered by the criminal courts. This is about a person occupying himself or herself—it will mostly be himself—usefully and not expecting to receive something for nothing.
  Proposed new subsection (6)(a) therefore provides that the regulations made under the section may include a requirement for receipt of support to be conditional on a person performing or participating in community activities. Community activities are defined as activities that appear to the Secretary of State to be beneficial to the public, or to a section of the public. Tackling the
  1188
  culture of "something for nothing" runs through Government policy—the new deal is a prime example—but that may manifest itself in different ways.
  Failed asylum seekers in receipt of support under section 4 are in a different position from UK citizens. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) pointed out, they are not entitled to remain here permanently and will at some point return home, even if they are unable to do so immediately. However, in one sense, the requirement for them to give back to the community that supports them is even clearer than it is for other people. Their asylum claim has failed and they have no right to remain in the UK. If they are then to receive state support during this period—for example, while they co-operate with efforts to arrange their return—we need to ask what is the best way for them to give something back to the community that is supporting them. We believe that the best way is for them to engage in activities for the benefit of the community in which they are staying.
  7.15 pm
  Jeremy Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Oaten rose—
  Mr. Browne: I shall allow both interventions in a minute.
  The Government believe that it is essential for continuing social cohesion that the public have confidence in the asylum system. The UK must continue to offer sanctuary to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution. However, both social cohesion and public support for our international obligations can be undermined when failed asylum seekers—those who by definition have no right to remain in the United Kingdom—are receiving state support while giving nothing back. If hon. Members are in any doubt about that, they should see my postbag on the subject.
  It is true that, generally speaking, hard case support is available only as an interim measure when return is not immediately possible. However, there is a real danger that public concern about state support continuing to be offered to failed asylum seekers who have no right to remain in the UK could fuel misconceptions and prejudices about other asylum and immigration issues, which could have adverse effects on social cohesion in particular communities. To maintain confidence in the system, and to protect social cohesion at local level, taxpayers need to be satisfied that those receiving state support acknowledge the cost to others and the attendant responsibilities that are placed on them. By participating in community activities, failed asylum seekers will be occupying themselves purposefully. This will reduce the potential for tension that could otherwise surface.
  Jeremy Corbyn: I have a number of asylum seekers in my constituency whose application has failed, and who are hard cases who cannot be returned to the country from which they came. They would like to go back but it is simply not safe for them to do so, and they want to work while they are here. They want to get a job and contribute through taxation, and to live a normal,

  1189
  respectable life in our society. I cannot understand why we do not allow that, rather than developing a whole new bureaucracy to make people work for nothing.
  Mr. Browne: I shall come specifically to my hon. Friend's point in due course. We need to answer the question why these people are not allowed to work in the labour market, and I shall seek to do so, but not at this stage of my argument. I give way to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten).
  Mr. Oaten: I was going to make the same point as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn).
  Mr. Tom Harris: Will my hon. Friend the Minister give way?
  Mr. Browne: Only if it is not on the same point.
  Mr. Harris: At the risk of asking the Minister to repeat himself, can he confirm that only those in receipt of section 4 payments under the 1999 Act will be eligible for this so-called work-for-accommodation scheme? Can he also confirm that nobody who has been refused asylum and who has a safe route of return to their original country—for example, Turkey or Kosovo—will be eligible under this scheme?
  Mr. Browne: There might be some misunderstanding of these arguments beyond these four walls, but I do not think that there is any doubt in the Chamber as to exactly who we are talking about here. The obligations placed on those who have a safe route of return and whose asylum application has failed are entirely different from those placed on people who have no safe route of return or cannot be re-documented, but who are co-operating. The arguments about social cohesion are vital when considering the value for money of a scheme of this nature. The benefits of social cohesion are not easily quantifiable, but they are nevertheless enormously important and must not be overlooked.
  I think that this is chronologically the right point at which to turn to the Opposition amendments. Amendments (a) and (b) would require the Secretary of State to consult seven specific organisations before making regulations. We have already agreed with the view expressed in another place that we should consult widely before laying regulations, rut we do not consider that the amendments are necessary. I do not see the added value of a statutory requirement to consult the groups specified. There are likely to be a number of other organisations whose views will be helpful to us, and I would be reluctant to set out on the face of the Bill the names of particular organisations without a more detailed assessment of the criteria for so doing. There are many bodies whose expertise we can utilise, including refugee organisations, those responsible for volunteering and those operating the new deal. In respect of the latter, the context is of course very different, but there are clearly lessons that we can learn about structure and organisation. That is what I am referring to here.
  We need to be flexible in the way m which we consult. We have to take account of the fact that the number of people in receipt of hard case support can vary, and that there are different numbers in different parts of the
  1190
  country. I do not therefore envisage one structure being applicable in all areas. Furthermore, the clause enables us to roll out the provisions in different areas at different times so we can assess, if need be, how the scheme is working with one type of structure in a particular area before applying it beyond that area. We also need to be flexible in terms of the ways in which failed asylum seekers are able to fulfil the requirement to contribute. Again, we hope to benefit from consulting refugee organisations and non-governmental organisations, in terms of building a framework in which failed asylum seekers can contribute in ways that reflect any specific skills that they might have—making it more fulfilling for them and more productive for the community.
  At present, the central case is that we anticipate the community activity being carried out in the immediate environment of someone receiving support. It might involve contributing to the upkeep or maintenance of their own accommodation, for example. We will also consider work on facilities that are close to their accommodation—facilities that may be used by the failed asylum seekers themselves. In short, the local community will see that failed asylum seekers are putting something back into their immediate environment, and the failed asylum seekers will be occupying themselves purposefully during the time that they are supported.
  I want now to deal with the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published on 5 July, which engages specifically with the issue of forced labour.
  Mr. Malins: Could the Minister provide us—he has not told us so far—with examples of the sort of work that would be expected? He has not given us an example or told us about the frequency with which the work would have to be done. Also, who would decide on a breach and what would constitute a breach? Who would determine whether support should be withdrawn? Those matters have not been fleshed out either here or in the other place.
  Mr. Browne: They will be fleshed out during the consultation and under the regulations pertaining to this part of the Bill. [Interruption.] They will, and we will proceed on the basis of positive resolution. Although I have gone to some lengths to stress that I want a degree of flexibility in developing the policy further, I can say that I have in mind about 15 to 20 hours a week, or thereabouts. I have given generic and descriptive examples of the sort of activity that is intended, and at this stage I do not want to be any more specific than that.
  Let me turn to the issue of forced labour. First, I responded in some detail in an 11-page letter to the valuable and helpful report produced by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I say that it is valuable and helpful, but it does set the Government some difficulties in respect of explanation. It was, of course, precisely on account of such difficulties that the Joint Committee on Human Rights was formed. As one of the original members of that Committee, I am proud of the work that it has since done—including during the time when I was not a member.
  In response to those who understand that report, may I say that we accept that article 4(2) of the European convention on human rights, which states that no one

  1191
  shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour, must be interpreted in the light of the International Labour Organisation definition, according to which forced labour is
  "all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily"?
  However, we simply do not accept that this scheme is exacting worker service under the menace of a "penalty" within the meaning of that definition. Engaging in community activity is not a penalty; it is the contribution that a person is expected to make in return for assistance from the state.
  In any event, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights has identified, it is clear from past judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that what constitutes "forced or compulsory labour" is determined by whether the obligation is "unjust or oppressive". We do not accept that requiring failed asylum seekers to carry out the sorts of activities that are envisaged is unjust or oppressive. It is not unjust. In fact, it is quite the opposite to say that, if people are being supported by society, they must be prepared, if only to a limited degree, to give something back; and it is not oppressive to expect people to contribute by performing or participating in community activities, particularly when those activities relate to the environment in which they themselves live.
  Mr. Oaten: I understand that what the Minister has described would not fall foul of human rights provisions, but if the Government are planning to put in place some sort of penalty for failure to carry out the community work, would that not risk failing to comply with those provisions?
  Mr. Browne: I shall come on to that as I develop my arguments, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his recognition that some of the more extravagant ways of describing what the Government are trying to do here do not apply. I am grateful for his implied concession that this sort of activity could not be described as forced labour.
  I reiterate that this requirement is not a punishment. It forms part of a wider policy of encouraging the ethos of "something for something" and encouraging people to be active contributors to the community in which they live, rather than just seeing it—or, more importantly, being seen to do so—as a resource to be drawn down from. Participation in community activities is merely another way in which someone gives something back to society in return for society giving something to them—a long-held principle of social provision in this country. We consider that to require some contribution of failed asylum seekers along the lines proposed does not go beyond what could readily be characterised as a normal and entirely reasonable obligation, so it does not fall within the scope of article 4(2).
  In fact, I do not think that we should automatically assume, as some have, that the measure will be entirely unwelcome. Some have assumed that, since many in this group—failed asylum seekers seeking section 4
  1192
  support—will, by definition, shortly be leaving the UK, they will have no interest in benefiting the community by participating in such activities. However, I know that the point has already been made forcefully in the other place that they surely do have an interest in occupying themselves purposefully while they remain here.
  As I have already indicated, there will be a deal of flexibility in the way that failed asylum seekers are able to fulfil the obligation to contribute, and we will be consulting refugee groups on how to provide opportunities that utilise the specific skills that failed asylum seekers might have, such that the work that they do will be both more fulfilling for them and more productive for the community. Of course, the fundamental point is that, if the taxpayer is prepared to pay for their board and lodging during this period, it is right that something be given in return. I see no reason why that principle should not be respected. I assure hon. Members that I am coming on to deal with withdrawal of support.
  Mr. Malins: Before moving on from the Joint Committee report, will the Minister tell us who advised the Committee that there was a significant risk of a breach of human rights provisions? Who advised the Government that they were wrong?
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman knows fine well that the Government do not reveal their sources or the content of their legal advice. He has been fingering a copy of the Joint Committee report for some time. If he looks through it, he will see that the staff of the Committee, including specialists and others, are free to take advice from any source that they want. I know that when I was a member of the Committee, it took standing advice from an eminent academic lawyer in the field of human rights, and I suspect that it still has such advice.
  It is not for me to identify the source, however. Those who have the report can read it for themselves. [Interruption.] I practised law for 25 years before I came to this place and I practised much litigation in the courts, as an advocate and solicitor, without having to resort to accusing people who were arguing a different point of view from mine of being wrong. Lawyers are well able to argue their position and tell others to decide which position they prefer. In this place, too, we do not resort in the main to that sort of argumentation. There are different points of view here. The Government have a point of view. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has a point of view—and there is continuing dialogue between the Government and that Committee. The Government put their position forward and, ultimately, this place is the court of decision and those who go through the Division Lobbies are the judges.
  Jeremy Corbyn: A few minutes ago, the Minister mentioned the International Labour Organisation conventions. In the consultation exercise, will he consult the ILO, and if its opinion is that what the Government are doing is outwith its declarations, will the Government decide not to proceed to regulate?
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Browne: It is not my intention to consult the ILO, but I have not yet decided exactly whom the Government will consult, although there will be extensive consultation.

  1193
  To get back to the withdrawal of support, amendment (e) would insert a provision for the Secretary of State to prescribe the circumstances that constitute a breach of a requirement to participate in community activities. Again, as I said, that was discussed in another place and correspondence passed between Baroness Scotland and myself in which we set out the procedure we envisage before support is withdrawn.
  We do not consider that the amendment is necessary. The new clause already allows the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the circumstances in which failure to comply with a condition of support under section 4 would lead to termination of support, which clearly passed the hon. Member for Woking by when he compiled his remarks. We have spelled out how we envisage the process working before support is withdrawn.
  It is important to stress that we are not looking for ways to make people destitute. If we believe it appropriate, a failed asylum seeker will be issued with a warning and reminded of the requirement to perform community activities as a condition of receiving support and reminded of the consequences of failing to do so. Failure to participate again after the warning will lead to termination of support unless. of course, there is a reasonable excuse for not participating again. We will clearly need to consider all the circumstances of individual cases, but I hope that it is clear that we are not looking to terminate support automatically without first assessing the reasons for a failure to comply.
  I should emphasise again that people who are unable to participate in community activity will not be required to do so. It follows, therefore, that if a person's circumstances change, or if he is unwell, we would review whether he should be expected to continue the activity. We would not terminate support without first having examined fully the reason; for a person's failing to comply with the conditions. These basic principles will be provided for in greater detail in the regulations made under amended section 4, specifically under the regulation-making power contained in new subsection (5).
  The new clause also provides for a new right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator against a decision by the Secretary of State to terminate support and against a decision by the Secretary of State not to provide support in the first place. That is an important safeguard, making our overall approach to support under section 4 more robust.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) asked why we do not just let these people work. There is a clear answer to that. It is imperative that we maintain the distinction between immigration and asylum. People who want to come and work in the UK can do so provided that they qualify for entry under one of the managed migration routes designed for that purpose. It is simply wrong to blur the boundaries between immigration and asylum. It risks confusing in the public eye two utterly distinct policies with completely different aims. The very people who argue that we should do that for this purpose also argue that the tabloid press should not be allowed to do it for their purposes.
  Confusing the two policies is unfair to genuine economic migrants, who have to satisfy strict conditions and have no recourse to the support that is offered to
  1194
  asylum seekers. It encourages people who are, in fact, economic migrants to enter unfounded asylum claims, knowing that they will be able to combine such a claim with continuing to work as long as they remain in the country. That would clog up the asylum system to the detriment of genuine refugees, placing an unfair burden on the taxpayer and undermining social cohesion. The Government will do nothing that has that consequence.
  Those urging a different approach might also want to consider the practicalities. By definition, members of the group will return to their own countries. It is not obvious that it is helpful to them or to potential employers for them to be encouraged to find paid employment.
  I want to add a brief word on the rest of the new clause and, in particular, on amendment (c), which would remove new subsection (6)(b). The subsection enables the Secretary of State to provide for the continuation of the provision of accommodation to be subject to conditions other than the requirement to perform community activities, which is referred to in new subsection (6)(a). The intention is that the Secretary of State sets out in regulations the existing criteria, which I referred to earlier, under which section 4 support is provided.
  It is right to place the existing conditions for section 4 support on a statutory basis. At the moment, to qualify for, and continue to qualify for, support under section 4, individuals must have been supported by the National Asylum Support Service or a local authority, have exhausted their rights of appeal, be destitute and have no other avenue of support. They must then have fulfilled one of the five eligibility criteria, which are that the failed asylum seeker must have been given permission to proceed with a judicial review of the decision to refuse asylum, must have been unable to leave because no viable route of return is available, must have been complying with arrangements to obtain a travel document, or must have been unable to leave the UK because of illness or late pregnancy; or there must otherwise have been wholly exceptional or compassionate circumstances. The conditions will be spelled out in the regulations themselves, which, as I have explained, will have been the product of consultation and made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We cannot agree, therefore, that amendment (c) is necessary.
  In summary, people in receipt of support under section 4 have no right to remain in the UK. We support them while arrangements are made for their return or if it is not possible for them to return home because of circumstances generally outside their control. However, we and they must recognise that there is a cost to the taxpayer for providing that support. Those failed asylum seekers who can participate in community activities need to recognise that they should contribute to the cost by giving something in return while they are waiting to return home.
  I was asked whether other countries do the same thing. Some require asylum seekers to get involved in activities in, for example, reception centres, so the requirement is not unusual. The Government view it as a fair and reasonable requirement, an important reinforcement to the clarity and fairness of the overall asylum system, and an important part of our overall approach to social cohesion.

  1195
  People rightly want reassurance that asylum is being managed properly. The measures in the Bill, building on our success in reducing the number of asylum applications by more than 60 per cent. over the past 18 months, are all helping to achieve that. Requiring people whose asylum claims have failed to give something back to society while it is supporting them is an important and not unreasonable part of this overall strategy.
  Mr. Oaten: The new clause and amendments to it involve some principles. The Minister has done a pretty convincing job in laying out the Government's view that as we live in a culture in which people do not get something unless they give something back in return, the new clause is needed to ensure that the public see that the individuals concerned are working for the benefit that they receive. That is an important principle. It breaks into slightly new ground, in that if the Government establish that concept for a range of groups, they are going in a clear direction, and they have been up front and open about that.
  In considering the Government's reasons and arguments in relation to the questions raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, it is interesting to note that they address few of the issues on possible breaches of human rights, but talk an awful lot—the Minister has said this endlessly—about the essential need of having the provision in place for social cohesion, so that the public have confidence in the immigration and asylum system. My nervousness is this: why the public need to have that confidence—why the Minister is worried about the breakdown in social cohesion—is a result of some of the tabloid nonsense that we have seen over the past two or three years. The danger is that the Minister could be open to the accusation that by introducing the measure, the Government are pandering to that rather than taking it on directly in a way that I would like to see them do more often.
  I understand entirely the Minister's arguments, but in a less reasonable manner—perhaps outside the Chamber—I can hear individuals saying, "Yeah, that's right, and we're going to tell these people they've got to go out and work, rather than getting their benefits." It is that kind of debate and dialogue that I am uneasy about, although on other occasions I have wanted the Government take on some of the nonsense that is talked about in the tabloid press.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words and for his challenge to me and the Government to explain our policy on immigration and asylum in greater detail than we have done so far since the publication of the White Paper. I would be grateful for his support on that, but we cannot wait to do the right thing on the structure for asylum support until we have changed the minds of certain tabloid newspapers. It is not possible for us to do that.
  Mr. Oaten: That is a fascinating response, and we are probably straying way beyond the amendment. It is almost a chicken and egg argument. If the Minister is saying that by putting the measures in place, which I could describe as slightly draconian, he can neutralise
  1196
  the tabloid press and ultimately turn public support around, then I understand his point. It is right that I put on record concern about the danger of going down that route. The Government might feel that they must respond to every new outrage, and we could end up with a set of measures pandering to that.
  I ask the Minister for more detail on some of the measures suggested. The proposed scheme has been sprung on us at the last minute, and the Minister has not been able to answer all the points put to him, particularly by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). A number of issues spring to mind. We are not yet clear about the kind of work that will be involved. It is important that we understand what projects are to take place.
  I am also not clear about how the scheme will work day to day. I would be concerned if there were any plans, for example, to link the proposed scheme with the work of the probation service, resulting in those who are part of the scheme working, alongside people whose work on community projects is part of their punishment. The Minister has said that he would not wish the scheme to be seen as a punishment, but he has not ruled out its being managed day to day by the probation service, so it is open to such misinterpretation, especially if those working on the projects are doing so for different reasons. If he could rule that possibility out now, it would be enormously helpful.
  Mr. Browne: The activities will not be administered—even indirectly—as part of the criminal justice system. That was never anybody's intention; nobody has ever suggested that. To put up suspicions in order to knock them down does not help to achieve the objective that the hon. Gentleman says he wants to achieve, which is some dialogue that allows us seriously to move forward on these issues.
  Mr. Oaten: The Minister will forgive me for pointing out that, actually, nobody has suggested anything, which is why it is a problem trying to clarify who is to manage the scheme. It is not unreasonable or ridiculous to suggest that the probation service might manage it. I am grateful that the Minister has ruled that out, although it would be much more helpful if he told us who will be managing the scheme, so that we do not have to come up with all sorts of suggestions that he describes as silly. In a vacuum, such concerns will be aired.
  We need to know more about how a judgment will be made on whether the work done is satisfactory. Who will decide that? What consultation will there be with the individuals who are doing the work? We still have not had answers to questions about the amount of work that will be required each week in return for the benefit and support.
  I want to probe the Minister a little more on penalties. I want to be clear that he is saying that there will be a right of appeal against a penalty for refusing to do the work. The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised concerns about whether the proposal would breach article 4 of the European convention on human rights. I understand the Minister's suggestion that, given that the proposal is a community scheme, it would be hard to breach article 4, but the Government could be open to some challenge if penalties for failure to do such work were imposed.

  1197
  There are practical, day-to-day problems that the Government need to address, such as the cost to the individual of going to work. Will that be covered under the scheme, or will it be subtracted from any benefit or support that the individual receives?
  There are question marks over the proposed scheme not only about its practical, day-to-day nature, but about the route down which the Government are going by establishing the principle that one does not receive support unless one works. I have long advocated that there should be some chance for these folk to work, but the Minister has ruled that out and given his reasons. In considering the most dignified ways in which such individuals can give something back to the community, I much prefer a route that allows them to choose and to take part in meaningful work for a salary, rather than a Government-managed scheme for which we have few details that might imply that there is some punishment for the benefit provided.
  7.45 pm
  Jeremy Corbyn: I was pleased that the Minister gave an assurance that there would be consultation on any regulations that might be introduced before the system was introduced. I hope that will be meaningful and serious consultation. I asked him in an intervention about the ILO definition. I would be grateful if he reflected on that and seriously considered consulting that organisation.
  The proposed scheme involves an important principle. People who are unable to return to the country from which they came, for fairly obvious reasons of safety and security, are to be required to make some contribution to the community here for which they will not be paid in cash, although they will receive some benefits in kind such as somewhere to live. That is not a particularly good principle because people might end up doing such work for quite a long time. One thinks of the situation in Iran, Congo, Somalia, China and other places, to which there are either no returns or a very limited number. Some individuals might be at serious risk if they were returned, so they might end up doing the Government-managed work for many years, which is not sensible.
  As I said in an intervention and as the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) has said, perhaps it would be better if people contributed by working in a more normal environment, for which they were paid and would therefore pay national insurance and tax. Such a payment scheme could operate on a limited basis—for six months or a year—but at least those people would be working normally and contributing to society.
  I suspect that contributions to the community in the form proposed will end up being expensive to administer. I can envisage 500 people around the country doing a bit of painting and decorating, or clearing ponds and ditches, each supervised by one person. We could end up with some incredible bureaucratic cost in order to achieve something that probably would not even succeed in satisfying the editorial writers of the Daily Mail, thereby defeating the whole purpose. Perhaps we should try something a little different.
  I also intervened on a serious point that I want the Minister to think about. Because of fear of return, a number of people simply disappear and end up being
  1198
  exploited in our society through drugs, prostitution, illegal work and all the rest of it, which is very damaging to them and everybody else. Given the labour shortage in London and the south-east, it is very easy to get illegal work and to be grossly exploited as a result. We are not dealing with that issue. Those who agree that at some point they will return to their country of origin will be given somewhere to live by the Home Office and may contribute through informal work, but nothing beyond that. On the other hand, those who are not prepared to agree to that will disappear into the system, work illegally and will often be exploited as a result. Would it not be better to say that it is not safe to return to country X at the moment, and to review that in a set period? We would then know where people were, and there would be less illegal working and less exploitation.
  I am not convinced that the Minister's proposals, which were introduced in the Lords, are workable. I hope that the consultation will be serious, and that if the Minister finds that there is hardly any or no support for the idea beyond the rhetoric that prompted it in the first place, he will not proceed to regulate and the proposal will not go ahead.
  Mr. Malins: I have listened very carefully to what the Minister and others have said during this short debate and I say straight away that I am disappointed. I am disappointed that at no stage the Minister said sorry to this House on behalf of the Government—sorry for the fact that they have introduced this major clause and others so late in the day; sorry that they did not give the Standing Committee any chance to debate the clause; sorry that they did not give this House the chance to debate it on Report; and sorry that they introduced it so late in the other place that they provoked one of their own Ministers to say:
  "The Government's treatment of the Committee could be bordering on contempt".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2004; Vol. 663, c. 273.]
  I ask whether in anyone's memory any Minister has stood up in the other place and, when making an abject apology for his own Government, described their treatment of a Committee as "bordering on contempt". That is astonishing, but typical of the present Government. I am disappointed that the Government have, as always, tabled major clauses at the last moment and pushed them through this House without proper scrutiny, but perhaps by now I should have learned to expect that.
  Yes, of course the Minister is right to say that we should all appreciate the benefits of social cohesion. We do. He is right to say that the benefits of social cohesion are not easily quantifiable. However, his explanation regarding the Joint Committee on Human Rights was not satisfactory, and he has dealt with very few of my queries. He has not said what type of work people will have to do, what training they will get for it, whether they will have some form of transport to it, or what will happen if they do not do the work well. He has not even touched on the question of cost. I did a lot of work looking into community service and the costs thereof, but we have not been told what the cost per person of the Government's proposed scheme will be, or even the cost of the project as a whole. That is partly because the Government have acted in such a rush that they simply do not know.

  1199
  Having expressed my disappointment with the Government's response, let me say that I still feel strongly about amendment (e). If it is appropriate for me to do so, I wish to test the opinion of the House and press that amendment to a vote.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: We are dealing with amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 15. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw that amendment?
  Mr. Malins: Yes, provided that we can vote on amendment (e), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to Lords amendment No. 15: (e), in line 32, at end insert—
  '(ia) prescribe the circumstances which constitute a breach of a requirement to participate in community activities;'.—[Mr. Malins.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 240.

  Division No. 222]

  [7.52 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Allan, Richard

  Westminster)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Flook, Adrian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Bacon, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Barker, Gregory

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Barrett, John

  Goodman, Paul

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Grayling, Chris

  Bercow, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hammond, Philip

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heald, Oliver

  Brazier, Julian

  Heath, David

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Hendry, Charles

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Burns, Simon

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Burt, Alistair

  Holmes, Paul

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Jack, rh Michael

  Barnet)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Chidgey, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Chope, Christopher

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Collins, Tim

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Conway, Derek

  Lamb, Norman

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lansley, Andrew

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Leigh, Edward

  Curry, rh David

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Howden)

  Lidington, David

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Doughty, Sue

  Loughton, Tim

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Fallon, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  1200

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Coldfield)

  Steen, Anthony

  Moore, Michael

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Ottaway, Richard

  Teather, Sarah

  Paice, James

  Thurso, John

  Paterson, Owen

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Tredinnick, David

  Dinefwr)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Randall, John

  Walter, Robert

  Redwood, rh John

  Watkinson, Angela

  Rendel, David

  Weir, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk b'ry)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Salmond, Alex

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Sanders, Adrian

  (Macclesfield)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Selous, Andrew

  Young, rh Sir George

  Shepherd, Richard

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hugh Robertson and

  Spring, Richard

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Chryston)

  Allen, Graham

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale&

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Darwen)

  Colman, Tony

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Connarty, Michael

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bailey, Adrian

  Corston, Jean

  Baird, Vera

  Cousins, Jim

  Barnes Harry

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Barrron, rh Kevin

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Battle, John

  Cummings, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Davidson, Ian

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Best Harold

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Betts Clive

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Denham, rh John

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Wallsend)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Browne, Desmond

  Edwards, Huw

  Bryant, Chris

  Efford, Clive

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Burden, Richard

  Farrelly, Paul

  Burnham, Andy

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Caplin, Ivor

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Casale, Roger

  Follett, Barbara

  Challen, Cohn

  Foster, rh Derek

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Chaytor, David

  & Rye)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (PeterboroLgh)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Pentlands)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  1201

  Gilroy, Linda

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Godsiff, Roger

  McWalter, Tony

  Goggins, Paul

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mahon Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Grogan, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hain, rh Peter

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hanson, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Healey, John

  Mole, Chris

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Moran, Margaret

  Hendrick, Mark

  Morley Elliot

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mountford, Kali

  Heppell, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Hesford, Stephen

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Heyes, David

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Organ, Diana

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Sefton E)

  Owen, Albert

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Perham, Linda

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Picking, Anne

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hurst Alan (Braintree)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Hutton, rh John

  Plaskitt, James

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Illsley, Eric

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Jamieson, David

  E)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Hatfield)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Purnell, James

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

  Quinn Lawrie

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Rammell, Bill

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Bellshill)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kidney, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Bow)

  Salter, Martin

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Shaw Jonathan

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Sheridan, Jim

  Lammy, David

  Singh Marsha

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Smith rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Smith Angela (Basildon)

  Lepper, David

  Smith Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Lunesdale)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Smith. Jacqui (Redditch)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Smith. Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Spellar, rh John

  Linton, Martin

  Squire, Rachel

  Love, Andrew

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Stewart. Ian (Eccles)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Stringer Graham

  McCafferty, Chris

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  MacDougall, John

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  McFall, rh John

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Timms, Stephen

  McKechin, Ann

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Truswell, Paul

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  McNulty, Tony

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  1202

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Yarmouth)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Winnick, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Gillian Merron and

  C)

  Charlotte Atkins

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice and help. Will you ascertain whether the Division bells within the Palace of Westminster continue to ring as they have in the past? I have just been to the summer reception of the Motorsport Industry Association in the Cholmondeley Room of the House of Lords. I was well within the precincts of the House of Commons, let alone the Palace of Westminster. I was asked by a friendly Labour Member of this place whether it was my intention to vote. I asked him, "Is there a Division taking place?" He replied, "Yes. If you run, you might just make it." It could be my age but I heard no Division bell. Are the bells still operating? If they are not, would you please ensure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they start again to operate to notify Members that Divisions are taking place?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am sure that the House is grateful for the account of the hon. Gentleman's evening. It is regrettable that it had to come to a premature conclusion. I am not aware that the Division bells of the House of Commons ring as they do in this place in the other place. It is usually signified on the Monitors if a Division is taking place in this House. The hon. Gentleman has great experience of these matters and of the House in general. When the House is expecting votes that could occur at any time, one has to have extra vigilance in the conduct of one's other activities outside the Chamber.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: May I just come back, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is taking the valuable time of the House.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I sought to make it clear in my opening remarks that when I was addressed by the Labour Member I was well within the House of Commons as against being within the House of Lords. I believe that this is not the first time that Members have had problems in hearing Division bells within the House of Commons.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The bells ring for two minutes, not for the whole of the eight minutes. I think that the hon. Gentleman should know that. By the time that he came back within the curtilage of the House of Commons, I dare say that we had reached the point

  1203
  when the bells no longer rang. I will ensure that what he has said is brought to the attention of the authorities, to ensure that all bells that should be ringing are ringing.
  Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In olden days a knight would have a page. Nowadays it might be that a pager would solve the problem.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is something that the hon. Gentleman might discuss with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) at a later stage. Perhaps suitable arrangements could be made.
  Lords amendment: No. 30
  Mr. Browne: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 31.
  Mr. Browne: Lords amendment No. 31 simply clarifies how further applications are dealt with under our one-stop powers once an earlier application has already been determined. The amendment and the change to the immigration rules that will go with it will make it easier for caseworkers to deal consistently with these cases and easier for applicants and their lawyers to understand precisely what is being done. I do not believe that the amendment is controversial; it certainly was not in another place.
  I shall concentrate my remarks on Lords amendment No. 30, which provides a power to remove the right of appeal against certain entry clearance decisions. The Secretary of State will be able to specify grounds of refusal that relate to requirements under immigration rules. Where an entry clearance application is refused because a specified ground is not met, there will be no right of appeal. We intend to use this power only in respect of provisions in the immigration rules, which are based on objective criteria. It makes little sense for an applicant to appeal in these circumstances. The decision that an applicant fails to meet such a requirement is a question of fact. Appeals in such circumstances would be fruitless and wasteful.
  The amendment extends the scope of section 88 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Section 88 already prevents an appeal in cases in which a requirement in respect of age, nationality, documentation or the period for which leave is sought is not met, or in which the purpose of entry or stay is not covered by the immigration rules. The amendment will not affect existing rights of appeal in respect of race discrimination and human rights issues. Those residual appeal rights are preserved by the construction of section 88, which is mirrored in proposed new section 88A(2)(a), as set out in the amendment.
  The provision will support the steps that we are taking to tackle areas of abuse in entry clearance cases. Where it is necessary to amend the immigration rules to create additional objective criteria, the power could be used to preclude a right of appeal against refusals based on a failure to meet that new requirement. Thus, a
  1204
  development of the immigration rules need not result in new meritless appeals. Such appeals impact adversely on the swift resolution of other arguable appeals. Without the power, we would have to use new primary legislation to remove the right of appeal each time a rules change created an objective criterion for refusal.
  I understand the concern about the operation of the order-making power. I assure the House that it will be applied only to provisions of the immigration rules that are based on objective criteria—that is to say, provisions about which there can be little debate as to whether the necessary requirements have been met. Furthermore, the amendment provides that the order-making power is subject to affirmative procedures, so any use of the power will be subject to debate in both Houses.
  It is appropriate for me to give some helpful examples as to how the power might be used. As is known, the Government are creating a register of bona fide colleges. If such a register were put in place, we would make it a specified requirement for entry clearance as a student that the applicant is enrolled at a registered college. As enrolment at a non-registered college is a clear matter of fact leaving no issue to be argued on appeal, it would make no sense for a right of appeal to exist, so this circumstance would be a candidate for designation under the provision.
  Similarly, we are in the process of implementing proposals for a new scheme specifically for science and engineering graduates, which was announced last year, and a scheme for MBA—master of business administration—graduates that was announced in this year's Budget. Those also might be considered for designation under the provision. Under such schemes, leave to enter would be contingent on specific qualifications from specific institutions. Again, that would not be open to argument and a right of appeal would be unnecessary.
  An example of where the power could be used in relation to an existing provision of the immigration rules is in respect of paragraph 246, which deals with
  "the requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom to exercise access rights to a child resident in the United Kingdom".
  It is necessary for an applicant to produce evidence that he has access rights to the child in the form of a residence order or a contact order granted by a court in the United Kingdom or a certificate issued by a district judge confirming his intention to maintain contact with the child. Without one of those documents, the appeal cannot succeed. Whether an applicant had produced the required evidence would not be open to argument, so an appeal would be unnecessary.
  I shall quickly go through some examples of further such provisions, as they might help the rest of the debate. Paragraph 87A(i) deals with the requirement that the applicant has been elected to a full-time salaried post as a sabbatical officer at an educational establishment at which he is registered as a student. Paragraph 110(i) states that a teaching or language exchange must be approved by the education departments or administered by the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges or the League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers. Finally, paragraph 178(i) deals with when an applicant had been transferred to the UK by an overseas-owned airline

  1205
  operating services to and from the UK to take up duty at an international airport as a station manager, security manager or technical manager.
  Those examples show that the immigration rules already contain provisions about which there can be little room for debate, as whether they are met is a matter of objective fact. There is no evidence of abuse in any of those categories at this time, and we do not intend to specify the requirements at present, but they are good examples in relation to which the power would be useful if abuse or problems arose.
  I commend the Lords amendments to the House.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Malins: I shall be brief, but I wish to make one or two general observations. It has been acknowledged by the Government and in another place that, in so far as the measure deals with students and bogus colleges, it is worth pointing out that international students provide enormous value to this country. That is the case in terms of the economic, political and diplomatic advantages of the many hundreds of thousands of international students who come to this country for further or higher education. In the other place, my noble Friend Baroness Anelay rightly said that overseas students contribute billions of pounds to our economy, and it is important that we encourage them strongly
  The Minister envisages that the new clause set out in the amendment, in so far as it relates to students, may address two problems: students who enrol at a bogus college and those who enrol at a college that does not maintain proper attendance checks. I wonder whether he has had any correspondence about this matter. I certainly recall receiving correspondence from one or two people around the country who were concerned about students who enrolled at a college and never turned up. I hope that there will be practical measures to ensure that the issue is dealt with.
  We welcome the Minister's statement that there will be a register of bona fide colleges, which is a good step forward. There have been abuses with students from abroad coming to this country, but I am sure that he will be the first to acknowledge the vital contribution made by so many international students to life in this country.
  Mr. Gerrard: I shall try to be brief. I understand the points that the Minister made about cases in which there are objective and clear facts that are covered in the immigration rules. With regard to his point about bogus students and colleges, I am pleased that there is to be a register of colleges and courses. In addition to cases in which people have used such things as a means of evading immigration controls, I have also seen significant numbers of cases in which people have been enrolled on courses that were totally worthless and paid large amounts of money for them, but were ripped off by fake colleges. I am glad that we will have some controls in those parts of the system.
  My concerns about the amendment relate not so much to what the Minister said in introducing it as to what the proposed new clause says. Although he said that it would turn on an objective fact, I do not see where
  1206
  that is set out in the clause, which talks about a decision to refuse being
  "taken on grounds which…relate to a provision of immigration rules, and…are specified for the purpose of this section by order of the Secretary of State."
  The Minister has obviously indicated the sort of cases that he might intend to specify, but the phrase
  "relate to a provision of the immigration rules"
  seems extremely wide. I do not think that it could be argued that a clear, objective test could be applied to every provision in the immigration rules. Unless my memory serves me wrongly, I believe that those rules contain provisions on marriage applications, for example. We expect someone who is applying for entry clearance on the basis of marriage to satisfy an entry clearance officer that they are married, that the person in the UK has means to support them without recourse to public funds and that accommodation is available for them. Those issues are often subject to argument in appeals and it is not possible to apply a simple, objective test to such provisions in the immigration rules. I would prefer the proposed new section to spell out the cases to which the power would be applied, rather than leaving it to regulation.
  I draw attention to a point made by the independent monitor for entry clearance in her recent report, which suggested that significant numbers of applicants were wrongly denied the right to appeal in 2002. The independent entry clearance monitor examines cases in which a right of appeal does not exist and she said that applicants were wrongly denied that right in significant numbers of cases. In other words, things often go wrong under provisions that do not provide a right of appeal.
  I am concerned about the proposed new section's breadth and what it might open up. I accept the Minister's point that he intends to use the power to introduce regulations dealing purely with objective facts. Unfortunately, the proposed new section's drafting leaves it open for a future Minister of whatever Government to use the proposed new section in a totally different way, rather than simply dealing with the straightforward cases that my hon. Friend the Minister discussed in introducing the debate. Although I trust him, I do not necessarily trust a future Minister, who might represent a different party, to apply the proposed new section.
  I have some concerns about the drafting of the proposed new section. I accept that the positive procedure will be used and that the matter will be debated in the House, which is certainly preferable to the negative procedure. If a regulation is based on the proposed new section, I hope that a warning will be given and that a consultation will occur. That will allow hon. Members to know precisely what is proposed in advance, rather than debating the regulation at short notice without being able to assess its impact. Although I accept the Minister's remarks on colleges, I am concerned about how the power might be used in future.
  Mr. Heath: I agree with many of the cautious remarks made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). I suspect that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with most of what the Minister said in introducing the proposed new section. The difficulty is that it is framed in such a way as to be capable of wider interpretation, which may not be as benign as the Minister suggests.

  1207
  When the Government identify an abuse of process, they have a regrettable tendency, which sadly we have seen before in the course of this Bill, to abolish the process rather than the abuse, which is a shame. For instance, I understand that the register of colleges will bear down on a specific area of abuse. I welcome that sensible provision, although given the requirement for an appeal to have merit, it throws into question who would bring an appeal against a refusal on the ground of non-inclusion in a register, when the position would appear to be transparent and not capable of a great deal of learned discussion, even by the most highly paid legal authorities.
  Although the Minister helpfully stated that only readily ascertainable, objective tests can be used, practitioners in the field outside this place will suspect that at some unspecified stage—it would probably not involve this Minister, this Department or this Government—the proposed new section could be used to introduce a subjective test by statutory instrument that would be incapable of resolution through the appeal process. However, I do not want to overstate that concern.
  The examples and the assurance on objectivity provided by the Minister are helpful, but the nagging suspicion remains that the proposed new section is framed in terms that are too wide for the purpose and that could have been more narrowly drawn to great advantage.
  Mr. Browne: I shall be brief. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) categorised the Government's behaviour as identifying an abuse and abolishing the process. The proposed new section enables us to identify an abuse and amend the process to interdict the abuse. To that extent, I am sure that he thinks that we are doing the right thing. I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for their qualified support. I am also grateful to them for accepting my intentions as a Minister and the intentions of the Government and the Home Office.
  On further specification in the proposed new section, drafting challenges that cannot be overcome mean that we cannot define what constitutes an objective criterion. Consequently, the Government have given assurances on how the power will be used and are committed to abiding by them. In trying to interdict abuse, we cannot be constrained by what other Governments more meanly disposed to this area of public policy might do. The fact that any order made under the provision will be subject to affirmative resolution procedure should address any concerns about the scope of the power. No other points that require a response were raised in the debate, and I am content to rest my arguments at this point.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 31 agreed to.
  1208
  Lords amendment: No. 17.
  Mr. Browne: I beg to move, That this House agress with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following: Lords amendment No. 18 and amendments (a) to (e) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 14 and 16.
  Mr. Browne: Lords amendments Nos. 14 and 16 were not contentious in the other place and I do not anticipate contention here. I therefore intend to speak about them briefly and to concentrate on Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 18, to which the Opposition have tabled amendments.
  Lords amendment No. 14 would make the section 8 offence, which is the main statutory control on illegal working, triable on indictment as well as summarily. That would mean that, in the more serious cases, the Immigration Advisory Service could pursue a prosecution in the Crown court, where there is no limit to the fine that can be imposed following conviction on indictment. The Government believe that it is essential to take action against unscrupulous employers who profit from the exploitation of illegal workers and are sometimes found to have links with organised crime. That is why we want to send a powerful message of deterrence by increasing the fines that the courts may impose in the most serious cases.
  Mr. Malins: I was interested by the change in penalty. I may be wrong, but I do not believe that a custodial sentence is available to the courts in relation to an offence under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. I do not expect the Minister to answer that now but if I am right, I a little sorry. Perhaps I should not be sorry, but I believe that I should be.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Browne: I am not sure whether I can help the hon. Gentleman out of the dilemma that he has expressed. However, the penalties that follow contravention of section 8 are financial and were put in place before the Government came to power.
  The dispersal of asylum seekers is an important policy and, among other things, helps to reduce pressures on social housing and local government services in areas where they are already stretched, especially in London and other areas of the south-east. Lords amendment No. 16 ensures that, for the purposes of homelessness legislation in England and Wales, asylum seekers should automatically establish a local connection with an area when they are dispersed there by the Home Office and provided with accommodation under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. That is to ensure that the local housing authority in the dispersal area has the responsibility of securing accommodation for them, should they subsequently be granted leave to remain and apply for homelessness assistance.
  Lords amendment No. 17 would abolish back payments of income support and related benefits to refugees. Since the creation of the National Asylum Support Service in April 2000, asylum seekers who are granted refugee status have been able to apply for a back

  1209
  payment of income support equal to the 30 per cent. differential between the cash element of asylum support and income support that is backdated to when they made their claim for asylum.
  Given that those who receive asylum support also get other benefits in kind, such as payment of utility bills and household items, the Government believe that the back payment is no longer necessary. The amendment would therefore repeal section 123 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The relevant supporting regulations will also cease to have effect on the repeal of the section. For the sake of clarity and certainty, we are taking the opportunity to revoke those regulations expressly in the legislation.
  Mr. Oaten: Does the Minister have any concerns that, during the relevant period, individuals may have taken out loans and had to borrow money, and that the back payment was often a way of settling some of those loans? Is the Minister worried that, by removing the provision, individuals may not be able to pay back some of the help and support that they received in that difficult period?
  Mr. Browne: Given the complexity of the legislation on the claims, asylum seekers would be ill advised to operate on the certainty of a grant of refugee status and guaranteed back payments. There were no guaranteed back payments for all asylum seekers who attained refugee status and I am not prepared to determine the policy on back payments and loans for the future, which would be the corollary of removing the back payment provisions on the basis of speculation that people may be granted refugee status and get some windfall in the form of back payment of benefit. I do not accept that people conduct their affairs on that basis. If they do, they would be well advised not to do so. Nobody should give them such advice, not even implicitly.
  Mr. Gerrard: What is my hon. Friend's estimate of the savings from the change in the amount of money that will not be paid out in back payments, the amount that will be paid out in loans and the cost of administering a loans system, which will presumably have to be set up from scratch?
  Mr. Browne: I have not got the figures to give my hon. Friend off the top of my head but I shall provide them later. However, the savings on back payments will be used to fund the loans system. That is appropriate and I shall discuss the reasons for that. Depending on the depth into which we can go in the debate, I hope that I can convince my hon. Friend and other hon. Members of the correctness of that argument. Perhaps by the time I deal with those issues, I can give my hon. Friend more specific information.
  The amendment also deals with an earlier back payments scheme under section 11(2) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, and seeks to revoke the regulations that preserve it for transitional purposes. Although the vast majority of claims for back payments of income support are made under the 1999 Act, we want to make sure that the policy is applied consistently. Our policy is that back payments will cease for all those recorded as refugees after the clause comes into effect, irrespective of when they made their claim for asylum.
  1210
  Lords amendment No. 18, which seeks to introduce integration loans for refugees, will be funded out of money saved by the abolition of the current back payments system. The new scheme will come into force only when the current scheme is ended. The Government want to move away from the current system under which payments are made to all refugees, and which are calculated according to the amount of time spent waiting for an asylum decision. With the new system, the Government will be able to target loans at those refugees who are most in need of help to establish themselves in a new life in the United Kingdom, and, ultimately, to facilitate their successful integration into society.
  In providing a loan, the Government seek to ensure that refugees can quickly establish themselves in the United Kingdom and to enable them to fulfil their potential and to contribute to both society and the economy. By recovering money loaned, the system has the potential to become a powerful tool in facilitating refugee integration, not only for refugees today but for those who will need our help in the future. The Government are committed to administering the loan system in the most cost-effective way possible and are conducting detailed work across Departments to establish how the loan might best be delivered.
  At this stage, it seems likely that the money disbursed by the Secretary of State will be recovered via mechanisms already established by the Department for Work and Pensions for collecting money owed either to that Department or to a third party. As to the extent of the existing financial provisions, I am told that about £11 million was spent in 2002, but we do not yet have the detailed figures for 2003. As I said, the money saved will be used for the integration loan.
  I commend the Lords amendments to the House.
  Mr. Malins: Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are linked, and the Opposition do not object in principle to the change in procedure introduced by the Government, of taking away the backdating of benefits position and replacing it with a discretionary loan system. We hope that it will work well.
  My colleagues and I have tabled several amendments to Lords amendment No. 18, the first of which changes "may" to "shall"—Oppositions tend to change "may" to "shall"—on the basis that, in this case, we ought to impose on the Government some duty to make regulations.
  My second amendment is designed for one thing only: to seek to persuade the Government that in an ideal world, in which we do not live, all decisions about refugee status should be decided in a very short period—six weeks. I still believe that the Government have a great deal of work to do to ensure that initial decisions on asylum applications are made quicker and more efficiently.
  My third amendment concerns interest. It is designed to draw from the Government further comment about the interest rates that might be applied to discretionary loans of this sort.
  My fourth important amendment would strike out that part of Lords amendment No. 18 that says that the regulations
  "may confer a discretion on the Secretary of State."

