Sitting of 4 March 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Schools Investment (Wolverhampton, South-West)
    Rob Marris: What assessment he has made of the effects of Government capital investment in schools in Wolverhampton, South-West since 1997. [158467]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Since 1997, Government support for capital investment in school buildings in Wolverhampton alone has been £43 million. In England as a whole investment has risen from £700 million to reach £5.1 billion. Because over the next 15 years we are committed to ensuring that all secondary schools in Wolverhampton are upgraded, we will announce our capital investment programme soon.
    At the start of this Question Time, it may help the House to know that the Treasury will publish Lord Penrose's report into Equitable Life on Monday. We will publish the report in full and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will make a statement to the House.
    Rob Marris: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and for providing schools in Wolverhampton with £43 million of capital investment over the past six years. Coincidentally, I also had the first question at the most recent Treasury questions. On that occasion, the Chancellor announced the date of this year's Budget. Will he firmly assure me that, in his Budget, he will maintain capital investment in schools in Wolverhampton, and that he is not planning massive cuts to overall spending?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although every reply that I give him is very expensive. I assure him that we plan to expand our programme of capital investment over the next spending round. It would be disastrous for the country and for education if we cut capital investment in our schools. If the education budget were to be cut, there would be cuts in further and adult education, in Sure Start, in nursery education and in universities. That is the Opposition's programme.

    Spirit Duty Fraud
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If he will make a statement on the independent review of spirit duty fraud levels. [158468]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I have welcomed the review by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, of the estimates of spirits fraud. I have offered the full support and assistance of Treasury and Customs officials. The content of the review is a matter for Sir John.
    Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and for meeting the Scotch Whisky Association yesterday to discuss the issue of duty fraud. The association claims that the proposals that it is bringing forward would increase the tax take, and do so before the strip stamp that is being considered. The National Audit Office is also making an independent assessment of the scale of the problem. Will the Economic Secretary assure the House that we are not talking about a decision that has been made already, and that he is still listening to the industry on this question?
    John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is right, and he will know that yesterday's meeting with the Scotch Whisky Association was just the latest of the many detailed discussions that my officials and I have had with the industry. The industry's alternative proposals have been worked up, and I expect to receive them at the end of the week. We will give them serious consideration, as it is clear that there is a very serious problem. No one can dispute that the public taxpayer is being defrauded of hundreds of millions of pounds that should go to the public purse. Organised criminal networks obtain large consignments of spirits that they then divert to the market through wholesalers and retailers, with the result that no one—not consumers, retailers or Customs
    officers—is any the wiser about the fraud that is going on. No responsible Government can do other than tackle fraud such as that in the way that is necessary.
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are problems with strip stamps? Where they have been implemented. it has been shown that there is more fraud, rather than less. Will he say whether the alternative proposed yesterday by the industry was acceptable? He has often agreed to meet the all-party group in the past. Will he do so again, before the Budget, so that we can put to him one last plea to accept an alternative?
    John Healey: It is simply not the case that strip stamps have failed in all the countries that have introduced them. More than 40 countries, including EU member states, operate strip stamp arrangements, for quality assurance as well as for the control of fraud. We have worked very closely with the trade on this matter, looking at the logistics and practical problems that might be encountered if we decided to introduce strip stamps in the UK. I shall indeed be sure to meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the all-party Scotch whisky group. I have done so before, and will do so again before the Budget. Since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcement in the pre-Budget report, I have taken

    1033
    part in a series of detailed discussions. I have met 14 separate companies in the industry. My officials and I have taken part in 38 separate meetings on these matters since the pre-Budget report. That is an unprecedented level of consultation, discussion and detailed joint working.
    Angus Robertson: Has the Minister read the letter from Glasgow based security printers Gavin Watson Ltd., which was sent to the Chancellor on 12 December 2003, about what they say is the
    "impracticability of the proposed Tax Stamps for spirits"?
    What estimate has the Treasury made of the potential for fraudulent counterfeiting of strip stamps should this daft and dangerous scheme be introduced?
    John Healey: I am aware of the letter, and of the reasonable concerns that exist about any system of strip stamps and the potential for counterfeiting problems. Advice from other players in the industry suggests that such a system can be introduced and the counterfeiting problem dealt with. The question for the hon. Gentleman is whether he is prepared to back the action that we have to take to stamp out the current level of spirit fraud. If the answer is yes, I look forward to his support after the Budget for the action that we ultimately take to deal with the problem.