  1211
  Never in my whole—if not distinguished, then lengthy—career in the House have I seen a clause that simply gives the Secretary of State discretion to do whatever he or she wants. What sort of discretion might we be giving to the Secretary of State in relation to those loans?
  How will refugees be able to apply for a loan, and to whom? How much money will be saved by the first of the two provisions—the Minister has half answered that—enabling the loan system to be set up? How much will go into the loan system? Lord Rooker said in the other place that the Government were having discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions. I should be grateful if the Minister could bring us up to date.
  These are probing amendments, drawn up in the short time available to us. I know that the Minister is embarrassed about that: he is an honourable man, and he would have wanted us to have much more time in which to discuss these matters. He may, however, be able to give me an inkling of his response in due course.
  Mr. Gerrard: Lords amendment No. 17 is, in my view, extremely mean and miserable. Removing the requirement for people to pay at the point at which they are given refugee status—given the costs to the national budget about which we have just heard—will hardly break the Chancellor's bank. I suspect that the loan scheme will result in no great savings and will be messy to administer. Moreover, I do not know how some of the regulations will work. Clause 18 suggests that the regulations
  "may make provision about steps to be taken by the Secretary of State in establishing an applicant's likely ability to repay a loan".
  The applicant may have been in National Asylum Support Service accommodation for several months. He or she may have just been granted refugee status, and may not have been given permission to work. How on earth can such an assessment be made? It is beyond me.
  I have encountered a number of cases in which people have been in financial difficulties when they have been granted refugee status, because they have been living on 70 per cent. of the rate of income support. They have not been able to manage on that. They have had to borrow money, formally or informally—often informally, from friends and relatives who have kept them afloat. Receiving money on obtaining refugee status has enabled them to survive and repay some of the debts that have accumulated—rent arrears, for example—and to make a fresh start. I really do think that this is a miserable, mean-minded change.
  As for Lords amendment No. 16, I understand the arguments about local connections. The intention is to reverse the effect of a court decision made a few months ago. I do not think, however, that people will remain in the areas to which they have been dispersed. People who have been moved out of London will return because they have friends and relatives there, and they will not be able to secure social housing. Some pressure may be removed from individual local authority housing departments that will not be rehousing such people on the grounds that they are homeless, but housing
  1212
  pressures in general will not be dealt with. Those people will be back in London staying with family or friends, or struggling to find private rented accommodation.
  Mr. Browne: Amendment (a) seeks to make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling him to make loans to refugees. As Lord Rooker said in another place, the Government are committed to ensuring that there is a seamless transition between the ending of back-payments and the introduction of a refugee integration loan. I repeat that commitment; indeed, I have already done so. There will be no gap between the ending of back-payments and the introduction of a refugee integration loan.
  I hope that that commitment is sufficient to reassure the House that there is no need to oblige the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the making of loans to refugees. He has every intention of introducing the scheme as soon as the necessary practical arrangements have been made.
  Amendment (b) seeks to make Lords amendment No. 18 read:
  "A person is a refugee for the purpose of subsection (1) if the Secretary of State has within six weeks of his application…recorded him as a refugee".
  One aspect of the proposal that I welcome is the implicit recognition of the major improvements that we have secured in reducing decision-making times. In 1997, the suggestion that all decisions must be taken within six weeks would have been so far divorced from reality as to have been laughable. By 2002, however, that figure, including decisions on backlog cases, was provisionally down to six months.
  8.45 pm
  We fully recognise the importance of quick decision making; it is good administrative practice and good news for asylum seekers, who will have less time to worry about the outcome of their claim. The importance that we attach to that is reflected in the published targets that we have set ourselves. For the previous financial year, there was a target to decide 75 per cent. of new asylum applications within two months—a target that we are provisionally on course to beat. Indeed, we have recently decided about 80 per cent. of new cases within two months. In addition, we have made massive inroads into the backlog.
  We have no difficulty in being open to public scrutiny of our ability to turn cases round quickly, and we will continue to take steps to improve our current performance. Having said that, I see no merit in a rigid requirement in primary legislation stipulating that a decision must be taken within a specified time, whatever that period may be. In the majority of cases, it is possible to decide claims quickly and fairly. However, there will always be some cases that cannot be decided quickly if they are also to be decided fairly. Under the constraints imposed by subsection (1), we would be forced to take decisions without having the necessary facts at our disposal. I do not consider that an acceptable outcome.
  Amendment (c) to amendment No. 18 seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to make regulations that enable him to charge interest on an integration loan. It is the Government's current intention that this loan to refugees should be interest-free. Should a decision be taken to charge interest on the

  1213
  loan in future, I would expect comparisons to be drawn with other loan schemes in operation across government, such as the student loan system. I reassure the House that any future interest rate would be dealt with in regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure.
  Taken together, amendments (d) and (e) seek to remove the power for regulations to confer discretion on the Secretary of State. The intention behind Lords amendment No. 18 is to enable the Secretary of State to ensure that in all cases a loan is made to a deserving case. We do not believe that such discretion would allow the Secretary of State to ignore all other provisions in the amendment, or to act in an unreasonable way. For those reasons—
  It being after three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, Ma. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Lords amendment No. 17 agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 18, 14 and 16 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 21.
  Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 21.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (c) thereto; Lords amendments Nos. 22 to 27; Lords amendments Nos. 19, 20, 32, 40, 41, 33, 34; Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 13; Lords amendments Nos. 35 to 39; and Lords amendments Nos. 63 to 69.
  Mr. Malins: Lords amendment No. 21 and the new clause on marriage could, so far as I can see, be re-titled "Procedure for marriage: the need to ask the Home Secretary personally for permission in each case, save where it is in a Church of England church". It is a most interesting provision.
  The proposed new clause is important, following as it does much discussion in the past few months about so-called bogus and sham marriages. On 22 June 2004, I asked the Minister a written question about the number of alleged sham marriages reported to his Department by marriage registrars, and in how many such cases enforcement action was taken by his Department. The answer was surprising and rather troubling. In 2001 there were 756 notifications from 126 registrar districts; in 2002, there were 1,205 notifications; and in 2003 there were 2,712 notifications. Indeed. I understand that in 2004, there have been some 2,500 notifications of alleged sham marriages to date. In every case of a sham marriage there are likely to be two persons behaving fraudulently, so it seems that an awful lot of people are getting involved in some form of criminal activity at our registry offices:—possibly up to 10,000, on these figures alone, in the past four years.
  I was surprised, then, to read that in the last financial year enforcement teams in London were responsible for the arrest of only 110 individuals, only 37 of whom were charged with criminal offences. One begins to think that the Government were far too slow in finding out about the problem and certainly in doing anything about it. Is that a reasonable view for me to hold? I had a long interview with a senior registrar, whose comments I shall set forth.
  1214
  The senior registrar—there are about 300 in the country—talked about the problems that he had faced in the past few years in relation to sham marriages. He said that it was virtually impossible to stop people getting married even if he was suspicious, and he went on to deal with section 24 reports—the reports that registrars are obliged to make to the Home Office when they suspect a marriage of being a sham. There is a prescribed form for submitting such reports. He told me that it was customary to send them in by email, letter or fax.
  Here is the rub. The registrar told me—I admit that this is anecdotal—that it was the experience of registrars throughout the country that although very many reports were sent in, there was "virtually no reaction" from the Home Office until a couple of months ago.
  Mr. Oaten: I am very interested in this anecdotal evidence. Did the hon. Gentleman ask the registrar how difficult it was for ordinary registrars to spot a problem? The Government are suggesting that we need special registrars to look into such cases. What did ordinary registrars think about their ability to identify such problems?
  Mr. Malins: It seemed to me that the senior registrar was saying that registrars throughout the country—all somewhat expert in these matters, because it is their job—had found certain couples to be absolutely suspicious. It beggars belief that a registrar should have to tell me that he had "virtually no reaction" from the Home Office whenever he submitted a report. He said that there was rarely, if ever, any feedback from the Home Office. There was no acknowledgement, and no one turned up from the Home Office. Because of that inaction, registrars have effectively been obliged to ask whether it is really worth submitting such reports. They press on as best they can, but they have been poorly served by the Home Office.
  Furthermore, interestingly—I do not know why this is the case—the registrar told me that the police are not remotely interested in this sort of thing and did not want to know. Registrars get very frustrated at Home Office inaction.
  These provisions require applicants to take certain steps. I see that the Minister is laughing. I hope that he is not laughing at the Home Office's performance over the past few years, and that he will agree that it really has been rather poor. I acknowledge that the provisions are a welcome step forward in trying to deal with this matter. There may have been problems in the past that they missed or did not do enough about, but they are trying hard to get to grips with the situation. I thank them for that.
  The clause has been slightly improved in the other place, and there is much in it that is good, but I want to make a few points. Amendment (a) would require that notice may be given only if each party to the marriage has been resident in a district for a period of 14 days, not seven. I see no reason why the provision should not be tougher. Seven days is acceptable, but what is wrong with 14?
  Amendment (c) deals with the need for the registrar to keep
  "a written record of applications refused which shall include reasons for refusal".

  1215
  I believe that the registrar could and should have that duty placed upon him or her.
  Although the Government's proposals represent a sensible approach to the matter, certain things must happen if they are to work properly. First, there must be an efficient means of sharing information on marriage applications between registrars, the Home Office and UK Visas. Secondly, the Home Office must, from now on, actively enforce the law.
  Under the proposals, all non-European economic area nationals wishing to marry will need to apply to the Home Office for a permission document, and registrars will be able to refuse to marry a person who cannot produce it. What information is that document likely to contain? I shall be helpful to the Government by saying that it should include the applicant's name and address, a photograph, a description of their immigration status, a statement of their marital status, and the name of the proposed spouse with similar information about her or him, including a photograph and a date of grant permission.
  Here is the rub. Can the Minister confirm that the document will contain several security features—for example, watermarks or holograms—and a unique serial number specific to the application? If the potential fraudster seeks to use his or her own identity with forged documents, there is a real prospect of their getting caught. However, what if he seeks to use someone else's identity? That would give him a much better chance of fooling the registrar. I hope that the Minister will spend a little time focusing on the permission document and on my idea that it should contain a unique—say a 10figure—serial number. That would mean that there was a real chance that the applicant would have to be genuine to get through the process—past the Home Office and to the registrar—without being able to get away with fraud or the like.
  There are two other brief matters to mention in connection with this clause on marriage. The first is the report of the Joint Committee. I do not need to tell the Minister that the Joint Committee had something to say on the clause, and I hope that he deals with the matter in a way that satisfies the House.
  I come now to the second thing that I was going to say. One needs to learn a lesson in life. Whenever one says, "I've got three points to make," it is almost inevitable that one makes the first two and forgets the third. When that first happened to me some months ago, I swore that in future I would say that I had a number of points to make. That way, I would not have to number them and forget what my second or third point was. One can also then talk a little longer and hope that the point comes back to one, and it just has.
  My other point, apart from the Joint Committee aspect, is that the provision relates to marriages by registrar in a registry office. There is no such requirement in relation to marriages in other areas of our national life—just in relation to the Church of England—and that is a little difference that we perhaps need to look into.
  I am very tempted to tell the House the story of the bigamist whom I had to put in prison five years ago, but that, I am afraid, is for another night.
  9 pm
  Mr. Browne: I have a number of points to make, and if I talk long enough I may remember them. The Government's position is, of course, to agree to the Lords amendment and—in due course, I shall come to the reasons why—to disagree to the Opposition amendments.
  This last, extensive group of amendments covers a wide range of changes made to the Bill in another place and, of course, the Opposition amendments relating to marriage procedures, to which I will respond in some detail in a moment.
  The amendments to clause 2 provide greater clarity on the defences available to someone who commits the offence of being without an immigration document at a leave or asylum interview. Those amendments respond to debates both here and in another place and put beyond doubt our intention to target only those who have destroyed or disposed of their immigration documents, not those who have never had one.
  The amendments to clause 9 extend immigration officers' powers to provide a power of arrest without warrant and ancillary powers of entry, search and seizure in respect of several human trafficking offences, including the new offence of trafficking people for exploitation under clause 4. Amendment No. 32 creates a new right of appeal against bail decisions made by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. These amendments enjoyed cross-party support when they were considered by their lordships.
  Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 would allow for the electronic monitoring of certain individuals for whom bail was granted by the SIAC. Having reviewed the matter in the light of events since the Bill was introduced—in particular, the comments made by the Newton committee following its review of the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, and SIAC's decision to grant bail in an individual case—we concluded that although electronic monitoring may not be appropriate in every case, it might be a useful tool in certain circumstances.
  Clause 23 was subject to two minor Government amendments in another place, and both were welcomed. First, the definition of the "material" that the commissioner can seize was narrowed by preventing him from seizing "excluded" and "special procedure" material as defined by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That was done in the light of concerns expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The commissioner accepted that such material was of no value to his investigators.
  Secondly, it was agreed to delete references to a justice of the peace in Scotland. That followed several Opposition amendments to that effect and representations from the Law Society of Scotland.
  In response to a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and points raised throughout the Bill's passage, we brought back an amendment to strengthen safeguards to clause 27, which provides for levying fees. Amendment No. 39 provides, first, that prior to the introduction of a fee under this power the Secretary of State shall consult appropriate persons, and secondly, that an order made under this power shall be subject to the affirmative

  1217
  resolution procedure, requiring approval by both Houses of Parliament. The remaining amendments are minor and/or consequential to other amendments.
  I come to the substantive amendments introduced by the Government in another place on marriage procedures, and the amendments moved by the Opposition today. As has already been said in this short debate, under section 24 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 registrars are obliged to report suspected sham marriages to the Home Office. Section 24 came into force in 2001. Since then, as we heard, reports have been increasing in number—in the first year, there were 756 reports, increasing to 1,205 in 2002 and 2,700 in 2003. This evidence, taken together with growing anecdotal and other evidence, shows that there has been a considerable increase in the number of marriages taking place in the United Kingdom where there is no intention of entering into a genuine relationship, but where the purpose is solely to circumvent our immigration control.
  Hon. Members may ask whether the evidence is strong enough to justify intervention, given the inconvenience that intervention may cause to genuine couples wishing to marry. As I am sure the House will appreciate, this is an area where it is difficult to collect hard evidence on the scale of abuse. The Government consider that the clear trend in reports from registrars, together with discussions that we have had with them on the subject—since my appointment at the beginning of April, I have met registrars and their representatives twice—and other intelligence sources fully justify such intervention.
  We have already acted in the face of those reports. In the last financial year, immigration enforcement teams in London alone carried out operat ions at more than 60 weddings, resulting in the arrest of 110 individuals, most of whom were either removed from the United Kingdom as illegal immigrants or, in the case of 37 of the 110 arrested, were charged with criminal offences.
  Mr. Oaten: Given that the new powers have been in operation for about two years and seem to have had some initial success in terms of the number of arrests, did the Minister consider seeing how that pattern of progress would develop over the next couple of years, rather than introducing a new measure?
  Mr. Browne: I did precisely that, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to bring forward a part of my speech that I had intended to come to later. The other evidence suggested to me that enforcement, such as it was, was effective where it could take place, but had no prospect of covering the possibilities for abuse across England and Wales or, indeed, across the United Kingdom. There were not enough immigration officers to do that.
  Against the background of a 35 per cent. increase in the number of immigration officers in the employ of the immigration service under the present Government, it did not seem appropriate to prioritise the marriage issue as a use of that resource when it was needed for other purposes if there were processes whereby such abuse could be dealt with and interdicted.
  It may be helpful to tell the House at this stage that the purpose of the changes is not to create the opportunity for intervention at 2,700 or thereabouts
  1218
  events, but to interdict them from taking place at all. It is a matter of deterrence. Hon. Members and others who criticise these steps, which I think are entirely sensible, ought to understand that. Evidence suggests that if the behaviour is deterred, it will go away. If it is policed, it will displace. In other words, the people involved will not come to the places where they expect immigration officers to be, but will displace to other venues. If one accepts that analysis of the evidence—it clearly is the right analysis and it is shared by the registrars, the local authorities, the police, the immigration service and the Home Office—one can see that the combination of factors that I am about to explain in more detail is exactly the right approach to deal with the problem.
  Mr. Oaten: I understand the Minister's argument that it is better to prevent these events from happening than to use resources to tackle the problems once they have occurred, but will not considerable resources will be involved in checking whether these are sham marriages?
  Mr. Browne: Perhaps I should have stuck to the script that I had originally prepared on this issue. However, to borrow a phrase from "Mastermind", I have started, so I will finish. I think that the hon. Gentleman understands the analysis of the evidence and the reasoning behind the Government's choice of this method. The point that I am making is that the success or failure of these provisions will be gauged by whether they deter this behaviour. I do not expect—and I am certainly not going to put resources into—a whole series of interventions into sham or potentially sham marriages. I have every confidence that these provisions will stop people seeking to go down that route to change their status under the immigration rules, and I shall explain why.
  We have recognised that this is an increasing problem, and that it demands a heightened response. On 22 April, the Home Secretary announced a major new enforcement effort to target sham marriages and the people who organise them, who are just as much a target of this process as the individuals involved in the marriages. As a result, the immigration service arrested 60 people in May alone, and has made further arrests since. Those figures are intended to show the scale of a problem—as the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) sought to do earlier—in which immigration offenders see the abuse of United Kingdom marriage laws as an easy way to get around immigration controls.
  Mr. Malins: I hope that the Minister will comment on my view that the Home Office's performance in relation to the section 24 notices in 2001, 2002 and 2003—indeed, up to two or three months ago—was, at best, patchy and, according to the registrar, probably very poor indeed. Does the Minister agree with that?
  Mr. Browne: When speaking in public, I have consistently made it a rule not to comment on anonymous comments. I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman has a good source for those observations, but they are still anonymous and, as a matter of practice, I do not intend to comment on them. I spent the best part of 25 years in the west of Scotland practising law and constantly being told by people that they had good authority for what they were telling me was the law of

  1219
  Scotland. Often, when I asked them what that authority was, they said that it was either The Sunday Post—a publication that came out on a Sunday in Scotland—or a man they had met in the pub. I am not in a position to evaluate third party comments about the performance of the Home Office when I do not have the details of that performance.
  I am able to tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that the immigration and nationality directorate, the immigration service—which is part of the IND—my fellow Ministers in the Home Office and the Secretary of State are seized of this issue, and are absolutely persuaded that it can be dealt with partly by enforcement and partly by changing the rules on the formalities of marriage. That is what we are proposing to do in the Bill, and it is exactly the right way to deal with this issue.
  It was suggested in another place that the increase in reports of sham marriages was due solely to the increased enforcement effort. Concentrated enforcement in particular areas of behaviour highlights the extent of that behaviour and tends to suggest that it has increased when, in fact, it was always there. When the crime figures come out, I am always amused by observations about increases in drug crime in a particular area, for example. If we take into account that there is no drug crime until it is detected. the increases are normally a reflection of improved policing in that area. They do not mean that the drug crime was not always there.
  9.15 pm
  I can assure my hon. Friends that it was not the enforcement that increased the number of sham marriages that were taking place, or, indeed, the number of reports of such marriages. Wherever the hon. Member for Woking got his information from, he was right to point out to the House that we did not intensify our enforcement efforts prior to an increase in section 24 reports; we intensified them because we had already seen the reports increase in number.
  As well as seeing an increase in overall numbers of allegedly sham marriages being reported, we are seeing a shift in the kinds of case being reported towards cases where the marriage sponsor is a non-British European economic area national. In fact, 61 per cent. of the section 24 reports received by the immigration service in May involved a non-British EEA national. Why should that be the case? It is because anyone marrying an EEA national does not need to obtain leave to remain in the UK, as a separate step, on the basis of their marriage. As a direct consequence of the marriage, they have an automatic right of residence.
  That is because the rights of residence obtained through marriage to an EEA national are the subject of European law rather than United Kingdom domestic legislation. European law dictates that anyone marrying an EEA national who is exercising treaty rights in another country—this goes for someone marrying a British national exercising treaty rights in Spain or France, for example—thereby has the right to reside in that country irrespective of their immigration status at the time of marriage.
  1220
  It is clear that where there is abuse of our existing immigration controls, we must move to stop it. We must ensure that our immigration rules are robust enough to prevent people from using sham marriages to get around those rules. That kind of abuse works to the detriment of everybody—including, of course, those who enter this country legally through the managed migration channels. The evidence, albeit necessarily having imprecisions. clearly shows growing abuse. That evidence, along with the Government's clear duty to stop such abuse, is the counter-argument to the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that these provisions are disproportionate to what it accepts is the legitimate aim of preventing sham marriages.
  Britain has always rightly prided itself on being a comparatively liberal society in respect of the laws surrounding marriage and other similar civil acts. Broadly speaking, we have been happy to leave the policing of this aspect of the law to professional registrars or churches. They do this with a comparatively light touch, and with little interference from central Government. We are committed to retaining that overall balance, but it is the duty of the Government to act to protect the integrity of the institution of marriage, and the balance between light-touch regulation and rules to prevent abuse will sometimes have to change to cope with the challenges and realities of today's world. Not only is that the view of the Government, it is the view powerfully expressed by registrars themselves. As I say, I have met them on more than one occasion to talk through those issues.
  I have already set out how the immigration service has responded to the challenge of increasing evidence of abuse by stepping up its enforcement effort, but we have to accept that enforcement alone cannot solve the problem completely. Sending immigration officers to register offices has real impact, as we have seen in the last year, but we cannot rule out the possibility of displacement to other offices, and it would be unrealistic and disproportionate to have staff attending every single wedding.
  Similarly, while it is possible for the immigration service to follow up marriages and to try to establish whether they are genuine and persisting, it is an extremely resource-intensive process and, as the law stands, the burden of proof lies with the Government to show that the marriage is not genuine, which is not always easy. The better solution is therefore to make it more difficult to enter into a sham marriage in the first place—indeed, to make people feel that there is no point even in trying. The amendments that the Government support in this group are intended to do just that.
  Existing marriage legislation in England and Wales requires that, where a marriage is intended to be solemnised on the authority of certificates of a superintendent registrar, the parties to the prospective marriage must first give notice of that marriage to such a registrar. The amendments that the House is considering today build on that position and have been worked through in close co-operation with the registrars.
  Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in Lords amendment No. 21 requires that where a marriage involves a non-EEA national, both parties will be required to give notice of their wedding to the superintendent registrar of a designated registration

  1221
  centre. I must make it clear that that requirement will not restrict a couple from eventually getting married. It applies only where they give notice of that marriage. Once the notice has been accepted, the couple will be free to get married wherever they wish. The provisions will not infringe a person's ability to get married in a church, in a local mosque or, indeed, anywhere else that they wish to wed.
  Mr. Oaten: Will there be a requirement for the individuals to go to the designated areas, or could the process be carried out by post? If there is a requirement to go in person, how many designated areas will there be?
  Mr. Browne: There will be a requirement for people to attend in person. A good amendment, consistent with Government policy, was tabled in the Lords, which requires the attendance of both parties before the registrar. I shall come to that in a moment. Although no definitive decisions have been taken, I am considering the possibility of about 70 such areas about the country, which I think will be enough to satisfy the needs of the people who wish to be married.
  Restricting the capacity to authorise such a wedding to a reduced number of designated centres will allow the immigration service to implement its enforcement effort in a more concentrated area and allow intelligence and expertise on marriage abuse to be built up in designated centres. It is not just that registrars, whether properly trained or not, can see that something dodgy is going on in front of them, as the hon. Members for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and for Woking suggested. It is pretty obvious if the bride and groom have never met—perhaps because the bride arrives 10 minutes early and does not know whom she is marrying—or if money changes hands in the back of the register office.
  Part of the enforcement effort, however, is about building up intelligence to allow those who are behind the process to be revealed and brought before the courts for the criminal offences that they are perpetrating. We do not want to inconvenience genuine couples any more than is absolutely necessary, and I and my officials are working closely with registrars to identify the most suitable number of designated centres to assist in the enforcement effort while minimising the inconvenience caused. At the moment, we are considering the possibility of about 70 such centres, as I said.
  In line with an amendment suggested by Baroness Anelay, parties to a marriage will be required to give notice of their marriage together at the designated centres. That will give registrars the fullest possible opportunity to identify any suspicious behaviour, such as how couples interact—the kind of behaviour that currently leads registrars to report couples under section 24. The crucial difference under the new provisions is that registrars and the immigration service will be better able to take appropriate action before the couple can wed.
  Subsection (3) of the new clause requires that before notice of marriage involving a non-EEA national can be entered into the marriage book, the superintendent registrar must be satisfied by the provision of specified evidence that the non-EEA national has entry clearance for the purpose of marriage, has written permission from the Home Secretary, or is in an exempt category.
  1222
  The requirement in new subsection (3)(a) to have entry clearance expressly for the purpose of marrying refers to entry clearance for fiancés and marriage visitors. Applications for such entry clearance will continue to be considered in the usual way under paragraphs 290 and 41 respectively of the immigration rules. It is envisaged that written permission from the Secretary of State, as provided in new subsection (3)(b), will normally be granted if a person has been granted more than six months leave since entering the United Kingdom and where that leave is extant. In addition, we would grant an application if it is considered that it would be unreasonable to expect a person to return home or travel abroad and apply for entry clearance.
  The written permission will be known as a certificate of approval and all applications will be considered and determined in accordance with published guidance, which will set out the factors to be taken into account by caseworkers when determining such applications. If an application for a certificate of approval is refused, applicants will be free to challenge the decision in judicial review proceedings—for example, on the well understood and well known Wednesbury ground of unreasonableness.
  New subsection (3)(c) confers on the Secretary of State the power to exempt in regulations categories of person from the requirement for entry clearance or for Home Office permission. We have not included those categories in the Bill as we think that secondary legislation would be a more suitable vehicle for introducing the exemptions, allowing full opportunity to consider changes in trends and future changes to the immigration rules. However, at this point we envisage that any person with settled status in the United Kingdom will be exempted under the provision.
  As a result of the new measures, we would expect an increase in the number of forged documents being presented to registrars—both in respect of the new certificate of approval to be issued by the Home Office and in respect of documents confirming nationality—as those engaged in sham marriages seek to avoid having to apply to the Home Office for a certificate of approval.
  After three months of experience as a Minister in the Home Office, I doubt very much whether there is any organisation better placed than the immigration service of the United Kingdom to identify forgeries. Those in the service have developed expertise in that area over the past number of years that is second to none. UK immigration officers with that expertise are now travelling the world, helping other immigration services to identify forged documents.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woking for his suggestion, but he can rest assured that, given the experience that we have in the Home Office and in the immigration service of how to combat forgeries, it was always our intention that the permission document would contain several security features. We intend that it will be granted in the form of a vignette. That will contain the same security features as our leave-to-remain vignettes, and will be equally secure. I am not sure at the moment whether it will have a specific identifying number, but it will have significant security features. Registrars at designated centres who do not have the ability at present will be trained to identify

  1223
  those documents, including fake EEA documents, and will be well placed to gain experience in identifying them.
  I want to make it very clear that the Government do not intend the new provisions to lead to a return to the rightly unpopular primary purpose rule. The principal objective of that rule was to attempt to judge whether the applicant was entering into marriage primarily to gain the right to reside in the United Kingdom. People get married for many different reasons, and it is not the Government's business to interfere in what those reasons are. The new provisions are not designed to do that, but they are designed to interfere with attempted avoidance of immigration control. They do not affect the grant or refusal of entry clearance, as the primary purpose rule did. They are simply intended to make it more difficult for those who are seeking to enter into a marriage for the purpose of avoiding immigration control so to do.
  Hon. Members may be aware of the concerns of others that the new requirements are unnecessary in the light of existing provisions. The new requirements in subsection (3) of Lords amendment No. 21 are designed to prevent persons who are illegally in the UK, or in the UK on a short-term basis, from marrying where it is reasonable to expect them to return home and to apply for appropriate entry clearance.
  Provisions in paragraph 284 of the immigration rules, as amended by the Government in April last year, require that anyone applying for leave to remain on the grounds of a marriage to a British citizen or a person settled here must themselves have extant leave to remain in the UK, and must either have entered as a fiancé or have been granted at least six months' leave since the date they were admitted to the United Kingdom. Where a person does not meet those criteria, they are expected to leave the UK and apply for entry clearance as a spouse.
  The provision does not, however, apply to spouses of EEA nationals exercising treaty rights in the UK. In those cases, it is the act of marriage that gives a right of residence. As I have already stated, those marrying an EEA national do not need separately to obtain leave to remain on the basis of that marriage. They get that automatically. That is because the right of residence obtained through a marriage to an EEA national is the subject of European law, not domestic law.
  The new provisions have been framed to apply both to those wishing to marry British citizens, and to those wishing to marry other EEA nationals. It is not unusual for a person to have dual status in the UK as both an EEA national and a person settled here under the immigration rules—Irish nationals being a prime example of that. If we were to apply the new provisions only to those persons marrying EEA nationals, we would leave the system open to abuse. The intended spouses of persons who hold such dual immigration status would be free to present themselves as the fiancé of a person with settled status in the UK, forgoing the requirements applying to EEA nationals, but then as soon as they were married they would automatically gain the right to reside in the UK as the spouse of an EEA national.
  1224
  Moreover, we do not believe that we are placing too great a burden on the intended spouses of British citizens by requiring that they have more than six months' leave or entry clearance as a fiancé. Under paragraph 284 of the immigration rules, they are already required to meet that requirement in order to apply for leave to remain. The new provisions require simply that they provide for that in advance of their marriage, rather than in advance of their leave to remain application.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Oaten: In connection with burden and fairness, the Minister has said nothing about the additional costs that might be involved in going through the new procedure. Is he in a position to outline those extra costs?
  Mr. Browne: I shall come to that shortly.0
  If a person would not otherwise have intended to remain in the UK after their marriage, they would be free to apply for leave to enter as a visitor for the purpose of marriage. There is no unnecessary restriction on such persons.
  By refusing permission to marry to those persons with less than six months' leave in the UK, we will prevent non-EEA nationals from legally entering the UK on a short-term basis, only for them then to enter into a sham marriage with an EEA national and thereby gain the right to stay in the UK. If a person is entering the UK for the purpose of marriage, the Government expect them to apply for entry clearance as a fiancé or marriage visitor. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question directly, it will cost people no more to do that than to go through the propel channels. Likewise, if a person enters as a visitor and subsequently meets someone whom they wish to marry, we do not believe that it is unreasonable for them to return home and apply for suitable entry clearance, given that their initial leave was granted on the ground that they would do precisely thatéreturn home when it expired.
  Concerns were expressed in another place about the prospect of registrars being turned into pseudo-immigration officers. I assure hon. Members that the Government have no intention of creating such a burden. By requiring non-EEA nationals to have either entry clearance as a fiancé or marriage visitor, a certificate of approval, or indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom, we are precisely limiting that burden on registrars. For that reason, we do not believe it would be sensible, as was suggested in the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, automatically to exempt all persons who meet the criteria required for certificates of approval under subsection (3)(c). It would be unreasonable and potentially unworkable to expect registrars to inspect the passports of all non-EEA nationals giving notice of a marriage for valid leave to remain, as that would require registrars to become familiar with every stamp, every vignette and every category of leave to remain. By creating the requirement for persons to apply first to the Home Office for a certificate of approval or to hold entry clearance for the purpose of marriage, we have considerably reduced that burden.
  At this stage, let me deal with two further objections made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Committee suggested that the proposals might be

  1225
  vulnerable to accusations of discriminating, first, on the ground of nationality, and secondly—by virtue of exempting Church of England marriages—on the ground of religion. Each accusation lacks adequate and objective justification. As Lord Rooker made clear on Report in another place on 28 June. we are not seeking to discriminate against people who are members of a religion other than the Church of England.
  There is no evidence of sham marriages taking place in the Church of England and the Government do not feel that abuse is likely in future. People who wish to marry in their parish church are normally known to the priest of the church. Although It is not a statutory requirement, there is an expectation upon couples to meet the priest to talk through why they wish to marry and to discuss church proceedings. The Government believe that that acts as a real disincentive to parties intending to engage in a sham marriage, and that it will continue to do so. The Marriage Registration Act 1836 provides for marriage in the Church of England and the Church in Wales to take place after either ecclesiastical preliminaries or civil preliminaries. The vast majority of Anglican marriages take place after ecclesiastical preliminaries—banns or common licence. All other marriages, whether civil or by other religious rites, must be preceded by civil preliminaries. The discrimination is therefore not new: that has been the position since the 1836 Act introduced civil marriage and civil preliminaries, and the Government do not feel that it is appropriate or necessary to change the position at this time.
  As for the suggestion that the provisions discriminate on the ground of nationality, the crucial point is that the provisions are expressly aimed not at people of a certain nationality or nationalities, but at people who use marriage as a means of circumventing immigration control. Although we accept that we are treating persons who are subject to immigration control and their partners differently from other persons wishing to get married, it would be unlawful and disproportionate to impose such obligations on those couples where neither party is subject to immigration control, because there is no rational connection between the measures and those who are simply not subject to immigration control.
  Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 25 contain broadly similar provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. As there has been far less evidence of abuse in Scotland and Northern Ireland. these amendments have been drafted so that written notification of a marriage in Scotland and Ireland will continue to be an acceptable format. However, we will nevertheless require evidence under subsection (3) of the new clauses by way of a certificate of approval or otherwise, as is the case in England and Wales.
  If there is evidence that the problem is being displaced to Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State will introduce the power laid down in subsection (2)(b) of amendment No. 25 and both parties will be required to attend the centres together in prescribed cases.
  Scotland has a growing and lucrative marriage tourism industry, in which couple travel to Scotland as visitors to get married in scenic surroundings, with no intention to remain in the UK thereafter. The Government do not wish to jeopardise this industry and so we will not require persons to attend the centres in
  1226
  person, as is the case elsewhere in the UK. If there is evidence of abuse, the Scottish General Register Officer will move swiftly to designate register offices according to subsection (2) of amendment No. 23.
  Lords amendment No. 27 grants the Secretary of State the power, by regulations, to charge fees for applications for written permission to marry in the UK. These applications will be charged for on a cost-recovery basis. Although we are not yet in a position to put an exact figure on this charge, we estimate that it will be similar to the charges for leave-to-remain applications. Applications for entry clearance as a fiancé and marriage visitor will continue to be charged at £260 and £36 respectively.
  I will deal briefly with the amendments tabled by the official Opposition. Under amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 21, parties to a marriage involving a non-EEA national would be able to give notice of a marriage in a designated centre only if they had been resident in that registration district for 14 days, rather than seven as at present. The Government do not feel that such a requirement is necessary. We do not believe that any purpose would be served by increasing this period and cannot support the amendment.
  Amendment (c) to Lords amendment No. 21 would require superintendent registrars in England and Wales to maintain a record of refusals of notices by non-EEA nationals. Registrars would not accept notification of a marriage if they could not enter it into the marriage notice book. They would not be able to accept a notification unless the person met all the criteria—age, residence and marital status, for example. Only when those criteria were not met would a registrar not take notice of the marriage, and this is a question of an inability to do so rather than a refusal on their part. In this sense, registrars are not actually capable of refusing to accept notice of a marriage. Keeping a record of everyone who approaches a registrar but does not meet the criteria would prove to be a time-consuming task and would not help in combating sham marriages. For these reasons I will not be able to support the amendment. I hope that hon. Members will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
  I do not feel that I need to summarise what I have had to say. I will close by reiterating my position, which is that the House agrees with the Lords on Government amendments Nos. 1 to 21 and 22 to 69 but disagrees with the Opposition amendments (a) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 21.
  Mr. Malins: This has been a useful debate and I am grateful to the Minister for the careful way in which he has explained the Government's position. However, there are one or two matters that I hope to draw to his attention. Despite his full and helpful reply, I had hoped that he might have thought that there was a little merit in my amendment concerning 14 days. If there is not much point in 14 days, it is worth asking what is the point of seven days. I assume that the purpose of seven days is to—
  Mr. Browne: It is existing law.
  Mr. Matins: Quite; it is existing law. Somebody at some stage in the past must have justified seven days. I suppose that they did so on the basis that it is important that there be a residence requirement.

  1227
  I think that we all agree that there should be a residence requirement. I thought that it would be quite a good thing to strengthen the requirement by making it 14 days. The Minister rightly pointed out, and perhaps he will confirm that I am right, that in the Church of England, where two parties wish to get married, one of them at least has to demonstrate quite a substantial link with the parish concerned—indeed, not just a link but a residence. My father is a vicar, and I am not entirely sure that any inquiry into the validity of my own marriage—he married my wife and me—would be productive. I remember that there was some strict residence requirement, and my father may have had to finesse the position very slightly. It was a long time ago, however, and I would not want to get him into trouble. [Interruption.] I probably just did so, but that is another question.
  It came to my notice recently—I do not expect the Minister to deal with this point now—that once a marriage licence is granted, it is valid for one year. That strikes me as quite a long time, and I wonder whether the Home Office would consider taking a look at that issue.
  The Minister's comments about the permission document and the watermarks, holograms and so on were very helpful. There are undoubtedly experts in the Home Office who will draw up some procedure that is as near to watertight as possible. I hope that he might pat me on the back for my personal idea of the unique serial number specific to a particular application.
  Mr. Browne: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, if we decide to number the certificates of approval, I shall ensure that he is given the credit for that very unusual suggestion.
  Mr. Matins: Such is the Minister's charm at the Dispatch Box this evening that my hon. Friends and I, who were determined at one stage to test the opinion of the House on a number of amendments, have been persuaded by his arguments that it might not be appropriate to do so.
  This has been a good debate, dealing with a problem to which I think the Government are attending. I wish them good luck in doing so, and I hope that they will involve a number of parties in the discussions. The clause was amended in another place, and it is now a good one. Apart from my 14-day proposal, even I can think of no way of improving it.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lords amendment No. 21 agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 22 to 27, 19, 20, 32, 40,41, 33, 34, 1 to 13, 35 to 39 and 63 to 69 agreed to.
  9.45 pm
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move,
  That the programme order of 7th June 2004 in relation to the Patents Bill [Lords] be varied as follows—
  Consideration and Third Reading
  1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 consideration and Third Reading) shall be omitted.
  2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m. on the day on which they are commenced.
  The motion amends the allocation of time for proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Patents Bill set by the programme order of 7 June, and it is a small, technical measure that commands widespread support on both sides of the House.
  In order to enable the Bill smoothly to complete its passage, time has been found this Wednesday to take the remaining stages in the House. The motion therefore deletes the relevant paragraphs of the earlier motion relating to the allocation of time for proceedings on consideration and Third Reading and makes new provision consistent with the time available on Wednesday. I hope that those arrangements will command widespread support on both sides of the House. The motion is set out on the Order Paper, and I will not rehearse its content. It curtails the allocation of time for consideration on Report and Third Reading provided by the programme order of 7 June, and it is my pleasure to commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.

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

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Solicitors (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  IMMIGRATION
  That the draft Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  CONSUMER PROTECTION
  That the draft Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Brandsharing) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
  Question agreed to.

  1229
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Social Security (Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2004. which were laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
  Question agreed to.

  Examination of Classics
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
  9.48 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the examination of classics tonight and for the support of some 37 colleagues from all parties who have signed early-day motion 1434.
  The subject may initially appear to be an administrative matter but it raises important questions about the accountability of examination boards, the survival of minority subjects other than Latin and Greek and the genuine meaning of choice in our education system.
  Britain's biggest exam board, the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance—AQA—has announced that it will no longer examine Latin and Greek at GCSE and A-level after 2006. In other words, those who start in September on GCSE or A-level Latin and Greek will be the last to be examined in two years' time. That deplorable decision was made without warning, without consultation with schools or university classics departments and even without consulting the board's subject advisory panel. My first question to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), whom I welcome, is whether he joins me in condemning that lack of consultation. It is not enough for the Department for Education and Skills simply to say, as the Under-Secretary's colleague said in another place, that the lack of consultation did not go unnoticed. Will he join me in condemning that lack of consultation?
  The decision appears to have been made without any real opportunity for appeal or accountability. In that sense, the exam boards appear to be masters in their own house, and beyond the effective supervision of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which is answerable to Ministers. My second question is therefore: is the Under-Secretary satisfied that the QCA properly supervised and approved the decision? On what date were Ministers informed of it?
  The accountability of exam boards matters because, unlike in the old days, when five, six or more existed, there are now effectively only two: the AQA and the Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations board—the OCR. If one board drops a subject, it becomes de facto a monopoly of the other. There is therefore no more choice in the syllabus. That is especially important for minority subjects because they have no fixed place in the curriculum and they, unlike those that are specified in the curriculum, need syllabuses with greater, not less variety. If the AQA no longer offers Latin and Greek, we face the prospect of the OCR syllabus having to be adapted to offer what the former previously offered. Everybody loses out.
  The problem does not affect only Latin and Greek. At the same time as the decision was announced, other subjects were chopped from the AQA list. They include: accounting, archaeology, Russian, home economics, social science and European studies. Some 11 subjects were chopped from the AQA list without warning or opportunity to appeal.
  The point of the larger boards that have consolidated and taken over smaller boards is that they should be able to cross-subsidise some of the minority subjects. Of

  1231
  course, those subjects, by their nature, do not apply to hundreds of thousands of entrants every year. However, a big board—the AQA is the biggest board of all should be able to accept some cross-subsidy in examining subjects with smaller intakes. It should also be more careful about making decisions such as that that we are considering. Indeed, the AQA's justification for dropping Latin and Greek is worthy of examination. It said:
  "Most centres entering for Greek also enter candidates for Latin, so to withdraw Greek only would have a significant effect on the entry for Latin."
  It believes that that justifies scrapping both. If it has not properly consulted, how does it know? Why scrap both until it is absolutely sure?
  Unlike those in relation to the other minority subjects that I have mentioned—Russian, accounting, European studies and so on—this decision by the AQA will have one very serious consequence for our education system: the AQA syllabus for Latin and Greek is used predominantly by state schools. More than 80 per cent. of Greek entries and more than 50 per cent. of Latin entries are from state schools. That is because the AQA syllabus is better designed for those who may come to the classics later, after the age of 13, and who may lack a previous grounding in the vocabulary required.
  To give the Minister a specific example, for candidates for GCSE Greek, the OCR board demands knowledge of some 625 Greek words, against 350 required by the AQA. The OCR sets some 360 lines of text to be examined, against the AQA's number of 250. The OCR board requires twice as much prose as the AQA board. Therefore, if the two syllabuses are to be merged, the OCR syllabus would have to be significantly weakened, which in turn would disadvantage those who study it for longer.
  Let the Minister be in no doubt: this mean-minded decision by the AQA will drive classics out of the state schools altogether, and confine Latin and Greek to the fee-paying sector. Is he content to see that happen? That has occurred at a time when all parties in the House have been repeating the mantra of more choice in education. It is at a time when the Government want all secondary schools to be free to specialise, to give their own emphasis to different aspects of the curriculum, and to favour minority subjects, whether music, arts or sport, and so on. Denying the choice of those two minority subjects, Latin and Greek, which it is possible for students to begin later, is a crime against our state schools.
  One only has to consider the success of courses such as the wonderful Minimus to see the expansion of interest in the classics, sustained by films such as "Troy" "Gladiator", "Boudicca" and now "Alexander the Great". One only has to note that some 17,000 students are now studying one aspect of classics or another at our universities to see the damage that this decision will do to the survival of classics in our state schools.
  I do not need to re-emphasise the importance of Latin and Greek in this Chamber tonight, or to mount some spurious claim for relevance: we are not discussing the disappearance of Hebrew from the curriculum or the ending of rhetoric in the mediaeval trivium. As well as
  1232
  the intellectual discipline that lies behind the two subjects, Latin and Greek are keys as much to our present as they are to our past—to how we got here, our heritage, our common European culture and our literature and art. Without Latin and Greek, and particularly without them in our state schools, our understanding of of everything else, from Shakespeare to medieval painting, is limited and reduced.
  Tim Loughton: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I must declare an interest as someone who achieved a Latin A-level at a state school and went on to read for a classics degree. Does he agree that it is ironic that at the same time as we are seeing an explosion in popular interest in some of the classical stories through film and other media, and when Ofsted is saying that we should return to some of the traditional studies in history, teaching in traditional subjects such as Latin and Greek, which have enormous relevance to so many different areas, is to be constrained within the state system?
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
  Mr. Fallon: I entirely agree. Indeed, my hon. Friend's example is all the more perturbing, given that he studied classics at a state school. This proposal means that a future generation will not be able to enjoy that particular privilege.
  Without the foundation of Latin and Greek in most of our schools, we are in danger of raising the lexical bar, that most pervasive form of discrimination. It is just as serious, in a way, as racial or sexual discrimination. I refer to linguistic discrimination against those who cannot express themselves articulately or write correctly in their own language, and are thus denied, when applying for employment or other courses, the opportunities that they ought to be able to enjoy.
  Unless reversed, this philistine decision will reduce choice in our schools. It will certainly eradicate all Latin and Greek from our state school system. Moreover, if it is accepted without protest, it will threaten any other minority subject—not just Russian, but the other harder languages—and it will, I believe, leave too much of the curriculum in the hands of a single examination board.
  Monopoly in education is a very dangerous thing. I commend to the Minister the words of Symmachus, praefect of Rome:
  "Uno itinere non potest pervenire ad tam grande secretum."
  That can be translated as "It is not possible to attain such a great secret by one route only". And that is the argument for avoiding monopoly in education.
  It is the way in which the decision was made, and the consequences that it will have, that justify our description of it as an act of educational vandalism. But I believe that it is almost worse than that. It is, I think, an omen of a darkening cultural winter. The path of learning needs many lamps, and in two years another lamp will have been extinguished. That deeper understanding of our past and our present will be further confined to the privileged and paid-for few. I cannot believe that that is something that the present Government would welcome, or indeed that they would stand idly by without intervening.

  1233
  I do not think it is enough simply to say, as the Minister's colleague Lady Ashton did in another place, that the lack of consultation
  "has not gone unnoticed within the department."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 June 2004; Vol, 663, c. 6.]
  That is not enough. We now look to the Minister to explain what he can do to help get this deplorable decision reviewed and reversed.
  10.3 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) on securing this important debate. Let me begin by rising to his challenge. He asked whether I was content, and the Government were content, for classics to be driven out of the state sector. I want to put it on record that I certainly would not be content for that to happen.
  I want to say something about Latin and Greek as subjects in the maintained school sector. It is widely accepted that it is important for schools to offer a broad and balanced education, providing appropriate opportunities for students to enjoy all aspects of the curriculum. For that reason, I am very glad that some state schools choose to offer classical subjects where the demand exists and where teaching staff have the necessary skills. I recall a visit last year to Archbishop Tenison's school, an inner-city school in the London borough of Lambeth with a predominantly black intake. The teenage boys there were taking Latin at lunchtime by choice. I took that as an excellent example of the keen response that will occur where such options are available.
  Following some of the key stage 3 online pilots that the Department funded, Granada Learning developed the Cambridge Latin course e-learning resource, which was launched in May. It is an innovative resource that is designed to help both specialist and non-specialist teachers to teach Latin to key stage 3 pupils. It can also be used independently, with the help of an e-tutor service provided by the Cambridge school classics project. The resources contain media-rich content to engage the learner and feature a lesson planning system that allows teachers to select learning activities in sequence.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the "Minimus Mouse" cartoon teaching book, which is aimed at 10 to 13-year-olds. Indications are that it has seriously revived interest in Latin among some younger pupils. The first book sold about 50,000 copies world wide and a sequel was published in March this year. It is of course important not only that pupils have the opportunity to learn these subjects, but that their learning be recognised through the examination system. That should include the minority subjects in the various forms that they take.
  The examinations regulator, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, has taken steps to maintain provision in small-entry subjects. For example, it has encouraged the awarding bodies to share small-entry modern foreign languages such as Arabic, Gujarati and Polish between them. Despite this, a number of "live" mother tongue languages that are spoken in this
  1234
  country, or which are being studied in schools or through further education, are not accredited through GCSE examinations. Examples include Kurdish, Somali, Swedish, Hungarian and Slovak. Through the national languages strategy, we are trying to encourage primary schools to teach a wide range of modern foreign languages.
  As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the AQA—Assessment and Qualifications Alliance—recently decided to withdraw Latin and Greek at GCSE and A level. I want to put it on the record this evening that I am very disappointed by the AQA's decision. I absolutely share his concern about the failure to consult fully and in particular about the failure to consult the subject associations in the field of classics. I was also concerned to hear that the subject committee became aware of the decision only through media coverage. The situation could have been handled much better, and I am sure that the AQA noted the widespread criticism that it received as a result. I shall return to that issue in a moment.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is little that I can do directly to intervene. Nevertheless, I share the concerns expressed by him and others, particularly with regard to the possible differential effect in the state sector. I urge the AQA to reconsider its decision in respect of classics, a point to which I shall return at the end of my speech.
  My understanding is that the AQA has a minority of candidates taking Latin and Greek, and that that is certainly true of Latin in the state sector: OCR—Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations—has some 59 per cent. of candidates studying Latin GCSE in the maintained sector. Nevertheless, there is an issue of choice, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out very well in his speech. The AQA's argument is that the small number of entries not only raised questions of financial viability, but made it more difficult to set and maintain standards over time. Of course, if the AQA had been the only body offering classical subjects, the QCA would have acted to ensure that they continued to be available, as it would with other minority subjects. The hon. Gentleman made the point powerfully that many state schools prefer the AQA specification because of the differences in emphasis that he described. The advice of the QCA is that there is no reason why that difference should make one specification more demanding than the other, but it is taking the issue seriously.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether changes could be made to the OCR specification. The QCA is in discussions with various relevant bodies, including the classics professional associations, which it will meet shortly. Additionally, OCR has said that it already offers support and guidance to schools and colleges that may wish to change to its specification.
  I emphasise again that I have no direct powers to intervene. The hon. Gentleman and the House would agree that the system that we have makes sense, with regulated but independent awarding bodies taking responsibility for examinations. Nevertheless, I appreciate his concerns and for that reason, on the basis of the case that he and others have made, I am urging the AQA to reconsider its actions. There are good grounds for arguing that there may be a future increase in the number of candidates wanting to study Latin, in particular at GCSE, given the take-up, for example, of the key stage 3 resources to which both he and I referred.

  1235
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in view of that and the other arguments that he has adduced, I shall write to the AQA to urge it to reconsider its decision, particularly in the light of its failure to consult widely before reaching it. I want to make it very clear that as we pursue more broadly the secondary agenda—and 14 to 19 in particular—as far as I and the Government are concerned, there will still be a very important place for
  1236
  minority subjects, including classics, in the secondary school curriculum.
  I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. I hope that it will not only contribute to the public debate but perhaps bring about a reconsideration by the AQA of its decision.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Ten o'clock.

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

Baroness Neuberger
Dame Julia Babette Sarah Neuberger, DBE, having been created Baroness Neuberger, of Primrose Hill in the London Borough of Camden, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Williams of Crosby and the Baroness Prashar.
Lord Ballyedmond
Edward Enda Haughey, Esquire, OBE, having been created Baron Ballyedmond, of Mourne in the County of Down, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Henley and the Lord Maginnis of Drumglass.

Thameslink 2000
2.49 p.m.
Lord Bradshawasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is presently being made with the Thameslink 2000 scheme.
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, Network Rail's application for a Transport and Works Act order was considered at a public inquiry between June 2000 and May 2001. A decision on the project was deferred pending the resolution of three deficiencies identified by the inspector in his report, relating to the design of the scheme in central London. Network Rail has now submitted further applications addressing these issues, which are likely to be considered by a public inquiry next year.
Lord Bradshaw:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he please confirm that the inspector actually said in his report that the scheme would be highly beneficial to London and the regions around London, and that it would confer very large economic benefits? Will he also confirm that Network Rail has submitted, or is on the point of submitting, plans that clear up the three major deficiencies to which he referred?
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, it would not be right for me to comment on the quality of Network Rail's response, although I can confirm that it set out to address those issues. The noble Lord is right: the link across London is recognised to have many benefits. Nevertheless, local people have the right to
1006
ensure that their interests are safeguarded. That is why we have planning inquiries. Network Rail is responding to those.
Lord Berkeley:My Lords, is the funding assured for Thameslink 2000 and whatever it is? If not, is the Minister aware of the report last week stating that land values around two stations on the Jubilee Line extension—Canada Water and Bermondsey—had gone up by £2 billion? Could some of the gain at other stations on Thameslink 2000 be captured to help to fund the project?
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, my noble friend never lacks ingenuity. He has in the past pursued the interesting question of whether increased land values as a result of rail development could be put to further use involving the public's benefit through improved transport services. On this project, suffice it to say that the final decisions are some way away and construction is unlikely to take place before 2009. He will recognise that the resources for that are in place.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market:My Lords, can the Minister tell the House in some detail why a second public inquiry is felt to be necessary when the first one was completed so recently? Does he not agree that it would be a pity to see a further delay to this project which would mean that it would neither be ready for the completion of the Channel Tunnel rail link nor to help with the Olympic bid?
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, of course delays on major projects such as the one that we are discussing are to be regretted, although the noble Baroness will recognise that any major construction project through the very heart of London is bound to raise a whole range of proper interests which must be taken into account. As the noble Baroness indicated, the inspector gave the scheme general approval but identified three clear areas where there were deficiencies. It was only right, therefore, to ask Network Rail to address those areas, and, of course, that must be the subject of public approval.
Lord Snape:My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that it would be an act of courage in a political sense for any Minister in the government to refuse to accede to an inspector's demand for a public inquiry? The project, which originated in the 1980s, was given the name Thameslink 2000. Does my noble friend further agree that it was thought that that name was a little pessimistic? If we are regrettably to continue with a series of public inquiries, would it not be better to renumber the project? Can my noble friend give us any idea when the inquiry will be set up and when the project, which as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, is much needed, is likely to go ahead?
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, on my noble friend's first point, no Minister concerned with a project such as this lacks courage, nor does he lack wisdom. Wisdom, of course, involves taking proper

1007
account of due process with regard to a public inquiry on an issue of such great sensitivity. I can confirm that if the scheme is called in, as it almost certainly will be, a public inquiry is likely to take place around the year 2007 and construction would begin in 2008–09 and last for five years.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood:My Lords, can the Minister explain why it will take until 1907—
Noble Lords:2007!
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood:It might as well be called Thameslink 3000 while we are about it. Why will it take until 2007 for an inquiry to take place? That sounds absolutely extraordinary to me.
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, significant objections were raised at the first public inquiry among which were objections relating to the Borough High Street conservation area, which has real and historical significance for local people. All noble Lords will recognise our necessary determination to improve transport in London above ground as well as under ground. We are proposing railway development above ground in the centre of London in one of the most prestigious parts of the world in terms of both wealth and historical significance. It is not therefore surprising that a wide range of interests need to be reconciled before any of these projects goes ahead.

Healthy Start Scheme
2.56 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jonesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the introduction of the Healthy Start scheme in replacement of the Welfare Food scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health:My Lords, we shall begin implementing the Healthy Start scheme as early as possible in 2005 by piloting the new scheme in a single area. In the light of that experience the scheme will be rolled out across Great Britain as soon as possible.
Lord Clement-Jones:My Lords, I welcome that commitment to beginning the pilot scheme. Indeed, I welcome the Government's extensive consultation on the change from the Welfare Food scheme to the Healthy Start scheme. However, the Minister will be aware that there is considerable concern, particularly in the light of the COMA review which originally considered the Welfare Food scheme, that the current scheme in its current form will not adequately deal with iron and vitamin D deficiency. Does the Minister agree that there is considerable scope for improving the voucher value for the second year of life which would then cover infant formula and follow-on
1008
formula and, as in the US, enable food such as eggs, pulses and mineral-rich fortified cereals to be purchased as well?
Lord Warner:My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's commendation of our consultation arrangements. With the advent of the new scheme, which is intended to start as early as possible in 2005, vouchers will be exchangeable for liquid milk, infant formula, which is fortified with iron, fresh fruit and vegetables. We intend at a later stage to make two new supplements available, one suitable for pregnant and breastfeeding women and one for children.
Baroness Cumberlege:My Lords, I appreciate that there will be a pilot scheme and that one has to see the results of that, but there has been a lot of concern that this scheme is open to fraud. Can the Minister say what measures are being taken to prevent that? Further, there is concern that children who need this formula milk will be denied it at a time when they are developing and when it is particularly crucial for brain development.
Lord Warner:My Lords, on the second point, as I said, there will be a pilot scheme which will be just that. We shall consider how the scheme is working and learn from it before rolling out the scheme nationally. Antifraud measures will be built into the current scheme. These include anti-fraud devices built into vouchers, mechanisms for reconciliation of vouchers issued against those reimbursed and spot checks on retailers followed by enforcement action where appropriate.
The Countess of Mar:My Lords, does the Minister agree that while it is very important that children get the right nutrients to start with, a healthy start does not necessarily mean a sterile start? It is important that they receive antibodies to build up resistance so that illnesses such as asthma, eczema and various other allergic conditions do not occur. What are Her Majesty's Government doing to encourage parents to ensure that their children are not necessarily brought up in a sterile environment and that they get what my granny used to call a peck of dirt before they die?
Lord Warner:My Lords, the scheme is designed to expand the range of healthy foods to people previously entitled under the Welfare Food scheme. As I said, supplements will be available. A key feature of the new scheme will be that, when people apply for it, they will be able to access consultation from health professionals.
Earl Howe:My Lords, could the Minister pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about follow-on formula in the second year of life? There is considerable concern among childcare groups that it is not a feature of the scheme as currently promulgated. Will the department undertake to look again at that?
Lord Warner:My Lords, we will pilot the scheme on the basis described, and will look at and learn from that pilot.
Lord Clement-Jones:My Lords, will the Minister consider not only the content of the follow-on formula, but the value of the voucher in the second year, which goes back down to £2.80 for that year?
Lord Warner:My Lords, we are trying to run the scheme at roughly the same level as the Welfare Food scheme, as was made clear in the legislation. It is a demand-led scheme, and noble Lords know that the voucher will be £2.80, going up to £5.60 for each child up to 12 months.

Iraq: Weapons of Mass Destruction
3.1 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Prime Minister's remarks on 6 July, what is their current view on what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office:My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has acknowledged that, although the Iraq Survey Group has uncovered information about programmes for the development of weapons of mass destruction, it has not found the weapons themselves. He has said that the weapons may never be found, but our overall assessment will be better informed when the Iraq Survey Group next reports.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister last week, in front of the Liaison Committee of the House of Commons, said that it was possible that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed, something that he had previously described as "palpably absurd" and against all intelligence? Does that remarkable admission not have some bearing on the legality of the Iraq war? Surely it is not enough to say, "We think that someone has WMD", or, "Someone's behaviour is consistent with having WMD", in order to suggest that something is against a UN resolution and makes the war legal.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, it is important to remember that we did not go into a military conflict in Iraq solely on the basis that the weapons of mass destruction were there. However often political analysts go into it, however often the media throw doubt over it, and however much doubt there is genuinely—I acknowledge that there is doubt, as my right honourable friend has said—the reason we went to war was that Iraq ignored or defied the United Nations Security Council resolutions over and again. Those were mandatory resolutions that demanded cooperation with UN-authorised inspectors. I remind
1010
the noble Lord that, on 8 November 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, which recognised the threat of Iraq's non-compliance with council resolutions and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It was not only the United Kingdom Government who believed that to be true, but the governments of those on the UN Security Council, including France and Syria.
Lord Clinton-Davis:My Lords, is it not outrageous that the BBC's "Panorama" purportedly prejudged the Butler inquiry last night? Is it not also a fact that Parliament will consider the allegations or otherwise on Wednesday?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I did not see "Panorama" last night, but I understand that it raised a number of questions about the way in which changes were made to the September 2002 dossier on weapons of mass destruction, and a number of other issues. Of course the issues will be challenged—that is right and proper in a democracy with a free media—but the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is due in two days' time to make his report on the gathering, analysis and use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq conflict. It is only right that we wait to see what his report actually says.
Baroness Williams of Crosby:My Lords, does the Minister agree, however, that the main argument—it was presented time and again in both this House and another place—for the invasion of Iraq was precisely the likelihood that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and, furthermore, that they could be used at very short notice? Does she agree that that was the sound and solid legal basis for the invasion of Iraq, and that, as long ago as 5 June this year, David Kay, then head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that it would be a delusion to suppose that that group would find any weapons of mass destruction? He said that anyone who had that view would be,
"really delusional. There is nothing there".
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, it is very easy with hindsight to say a whole range of things. What matters is what was believed at the time. That is why I reiterate the point about Resolution 1441, a motion passed unanimously by the Security Council—not solely by the United States and the United Kingdom, but by governments who believed that Iraq was proliferating weapons of mass destruction, including a government in the region, that of Syria.
The noble Baroness will no doubt recall, as I do very clearly, that we were briefed just before the conflict by the chair of the JIC. We had a discussion about it on the Floor of the House, and my noble friend Lord Richard was a little exercised about it. However, I was briefed then, along with the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. The noble Baroness was there for the part of the time as well. I did not believe that we were being deliberately misled, and I would never have deliberately misled this

1011
House about what we believed was the case on weapons of mass destruction. I do not believe that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is in any different position.
Lord Davies of Coity:My Lords—
Lord Howell of Guildford:My Lords—
The Lord President of the Council:My Lords, there is enough time for both questions.
Lord Davies of Coity:My Lords, we all appreciate the value of wisdom in hindsight, but does my noble friend agree that, immediately prior to the war, virtually the whole world believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Is there an explanation of why Saddam Hussein, if he had nothing to hide, denied the United Nations inspectors the opportunity for full inspection?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, only Saddam Hussein can answer that question. Some noble Lords may believe that such issues will be exposed during the course of his trial. However, I agree with my noble friend that all those who had intelligence forces delivering security information at the time believed that the weapons of mass destruction existed. I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, about the legality of the war, which was based on defiance of Security Council resolutions about what the whole world believed that Saddam Hussein had in his arsenal.
Lord Howell of Guildford:My Lords, these are obviously difficult questions for the noble Baroness to answer, so I shall ask her two helpful ones. First, do we know what happened to the chemical weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein obviously had at one time, which he used to poison a lot of people at Halabja? Secondly, has she noticed the report from the US Senate? While dismissing that details of weapons of mass destruction existed at the time of the invasion, it nevertheless says that Saddam was trying to get uranium from the Niger republic in Africa, in order to build up a nuclear weapons facility. Although that has been apologised for and denied by the intelligence agencies, it seems that there may be some truth in it after all. I appreciate that we shall discuss those matters later in the week on the Butler report, but has she anything in her brief on either of those questions?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I am glad that those were helpful questions—I hate to think what the unhelpful ones might have been like. The assertion in the September 2002 dossier was based on intelligence information from a number of sources. It did not rely on the documents subsequently reported by the IAEA to have been forgeries and UK analysts did not see the forged documents until February 2003.
As regards what happened to the chemicals such as those which were used at Halabja, so far the ISG has uncovered three areas of real interest over whether
1012
programmes were being developed. One includes the clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the Iraqi intelligence service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring. Another was documents and equipment used in scientists' homes that would have been useful for uranium enrichment. The third was plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges of up to 1,000 kilometres, which was well beyond the then legal limit of 150 kilometres.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury:My Lords, is there not one undoubted consequence of the invasion; that it proved a weapon of mass destruction for the Israeli/Palestine road map? And was that not brutally underlined by the statement of Mr Sharon on the steps of the White House, which was not contradicted by President Bush, to the effect that the settlements in the West Bank are now there for eternity?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, much as I sympathise with the question, this is a serious Question about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the doubts raised about the intelligence concerned with them. I should be very happy to answer questions on the road map another time.
Baroness Turner of Camden:My Lords, does not my noble friend recall that although France and Germany certainly supported Resolution 1441, they did so on the basis that the inspectors should be given more time? With hindsight, would it not have been a good idea if that had been agreed to?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, it was agreed to. Resolution 1441 was passed in November 2002 and there was some four and a half months between then and the forces going into Iraq.

Nuclear Energy
3.12 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smithasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the remarks of the Prime Minister on 6 July concerning nuclear energy represent a change of policy.
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, the Prime Minister's remarks concerning nuclear energy were in line with the Government's policy as set out in their energy White Paper.
Lord Dixon-Smith:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that remarkably brief and precise Answer. The Government have an ambitious, long-term aspiration to reduce carbon dioxide emissions because of climate change. Does the Minister agree with the acceptance by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister that the effect of global warming is the greatest threat faced

1013
by mankind? If so, will he accept that nuclear power has an essential role to play in the reduction of that threat?
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, my right honourable friend, when appearing before the Liaison Select Committee, certainly accepted global warming as a major issue confronting the world. The noble Lord will recognise that my right honourable friend identified the strategy by which the Government intended to hit the target and was confident that we would do so.
Lord Tomlinson:My Lords, does my noble friend agree that as the remarks of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister sounded like a change of policy and as they read like a change of policy, we should welcome them as a change of policy? If we cannot do that, should we not welcome them as a more radical statement than the previous policy, which was platitudinous and masquerading as an energy policy?
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, my noble friend has been reading too many newspapers. He would be better off reading the transcript of last week's exchanges because he would recognise that my right honourable friend identified the strategies four-square with those outlined in the energy White Paper which, as he said, states that it is the Government's intention to keep the nuclear option open. That phrase actually appears in the White Paper and my right honourable friend reiterated that fact.
Lord Jenkin of Roding:My Lords, I have read and I have in front of me the transcript of the Prime Minister's statement to the committee, in which he said:
"I have fought long and hard, both within my party and outside, to make sure that the nuclear option is not closed off".
Why have DTI Ministers removed from the Energy Bill the only two words which would have made that a reality? The words "including nuclear" do not appear in the government amendments.
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, I am having difficulty in following the purport of that remark. My right honourable friend emphasised that he had made his contribution—a very significant one—to keeping the nuclear option open. He was stating that in the context of the drafting of the White Paper. The White Paper clearly states that. Ministers have been faithful to that objective since its publication and the Energy Bill preserves exactly that position. I do not understand why the noble Lord suggests that in introducing the Energy Bill we in any way close off the nuclear option. We do not.
Lord Tanlaw:My Lords, in view of the fact that the Ministry of Defence has made it virtually impossible for wind generators to be applied for and set up in south-west Scotland—the best onshore site for wind— will the Government, in their nuclear option,
1014
reconsider the decommissioning of Chapelcross power station, or at least consider it as a possible site if they want to buy a new nuclear power station?
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord's interest in Chapelcross and the area and the points that he makes. However, he is exaggerating the issue in saying that the position of the Ministry of Defence is to block wind farm development. That is not the case. The Ministry of Defence has proper interests with regard to its coastline radar and it is important that we ensure that wind turbines do not interfere with those interests. I can assure the House that wind turbines will be constructed in Britain on land and at sea without interfering with those radar considerations. That is an important dimension of the technology which we intend to follow in order to reach our Kyoto targets.
Lord Ezra:My Lords, does the Minister recall that the Prime Minister, in his remarks to the Liaison Select Committee also emphasised the importance of developing technologies to make carbon fuels cleaner. Does that mean that greater efforts will now be made on clean coal technology?
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, quite rightly, my right honourable friend, as well briefed as ever, was well briefed on this aspect of energy policy. He indicated that of course it has a role to play in the overall provision of future energy, as outlined in the White Paper. If the noble Lord derives encouragement from the positive way in which my right honourable friend addressed that question, I am glad.
Baroness Miller of Hendon:My Lords, perhaps the Minister did not read the amendment that we won, which contained the words "keep the nuclear option open" and its Commons replacement which knocked out those words.
Did the Minister notice the words of his right honourable friend the Prime Minister, when speaking to my honourable friend the Member for Salisbury:
"I will do a deal with you, Robert, we will put one in your constituency first and you can lead and I will follow"?
Have this Government really got into the position of asking for volunteers before taking the necessary lead and telling us what their policy will be?
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, I think the noble Baroness doth protest too much. My right honourable friend was subject to a barrage of questions before the Liaison Select Committee chair. He made the obvious point that if a Member of Parliament advocates very strongly the advancement of nuclear energy, he should be asked whether he would want a nuclear plant sited in his constituency. That question on the subject of the location of nuclear waste was addressed to two previous Conservative Chief Whips when they were in government, and the answer in both cases was "no".

Business
3.20 p.m.
Lord Grocott:My Lords, with permission, later this afternoon at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. a Statement being made in another place will be repeated by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey on the spending review.

Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Noakes:My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make the Government Actuary's Department a department subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner and to make provision about such investigations. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Noakes.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Finance Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill
3.21 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke:My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fire and Rescue Services Bill
3.22 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Power to create combined fire and rescue authorities]:
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) Fire and rescue authorities may constitute, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, a fire and rescue authority for the combined area of two or more existing fire and rescue authorities."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before addressing the amendment, I want to welcome the recent accolade that has been heaped upon the head of the Minister. I hope that it will see him well into the
1016
future, considering who he beat, and we endorse it for the Ministers on his side of the Chamber. We are delighted for him. However, those are probably the last kind words that we shall say today.
This group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 16—return to the subject of what we consider to be one of the fundamental flaws of the Bill; that is, the unwelcome forced regionalisation and centralisation of the fire and rescue service. The arguments have been well exercised and rehearsed both in Committee and during the earlier passage of the Bill in another place. During the Committee stage, the Minister made clear in his replies that he could not, or would not, accept our concerns. That is a shame, for our concerns remain very real. I can only hope that the Minister has had a change of heart and is alive to the potentially damaging consequences of the Bill.
Suffice it to say that we on these Benches are still fundamentally opposed to what the Government are intending to do in the Bill as regards regionalisation. I suspect that we shall never be able to see eye to eye on this issue. But the Deputy Prime Minister's obsession with regionalisation runs amok throughout much of what his department does and throughout all the legislation that we have seen and dealt with over recent months. We see it here again in the plans for the future of the fire service. That is of course in contrast to the Bain report, whose recommendations for a reformed and improved fire service we were happy to support.
I wonder how much of that enthusiasm is shared by other Ministers in the ODPM and in the country at large. One thing is certain—the Deputy Prime
Minister's plans for regionalisation will be tested later this year in the referendums, when I have no doubt that he and the Government will receive an unequivocal answer.
It is clear that regionalisation of the fire service will do nothing but introduce additional bureaucracy. It will not save a penny. Of course, so far as concerns the fire service, it will not save a single life or a single property. That is why we are so adamantly opposed to this part of the Bill.
I stress that we fully support the much needed reforms and modernisation of the fire service. Indeed, we have no problem if fire authorities want to work together on a voluntary basis on, for example, procurement or any issues that they believe will improve the service they provide to the public. Amendment No. 1 seeks to achieve that objective by giving fire authorities the ability to come together as they wish, removing the unwelcome dead hand of central government in forcing them to do so.
We believe that, with their comprehensive knowledge of the local circumstances, fire authorities will be best placed to make such decisions about cooperation and partnership working. I do not think that the Minister really believes that benefits will accrue from forcing an authority—say, Wiltshire—to work in partnership with another—say, Cornwall—that may be hundreds of miles away. Indeed, perhaps the Minister could outline some of the benefits that a

1017
substantially rural authority such as Cumbria would have in working with an urban authority such as Merseyside. That is precisely what the Bill envisages.
Amendment No. 3 is a consequential amendment to Amendment No. 1. It would remove the power of the Secretary of State to compel authorities to combine if Clause 2(1) is amended, as my first amendment designs. Amendment No. 5 is, again, a consequential amendment, removing the unnecessary subsection that empowers the Secretary of State to consult under subsection (3)(b), which the two previous amendments would, if accepted, remove.
Amendment No. 4 would require the agreement of authorities to any modification by the Secretary of State to a combination scheme that they themselves have proposed. As such, it reinforces an important principle of local decision-making and discretion, as opposed to the excessive hand of the centre once again being imposed without due regard to local circumstances.
Finally, Amendment No. 16 has a similar intent to that of Amendment No. 4. It attempts to safeguard against the Secretary of State misusing his powers in regard to authorities which, under Sections 5 and 6 of the 1947 Act, come together on a voluntary basis. In Committee, the Minister asserted that this was an amendment too far. Indeed, he branded it then as a wrecking amendment. Yet the very real possibility remains that the Secretary of State could simply ignore the wishes of authorities which are already operating on a combined basis and override their wishes and day-to-day operations simply so that he could impose his own model on them as he wished.
Amendment No. 16 would therefore ensure that each authority so affected would have to agree to any changes that the Secretary of State proposed. I do not call that a wrecking amendment; I call it a sensible and rational amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, the Bill seems to have cleared the Chamber immediately after Question Time even faster than do many other Bills. I hope that, as they were rushing to the door, enough noble Lords were listening to join in the noble Baroness's congratulations.
With regard to the noble Baroness's amendments in this group, two issues seem to relate to how the criteria and so on are to be used by the Secretary of State and the combining authorities—that is, whether the Secretary of State's actions are top down and whether everything must be done to fit the Government's pattern. I am puzzled about that because, in many debates over quite a long period, the same individuals on the three Front Benches have accepted the benefits of sub-regional approaches in certain circumstances. The Government deny being centralising but, however much is said about consultation, the fact remains that the Bill is dealing with the Secretary of State's scheme to make, modify or revoke.
3.30 p.m.
As regards a pattern, and regional arrangements fitting the administrative regional offices, does it matter if combined authorities cross boundaries and cross government regional administrative areas? I am not convinced that it would matter. In any event, picking up on what was said by the noble Baroness in moving Amendment No. 1, if that were to cause problems, it is unlikely that all the authorities would want to combine in that way. What I am saying, I suppose, is that the Government should demonstrate a greater degree of trust in the common sense and practical experience that would be displayed by the authorities in question.
On the other hand. I have to accept that in effect a veto by a single authority by not agreeing could scupper a scheme agreed to by everyone else. What the noble Baroness seems to be proposing is what would amount to, say, half a dozen authorities agreeing, persuading the Secretary of State of their case to combine, but a seventh, in what would be a natural grouping, disagreeing and so thwarting not just the proposals of central government but those of other fire authorities. So, there is something of a dilemma there.
As regards Amendment No. 2, to which the Minister will no doubt speak when he responds, I hope that this will not sound churlish because the issue of public safety is one which I raised last time. However, I had understood Ministers in the Commons, who concentrated on this there more than we did here, to say that public safety, which is now an additional point, was part of effectiveness, which is already required by the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation. It may be—I do not know—that, for reasons of effectiveness, the Government want to allow for something which would not give good economy. Are we now disaggregating those three terms in pulling out public safety as a different issue?
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister:The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness for her very kind words. As I said when I got the gong, I promised not to take it seriously. Nevertheless, I am very grateful for the obvious support I received from all sides of this House, given the competition.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we have tried to show that we are a listening government. So, in answering this group of amendments I want first to deal with Amendment No. 2, which is a government amendment. This was tabled in response to points put forward in debate by Members of another place and Members of this House. In effect, scrutiny of the Bill resulted in this amendment.
We know that, as drafted, Clause 2 generated a good deal of concern, and we have heard a little of that today. It was seen as giving the Secretary of State carte blanche to create regional fire and rescue authorities whether or not a referendum was being held on the creation of a regional assembly. Because it left the

1019
matter of holding an inquiry to the discretion of the Secretary of State, some people felt that it allowed the Government to ride roughshod over local objections.
We have not always—indeed, we did not in Committee—accepted those interpretations. The Ministers concerned with the conduct of this policy, and, indeed, me, made clear that we have no plans to regionalise the fire and rescue service outside those parts of England in which a referendum is imminent. I repeat that. We have assured both Houses that the only circumstances in which we envisage using the original Clause 2(2)(b) are ones of urgent public safety, in particular, if authorities were failing to co-operate on a key resilience requirement such as the creation of a regional control centre.
But we have come to the conclusion that in view of the debates and comments made—we have had time to reflect on this—and of our stated position, it is best if the Bill is equally clear about our intentions. We have already responded to an opposition amendment in the other place by agreeing that an inquiry into a combination scheme will be mandatory apart from in a very limited number of circumstances; for example, if suggested by the authorities themselves or where urgent public safety needs cannot tolerate any delay.
In our view, Clause 2 now addresses all the legitimate concerns raised by Members in both Houses and does so by significantly departing from its original wording. Of course, on some things we have not been able to move. We have sought carefully to explain in correspondence with noble Lords and Baronesses that we believe it is right to retain a last resort power for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to appoint a minority of authority members if a culture of failure needs to be challenged and turned around. We are also satisfied that the list of consultees on the face of the Bill strikes the right balance. But we have in both cases made clear our genuine intention to be transparent, proportionate and inclusive.
Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4 and the consequential Amendment No. 5, seek to prevent the Secretary of State—currently the Deputy Prime Minister—combining fire and rescue authorities in any circumstances other than those in which the authorities themselves have requested it, and only on the basis of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. As we have said before, that is simple untenable.
As we have already debated at some length in Committee, we cannot have a situation where the Secretary of State has no power to act on his own initiative. There may be, for example, independent Audit Commission evidence that improved economy, efficiency and effectiveness might result from combining authorities. Moreover, there may be an urgent need to combine authorities which have failed to deliver on a vital issue of public safety, as I have said, such as the creation of the cross-regional control rooms.
In those circumstances, we simply cannot leave it to the authorities themselves to come along and volunteer a combination. To suggest that even then the
1020
Secretary of State should be unable to act in the interests of the public as a whole is to suggest that the Government should abandon their responsibilities for ensuring an effective emergency service and the best use of taxpayers' money. Members of Parliament would be up the wall about this if Ministers stood at this Box and in another place saying, "It's not our responsibility". They simply would not understand that.
Amendment No. 4 even requires the initiating authorities, the fire authorities, to agree any significant modifications to an existing scheme that the Secretary of State might suggest. As we have already argued, that could lead to an extraordinary situation—I give the same example as I recall giving in Committee—in which if Cheshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire were to propose to combine, they could veto a modification to restrict the combination to Shropshire and Staffordshire even though the people of Cheshire are due to vote in a referendum on whether they will have a north-west regional fire and rescue authority, because they are part of the north-west and the other two counties are not.
Amendment No. 16 seeks to prevent the Secretary of State varying or revoking an existing order combining fire and rescue authorities unless they themselves have agreed to it. Again, as with the other amendments in this group, that would prevent the Secretary of State taking a wider perspective in the interests of the public as a whole. It also ignores the extensive consultation required in the Bill, including Clause 4(5)(c), which provides for consultation by anyone other than fire and rescue authorities who the Secretary of State considers to have a potential interest. The Secretary of State needs to have the freedom to act on the basis of such a wide consultation.
The noble Baroness raised two other points. First, she asked whether it matters if combined authorities cross regional boundaries. Yes, it does. The civil resilience matters are organised on existing Government Office lines. I repeat—I know that this is irritating—that the present Government did not draw the current Government Office boundary lines. They were drawn by the previous Conservative government. I know it may be said that that was for different purposes. Certainly, it was for the administration of services, and we have not sought to change that, even though we have had debates about the boundaries in certain cases. Fire Control project and Firelink are also essentially to be organised on the Government Office lines.
As to the question about subparagraph (b) of the Government's amendment—is public safety included in effectiveness? —we believe that public safety would generally be included in effectiveness. However, we wish to draw out public safety separately, so as to ensure that, where different elements of the three "e"s have to be balanced, the primacy of public safety is absolutely clear.
The Government tabled Amendment No. 2 quite specifically in response to debates in both Houses—and sometimes probably the uncomfortable position

1021
Ministers have been in when trying to respond to those debates—because there seemed to be a thread of justification in the speeches. We looked at the issue, listened and tabled the government amendment, which I shall formally move at the appropriate time.
Baroness Hanham:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall first address the Government's amendment. It leaves out the words from the end of line 13, so that the subsection would state:
"A scheme under this section may be made only if"—
and then would go on—
"it appears to the Secretary of State that, in the interests of—… economy, efficiency and effectiveness, or…public safety there should be a single fire and rescue authority for the combined area".
That is almost exactly what is there at the moment except for the inclusion of the words "public safety". One need take out only a few words and one gets back to exactly the same position. So, while the noble Lord has made a valid effort to try and say that this meets all sorts of objectives and objections, I am afraid that I do not see how it does as the provision is termed at the moment.
The basis of the amendments is exactly as it was when we discussed the issue in Committee. We do not see that there should be an opportunity for a regionalised role in this. The trouble with legislation coming forth at the moment and the aspect of regionalisation in it is that the Government do not yet have any authority for regional assemblies. Legislation has been pouring out of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister over past months, always with this regionalised element, and predicated on there being a successful outcome to the regional assemblies referendum. It is all in anticipation.
There should be far greater local control, and regionalisation is a step too far. Although we support many other aspects of the Bill, we do not support this one. I therefore seek to test the opinion of the House.
3.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 156.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Denham, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elles, B.

Attlee, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Elton, L.

Biffen, L.

Feldman, L.

Blaker, L.

Flather, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fookes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Geddes, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Glentoran, L.

Craigavon, V.

Goschen, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Hanham, B.

1022

Hanningfield, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Higgins, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Plumb, L.

Howe, E.

Rawlings, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Renton, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Kalms, L.

Sharples, B.

Kimball, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Kingsland, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Luke, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinfen, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Thatcher, B.

L.

Trenchard, V.

Marlesford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Ullswater, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wakeham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Naseby, L.

Warnock, B.

Noakes, B.

Wilcox, B.

Northesk, E.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Addington, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ahmed, L.

Ezra, L.

Alli, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. Lord

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Chancellor)

Amos, B. (Lord President of the

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Council)

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Andrews, B.

Fearn, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Filkin, L.

Ashdown of Norton-sub

Fitt, L.

Hamdon, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Gale, B.

Bach, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Barker, B.

Giddens, L.

Beaumont of Whitley. L.

Golding, B.

Berkeley, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Goodhart, L.

Bhatia, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Billingham, B.

Goudie, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Borrie, L.

Hamwee, B.

Bragg, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Brookman, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Burlison, L.

Harrison, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Carter, L.

Haskel, L.

Carter of Coles, L.

Hayman, B.

Chorley, L.

Henig, B.

Christopher, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Crawley, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

David, B.

Jordan, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Kirkhill, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Lipsey, L.

Desai, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dholakia, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dixon, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Donoughue, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Drayson, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dubs, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

1023

Maddock, B.

Simon, V.

Marsh, L.

Slim, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Snape, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Morgan of Drefelin, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Strange, B.

Newby, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Northover, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ouseley, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Pendry, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Thornton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Triesman, L.

Prosser, B.

Truscott, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Turnberg, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Richard, L.

Wall of New Barnet, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Warner, L.

Rooker, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Roper, L.

Weatherill, L.

Rosser, L.

Whitaker, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Wilkins, B.

Sandberg, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Williams of Elvel. L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Wooler of leeds, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 13, leave out from "if" to end of line 18 and insert "it appears to the Secretary of State that, in the interests of—
(a) economy, efficiency and effectiveness, or
(b) public safety,
there should be a single fire and rescue authority for the combined area."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 not moved.]
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 28, after "question," insert—
"( ) all local authorities in the area affected,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 7 and 17. The amendments would require consultation of all local authorities in the affected area, if the Secretary of State was considering combining schemes or revoking or varying an existing scheme. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, confirmed the Government's commitment to the widest possible consultation. We do not question that commitment, but neither the noble Lord, nor the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, can commit future governments. As it stands, there is an obligation to consult existing authorities and other persons whom the Secretary of State considers appropriate. To pre-empt an argument to rebut mine, I accept that that action would have to be reasonable.
The Government say that it would be more flexible not to list consultees and have referred to 52 organisations listed as consultees in the annexe to the draft framework. They say that if an organisation, whether a local authority or a voluntary organisation, is relevant and important, it will have access to the consultation process. In a letter from the Minister following Committee, for which I thank him, they also say that other organisations have an equally strong claim to be listed and that to refer to local authorities would be a slippery slope.
I do not accept that. I suggest that local authorities are not in the same category as other organisations. The elected nature of their office makes them qualitatively different and the existing authorities have been constituted from among their membership. I do not doubt the assurances about maximum consultation, but I should like better to understand why there is no specific obligation or reference to local authorities—especially as, from what I understand the Government to be saying, they will consult local authorities anyway.
The letter that we have received from the Minister says that the Government are less convinced that local authorities are unique in carrying such a direct mandate. Perhaps the Minister can amplify that point of view. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I am not prepared to amplify that. Given the oratorical skills and forceful argument of the noble Baroness, I am prepared to say that I will take the matter away and ensure that local authorities are inserted in the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, what can I say, except that I should warn the Minister in future when I am going to be oratorical, so that he can have that answer prepared? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]

Comprehensive Spending Review
3.57 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport:My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 2004 spending review. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, in the Budget, I reported that, with inflation low, Britain is now enjoying the longest period of sustained economic growth on record. In this spending review, I can report that, with debt low, Britain can continue with historically high and rising investment in hospitals, schools and our public services, so combining the longest period of sustained economic growth for a generation with the longest sustained investment in public services for a generation.
"That investment is made possible because, since 1997, our monetary policy has met our inflation target—now 2 per cent—with stability achieved. Our fiscal policy has reduced the national debt from 44 per cent of national income to 34 per cent—our national debt today being the lowest of our main competitors. Our discipline has reduced debt interest payments, which consumed, in 1997, 3.6 per cent of national income, but now cost just 2 per cent, the lowest since 1915. Unemployment, which, in 1997, cost 1 per cent of national income, now costs a third of that, just 0.3 per cent—the lowest of our major European competitors. It is because unemployment and debt interest payments now consume just 2.3 per cent of national income—half the 4.6 per cent of national income of 1997—releasing £26 billion for investment, that we are today able to allocate substantial extra resources to our front-line public services.
"A decade ago, three-quarters of all new spending went to debt and social security costs and just a quarter of new spending could go to health, education, transport, defence, and law and order. In this spending round, three-quarters of all new spending is going to these vital front-line public services.
"So let me tell the House the detailed figures. Holding strictly each year to the discipline of the total spending envelope, and fully affordable as we meet and will continue to meet all our fiscal rules, departmental spending, which is £279.3 billion this year, will rise to £301.9 billion next year, to £321.4 billion in 2006–07 and £340.5 billion in 2007–08.
"So, while overall spending in 2006–08 grows by 2.8 per cent in real terms, low debt and low unemployment mean that departmental spending—spending on front-line services—will enjoy a real-terms rise, averaging over the three years of this spending review 4.2 per cent.
"By insisting on further reform we are able to do even more to get more money to the front line and raise public investment substantially in all our priority areas.
"It is to ensure that new resources yield the best results that we have introduced independent audit and inspection, strict three-year budgets, the devolution of funding direct to the front line and more flexibility and choice in delivery.
"Now, following the work that the Prime Minister and I instructed more than a year ago under Sir Peter Gershon—whom I thank—and after a rigorous review of procurement, back-office services and work practices, departments are today publishing their new plans to implement efficiency agreements with the Treasury.
"Alongside Sir Peter Gershon, I want to put on record my appreciation of the work of our Civil Service and its commitment to the ethic of public service. But it is precisely because the public sector has invested £6 billion in new technology, modernising our ability to provide back-office and transactional services, that I can announce, with the
1026
detailed plans that departments are publishing for the years to 2008, a gross reduction in Civil Service posts of 84,150 to release resources from administration to invest in the front line.
"With, in addition, the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales and the Northern Ireland Office also having announced that they are engaged in spending review efficiency and evaluation exercises as ambitious as those in England, with reductions also in back-office and related areas; and with the 2.5 per cent annual efficiency savings applied to the settlement for local government in England, this allows for, in addition to the 84,150 posts, a reduction of a further 20,000.
"Following further detailed work, the merged Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are announcing today that the gross reduction in their posts, which was provisionally set at 14,000, is now set at 16,000.
"Because of the scale of the overall reductions, I can tell the House that in each area of the country, public servants asked to change jobs will be offered support with retraining, and we are ready to work with the workforce and their unions to provide that help.
"Today I am also publishing department-by-department plans to relocate further Civil Service jobs out of the south-east: including 5,000 staff posts relocated from the Treasury's departments, 4,000 from the Department for Work and Pensions, 3,900 from defence and just under 1,000 each from the departments of health, education and industry. I can already announce the first sites for location, including 600 jobs from the Office for National Statistics moved to south Wales or Bristol, 250 posts from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to Yorkshire and just under 100 from the Department for International Development to East Kilbride. And I know that for the remainder of posts being relocated, towns and cities across the country will want to make their case.
"I can also announce that, for all departments making future job decisions, our policy will be a presumption in favour of location in the regions. And I can tell the House that, after departments make their announcements today, the number of posts relocated to the regions will be a total of 20,030 Civil Service jobs.
"I turn to further reforms in work practices. Eighty per cent of sickness absences in the Civil Service are self-certified, not subject to formal medical certification. And because the current arrangements for sickness leave across the Civil Service and public services are open to abuse, I am also today publishing plans which we propose to implement to curtail uncertified absences. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will report by the autumn on future management of public sector sickness absence and on measures to help those signed off for the long term back into attendance at work.
"I can now announce that by 2008 there will be a real-terms fall in administration costs in the Department for Work and Pensions by 9 per cent, the Department of Trade and Industry by 15 per cent and the Department of Health administration by 18 per cent; that Sir Peter Gershon has laid down plans that will deliver £6 billion in procurement savings by 2008; and that total annual efficiency savings that now exceed 2.5 per cent a year will boost effective front-line service delivery by a figure higher than the original Gershon plan of, by 2008, £20 billion. And I can announce that the savings available for front-line services now amount to £21.5 billion a year. And we have also accepted Sir Peter Gershon's recommendation that to go beyond this figure would put the delivery of front-line services at risk.
"As a result of this relocation and rationalisation, I can now make a further reform. I will also today set a new objective for the disposal of government assets for the period from now to 2010. I have asked Sir Michael Lyons to work with each department to rationalise its use of property and land and where necessary arrange sales and disposals. I can tell the House that the objective that I am setting is the overall total of £30 billion of assets sales.
"So it is because of the three major drivers of change, the three sources of new resources that I have highlighted—a cut in debt, a cut in unemployment and now a cut in administrative posts, which are the three drivers of change releasing substantial new money for front-line services—that we can now take the next steps in a decade of rising investment for Britain and fund our priorities, the country's priorities, first, to meet the security and defence needs of the nation; secondly, to equip our economy technologically and educationally to meet the global challenge ahead; and, thirdly, to renew our public services and the public realm in this generation. And in each of these services we have agreed, in return for investment, further reform to achieve better results and a better service to the public.
"Our first duty is the defence and protection of all citizens of our country. Since the tragic events of September 11, the needs of national security at home and action against terrorism abroad have rightly assumed a new importance.
"Recent events demand that we strengthen not just our national security and our capacity to prevent terrorist incidents but our national resilience, our capacity to respond. And to bridge the security gap identified by the Prime Minister and the Government after September 11, we have, with the Home Secretary leading, reviewed our security needs in depth, and, for the first time, our spending review brings together all security costs and sets out the responsibilities that our national security budget must discharge.
"Before September 11, spending on security at home was £950 million a year. Having agreed a set of reforms that modernise our border security, our
1028
counter-terrorism capabilities, our radio communication systems and our arrangements in respect of nuclear and chemical decontamination, and added 1,000 staff to our intelligence services, overall security spending will rise from £950 million in 2001 and £1.5 billion this year to reach, by 2007–08, £2.1 billion—a 10 per cent annual average real-terms rise.
"And I can also inform the House that in place of the old system of civil defence, we are establishing and funding a new framework of civil protection with a doubling of current provision for local authority emergency planning.
"In the last spending review, the Ministry of Defence and our Armed Forces, upon whom the defence of our country depends and to whom we owe, especially in this recent period, a debt of gratitude, were awarded the largest spending increase for 20 years. In this spending review I have matched that increase. Indeed, in this spending review the increase is higher.
"To enable the Ministry of Defence also to modernise for the long term, and to increase its efficiency and to make the changes that are now necessary to continue to adapt technologically and strategically to the threats posed by international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the rapidly changing global environment, I propose to increase the Defence Modernisation Fund, so that over the period to 2008 it will be worth £1 billion.
"The Secretary of State for Defence will set out the detailed allocations of the full budget for our Armed Forces, which will rise from £29.7 billion this year to £33.4 billion by 2007–08–£3.7 billion a year higher than now, which is an average annual real-terms increase of 1.4 per cent for defence. In addition, I will continue to meet the additional costs of military operations in full from the reserve, and, to meet the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, we have provided to date an additional £4.4 billion. To meet other pressures which may arise—aside from operations—in the future, we will provide the Ministry of Defence with guaranteed access to up to £300 million in 2007–08.
"Taken together, these rises provide for a faster rate of real-terms growth in this spending round than the last and ensure the longest sustained real-terms increase in defence spending for 20 years.
"Since September 11, international diplomacy has also assumed an even greater importance. Because of this, and the security risk faced by our Foreign Office and consular staff in overseas embassies, the Foreign Secretary's budget will rise from £1.5 billion this year to £1.6 billion by 2007–08—a 1.4 per cent annual average real terms rise. I can also announce that, despite all our other pressures, we will not cut the British Council's budget but will increase it from £173 million this year to £197 million by 2007—08. And the budget for the BBC World Service—whose 150 million a week