    Small Business Taxation
    Richard Ottaway: What discussions he has had with representatives of small businesses regarding proposed changes to the taxation of small incorporated businesses. [1584691]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Government will announce in the Budget their proposals for taxing owner-managed businesses. It would not be right to consult on proposals of this nature in the period immediately prior to the Budget.
    Richard Ottaway: The Minister will be aware that since 1999 taxation policy for small businesses has been skewed in such a way that it is much more attractive for small businesses to incorporate than to remain unincorporated. She will be aware that in the past financial year the number of new incorporations went up by 43 per cent. Was that an intended consequence? If so, why has she hinted that she will reverse the policy?
    Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Government policy on incorporation and unincorporated companies is to introduce a series of measures that help both, for example the 40 per cent. first-year capital allowances. He will also know that the Government's policy is to ensure that incentives are focused on encouraging companies to retain profits in order to reinvest in themselves to help them grow. It is right that the Government should consider that principle now and ensure that the policies in place are delivering reinvestment in companies that are growing, providing jobs and increasing productivity and affluence.
    Roger Casale: May I tell my right hon. Friend that many small businesses in my constituency have incorporated, encouraged by the prospect of stable economic growth, the ability to access research and development tax credits and the zero rate of tax on £10,000 profits? She has said that she keeps these matters under review. Will she make sure that any further changes are introduced fairly and build on the good consultation with the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce that this Government have established, in stark contrast to the deaf ears of the Tory party when it was in office?
    Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right that the stable economic environment is necessary. The stability produced by this Government has ensured that regardless of companies' incorporation or otherwise, we have more companies', they are growing and they are contributing to the British economy. That stability has in part been secured by consideration of tax issues in detailed discussions with all the organisations involved, including the Federation of Small Businesses, with which we are in regular contact.
    Mr. David Batley: In 2002 the Chancellor told us that the small tax incentive for small incorporated businesses would cost not more than £265 million in the current financial year. Now independent experts tell us that it will cost the Exchequer at least four times that. As a result the right hon. Lady tells us that she is contemplating a U-turn—a change which will mean higher taxes on hard-pressed small business men and women. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that that proves that when it comes to tax, new Labour's figures simply do not add up?
    Dawn Primarolo: As usual, the hon. Gentleman bases his assertions on figures that he cannot substantiate. As he well knows, the growth in jobs and in small businesses and the benefits to his constituency in seeing reductions in unemployment—down by 48 per cent. —are all part of the Government's strategy of ensuring we deliver economic stability, in which all companies, small, large, incorporated and unincorporated, can grow.
    Brian Cotter: Does the Minister not realise that highlighting that possible change causes an enormous amount of concern to small businesses? There has been such excessive tinkering with the taxation system that instead of stability, which is what the Government said they wanted, we have instability; we are creating jobs for accountants rather than in small businesses.
    Dawn Primarolo: We shall only have to wait until later today for an abject lesson in changing policies; my recollection is that the hon. Gentleman has supported every measure the Government have introduced to help small businesses, whether incorporated or unincorporated, because he realises the value of helping companies to grow, to reinvest in their business and create the jobs that we all need in our constituencies—including his.
    Mr. Howard Flight: During the Standing Committee on the Finance Act 2002, I questioned the wisdom of the Government giving large tax increases to small businesses to incorporate and, indeed, the wisdom of favouring one legal structure over another. The Paymaster General responded very pithily to my question, in confirmation of that intent—the Chancellor might bother to listen to this—and told me that small business would not look a gift horse in the mouth.
    In the light of IR591, 117 MPs signed early-day motion 501, asking the Chancellor to explain what has gone wrong with Government policy and what are now their intentions. The fact is that the Government deliberately— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are still only on Question 3? We must move on, but the Paymaster General can answer.
    Dawn Primarolo: I am sorry to say that, as always, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) is confused. The Government did not introduce tax increases; we introduced reductions in tax to help small businesses to grow so that they could contribute to economic stability and to the growth and development of our economy. As a measure of the hon. Gentleman's confusion, at that time he was forecasting a crash.