1029
audience is now its largest ever—will not be cut, but will be increased from £225 million this year to, by 2007—08, £252 million—£27 million more.
"2005 is the year where, as the Prime Minister has said, the needs of Africa will be the focus of the UK's G7 presidency as a presidency for development. As we play our part in addressing global injustices, our country's obligation is not to cut overseas aid but to increase it.
"In 1997, Africa received just £450 million of UK bilateral aid. By 2007–08, Africa will receive £1,250 million to fund health, education and anti-poverty programmes. To promote treatments and cures for HIV/AIDS across the developing world, we will allocate in each of the next three years £450 million, £500 million and £550 million—£1.5 billion in total—to tackle this scourge.
"So to meet all our international obligations, including recommendations from the Prime Minister's Africa Commission, the Secretary of State for International Development is announcing that we will increase his budget for aid from £3.8 billion this year to £5.3 billion by 2008—an average annual real-terms increase of 9.2 per cent.
"Total UK aid, which fell in real terms by 23 per cent in the 1980s and early 1990s will, by 2008, have risen since 1997 by 140 per cent in real terms to nearly £6.5 billion. For every £1 of UK aid spent in 1997, we will be spending £3 by 2008, along with debt relief, raising UK official development assistance from the 0.26 per cent of national income we inherited to 0.39 per cent next year, to 0.42 per cent in 2006–07 and to 0.47 per cent in 2007–08. We wish to maintain those rates of growth in the overseas aid ratio, which on this timetable would rise beyond 0.5 per cent after 2008 and reach 0.7 per cent by 2013. I can also state that if Britain's plan—the new finance facility—is agreed internationally, the objective of 0.7 per cent could be achieved earlier, by 2008–09.
"But, today, the humanitarian tragedy in Sudan
is deeper than at the time of Live Aid—which started in Sudan 20 years ago—and we must act now. The International Development Secretary is today announcing that he is setting aside now, to be made available immediately a peace agreement is signed, emergency and other relief to address Sudan's crisis—a total over the next three years of at least £150 million more. I thank the Churches, faith groups and non-governmental organisations for their representations to date to the Treasury—more than 15,000 representations on this spending review that we raise spending on aid and not cut it.
"Our determination to protect and defend the people of Britain is matched by our determination to equip Britain for the global economy. The future of the British economy depends on the future of British science. The 10-year framework for science and innovation that the Secretaries of State for Industry and for Education and I are publishing today is designed to make Britain the best and most attractive location for science and innovation in the world.
"After rigorous selection of priorities within the industry budget, after a reduction of 1,010 DTI headquarters posts and further reductions in its agencies, we are able to announce substantial new funding to support science teaching in our schools, to improve salaries and stipends for graduate scientists and engineers, and to support technology transfer and university-business link ups.
"Government funding for science will rise from £3.9 billion this year to £5 billion by 2008: £1 billion extra for science by 2008—a 5.8 per cent average annual real-terms rise representing a doubling of cash spending on science since 1997. As a result of our investment, the Wellcome Trust is today announcing a partnership with the UK Government to invest in UK research. It will match our commitment, investing over five years at least £1.5 billion.
"With these two new investments—an extra £2.5 billion being invested for British science—and now the largest sustained increase in science spending for a generation, our objective is to raise overall spending in Britain on private and public research and development from 1.9 per cent of national income—among the lowest of our competitors—to, by 2014, 2.5 per cent of GDP—among the best of our competitors; the best guarantee of a successful economic future for our country.
"I can tell the House that in preparing our spending review, I have consulted not just the scientific community but the CBI, business organisations, trade unions and regional organisations in every part of the UK, among which there is a remarkable agreement, a shared consensus and a determination that it is in the national interest not to cut science, transport, housing or infrastructure investment but to press ahead with sustained long-term investment.
"To finance the detailed reforms in the rail industry and our road programme, the transport budget will rise faster than originally set out in the 10-year transport plan; from £10.4 billion this year to £12.8 billion by 2007–08—an average real-terms increase of 4.5 per cent a year. Total cash spend by the department over the spending review will be £2.9 billion more than set out in the 10-year plan. By 2008, transport spending, even after inflation, will be 60 per cent higher than in 1997. Full details of the rail reforms and the long-term transport strategy will be announced in Statements by the Transport Secretary later this month.
"For decades our country has also seriously neglected investment in housing—in building and improvement. Forty years ago we built 400,000 homes a year. Since the early 1990s we have built only 200,000 a year. So I reject proposals that would freeze or cut investment in housing.
"Following consultation over the Barker report and the announcement of 200,000 extra homes for the south-east, the Deputy Prime Minister will tomorrow announce the next stage in increasing the

1031
supply and affordability of housing. For England, the housing budget will rise from £5.9 billion this year to, by 2007–08, £7.2 billion; a 4.1 per cent average annual real-terms rise. It means that since 1997 cash investment in housing has more than doubled.
"The Deputy Prime Minister will give details of a new £150 million fund to finance infrastructure around new housing developments, new money to speed up planning, and–urgently needed in our country—a 50 per cent increase in social housing by 2008 and a trebling of investment in renewal and renovation in low-demand areas in the north and the Midlands.
"Investment, not just in science, transport and housing, but in enterprise, skills and economic development, holds the key to modern manufacturing strength and balanced economic growth in every region. To meet new and additional commitments to improve small business services, to meet adult skills needs, to support inward investment and better business-university links, to promote enterprise in disadvantaged areas, including supporting the Northern Way, and further to devolve decision-making out of Whitehall, funding will rise from £1.8 billion this year to—by 2007–08—£2.25 billion a year shared between our nine regional development agencies.
"To meet our environmental improvement targets for 2010—a 20 per cent cut in carbon dioxide emissions, 10 per cent of electricity from renewable sources and a reduced reliance on landfill—the spending review will provide additional funding for low carbon technologies; more support through recycling landfill tax revenues for businesses that are energy efficient and minimise waste; and—with additional PFI credits worth £155 million a year by 2008—support for better waste management by local councils.
"To take forward the Haskins report on the rural economy, the budget of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will rise from £3.2 billion this year to £3.5 billion in 2007–08, an annual average real-terms rise of 1.2 per cent a year.
"To tackle one of the biggest problems of poverty—the problem many elderly people face heating their homes—we have extended the winter fuel allowance, now worth £300 for the over-70s, introduced the pension credit now paid to 3 million pensioners and improved the energy efficiency of 600,000 homes over the last three years.
"A further £140 million will now be set aside to enable pensioners and poor families to insulate and heat their homes. Our objective is that by 2010 we will eliminate fuel poverty among the elderly, and by 2016 to eliminate fuel poverty in its entirety.
"I turn to public services and new public service agreements which we are publishing today for the period to 2008. They set out the performance targets and reforms expected of our public services. Since 1998, we have offered every government department
1032
three-year budgets and three-year funding. Today the Deputy Prime Minister will answer a persistent complaint of local authorities. For the first time they, too, will have three-year budgets, allowing local authorities to plan ahead. Public service agreements will also offer high-performing local authorities greater freedom and flexibility.
"In the last four years of the last government, local authorities' grants were cut by 7 per cent. In the most recent four years of this Government, they have been raised by 23 per cent. Later the Deputy Prime Minister will set out the full details of the real terms rise in the annual grant to local authorities at an average of 2.7 per cent a year—substantially above the average settlements received by local authorities in all the last three decades.
"I can also announce the settlements for the devolved administrations and Northern Ireland.
"The last spending round awarded the Welsh Assembly an additional £492 million to ensure funding of Objective 1 and European Social Fund allocations for the economic regeneration of Wales. I can now announce that over and above the Barnett additions, Wales will receive even more for the coming three years, in total an additional £555 million. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive will publish full details of their funds. Overall for Wales—by 2007–08, an extra £2.5 billion. That will raise the Welsh budget from £11.1 billion to £13.6 billion, and with Objective 1 funding an annual average real-terms rise of over 4 per cent.
"And for Scotland, by 2007–08, there will be a total of £4.2 billion more, raising the Scottish budget from £21.3 billion to £25.5 billion, representing an annual average real-terms rise of 3.5 per cent.
"With additional funding for the EU Peace Programme, Northern Ireland will receive by 2007–08 an additional £1.2 billion a year, representing an annual average real-terms rise of 3 per cent.
"In the Budget in 2001 we made a decision to open national museums free to the public. Since then, museums that have abolished charges have seen their attendances rise by 70 per cent, from 7.7 million a year to 13.3 million. Today, after discussions led by the Chief Secretary, I can announce an extension of free access to include all university museums.
"And with increased funding for arts organisations, local creative arts partnerships and to revitalise regional museums, and with increased funds nationally and regionally for sports and sports facilities, the budget of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will rise from £1.4 billion this year to over £1.6 billion by 2007–08, a real-terms annual average rise of 2.3 per cent. Looking ahead, and to ensure a far better coordination of national sports effort and resources, Pat Carter will report on the proposal to involve both the private and public sectors in a new National Sports Foundation.
"Today, I am announcing funding for social services, especially to improve community care for the elderly. The social services budget will increase, by 2007–08, by just under £2 billion, from £10.6 billion this year to £12.5 billion by 2007–08, representing a real-terms average annual rise of 2.7 per cent a year.
"As a result of the spending review, the social services Secretary is also extending in every part of the country the provision of care alarm systems so that elderly and disabled people can stay in their own homes and yet have access to the support they need. An additional 160,000 of the very elderly will be able to install these care alarm systems. In total we expect that, by 2008, 1.5 million pensioners will benefit. And I can confirm that, as announced in the Budget, funds for the NHS will increase from £69 billion this year to £92 billion by 2007–08, representing an annual average real-terms rise of 7.1 per cent allocated to health that will go to and be spent through the National Health Service and by the National Health Service on patients treated free at the point of need and not to subsidise private medicine.
"For decades this country neglected investment not only in hospitals, on social services and in schools, but also investment in our criminal justice system; in policing, in tackling anti-social behaviour and on improving the quality of life in our neighbourhoods. So the final obligation of this spending review is to make investments today to create in our country safer, stronger communities today and tomorrow.
"Since 1997 there has been a 25 per cent reduction in crime, a 40 per cent reduction in domestic burglary and, for persistent young offenders, we have cut the average time from arrest to sentence from 142 to 66 days; and in contrast to a cut in police numbers of 1,100 under the last Conservative Home Secretary, there has been under this Government a rise of 11,000 policemen and women. Today this Government will not cut the budget for law and order, we will increase it substantially: first, to tackle crime; secondly, to prevent crime; and, thirdly, to reduce the fear of crime.
"There will be new resources to tackle crime to fund the Home Secretary's decisions to create a new National Offender Management Service, bringing together prison and probation, a reformed charging and sentencing system and a new Serious Organised Crime Agency.
"For those treated, drugs rehabilitation has succeeded in cutting reoffending by 50 per cent. So the Home and Health Secretaries will also increase the numbers in drug rehabilitation from just under 100,000 annually six years ago to 200,000 a year by 2008.
"Just as our society must make it clear that no crime is acceptable and no criminal act excused, so our society must also acknowledge that in past decades it has not done enough to tackle the sources of crime, in particular among young people. The
1034
Home Secretary and I are agreed that we must provide new resources and that all government departments play their part in an alliance with local, voluntary and community organisations to prevent crime.
"Tomorrow the Deputy Prime Minister will announce details of the Safer. Stronger Communities Fund to finance community-based solutions that, on the one hand, tackle anti-social behaviour and, on the other, build and develop the facilities and public spaces that are the bedrock of our local communities.
"It is right to expect responsibility from young people and every community knows that the answer to young people hanging around street corners is to provide other places for them to go. Later this year, starting from three-year allocations in this spending round, the Education Secretary will publish a Green Paper on the reform of services for young people in our country. Next week, the Home Secretary will announce plans to extend the support provided to troubled teenagers at risk of reoffending.
"The Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, is designed to improve the safety and quality of previously rundown neighbourhoods, to tackle the causes of crime and to address deep-seated inequalities in our country. Results now show that, following the agreed four-year programme of sustained investment, Neighbourhood Renewal Areas are seeing faster improvements in job creation and in educational attainment, and greater reductions in property crime than other parts of the country. So the Deputy Prime Minister will not abolish the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund but extend it, with a budget each year of £525 million until 2008.
"With the Home Secretary leading, our increased support for the work of community, charitable and voluntary organisations will, in this spending round, also be focused on building stronger and more stable local communities; on engaging most of all with the young, with money for initiatives to support volunteering and voluntary community organisations, and to encourage a national framework for mentoring; and considering the recommendations of the Russell Commission on youth volunteering and proposals for bursaries to stimulate gap year engagement by young people. A £30 million a year fund is being established by the Home Secretary to support the victims of crime, not least the crimes of domestic violence.
"But there is one further investment that the Home Secretary and I believe is essential for stronger and safer communities. There is a clear consensus among the people of this country that in order to modernise the way we tackle crime and the fear of crime, we need on our streets not only policemen and women, but also community support officers at the heart of each neighbourhood who can also patrol our streets, build links with local people and prevent anti-social behaviour.
"So just as reform in education means that we are strengthening the effectiveness of teachers by matching them with classroom assistants, and in the NHS the effectiveness of doctors by matching them with nurse practitioners—a country proud of our public servants, investing in our public services—so too the Home Secretary proposes that reform in the criminal justice system means strengthening the effectiveness of police by matching our record number of police achieved by the Home Secretary, now 138,000 in total, with a new group of community- based officers. Scotland and Northern Ireland will make their own announcements. Today, the Home Secretary is announcing that he will fund community support officers and neighbourhood wardens, numbers that will rise year on year to 2008.
"So to pay for these and his other responsibilities, the budget of the Home Secretary will rise from £12.7 billion this year to £14.9 billion by 2007–08, an increase of nearly £2.2 billion a year, an annual real-terms rise of 2.7 per cent. But with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate budget now flat, the rest of the Home Office budget will see an annual real-terms increase of 4 per cent. So next week the Home Secretary will announce the detail, with money now available to finance the number of police officers—now at a record level of 138,000—matched with finance available to increase neighbourhood policing, including by providing 20,000 community support officers by 2008.
"The Budget set out the education settlement. Today I can confirm the rise in UK spending on education from £63 billion this year to £77 billion to 2007–08. That has led to the five-year strategy announced last Thursday by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education.
"So over the whole 10-year period to 2008, in addition to policing, overall spending on education will have risen in real terms by an average of 5.2 per cent a year, transport by 5 per cent a year and health by 6.5 per cent a year—a decade of rising investment which is giving us more staff, teachers and teaching assistants, in our classrooms than ever before; more doctors and nurses in our hospitals than ever before; and more police and support officers in our communities than ever before.
"But because of low unemployment, low debt and lower administrative costs, we have been able at the same time to fund the best defence settlement for 20 years, and in this spending review a 4 per cent average annual real-terms rise in housing, a 5.8 per cent annual real-terms rise in science and a 10 per cent a year average real-terms rises in security spending—a Britain that can succeed because of stability, hard choices and rising investment.
"But there is one additional reform that has the potential to transform opportunity for every child and be a force for renewal in every community on which the Government want to make further progress today. While the 19th century was distinguished by the introduction of primary
1036
education for all, and the 20th century by the introduction of secondary education for all, so the early part of the 21st century should be marked by the introduction of pre-school provision for the under-fives and childcare available to all.
"Since 1997 we have introduced Sure Start for the under-fives, nursery education for three and four year-olds and 1 million new childcare places and are meeting our target, set by the Prime Minister, to cut child poverty. Today I can announce that having achieved nursery education for every three and four year-old—and having achieved this six months ahead of plans—we will pilot, in an innovative experiment in 500 areas of the country, the extension of nursery education to two year-olds. Because it is our basic belief that every child should have the opportunities today available only to some, we will extend the Bookstart scheme and at nine months, then at 18 months and then at age two, provide free books universally for every child. For almost 2 million children a year their first introduction to learning—an investment not just in every child but an investment in the future of our country. I can inform the House that this spending review will ensure that by 2008 we can create at least 120,000 more childcare places.
"The challenge I set today goes beyond this spending round, so we will publish in the Pre-Budget Report a plan for the years from now to 2015 to make a reality of our vision for choice for parents and high-quality provision for the under-fives. Today, as a first step, I can announce that in order to bring forward the building of new children's centres in our country I can now allocate from the capital modernisation fund an extra £100 million. So that from the 269 children's centres this year and the 1,700 proposed in the Budget, we can now move the number of children's centres we build and open between now and 2008 up to 2,500 children's centres as we advance further and faster towards our goal of a children's centre in every community and in every constituency in our country—investments made possible only because I have rejected the proposals of those who would cut spending on important services.
"More investment not less, now and into the next Parliament. Rebuilding our communities. There is such a thing as society. Our prudence is for a purpose. I commend this Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Noakes:My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the marathon Statement made by the Chancellor in another place. I also thank him for making available to me ahead of time a copy of most of the Statement, together with the supporting documents. I say "most of the Statement" because my copy excluded the electoral "giveaways" at the end of the Statement in relation to pre-school arrangements for children. However, that will not be the most important feature of our considerations today.

1037
The Minister put on a brave face when repeating the Statement—he is good at that. He will have to be even better at it because the truth which lies beneath the surface of the Chancellor's economic stewardship is now becoming clear. The economy is like an iceberg; only a small part of it is visible to most people. The Chancellor constantly tells us that the economy is doing fantastically well, and he rattles off statistics about spending increases, about lifting people out of poverty, about international comparisons. In those terms, the economy does indeed seem to be doing well.
But nine-tenths of an iceberg is below the surface and is very different. Perhaps I may tell the House of a few of the things that lie below the surface. In the past seven years Britain has slipped down the international competitiveness league table, from fourth place to fifteenth; our productivity growth rate has dropped by one-third; our savings ratio has halved; our growth rate has been the slowest in the Anglo-Saxon world; and we have the biggest trade deficit since the 17th century.
Below the surface, the Chancellor has been crafting his economic policies according to one truly dreadful guiding principle—the fatter the Government the better. He has continued to increase public sector employment while private sector employment has been falling. He has massively increased public spending but has failed to produce better public services.
The Chancellor orchestrates a plethora of initiatives, quangos and targets which, in turn, beget a massive bureaucracy. Civil servant numbers have increased; NHS managers are growing three times as fast as front-line staff; in education, 88,000 extra people were taken on last year, but less than one in six found their way to front line teaching.
The Chancellor's policies for business include hammering it with 15 new regulations a day. If business seems ungrateful for his fat Finance Bills, that is because they usually do as much fiscal harm as good.
The Chancellor appears to have had a Damascene conversion to the need to find public sector efficiency—and not before time. For example, in the NHS over the past three years we have witnessed an annual loss of efficiency of 6 per cent—and this is after the Office for National Statistics improved the output data last week, as the Prime Minister had asked it to do. We could argue all day about what that analysis does not capture, but I do not believe that even the Minister can argue that we have had quality improvement in the NHS of 6 per cent or more to counterbalance that.
The Chancellor's conversion to public sector efficiency is welcome, but there is a big problem. He wants to make the public sector more efficient so that he can extend public spending even more. He wants the state to be even fatter. He wants the percentage of GDP taken by the state to rise. We want it to fall. The Chancellor is spending our money—taxpayers' money—inefficiently. That is the admission that lies behind this Statement, and he wants to spend more. That too will be inefficient, because the Chancellor has
1038
not yet grasped the fact that better public services will not be delivered by ever fatter government. They will be delivered only with serious reform. Fat government is not the same as fit government. The tragedy is that the Chancellor does not know the difference.
I have some specific questions for the Minister. Will he update the House on the golden rule which had only the smallest of margins at 0.1 per cent at the time of the Budget? Last week there were revisions to the borrowing figures for the previous two years totalling £6.3 billion. Will the golden rule still be met over the current cycle? Secondly, the Government's track record on delivering efficiency savings is patchy at best. For example, in 2002, the Department for Work and Pensions said that it would cut 18,000 staff, but it has so far increased its staff by 3,500. What mechanisms are there to ensure that savings are actually made? The staff cuts seem to be significant, so the mechanisms are particularly important. I will not be impressed if the Minister answers that we have the new public services agreement, given the past experience of such agreements and when, for example, the Treasury fails to come up with a way of measuring its own 2.5 per cent efficiency target.
The Minister knows that many external commentators such as the OECD and the IFS, as well as those of us on these Benches, have been warning that the Chancellor's future path of spending will inevitably result in tax rises. There is nothing in this Statement to counter that analysis. Will the Minister assure the House that these spending plans will be delivered without the Chancellor raising taxes or national insurance over the whole period to 2007–08?
Lastly, the Statement contained not a single reference to prudence. Will the Minister confirm that the Chancellor and his former muse are no longer an item?
4.43 p.m.
Lord Newby:My Lords, any comprehensive spending review raises a number of key questions. The first is whether the total level of spending is right. Secondly, are the priorities right, and thirdly, are the projections credible? Will the Government be able to carry out their plans in practice?
We do not have any major objection to the projected level of spending over the planning period. After all, it is significantly lower as a proportion of GDP than during the majority of the Thatcher years. However, we see a major advantage in keeping spending at broadly the same level of GDP over the medium term. Our criticism of this Chancellor in relation to public spending is that he has gone from famine to feast. During the first Parliament, there was a 1.6 per cent average increase—approximately half the level of the growth in the economy. During this Parliament, there has been an average increase of 4 per cent in real terms, which is almost twice the level of growth. It is no wonder that a number of elements of indigestion are apparent in the public services.
Are the priorities right? We would have done some things differently. We believe that the Government could have made more progress in some of their

1039
objectives with which we agree by cutting something else. Although we obviously applaud the increase in police funding, we believe that it could be increased further in the medium term by scrapping the Home Secretary's £3 billion ID card scheme. We believe that the pace at which the improvement in Sure Start-style child centres is advancing could be increased if the Government scrapped their completely wasteful and ineffective baby bond scheme. Thirdly, we want to see a generous non-means-tested pension. We would scrap industrial and other subsidies to pay for it.
We would also put more impetus into the relocation of government departments leaving London. One of the failures of this Government's economic policy making is that the gap in growth and wealth between the north and south has increased during their tenure in office. The Government could do more about that. For example, how many members of Treasury staff as opposed to Treasury department staff will leave London as a result of the Government's plans? Also, will the Government institute a ban on any new quangos establishing themselves in the south? In recent months, several new bodies such as the pension protection agency, have announced that they will be located in southern England, when they could just as well have been located in the north.
Will the Government's plans work? We have a number of major reservations. It is clear that much less red tape and central control is required in education and health, but the Government's current policy is a complete muddle in those areas. They have abandoned some targets, but as far as education is concerned, they seem intent on bringing more power to the centre and reducing the role of the LEA, which seems a retrograde step.
The great increase in capital spending in health and education appears to be leading to significant capacity problems. On one hand there is now a shortage of contractors bidding for PFI work, and on the other, some contractors—of which Jarvis is the most notable exception—have clearly bitten off more than they can chew and may well find themselves going bust. Are the Government confident that they can meet their school and hospital building programmes?
Finally, the assumption of productivity growth of 2.5 per cent is impressive, but we are extremely cautious and worried about whether that can be met. Unfortunately, the Treasury apparently does not believe in it. When asked about how it would meet its 2 per cent target, an official replied that it did not apply to the Treasury,
"because it has not been possible to measure efficiency for the whole of the Treasury in these terms".
If the Treasury will not meet its target, why should other government departments, and why should other permanent secretaries and their staff take lessons from the Chancellor on efficiency savings that he is not even prepared to contemplate himself?
The challenge that the Government face is not only to set the right priorities, but to deliver them. On the basis of today's Statement, we remain unconvinced that they will do so.
4.48 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their responses to this spending review, especially since they have been scratching around at the margins rather than even attempting to attack the Chancellor's record or criticise the fundamental features of this spending review. The fact of the matter is—and this has not been challenged either by the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats—that this Chancellor has been outstandingly successful in the past seven years in economic growth and in social reform. When and if I hear criticisms of the fundamental achievements of this Government, I will know on what basis the parties opposite intend to lose the election—because that is clearly their objective from the responses that we have had this afternoon.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made several comments about the comparison between us and other major industrialised countries. I notice that she shifts her ground occasionally when it is not convenient to talk about other major industrialised countries—she suddenly compares our growth with the Anglo-Saxon world to ensure that our achievements do not resonate as they should. Nevertheless, it is a legitimate argument.
The only point that I make, having stood at the Dispatch Box and done this for the past seven years, is that I have been listening to all these prophets of doom. I have been listening to everybody who has said that the Chancellor was riding for a fall and that his estimates of economic growth and the prospects for improvements in our public services were grossly exaggerated. Every year I have waited for noble Lords opposite to say, "I did say this last year or the year before, and I am sorry, but I was wrong", because they always have been wrong. That has been the case as much, if not more, for the Liberal Democrats as it has been for the Conservative Party.
I am also sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, thought fit to revive the old canard of public sector productivity. Of course it is a challenge for all of us to ensure that public spending on the things which the people of this country want goes towards improving public services. That is undoubtedly the correct criterion by which to judge our spending plans. But unfortunately, that argument is muddied by the entirely false argument of public sector service productivity, which seeks to assess public service productivity in comparison with private sector productivity in a sphere where it is not possible to measure outputs in the same way.
Using the measurements which, alas, are still produced by the Office for National Statistics, a decrease in school class sizes of 100 per cent—educationalists and most people would agree that halving class sizes is thoroughly desirable—would decrease public sector productivity. That is the nature of the way in which it has been calculated. That is why we are profoundly dissatisfied with that sort of measure and have asked Sir Tony Atkinson to report, as he will do very shortly, on how to improve the

1041
answer to the legitimate question: is public spending resulting in an improvement in public services? Unfortunately, the queries which have been raised this afternoon do not go any way towards denting the Government's arguments.
I like the new phrase "fat government". I have always liked that sort of phrase. The Republicans in the United States have always talked about wanting small government and big people. This is not a comment on obesity, either in the United States or here, but the sad truth is that pursuing that ideal of small government regardless of the kind of services which people want and need in this country leads to what we had when we took office in 1997—decades of underinvestment in our public services, which has been the bane of our lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, says that we have gone from famine to feast in our public spending policies. Yes, it took at least two years for us to get ourselves up off our knees as a result of what 18 years of Conservative government did to our public services, but that is what we had to do and that is the way in which we had to do it. I am afraid that there is not any alternative to it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, had some specific questions which I shall try to answer. First, she asked whether it is our expectation that we will adhere to the golden rule. Yes—taking the most cautious assumptions, our view is that public sector net debt, if it rises at all over the next few years, will rise to a figure of approximately 36.5 per cent, compared with the golden rule figure of 40 per cent. That is within the golden rule. There are all sorts of arguments about definitions, but that is what we expect.
The noble Baroness asked about our track record on efficiency savings and whether we are putting into place mechanisms to ensure that the savings actually take place. We have entrusted Mr John Oughton with the responsibility of monitoring these improvements in our achievements and of our achievement of the public service agreement framework. In doing so, we have very considerably increased the flexibility of public service organisations to adhere to their targets without excessive targets being set by us. For example, we have reduced the number of targets from around 600 in the 1998 spending review to 110 now, with the result that there is only, on average, one target for every —5 billion of expenditure. I do not think that we can be accused of excessive centralisation in that respect.
The noble Baroness asked about our assumptions on tax rises. These are set out in the Budget and in the Pre-Budget Report rather than the spending review, but there is no assumption of tax rises in what is being proposed in the spending review.
Finally, the noble Baroness asked what happens to prudence. She may have been preparing to rise to her feet when I repeated what were almost the last words of the Statement:
"Our prudence is for a purpose".
It is indeed for a purpose, and this is the purpose becoming evident.
I was very interested in the priorities of the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If he goes before the electorate with different priorities which consist of, but do not include, scrapping ID cards, child tax credits and industrial support schemes, having greater relocation than is at present proposed and a ban on new quangos in London, I doubt whether he will hit the spot. I very much doubt whether such modest changes as his party wants will resonate with people who really are concerned, as we are, with a healthy, well educated nation with a growing and successful economy which is fair to all.
4.57 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain:My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister three questions. Before I do, I congratulate him on a 38-minute Statement, which was delivered at the rapid rate of a mile a minute. So it was a bit more than the marathon that my noble friend referred to, as that is only 26 miles.
We have had the real-terms average annual rises for every single activity in which the Government have their fingers. It is extraordinary to think that agriculture, the bedrock of our country, which is going through such troubled times, gets a real-terms average annual rise of the lowest of the lot at 1.2 per cent. This is at a time of great change, when the farming community, and the rural community in general, faces huge crises of one sort or another. To compare it with other figures, science gets 5 per cent, arts, sports and media get 2.3 per cent and health gets 7.1 per cent. That is all great, but I wonder about agriculture.
Secondly, it is rather facile of the Minister to say that he does not deal with the Budget, that it is a pre-Budget speech, that we must look at what the income will be and that we can spend, spend, spend during the spending review. When he says that there are no tax rises, how will he fund all this expenditure, and on what national growth rate is it predicated?
My third question is about the logistics of people on the Back Benches dealing with a Statement such as this. We have had 38 minutes of a Statement, giving a massive amount of figures. If we had been given a copy of it as the Minister rose to his feet, we would have been able to highlight the things we wanted to bring to his attention. It has been so difficult. I have scribbled on two sides of A4, and can hardly read my own figures. The Front Bench spokesmen were, quite rightly, given the Statement, but I think that in future the House authorities should consider the possibility of dealing with this very complex Statement by handing out a copy at the time it is made so that we can contribute.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, asked three questions, which I shall attempt to answer. First, she picked out agriculture from the figures that were given of real terms annual rises. It is not possible to separate agriculture from the other responsibilities of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but the noble Baroness is right in saying that for that department as a whole, the average annual

1043
growth rate in real expenditure—there is no cut involved here—is 1.2 per cent. How that is divided between the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is a matter for the Secretary of State, and she will no doubt make an appropriate announcement in due course.
The noble Baroness criticised me for relying on the Budget and the Pre-Budget Report for making statements about funding. That is the way that it is done, and the way that it has always been done, except that this Government now make estimates of revenue receipts and economic growth twice a year, instead of only once a year as used to be the case. We do not interpolate new estimates at the time of a spending review, and the noble Baroness will have to wait until the Pre-Budget Report before we make our next assessment of revenue receipts, capital receipts, and national growth rates. Under criticism from the Benches opposite over many years, including at the time of the last Pre-Budget Report, government estimates have been a good deal better than those not just of noble Lords opposite and of the opposition parties, but of the consensus of independent forecasters.
On the third point, I entirely sympathise, having done this in opposition for 14 years, about the desire of the noble Baroness for noble Lords to be given copies of the speech. If I tell her that I did not receive the final copy of the speech until after 3 o'clock, perhaps the sympathy will be shared.
Lord Roberts of Conwy:My Lords, if one is hesitant to welcome some aspects of this review, it is because one has a feeling that the Chancellor is counting his chickens before they have hatched. Of the £21.5 billion of target efficiency savings to be achieved over three years, how much is being spent before it is achieved? My impression is almost all of it. What about the £30 billion, if I heard correctly, of sales that are anticipated? Does all that go into public expenditure as well? What percentage of GDP will public expenditure have achieved by the end of this period?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord's hesitation in welcoming the spending review. After all, from the Benches on which he sits it would be most unusual to welcome a government of the opposite political persuasion, but I take it that his hesitation rather than his determination to oppose it is because he recognises that we have got it pretty right, and we have been getting it pretty right for rather a long time now. He has my sympathy, and he has my admiration for the way in which he is separating himself so delicately from the point of view of some of his colleagues.
None of the £21.5 billion that is to be saved from Gershon is to be spent in advance. The savings are over a period of three to four years. I know that the noble Lord has not yet had an opportunity to do so, but if he reads the White Paper he will see that, if anything, the expenditure is backloaded rather than frontloaded. In
1044
other words, in what some people may think to be an election year, there are fewer increases in public spending than will be possible in later years.
Our estimate is that by 2007–08 public spending as a proportion of GDP will be 42 per cent. Let those who wish it to be lower say what cuts they propose.
Lord King of Bridgwater:My Lords, does the Minister recall the late lain Macleod's rule of Budgets, that the first impressions are nearly always wrong? That certainly applies to expenditure reviews as well. This Statement has been made on a Monday, which might be considered unusual, except that it means that the Chancellor makes the Statement at 3.30 p.m. and not at 12.30 p.m. as it would be at another time in the week. Other Members may have noticed that this gives commentators the least possible time before their deadlines to spot the gaps. It is impossible to respond to a Statement of this length.
It might be helpful if in the future in the midst of the Chancellor's bombast, which we notice on such occasions, we were reminded of last year's speech on each occasion, and what actually happened; or that of two years ago, and what actually happened. The Chancellor is always moving on in the hope that people do not remember what he said before.
In that connection, I do not think that the Minister replied to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Noakes. Will he give an assurance that these substantial increases in expenditure do not involve any increase in either direct taxation or national insurance over the planned period?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:My Lords, as I said, I sympathise with those who are worried about the timing of these Statements. It has always been a difficulty for me. I am prone to a conspiratorial view of history, so I have a lot of sympathy with the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord King. I very much doubt that it has been as finely calculated as that.
The truth of the matter is that the spending review Statements are always difficult to interpret, not because there is anything concealed or deceitful in the way in which they are presented, but because they give the envelope of spending for each department. It is then up to each department to decide how to allocate the money that is available for their different purposes. Therefore, the announcements about, for example, a particular road scheme, or hospital, or university, will have to be made after the Chancellor's Statement, because he cannot include them all.
The consolation that I offer to the noble Lord is that there is less in the Statement that is a surprise than might otherwise be thought to be the case. The overall envelope for public spending—which is the new cant phrase—was set out in the Budget this year. Some of the major departments' expenditure, for example, on health, education and international development, was set down before this public spending Statement.
Although the Statement confirms and gives the reasons for our ability to continue to invest in our public services, it is very much dependent on the

1045
overall figures that were set out in the Budget earlier this year. I am sorry, what else did the noble Lord ask about?
Lord King of Bridgwater:My Lords, tax.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:Yes. My Lords, I gave an assurance that the assumptions behind this spending review were the same as the assumptions in the previous Budget: in other words, no change in taxation as a whole. The noble Lord is asking me to be specific about individual types of taxation. I do not think that it would be appropriate in the context of a spending review.
Lord Higgins:My Lords, the Statement said that the pension credit is now paid to 3 million pensioners. How many pensioners who are entitled to the credit are not being paid it, and what would it cost if they were? It is said that the staff of the Department for Work and Pensions are to be cut by 30,000. Why were they employed in the first place?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:My Lords, I do not know the answer to the first question. It does not arise from the spending review. Well, the amount that is being spent arises. However, there will be opportunities in debates on the policies of the Department for Work and Pensions for the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to raise that matter. If I had it before me, I would undoubtedly have been able to give it to him.
Having said that, I have forgotten the second question.
Lord Higgins:My Lords, there are 30,000 jobs to be cut from the Department for Work and Pensions. Why were those people employed in the first place?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey)My Lords, the Department for Work and Pensions, as the noble Lord knows better than most in this House, has had a programme of information technology projects which has not perhaps been of the happiest. Some of them have been over-budget and some of them have been delayed. During the period in which it has not been possible for them to be in operation, a great deal of clerical work has been necessary. I am glad to say that, after delays, many of those projects are now coming on-stream, and it will be possible for the work to be done other than in old-fashioned clerical ways.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon:My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord King, I agree that it would be very nice to have a little more time to read a Statement before it is made. Nevertheless, on a first reading I must say that the Statement does not look too bad to me. I congratulate the Government particularly on the progress that they intend to make towards attaining the 7 per cent target for overseas aid. That is very necessary indeed.
1046
I am particularly pleased about the £1,250 million that is to be allocated to Africa by 2007. Is that bilateral aid, or is a third of it going through the mincer of the European Union, so that the EU rather than the British Government will decide some of the priorities? There is a good deal of concern about the way in which the European Union handles overseas aid. I hope that the aid will be direct aid to Africa, and that we shall have every say in the priorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, from our sister party, for his congratulations on the Government's economic policy. Perhaps it might have come well from noble Lords who are still members of the Labour Party—but there we are.
The noble Lord is right in saying that the Chancellor has been outstanding in promoting overseas development aid. He has already increased it substantially, has now proposed to increase it to 2008, and—unusually for him—is prepared to say that if the same policies were pursued for another five years we would reach the United Nations target of 7 per cent of gross domestic product.
Lord McNally:My Lords, it is 0.7 per cent.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:Yes, my Lords, it is 0.7 per cent. Well, damned dots!
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right in saying that we are not in control of all our overseas budget and that some of it goes through the European Union. It is a matter of record that the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor have expressed concern about the way in which the European budget is spent. We are determined that as much as possible of our overseas aid budget should be spent in the areas of most need, in the very poorest countries and on the most urgent needs of water, health and primary education. To that extent, I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord says.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe:My Lords, I apologise for arriving in the Chamber late, after the Statement had commenced. I also apologise to the House for unwittingly leaving my mobile telephone on.
On behalf of Peers on the Labour Benches, I embrace the review with enthusiasm and with great acclamation for the efforts undertaken by the Chancellor. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, was also like myself late arriving in the Chamber for the Statement. It has been said that first impressions can often be wrong. I wonder, in that light, whether the Minister would be prepared to repeat the comments that he made earlier, that invariably the initial reaction of the Opposition to the Chancellor's pre-Budget Statements and on the comprehensive spending reviews has been wrong, as has the initial reaction from independent economic advisers, and the Chancellor has been proved right. Would the Minister care to repeat that so that everybody understands it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:My Lords, unfortunately I have civil servants who report to me and brief me, so I cannot do the kind of political activity that I would wish to be done and which I am sure could be done. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Brooke is right that I could not only assert but prove, if I had the resources to do so, that the Chancellor has, in every one of the Budgets that he has produced, been more accurate in his forecasts than either the opposition parties or independent forecasters. Someday I shall get to prove it.
Lord Marlesford:My Lords, the Minister knows that I have always been prepared to pay tribute to the Chancellor for the fundamental approach that he has taken to economic policy, particularly in the early years of the two governments over which he has presided. But I have always pointed out that that approach has been based on the sound economic Thatcherite policies to which he has stuck pretty well.
Does the Minister recognise that to propose increases in public spending of £61 billion, which is 5.5 per cent of the current GDP of £1.1 trillion, is a very big increase? The source of money for such an increase is very doubtful, because the Chancellor has already had the great savings from unemployment reduction, and the reduction in debt payments. It is unlikely that unemployment will go down further, and interest rates are going up rather than down. When the Chancellor says that the increase is based on savings on people—apart from the fact that the number of people involved in government has increased hugely under the stewardship of Mr Blair—does he recognise that it is
likely that the tide is coming in faster than he can bail out the pools on the beach?
My final question is quite simple. If it comes to a choice between cutting spending and increasing taxes, which is the Chancellor likely to do?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:My Lords, when I agreed with my noble friend Lord Brooke that the Chancellor had been a better forecaster than independent forecasters or the opposition Front Benches, I can make a modest exception for the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. At some risk of heresy, he has expressed support for much that the Chancellor has done over a period of seven years, and I pay tribute to his independence of mind in that regard. But now he is joining the doomsayers—and we shall see who is right.
Noble Lords should consider our track record and the arguments that the Chancellor deployed at the beginning of his speech, which I believe to be particularly significant, about what we have saved by our reduction in debt interest and payments for failure—in other words, for unemployment. When the noble Lord has an opportunity, which I know that he has not yet had, to read the White Paper in detail—which I also know, knowing him, that he will do—I hope that he will find that the figures are not only soundly based but extremely cautiously based. I would be glad to discuss those points with him. As was always the case, the assumptions made on public expenditure have been audited by the National Audit Office and, when appropriate, by the Audit Commission.
I take slight issue with the noble Lord when he says that all the savings that we are proposing are savings on people, exactly for the reason that I have just given—that it is the benign result of years of investment in public services. That increase in capital expenditure in public services has made it possible to have the three-year spending review that I have already commended to the House.

Fire and Rescue Services Bill
5.20 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 2.
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 42, at end insert—
"and shall only proceed with the proposed scheme, variation or revocation as the case may be if the inquiry concludes that the making of the scheme, variation or revocation is in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the fire and rescue service or services concerned."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with Amendments Nos. 8 and 18 we return to the issue of regionalisation and the powers of the Secretary of State. Amendments Nos. 8 and 18 ensure that the power of the Secretary of State to initiate a scheme for creating combined fire authorities or to revoke or vary such a scheme—in effect his power to intervene to pursue a regionalist agenda at the expense of what is best for the public—would be limited by the findings of an inquiry that would focus only on whether the plans would deliver greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness to the fire and rescue authority in question.
In Committee, the Minister mentioned that the Government had already given ground by agreeing to hold an inquiry as the norm, were the Secretary of State to decide to use his powers under subsection (3)(b). We welcomed that development. As the Minister pointed out, were an inquiry to conclude that economy, efficiency and effectiveness were not best served by a particular combination or by a proposed change to a combination, the Secretary of State would be obliged to have regard to its findings. We do not believe that that assurance goes far enough. Having regard to the findings of an inquiry is not the same as accepting the findings of an inquiry.
I stress again that the fire and rescue services and the public will need to be assured that the modernisation or bringing together of the service is not premised on regionalisation and centralisation but on delivering improvements and on the best possible service structure. They need to know that there is a process that protects the public interest. An inquiry that finds that the Secretary of State's plans would not promote the greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the fire services cannot be ignored. It would need to be taken into account and accepted. Only an inquiry can decide whether the Secretary of State's plans are genuinely in the public interest or whether they have no operational merit.
I hope that the Minister will be able to provide us with a stronger assurance that that will be the situation than he was able to give us in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I will probably never satisfy the noble Baroness on the issue of the Secretary of State's powers. There will be a division between us because, as she clearly indicated, the amendment seeks to limit the Secretary of State's scope for action. The inquiry is an important element and to have regard to it means that it cannot be ignored. I cannot put into the Bill words that are not there.
We do not wish to fetter the Secretary of State. As I have repeatedly said, the Secretary of State must act reasonably at all times. He cannot act on a whim or a hunch or out of prejudice. As a Minister, he has to act reasonably or we can be called to account. Therefore, these amendments are wholly unnecessary.
The Secretary of State can make a scheme only if he can satisfy himself—as I said, that is not a personal satisfaction—that economy, efficiency and effectiveness—or, following Amendment No. 2, public safety—are best served by a particular combination or by a change to one. In deciding whether there are grounds to make a combination, the Secretary of State would have to take the findings of the inquiry into account. He cannot ignore an inquiry. That is the reality. He must give the findings great weight. One does not have an inquiry unless one is going to take account of it. That is the situation in this case.
We do not believe that the Secretary of State's discretion should be fettered. This has been the theme throughout the Bill. There might be circumstances in which an inquiry concludes that a combination scheme, or the variation or revocation of an existing scheme, is justified on grounds of economy, efficiency and effectiveness but the Secretary of State, taking a wider view, has sound reasons, which he would have to explain, to disagree with the findings of the inquiry; for example, on the basis of the overriding needs of public safety. I cannot put forward examples to explain but because it is not possible for the Secretary of State to act irrationally and unreasonably he would have to give great weight to the report of an inquiry, which will be a matter of public record.
We need to have the possibility of the Secretary of State exercising his discretion. We would be failing in our responsibilities if we took that away from him. I know that that will not satisfy the noble Baroness but a need for the Secretary of State to have regard to an inquiry also means that he cannot ignore it.
Baroness Hanham:My Lords, I am tempted to say that under other legislation inspectors' reports become binding. We do not seem to be in the same position here. I thought that that was a unique situation. We hoped that we might move it into other legislation. That was what the Government were anticipating. This is all about the revocation of a scheme. It would be more appropriate if the Government had to do more than have regard to or take account of, as I think
1050
the Minister put it, such an inquiry. I hear what the Minister says and I do not intend to pursue this issue further today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Creation of combined fire and rescue authorities: supplementary]:
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert—
"( ) All members of a combined fire and rescue authority constituted under a scheme under section 2 shall be elected members of a constituent authority."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the powers of appointment to the newly formed combined fire authorities. We still have serious concerns about this part of the Bill allowing, as it does, for the Secretary of State to appoint a significant minority of members to each authority. While protesting that fire and rescue authorities remain a local service, the Government are not only grafting on a regional structure but are also taking powers to appoint members. We cannot support this step.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, attempted to explain that such a power for the Secretary of State was needed as a reserve power in case fire and rescue authorities did not nominate people of what the Secretary of State considered to be of sufficiently high calibre. This would apply, apparently, where capacity was needed to deliver modernisation, bringing in wider experience and knowledge that the authority apparently lacked. That was the explanation. This is as patronising as it is tenuous. It is demeaning to the professional authorities that support the fire authorities to say that they need members appointed by the Secretary of State to provide so-called outside expertise. It is beyond what already happens in London where, as I understand it, the whole authority consists of elected members appointed by the Greater London Authority and the boroughs.
This is not a reserve power; it will be used from day one of the newly formed authorities. The Government do not seem to be able to trust locally elected representatives to get on and run their local services. Amendment No. 9 would guarantee that all members appointed to a combined fire and rescue authority would be elected members of one of the constituent authorities, ensuring local representation and accountability.
In Committee, I explained our opposition to the Secretary of State having a role in appointing members to the new authorities. Amendment No. 10 therefore seeks to curtail the Secretary of State's involvement. Amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 14 are consequential amendments, drafted to deal with changes to the Bill that would be required if Amendment No. 10 is, as I anticipate, accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the Secretary of State's powers were not reserved. I make it absolutely clear that the powers would be used only in a last resort. My speaking notes do not say, "For 'last resort' read 'reserve'". The authority of the Secretary of State is involved. We have made it clear that we do not seek such powers lightly. We have given assurances that the Secretary of State's powers of

1051
appointment would be used only in a "last resort" scenario, where authorities have critically failed to deliver the services required of them. In effect, a reserved power is involved.
To limit appointments to those who are responsible for this failure—that is the implication—is, as we have previously said, contradictory and counter-productive. Appointment of non-elected members by the Secretary of State will be for no other purpose than to bring into the new authorities the necessary leadership and expertise that they have shown they lacked, whether this be managerial or financial or involves another role that is essential to service delivery.
Members will be appointed by the Secretary of State on the basis of their ability to bring these qualities to the new authority. Such appointments will be made sparingly, responsibly and for the limited purposes which we have described. The independence of appointees from the Government will be guaranteed by open process and in accordance with the Nolan principles.
I cannot spell out the position any more clearly than that. This approach does not involve the Secretary of State riding roughshod over local authority representatives on fire services authorities; they will have had every opportunity to have sorted out any problems before the powers are used. I hope that the noble Baroness accepts that the use of these powers will not be the norm; they will be used simply as a last resort.
Baroness Hanham:My Lords, the provisions do not say that. I know that the Minister tried to explain that the powers would be used only as a last resort but that is not what Clause 3(3)(a) states. That subsection states:
"In particular, a scheme … may make provision about … the composition of the combined authority (including provision for the appointment of members by the existing authorities or by the Secretary of State)".
The authorities are made up either of elected members, which is what we seek to ensure, or of appointed members. There is a real confusion in subsection (3)(c) about who will be on the authorities and what their status will be.
The Government have a great tendency, with regard to appointed members on all sorts of bodies, to try to steer what those appointed members should be doing. We must remember that behind all those authorities there is usually a competent Civil Service. Members of those authorities are there to guide and steer, usually in a political way, how the authority will work.
We cannot have a situation in which a scheme is put forward by combined authorities when there is, as I understand it, no track record of how they have operated. The supposition is that they—or their members are hopeless before they start. If a scheme were put forward on behalf of all elected members and the Secretary of State threw up his hands and said, "No, I cannot have Bloggs, Smith or Jones because they are not competent in the relevant area", that
1052
would cause tremendous confusion from the outset. I am afraid that I really am not satisfied by the Minister's response.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I should clarify the situation. There are a couple of points that I did not make earlier but I should have done. The amendment requires that all members appointed by their constituent authorities should be elected members of those authorities. In practice, that has always been the case, and it is set out that it should be in the orders establishing the combined authorities. Those orders will make it clear that the norm involves the elected members of the constituent authorities. We expect that to continue to be the case, but we believe that it is not a matter for primary legislation. As I said, these are last resort powers. The norm will be that the fire authorities will consist of elected members from the constituent authorities. That will be clear in the orders setting up the combined authorities. I am sorry if I did not make that clear earlier; it is my fault for turning over more than one page of my notes at a time.
Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, can the Minister give us an example of what might not be the norm?
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I refer to a combined authority—which could be set up in any case in the normal way—that failed for whatever reason. If it was a failure there would be a report from the Audit Commission, the inspectorate or some other body that made it patently clear that the authority was not working. It would have every opportunity to put itself right and if it failed to do so the Secretary of State would use the powers as a last resort.
Baroness Hanham:My Lords, Clause 3 is entitled,
"Creation of combined fire and rescue authorities: supplementary".
By definition, such an authority has therefore not operated in the past; it will be a new body. It cannot have a track record and the Secretary of State can have no experience of what the authority is like in order to make a judgment about appointed members. The situation may be as the Minister described it but the clause does not state that. I want to test the opinion of the House.
5.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 130.

Division

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ashdown of Norton-sub-

Blaker, L.

Hamdon, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Attlee, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Barker, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

1053

Clement-Jones, L.

Maddock, B.

Colwyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Marlesford, L.

Cuckney, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Denham, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Dholakia, L.

Morris of Bolton, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Moynihan, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Newby, L.

Falkland, V.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Noakes, B.

Fearn, L.

Northbrook, L.

Fookes, B.

Northesk, E.

Fowler, L.

Northover, B.

Freeman, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Geddes, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Glentoran, L.

Plumb, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Redesdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Rees, L.

Hamwee, B.

Renton, L.

Hanham. B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Roper, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Henley, L.

Seccombe, B, [Teller]

Higgins, L.

Sharp of Northstead, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Howe, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Howell of Guilford, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Inglewood, L.

Swinfen, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Jopling, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kingsland, L.

Trumpington, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Ullswater, V.

Lindsay, E.

Waddington, L.

Liverpool, E.

Walmsley, B.

Luke, L.

Walpole, L.

Lyell, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Wilcox, B.

L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McNally, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Christopher, L.

Ahmed, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Alli, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the

Colville of Culross, V.

Council)

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Andrews, B.

Crawley, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

David, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Bach, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Berkeley, L.

Desai, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dixon, L.

Bhatia, L.

Donoughue, L.

Billingham, B.

Drayson, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dubs, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Borrie, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Bragg, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Brennan, L.

Chancellor)

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brookman, L.

Filkin, L.

Burlison, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Gale, B.

Carter, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Carter of Coles, L.

Giddens, L.

1054

Gilbert, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Golding, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Paul, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Grantchester, L.

Prosser, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Radice, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Richard, L.

Harrison, L.

Rooker, L.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Rosser, L.

Hayman, B.

Sawyer, L.

Henig, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sheldon, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Simon, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Slim, V.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Snape, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Thornton, B.

Jones, L.

Triesman, L.

Jordan, L.

Truscott, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Turnberg, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lockwood, B.

Uddin, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Wall of New Barnet, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Warner, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Weatherill, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Whitaker, B.

Mar, C.

whitty, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Wilkins, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Moran, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Morgan, L.

Morgan of Drefelin, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.46 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) In its application to Wales, this section has effect with the omission of the words "or by the Secretary of State" in subsection (3)(a) and the omission of subsections (4) and (5)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is clearly evident that this amendment has a degree of cross-party support, at least from the opposition Benches. We can but hope that some of this understanding rubs off on to noble Lords opposite.
Amendment No. 12 seeks to remove the power for the National Assembly to appoint some of the members of combined fire authorities in Wales, leaving that power in the hands of the county and county borough councils. This issue was debated at some length in Committee. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Evans, replied that the Assembly should have such a power because it is being given to the Secretary of State in England. He went on to mention that the Assembly was under no obligation actually to

1055
use the power. However, the case for giving such powers to the Assembly fails to take into account the different legal framework in Wales.
Under Section 113 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 the Assembly has to have a scheme that sets out how it proposes,
"in the exercise of its functions, to sustain and promote local government in Wales".
Perhaps we should have a similar rule here.
My argument is that the creation of a new power for the Assembly to appoint members of combined fire authorities is inconsistent with the Assembly's local government scheme. Such a power weakens local government. It would potentially diminish local government's accountability and autonomy. Furthermore, I am not aware of any policy document from the Welsh Assembly that advocates or justifies the creation of a power for it to appoint fire authority members. This provision in the Bill has not been appropriately foreshadowed, which has denied Welsh local government and the Welsh fire authorities the chance to express views on the matter before the Bill was introduced. The need for this power in Wales should be tested and explained before the House agrees that it is required. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy:My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend and the points that he made with regard to the position in Wales referred to in Amendment No. 12 to Clause 3.
As I understand it, as the Bill stands the Assembly will have a similar right to the Secretary of State in England to nominate up to half the members of a combined fire and rescue authority. This will obviously be at the expense of local authority nominations. This invasive power has caused some concern among local authorities. As my noble friend pointed out, they say that it runs contrary to the obligation on the Assembly under Section 113 of the Government of Wales Act,
"in the exercise of its functions, to sustain and promote local government in Wales".
I admit that the local authority nominees have a special position under subsection (5), in that a precept must be approved by a majority of them. However, in a sense that only begs the question why should there be any Assembly nominees at all on the combined authority.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, refer to the circumstances in which the Secretary of State or, I assume, the Assembly make such appointments, and I still find myself somewhat confused on the precise circumstances in which either exercises their power. My noble friend Lady Hanham said that the power was likely to be exercised from day one.
It is suspected that there is a centralist tendency in the Assembly. We have seen that in relation to not only this Bill but others, such as the Higher Education Bill and the draft transport Bill to name but two. There is a reluctance to devolve beyond the devolved body itself—to other authorities, including local authorities.
1056
As my noble friend said, there is no mention of the proposed power being given to the Assembly in last year's White Paper, Our Fire and Rescue Service, or in any other policy document emanating from the Welsh Assembly Government. The proposal has come out of the blue, without consultation or anyone being given a chance to comment.
The Assembly has confirmed that it has no plans to make changes to the three existing authorities, but that is irrelevant to the issue before us. Why has the Assembly got to have the power to nominate? Is it to overcome local authority opposition to a new combined authority? The reasoning behind it should at least be explained, along with the encroachment on what is, after all, traditional local authority territory.
Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, I raised the matter in Committee, but I do not think that I need add anything to the debate.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I shall do my best to respond. I do not claim to be speaking for Wales, but I am certainly speaking for the Assembly. No one is arguing with the fact that the National Assembly for Wales has not sought to exclude the power, and we have not sought to impose it. The Bill has obviously been drafted in full consultation with the National Assembly, and we take the view that the Assembly should in the end judge whether the power should be used, not this House.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, regarding the White Paper. However, that White Paper does not go into sufficient detail on such issues. At the relevant point, it states that the remaining responsibilities should be devolved, which implies that the National Assembly for Wales would have the same powers as the UK Secretary of State in relation to England, not a selection from the menu. In other words, the responsibilities are devolved from Westminster.
The North Wales Fire Authority has raised a point regarding an alleged conflict with Section 113 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. It was suggested that what we proposed went against the sustaining and promotion of local government in Wales. That is a somewhat tenuous observation. Section 113 simply requires the Assembly to establish a partnership council. It nowhere suggests that local authorities alone must decide on everyone sitting on local government bodies. Indeed, the composition of the partnership council itself, including the balance between the National Assembly for Wales and the local authority members, is to be decided by the National Assembly. That is under Schedule 11 to the Act. The Opposition can pray in aid those issues, by all means, but they are not sufficient for us to accept that we should change the legislation.
We hope that the situation never happens. I make it clear that the powers are those of last resort. It would be highly unusual for the situation to happen, but the fire and rescue service is an emergency service—as much so in Wales as in England. When designing the legislation, we need to ensure that the power exists for

1057
any situation that we can foresee or contemplate. If there is complete failure and breakdown of a combined authority, there may well be a need to appoint to the new authority people with experience of failing organisations and a track record of ability to turn them round. That is not an unimportant point to make.
Should such appointments have to be made, safeguards for local democracy are built into the clause, including the appointees being in a minority and excluded from votes on precepting. We have given assurances—I repeat them—that we are not talking
about men and women being put in place on the body. The posts will be publicly advertised under the Nolan principles. If the power is ever used, its use will be transparent.
I say with due deference that we have not heard an argument in Committee or today that persuades us that there could never be a need for the power. However, as my noble friend Lord Evans said in Committee, it is a power, not an obligation. It is not the norm, so we do not expect things to start with it. Those with overall responsibility for the fire and rescue service—be they in England or Wales—should not be denied it as a last resort, a reserve power when there has been clear and transparent failure.
Although there is a difference between the parties, if there were a proposal by a Conservative government for a reorganisation, I genuinely believe that they would build in the kind of safeguards that would make us as an opposition say, "What's that for? Why do you need that power?". The answer would be, "We don't use it as the norm but, just in case there's a problem, we wouldn't have to come back to Parliament with primary legislation". The power is a last-resort, reserved power that we would not expect to be the norm.
Lord Hanningfield:My Lords, one can see from the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Hanham just now and from this one that there is considerable concern. Mine is very relevant to the appointment of fire authorities in Wales. The Minister seems to suggest that there could be masses of failing fire authorities. I do not think that the evidence is that many fire authorities, if any, have failed at all. Other issues have normally caused the problems of the fire service.
There is a process now. Fire authorities are appointed from local authorities—they are not the entire local authority. If the fire authority were failing, the best process would be for other members of that local authority to be appointed. That is certainly what would happen in the local authorities of which I know. If people on it were not thought good enough, other people would be put on it. They would be elected councillors. We seem to be getting the message that we want to get away from having elected councillors on fire authorities. I am concerned about that. They are local services, and there should be local authority members on them. It is important that we pick the best local authority members to be on the fire authority.
As the Minister will understand—he has obviously had correspondence on the subject, too—there is some feeling about the matter in Wales. People were not consulted about it, and the provision suddenly appeared in the legislation. In Wales, it is felt to be a very anti-local government move. I am concerned about it, as are several Members of this House. We might have to return to it on Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) If a scheme under section 2 provides for members of a combined authority to be appointed by the Secretary of State, it must also provide that the members to be so appointed are not employees of a fire and rescue authority."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 15 at the request of the Welsh fire authorities, which are seeking clarification. The effect of Section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972 is that someone cannot be an employee and a member of the same authority, but it is not clear whether that section applies to combined authorities. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether there are plans to include in orders provisions that a firefighter who is a councillor may not be appointed as a member of the fire authority that employs him.
The fire authorities feel that it would be adequate to have an assurance from the Dispatch Box that Ministers are not planning to use powers in a scheme under Clause 2 to appoint employees. We believe that that should appear in the Bill, but I shall be happy to hear the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield:My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There is a long-standing requirement in Section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972 that employees of local government should not be members of the same authority. We are all familiar with that, particularly in relation to teachers and so forth. However, it is not clear whether that section applies to combined fire authorities. It certainly applies to fire and civil defence authorities in metropolitan areas and London because they are joint authorities for the purpose of Section 80. Are there plans to amend combination orders to make it clear that a fire fighter who is a councillor may not be appointed as a member of the fire authority which employs him? It is an important issue which should be clarified.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, we have no plans to appoint fire and rescue authority employees to a combined fire authority, but we would not wish to impose artificial restrictions that would prevent it doing so in all circumstances. The amendment is restrictive because it would ensure that no employee of a fire and rescue authority could be appointed by the Secretary of State to be a member of a combined fire and rescue authority. The amendment does not

1059
distinguish between employees of the fire and rescue authority in question and those who are employed by another fire and rescue authority. It is therefore an absolute prohibition and for that reason I must resist it.
I realise that there are grave misgivings—putting it politely, but that is what it says here—about the basic proposition that the Secretary of State should have these powers. That has been the theme throughout more than one Bill I have dealt with, and we have also debated that matter. Whether or not we have convinced noble Lords opposite, the power to appoint could in some circumstances be vital to ensure that the authority can take crucial decisions essential to the
modernisation of the fire service— which is what the Bill is all about—they want to probe further what kind of people we might want to appoint if the situation arose.
We would not necessarily want to use the power to appoint to these authorities, which I have made clear. It sounds repetitious, but that is the case. Much will depend on the reasons for the combination scheme in the first place, but we are clear that we can envisage circumstances in which the constituent authorities have demonstrated that they lack the capacity to carry through change either because of insufficient expertise or a failure of leadership—not an unimportant point. The provisions allowing the Secretary of State to appoint a minority of members could then come into play.
References have been made to other legislation, some of which imposed political restrictions on fire and rescue authority employees which would prevent them becoming an elected member of their own authority. But that is not an argument for preventing an employee sitting on an authority in a non-political capacity. Many public bodies have executive directors; for example, it is proposed that the Northern Ireland fire chief automatically is a member of the Northern Ireland fire and rescue service board.
A prohibition on the officers of another authority being appointed could be quite restrictive; for example, we can envisage the circumstances where we might wish to appoint, say, a chief fire officer of a neighbouring authority to sit on a combined fire and rescue authority which we would be establishing. As I say, we have no plans to do so, but we can envisage circumstances in which that might be helpful to all concerned from the point of view of expertise, leadership and experience. It would therefore be negative absolutely to rule out such an opportunity, as proposed in the amendment.
We have said that appointments to fire and rescue authorities will be subject to an open appointment process. The order which establishes the authority will set out the process, including such matters as the public advertisement of the roles and an independent assessor. It follows therefore that we would not simply appoint an existing employee without open competition and advertisement. It is not as though the department and the Secretary of State can act on a whim, putting people on the authorities behind closed
1060
doors. It would not be like that. It will follow public advertisement with an independent assessment—but only in the kind of circumstances I have said we can envisage. It would not be the norm.
Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, in that situation, I suspect it would be difficult for anyone other than someone who fits the kind of specification spelled out by the Government to be appointed. These things tend to happen when someone has in mind a particular person and writes the person spec in order to achieve the right outcome, with all the processes gone through.
I am still not wholly clear that this situation should be so completely distinct from other fire authorities, but I do not intend to pursue the point today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Combined authorities under the Fire Services Act 1947]:
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Fire safety]:
Baroness Maddockmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 28, at end insert—
"(iii) the use of sprinklers, misters and other devices as effective means of preventing and restricting the spread of fires"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would ensure that the role of sprinklers in fire prevention is given the prominence that we and others believe it deserves when fire authorities are carrying out their responsibilities under the Act in promoting fire safety.
Like many others, particularly local government, we believe that the promotion of the use of sprinklers will support the new prevention powers provided in the Bill. Local authorities in particular remain concerned about the lack of promotion of sprinklers in schools and also in domestic properties. Perhaps we need to reflect on domestic properties in other legislation and in another place, but it is worth noting how strongly the House of Commons ODPM Select Committee recommended that building regulations be changed to encourage and ensure an increased use of sprinklers in domestic properties.
In Committee, we had a long debate on schools and I have not changed my mind. As the Government want to expand provision in schools—we heard their recent Statement on education—it is even more important when putting more money into new schools to ensure that they are protected by sprinklers. Every year in the United Kingdom 2,000 schools are damaged by fire, and 70 per cent of those are started deliberately. That costs hundreds of millions of pounds each year.
The common perception is that most fires which are deliberately started in schools occur outside school time at weekends and so on, but in fact a third of them take place when pupils are in school. I think it is true to say that, thus far, there have been no fatalities from school fires. However, if more are started during

1061
school time—I hope that that is not the case—obviously the provision of sprinklers will be important.
The cornerstone of the reform programme currently under way in the Bill is a move away from an overdependence on intervention once fires have started to an approach that is focused far more on preventing fires in the first place. I hope that the Minister will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. This is an important matter. It is possible that this is not the right way to insert such a provision into the Bill, but I think that we need to send a clear message that sprinklers are important in terms of the building programmes that we would all like to see in schools in future.
The White Paper talks of regularly reviewing the changing trends and new developments in building design. It mentions that the Government were going to look carefully at this issue and carry out research on the role of sprinklers in residential premises. It would be helpful if, in replying, the Minister could give an indication of where the Government are in relation to that matter. It is an important part of what we are doing today.
Perhaps if I tell the Minister that I was one of the people who voted for him recently, that will encourage him to give me a favourable reply. It is always nice to vote on the winning side. Perhaps I shall receive an encouraging reply, even if he is not prepared to accept the amendment in its present form. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield:My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 20, which is grouped with Amendment No. 19. I recognise the similarity between our amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and I support much of what she has just said. However, it may be worth reminding ourselves of the issues touched on by both amendments.
Both amendments seek to encourage the use of modern technology to reduce the number of fire deaths by promoting the use of sprinklers and other such devices. Here, we have a relatively simple technique that would be hugely effective in reducing the instances of fire and resulting deaths. It must be given all the serious attention that it can be afforded.
As I mentioned in Committee, the numbers of fires and fire deaths continue to fall year on year. That is a welcome development. However, one death is still one too many, as I am sure all noble Lords will agree.
Our amendment would encourage the promotion of sprinklers in new-build schools and care homes. Arguably, those two cases, more than others, need such protection. The annual cost of fire damage in schools is around £100 million—the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, mentioned that in some detail—with one in 15 schools suffering from a fire in any given year. Sprinklers would be a very simple, effective and relatively cost-efficient method of protecting school property.
Our amendment does not seek to impose sprinklers on a mandatory basis—far from it; it merely encourages a fire authority to promote their use whenever possible. The number of lives saved and the protection of property would be substantial.
Quite rightly, this is one area that has attracted considerable cross-party support. The Minister detailed some of the work that his department has undertaken on this issue, and I should also like to hear answers to some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. The Minister mentioned his desire to consider this matter in the context of his department's review of building regulations. That is a very important area to look at and I welcome that commitment.
However, I urge the Minister to go one step further by considering the inclusion of this or the Liberal Democrat amendment in the Bill. I remind him that we are seeking not to make such a provision mandatory but merely to give fire authorities the opportunity, upon request, to promote the use of such technologies. I cannot see how the Minister could possibly be opposed to such a development and I hope that he will be able to give us a good answer today.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I am certainly not opposed to the spirit of the amendment, and I agree with virtually every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said. I hope that I can give a positive response. I am not sure that it will go much further than what was said in Committee, but I think that the Committee response was fairly positive, particularly when afterwards I read some of the other documentation.
We accept that fire suppression systems should play a major role. There is no question about that. As the noble Baroness said, it is a question of fire prevention rather than fire-fighting. The fire service itself makes it clear that it wants to spend its time preventing fires in the first place. Therefore, we do not rule out fire suppression systems on the basis of cost without examining evidence. A risk assessment needs to be carried out on the specification and installation of appropriate suppression systems. These are highly technical and complex issues, and it is not as straightforward as simply fitting sprinklers, as might be thought to be the case. Of course, the technology is developing very fast; it is not standing still.
So far as concerns new buildings, we think that the matter is best dealt with through building regulations. Following the recent terrible fire at the Rosepark nursing home in Glasgow, the protection of vulnerable people in care homes has been at the forefront of all our minds, particularly those looking at this system.
The issue is raised again in Amendment No. 20. Recent research by the Building Research Establishment suggests that there may be a role for fire suppression systems in providing additional fire protection in care homes, whether for children, the elderly or disabled people. Residents in higher risk houses in multiple occupation and tall blocks of flats

1063
might also benefit. We shall examine this positively in more detail as part of our current review of Part B of the building regulations, which deals with fire safety in new and substantially altered buildings. Amendment No. 20 also refers to fire suppression systems in new schools. I was briefed on this matter by two officials this morning. I picked up one of the papers this morning and saw that at the weekend a school had been severely damaged. Therefore, such fires are common. There is a real problem here and we have every right to be concerned. It is no good simply to say, "We're not doing anything because three-quarters of the fires are started outside school hours". That is not good enough because there is still no school for the kids on the Monday, even if the fire occurred at the weekend and no one was injured. That is no argument. Obviously safety is important, and the lost course work and the disruption to the work of the school must be taken into account.
However, the figure for insured losses from school fires has fallen. I understand that it fell by about a quarter last year to an estimated £75 million. We take the matter very seriously. I do not believe that in most cases the possible insurance saving from the installation of a sprinkler system would be a sufficient reason for following that route. Fire risk is normally only one component of the total premium, and many schools are insured as one of a group of schools. In addition, a fire suppression system in one building will not make an appreciable difference to the overall risk or, indeed, to the premium. Therefore, fire suppression systems must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
A new fire safety guidance document for schools, Building Bulletin 100, is being prepared by the Department for Education and Skills at present in close co-operation with officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It will cover risk assessment and allow a variety of fire engineering solutions to meet the assessed risk. The guidance will be subject to public consultation later this year and it will be included in the review of Part B of the building regulations. Therefore, work is under way this year, and I have no doubt that the matter will be raised in both Houses at the appropriate time later in the year.
We are about to commission research to examine what design constraints are relevant to domestic fire suppression systems and to identify the potential for systems which are effective in a domestic setting but which can be produced and installed at lower cost. That will inform a cost-benefit analysis of systems at various levels.
We would argue that, whatever the level of research—this is not an unimportant point—it will remain vitally important to have effective smoke alarms. A fire suppression system is one thing but a smoke alarm is another. It gives those extra vital few minutes to increase the chance of escape. As I mentioned in Committee when I referred to my own experience of visiting the Fire Service College—on my own rather than the "state visit" with a group of
1064
Ministers—when I was able to don the equipment and the gear, it is the smoke that kills. That is why a smoke alarm is vital to give those extra few minutes.
We take this issue extremely seriously. The matter is actively being dealt with via building regulations. This is not pie in the sky and a promise for the future. The issue will be dealt with in building regulations, but it has to be dealt with on a risk basis in a technical way with a proper benefit analysis. Obviously, public safety is crucial in the buildings I mentioned where people are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and children, and those living in a care-type home who do have total control over their circumstances. It behoves us to ensure that there are the maximum safety measures.
Baroness Maddock:My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full reply. I hear what he says about the various areas that may be dealt with under other legislation in future. However, I have one question. Under Clause 6(2)(b)(i) as drafted, the fire services are requested to give advice on how to prevent fires and restrict their spread in buildings and other property. Will such guidance to local authorities include advice on sprinklers? I hear what the Minister says about the problems; that is, they are not the total answer; there is much technical detail; they must be used in the right way and one has to understand how they work. However, it seems to me that if fire officers are to carry out the role of fire prevention, they need to have the latest information that the Government have on sprinklers.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I am told that on Report I should not reply at this stage, but I shall as the noble Baroness was kind enough to say that she voted for me. The way I read the Bill, obviously firefighters are not giving just advice but their professional. considered advice. If the firefighters think that something should be done, or that something should be fitted, in all the circumstances that would be good advice to give. The way the Bill is drafted, nothing can be ruled out.
Baroness Maddock:My Lords, that is helpful and goes quite a long way—
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I should have said, "Yes".
Baroness MaddockMy Lords, that is even more helpful and goes some way to satisfying my concerns and those of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved]
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (promotion of well-being) shall apply to every fire and rescue authority which is not a local authority within the meaning of the section as if it were such a local authority."
The noble Baroness said:The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment refers to "the power of well-being", as the shorthand goes. It seeks to extend the specific power which local authorities have to combined authorities. The Minister said at the last stage that he had not received robust examples of where the powers in the Bill are insufficient. He was quite robust in saying that.
I have limited the amendment because I realised in Committee that it was incorrect to refer to all authorities, as those which are not combined authorities will have the power in any event. However, it is a power, not a function, and I suppose the short question is: what is the harm? I think that both the Minister and I would be cross with ourselves if our collective imaginations had not come up with convincing examples so that this power were not included but there was a real example where the absence of power was critical. I do not know whether that has been sufficiently oratorical to win the Minister round this time. I look forward to what he has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness on this occasion. Nothing has really changed since Grand Committee. As she knows, the power of well-being is available to all the principal local authorities in the country. As a result, county fire and rescue authorities have access to the power of well-being by virtue of being a department of the principal local authority for their area. However, combined fire and rescue authorities, the metropolitan fire and civil defence authorities, or the London Fire Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) do not share this multipurpose characteristic, nor are they directly elected. So, to that extent things have not changed since Grand Committee.
The Bill recognises and facilitates the modern role of the fire and rescue service. With the reform of the fire service, that is not an unimportant point. In our view, the duty to promote fire safety under Clause 6 will provide all fire and rescue authorities with powers to work with other agencies and local partners to help save lives and create safer communities. The provisions in Clauses 5, 11 and 12, when taken together, significantly extend the local flexibility and discretion for all fire and rescue authorities to help to discharge their functions and provide a service that responds to local priorities. So, in that sense, there is a change but it is obviously not a change that goes as far as the noble Baroness would require.
Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, the Minister said that the members of combined authorities are not directly elected. I do not know whether by that he means that they are not necessarily elected members of authorities—
Lord Rooker:My Lords, indirectly elected.
Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, I was going to say that we have been trying to rectify that. One is accustomed to looking at provisions and asking who benefits as a critical way of understanding why
1066
something is being put forward. I come back to my question, but this time it will be merely rhetorical as I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment in any event, and say that this is not an issue of asking for whose benefit—perhaps it is for the benefit of the wider community—but of asking what is the harm. I really do not see what is the harm. Although nothing has changed, I do not think that the point has been answered. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hanningfieldmoved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—

EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE
A fire and rescue authority must make provision for the purpose of—

delivering emergency medical care to persons seriously injured by fire or the effects of fire;

delivering emergency medical care to persons injured in road traffic accidents; and

providing other emergency medical care;

in situations where employees of the authority are first on the scene of an incident in relation to which the authority has functions under sections 7, 8 and 9.

The level of provision that must be made under subsection (1) above is that which it is reasonable to make having regard to—

the number of such incidents to which the authority is required to respond;

the typical period of time during which the authority's employees are at the scene before the arrival of specialist medical or paramedical personnel; and

the conclusions of the consultation referred to in subsection (3).

A fire and rescue authority must consult not less than once in every two years each National Health Service Ambulance Trust which has responsibility for responding to emergency incidents within its area about the level of provision it is appropriate for the authority to make in accordance with subsection (1)."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee we had a useful discussion about fire engines carrying defibrillators and firemen being trained to use them in first-responder and co-responder schemes and attempts to ensure that the fire service would be able to have emergency medical capabilities.
By tabling Amendment No. 22 again, I am seeking to bring some kind of closure to this aspect of the Bill as I think that last time we all agreed with the principle behind the amendment. However, we did not necessarily agree the vehicle for supporting this principle.
The Minister said that Clause 11(2)(a) provided clear legal authority to fire services personnel to undertake training and administer treatment. Can the Minister perhaps indicate how emergency medical cover can be flagged up in guidance regarding Clause 11 and how it can be made clear to fire and rescue authorities that carrying defibrillators for use on the general public is a perfectly reasonable thing to do?
The Minister also said that although he could not agree with emergency medical care becoming a core function of the fire and rescue services, he commended the fact that firefighters often provide at the scene lifesaving assistance by stabilising victims before the ambulance arrives. As I made clear last time, the gap that the amendment addresses was identified in the Bain report. Our debate last time also raised the important point about what public expectations are in this area. Having re-read in Hansard the Minister's reply to the amendment, I feel that he needs to go a little further in explaining the Government's position. It seems to be a continuation of the status quo.
However, according to the Deputy Prime Minister, the status quo is a "postcode lottery" when it comes to the emergency provision of medical care, which he claimed was unacceptable. Thus, there seems to be a gap between that sentiment and the Minister's view, which essentially keeps things as they are, so that it is left to the fire and rescue authorities to decide what they will do, if anything, by way of emergency medical care. I would appreciate it if the Minister could reconcile those two views and clearly state the Government's position. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I think that the short answer based on the note I have—I shall give a considered reply—is that we want it to happen, but that we do not think it should be a statutory duty. The amendment would create a new duty on all fire and rescue authorities to make provision to deliver emergency medical assistance where the fire and rescue service personnel are first on the scene of an incident in relation to which they have functions under the various parts of the Bill.
In determining the level of provision, each fire and rescue authority would have to take account of what was reasonable, including the likely number of incidents attended and the period of time before the arrival of specialist medical staff. Each fire and rescue authority would also be required to consult the NHS ambulance trust operating in its area at least once every two years.
We debated at some length the same amendment in Grand Committee. I fully accept that it is right to bring it back, but I will only repeat the arguments. We recognise the underlying aim of the amendment. We would like it to happen, but it should not be a statutory duty. The Government's view is that to extend the duties in this statutory way as proposed would be unhelpful.
It goes without saying that the aim of the emergency service response is to reduce deaths and the severity of injuries. Adopting new ways of working and co-operating more with other emergency services can greatly improve the service provided to the public. That is why we have made it clear in the draft Fire and Rescue National Framework that fire and rescue authorities should explore the benefits of working with others, including, for example, by implementing co-responder schemes.
Under Clause 11, we are giving fire and rescue authorities the power to equip for and respond to a range of scenarios, and co-responder initiatives could form a part of that response. However, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to make it a statutory duty. It comes down to the fact that in this House, from the point of view of being at the centre, we have to trust people at the locality running the schemes to make their best judgment. They will depend on many factors, and they will have responsibility for delivering the schemes. We think they should determine this issue.
Clause 11 will remove any doubt about the power of fire and rescue authorities to instruct staff to implement such powers. We have made it clear that the final decision should be made locally.
Lord Hanningfield:My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I particularly asked not necessarily for the provision to be on the face of the Bill, but for guidance regarding Clause 11 to be stronger, because it could obviously save lives. Will the Minister comment on the guidance on Clause 11?
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I shall do so when I come to it. I am trying to give a full response. I shall give a response to the noble Lord's point. This is an important part of the Bill and I want to place a couple more paragraphs on the record for people following our proceedings.
For their own health and safety, firefighters have emergency first aid expertise which encompasses life saving skills. These are skills that firefighters already provide, where appropriate, to injured members of the public at the scene of an incident before the ambulance service arrives.
However, responsibility for ensuring reasonable provision of emergency first aid and pre-hospital care rests with the Secretary of State for Health through the ambulance service. We do not want two emergency services prepared and trained to deliver medical assistance.
I turn to the noble Lord's point. The national framework encourages fire and rescue authorities to work with other services. We will highlight the scope of Clause 11 to authorities when offering guidance on the provisions of the Bill. So it will be clearly there in the guidance and in the Act if the Bill gets enacted, which I suspect it probably will.
Baroness Hanham:My Lords, before the Minister sits down, where the fire and rescue service arrives first on the scene of a really serious accident and someone is in the process of having or has had a heart attack, are the members of the fire and rescue service who are able to do so entitled to take action to help that person? Every shop, business and office has people trained to a very high degree in first aid and including the use of defibrillators. I am not aware that they are restricted to dealing only with their staff. Are those who are already appropriately trained in the fire and rescue service able

1069
to deal with an emergency when they arrive at an accident without necessarily having to wait for the paramedics or the ambulance to arrive, thereby saving people's lives by using their skills? Are they able to do that?
Lord Rooker:My Lords, one cannot describe the circumstances because the implication is that there is no fire—this is a road traffic accident. A fire could be raging. The fire service arrives to put the fire out and save lives and buildings. Let us be clear that saving lives is more important than saving buildings. But if they can give first-aid treatment in advance of the paramedics arriving they are able to do so. They are not banned from doing so. Sometimes they carry equipment in their appliances which would assist them.
That is not always necessarily the case. But there is no ban on people helping other people. Firefighters going to fight a fire may find people who they are able to assist before the paramedics arrive. There is no ban on them helping in that way. The amendment seems to make it a statutory duty to carry the equipment and have the training. It is best left to the local fire authorities in conjunction with partnership arrangements and co-responder schemes to make those kinds of arrangements in a formal way, but there is nothing to stop them assisting people in the circumstances the noble Baroness explained.
Baroness Hanham:My Lords, I know I should not keep standing up at this stage, but this is an important aspect. Equally, therefore, there would not be any restriction on a fire and rescue service saying it would be normal practice, for example, to carry a defibrillator in every appliance, so that if necessary it could be used and that at least one member of every crew should be able to deal with first aid in an emergency.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, my understanding is that that is entirely within the remit of a fire and rescue service. It is not on the face of the Bill, but that is a matter that the services can decide. They are not banned from doing so by the Bill.
Lord Hanningfield:My Lords, we have had an interesting exchange between my noble friend Lady Hanham and the Minister. The noble Lord rather disturbed me. He indicated that most of the activity of the fire and rescue service concerns fires. It is not. Fires are a fairly small part of their work these days. As my noble friend said, they get to accident scenes first most of the time. Therefore, there is a potential life-saving element to all this. That is why we are keen to explore it. We have to accept what the Minister has said today. He has said that the Government will issue good guidance for Clause 11. I hope the Government will stick to that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Emergencies]:
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 39, at end insert—
"( ) An order under the section conferring a function additional to its function under sections 7 and 8 for which a fire and rescue authority must make provision, shall also provide for the payment to that authority by the Secretary of State of sums calculated to meet the capital and recurring costs of such function."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 provides that the Secretary of State should pay for the cost of conferring specialist responsibilities on fire and rescue authorities. When we discussed the matter in Grand Committee the Minister gave a response which was reassuring but did not address the principle of the amendment. If I explain what I mean by that, I hope the House will understand why we have returned to the subject.
The Minister reassured us by making it clear that in terms of the new dimensional work carried out in the operational environment of the fire and rescue services, the Government will fund these arrangements. The figures he gave us were £188 million over a three-year period. However, that should not disguise the fact that the Minister's reply was not satisfactory for two reasons. First, he did not address the crux of the matter, which was summed up neatly by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with the question: while the Government may think the amendment is unnecessary in 2004, what about in 2014? We are talking about large amounts of money. There should be something in the Bill that effectively closes the loophole that would allow a government to pass off costs that are properly their responsibility on to fire and rescue authorities.
The second reason for our return to the issue is that the Minister commented that the new Bill, which, as we all know, replaces an Act now nearly 60 years old, will have a better chance of standing the test of time if it is not loaded with unnecessary detail. We have been plugging away to get a little more detail into the Bill; it would be helpful. The Minister's comment is disingenuous. The new legislation will stand the test of time if it is credible and workable; it will be so only if we can be absolutely clear who pays for what.
We must avoid the kind of clashes that we saw between central and local government over, for example, council tax rises. If the Government admit that the kind of functions conferred in Clause 9 should be paid for by central government, why risk inviting problems of uncertainty further down the line by not addressing that in the Bill? The amendment not only makes this part of the legislation fairer but also will help to head off potential arguments about financing these services in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I wish to clarify that if a new burden is placed on a fire and rescue authority, it will be dealt with under the new burden rules, which we follow meticulously in financial arrangements. In response to the points that the noble Baroness raised about the extra money in the New Dimension programme, we recognise the need to provide ongoing

1071
funding for resilience purposes and will be doing that in consultation with the Chief Fire Officers' Association and the Local Government Association, so long as the need exists.
There is also the implication of what she said about the ongoing costs of dealing with such incidents. We believe that we have in place arrangements for funding New Dimension incidents. The Government will provide funding annually from 2005–06 to meet the crewing needs of this investment. The level of funding and the means of its allocation is the subject of ongoing continuing discussions at present between authorities, the Local Government Association and central government. We do not think that the Bill needs to make separate provision for that.
The draft order places a duty on fire and rescue authorities to plan and equip for emergencies, such as flooding and chemical spills. Much of fire and rescue services' time is already spent dealing with such non-fire emergencies, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has just said; they are known as special service incidents. They have acquired a range of equipment and expertise in these matters. It is worth putting on record that in 2002–03 the total number of special service incidents, excluding road traffic incidents, accounted for 12.7 per cent of all operational incidents attended by fire and rescue authorities in England. We are simply creating a clear framework in the Bill to enable the fire and rescue authorities to plan and respond to some of these incidents. The costs of dealing with such incidents are met from existing fire and rescue authority funding streams.
If, as a result of a Clause 9 order, a new burden is placed on a fire and rescue authority, it will be dealt with under the new burden rules. At the moment, the only new challenge in the draft order is responding to the increased terrorist threat. We recognise that and have funded accordingly, providing £188 million over three years, which includes training. We are also discussing with the Chief Fire Officers' Association and the Local Government Association the revenue implications of responding to New Dimension incidents. It does not matter where the work is carried out, whether it is in its own area or another fire and rescue authority area, the equipment, training and additional funding to cover resource costs will still have been provided by the Secretary of State. So we do not think that there is any need to make provision for an additional payment.
I remind noble Lords that the early draft of the order, of which they have a copy, is not yet available to the public. We expect to launch a full public consultation on it later this year. In many ways, the key issue is ensuring that we are not trying to get something on the cheap. If there is a new burden, it will have to be dealt with under the rules, which are set out clearly. Local authorities are not slow to point out the new burdens. We operate it meticulously. In any event, in my experience in Whitehall and from the papers that I see, Ministers' attention is drawn to the fact that this is a new burden and therefore will have to be paid for.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply; it more or less answers the situation. The only trouble is that Ministers have a great habit of pruning their budgets—where they see a new burden that might have been paid for a couple of years before, they suddenly decide that it can be taken out of the budget. We are talking about serious areas associated with the fire and rescue services, such as potential terrorist threats and others, as the Minister said. I accept now that the Government would ensure that the appropriate fire authority—that is what it would be; it would not necessarily be all of them—would be reimbursed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Power to respond to other eventualities]:
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 24:
Page 7, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) The power conferred by subsection (1)(b) may be exercised outside as well as within the authority's area in respect of events or situations relating to functions conferred on the authority by the Secretary of State under section 9 with a requirement that such functions be discharged outside the authority's area."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee, I did not feel that the Government got to grips with why we thought that the amendment was necessary. The proposed subsection would restrict the power under Clause 11 to functions conferred on the authority under Clause 9 and in respect of which the Secretary of State has given the authority an obligation to operate outside his area. We are talking about limiting the power on an authority to act outside its own area on discretionary matters.
The Minister said in Committee that an unintended consequence of the amendment would be to reduce local flexibility and the power to equip for any eventuality. We do not see why that is the case. The Minister gave the example of a co-responder scheme that addressed risks posed to the community. But this misses the point precisely because presumably this would happen within the authority's area. The point is rather that fire and rescue authorities are also empowered by Clause 11(4) to respond to eventualities, broadly defined, in other authorities' areas.
We want to avoid a situation arising where two neighbouring authorities, which might have very different priorities in their discretionary services, can interpret this part of the legislation as giving them a free pass to set up various discretionary services in a neighbouring authority's area because they have identified this as necessary in their integrated risk plans. Can the Minister say whether there is anything to stop one authority taking action that it considers appropriate in the area of another? I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, the Q& A section at the end of my brief contains an interesting point about mutual assistance schemes. I do not think that the noble

1073
Baroness was talking about mutual assistance schemes; she was almost talking about private enterprise schemes.
Baroness Hanham:Predatory takeover, my Lords.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, predatory action. The amendment is identical to that moved in Committee. We have read Hansard; there is clearly concern that there was cross-purpose in the discussion, for which I take full responsibility. Clearly, the noble Baroness's chief concern remains the ability of a fire and rescue authority to act outside its area under Clause 11.
Amendment No. 24 goes much wider and would prevent the fire and rescue authority preparing to respond to the risks and needs of its community as identified, for example, in its integrated risk management plan, because Amendment No. 24 explicitly links Clause 11(1)(b) to the exercise of functions placed on the authority by the order under Clause 9. That approach is unnecessary. An order made under Clause 9 provides a fire and rescue authority with the powers necessary to make provision to discharge the functions placed on it. That includes the power for the fire and rescue authority to act outside its area, so there is no obvious benefit to the operation of Clause 9 by the approach placed on the amendment.
The effect of Clause 11 would be diminished if the amendment were agreed. The purpose of Clause 11(1)(b) is to ensure that the fire and rescue authority can plan and prepare to respond to an event or situation. It is not a power to respond to the event or situation which is found in Clause 11(1)(a). But this power anticipates the need to meet future risks. It is crucial if the fire and rescue authorities are to be empowered to meet local need and to create safer communities. Amendment No. 24 would remove that flexibility and discretion.
In Committee, as today, the noble Baroness questioned the unrestrained ability of fire and rescue authorities to move into a neighbouring area and effectively set up business; that is, predatory, as the noble Baroness has just said. We do not share the noble Baroness's concerns about empire building which has—I have got to read this out—more than a touch of the regionalisation by stealth theory that remains ever popular on the Benches opposite.
This is not a surreptitious takeover. It is not another avenue for the Secretary of State to regionalise the whole country. There is no secret sub-plot for fire appliances to be sent out carrying ballot papers or new Bills for elected authorities. We have no plans for that. It is not regionalisation by stealth.
The Bill defines the statutory fire and rescue authority for an area and on whom rests the obligation to provide core functions. There is no argument about that from a legal point of view. There is nothing in Clause 11 that would override either this definition or the statutory responsibilities.
Clause 11 provides a fire and rescue authority—perhaps one specialising in rope rescue or another specialist activity—the authority to provide that service within another fire and rescue authority's area. I apologise, I cannot read this for laughing.
In view of the assurances that I have given about its operation, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness HanhamMy Lords, I hope that the Minister will give his notes to Hansard and that we can all enjoy the joke when we read it tomorrow. I shall be most inspired to know what is causing such hilarity. It is a long time since I have had the giggles. They are always started by one person, but they become infectious.
While we are all struggling with that, I do not think that I can do anything other than thank the Minister for his detailed reply—or his nearly-detailed reply. I am satisfied that the fire and rescue authorities will not be able to act in a predatory manner. I hope that by the time we reach Amendment No. 25, the Minister will have found another joke that we can also share. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—

FIRE, DEATH AND ARSON TARGETS AND REPORTING ON PERFORMANCE
The Secretary of State shall set a target for—

the reduction in the number of accidental fire deaths in the home; and

the reduction in the number of deliberate fires.