    Government Debt
    Mr. Nick Gibb: What measures he is undertaking to reduce Government debt levels. [158470]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer(Mr. Gordon Brown): Because of the decisions we have made, including our fiscal rules, the sale of spectrum and the reduction of unemployment, public sector net debt, which was 44 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1997, is forecast to be just 32.8 per cent. in 2003–04, and below 40 per cent. for the whole forecast period. Last year, UK net debt, as a percentage of GDP, was the lowest among the G7 countries.
    Mr. Gibb: That is all very well, but the Chancellor's net borrowing projections in the Green Book show no abatement to that borrowing over the long term. In 1996, he made the clear and public commitment that he had no plans to raise taxes at all. Can he now give a similar commitment—that despite current and projected debt levels he will not raise taxes to fund them, either in the remainder of this Parliament or, if the unthinkable were to happen and his party were to win the next general election, in the next Parliament?
    Mr. Brown: We have kept all our manifesto promises on tax, and we will continue to keep all our manifesto promises on taxes. I will take no lectures on economic stability from the hon. Gentleman, who opposed the independence of the Bank of England.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm that the debts of Britain are lower than those of France and Germany
    1036
    and that they are a hell of a sight lower than in America—Bush's kingdom? They will never be as bad as black Wednesday in September 1992, when the Tories lost £10 billion in a single afternoon—and they never even went near a betting shop.
    Mr. Brown: Debt rose under the Conservatives from 28 per cent. of national income to 44 per cent. of national income in 1997. I shall give the House the figures for other countries: debt in Britain at the moment is in the order of £350 billion; in the United States of America, it is £3,000 billion; and in Japan, it is £2,000 billion. We have the lowest debt of all G7 countries.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: First, I apologise to the Chancellor and to the shadow Chancellor because I must leave early in order to present the Liberal Democrat alternative Budget, which is based on sound finance, tough choices in spending and fairer taxes. I am sure the Chancellor will endorse those principles and even draw inspiration from them.
    On Government debt, the Government have apparently identified large savings as a result of the Gershon review. Will those savings be banked, as I hope, in order to cut Government debt and the growing deficit, or will the Chancellor use them to fund additional spending commitments?
    Mr. Brown: If, as the hon. Gentleman says, the Liberals are announcing hard choices today, it will be the first time in all my years in the House of Commons. When he examines his spending commitments, which he says he has reduced, he might examine his own website, www.vincentcable.com, where he states:
    "Benefits from bees' natural pollination activities are enormous, worth billions of pounds … I have pressed the Ministry of Agriculture for a bigger research commitment."
    We will take the Liberal Democrats seriously when they reduce their spending commitments, which they continue to make. As regards national debt, I think he will agree with me that the decisions that we made in 1997, including the sale of spectrum, our new fiscal rules and the manner in which we made the Bank of England independent, were the right decisions to keep debt low, and the Conservative party opposed all of them.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: May I remind my right hon. Friend that a lot of men and women on his Back Benches believe in Government debt if it services public expenditure, which guarantees the future health and education of our country? Will he carefully examine this morning's remarks by Sir Howard Newby, who points out that unless we urgently get extra investment into higher education, we will not be able to provide quality higher education for all the people in our country who need it?
    Mr. Brown: Conservative Members do not seem to understand that we have managed to have low inflation, economic growth, low unemployment and low debt while maintaining all our commitments to public investment in education, health, transport and policing. It is sad that the Conservative party now says that it will cut budgets for science, defence, infrastructure, skills and even international development.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Before the Chancellor courted and then jilted prudence, had he ever found in his private life that the best way to reduce debt is to reduce spending and increase saving? Might that have a public implication?
    Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, savings ratios are rising. Saving in this country is currently twice as good as in the United States. He tries to lecture us on the economy, but I remind him that he and Conservative Members opposed the major decision that we made in 1997 to make the Bank of England independent and create stability.
    Llew Smith: Will the Chancellor give the House estimates of total expenditure on the continuing war in Iraq and on Trident? What would our national debt be without that expenditure?
    Mr. Brown: As regards expenditure on Iraq, Afghanistan and terrorism, I gave the House the figure in the pre-Budget report, and I shall report again in the Budget. Over the past few years, we have had to set aside an extra £3.5 billion for those commitments. That has been possible because we have had economic growth and have managed the public finances in such a way that whenever we have had to make exceptional commitments, we have been able to do so. The country will find it extraordinary that the Conservative party plans to cut the defence budget.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: As the Chancellor appeared not to want to answer the perfectly reasonable question asked by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), let me try again. It is a simple question: does the Chancellor agree with his own efficiency adviser, Sir Peter Gershon, that there are £15 billion a year of efficiency savings that could be used to reduce borrowing and public debt without affecting front-line services? Yes or no?
    Mr. Brown: I will announce in the Budget the initial conclusions of the Gershon review, and then we will announce further conclusions in the spending review. We will manage to cut substantially the costs of central administration as a percentage of public expenditure and of the national income from what it was in the Conservative years. However, it is necessary to combine policies for economic stability and growth with the need for continuing public investment, and it is unfortunate that the Conservatives now want to cut public investment.
    Mr. Letwin: It is a pity that the Chancellor seems to be afraid of admitting that he agrees with his own efficiency adviser. What about the independent commentators, including the International Monetary Fund, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the ITEM Club and the Institute for Fiscal Studies? Will he at least agree with them that if he does not use something like £15 billion of efficiency savings to reduce Government borrowing, a third-term Labour Government would need to raise taxes by about £15 billion to meet his own fiscal rules?
    Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman tries to anticipate the conclusions in my Budget statement. I can tell him that I will not make the mistakes that the Conservative party made, in wasting money on the exchange rate mechanism and the poll tax, and the other waste that we inherited and had to deal with in 1997.
    Mr. Letwin: I really hope that underneath all the bluster, bravado and Punch and Judy politics, there is a quiet, still voice somewhere inside the Chancellor—I suspect there probably is—urging him to engage in rational debate. Can he truly not see that when his own efficiency adviser says that he has £15 billion a year of savings, we can either use the money to reduce Government borrowing to acceptable levels or we can go on another spending spree and raise taxes again?
    Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we announce the conclusions of the Gershon review in the Budget and the spending review. He asks me today to anticipate what I will say to the House in the Budget and then in the spending review. What I can say to him is that we will not cut defence, we will not cut transport, we will not cut the science budget and we will not cut the international development budget: those are the policies of the Conservatives before they even know the public finance figures.