The targets referred to in subsection (1) shall be published annually by the Secretary of State for a period of five years forward.

The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament at least once in every session a report specifying—

the targets under subsection (1)(a) and (1)(b);

any changes to those targets since the previous report and the reasons for those changes;

measures taken or being taken to achieve the targets set out in subsection (1)(a) and (1)(b); and

the Secretary of State's assessment of progress towards achieving those targets."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we return to this amendment which, again, we moved in Committee. I was left with some unanswered questions that I shall try to condense into two areas. First, can the Minister say why the Government have reduced their targets for accidental deaths in the home? What is the timescale for achieving them? I understand that the original target set last summer was for a reduction of 20 per cent by 2004. That has now been extended to 2010.
We understand that it is necessary to have reasonable time to measure progress. But pushing the timeframe back to 2010 completely undermines the purpose of having a target. Why was that not taken into consideration when the targets were originally set?

1075
I should also like to know who was consulted on the change of targets. Were they approved or agreed by anyone other than the Government?
Secondly, I do not see that the requirement to set targets far ahead—our second point in the amendment— should be a difficult obstacle. The amendment is deliberately inflexible—I repeat, inflexible. It focuses minds on addressing the various issues within a given timeframe—unlike the previous government targets—and it need not preclude innovation in new developments. It would, however, be the bottom line and thus highlight the Government's commitment to the modernisation programme for the fire and rescue services, which underpins the Bill.
The amendment requires that as part of the framework arrangements, the Secretary of State sets out annually, on a five-year forward basis, targets for a reduction in the number of accidental fire deaths in the home and incidents of arson. It requires him to report to Parliament annually on progress in achieving those targets, which is not a terribly onerous burden. Surely the Government will not object to putting that at the centre of the framework structure, with clear targets that are updated regularly. That would thus enable them to measure the progress of the reforms more speedily than they are proposing. Normally, I do not want to major on targets, but if the Government are going to have targets, they must live up to the obligations that they set. I beg to move.
Lord Monson:My Lords, I was not present in Grand Committee when these targets were discussed. At the risk of adding to the mirth on the Front Bench, I confess that I am always uneasy when statutory targets of this nature are proposed, as distinct from informal, loose targets or, better still, aspirations. They always remind me of five-year or 10-year plans, which are so characteristic of 20th century authoritarian regimes. Of course, neither government targets nor proposed opposition targets are remotely authoritarian in intent.
Nevertheless, the zeal to achieve a fixed target can present dangers. One always thinks of the law of unintended consequences: for example, how on earth can the incidence of arson be systematically reduced in this country without installing CCTV cameras at close intervals on every street in Britain?
One always thinks of the Government's target—the previous Conservative government were also to some extent to blame—of reducing gun crime. One may ask what that has achieved. It has resulted in legislation causing immense hardship to respectable, law-abiding pistol shooters, but has not reduced gun crime to the slightest degree. Indeed, gun crime has increased considerably since legally owned pistols were virtually banned. We really should be cautious about such proposals, however well intentioned they undoubtedly are.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I apologise for my unprofessional conduct—it was the idea of having to read out about fire engines in "hot pursuit" of each
1076
other and then having to go down into an "inland waterway". The term "predatory" was the trigger, and I am sorry.
However, it is a little surprising to see this amendment. As will be known, the Government have been very much criticised in the other place for the proliferation of performance targets. The amendment would have precisely that effect, enshrining the targets in legislation for the foreseeable future.
We are committed to the new national targets for the reduction of accidental fire deaths in the home and for the reduction of deliberate fires, which were announced in the fire White Paper. Any implication to the contrary is unfounded. As before, progress on the targets will be reported in the Annual Report of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which is deposited in the Library. The national framework also includes our targets, and we are committed to reporting against the delivery of that as well.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have today announced the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review 2004. It includes a new public service agreement target that reaffirms our commitment to achieving the long-term reductions in fire deaths and deliberate fire, including in the worst-off areas, set out in the White Paper. That is proof, if proof were needed, that we take very seriously the importance of making significant progress on these issues.
7 p.m.
The targets set out in the fire and rescue service White Paper have now been formulated into the public service agreements as part of the spending review. A massive amount of public consultation was held on the public service agreements before these targets were included and we think that they are sufficiently challenging. As the proportion of older people in the population grows year by year. if we take no action we could expect an additional 200 accidental fire deaths over the period up to 2010. But instead the target on accidental fire deaths commits us to save 1,000 lives in that period. I am pleased to say that we are making good progress. Over the first four years of the target, accidental fire deaths in the home are on average 17 per cent below the target baseline.
The new floor element—that no fire authority should have fire deaths more than a quarter above the national average—is also challenging. The highest fatality rate per 100,000 population is currently 200 per cent of the average, and in about a fifth of fire authorities fire deaths currently stand close to or above the target level. We are providing additional support to those authorities through the Community Fire Safety Innovation Fund.
For arson, the target is equally challenging. On recent trends, annual incidents of arson could have been close to 190,000 by 2010, but we are committed to cutting it to a little over 100,000. I am glad to say that arson was down 3 per cent in the year ending June 2003. Nor can I support the proposed fixed five-year horizon for both targets. As I have said, we are happily in the position that accidental fire deaths are the lowest

1077
for over a generation. Of course we seek to prevent every preventable death, but the number is already low enough to fluctuate randomly from year to year.
A fair measure of progress, and of the impact of all the efforts by the fire and rescue service, the police and other partners, requires an average over a reasonable length of time. That is why we have chosen to set the national target for accidental fire deaths as the average over the period 1999–2010. The target date also matches the 2010 target date for the Healthier Nation targets, in order to signal the strong link we see between fire prevention and the whole health promotion agenda.
For deliberate fires, a fixed five-year target would not take account of the external factors which affect the annual figures. Two-thirds of the total is made up of vehicle fires, often where a vehicle has been abandoned. In recent years, abandonment has been an increasing problem as the cost of safe disposal has fallen on the last owner, due to a drop in scrap metal prices.
I fully understand that the proposed approach is deliberately inflexible, but in the future there may be compelling reasons for different targets, for instance, on false alarms. More immediately, some fire and rescue authorities are already setting local public service agreement targets, which include the reduction of serious injuries in order to recognise this important category of the harm caused by fire, and to motivate continued effort where fire deaths are already very low. We would want to introduce a national target on the reduction of serious injuries as soon as reliable data can be established.
There is nothing between us about what we want to do here, but we do not think that it should be set out as proposed on the face of the Bill. I hope that I have given the noble Baroness sufficient reason to explain why we are using different timescales for the targets that have been set.
Baroness Hanham:My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It is fair to say that what underlies this is a degree of criticism that targets which looked extremely testing at the time when they were first set—a reduction between 1994 and 1999 and then up to 2004—have suddenly slipped another six years. Our amendment was designed clearly to smarten up those targets in relation to both fire deaths and incidents of arson, and to try to ensure that they were met.
I hear what the Minister has said about the figures and the arrangements under the public service agreements. I hope that they will achieve what has been set out, but this demonstrates a real concern about targets and the dates set. If people think that they are going to achieve a target in 2004 but it does not happen because the date has slipped for another five or six years, that is not much of an incentive to try to achieve it in the first place. If targets are set, they must be real targets within a firm timescale.
However, it is clear that there has been movement on the issue, which ultimately is what we all want: everyone wants to see a reduction in fire deaths and certainly in incidents of arson. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Reinforcement schemes]:
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 7, line 34, leave out "other fire and rescue authorities" and insert "fire and rescue authorities for all areas which are contiguous with the area of the authority and may enter into a reinforcement scheme with any other fire and rescue authority"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the issue of the criteria for the establishment of reinforcement schemes because it is our belief that the clause as currently drafted is far too woolly. The aim of our amendment is to tighten up the definition of Clause 13(1). That means defining the authorities with which a fire authority is obliged to enter into reinforcement schemes. Common sense suggests that geographical contiguity would be the most appropriate criterion. However, beyond that there should be an ability—a permissive power—to enter into reinforcement schemes with other authorities where appropriate.
At present the Bill places an obligation on an authority to enter into such a scheme with potentially any, or even all, other fire authorities. That is unsatisfactory given the uncertainty surrounding the future configuration of fire authorities' boundaries. Fire authorities need to be sure that they have satisfied at least the minimum required of them by subsection (1).
It may be the case that mutual assistance schemes are functioning well between fire and rescue authorities now, but precisely because of the unknown future demands of national resilience and precisely because this did not have to be addressed in 1947, we should take this opportunity to leave no room for doubt as to what is necessary; that is, schemes with contiguous authorities, and what may be useful but not compulsory, such as schemes with non-contiguous authorities.
I do not think that this amendment will be a source of great disagreement. I thought that it would help to delineate more clearly the fundamental responsibilities from the voluntary ones. This may become more important if and when we have fewer but larger authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, Amendment No. 26 would mean that fire and rescue authorities would be required to enter into a reinforcement scheme only with neighbouring authorities, although they would have discretion to extend such schemes to other authorities. At this point I shall plead history.
As the noble Baroness understands, Clause 13 reenacts the existing provisions of the Fire Services Act 1947 requiring fire authorities to enter into reinforcement schemes with other authorities and simply extends them to apply to their new core duties under the Bill. As such, we are not sure why the noble

1079
Baroness really wants to limit the requirement for fire and rescue authorities to co-operate in this way. While it is true that the 1947 Act does not specifically require cross-border mutual assistance, such schemes are already in place between adjacent tire and rescue authorities and are integral to the day-to-day operational effectiveness of the fire and rescue service.
One of the reasons for including the new core duties in the schemes was to make it easier for fire and rescue authorities to participate in a national mutual aid agreement for non-fire emergencies as well as providing simple cross-boundary assistance between authorities in the event of a fire. We feel it is important that fire and rescue authorities work together in this way in order to improve our national resilience to terrorist attack and natural disaster. Removing any requirement for fire and rescue authorities to enter into reinforcement schemes with authorities other than their immediate neighbours would not provide the necessary resilience in the event of an emergency.
Fire and rescue authorities are in the process of signing a national mutual aid agreement to cover emergencies such as the increased terrorist threat, but the development of such an agreement has been hindered by concerns that participating in such an agreement could create a conflict with their local duties. Limiting the requirement for a fire and rescue authority to enter into a mutual reinforcement scheme only with neighbouring authorities, and leaving it entirely voluntary whether they extend such schemes to other authorities, will not provide the solid statutory base they need in order to remove such concerns. This could endanger the arrangements under Clause 9 for ensuring cover for those authorities responding to an emergency outside their areas.
We do not want to be prescriptive. We want to ensure that the authorities are under a duty to enter into a wider scheme rather than a simple cross-border one. This is for resilience purposes. It will be entirely up to the authorities to decide how wide such schemes should be, based on operational need. This matter should be left to the individual fire authorities, which have hands-on experience on a daily basis.
Baroness Hanham:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clear reply. It is interesting that Clause 13 states that:
"A fire and rescue authority must, so far as practicable, enter into a reinforcement scheme".
A "practical" arrangement may very well be—and probably always will be—with the authority next door. The best starting place would seem to be with the authorities abutting a particular fire and rescue authority's area. Of course, there may now be more than one abutting authority, and probably at least two.
Indeed, making such arrangements on a "must" basis would absorb nearly all the material and time of a fire authority. It would therefore be better for it to have a "conditional" reason for entering into arrangements with other fire authorities. In other
1080
words, you have a responsibility to start with the contiguous authorities; thereafter, if you have any time, money and so on left over, you would be entitled to go to other authorities. That is the purpose of the amendment.
However, I hear what the Minister says. For today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Directions as to reinforcement schemes]:
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 27:
Page 8, line 18, after "State" insert "or the National Assembly for Wales"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 to 31 and 57. Again, these amendments are brought forward at the instigation of the Welsh authorities; they are concerned about the position in regard to crossing the boundary between England and Wales. I assume that what the Minister said about the need for regional arrangements does not apply in this context.
The concern is whether the provisions in the Bill will work where one authority is in England, one is in Wales and the others are in one country or the other. There seem to be no powers of direction in the Bill to resolve cross-border situations. The central problem is that, as drafted, the wording of Clauses 14 and 17 seems to assume that the same person would be involved in dealing with all the fire and rescue authorities concerned.
Under Clause 60, references to the Secretary of State are to be read, in respect of Wales, as references to the National Assembly. So there is a quite clear and quite proper division of powers. The Welsh authorities ask your Lordships to assume a hypothetical case—which is not far removed from the case put to the House earlier by the Minister—involving, say, the North Wales fire authority and the Cheshire fire authority; not in this case the Staffordshire and Shropshire fire authorities. The Secretary of State could not issue a direction to the two fire authorities because he does not have the power to issue directions in Wales and, similarly, the Assembly could not issue a direction in England—but Clause 17 requires that any direction is issued to the two authorities.
It does not seem entirely clear whether an authority can ask the Secretary of State or the Assembly to act under Clause 14(1)(c) or Clause 17(2). It may be that, because of the way in which Clause 60 works, only Welsh authorities can ask the Assembly to act and only English authorities can go to the Secretary of State. The amendments therefore seek to make clear that a direction may be issued to one or more authorities and that any fire and rescue authority may ask the Secretary of State or the National Assembly to act.
These amendments may not be necessary to provide for such a situation. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that they are not, or indicate a way forward. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, given the nature of the noble Baroness's speech in moving the amendment, I do not need to use the incredibly copious notes that I have; she has explained the position clearly. Superficially, it may look as though there is a problem, but we do not believe that there is.
I understand the reasoning behind the amendments but do not feel that, for example, the refusal of an English fire authority to enter into a reinforcement scheme with a Welsh authority warrants the intervention of respective governments. The same situation has existed between England and Scotland since the Scotland Act 1998 devolved the functions of the Secretary of State under the Fire Services Act 1947 to Scottish Ministers. Neither the Secretary of State nor Scottish Ministers have the power at the moment to direct authorities to make a reinforcement scheme involving both English and Scottish fire authorities.
However, this has not stopped authorities having such arrangements. For example, Cumbria has an agreement with the Dumfries and Galloway authority, while Northumberland has one with Lothian and the Borders. These are voluntary arrangements that have been entered into for operational reasons around the provision of a firefighting service rather than for wider national resilience reasons.
Given that there is no existing power of direction between cross-border authorities in Scotland and England, we are not convinced that the situation between Wales and England should be any different. In other words, the arrangement works—and has worked perfectly well—between Scotland and England. We have now got the experience and, therefore, we do not think that there should be any difference between England and Wales.
Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, it may be that relationships across the border are better than they are within the country, but the Minister's argument seems to be that there should not be any power of direction at all. Authorities obviously would be in the best situation and would carry on doing things in a commonsense way; they would not have to be directed.
In the happy world that the Minister has put before the House one would not need all this detail. I am not convinced about the technical aspects but shall not pursue the matter today; those who know more than me will read precisely what the Minister has said.
The noble Lord referred to his "copious" notes. If they provide a technical back-up to what he has said, perhaps he will write to me, put it on the record and share the information.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I will do that.
Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Directions as to arrangements under section 16]:
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Charging]:
Lord Hanningfieldmoved Amendment No. 32:
Page 9, line 34, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

Subject to the following provisions, a fire and rescue authority may charge a person providing a service to him if—

the authority is authorised, but not required, by an enactment to provide the service to him, and

he has agreed to the provision."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35. Amendment No. 32 would place fire authorities on a similar footing to other local authorities by placing the discretion for charging in the hands of the relevant fire authority. In Committee, the Minister gave a lengthy response about why the amendment would run into problems. I will tackle one of those arguments because, on reflection, it does not seem so compelling.
The first caveat that the Minister outlined was that the amendment would restrict the services for which the authorities could charge to those that they are not obliged to provide. He said that the amendment would be difficult because, in practice, authorities respond to a fairly large range of requests. However, as the Minister said, the rules of the game have changed so that responses to non-fire incidents have become part of their core functions. Therefore, we would concur that they should not charge for such call-outs. Also, subsection (5)(b) allows them to charge nothing, should they so wish.
The second caveat, which I agree may be problematic, is the need to have express consent from the person to be charged. I recognise that there are various pitfalls that could crop up around the way that this amendment is drafted. However, in most situations, the question of charging arises precisely because a core function is not involved. Because the situation is not deemed to be an emergency in which life or property is in danger, there should be enough time to seek consent.
Amendment No. 33 is designed to bring greater openness, clarity and transparency to the actual process of charging. I disagree with the Minister that the amendment would constrain an authority's ability to exercise its discretion appropriately. The wording of the amendment is helpful. It states:
"a list which specifies the amounts the authority will charge in specific circumstances".
That implies that the list cannot be exhaustive because it is impossible to list all specific circumstances. However, it can usefully list those that are found to recur, which would presumably help those who may be charged. I do not see why the list cannot be couched in language that alerts people to the nature of a charging regime and that inherently involves discretion and consequent variation in charges. The Government have looked at the amendment and tried to count up

1083
all the possible things that could go wrong rather than using a little initiative to see the benefit of what could be a very helpful amendment.
On Amendment No. 34, I record my gratitude to the Minister for his helpful letter regarding trading by fire authorities. I am glad that the Government recognise that, where authorities have been charging with an element of profit, they have been acting in good faith. However, although I recognise the arguments concerning the difference between charging and trading, I am concerned that the Government are still ultimately stifling innovation and alternative sources of funding among fire authorities, as well as creating an unfair system that restricts the capacity of certain authorities to charge—compared with the entrepreneurs of Essex to whom I referred earlier. We should remember that moneys gained from charging are ploughed straight back into existing budgets, helping many severely stretched budgets.
Amendment No. 35 is simply designed to increase the breadth of consultation that the Secretary of State must undertake before granting any powers of charging, especially to the groups that will be most affected. Unlike the Minister, I do not think that that means the whole country. The Minister promised in Committee to send me a list of consultees, but I have not received it. Perhaps that is my fault. I do not think that this minor amendment is too onerous. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, this group of amendments deals with charging, which I know is a sensitive issue. Taken together they would constrain charging. Amendment No. 32 is phrased in the same terms as Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003. We do not consider that Section 93 or a provision in similar terms would be a suitable substitute for the charging provisions that exist in Section 3 of the Fire Services Act 1947, which is why we have brought forward Clause 19.
The first effect of Amendment No. 32, as a mirror of Section 93, would be to restrict the services for which authorities can charge to those which they are not obliged to provide. At present, the only response that authorities are obliged to provide is to fire calls, although in practice they tend to respond to a range of requests. We have made provision in the Bill for that situation to change and have imposed additional response requirements on the service in respect of traffic accidents and other non-fire incidents.
Amendment No. 32 is also likely to have the possibly unintended effect of frustrating the provisions of Clause 19(4). The latter is designed to enable authorities to recover the cost of dealing with an incident from a responsible third party in circumstances where it may not be appropriate to seek to charge the person to whom the supply of the service was made.
Amendment No. 33 would require an authority to compile an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which it might seek to levy a charge that had been specified by order. It would also require an authority
1084
to specify the circumstances in which it would charge nothing for one of those services. That is an over-restrictive approach and one that might constrain an authority's ability to exercise its discretion appropriately.
We accept that noble Lords opposite wish to see some clear public statement by an authority, perhaps on an annual basis, about how it will go about determining a charge and possibly even what the charge might be in terms of an hourly rate. Some authorities already do that. I do not know what the entrepreneurs in Essex do. I know that they make a lot of money, but I do not know how they go about that. We would be quite happy to see such action by authorities become the norm. Indeed, we suggested in the consultation document some bases on which the charge may be calculated and we see no reason why an authority should not be open about the methodology that it has adopted. However, to require a detailed explanation of how and when the authority will exercise its inherent discretion is a burdensome approach, and we do not want to constrain that discretion.
Amendment No. 34 would remove from the Bill the requirement that the charges set by an authority do no more than recover the full annual cost of providing the service in question. The wording of Section 3 of the 1947 Act caused confusion among authorities about the extent of their powers. To claim that there was unanimity of opinion would be to ignore the evidence submitted by the fire and rescue authorities during the consultation exercise, the results of which will be published soon.
Greater clarity is needed and that is achieved by the clause as we have drafted it. However, we have no wish to create financial difficulties for authorities that have become accustomed, in good faith, to recovering a profit component on some of their activities. For that reason, we announced a concession in Grand Committee when we considered what was then Amendment No. 65. When an authority recovers an element of profit on a given service on or before 1 April this year, the concession will enable them to continue doing so for up to two years after the introduction of a freedoms and flexibilities package under the fire comprehensive performance assessment. That will be achieved by means of an order under Section 95 of the Local Government Act 2003 and will require authorities to conduct their trading activities through a company. Authorities will not be allowed to expand into new areas of trading under the concession, but may be allowed to do so if they achieve a favourable comprehensive performance assessment.
When an authority fails to achieve favourable assessments within two years, any trading order under this concession will be withdrawn. I wrote to noble Lords with further details of the concession following Grand Committee and will be happy to do so again.
Amendment No. 35 is unreasonably onerous, because it is very difficult to know how to draw the line at those people "likely" to be affected. As drafted, it could arguably require the Secretary of State to seek out and consult everyone in England, or anyone who might find themselves requiring the assistance of the

1085
fire service while in England, on the terms of any order he proposed to make. That is excessive. The requirement to consult that is in the Bill is in terms that are tried and tested.
The Government published a consultation document on our proposals for the first order in February and delivered it to a wide range of consultees. There was considerable media interest in the document, so many members of the public were aware of its existence. However, we have received less than 50 responses in total to the consultation. Of those, none was from members of the public.
It is also disappointing to note that only 25 of the 47 fire and rescue authorities in England considered this matter to be worthy of their comment. We expect to publish an analysis of the responses during August—this will necessarily be done during the Recess.
We have made it clear that any proposal to expand the scope of the charging regime, as detailed in the February document, would be the subject of a fresh consultation. That might, of course, make the other 22 fire and rescue authorities wake up to something that affects them.
I hope that I have given a fairly considered response to each of the amendments. As I say, the results of the consultation exercise will be published and, if need be. we will go through a further one later this year.
Lord Hanningfield:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I still think that there is little to be desired from the whole process of charging and consultation. None of us wants to charge for services that should be supplied to the public, but there are elements that could help the fire service when it provides services for which the public would not mind paying. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the fire authorities should publish that, and I hope that the Government will encourage it. It would clarify the position on charging as far as the public were concerned.
We thanked the Minister for his concession of at least two years for authorities that were doing things that made a profit and helped their budgets. Obviously, if they lost that profit, the taxpayer would have to replenish the budget, which is surely not desirable.
There needs to be absolute clarity about charging and trading. We will study the Minister's answers, and in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.33 p.m.

Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit (Revocation) Order 2004
7.32 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldhamrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8 June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order was laid before Parliament on 8 June and discussed in the other place on 29 June. It will remove the current statutory limit on the number of take-offs and landings of passenger aircraft at Stansted airport each year and place control of such matters within the local planning framework.
As it stands today, Stansted is unique among airports in having a PATM limit set by Parliament. Its first limit was set in 1987, the second in 1996 and the current limit of 185,000 PATMs in 1999—all by order.
Noble Lords might be aware that planning permission for Stansted airport to expand to handle 25 million passengers per annum was granted by Uttlesford District Council in May of last year. As a condition of the planning permission, the council imposed an air transport movement limit of 241,000, covering both cargo and passenger movements.
The White Paper The Future of Air Transport made it clear that the Government believe it is preferable for controls of this kind to be agreed locally and that there is no longer a good case for use of the statutory limit on PATMs at Stansted.
We propose to revoke this order now because Stansted is already operating near to the current limit of 185,000 PATMs. It handled more than 160.000 in 2003. Action is needed now to allow the airport to handle the number of movements granted in planning consent by Uttlesford District Council.
As part of the process to revoke the PATM limit, on 28 May we completed six weeks of public consultation. Around 100 interested parties were consulted. They included the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the airport operator, operators of aircraft likely to be affected by the order, organisations representing operators of aircraft, local authorities around the airport and other interested parties. From the responses received, there was very strong support for revoking the limit, and no support for retaining the current limit.
One particular issue concerning the planning conditions imposed by Uttlesford in its 2003 planning consent emerged during the consultation. A condition in the planning approval states that the new ATM limit of 241,000 does not come into force until the completion of an extension to the existing terminal. BAA has yet to begin work on this development.
With reference to this, some consultees expressed concern that the removal of the PATM limit now could result in a situation in which no movement limit exists at all. To avoid such a situation, BAA has agreed to enter into a unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The

1087
conditions of the agreement are: air transport movements at Stansted will be limited to 241,000 ATMs per year—that is, in line with the planning consent; the agreement will take effect immediately when the PATM limit is revoked by Parliament; and the agreement will continue until the ATM conditions in Uttlesford's planning consent have been effected by opening the terminal extension or if further planning permission has been granted for air transport movements in excess of 241,000—that is, unless the local planning authority and the airport operator agree a different arrangement at a later stage.
I can confirm that BAA has now finalised its unilateral Section 106 undertaking. It has been received by Uttlesford District Council and placed on its planning register. The unilateral undertaking will ensure that once the statutory limit has been revoked, there will still be control on the number of PATMs until such time as the conditions in the airport's planning consent come into force.
This draft order will revoke all three orders that have been made relating to Stansted's PATM limit since 1987. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8 June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee. —(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Lord Bradshaw:My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement. I draw attention to the fact that we are not talking about the extension of Stansted airport, which is contained in the recently published White Paper. That refers to an entirely different development and is not the subject of tonight's debate.
We are reasonably happy that within the present planning arrangements, everything that needs to be done has been done. Our main reservation is the fact that the Government are involved in a large expansion of air transport without considering global warming as seriously as they might. As we have already heard in the House today, that is one of the greatest threats to our society.
I have one simple question for the Minister. I shall not contest the order, although it was contested in another place—I think very largely due to the strength of opinion of local Members about the expansion of Stansted airport, which is not really the subject of the debate. Stansted is used by many airline operators, and they are cutting prices all the time. They are cutting prices by all manner of means, such as making passengers carry their own bags on board—which might do them good—getting rid of the use of the hold, and getting rid of refreshments.
I am concerned about whether those airlines are not only breaching any safety regulations—which the CAA control pretty strongly—but whether it is possible for the airport operator to keep a strong hold on the way in which aircraft land and take off, the extent to which airlines comply with the noise limits and the hours limits, and those things that affect the local environment. It is important that they stick to the agreed flight paths, that they do not go outside the
1088
envelope of the airport, and that they behave themselves. Will the Minister address those issues when he replies?
Viscount Astor:My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. I echo some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. He is right to say that this is not about the expansion of the runways at Stansted, but about the expansion of the use of Stansted. In a way it is a pity that the Government have come forward with this order now, so that we do not see a totally coherent airport policy. When will this draft order come into effect? When will we see more flights operating from Stansted? What is the timetable?
It is not an entirely satisfactory system. There has been some local consultation, but it was not really terribly satisfactory. A number of people outside the area, who are nevertheless close to it, have not been properly consulted. No doubt such things will become more apparent as the Government move further with their airport policy. I should be grateful if the Minister could give us a little more understanding about when the order will come into effect and when we will start to see an increase in the number of flights.
Viscount Simon:My Lords, my noble friend correctly stated that the order will bring Stansted into line with all other airports, which is highly commendable. The order will also apply to freight aircraft as well as passenger aircraft. My noble friend said that there are currently 160,000 PATMs, but he did not mention the number of current freight movements. Has he any figures for that?
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, I am grateful to the three noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for doing what I was not able to do in opening, when my job is to commend the order. He kindly put the order into context, which is important.
It is not for me to anticipate that people might stray on to wider issues, but there could have been a danger of that had there not been a salutary warning. This order is not about the expansion of Stansted airport. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and my noble friend asked when we will see the effect of this order. At present, Stansted is increasing its traffic. It was 160,000 PATMs last year; it is up to 185,000 this year. The limit that Uttlesford local authority has imposed is 241,000. I do not know the rate of expansion, or how soon Stansted will arrive at the maximum limit under the agreement that is in place with the local authority. Noble Lords can see the rate of expansion.
7.45 p.m.
I suppose my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—he asked me to comment on broad airline policy—is that we clearly do see Stansted expanding its capacity. It is doing so rapidly, within those limits. I have the great advantage of living not a huge distance

1089
from Stansted, so I am mindful of local concerns about increasing traffic. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Simon for indicating that the more anti-social hours used by flights tend to be for freight aircraft rather than passenger aircraft. That is not least because arriving at Stansted unduly late at night still raises acute problems for passengers if they want to get anywhere else.
Local people have responded in exactly the way that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, thought that they ought to; they have separated this issue from the really big, contentious issue about a second runway at Stansted, which would clearly be the route towards very considerable expansion indeed. That is within the framework of the Government's White Paper on the necessary expansion of south-east airports, against what we all recognise as a pressing demand from our fellow citizens. No one will underestimate the extent to which passenger movements have been increasing in recent years. They show no sign of being blighted by all the dire warnings that are given from time to time, either when enormous delays occur at airports, or some aircraft get into such obvious difficulty that we all thank Heavens that we are not on them.
The pressure is there for airport expansion, and no one will deny that. The Government are not building on demand, nor are we taking the view that the issues do not have to be put within the framework of a coherent policy. However, we are not blinding ourselves to the obvious fact that the demand for air travel is increasing at a significant rate. We would be failing in our duty if we did not realise that Stansted had a contribution to make.
The main local opposition group, Stop Stansted Expansion, did not respond to the consultation. It will probably have taken the view that the local authorities will have responded; there are four local authorities in addition to Uttlesford, which is central as the holder of the planning permission. Local authorities were representing the position clearly. Furthermore, the members of Stop Stansted Expansion are far too sensible to fail to recognise that this is not about expansion; it is about transferring a planning permission from Parliament to the locality, which is in the general interest of all local people.
On the general topic of when flights will increase, we expect BAA to apply for further planning permissions next year. We cannot predict what numbers will be involved, and we therefore cannot predict when the 241,000 limit that is imposed at present will be reached. We can, however, predict that that will be a matter for the local planning authority at that stage and not for Parliament.

Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 2004
7.49 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldhamrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14 June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
1090
The noble Lord said: My Lords, international conventions provide for the free movement of traffic between countries which are party to the conventions. In this country, the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order 1975 prescribes the detail of the various documents, fees, minimum ages, enforcement arrangements and so on, which apply to our residents who wish to drive abroad, and visitors from abroad who wish to drive here.
The order which is now before the House is necessary to cover the costs of issuing the necessary documentation, to remedy anomalies which have come to light in relation to vehicle types driven by visitors and to bring the holders of vocational licences issued in Guernsey into line with those from Jersey and the Isle of Man by allowing them to drive British registered large vehicles during visits here.
International driving permits and international certificates for motor vehicles are documents which may be issued to drivers who are visiting a country outside the European Economic Area. IDPs translate details of a driving licence into several languages, enabling foreign authorities to interpret the entitlements held, validity periods, age and identity of the holder. ICMVs translate details of British registered vehicles being taken temporarily to another country.
The issue of IDPs is a statutory function deriving from international obligations; namely, the Paris Convention of 1926 and the Geneva Convention of 1949. This function is currently delegated by the Secretary of State for Transport to the motoring organisations in Great Britain; namely, the Automobile Association, Royal Automobile Club Motoring Services and Green Flag. Those motoring organisations have applied to raise the fee for IDPs and ICMVs from £4 to £5.50, to cover increased administrative costs of issuing the documents. That is a substantial part of the order.
The anomaly which requires remedy relates to the types of British-registered vehicles which non-European Economic Area licence holders may drive during visits to Great Britain. Non-EEA licence holders who visit Great Britain may drive for a period of 12 months from the date they last entered the United Kingdom on the strength of a valid national driving licence issued in their country of normal residence. Such licence holders may drive small vehicles such as cars and motorcycles, medium-sized goods vehicles up to 7.5 tonnes and minibuses with up to 16 passenger seats, provided they are not driven for hire or reward.
Conversely, non-EEA licence holders who are resident here are restricted to driving only small vehicles up to 3.5 tonnes and with up to eight passenger seats, such as motorcycles, cars and small vans, during their first 12 months of residence. What we are seeking to do is to correct that anomaly, thereby restricting non-EEA licence holders who visit Great Britain to driving small vehicles. They will still, however, be allowed to drive larger vehicles which have been registered outside Great Britain but which they have driven into the country. That provision is already granted to drivers of large vehicles during visits.

1091
Visitors with Guernsey driving licences may only drive large vehicles during visits if they have brought the vehicle into Great Britain; unlike their counterparts from Jersey and the Isle of Man, they cannot drive British registered large goods vehicles or passenger carrying vehicles. An assessment undertaken by officials in 2001 considered the testing standards in place in Guernsey for these drivers and found them to be comparable to those in the UK. That is why we are proposing that Guernsey large vehicle licence holders be allowed to drive British registered large vehicles during their visits to Great Britain, giving them the same status as holders of such licences from Jersey or the Isle of Man. As noble Lords will recognise, a terrible anomaly will have been rectified. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14 June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Lord Bradshaw:My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this seemingly very important amendment to the regulations. One cannot say very much about it. The fee charged does not seem very much to me but it appears to satisfy the motoring organisations—the AA, the RAC and Green Flag. If they are satisfied and believe that is enough money, I do not believe that we should argue with them—let them get on with it!
I am happy with the regulations for the people from Guernsey who have satisfied the standards in their own country. They are probably enforced more strongly than the regulations in this country—which are not enforced. I have frequently crossed swords with the Minister on that matter, but it is a debate for another time.
I am slightly less at ease about the non-EEC licence holders, because in the figments of one's imagination one can imagine people from Outer Mongolia driving fairly large vehicles on the roads here with perhaps a lesser degree of care than the Government would be comfortable with. However, that is my only reservation. This is not an area in which I have great expertise, and I am quite content to let the order pass.
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord—and grateful for his forbearance, because I had foreshadowed the possibility that he would berate me again about enforcement operations as regards large vehicles. That would have occupied us for a considerable period of time, given his eloquence and great knowledge on the issue.
I am happy to agree with what the noble Lord has recognised—that the motoring organisations are scarcely being exploitative when charging a fee of such a modest amount. It is merely there to meet their costs for a service that they provide.
The anomaly as regards Guernsey arose from the obvious point that we were not satisfied about the standard of testing there at the time when the Isle of Man and Jersey were benefiting from the general arrangements. That is why Guernsey is an exception. We are happy to be putting that right.
The only other point that I make about the order as a whole is obvious enough. We may have our reservations about standards elsewhere, but the House will recognise that on the whole it is of great benefit to our fellow citizens if we can achieve reciprocity in the world. It may be that we have to watch with care; as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, often says, we have to look with care at the standards of the vehicles brought into the country. However, that is a subject for another debate. This order is about fulfilling due obligations with regard to reciprocity and the minor extension of the fee.

Social Security (Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2004
7.57 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensionsrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16 June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity to introduce the regulations. Their purpose is to reflect a specific recent development in the National Health Service relating to hospital treatment overseas.
The Government are committed to expanding the NHS more than ever before to give faster treatment and greater choice to patients. As part of this, we are making further use of spare capacity in overseas health systems in two ways. First, we are bringing overseas teams to England to optimise the use of spare physical capacity where it is available. Secondly, primary care trusts can now directly purchase treatment overseas from some of the best hospitals at affordable prices when they believe that that is in the best interest of their patients. This offers a means of reducing waiting times and extending choice for patients.
Several hundred patients have already chosen to go abroad for treatment under these arrangements—mostly to Belgium, Germany and France—for major joint replacements and cataract operations. Those are the two major categories of healthcare abroad. Their experience of the overseas hospitals was very positive, and the Department of Health therefore intends to continue the arrangements. My ministerial colleagues there see overseas treatment as a relatively short-term necessity while domestic capacity is developed, but the option is likely to be needed for some time.
Of course, some of those who are waiting for treatment and who are offered the chance of having it overseas will be social security claimants. While waiting, they may not be so ill that they have to claim an incapacity benefit; they could instead be receiving pension credit, income support or jobseeker's allowance. For example, they may be waiting for a hip replacement when their job does not require them to have mobility. The rules for these benefits normally

1093
restrict entitlement when outside Great Britain and so some adjustment is necessary to enable them to make use of these NHS opportunities with the minimum of inconvenience and at no risk to their benefits.
We therefore gave a commitment that people claiming any of the three benefits I have mentioned would be able to retain their entitlement when abroad for treatment arranged through the NHS. Pension credit is a new benefit and we were in time to include an appropriate provision in the original regs which came into force last year. IS and JSA are older benefits, which means amending their existing regulations.
In the case of JSA, this is quite complicated because in normal circumstances JSA claimants must be in Great Britain, must be available for and capable of work, and must actively seek work each week. Patients who go abroad for hospital treatment would not be able to satisfy any of those four conditions. However, the Jobseekers Act enables circumstances to be prescribed in which jobseekers can be treated as satisfying them, and the existing JSA regs already set out a number of circumstances. For example, jobseekers are treated as available and actively seeking work while engaged in emergency duties for the benefit of others, such as being part-time firemen.
These amendment regulations rely on the same powers. First, they treat jobseekers as being in Great Britain when they are temporarily absent to receive hospital treatment provided under the revised NHS legislation. Secondly, they make this an additional circumstance in which jobseekers are treated as capable of work, provided that they have notified the Secretary of State in advance that this is their wish. Finally, the regs make the necessary cross-references so that jobseekers are treated as available and actively seeking work when abroad.
The IS rules also require people to be in Great Britain, although a limited exception is made for people receiving medical treatment. As that applies only to people claiming on grounds of incapacity, and then only when the treatment is for the incapacity that caused the claim in the first place, there is a risk that other IS claimants, such as lone parents, could lose entitlement if they took advantage of the NHS's new arrangements. These regs avoid that risk by adding a new circumstance in which all IS recipients can be treated as being in Great Britain, again linking it to the receipt of hospital treatment under the revised NHS legislation.
Subject to parliamentary approval of the draft amending regs, we propose to introduce these changes nationally from 4 October 2004. These draft regs ensure that benefit claimants are not excluded or placed at a disadvantage compared with other NHS patients. I can confirm that the Social Security Advisory Committee has decided that it does not want the draft regulations to be formally referred to it. I am also able to confirm that, in my view, these provisions are compatible with the ECHR. I therefore commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16 June be approved. [22nd Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins:My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. However, there are one or two points about it that I find a little puzzling. She referred to the type of operation that might be involved as either a joint replacement operation or a cataract operation. I remember, in my former constituency, that we had a rather long waiting list for cataract operations. A hotel was taken over for a week and we cleared the waiting list in a very short time. I gather that the total number of cases we are dealing with this evening is only 850, and presumably not all of those are joint replacements. I therefore find it surprising that cataract patients have to be away for any length of time at all. As I understand it, it is almost a daytrip operation.
Perhaps the Minister can give us some idea of the split between cataract and joint operations. If we are going to pay for people to go away and have cataract operations and then bring them back, I should think that it must be much more cost effective to have them done here under the NHS rather than abroad. If it is a major operation abroad, one may deplore the lack of facilities here but understand that it might help to relieve the waiting list situation.
I am also slightly puzzled that this arrangement is apparently going out under the National Health Service Act 1977 and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. I thought that the idea that people could go abroad for treatment was a comparatively recent innovation and not covered by legislation as early as 1977 or 1990. Perhaps the noble Baroness can clarify that point.
I understand the arguments on income support, but I am rather more puzzled by the question of the jobseeker's allowance. If a jobseeker is abroad, he is not able to seek a job. We are effectively deeming him able to do so. Can the noble Baroness remind me whether the job-seeking operation is a continuous operation or whether it matters if there is a slight drop in the payment of the jobseeker's allowance while the person concerned is abroad? I do not recall.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham:My Lords, when the noble Lord uses the word "operation" does he mean a medical operation or the operation of JSA?
Lord Higgins:Both, my Lords. As the person is clearly not available for work and is not seeking work in the period when he is abroad for the medical operation, I am not clear why he should continue to have jobseeker's allowance. I can see that he might require income support, but I do not see why he needs jobseeker's allowance.
I have always understood very clearly that, on the whole, the taxpayer does not have to pay twice for the same thing. We have previously debated whether

1095
people's benefits go on while they are in hospital. I am not clear why in this case a jobseeker should continue to get jobseeker's allowance if he is abroad having this operation. Similarly, I am not clear why he is able to obtain accommodation in the overseas hospital and transport costs—for both of which, presumably, the British taxpayer is paying—while being paid his income support or jobseeker's allowance. There appears to be a duplication, and that would seem to breach what I had always understood to be a fairly basic rule, that one does not pay twice for the same thing.
I do not want to weary the House longer. However, it seems that this particular proposition, which appears to operate on an extraordinarily small scale—less than 1,000 per year all told—leads to so many complications. Given the Chancellor's Statement earlier today, one would have thought that it would be possible to increase resources in the NHS without the necessity for these regulations and the arrangements that flow from them. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could clarify those points.
Lord Addington:My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. I have one small quibble. Straightaway, she put a bullet through the one fox that runs around this subject; that is, why we must go abroad for such services. The Minister said that that was unfortunate and that, although we currently have to do so, the hope was that the situation would improve in future. In truth, that is the real political point. The NHS does not currently have enough resources. We can later argue about organisation and funding. However, it would be rather unfair to have a go at the Minister in that regard because she does not have responsibility for those matters.
If we do have to go abroad, the regulations are absolutely vital. If people lost certain benefits that they were on, we could damage, for instance, their status, their ability to maintain a home and so on. We have argued about hospitals; if they lost such rights, that could be crippling. If we have structural problems that require people to go abroad for treatment, we must allow those people to maintain their benefits and income stream so that they do not end up losing housing and so on. The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, on which I sit, said that the regulations were not worthy of the special attention of the House, and I have no intention of breaking with its views.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham:My Lords, I shall do my best to answer the questions raised. I am grateful for the response of noble Lords, which was one of puzzlement rather than hostility or dispute.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was absolutely right; I entirely agree with him. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred to the figure of 850; of that, perhaps two handfuls of people are on JSA or IS. By definition,
1096
they will probably be over the pension age. Older people tend to need help with cataract problems or have hip replacements. Frankly, it is not worth the hassle of trying to get them on to a different benefit for three, five or 10 days, or for a fortnight. Currently, one can be on JSA for up to a fortnight with temporary sickness and on IS for up to four weeks. For the most part, that should cover such situations anyway. We do not want people who might have follow-up problems—through anaesthesia, for example—to be caught and find, while they are in Belgium or France, that their benefits had run out. We do not expect many people to be affected.
We hope and expect this to be a sharply diminishing problem. Whereas in March 2002 the maximum inpatient wait was 15 months, by March 2004 it was down to nine months. That is a function of the length of waiting times. For people who so choose, they may prefer the option of speedier treatment by going to Belgium, Germany or France to waiting for local treatment, particularly in the south-east. Guy's and St Thomas's conduct bulk purchases on behalf of those scattered individuals.
The noble Lord was absolutely right: increasingly, the NHS is bringing doctors to the UK, particularly for cataract treatment, for example. That is a more cost effective and desirable route in the eyes of many patients. Three-quarters of referrals abroad have, I believe, been for orthopaedic cases, which require bed space and recovery time in a way that cataract surgery often does not. Again, we hope to bring the figure down sharply. We hope that there will be a diminishing use of overseas resources. For the time being, it a sensible way to use surplus capacity of a very high standard abroad at broadly comparable costs. I believe that that adds to patients' choices.
I hope that I have addressed all the queries raised by noble Lords. If I have overlooked any, I invite them to nudge me. Basically, we are dealing mainly with elderly patients and we do not expect more than a couple of handfuls to be on benefit. We do not believe that it is worth trying to alter benefits during the short time of interruption. If people return and need an extensive period of convalescence, they would go on to incapacity benefit anyway. If a short temporary period is involved, it is simpler and cleaner merely to treat the person as though they were having NHS surgery at home. Effectively, that is all that we are doing. It seems a sensible, non-bureaucratic way of coping with what we hope will be a temporary response to a temporary problem.
Baroness Andrews:My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.33 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.11 to 8.33 p.m.]