    Charities
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: What changes he proposes for the taxation of charities. [158471]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury(Mr. Paul Boateng): The Government keep all aspects of taxation policy under review. Any possible changes to charity tax will be considered by the Chancellor in his assessment of what is required in the Budget.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he accept that admission charities such as the Macclesfield silk museums are in a different position to beneficial charities such as Oxfam when it comes to the recovery of gift aid benefit? Charities such as the silk museums are often able to function and survive only by imposing admission charges. Will he accept that the entry fees should be regarded as a donation to the charity, rather than a proportion being seen as a donation and the balance as a commercial benefit? Will he please review the situation, for the sake of the survival of many small museums?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot comment on specific individuals or institutions, but I share his enthusiasm for and commitment to the charitable sector and to the particular sector that he mentions. He will also understand that the proper focus of the gift aid scheme has to be on a continuing relationship between the donor and the charitable organisation. The changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the pre-Budget report, which are currently the subject of discussion with the sector, are designed to achieve that. Day admissions, as the

    1039
    hon. Gentleman will know, are not really about ongoing relationships and, therefore, I cannot accept the thrust that underpins his question.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: If there is to be a review of charities and tax, could we once and for all define what legitimate charities are, and stop the abuse by which organisations such as public schools may posture as charities to gain tax relief?
    Mr. Boateng: The matters to which my hon. Friend refers are properly matters for the Charity Commission, not the Government. I know that he will join in the support on both sides of the House for the valuable role that the charitable sector plays.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: Given the clear concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House and the unique role of charities, will the Chief Secretary explain why under this Government—despite all the many schemes and promises—the total tax paid by charities has not simply increased, but effectively doubled?
    Mr. Boateng: What the hon. Gentleman describes as "all the promises" have delivered £2.3 billion-worth of tax reliefs and special provisions to charities each year, £506 million of which has been a result of gift aid. He will not find anyone in the charitable sector who accepts his analysis that the Government have not done more for that sector than any of their predecessors—they have certainly done more than the Government formed by the party of which he is a member. We have continued, and we will continue, to support the charitable sector. I hope that we enjoy from his party the support that our measures deserve, because we have not always had it in the past.

    Employment (Scotland)
    Miss Anne Begg: If he will make a statement on the level of employment in Scotland since 1997. [158472]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Employment in Scotland has risen by 119,000 since 1997.
    Miss Begg: The north of Scotland is like the rest of Scotland—there are now more people in work than ever before. However. that means that a lot of businesses cannot find people to fill jobs because there is a labour shortage. The local Jobcentre Plus in Aberdeen, which covers Grampian, Moray and Orkney and Shetland, has been doing sterling work in getting lone parents and people on incapacity benefit off benefits and into work. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that this Government will not abolish the new deals or the work that has been done on new deals to get people into work to plug that gap in the labour market—unlike the Conservative party?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend knows that unemployment in her constituency is now only 2 per cent., that only 33 young people are unemployed and that there are 30 long-term unemployed. It is because of
    1040
    the new deal that it has been possible for people to get back into work. It is even more necessary in a highly skilled economy that the new deal operates to give people the skills that are necessary. It is sad that both the Liberal and Conservative parties want to abolish the new deal.
    Mr. Russell Brown: The Leader of the Opposition is in my locality today meeting pensioners. Quite clearly he will explain to them what a Conservative Government would do, but I am sure he will not explain how he would pay for it. Clearly the new deal is under threat—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about unemployment, and there is too much emphasis on the Leader of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I did not mean that in a bad sense.

    Charities
    John Barrett: What assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed changes to gift aid on conservation and heritage charities. [158473]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): No definitive assessment of the impact of the proposal to remove day admissions from the gift aid scheme exists. The Inland Revenue is discussing the implementation of the proposal with the sector.
    John Barrett: The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland is just one of the many charities affected by the proposals. It is acting on the advice of the Minister's Department rather than exploiting a loophole. Will the Chief Secretary urge the Chancellor to postpone any changes to gift aid regulations until after meaningful consultation with the affected charities has taken place?
    Mr. Boateng: The Inland Revenue is having continuing discussions with the sector on implementation. The need to ensure that gift aid is properly focused is something that the hon. Gentleman will well understand. He will also understand that under this Government, especially in relation to the heritage and conservation charities, we have seen a 20 per cent. increase in real terms as far as museums and galleries are concerned. Support for regional museums has gone up from zero to £30 million per annum. We look forward to the announcements that will come from the shadow Chancellor who speaks for the Liberal Democrats in due course, but I wonder whether his promises will be able to match our record of actual delivery to the sector.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: May I refer my right hon. Friend to a letter that I forwarded to the Treasury from the Brontë Society, of which I am a member? It is the trust that cares for the Brontë Parsonage museum in Haworth in my constituency, and it is concerned about the future of gift aid. The letter I forwarded reads:
    "Price increases are likely to have the effect of reducing visitor numbers—quite contrary to the government's declared policy and in contrast to the funding of free entry to National Museums."
    Mr. Boateng: As I said to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), and I have to repeat to

    1041
    my hon. Friend, I cannot comment on the tax affairs of specific organisations. I can say that there is no question of any organisation being obliged to increase its admission prices. That is not what is proposed. The proposal is to ensure that we maintain a proper focus on an ongoing relationship with the charity concerned.
    My hon. Friend will agree with me—I have had the pleasure of visiting the museum to which she referred—that what will best serve the museum and conservation sectors are measures to improve and increase the number of donors who have an ongoing relationship with a particular charity. That is what the Government have done, to the tune of about £2.3 billion each year, of which £506 million is associated specifically with gift aid.
    No one has done more for the sector than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It continues to be a sector with which we have very good relations. The Inland Revenue has been engaged for many years with the sector in the campaign to promote giving. We shall continue to seek to promote giving, and the measure does nothing to detract from that achievement.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: I do not know how much time the Minister has on his hands, but perhaps he will be less busy after the Budget. Will he come to Norfolk to see some small independent charities—for example, the Cockley Cley Iceni museum or the Muckleborough tank collection, where you can drive a 1944 Sherman tank—and hear from the independent sector how strongly it feels about the policy on admission charges?
    Mr. Boateng: I do not think that I should be let loose in any tank, let alone a 1944 Sherman tank. I shall endeavour, next time I am in Norfolk, to visit at least one of the museums that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
    Judy Mallaber: May I, too, press my right hon. Friend to use the welcome deferral of the changes to the gift aid concession to reconsider the proposal? The National Tramway museum in my constituency is a wonderful and unique museum, and one of only seven designated museums with no assured funding. The original and helpful advice of the Inland Revenue, in allowing the concession, was welcome. Will my right hon. Friend please look at this matter again to ascertain whether it is possible to continue the concession on entry fees?
    Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that she has written to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, and she will receive a reply very shortly.
    Mr. Robert Key: May I appeal to the Chief Secretary's better nature? I happen to agree with him that, on the face of it, admission charges are not an obvious candidate for gift aid. However, it was on the advice of the Inland Revenue that so many of the independent and other charities and museums decided to go into the scheme. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that any scheme that he comes up with after consultation with the charities concerned will at least be phased in and that no sudden change will be made? If
    1042
    that were to happen, it would lead to job losses and to a substantial loss of revenue, which would amount to several thousand pounds for a small museum.
    Mr. Boateng: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I know how much he supports the sector, not only the institution in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is considering the issue of timing. I refer the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who have raised the issue to something that was said by Kate Biggs, director of the Dean Heritage museum in the Forest of Dean, in a letter that she wrote to a national newspaper on 9 February:
    "I chose to wait and see how many other museums took up this scam—that's what I thought it was … This was always a loophole, and it was inevitable that it would be closed at some point."
    It is important to recognise that some in the sector always took a different view of the provision. I urge all hon. Members, whose concerns I well understand, to reflect on what gift aid is about—keeping the focus on ongoing connection and giving, which are in the sector's best interests.

    Unemployment (North-West)
    Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab): If he will make a statement on the rate of unemployment in the north-west [158474]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer(Mr. Gordon Brown): Unemployment in the north-west has fallen by 63,000 since 1997. Over the same period, both long-term and youth unemployment have fallen by more than three quarters.
    Andy Burnham: The Chancellor will agree that that excellent record on jobs in the north-west is due not just to the new deal but to the £16.5 million that the Government give to north-west businesses through regional selective assistance. Is he aware of the suggestion floated this morning on the "Today" programme that the Department of Trade and Industry should effectively be closed down and regional selective assistance stopped? Does he agree that that dangerous policy would have a huge impact on job creation in our deprived communities, and will he rule it out altogether?
    Mr. Brown: It is absolutely essential not only that we have the new deal to help with the creation of jobs, but that we have regional policies in place to assist with investment in the infrastructure for science, innovation and skills. It would be disastrous if the Liberal policy of abandoning regional aid were introduced, and it would be equally disastrous if the budget of the Department of Trade and Industry, including the budget for science, were cut, as proposed by the shadow Chancellor.
    Helen Jones: My right hon. Friend will know that Government economic policies have reduced unemployment in Warrington to 17 per cent. and given us gross average annual incomes that are higher than those for the north-west as a whole. However, that disguises inequalities in the borough, and many of my constituents are still in fairly low-paid

    1043
    employment. Will my right hon. Friend outline which policies he will pursue to ensure that we attract more high-tech, well-paid jobs to the north-west, and will he discuss with his hon. Friends in the DTI the value of the Omega employment site in my constituency—the largest industrial development site in the north-west—and how we can best pursue policies to develop it for the benefit not just of Warrington but of adjoining constituencies?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have had a number of meetings with representative organisations in the north-west and elsewhere about regional policy and what more we can do to help science and innovation. In the north-west, the Science and Industry Council, chaired by Sir Tom McKillop, is working to attract new science-based industry to the area. We will continue to support those policies, but it is necessary to fund the new deal as well as regional and science policies. It is a pity that Opposition parties oppose that.