Fire and Rescue Services Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
"LIMITATION ON POWER TO AUTHORISE CHARGING

An order under section 19 may not authorise a fire and rescue authority to charge for—

extinguishing fires or protecting life and property in the event of fires;

rescuing people in the event of road traffic accidents or protecting people from serious harm in the event of road traffic accidents; or

discharging any function relating to emergencies conferred on it by the Secretary of State under section 9.

An order under section 19 may authorise a fire and rescue authority to charge for the provision of emergency medical assistance only in circumstances where a National Health Service Ambulance Trust is authorised to charge for such provision."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to return to the sentiment behind Amendment No. 36 as I am still unsure about aspects of the Government's thinking. In order to save time I am speaking to the amendment having accepted some of the arguments against parts of it. For example, I understand the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, against subsection (2) of my amendment. I am glad that the Government have gone further than this amendment would allow by precluding all charging for emergency medical assistance.
However, we seek reassurance that the situation will not arise where a person will pay for emergency medical assistance according to whether the fire or ambulance service is the first to arrive on the scene of a road traffic accident. I realise that this question is primarily about whether the scope of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999 is pertinent. The Minister did not answer that point on the previous occasion.
I also understand the arguments deployed against adopting subsection (1)(c) of my amendment as various incidents may fall within Clause 9 that require charging such as a chemical spill by a commercial operation.
Finally, I appreciate the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that detailed why subsection (1)(a) of my amendment would be unnecessary. This leaves subsection (1)(b) of my amendment where I am not clear about the Government's reasoning. I understand that the order-making provision of Clause 19 will allow the Government to ensure that there are no moves towards charging for road traffic accidents without further consultation while preserving the principle of being able to charge for these incidents if it is appropriate.
Clause 8 makes rescuing people from road traffic accidents a core function of the new fire and rescue service, however, so why would the Government not want to reflect that in a Clause 19 order by ruling out charging for road traffic accident rescues? A point to bear in mind is that the amendment would not rule out charging for certain non-rescue actions associated with dealing with road traffic accidents. It would
1098
simply ensure that the rescue of people from life-threatening situations should not be a chargeable activity.
I hope that the Minister can address our concerns. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, as the noble Lord said, the proposed new clause in the amendment would extend the restrictions on the services for which a charge might be made by excluding all the emergency statutory functions on an authority.
With the passage of time, it is true that the fire and rescue service has acquired a great deal of experience and skill in dealing with the effects of road traffic accidents, yet there has been no obligation on the service to render rescue assistance. That is amazing, really. We have brought forward a new duty for the service to respond to such incidents in Clause 8. At the same time, we have recognised that fire authorities already have a power to charge for dealing with non-fire assistance rendered at such an incident, although they appear not to have used it.
The ODPM Committee report on the fire service, published earlier this year, noted the potential for authorities to recover the costs of dealing with traffic accidents from compensators in a manner similar to that which exists in the National Health Service. That scheme recovers flat-rate charges for treatment received in an NHS hospital, and later this year will levy a charge for ambulance conveyance to hospital for such treatment. Further work needs to be done on how any such scheme might operate for the fire and rescue service, and the impact that it would have on authorities, the insurance industry and the public. In the light of that, it would not be appropriate to close off the possibility of charging for road traffic accidents in the way countenanced by the proposed new clause.
The range of incidents that may fall within Clause 9 is not confined to the new terrorist threat. It can include major incidents of flooding or damage caused by the accidental or sometimes negligent discharge of a large volume of harmful chemicals by a company. Proposed new subsection (1) in the amendment would mean that such incidents would be excluded from the scope of charging. We want to know whether it is right, for example, that a major commercial undertaking could cause huge disruption and escape the cost of putting it right. Regrettably, the drafting of the proposed new clause is as defective now as it was when tabled in Grand Committee as Amendment No. 115. It does not remove Clause 19(3), so would leave us with two conflicting provisions on emergency medical assistance. Amendment No. 36 would also prevent charging for fires that occurred at sea or under the sea outside the jurisdiction of any fire authority. The ability to charge for dealing with such incidents was inserted into the 1947 Act by Section 2 of the Marine Safety Act 2003, at the specific request of marine salvage operators. They had been concerned that there

1099
was no incentive for authorities to deal with incidents that occurred outside their jurisdiction, and so were prepared to meet the costs of such intervention in the hope of reducing the losses incurred. It would be a retrograde step if we took that provision out, having just put it into legislation.
I appreciate that the area is complicated, and that not much is known about it. However, I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured. We are not looking to be onerous, but there are circumstances in which it would be quite right for the fire and rescue service to make a charge for the services that it provides.
Lord Hanningfield:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Before the dinner break, I spoke to a group of amendments pointing out the areas in which one could charge. If you were locked out of your house, for instance, and telephoned the fire service asking to be let in, perhaps there would be a charge. A fire engine might go out with four or five people on it to let you into the house. However, if there were a major road accident in which someone was seriously injured, one would not expect the fire service to arrive and ask the person to produce a credit card before receiving help.
There are potential areas from which one can help fire service budgets, but I remain confused on the Government's thinking. The Minister agrees that there are incidents for which charges could be made; for instance, it should be possible to recoup costs from a large lorry spilling sulphuric acid on the road. I hope that before Third Reading the Minister will be able to clarify the Government's thinking on charging, otherwise we might have to explore the matter further. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Fire and Rescue National Framework]:
Lord Hanningfieldmoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 10, line 32, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 37 is an important amendment regarding the status of the framework. I think that last time we were in clear disagreement about what a framework or guidelines mean. Perhaps we are all agreed that this was a debate about the balance between local and national.
The framework is a key document that will define how fire and rescue authorities discharge their functions and, by virtue of provisions later in the Bill that require compliance, it will allow the Secretary of State to dictate the blueprint for the operation of the fire and rescue services. That is already too far down the line of undermining the principle of local service accountability and too much centralisation.
The amendment would remove the obligation for the framework to set out priorities and objectives for authorities and the discharge of their functions. As I said last time, it is the proper role of Parliament to set out the functions of fire and rescue authorities in primary legislation, as this Bill does. The Secretary of State already has substantial powers, particularly
1100
under Clauses 9, 14 and 17, to direct how those functions will be discharged. Under subsection (2)(b), the Secretary of State will be able to issue guidance to authorities,
"in connection with the discharge of any of their functions".
That should be a sufficient level of intervention. The discharge of their proper functions must be a matter for local fire and rescue authorities rather than something to be defined in exact detail by the Secretary of State.
The problem with the national framework is that it is only at the beginning of its life, and it already mocks the idea of a partnership between local fire authorities and central government because it is full of mandatory requirements. I fear that this will get worse over time. I disagree with the right honourable Nick Raynsford on this matter. The amendment would not sink the framework. The framework can provide strategic leadership without central diktat, and this amendment would help to achieve that. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, we support the amendment. As my noble friend Lady Maddock pointed out to me, it is consistent that we should do so when we did not support the Conservative amendment on targets. Perhaps there is a little inconsistency between this amendment and that one and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, might like to comment on that in winding up.
This is far too meddlesome a provision. I do not disagree with some sort of framework being developed through consultation. However, I do not believe that having a statutory framework which deals with the matters set out in Clause 21(2), including "priorities and objectives" which should be sorted out by the individual fire authorities working out how they will go about achieving their core functions, is the way forward. And that is despite the Government's Amendment No. 38, which we shall debate in a moment, under which an order will be unamendable. In our view, the framework—the subject of it—will have to be minimalist indeed for this to be the right approach.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, that is not very fair, rubbishing the amendment in the next group before I have had the opportunity to move it! Before we reach the Government's "supreme" Amendment No. 38, we think that to advocate that the strategic priorities should not be set out at a national level first would not be sensible and secondly, goes against the respected recommendations of Sir George Bain and his colleagues, who advocated stronger strategic leadership of the fire and rescue services from central government. That was a point that they made.
Indeed, when examining the Bill, the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister said that the services need strong political leadership from the Government to ensure the successful implementation and management of change during a potentially very turbulent period. That is the

1101
considered view of Sir George Bain and his colleagues and the Select Committee in the other place. I am not sure why the noble Lords and the noble Baroness opposite wish to remove the provision which is aimed at fulfilling that recommendation.
I must rebut some of the things which have been said. The accusation that the Government are increasingly prescriptive and not allowing local discretion is false. I remind the House that we have done more than any other government since 1947 in allowing the fire and rescue authorities discretion in discharging their functions, so our record is a good one. We have repealed Section 19 of the 1947 Act and removed the quite outdated national standards of cover. They have been replaced with local integrated risk management plans, which give local fire and rescue authorities the flexibility they need to meet the needs of their communities. This is the Government letting go. As I clarified at earlier stages of the Bill, the legal status of the national framework is guidance to which the fire and rescue authorities should have regard in carrying out their functions. As such, it does not impose mandatory requirements which would be the consequence of imposing by legislation.
In order to provide strategic direction for the fire and rescue services, the national framework sets out priorities and objectives. We have said that authorities should consider the majority of these in carrying out their function. However, these priorities and objectives will be delivered locally and will be done differently in different areas of the country. It is a matter for the authorities to decide, not for us to tell them.
We want to be able to strike the right balance between a strategic overall government direction and decision making by the local authorities. Had the Bain committee and the Select Committee recommended that we provide that leadership, and we did not, we would be "found guilty". We have to get that balance right. We will not be able to prove that we have got it right until it is working, but it would be quite wrong to put all the emphasis on the fire authorities as it would be equally wrong for the Government to take it all on board, make it prescriptive and then enshrine it in legislation. We are not doing that.
Lord Hanningfield:My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am afraid that I disagree with that totally. James Strachan, the chairman of the Audit Commission, in a major speech on Friday to a local government conference, also disagreed with that totally. We are all agreed that the Government should set out their strategic position and set their priorities. No one disputes that, but, as was said by James Strachan, they take on a managerial role, increasingly in every area of local delivery. One sees that all the time. The comprehensive performance assessment tries to turn out everyone like peas in a pod. I totally disagree with what the Minister said there. I think he must see what is happening on the ground rather than make speeches.
This is an important amendment. I repeat: no one disagrees that the Government should set their priorities and a strategic framework. However, it
1102
should then be left to local authorities to implement it. It might be different in Cornwall from Cumbria, and it should be. Increasingly, we see a blueprint that everywhere should be the same. The Government should recognise that, and I hope that the Minister will recognise that too. The intention behind the amendment is to try to ensure that that happens, not to disagree that the Government should set their priorities. We might have to return to this at a future stage. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 38:
Page 11, line 16, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
"(6) The Framework as first prepared, and any revisions to the Framework which appear to the Secretary of State to be significant, have effect only when brought into effect by the Secretary of State by order."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Amendment No. 38 the Government seek to acknowledge and address the concerns that noble Lords raised in Grand Committee about the level of parliamentary scrutiny attached to the national framework.
Noble Lords were concerned that Parliament would not get an opportunity to examine the framework before it came into effect. This amendment meets those concerns by requiring the Secretary of State to make an order, subject to negative resolution, to bring the national framework into effect. An order would also have to be made before the Secretary of State could introduce any "significant" changes to the framework.
The amendment will provide Parliament with an opportunity for greater scrutiny and I hope that it will reassure those who were concerned that there had been insufficient opportunity to examine the national framework. It also addresses the first part of Amendment No. 39, which likewise requires that the framework be subject to a negative resolution statutory instrument.
However, Amendment No. 39 also goes on to require that all revisions to the national framework are laid before Parliament. That would be impractical. The framework may need to be altered in all manner of minor ways to correct errors, to reflect changes in other guidance documents and legislation and to refer to examples of best practice as they emerge from the fire and rescue authorities. To expect all those changes to be laid before Parliament is, frankly, to misunderstand the role of Parliament. I was going to intervene in the previous contribution, simply to point out that the chairman of the Audit Committee has his job to do and that the Government have their job to do. We know where the dividing line is.
The Government's amendment clearly states that where changes to the national framework are significant, Parliament will have the opportunity to consider them. By "significant", we mean that the revision represents a change in policy or a new

1103
requirement of the fire and rescue authorities; so it would be possible to recognise when parliamentary scrutiny was necessary. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham:My Lords, I thank the Minister for his amendment. Despite comments coming from my right, we are prepared to accept it as a reasonable response to the concerns we have raised.
Both the Government's amendment and the one we tabled, which has now resulted in the government amendment, raise the whole question of the scrutiny of the framework. As I understand the amendment, it means that the framework will come forward as an order before it is implemented. We will have a chance to look at it from top to bottom, which we have not been able to do during the passage of the legislation so far. That should give us quite a few happy hours. I hope that enough time will be set aside for that.
The matter will be subject to discussion in Parliament both as the framework as first prepared and if there are any revisions. I agree that commas and semicolons should not come into it, but I hope that "significant" represents, as the Minister says, a change in the policy within the framework. I thank the Minister for his response to that.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Intervention by Secretary of State]:
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 40:
Page 11, line 23, leave out from second "to" to end of line 24 and insert "discharge its functions under section 6, 7, 8 or 9"
The noble Baroness said: I supported the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on this issue in Grand Committee, although I rather unkindly but unintentionally pre-empted him in the argument by tabling it in a previous group. When I drafted the amendment I made a note to myself that it was because Clause 22 allows for the Secretary of State to intervene on a fire and rescue authority on the basis of its likely failure to have regard to a non-statutory document.
We have just discussed the government amendment, which requires the framework to come before Parliament, but as I said when discussing the group before last, we will still be unable to amend it. I do not depart from my view that including the framework in primary legislation approaches the matter in a way with which we are not comfortable, giving it the wrong sort of status—which is not to say, as I said before, that there should not be discussion, consultation and working together to arrive at best practice.
Clause 22 allows the Secretary of State to intervene in a failing authority, or one that is likely to fail, for reasons that are well rehearsed and into which I shall not go now. We oppose the comprehensive performance assessment process; we oppose intervention. I do not seek to preclude intervention altogether by the amendment, but can we not pin it down to failure on the part of the authority to perform its statutory functions? Here, we have intervention if an authority is likely to fail to act in accordance with
1104
the framework. As the previous clause simply states that authorities must have regard to the framework when carrying out their functions, I do not view the two as wholly consistent.
It is a document to which authorities should have regard, which must mean that there is at least some opportunity for them to say, "That does not really fit with the way in which we are doing things. We have thought about it; we have had regard to it; but we are not going to take it on board—at any rate, in its entirety. Our priorities and objectives are a little different. Our circumstances—the geographic or demographic area in which we work—mean that our priorities should be adjusted a little from those imposed by the framework. We have thought about the guidance in Clause 21(2)(b). We take account of it. But we have a slightly different way to achieve what may be an agreed outcome".
Or, under Clause 21(2)(c), the framework,
"may contain any other matter relating to fire and rescue authorities or their functions that the Secretary of State considers appropriate".
So we are enabling the Secretary of State to do something about a fire and rescue authority that is likely to fail about which none of us yet knows anything, because the Secretary of State may take a view about what is appropriate some time in the future.
It may be boring, but I shall say it again: it may be a Secretary of State who is not a member of the Government whom the Minister represents. That enables us to think about the matter a bit more objectively. I wrote down that the Minister cannot in the same breath defend the clause and say that the Bill is not a centralising measure; but he has already done so, so that disproves my point; but he should not put both in the same breath. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, yet again, I stand by everything that I have said about the clause. It is about last resort, reserve powers, which are the action of any responsible government. Frankly, any responsible government consisting of members of other parties would seek such powers—perhaps not in these particular circumstances, but such powers would be natural and useful and any government would be failing in their duty if they did not include them in the Bill.
The fire and rescue authorities are best value authorities and subject to the provisions of the Local Government Act 1999, which empowers the Secretary of State to issue guidance and set standards, and to make directions and provisions to provide for the performance of functions. It is precisely because the national framework goes wider than the local delivery of core functions and sets out national and regional performance expectations of critical functions that the intervention powers in Clause 22 are necessary to supplement those available under the existing best value regime.
9 p.m.
Examples of those wider-than-core functions are recorded in paragraph 4.17 of the White Paper Our Fire and Rescue Service and paragraph 2.9 of the draft national framework. They are: ensuring resilience to emergencies; specialist or common services; control rooms; procurement; training strategies and personnel and human resource functions. It is essential that we have those powers, albeit that we hope never to have to use them—that is the whole point. We have said repeatedly that the intervention powers will be used only in accordance with the agreed Local Government Intervention Protocol; it will not be based on a whim or done behind closed doors.
We want to ensure that the national framework retains flexibility to evolve as the process of modernisation in the fire and rescue services changes and progresses. If intervention powers are tied to functions written into the legislation, we will lose the scope for change and development in the service as the measures begin to take effect.
The framework will also give practical and current guidance on how authorities should exercise their core functions. It therefore deals with the detail of what the service needs to do to promote public safety, economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It will be essential for the Secretary of State, if needs be, to ensure that practical measures outlined in the framework will be implemented. That is a further reason for which we need the reserve powers. Anything less could undermine the whole modernisation agenda. There is a big agenda. These long-stop provisions in the Bill are designed not to be used, but to send a signal that if the modernisation agenda fails or authorities fail the reserve powers are there. That is a strong signal, which, I think, will ensure that the powers will never be used.
Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, we are not going to agree on the matter, but I repeat that we have not sought in this amendment to exclude intervention powers. That is important. The Minister suggested that any responsible government would find a means of intervening on a failing authority. If the means as distinct from the functions are so important, they should be contained in the legislation. The point is partly met by having an instrument subject to negative resolution, but only very partially, given that neither House can amend the order. As I said, we will not agree, but this is not the time of night to test the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
"INTERVENTION CODE

The Secretary of State shall publish a code specifying the circumstances and the manner in which—

he may make an order under section 22; or

he may issue a direction under any provision of this Act.

1106

The code shall include, in particular, details of—

the persons or classes of person the Secretary of State will consult before taking the action referred to in subsection (1);

any other codes of conduct or agreements with any other persons or bodies to which the Secretary of State will have regard when contemplating any action referred to in subsection (1).

Before publishing the code referred to in subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult—

all fire and rescue authorities or persons confirmed by them as representing them; and

all persons or bodies recognised by any fire and rescue authority as representing any group of its employees; and

any other person who appears to the Secretary of State to have an interest in or to be likely to be affected by the actions referred to in subsection (1)."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return briefly to the possibility of the Government producing an intervention code. We discussed the matter in Committee in the context of Clause 22. It comes about as a result of the concerns expressed throughout about the amount of power that Clause 22 will give the Secretary of State. I hear very clearly what the Minister says; once again, this is a last-chance saloon or last resort. As we have heard from the Minister, much of the Bill has "last resort" status. It seems a lot of effort to get round to something that the Deputy Prime Minister will do if all else fails.
Last time, we also discussed the local government intervention protocol and whether it would be sufficient under the CPA and the best-value processes. But we are still very much of the view that whether that is something that will never happen or will happen only on limited occasions, it would be proper for the Government to give an indication of when the intervention powers might apply. Therefore, we propose that an intervention code and guidance specific to Clause 22 be published. That would be appropriate so that people knew exactly what the Secretary of State's powers would be if he felt that he had to intervene under this clause.
That is what this is all about. We discussed it last time when I think we had some discussion on the local government protocol. But we believe that there should be a code of guidance associated with this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I shall be brief. I understand the concern about Clause 22. There is also concern about other clauses, but I understand this concern in particular. We do not have a great deal of time because we hope to get the Bill on the statute book. In the short time available, I should like to ask my ministerial colleagues to have a quick think about the matter before Third Reading.
Baroness Hanham:My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Report]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 42:
Page 12, line 5, at beginning insert "(1)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 42, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. These are government amendments which commit the Government to reporting to Parliament on the extent to which the fire and rescue authorities are acting in accordance with the national framework at least once every two years.
The Bill states that the Secretary of State will report on the national framework from "time to time". That has been interpreted as a slightly vague commitment. While we always intended to make regular reports to Parliament, the amendments present a clearer timetable for that process. The amendment was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in Grand Committee. I am grateful for their suggestion and no doubt they will be happy to support its inclusion. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield:My Lords, we obviously welcome the fact that the Government have accepted our amendment.
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 43 and 44:
Page 12, line 5, leave out "from time to time"
Page 12, line 9, at end insert—

The first report under subsection (I) must be made before the end of the period of two years starting on the date when the Framework as first prepared is brought into effect.

Every subsequent such report must be made before the end of the period of two years starting on the date on which the last such report was made."

Clause 28 [Equipment, facilities, services and organisations]:
Lord Hanningfieldmoved Amendment No. 45:
Page 13, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert "necessary for the protection of public safety"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 return to Clause 28—fortunately, not the famous Clause 28—which allows the Secretary of State to provide equipment and services to fire authorities, to require their use and to require them to pay for their use. While the Minister explained last time that Clause 28 was principally concerned with centralised procurement, there remains some doubt about the drafting of the clause.
First, the clause should be better drafted so that it would place less emphasis on the role of the Secretary of State in this process. The powers of the Secretary of State are too widely drawn in that area. Procurement efficiencies do not emanate only from Whitehall. Secondly, I do not agree with the argument advanced by the Minister in Committee that because this concerns the tools to do the job rather than the job itself, public safety does not come into it.
The point is precisely that if the Secretary of State is to be so heavily involved in procurement, only the grounds of public safety are strong enough. I reiterate that that is because it is the authority's council tax payers, and not the Secretary of State, who should be driving the agenda of efficiency and effectiveness. Saving lives is more important than saving cash.
Amendment No. 45 is designed to focus the Government's mind on the stated public safety agenda. The Secretary of State may think that it is in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness for him to decide everything. But we disagree.
As before, Amendment No. 46 repeats the same intentions in relation to Clause 28(2), substituting reference to public safety and giving symmetry with Clause 29, which specifically allows the exercise of powers only in the interests of public safety. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I want to clarify what Clause 28 is all about. It concerns ensuring that the Fire and Rescue Service has the tools to enable it to carry out its job effectively. Unlike many of the clauses we have discussed, it is not about how the service discharges its functions and it is therefore not appropriate to specify public safety as a requirement. The cost of procuring equipment for the Fire and Rescue Service has an impact on local council tax payers and as such we do have to take into account the overall economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the service.
The Bain review concluded that procurement was one area where significant improvements could be achieved if authorities joined together to pool requirements and expertise. The others were the amalgamation of control rooms, outsourcing or collaboration arrangements for vehicle maintenance and the rationalisation of management and support costs. The review suggested that combined savings in these areas could reach some £42 million over three years.
I agree with the noble Lord that saving lives is more important than cost, but if it is possible to save money and still save lives, but do so more efficiently, what is the problem with that? Money can be saved. I say that because the current procurement arrangements for the provision of equipment and services specific to the service are often inefficient due to the small scale on which they are carried out. Fire and rescue authorities can currently collaborate to develop standard specifications, reduce specialist administration costs and place bulk orders. However, this potential has been significantly under-exploited despite efforts over the past decade to achieve improvements. This has led to important equipment such as breathing apparatus not being standardised throughout the service.
Years ago NATO had a problem because its bullets would not fire from the guns being used in all the different countries. It was barmy, but eventually it was sorted out. The idea that breathing apparatus is not standardised throughout the fire service is appalling. There were opportunities to do something about it, but

1109
they were not taken. That is not simply a cost implication, it is a question of interoperability. The system must be made more efficient. It is crazy to have breathing apparatus that cannot be swapped or borrowed, or which someone cannot be trained to use. Some kind of standardisation is needed.
It is not acceptable for that state of affairs to continue. We want to give a push in this area. One option is to use Clause 28(2) to establish a single organisation to be responsible for providing Fire and Rescue Service-specific equipment and services. Any such organisation would sit within the local government family rather than be an arm of central government. I want to make that point absolutely clear. We are working with the Fire and Rescue Service and the Local Government Association to establish how best this could be done. One effect of the amendments would be to prevent the Secretary of State establishing such an organisation.
We are well aware that the Fire and Rescue Service has a massive amount of expertise on equipment, both British made and that from overseas. I am not criticising by implication any particular purchase of equipment that has been made. But there is a view in terms of being efficient about the use of equipment by benefiting from bulk purchase and so forth.
We want to make sure that the service is involved at the early stage of any procurement exercise. That has been the case with both the New Dimension programme and the Firelink radio project, and it will be the case with the control rooms project. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord is reassured that good sense lies behind what we are proposing in the Bill.
Lord Hanningfield:My Lords, this is not the time to discuss the matter. Perhaps we should have another debate on it. There has been much discussion from Gershon, Bain and others over the past few weeks about the potential savings to be made in procurement. For some years I have been involved in local government procurement, handling contracts worth several billion pounds in association with 13 different authorities. I think that the Government are in for a big shock when they find that the savings are not there.
I agree completely that only one kind of breathing apparatus should be used throughout the UK. However, we have only one manufacturer of fire engines at the moment, so there is little chance of saving any money since no one else makes them; there is only one provider. Similarly, if we move to one kind of breathing apparatus, ultimately there will be only one provider of breathing apparatus, which would have a monopoly. The Government will not make the savings they want because only one body will be bidding for a contract.
Having been involved in this business for many, many years, I do not see any potential for colossal savings; you cannot save much money on paperclips or paper. You can save money on big equipment, perhaps, and possibly by centralising control rooms—I accept that—but I do not believe that any savings will
1110
come from procurement and either Gershon or Bain. I say that after many years of experience in procurement in local government.
I cannot accept what the Minister said. I still believe that it would be better to leave this to local authorities rather than for Ministers to employ advisers on big salaries to come up with ideas that do not work. Local authorities clubbing together might do better on procurement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 31 [Negotiating bodies]:
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hanningfieldmoved Amendment No. 47:
Page 14, line 30, leave out "authorities" and insert "services, such persons being representative of organisations considered by the Secretary of State to be appropriate, and the number of representatives being as considered appropriate by the Secretary of State"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed in some detail the rationale behind the amendment during the Committee stage. I was pleased that there was a degree of shared sentiment on all sides. The amendment would provide the Secretary of State with the opportunity to guarantee any party, including the Retained Firefighters Union, a place at the table to negotiate terms and conditions.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said in unequivocal terms that it was the Government's wish to see the RFU represented in its own right; this being achieved through agreement. Indeed, we hope too that this can be achieved through agreement. We have said all along that we are adamantly opposed to a greater intervention by the Secretary of State. However, at the moment, the RFU are caught between a rock and a hard place. It does not have the required number of members to guarantee it a place at the negotiating table; and because it does not have a seat at that table it is unlikely to attract the required number of new members.
As I have said previously, there are significant areas of the country—for example, Devon—that are covered virtually entirely by members of the RFU. Therefore, to have a truly representative negotiating body that covers the whole country, it is important that the RFU is represented.
We fully understand the sensitivity of the ongoing negotiations. However, our previous discussions on this subject took place nearly two months ago in mid May. Can the Minister give the House an update on the position and say whether the Government's view on this important issue has changed since that date? I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I can be brief. After listening to the noble Lord's speech and reading my notes, I can reassert the Government's position in regard to their intention on the issue of employee representation on a statutory negotiating body.

1111
Under the current arrangements, the Fire Brigades Union is the only union that sits on the negotiating body for non-principal fire officers. The Bain review recommended that union representation should be widened, and we agreed. We still agree. We believe that a more diverse representation of employee interests in negotiations is important.
We spelt this out very clearly in the White Paper when we agreed that a new negotiating body should involve representatives of the Retained Firefighters Union. Clause 31 as currently drafted will allow us to ensure that the range of voices across the workforce is heard at the negotiating table. We meant what we said then, and that remains the position; that is what will happen.
Lord Hanningfield:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It is very helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 48:
Page 14, line 32, leave out from first "is" to end and insert "not independent for the purposes of subsection (2) if he is"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Amendment seeks to leave out that,
"A chairman"—
of a negotiating body—
"is independent for the purposes of subsection (2) if he is not"—
an employee as outlined in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), and to insert the wording that a chairman,
"is not independent for the purposes of subsection (2) if he is".
I could hear the Minister's teasing as I was outlining the amendment.
There is an important distinction between the two. At the Committee stage when I raised this issue—it did not occur to me until we were in the middle of the debate—the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said:
"It could be expressed in the affirmative ... but we have done it the other way round. It is probably traditional drafting".—[Official Report, 24/5/04; col. GC405.]
It is not an easy matter to respond to without notice, so I imply no criticism of the noble Lord by bringing it back now. Frankly, if that is traditional drafting, we should change the tradition because the two expressions mean different things.
As the Bill is expressed, there are only four circumstances in which someone would not be independent—if he is a member or employee, a Minister, a civil servant or someone involved with a member or employee of a body representing the interests of fire and rescue authority employees. That cannot be an exclusive list. For example, what if the person is the leader of a major local authority with strong political views that happen to coincide with those of the government of the day? Would such a person be independent in those circumstances? I know that we will be told about the application of Nolan principles and so forth, and I am not making this as a party political point, because it is not a political point
1112
in that sense—nor is it a "lawyer's" point. I invite the Government to reconsider the way that they have gone about expressing this because it is a substantial point. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I skip over this amendment rather quickly, because I can be nicer about the next one. I want to make it absolutely clear. We cannot accept this amendment. We have given assurances, as have my colleagues in another place, that if we had to use these reserve powers we would follow a rigorous appointment process to ensure that the chair would be genuinely independent.
The Bill clearly states that the chairman—or chairwoman—must be independent. However, were we to accept the amendment, it would leave us with no definition of independence for the purpose of subsection (2). Our legal advice is that that would leave the Government open to litigation on the question of whether a chair or prospective chair was actually independent. There is a legal point here that causes us a problem. However, I can be nicer about the next amendment.
Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, I do not know how nice the Minister will be about the next amendment. One knows independence when one sees it. The restrictive nature of this provision leaves me unhappy, but I will contain myself until the next amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 14, line 37, at end insert—
"(e) a person who is of a description specified by the Secretary of State in regulations under subsection (1)"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would enable the Secretary of State to add to the definition of lack of independence. It goes against the grain for me to propose an amendment to allow the Secretary of State to make further regulations, but there we are. If it will meet the point, then I will do so. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I hope that I will not be accused of misleading the noble Baroness, but this response is nicer. My briefing says "resist" but there is a "but". This is an important matter because there is a problem if one cannot explain clearly in quite short statements to a camera or microphone stuck in front of one's face about the clarity of someone in this position, and one needs to be able to fall back on a process that is rigorous and that people trust. That is what we need to work on.
Amendment No. 49 would enable the Secretary of State to add further exclusions to the people who are independent for the purpose of subsection (2). As it is currently drafted, four groups of people are named in the Bill as being debarred from holding the position of chair, as they are not independent for this purpose. We previously acknowledged that the Bill does not list all

1113
those people whom we would regard as failing to meet the requirement for independence in relation to subsection (2). It would simply not be practical to do that. The Government have, however, given assurances that we want a genuinely independent chair. We have absolutely no doubt that the role requires someone of real competence, stature and independence. Bain said that the chair should be independent, and Ministers have long said the same.
People outside read what we say, so I want to put it on record that these are reserve powers, and we hope that we will not have to use them. We will not start out with the intention of using these powers, but if we need to draw them down, the Bill requires us to consult before making the regulations. The detailed proposals for the new negotiating body, including the process for appointing the chair, and ensuring that the chair has met the requirement of real independence, would be a matter of regulation.
I had a brief discussion this morning. I asked if ACAS was involved, because there is no such provision in the Bill. Even after public advertisement, using the Nolan principles, with someone from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments sitting at your side going through the shortlist and interview processes, I would still expect such a person to get the imprimatur of ACAS as being someone qualified and experienced—and knowledgeable about negotiations and the kind of issues about which the body will be talking. That would give that extra stamp of approval.
We have to go through a process. We cannot go back to the old days and get a list of the great and the good, however qualified they might be. We probably have to do a bit more work, perhaps by letter rather than on the face of the Bill, to make it clear how serious we are that this person will be genuinely independent. Anybody can be independent—we could pick someone at random. A juror is supposed to be independent, chosen at random from the electoral register. We want someone of competence and stature and experience, who will be trusted by all parties concerned. That will not be an easy task, if we ever have to go down this road, simply because the circumstances of making the appointment would mean that the reserve powers have had to be used. So such a person would also need to be something of a diplomat.
We need to do more work in clarifying what we mean by this. Whether it can be done on the face of the Bill, I do not know, but we will put something extra in writing in the next couple of days to give more of our thoughts on this.
Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not take issue with him about the need to have someone who is right for the job. Taking advice from ACAS or whoever about whether applicants have the right skills is common sense. It is welcome information, but I am not sure that it actually goes to the point of this amendment or the previous
1114
one. However, I shall wait to see what the Minister has to say over the next couple of days. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 [Preservation of existing pension scheme]:
Lord Hanningfieldmoved Amendment No. 50:
Page 18, line 26, at end insert "except in such cases as may be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 50, we return to the issue of whether Clause 36 unduly restricts the employment of police officers as retained firefighters. This clause penalises the retained part of the fire service in a way inconsistent with the stated aims of the Bill to make the fire and rescue services flexible, effective and diverse.
In Committee, the Minister said that there would always be a possibility of a conflict between the duties of the police officer and his or her duties as a firefighter. I do not believe that there have been any examples of any conflict of interest caused by this professional relationship, but I am happy to stand corrected on this point if it helps me understand the Government's position. More importantly, however, I do not understand why a reasoned and rigorous process could not be put in place that could effectively prioritise between potentially conflicting roles. Surely that is not too difficult to implement.
There are many examples in public life where fulfilling the duties of one role ultimately gives way to another. I have no doubt that this choice would have to be made at difficult junctures, such as in emergency situations. That is why a process should be in place so that the police officer and his employers would know exactly where they stood in advance of such a situation arising.
I am also concerned that Clause 36 seems to restrict all employment with a fire and rescue service, whereas the 1947 Act dealt only with employment with a fire brigade. For example, under Clause 36, a part-time police constable could not be employed as a part-time fire control room operator or in a part-time administrative role. That suggests that the clause is not only an unnecessarily wide prohibition on a police officer's right to secondary employment, but also that there may be circumstances that need not result in what the Government would presumably class as an unacceptable conflict of responsibilities.
With this amendment, we are seeking to allow the Government an opportunity to specify in regulations the circumstances in which it would be possible to be both a police officer and a fire and rescue service employee, while not compromising the main intention of Clause 36. That is a much fairer and more effective way forward for both individual employees and the retained part of the fire service. It also reflects the fact that many of us are able to navigate potential conflicts of interest in many walks of life without undue restriction. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I am in some difficulty. The amendment to page 18, line 26, is actually in Clause 35, which is about the preservation of existing pension schemes. The noble Lord's speech related to Clause 36, which talks about the prohibition on the employment of the police. We are on Amendment No. 50. I have a really good speech on the provision of pension schemes, but that was not the issue raised by the noble Lord. I have not got any notes on the prohibition on the employment of police officers.
Lord Hanningfield:My Lords, would it be preferable to remove it totally today and bring it back at Third Reading? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Powers of fire-fighters etc in an emergency etc]:
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 51:
Page 21, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) if he reasonably believes a fire to be about to break out, for the purpose of preventing the fire or protecting life or property;"
The noble Baroness said:The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment, we return to the issue of extending the rights of firefighters to effect entry if they reasonably believe a fire may be about to break out. In Committee, the Minister suggested that we contact the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association to back up our argument with examples of where firefighters have been unable to take preventative action that they felt was necessary. We received an interesting response. It is true that they did not have any examples where they felt unable to act, or where they had been subject to a legal challenge. Nevertheless, the association is still of the opinion, as are we, that there may be situations that could render their actions technically illegal, or where erroneous preventative actions could be subject to legal challenge if they are not protected by the amendment.
I hope that noble Lords will indulge me in returning to this issue, if only in order to extract absolute clarity from the Government. It is a reasonable objective, and in this case some question marks remain over the clause. The last time we discussed the issue, the Minister said that the Government had considered it since it was raised in the Commons, but they had decided against amending the Bill because it was felt that the powers were already there. However, while I accept these arguments are made in good faith, I understand that the wording of Clause 43 and the Minister's reply in Hansard are such that they require an event to have occurred already in order to give rise to a reasonable belief that forced entry will help to protect life and property. That is not the point of our amendment, which includes the sense of a reasonable belief based on what might happen if certain conditions obtain.
As I was sitting here, I was trying to think of such a situation, and I am afraid that they are all pretty dire. However, one could think of a situation where someone called the fire brigade because they were
1116
afraid that a criminal act had been carried out that might end up in a fire; and while there was no fire there, the result of the act was that potentially fire could break out. In those circumstances, the fire brigade would not have the right of entry until the fire had broken out. That is an untenable situation, and it is what this amendment is all about. I am talking about the type of forced entry when it is essential that the fire brigade gets into a building, based on a reasonable belief that a fire was about to break out—although that subsequently proves to be erroneous because a fire does not break out. Could those decisions be subject to a legal challenge, if they were found to be erroneous?
We seek the assurance that the fire service is protected in taking action in anticipation. The fire service believes that it is not protected. The Bill represents a perfect opportunity to put that right, if that is necessary. I refer to when preventive action might be taken and might result in legal action. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, the best way in which to answer the noble Baroness is to give her a couple of examples from my brief.
Would a firefighter have sufficient powers to break into a house or flat if the householder had been locked out and was concerned that a pan of cooking oil was heating on a cooker? The answer is, yes. The householder, or any person acting on the householder's behalf, would be able to authorise the firefighter to enter the premises. In that example there is no fire but a good prospect that one might break out. That is fairly straightforward.
My second example is similar. Would firefighters have powers to break into a property if they were tackling a fire in adjoining premises if the fire was in a common roof void or shared roofing material? The answer is, yes. Subsection (1)(a) allows the firefighter, if he reasonably believes a fire to have broken out, to do anything reasonable for the purpose of extinguishing the fire or protecting life or property. If there was a fire in a common roof area then we believe the fire and rescue services would have sufficient powers to enter any premises which might be threatened by the fire to prevent its spread, or equally to help the firefighters tackle the blaze.
Those are two specific examples, one in which there is clearly no fire and one in which there is a fire that might become bigger. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hanham:My Lords, I had hoped not to have to use this example, but it is the only one I can use and it is germane to the argument.
Arson is a terrible thing, which sometimes takes place when people shove things through letterboxes and follow it up with an inflammable substance. Under those circumstances, the person concerned or the householder might be inside the property; it might be the middle of the night and they may not know what is going on. Someone passing may see what is happening and call the fire brigade, but there would be

1117
nobody outside to authorise the fire brigade to go in. There would potentially be no fire seen at that moment—there may be a time gap. Under those circumstances, would there be an authority to deal with the situation? In that sort of situation, we need to ensure that there is proper cover for the fire service.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, that is a good example, to which I do not have a specific answer. The note that I have says that the incident that a person outside might have seen would probably have been a criminal act, so one would be quite able to summon the police with a 999 call. If that is not sufficient, we shall have to consider the matter.
The concern has been raised—I am not saying that it has not—and we are not unsympathetic, but the amendment would represent a substantial extension of the powers of entry for firefighters. We remain to be convinced that those extra powers would be needed. In the circumstances of the examples that I gave, the answer was yes. In the example given by the noble Baroness, it is clear that the police could be called, and they could then summon the fire service.
Baroness Hanham:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am still not terribly happy with it. We may need to consider whether another amendment could somehow bring in at least a limited authority for this. I am concerned that there could be situations in which firefighters found themselves legally at risk. So for today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 52:
Page 43, line 24, at end insert—
"(1A) In section 18 (schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members), after subsection (3G) insert—
"(3H) A fire and rescue authority constituted by a scheme under section 2 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 or a scheme to which section 4 of that Act applies shall be treated as a county council for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this section.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 52 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 54. These amendments are also prompted by Welsh authorities. They allow for allowances to members of the fire and rescue authorities to be pensionable. They are enabling powers and do not commit the Government or the National Assembly for Wales to introducing pensions. Clearly, more detailed regulations would be needed to deal with the point about double counting that was mentioned in an earlier debate.
The amendment was resisted in Grand Committee on the basis that the Government are reviewing members' allowances later this year and that if the review proposes a change it could be dealt with by subsequent legislation. I said then that enabling provisions in the Bill would mean that we would not have to wait for another legislative opportunity.
There is also a point on devolution. It may be that the National Assembly for Wales and the UK Government reach different answers to the question of whether members of fire and rescue authorities should receive pensions. Unless the Bill includes an enabling power, the National Assembly is denied the choice given by the Local Government Act 2000 for councillors in England. I know how committed the Government are to devolution so I am sure that they will understand that argument. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I must repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said in Committee. We will review members' allowances in general later in the year and allowances for members of fire authorities will be considered as part of the review. As the noble Baroness was speaking, my noble friend checked with me. I am a bit surprised to learn that the legislative change would require primary legislation and not an order. I suspect that there is a crossover with police authority allowances and other matters. The matter is obviously much more fundamental than I had thought, particularly as regards the inclusion of pensions.
I am going to have to retreat with that answer, which is exactly the same as the one given in Committee. However, I had not appreciated that primary legislation would be needed. I cannot give a commitment at this time. At the moment, we have no plans to make a change. However, a review is under way, and these allowances will be a part of that. We will need to take the views of all the stakeholders concerned. This is not a five-minute task. I am sorry that I am not able to give a more helpful response.
Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, I am sure that the Minister appreciates that I am not seeking an answer about the outcome of the review. I am simply trying to smooth the way. As the legislative timetable gets so clogged at this time of year, one is persuaded of the value of enabling legislation. However, having made the point and tried to help out, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 47, line 14, at end insert—
"Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999 (Si. 1999/1750)
91A (1) Schedule 1 to the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit the words "The Fire Services Act 1947 (c. 41), Sections 26 and 27A".
(3) At the end, add "Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, Sections 33 to 35"."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment also concerns pensions, as does Amendment No. 56, which is on much the same point. That amendment is not grouped with this one, but that is my fault.
Amendment No. 53 ensures that the Scottish Executive have the functions under the Bill in respect of pensions for employees of Scottish fire authorities. As my notes seem to have negatives in the wrong places, perhaps I will not continue this paragraph.
If the Bill confers functions with regard to pensions in Wales directly on the Assembly, it should protect the current devolution of that responsibility in respect of Scotland by amending the order referred to in the amendment. The Bill can achieve the same outcomes for Scotland and Wales. I suggest saving a little parliamentary time by not having to approve an order. That is a bit cheeky because I received my briefing from Wales and I have not been briefed by the Scots.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I was not clear whether the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was linking Amendment No. 56 with Amendment No. 53; will she speak to it separately?
Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, I was going to speak to it separately but, with the leave of the House, I could speak to it now.
The proposed functions for the Assembly with respect to pensions mark a significant development in the devolution settlement for Wales. Why that should happen has not, I am told, been the subject of reasoned argument by the Government; nor have the implications that it would have for other public service pensions schemes been considered. Currently, the Assembly has no functions under Section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 in respect of the local government pension scheme, under Section 9 in respect of teachers' pension schemes or under Sections 10 or 104 of the National Health Service Act 1977 in respect of the NHS pension scheme. I am told that the Bill's proposals represent the first occasion on which the Assembly will have functions in respect of pensions in the public sector. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I shall give the noble Baroness a considered reply to Amendments Nos. 53 and 56, which are connected. Amendment No. 53 seeks to make a consequential amendment to the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999, so that the reference in it to the "Fire Services Act 1947" is updated, to reflect the new legislation.
Ensuring that all pieces of secondary legislation which make reference to the 1947 Act, or indeed other terms such as "fire brigade", are revised is a considerable task—there are hundreds of such references to be amended. We therefore plan to do that as a single exercise, after the Bill has received Royal Assent, by means of an order under Clause 52. That will allow us to ensure that we capture all out-dated references in secondary legislation and thoroughly update the statute book.
Amendment No. 56 returns us to an issue raised in Grand Committee. The question of how pensions matters should be dealt with in Wales has been
1120
returned to again. The amendment would deny the National Assembly of Wales the power to make secondary legislation on pensions that the Scottish Executive currently enjoys in relation to the 1947 Act, and which it is our intention to give it, using a transfer of functions order, in relation to secondary legislation on pensions under this Bill.
From the debates so far on this issue, it seems that the concern is not that we are proposing to devolve pensions powers under the Bill to the National Assembly for Wales. The concern appears to be rather that more power should not be devolved to Wales than is devolved to Scotland. I can reassure the House on this matter. It is government policy to devolve to Wales policy matters currently reserved to the UK government in respect of the fire and rescue services. In drafting the provisions of this Bill, we have tried to replicate the outcome in Scotland, but not necessarily the method of achieving that outcome. Without going into the minutiae of detail, that basically answers the substantive question raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee:My Lords, I am grateful for that. I thank the Minister for the explanation. I am sure that we all look forward to the order to which he referred in connection with the relevant amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Pre-commencement consultation]:
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 55:
Page 26, line 14, after "force" insert "but after this Act has received Royal Assent"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I believe that this is the last amendment that we shall discuss tonight. I shall speak as quickly as I can. As I said in Committee, Clause 54 legitimises the consultation that takes place before the relevant provisions of the Bill come into force. The purpose of Amendment No. 55 is clear: it seeks to prevent the situation whereby consultation and discussion that took place on the Bill last year or the year before can be used in support of a claim that adequate consultation has taken place in respect of some matter dealt with by the Bill.
We reluctantly concede the principle of pre-commencement consultation in the interests of speeding up matters, but it must take place after the Bill has received Royal Assent. The context in which it takes place will be relevant to the responses received and the consultees must be able to see that context. That means that the Act of Parliament must be completed even if the relevant sections have not commenced.
As I said previously, I think that this is an important amendment because it aims to address the worrying trend of government pre-emption in legislation. I recognise the point made by the Minister that there could be disruption in terms of fire and rescue authorities' business and operational planning if this amendment were to be adopted. However, democratic processes are not adopted because they are the most efficient but because they are the most legitimate. That

1121
legitimacy hangs on the proper sequencing of legislative activity and not permitting the Government to enact policy on the basis that it will inevitably pass through the Houses of Parliament unamended.
This is not an issue confined to this Bill in particular but I think that we need to address what is a creeping problem of the executive towards the legislative supremacy of Parliament. My concern is not particularly aimed at this Government—but they just happen to be in office at the moment—though there can be no doubt that we saw this kind of pre-emption on the Planning Bill, as well as in the fire White Paper for the setting up of regional management boards by 1 April 2004. For the purposes of this amendment, and from a democratic point of view, it is only right that proper consultation be carried out once the relevant legislation has become law. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, I take the noble Baroness's point. It is an interesting point. I shall certainly obtain further betters and particulars from my learned friends on the matter. I should like to have provided examples where consultation has taken place on legislation, or the effect of it, before it received Royal Assent. I am sure that that must have happened under previous governments. I am not saying that that is necessarily a good thing. I do not believe that it is a question of usurping Parliament for reasons that I shall explain. However, I would be more comfortable if I had a couple of examples of the matter from recent years and prior to 1997.
We believe it is essential that we obtain the results of consultation on this Bill before Royal Assent and are able to take account of them, for example in relation to the core duties under Clause 9, the national framework and charging. The adoption of the amendment would mean that we would have to start that all over again. There is a problem here. Even if consultation began on the date of Royal Assent, we would have to operate the Cabinet Office guidelines that recommend a three-month period as a minimum. You have to have really good reasons to short-cut that three-month period. There then must be time to consider the responses before laying the commencement order which must lie before the House for a period before having effect. That could result in serious delays to the modernisation process in the fire and rescue services.
I freely admit that the Government are really keen to secure Royal Assent for the Bill before the Summer Recess. I am very grateful to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties as that could not be achieved
1122
without their co-operation. They have facilitated today's debate. I hope that that will also be the case on Third Reading next week. I refer to the implications of the amendment's adoption for the setting of budgets and starting all over again as regards operational capabilities, local authorities fixing their budgets, council tax levels and public safety issues. I make a special case for this Bill in the context of reforming the fire and rescue services. It is important as part of the overall timetable to try to obtain Royal Assent before the Summer Recess rather than in October. I know that my right honourable friends Nick Raynsford and the Deputy Prime Minister were mortified, and we explained to them that the Lords would try to help, which is what we have tried to do.
I make a special case in this instance but, on the general principle—the noble Baroness went outside the Bill and referred to that—I shall make some further inquiries. If possible, I shall write to noble Lords. I would be happier if there were precedents going back prior to 1997.
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, I could make a guess.
Lord Rooker:My Lords, my noble friend suggests a few relevant issues—poll tax, the GLC abolition Billߞbut I will not be run down the road by him. As a general principle, the point raised is extremely valid and deserves a considered response.
Baroness Hanham:My Lords, I very carefully said that my concern was not particularly aimed at this Government, because I thought that some noble Lords—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bassam— might pop up with something controversial. I shall not take the matter any further today. We already have the promise of further consultation on the framework, which is an important part of the Bill. However, as the Minister recognised, perhaps we might start adopting the principle. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 [Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 58:
Page 27, line 25, leave out subsection (2).
House adjourned at three minutes before ten o'clock.