    Personal Debt
    Mr. David Amess: What discussions he has had with representatives of the Bank of England regarding the sustainability of current levels of personal debt. [158475]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer(Mr. Gordon Brown): I last met the Governor of the Bank of England on Tuesday. Interest rates are close to their lowest for 40 years and for the average household the cost of servicing debt is half what it was in the recession of the early '90s. Both the Bank and the Treasury will continue to pursue policies designed to ensure economic stability.
    Mr. Amess: The Chancellor is fond of telling the country not to worry about the level of personal debt, but under this rotten and discredited Government it rose to £.10.6 billion in January, despite the fact that personal savings have halved. Will the Chancellor admit to the House that there is a risk that through his policies he is storing up trouble for the future? Does he intend to leave that matter to the Monetary Policy Committee and will it be included in the Government's new inflation target?
    Mr. Brown: At every point, the Conservative party tries to predict that the economy is about to go into recession, and the hon. Gentleman, too, is trying to suggest that we have created a problem that will make growth in the economy unsustainable. I repeat that the cost of servicing debt for households is half what it was at the beginning of the 1990s, because we have lower inflation and have managed to keep interest rates low. The Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee has just announced that interest rates are on hold this month at 4 per cent., and the Governor of the Bank of England has made clear his view of the sort of talk engaged in by the hon. Gentleman:
    "I think some of the headlines are unnecessarily alarmist … the fraction of household incomes which are used up in debts service is lower now that it was then"—
    the beginning of the '90s. He went on to say:
    "There is no indication that the scale of debt problems have actually risen markedly in the last five years".
    1044
    It is not just me saying so; it is also the Bank of England.
    Mr. Ken Purchase: Notwithstanding that reassuring reply, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a strong underlying and continuing problem with store card debt run up by young people, where the rates of interest—30 per cent. plus—can only be described as usurious? Does my right hon. Friend agree that finance companies are making bigger profits by providing financial services for these purchases than the manufacturers are managing to turn round from the goods they are selling? Will my right hon. Friend look at the problem and ensure that young people get a fairer deal when they go to the store for whatever they need?
    Mr. Brown: We have received the Treasury Committee's report on consumer credit and shall be replying to it. At the same time, when we bring the Budget to the House, we shall have the Miles report on the mortgage industry. It is absolutely true that the DTI's consumer credit White Paper tries to deal with cases where there are unscrupulous lenders or where excessive costs are charged for borrowing.
    In answer to the question that has been put to me about the macro-economic position, it is totally unreasonable for the Conservatives to claim that somehow the growth and stability that we have managed to create in the economy are unsustainable. Every time they have made that claim, they have had to retract it.
    Mr. James Clappison: Is not one cause of indebtedness the fact that many people no longer have savings to fall back on a rainy day? Given the collapse in saving under this Government, as measured by the average savings ratio, which is way lower than it was under the last Government, will not the withdrawal of tax concessions on personal equity plans and individual savings accounts make this even worse? Why do the Government seek to do this? How many people will be affected?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. The lowest recorded annual savings ratio was in 1988 under the Conservative Government, at 4.9 per cent. The savings ratio in this country today is 5.9 per cent. —more than double the savings ratio recorded in the United States of America. If the hon. Gentleman has real criticisms, they are against his colleagues.
    Richard Burden: While my right hon. Friend is obviously right to draw attention to the Government's achievements at the macro level, he has acknowledged the real problem of personal debt for many people on low and fixed incomes, too many of whom fall prey to loan sharks. Does he agree that one important way of addressing this problem is to find pathways out of poverty? Although the Government have made a great contribution through tax credits, the new deal and so on, the private sector could make a big impact through greater efforts in community reinvestment to regenerate communities. What is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage that?
    Mr. Brown: We are discussing with many voluntary organisations and charitable bodies exactly those issues:

    1045
    how we can encourage through social enterprise more investment in communities that historically have low levels of investment and also low levels of employment. I agree with my hon. Friend that where we see unscrupulous lending practices we must act against them, and we shall make proposals on that matter. Where at the same time we see situations in which mortgage charges are too high—this is what the Miles report is looking at—we shall come forward with both information on the matter and proposals where they are necessary. But I have to tell my hon. Friend that those who allege that the stability of our economy was not hard won and hard earned are completely wrong. We have managed to create stability in this country at a level that was never achieved under the previous Government.
    Mr. David Cameron (Witney) (Con): Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), what is the Chancellor's reaction to the head of Fidelity, who said that the Government's policy on saving was a complete mess? The Chancellor is fond of always saying that he will not take lectures from anybody. Will he listen to the person responsible for selling savings products to many people in this country?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman's party said that ISAs would not work—
    Mr. Cameron: What about Fidelity?
    Mr. Brown: This is my answer to Fidelity: 15 million policies have been taken out and £120 billion has been invested as a result of the creation of ISAs. That has been a success story, not the failure that the hon. Gentleman says it is. I have just given the figures for the savings ratio. It is about time that the Conservative party congratulated us on our economic record.

    University Tuition Fees
    Mr. Graham Allen: If he will establish a tax-free education bond available to all parents, to help them save for university fees payable by their children when graduating; and if he will make a statement. [158476]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury(Mr. Paul Boateng): We have no plans to introduce such a bond. Our proposals ensure that no parent needs to fund their children's variable tuition fees. Instead, graduates will make a contribution to the cost of their higher education, and only when they can afford to do so.
    Mr. Allen: I thank the Treasury team for their management of the economy, which means that two thirds of the young people in my constituency come from homes that will benefit from a full £3,000 grant under the Government's proposals in the Higher Education Bill. Will my right hon. Friend consider a children's trust bond, which is a very good idea, and whether we could extend it into a lifelong learning bond that would be available to anyone who wanted to invest in further education or part-time learning or be a mature student? Will my right hon. Friend examine that idea,
    1046
    see whether it is possible to extend it and perhaps write to me before the Bill completes its progress through the House?
    Mr. Boateng: We are grateful for the careful consideration that my hon. Friend gives to these matters, not least in Standing Committee. He will appreciate that our policies aim to improve the savings environment, create the right savings incentives and empower individuals to make financial choices throughout their lives. In relation to the children's trust fund, our policy has always been that fundholders are the best judge of their future needs. That is why we have not imposed any restriction on how those funds might be used. I am always open to correspondence with my hon. Friend, who has written to the Treasury on a number of occasions. I look forward to receiving a further letter from him and will respond to it as soon as possible.
    Chris Grayling: The Chief Secretary knows that under the Government's proposals on student fees, the cost to the taxpayer of the increased student loan subsidy and of compensating less well-off students for the cost of paying fees exceeds the amount of money that will be raised by the university through fees, while students end up with much higher levels of debt. The only possible economic reason for the Treasury to do that is if it intends to claw back grant money from the universities in future spending reviews. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do that?
    Mr. Boateng: I have no intention of anticipating the outcome of future spending reviews. However, spending on higher education will rise from about £7.5 billion in 2002–03 to nearly £10 billion in 2005–06—a real-terms increase of more than 6 per cent. each year. Compare that with the cuts that were the track record of the Opposition. Compare those figures with the record of the previous Administration, under whom funding per student between 1989 and 1997 dropped every year, and by 36 per cent. in total in real terms. That is their record. Ours is one of achievement and continued support for students and universities.

    Overseas Development Aid
    .Mr. Colin Challen: What assessment he has made of the main obstacles to delivering the targets set in the millennium development goals. [158477]
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement on progress to achieve the millennium development goals. [158478]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Since 1997 we have raised overseas development aid from 0.26 per cent. of gross national income to a projected 0.4 per cent. To achieve the millennium development goals, including 80 million more school places, will not only take economic reform, achieving value for money in aid and a settlement of the world trade talks, but cannot be achieved without those increases in overseas development aid.
    Mr. Challen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, which shows that Britain is leading the way