  Irish Language Agency
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What consultations took place with officials of the Eire Government before that Government announced on 3 December 2003 the relocation of the Irish Language Agency to Donegal.

  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos):
  There was no consultation with officials of the Irish Government before the announcement on 3 December 2003 on the proposed relocation of the Irish Language Agency to Donegal. However the announcement made it clear that any such move would be subject to NSMC agreement.

  Language Implementation Body
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 10 June (WA 42) concerning the Language Implementation Body's budget, why there was no agreement with the agencies concerning the setting of the 2004 budget.

  Baroness Amos:
  I refer the noble Lord to my Answers of 22 March 2004 (WA 73), 21 April 2004 (WA 39), 17 June 2004 (WA 80) and 22 June 2004 (WA 113). I have nothing further to add to these Answers.

  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they have discussed with the Eire Government the suitability of certain grants made by the Ulster-Scots Agency to groups supporting Ulster-Scots culture; and if so, when such discussions were held.

  Baroness Amos:
  I can confirm that no such discussions were held. The board of the agency has responsibility for the exercise of the functions of the agency. Decisions on the payment of specific grants are primarily for the board of the agency with due regard to the approved business and corporate plans and also the remit of the agency.

  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 14 June (WA 53) concerning the appointment of a Cultural Affairs Officer by the Northern Ireland Department of Culture and Leisure, what steps the officer has taken to promote the work of the Ulster-Scots Agency outside the island of Ireland. [HL3480]
  WA116
  Baroness Amos:
  The Cultural Affairs Officer has offered the Ulster-Scots Agency the opportunity to promote its work at meetings and events in the United States. The agency's website has been featured on a number of occasions at events in Washington and a package of leaflets produced by the agency ("The Ulster-Scots in America") was among literature distributed at a number of events in the United States.

  Ulster-Scots Culture
  Lord Patten
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will define what they mean when they use the term "Ulster-Scots culture".

  Baroness Amos:
  "Ulster-Scots culture" is defined in the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 as relating to the cultural traditions of the part of the population of Northern Ireland and the border counties which is of Scottish ancestry and the influence of their cultural traditions on others, both within the island of Ireland and in the rest of the world.

  Northern Ireland: School Funding
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What, since 1990, has been the required number of pupils enrolling in a school in Northern Ireland for the school to receive government funding; whether there have been any exceptions; and, if so, what schools were involved; and what were the reasons given.

  Baroness Amos:
  The numbers enrolled at schools are kept under review with the relevant school authorities and amalgamation or closure is agreed for schools that are no longer considered viable. There are no set enrolments below which funding is automatically withheld: viability is considered on a case-by-case basis. To receive government support schools must also satisfy the following requirements:

  School management—the school must have a scheme of management under Article 123 of Education Reform (NI) Order 1989 and a board of governors constituted under Article 11 of the Education and Libraries (NI) Order 1986.

  Teachers—teachers must be properly qualified under Article 70(i) of the Education and Libraries (NI) Order 1986 and must observe days of operation under the teacher's regulations.

  Curriculum—there is a specific statutory requirement under the Education Reform (NI) Order 1989 that to qualify for grant a school must teach the Northern Ireland school curriculum as specified in the order.

  The department is also required to ensure that the establishment of a new school will not result in unreasonable public expenditure and will be viable in the long-term.
  WA117
  The current enrolment criteria for all new schools to qualify for funding are:
  Primary schools:
  Rural areas Minimum P1 intake of 12 pupils
  Urban areas Minimum P1 intake of 15 pupils
  Secondary schools: Minimum intake of 50 pupils

  The criteria for primary schools have been in place since 2000 and for post-primary schools since 2001. In recent years, new schools have generally been in either the integrated or Irish-medium sector. The criteria that applied to integrated schools prior to the introduction of the current requirements are below. These covered the Irish-medium sector since 1998.

  Primary Year 1 intake

  Secondary Year 8 intake

  1990

  15

  60

  1996

  25

  100

  1998

  25

  80

  2000

  12/15

  As above

  2001

  12/15

  80

  1 Rural/Urban respectively

  Two new schools received funding without strictly meeting the relevant intake criteria, as follows:

  In 1996, Meanscoil Feirste, the only Irish-medium post-primary school in Northern Ireland, was awarded grant-aided status, although it did not achieve the required intake. There was, however, firm evidence from the school's previous intakes and the growth in the Irish-medium primary school sector that the school would shortly achieve the level of enrolments and that these would be sustainable.

  In 2002, Bunscoil Bheanna Boirche, an existing independent Irish-medium primary school in Castlewellan, was approved for funding with a year 1 intake of 10 instead of 12. The decision was taken on the basis that the school had just fallen short of the minimum but had 12 pre-school children in the attached pre-school unit. The school at the time also had a total of 32 children of compulsory school age already attending.

  Northern Ireland: Loyal Order Parades
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 22 June (WA 115), why Tourism Ireland has not promoted and supported Loyal Order parades in Ulster as tourist attractions; and what steps it is now taking to do so.

  Baroness Amos:
  Tourism Ireland Limited carries out strategic all-Ireland destination marketing in all markets outside the island of Ireland.

  Responsibility for promoting and marketing detailed listings of tourist attractions in Northern Ireland lies with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) and in the Republic of Ireland it falls to Failte Ireland. NITB maintains a database record of the
  WA118
  major Loyal Order parades and ensures these are published on its consumer website.

  I also refer the noble Lord to my Answer for HL3439.

  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 22 June (WA 115), concerning the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, why the only Loyal Order parade listed in the annual events listing brochure for 2004 was the Maiden City Festival. [HL3439]

  Baroness Amos:
  The Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) maintains a database record of the major Loyal Order parades and ensures these are published on its consumer website.

  NITB has recently met with the Grand Orange Lodge to examine ways to work with it to increase the promotion of the 12 July parades.

  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  In each recruitment round for the Police Service of Northern Ireland since its creation, how many application forms have been requested; how many were received; what was the number in each merit pool; and what was the number of recruits from each round, broken down into Roman Catholics and non-Roman Catholics. [HL3501]

  Baroness Amos:
  I am advised that the numbers requested are as follows:

  Total number appointed on 50/50 basis

  Campaign

  Number of application forms requested

  Number Received

  Number in Merit Pool

  Roman Catholic

  Non-Roman Catholic

  1

  20,283

  7,843

  602

  153

  1152

  2

  9,607

  4,910

  458

  98

  98

  3

  8,929

  4,674

  419

  83

  83

  24

  8,579

  4,410

  857

  199

  197

  25

  9,752

  6,047

  1,087

  125

  140

  26

  6,660

  5,420

  880

  11

  17

  27

  4,596

  5,420

  34,800

  1 Excluding one non-R.C., candidate who withdrew at the final moment.

  2 Appointments are not yet complete for these campaigns. The number recorded reflects those appointed to date.

  3 Including online applications.

  Ulster Political Research Group
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether there has been any contact between the North/South Ministerial Council Secretariat in Armagh and the Ulster Political Research Group; if so, why such contact was made; and what is the Cross-Border Implementation Body's mandate for such contacts. [HL3502]
  WA119
  Baroness Amos:
  The NSMC Secretariat is staffed by officials drawn from the Irish Government and from the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Those staff may exercise both secretariat and other, wider, functions. Acting in their capacity as officials of the Irish Government and OFMDFM, staff of the secretariat have helped to facilitate meetings between members of the Ulster Political Research Group and a number of external organisations.

  Belfast: Waterways
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 24 February (WA 40), why those public authorities who own land or roadways adjacent to the Knock and Connswater Rivers do not clear the channels of those rivers; and why clearing of rivers in Northern Ireland is not the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Rivers Agency.

  Baroness Amos:
  The major urban sections of the Knock and Connswater Rivers are designated watercourses within the terms of the Drainage (NI) Order 1973 and therefore channel maintenance to ensure free flows is the responsibility of the Rivers Agency, and not adjacent landowners.

  Only very short sections are undesignated and the public authorities owning adjacent lands have been advised of their responsibility for channel clearance.

  The Rivers Agency's drainage remit in clearing rivers in Northern Ireland is limited to those watercourses designated by the Drainage Council for Northern Ireland. In general designated watercourses are those deemed to be beyond the maintenance capability of adjacent landowners and in which works at public expense provide value for money.

  Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order
  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What progress they are making on the review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Order (Northern Ireland); and whether they are consulting about the special needs of persons convicted of scheduled offences.

  Baroness Amos:
  The representations we received in our consultation exercise on reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 included views on scheduled offending.

  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Spellar) is currently considering the responses received and anticipates bringing forward legislative proposals in the autumn.

  Parliamentary Estate: Dust
  Lord Roberts of Conwy
  asked the Chairman of Committees:
  What analyses have been carried out over the past year of the dust content of the atmosphere in the Parliamentary Estate; and what were the results of any such analyses, in particular, what proportion is attributed to the demolition of buildings; and [HL3589]

  What proportion of the dust in the Parliamentary Estate is thought to be carcinogenic. [HL3590]

  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara):
  Analyses of the dust content of the atmosphere are not carried out as part of the regular monitoring of the Parliamentary Estate. However, whenever works require asbestos to be removed, or if the encapsulation of any asbestos is disturbed, or if any previously unknown asbestos is discovered, then air tests are done in the vicinity. Tests have been carried out on 10 sites in the past year, and in none of these cases was any airborne asbestos dust found. There is therefore no particular cause for concern that the dust on the Parliamentary Estate is carcinogenic.

  Cameroon: Elections
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What further discussions they have had or will have with President Biya of Cameroon on progress towards free and fair elections in October 2004; whether they will ask why observer status was refused by the Ministry of Territorial Administration to certain applicants who wished to observe the partial rerun of the 2002 municipal elections held in the Cameroon on 13 June.

  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean):
  My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister for Africa (Chris Mullin) have discussed the importance of a free, fair and transparent election with President Biya when he visited the UK in March 2004. The UK maintains a constant dialogue with the Government of Cameroon on preparations for the election. We were not aware of refusals by the Government of Cameroon to grant observer status to applicants wishing to observe the partial rerun of the 2002 municipal elections. Two representatives of the British High Commission observed the election reruns and we are discussing their observations with the Government of Cameroon.

  Libya: Capital Punishment
  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What representations they are making to the Government of Libya and to international bodies concerning the proposed execution of a Palestinian doctor and five Bulgarian nurses. [HL3573]
  WA121
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
  I spoke to Libyan Foreign Minister Shalgam on 9 May to express our concern at the verdict. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to Bulgarian Minister Passy immediately after the verdicts were handed down to offer our support. He also spoke to Mr. Shalgam on 25 May raising our concerns.

  The European Union Troika met Mr. Shalgam during the Euro Med Ministerial in Dublin on 6 May to highlight the EU's concern at the court's decision and underline that a satisfactory resolution to this case is a factor in the further improvement of Libya's relations with the EU. An EU demarche was made on Libyan Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem in Tripoli on 12 June.

  The defendants have signalled that they will appeal the decision. The Government will continue to monitor developments through our Embassy in Tripoli and push for an early hearing.

  Home Detention Curfew
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How many prisoners have been released on the home detention curfew scheme since January 1999; what were the categories of offences for which they had been sentenced; how many such prisoners were released in each category; and, in relation to each category, what was the average sentence received. [HL2973]

  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal):
  The requested information, for the period 28 January 1999 to 30 April 2004, is provided in the table.

  The table includes releases relating to sexual offenders. These were eligible to be considered for release under the home detention curfew (HDC) until March 2001. Since then prisoners subject to the registration requirements of Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (now replaced by Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) are statutorily excluded from the scheme and all other prisoners convicted of a sexual offence are presumed unsuitable for release on HDC. In addition, since 14 July 2003 prisoners convicted of certain serious offences including offences involving the death of the victim, attempted murder, threats to kill and racially aggravated offences are presumed unsuitable for release unless there are exceptional circumstances.

  HDC discharges by office type

  28 January 1999 to 30 April 2004

  Average sentence (months)

  Total

  92,280

  14.5

  Violence against the person

  16,717

  14.8

  Sexual offences

  97

  11.4

  Burglary

  8,596

  19.6

  Robbery

  4,417

  27.9

  Theft and handling

  12,319

  11.0

  Frauds and forgery

  6,505

  13.4

  Drugs offences

  13,323

  22.2

  Motoring offences

  14,372

  5.4

  Other

  15,934

  12.8

  Whitehall: Access for Peers
  Lord Smith of Clifton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Under what circumstances, when Whitehall is cordoned off, a Metropolitan Police officer may refuse passage to a Member of the House of Lords even when a Lords' pass is presented.

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal:
  If an area is cordoned off, the decision to refuse passage to any person is based entirely on the safety of that individual, in what may be a dangerous area, or to facilitate a rescue operation. Every endeavour is always made to restore normality as speedily as possible.

  Armed Forces: Recruitment
  Lord Astor of Hever
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Where the Armed Forces recruiting offices are in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man; and [HL3510]

  How many individuals, broken down by single-Service and multi-Service, each Armed Forces recruiting office has recruited in the past year. [HL3511]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach):
  The locations of the Armed Forces careers officers (AFCO), and the single-Service (predominantly Army) satellite recruiting offices are detailed in the table below. Also included is the number of individuals recruited by each AFCO, by Service, in financial year 2003–04:

  AFCO

  RN

  Army

  RAF

  Total

  Aberdeen

  45

  83

  101

  229

  Aldershot

  —

  113

  —

  113

  Ashington

  —

  46

  —

  46

  Bangor

  —

  68

  —

  68

  Barnsley

  —

  121

  —

  121

  Barnstaple

  —

  56

  —

  56

  Baroow-in-Furness

  —

  75

  —

  75

  Bathgate

  —

  49

  —

  49

  Belfast

  74

  120

  163

  357

  Birkenhead

  —

  122

  —

  122

  Birmingham

  139

  327

  286

  752

  Bishop Auckland

  —

  80

  —

  80

  Blackburn

  —

  85

  —

  85

  Blackheath

  —

  110

  —

  110

  Blackpool

  —

  94

  —

  94

  Bolton

  —

  153

  —

  153

  Boston

  —

  67

  —

  67

  Bournemouth

  76

  89

  107

  272

  Bradford

  —

  170

  —

  170

  Brighton

  46

  200

  152

  398

  Bristol

  141

  226

  189

  556

  Burnley

  —

  103

  —

  103

  Burton-on-Trent

  —

  118

  —

  118

  Cambridge

  16

  107

  120

  243

  Canterbury

  25

  63

  —

  88

  Cardiff

  74

  160

  208

  442

  Carlisle

  46

  432

  82

  560

  Carmarthen

  —

  39

  —

  39

  Catterick

  —

  25

  —

  25

  WA123

  Chatham

  44

  135

  111

  290

  Chelmsford

  33

  150

  —

  183

  Chester

  —

  82

  —

  82

  Chesterfield

  —

  62

  —

  62

  Chichester

  —

  60

  —

  60

  Coleraine

  —

  30

  —

  30

  Coventry

  47

  167

  100

  314

  Croydon

  —

  168

  —

  168

  Darlington

  66

  90

  —

  156

  Derby

  64

  63

  —

  127

  Doncaster

  —

  144

  —

  144

  Dover

  —

  42

  —

  42

  Dumbarton

  —

  48

  —

  48

  Dumfries

  —

  78

  —

  78

  Dundee

  65

  67

  190

  322

  Dunfermline

  36

  112

  —

  148

  Durham

  —

  120

  —

  120

  Edinburgh

  93

  144

  128

  365

  Elgin

  —

  40

  —

  40

  Exeter

  71

  79

  171

  321

  Galashiels

  —

  48

  —

  48

  Glasgow

  90

  202

  116

  408

  Gloucester

  57

  85

  178

  320

  Greenock

  —

  48

  —

  48

  Grimsby

  —

  110

  —

  110

  Guildford

  46

  —

  —

  46

  Halifax

  —

  71

  —

  71

  Hamilton

  —

  141

  —

  141

  Haverford West

  —

  54

  —

  54

  Hereford

  —

  78

  —

  78

  Herford

  —

  23

  —

  23

  Huddersfield

  —

  104

  —

  104

  Hull

  117

  150

  77

  344

  Ilford

  21

  210

  —

  231

  Inverness

  19

  72

  108

  199

  Ipswich

  48

  58

  —

  106

  Irvine

  —

  148

  —

  148

  Kirkcaldy

  —

  83

  —

  83

  Lancaster

  —

  77

  —

  77

  Leeds

  87

  180

  227

  494

  Leicester

  59

  142

  182

  383

  Lincoln

  57

  78

  152

  287

  Liverpool

  174

  223

  257

  654

  London

  182

  170

  253

  605

  Luton

  69

  135

  99

  303

  Manchester

  206

  256

  211

  673

  Mansfield

  —

  113

  —

  113

  Middlesborough

  88

  295

  174

  557

  Milton Keynes

  —

  95

  —

  95

  Newport

  —

  118

  —

  118

  Newport I of W

  —

  39

  —

  39

  Norwich

  58

  118

  215

  391

  Northampton

  —

  128

  —

  128

  Nottingham

  93

  124

  281

  498

  Oldham

  —

  111

  —

  111

  Omagh

  —

  14

  —

  14

  Oxford

  55

  82

  196

  333

  Paisley

  —

  69

  —

  69

  Perth

  —

  36

  —

  36

  Peterborough

  25

  128

  225

  378

  Plymouth

  239

  171

  172

  582

  Pontypridd

  —

  124

  —

  124

  Portadown

  —

  22

  —

  22

  Portsmouth

  207

  92

  218

  517

  Preston

  91

  115

  207

  413

  Reading

  —

  116

  —

  116

  Redruth

  67

  62

  91

  220

  Rhyll

  —

  84

  —

  84

  Salisbury

  —

  77

  —

  77

  Scarborough

  —

  48

  —

  48

  Sheffield

  85

  149

  206

  440

  Shrewsbury

  48

  108

  185

  341

  Southampton

  50

  85

  —

  135

  WA124

  Southend

  —

  129

  93

  222

  South Shields

  —

  87

  —

  87

  St Helens

  60

  —

  —

  60

  Stirling

  —

  71

  —

  71

  Stockport

  —

  118

  —

  118

  Stoke

  32

  175

  97

  304

  Strand (London)

  —

  603

  —

  603

  Sunderland

  —

  117

  —

  117

  Swansea

  75

  132

  108

  315

  Taunton

  91

  84

  —

  175

  Torquay

  —

  75

  —

  75

  Tunbridge Wells

  —

  29

  —

  29

  Upavon

  —

  93

  —

  93

  Wakefield

  —

  106

  —

  106

  Warrington

  —

  100

  —

  100

  Wembley

  —

  23

  —

  23

  Wigan

  —

  127

  —

  127

  Wolverhampton

  24

  168

  —

  192

  Worcester

  —

  118

  —

  118

  Workington

  —

  42

  —

  42

  Wrexham

  29

  121

  204

  354

  York

  —

  58

  —

  58

  Lord Astor of Hever
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many recruits joined the infantry in the past year.

  Lord Bach:
  During financial year 2003—04, 4,660 untrained soldiers joined the Regular Army infantry from civil life.

  Note that figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston: Laser Facility
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether the proposed replacement laser facility at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, will be capable of testing and certifying a new generation of nuclear warhead; and, if so, whether this complies with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

  Lord Bach:
  The purpose of the proposed ORION facility is to contribute towards ensuring that the United Kingdom nuclear warhead capability remains safe and reliable. The use of such technology with respect to nuclear warheads and nuclear material does not contravene the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

  Lord Stoddart of Swindon
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will call in the planning application to build a replacement laser facility at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston. [HL3555]

  Lord Bach:
  There is no need to do so. The Ministry of Defence uses the procedure under Department of the Environment Circular 18/84 Part 4 paragraph 21,

  WA125
  whereby the Secretary of State for Defence reviews objections made during the planning process and considers whether it is appropriate to refer these to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. This procedure has been followed in the case of the proposed laser facility. The Secretary of State for Defence believes that objections on planning policy issues have been taken into account.

  Naval Discipline Act
  Lord Astor of Hever
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What guidance is given to commanding officers in relation to administering summary justice in accordance with the Naval Discipline Act 1957. [HL3558]

  Lord Bach:
  The main sources of guidance available to commanding officers in relation to administering summary justice in accordance with the Naval Discipline Act 1957 are the Manual of Naval Law, A Guide to Discipline Reporting and A Guide to Summary Punishments. Training on Service discipline matters is provided incrementally throughout an officer's career. Additionally, guidance is also available from a Service legal adviser who is always contactable.

  Gibraltar: Military Aircraft
  Lord Hoyle
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What representations are being made to Spain to allow military aircraft from NATO or NATO members to fly over Spain if Gibraltar is their airfield for arrival or departure. [HL3586]

  Lord Bach:
  None.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What steps they are taking to ensure that the Planning Inspectorate is able to communicate decisions electronically, and that its website allows members of the public to access appeal decisions. [HL3493]

  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker):
  The Planning Inspectorate is developing a new online planning casework service for making and tracking the progress of planning appeals and other casework. The new service will enable the public to search for and view new appeal decisions. It is anticipated that the new service will be rolled out progressively from mid-November this year.

  Gypsies and Travellers
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What has been the outcome of their consideration of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Connors v United Kingdom (Application No 66746/01); in particular, whether they have concluded that a change in the status of Gypsies residing on local authority residential sites is appropriate; and if so, whether they will ask the Law Commission to consider the matter as part of its current tenure review. [HL3496]

  Lord Rooker:
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is still considering whether changes in the tenure status of those living on local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites would be appropriate. If our current review of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation concludes that changes are required, then the Law Commission's tenure review work is likely to be an appropriate way to take this forward.

  Regional Chambers
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What is the purpose of incorporating regional assemblies as private limited liability companies; and what is the legal basis for such incorporation. [HL3545]

  Lord Rooker:
  The regional chambers—often referred to as assemblies—are voluntary, independent bodies, designated by the Government under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. Some Chambers are unincorporated bodies while others are incorporated bodies limited by guarantee under the terms of the Companies Act 1985.

  Chambers receive government grant to enable them to undertake their scrutiny and regional planning functions. For unincorporated chambers grant is paid to a third party—an "accountable body"—that has the requisite legal status and financial viability to receive government grant. Where a chamber has incorporated then government grant can be paid to it directly.

  The Government are not "incorporating" regional chambers, nor have they instructed them to incorporate. An unincorporated chamber may choose to move to incorporated status, but that is a matter for its members to decide for themselves.

  Sexual Health: Internet Sites
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What action the Teenage Pregnancy Unit is taking to ensure that Internet searches by teenagers guide them to bona fide United Kingdom sites for authoritative and responsible advice on sexual activity and sexual health. [HL3469]
  WA127
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland):
  It is not possible to guarantee that young people searching the Internet for information on teenage pregnancy or sexual health will not inadvertently access an inappropriate site, in particular if they are using home-based Pcs.

  We do, however, provide clear guidance to schools, in order to minimise the risk of young people accessing inappropriate material from a school-based computer. Recent guidance issued by DfES to schools: Superhighway Safety: Safe use of the Internet raises awareness of both the benefits and risks of the Internet and related technologies, providing an understanding of their appropriate and effective use both in and outside the classroom. Through the National Grid for Learning (NGfL), we provide access to high-quality educational resources within a safe area of the Internet. All sites linked to the NGfL conform to published standards and a code of conduct, one of the principles of which is that sites should "provide no direct access to undesirable materials". A copy of the code of conduct can be accessed from www.ngfl.gov.uk.

  While schools are relatively protected areas, where pupils are able to access different technologies under human and technological supervision and monitoring, this level of protection will not necessarily be the case where young people access information from home. Guidance therefore makes clear that schools should aim to bridge the gap between home and school, sharing policies and approaches to Internet safety with parents so that the same messages can be extended into the home environment.

  The Government have created a youth portal—www.need2know.co.uk—to provide a first-stop shop to responsible and authoritative sources of information for young people on a wide range of issues that they have identified as being important to them, including sexual health. The website that supports the teenage pregnancy strategy's national awareness campaign (RUThinking.co.uk) purposely does not have the word "sex" in its name, to minimise the risk of young people accessing inappropriate sites.

  State Pension
  Lord Hoyle
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What is the number of state retirement pensioners; and how much is being paid in state retirement pensions in Warrington. [HL3575]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham):
  The total number of people in Great Britain in receipt of a state pension as at 30 September 2003 was 10,398,740.

  The total number of state pension recipients in the unitary authority of Warrington as at 30 September 2003 was 32,600.
  WA128
  In 2003–04 the state pension expenditure in the unitary authority of Warrington is estimated to have been around £150 million.

  Notes:

  Caseload figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Caseload figures are based on a five per cent sample from the pensions strategy computer system as at 30 September 2003, and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  Figures for Warrington were calculated using caseload and average amount information from the pensions strategy computer system and calibrated to the estimated outturn for Great Britain for 2003–04.

  Source:

  Caseload figures—IAD Information Centre five per cent sample.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Lord Hoyle
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How many people receive the winter fuel allowance in Warrington; and what is the cost to the taxpayer. [HL3577]

  Baroness Hollis of Heigham:
  The number of people in the Warrington local authority area who received a winter fuel payment for winter 2003–04 was 36,030 at a total cost of £5,854,000.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, WFP data winter 2003–04 100 per cent sample.

  Notes:

  Figures for total number of payments made are rounded to the nearest five.

  Please note that the figures for 2003–04 refer only to the main payment run so they do not include the late payment run figures. We estimate that there are approximately 100,000 people in Great Britain paid in late payment runs (0.8 per cent of all payments). Since most of the payments made in late payment runs are people who are not receiving another benefit from DWP and whose claims had not been received by the qualifying week, most are men aged 60.

  Local authorities are assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant postcode directory.

  Lord Hoyle
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How many over-80s in Warrington are receiving the extra winter fuel allowance; and what is the cost to the taxpayer. [HL3578]

  Baroness Hollis of Heigham:
  The number of people in the Warrington local authority aged 80 or over who are in receipt of the extra winter fuel payment is 6,380 at a cost of £1,622,700.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, WFP data winter 2003–04 100 per cent sample.
  WA129
  Notes:

  Figures for total number of payments made are rounded to the nearest five.

  Please note that the figures for 2003–04 refer only to the main payment run so they do not include the late payment run figures. We estimate that there are approximately 100,000 people in Great Britain paid in late payment runs (0.8 per cent of all payments). Since most of the payments made in late payment runs are people who are not receiving another benefit from DWP and whose claims had not been received by the qualifying week, very few indeed are aged 80 or over.

  Local authorities are assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant postcode directory.

  Pension Credit
  Lord Hoyle
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How many people in Warrington qualify for pension credit; how many are receiving this; and what is the cost to the taxpayer. [HL3579]

  Baroness Hollis of Heigham:
  Estimates of the level of eligibility for pension credit are not available in respect of individual constituencies or local authority areas. However, we estimate that approximately 500,000 households in the north-west region (rounded to the nearest 50,000) are likely to be eligible for pension credit in 2004–05.

  At 31 May, 3,995 households in the constituency of Warrington North and 3,456 households in the constituency of Warrington South (rounded to the nearest five) were receiving pension credit, with average awards of £39.42 and £38.50 respectively.

  Information on the administrative costs of pension credit is not available. In accordance with the requirements of resource accounting and budgeting, the department now accounts for its administration and benefit expenditure by strategic objective, as set out in its public service agreements (PSA), and by individual requests for resources (RfRs), as set out in the departmental estimates and accounts.

  Web Accessibility: Disabled People
  The Earl of Northesk
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What progress is being made in their discussions with the Disability Rights Commission following its April report on web accessibility; and when they anticipate making recommendations arising from these discussions. [HL3581]

  Baroness Hollis of Heigham:
  The recommendations for government in the Disability Rights Commission's report on web accessibility are the responsibility of a number of departments. Officials are meeting to consider those recommendations and we will respond to them in due course.

  Television Licences
  Lord Hoyle
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How many people in Warrington receive free television licences; and how much they cost. [HL3576]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey):
  TV Licensing, which administers free television licences for people aged 75 or over as an agent for the BBC, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, 2001 Census data for parliamentary constituencies identifies 12,209 people aged 75 or over living in the Warrington North and South constituencies.

  Financial Services Compensation Scheme
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Further to the Written Answer by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 1 July concerning the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (WA 46), what is meant by "compensation is payable to eligible claimants, nearly always irrespective of current residence". [HL3594]

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey:
  The statement "compensation is payable to eligible claimants, nearly always irrespective of current residence" refers to certain types of claim against insolvent insurers. For claims from individuals in respect of certain types of insurance contract, the habitual residence of the claimant at the date the insurance contract commenced may determine whether a contract is protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, although the scheme's present rules provide that, for this purpose, residence in the UK (including Northern Ireland) does qualify. The scheme's rules are written by the Financial Services Authority and form part of the authority's handbook, which can be found on the FSAs website (www.fsa.gov.uk). The following link goes straight to the scheme's rules: http:// www.fsa.gov.uk/vhb/html/comp/comptoc.html The particular rules illustrating the above point are 5.4.2, 5.4.3 and 5.4.4.

  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether the Financial Services Compensation Scheme has paid out to an individual or company based in Northern Ireland in respect of an incident which occurred outside Northern Ireland. [HL3595]

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey:
  The Financial Services Compensation scheme has paid compensation to claimants based in Northern Ireland. The scheme's rules do not prevent compensation being paid to claimants in Northern Ireland in respect of incidents that occurred outside Northern Ireland. Records of individual claims paid are not available to Her Majesty's Government but further details are available from the scheme at: Financial Services Compensation Scheme, 7th Floor, Lloyds Chambers, 1 Portsoken Street, London El 8BN.

  TB Testing: Collection of Roadside Carcases
  Lord Rotherwick
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs's Wildlife Unit collect badger and deer carcasses from the roadside for tuberculosis testing in all regions of the United Kingdom; and, if not, in which regions removal of such wildlife carcasses is the responsibility of the highways agencies alone. [HL3392]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty):
  In Cornwall, Devon, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Shropshire and Dorset, Defra's Wildlife Unit will collect any badger carcases from the roadside deemed suitable for TB testing. Defra is also undertaking a survey of badger carcases (and deer with suspect lesions) in the Furness peninsula, Cumbria.

  Outside these counties, the local authority is responsible (or, in the case of motorways, the appropriate highways agency).

  Lord Rotherwick
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What guidance they give for the treatment of wildlife carcasses collected by highways agencies. [HL3394]

  Lord Whitty:
  The carcases, or parts of carcases, of wild animals are exempt from the scope of the Animal By-Products Regulation unless they are thought to be diseased or are used to produce game trophies. Although the regulation places them under no legal obligation, owners of property on which there are dead wild animals are advised to contact their local authority for advice on appropriate disposal methods.

  However, in some parts of the country, (these are the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Shropshire), badger carcases may be collected for examination for TB as part of a limited road traffic accident (RTA) survey of badger carcases. Road accident badger carcases in Cornwall, Devon or Dorset should be reported to Defra on freephone 0800 389 7395 and those in Gloucester, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Shropshire reported on freephone 0800 389 7423.

  Orchards
  Baroness Byford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How many acres of traditional orchards there were in each of the years 2000 to 2004; how many of these had dual use for grazing; and what percentage of that total for dual use was within the Stewardship Scheme. [HL3402]

  Lord Whitty:
  Data are not collected on traditional orchards or the area of orchards that are used for grazing. The June agricultural census gives the area of non-commercial and commercial orchards grown on
  WA132
  holdings. Traditional orchards may fall into either of these categories. Provisional figures for June 2004 will he published in September 2004.

  Area in hectares of orchards in England

  Non-commercial

  Commercial

  2000

  3,331

  22,479

  2001

  3,557

  22,441

  2002

  3,365

  20,250

  2003

  3,496

  19,870

  Source:

  June agricultural census.

  Notes:

  The areas shown are the field area of the orchard, not the tree area.

  Non-commercial orchards are those where the fruit is not sold for any purpose.

  Exotic Birds
  Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  (a) why the guidance leaflets issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to members of the public wishing to import exotic birds from third countries not classified under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) agreements make no reference to the requirement to place sentinel birds in exotic bird transport; and, (b) whether they plan to place exotic birds not covered by the CITES import requirements under those requirements in the interests of animal welfare, [HL3548]

  Lord Whitty:
  (a) Defra's guidance leaflets make no reference to a requirement to place sentinel birds with exotic birds during transport as it is not an animal health requirement under EU or national law.

  Exotic captive birds must be imported in line with the animal health requirements and the veterinary certification laid down in Commission Decision 2000/666/EC as well as current animal welfare rules.

  (b) There are no plans to place exotic birds which are not covered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) under such requirements in the interests of animal welfare. CITES is not a body which has control or authority in matters of animal welfare. The aim of CITES is to protect certain plants and animals by regulating and monitoring their international trade to prevent it reaching unsustainable levels.

  There are separate EU welfare rules which are implemented in UK by the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order.

  Eggs: Mercosur Negotiations
  Baroness Byford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Following the refusal by the Mercosur countries to consider animal welfare issues within the trade negotiations with the European Union, what steps they will take to ensure that consumers can identify those products containing eggs that do not conform to the standards required of European Union producers. [HL3566]

  Lord Whitty:
  We have already made clear to the Commission our concerns regarding the inclusion of eggs and egg products on the list of goods from which tariffs will be removed in the EU's market access offer to Mercosur. The EU's offer, which has now been submitted, is an ambitious one, covering a wide range of products.

  The WTO does not allow restrictions on imports purely on the basis of production or processing method. In the light of this, the EU has been pressing in the WTO for recognition of the right of member countries to choose for themselves the level of consumer information about production and processing methods that can be included with imported products. But this has met with little support from elsewhere. I have asked my officials to keep the British Egg Industry Council informed on developments.

  Cross-compliance and National Reserve Consultation
  Baroness Byford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they have set a date for the publication of their response to the cross-compliance and national reserve consultation. [HL3666]

  Lord Whitty:
  Announcements will be made on the issues addressed in these consultations later in the summer.

  Civil Service
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What steps they are taking to ensure that their reforms of the Civil Service do not adversely affect the number and proportion of disabled people employed in the Civil Service or the targets promoting disability equality in the service.

  Lord Bassam of Brighton:
  The Government remain committed to achieving a Civil Service which is representative of the society it serves, at all levels. Departments will be expected to consider the impact on diversity in the workforce in developing their plans for reform, to ensure that specific groups of staff are not disporportionately affected.

  Iraq: Private Military and Security Companies
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  Private military and security companies are entitled to conduct their business within the law. They should be given access to the support that government departments provide to British citizens and companies on the same basis as other companies. However, private military and security companies are also in a business that can, in certain conditions, have a direct and sensitive impact on international relations.

  Following the Legg report into the Sandline affair in 1998 the FCO issued advice to all officials on contacts with private military and security companies (PMCs/ PSCs). This required officials to request permission for contacts with PMCs/PSCs whenever possible and for the FCO to consider the impact of those contacts before granting that permission.

  These guidelines have been reissued twice since. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary (Mr. Jack Straw) has recently approved a revised set of guidelines to deal specifically with the situation in Iraq, where a large number of private contractors are employed in essential security work.

  One of the contractors concerned is Aegis Defence Services Limited, whose chairman and chief executive officer is one of the individuals named in the Legg report. The contract in question was awarded by the United States Government. Her Majesty's Government are not a party to the contract, nor were they involved in any way in its negotiation.

  The guidelines recognise that contact with the private security companies that protect our staff in Iraq is inevitable and that liaison with companies providing security elsewhere is an essential operational requirement. In these circumstances, permission will not be required. However, all new contacts with PMCs/PSCs seeking commercial advice will still require permission and in all circumstances officials are required to report any activity that they suspect to be illegal or unethical to the FCO.

  The Ministry of Defence is issuing similar guidelines to its personnel in Iraq.

  I have placed copies of the general guidance and of the Iraq-specific guidelines in the Library of the House.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation: Reorganisation
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
  WS48
  Further to my Written Statement of 8 January 2004, I can announce that the reorganisation of CDC Group plc (CDC) was completed on 7 July 2004.

  The purpose of CDC is to maximise the creation and growth of viable businesses in poorer developing countries, through responsible investment and mobilising private finance. The objective of the reorganisation is to enhance CDC's capacity to fulfil its purpose, in particular the mobilisation of private and other third-party capital for investment in the poorer developing countries. This will contribute to the achievement of the millennium development goals, as explained in DfID's submissions to the International Development Committee (HC 194 of Session 2002-03).

  CDC is now an investment company, responsible for holding the cash and other assets of the former CDC and its subsidiaries, and contracting for its capital to be invested in accordance with the investment policy. As part of the reorganisation, DfID has restructured CDC's capital, replacing CDC's debts to DfID with shareholder capital, using powers in the CDC Act 1999.

  The CDC investment policy has been improved in several ways. The previous "aim" of making 50 per cent of new investments in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia has been placed on the same mandatory five-year rolling basis as the requirement to make 70 per cent of new investments in poorer developing countries (those with an annual per capita gross national income below 1,750 dollars). CDC will continue to observe, and set an example in, responsible ethical, environmental and social business principles.

  A new independent management company called Actis Capital LLP (Actis) has been formed as a limited liability partnership between its management and staff and the Government. The purpose of Actis is to manage investments so as to promote the creation and growth of viable businesses in poorer developing countries, to mobilise private and other third-party investment, and to add value to the businesses in which investments are made by promoting responsible business principles and providing management advice. This purpose cannot be changed without my agreement. Actis will also follow best practice in corporate governance and business ethics, as set out in its business principles.

  Actis is controlled and managed by its management and staff, who have 60 per cent of the voting rights. DfID has 40 per cent of the voting rights, and under claw-back arrangements will for the next 10 years receive 80 per cent of the profits from Actis. DfID also has certain minority shareholder rights and protections set out in the members' agreement. These include the right to veto appointments of the chairman of the Actis Supervisory Board and the non-executive members of the Supervisory Board Business Principles Committee, and the right to veto a sale of Actis.

  CDC and Actis have entered into a five-year contract (the "umbrella agreement") under which Actis will manage CDC's existing investments. The umbrella agreement provides for CDC to make

  WS49
  commitments to certain funds to be managed by Actis for Africa, south Asia, power, China and Malaysia. Investments in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) will be managed by a separate management company, Aureos, which will be a joint venture between Actis, the Norwegian Investment Fund for Developing Countries (Norfund) and Aureos's staff. CDC will have some reserved capital, initially"£52.4 million, which can be committed to non-Actis funds, to develop its third party fund management capabilities and to stimulate activity, competition and fund management skills in private equity in the poorer developing countries. The umbrella agreement also sets out the minimum service levels to be provided by Actis, incentive arrangements, and reporting requirements.

  The sale of Actis and the umbrella agreement were negotiated on market-based, commercial terms to achieve value for money. As is common in private sector corporate demergers and government privatisations, no formal managerial competition was held, to avoid disruption to CDC's business. After the period of the umbrella agreement, CDC will award fund management contracts on a competitive basis.

  The details of the reorganisation were finalised by an independent committee of the CDC board, making recommendations to me as shareholder. These recommendations included proposals relating to the market value of Actis and the market value of the interests in Actis to be sold to its management and
  WS50
  staff. The independent committee also reviewed the terms of the umbrella agreement and the incentive arrangements for Actis. Remuneration in CDC remains within public sector pay and subject to approval by the Government. I am grateful to the independent committee and the CDC board as a whole for their care and attention throughout the reorganisation process. In future, DfID will also be advised and assisted in the performance of its shareholder functions by the new shareholder executive.

  I am placing copies of the relevant documents, including the Actis members' agreement and the umbrella agreement (to which the new investment policy is annexed) in the Library of the House, and I am sending copies of these documents to the chairman of the International Development Select Committee.

  Spending Review 2004: Devolved Administrations Funding Rules
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Paul Boateng) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Copies of the updated Statement of Funding Policy, which sets out the funding arrangements for the devolved administrations, have today been placed in the Libraries of the House.