    1047
    in the attempt to meet those goals. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speech he gave to faith groups and non-governmental organisations on 18 February when, among many other things, he said:
    "Too often we have set goals, reset them, and recalibrated them again so that all we end up doing is mitigating the extent to which we have failed."
    That is an honest appraisal of why the goals are proving so difficult to meet. At current rates of development, my right hon. Friend has predicted that some of them will take over a century to achieve. Is he content that there is sufficient political will on the international stage to meet the goals? Perhaps if we described the millennium development goals as a war on poverty, we might have a greater chance of success.
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. The latest information is that the major millennium goals of getting every child into education, halving poverty and achieving a two-thirds reduction in infant mortality will not, on present trends, be met by 2115, far less by 2015. That is why we need extra resources and why we cannot escape the question of how we can create those resources. It is no use people saying that they support our international finance facility without committing themselves to further overseas aid. I wish that we had a consensus in the House of Commons for further increases in overseas aid, but unfortunately the Conservatives wish to cut the budget.
    Mr. Edwards: May I tell my right hon. Friend that there is considerable support in my constituency for the millennium development goals, especially those to combat gender inequality and to promote maternal health? Those concerns will be highlighted tonight when Glenys Kinnock opens the Monmouth women's festival. Given that the UK assumes the presidency of the G7 next year, how will my right hon. Friend persuade the other wealthy countries of the world to support the international finance facility in order to achieve those goals?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Next year is important because it is the first year in which a millennium development target falls due to be met— namely, the target on reducing inequalities in educational opportunities for girls and women. That target will not be met. It is also the year when we hold the G7 presidency. We believe, given the establishment of the commission on Africa, that our G7 presidency will indeed be a development presidency. We are determined to make progress. One of the ways in which we shall do so is the conference that France and Britain have called for next month in Paris. Sixty countries will attend, and we hope to persuade them of the virtues of the international finance facility, which could, if it worked, double the amount of aid for the next 10 years.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Chancellor be minded to link the millennium development goals with the Government's war on terror, which we support? In particular, will he push in world trade talks for alternative crops in countries such as Afghanistan, in order to wean them away from opium production.
    Mr. Brown: I accept what the hon. Lady says about the problems of opium production in Afghanistan,
    1048
    which perhaps represents a bigger share of its economy than the formal economy that is registered there. That is why. at the G7 meeting, we discussed special measures to reduce the economy's dependence on opium. At the same time, it is necessary to persuade people that if they open up to trade and change the system so that they have stability and are open to investment, we are prepared to help them to solve problems, including those of education and health, that they cannot solve financially on their own. That must be part of a new deal between the developed and the developing countries. That new deal will, however, require money, so I hope that the Conservatives will reconsider their decision to freeze, then to cut, the overseas development budget.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: I sincerely congratulate the Chancellor on the progress that he has made on this front. I hope that he would include in that the brilliant contribution made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) when she was Secretary of State for International Development. Having said that, is the Chancellor concerned about the progress that is being made in getting other countries to contribute to the global fund and the finance facility that he recently set up?
    Mr. Brown: America has agreed to increase by $5 billion a year the amount of overseas development aid that it provides. That is in its own millennium challenge fund. The European Union has agreed to increase overseas development aid from 0.32 to 0.39 per cent. of European gross domestic product. That is a big change in decision making by many European Governments. We are increasing our overseas development aid from 0.26 to 0.4 per cent. of GDP. Governments around the world have agreed to increase the amount of development aid that they provide.
    However, because the cuts in aid over the past 20 years have been so severe, those resources are not sufficient to deal with the problems of education, of health or even of HIV/AIDS. That is why we need a new measure, and why we proposed the international finance facility. I am pleased that that has support from the Liberal party and support in principle from the Conservative party. However, that support depends in practice on our being able to increase the overseas development budget, so I again urge the Conservatives to reconsider their decision to oppose that.

    Civil Service
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: What measures he is taking to address low pay in the civil service. [158479]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): It is up to individual Departments to determine their own pay and grading systems. Then, through the pay remits system, they are provided with the means to deal with the particular recruitment and retention problems that they face.
    Mr. Prosser: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I appreciate that the Chancellor's record on tackling poverty is second to none, but how is that reconciled with the rigid capping of pay offers, especially in the

    1049
    Department for Work and Pensions, to low-paid civil servants, whose pay barely keeps up with the statutory minimum wage and whose take-home pay the Public and Commercial Services Union describes as "poverty pay"? Will my hon. Friend meet me and colleagues to find ways of paying those hard-working people a fair day's pay for a fair day's work?
    John Healey: Of course I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and members of the PCS.
    We are proud of our investment in public services and of what we have been able to do to get those who work and serve in the public services fairer pay and treatment.
    1050
    I stress to my hon. Friend that part of our job is to ensure that pay budgets across Government are realistic, affordable and directed towards improving services. That is why we are considering the efficiency review, relocating civil servants out of London and the south-east, and increasing local pay flexibility. Above all, Labour's monetary policy framework, which the Tories opposed, has led us to the longest period of sustained low inflation since the 1960s. Wage bargainers can now plan with the sort of confidence that they could not previously entertain. In those circumstances, I hope that we can deal with the concerns of my hon. Friend and the PCS.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 MARCH—Commons consideration of Lords amendments to the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution on the Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the first joint report of the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee on visitor facilities: "Access to Parliament".
TUESDAY 9 MARCH—Opposition Day [Unallotted]. There will be a debate entitled "Publication of the Advice from the Attorney-General on Iraq", followed by a debate entitled "Young People and Democracy". Both debates arise on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru.
WEDNESDAY 10 MARCH—Second Reading of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 11 MARCH—Estimates [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on aviation services and a debate on biofuels. Details will be given in the Official Report. At 6 o'clock the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
FRIDAY 12 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 15 MARCH—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill. Remaining stages of the Fire and Rescue Services Bill.
TUESDAY 16 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Traffic Management Bill.
WEDNESDAY 17 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.

THURSDAY 18 MARH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
It may assist the House if I confirm that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will make a statement on Monday on the publication of the Penrose report. Next week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will make a statement on Government policy on genetically modified foods.
[Thursday 11 March:
Transport: In so far as they relate to aviation (6th Report of Transport Committee, Session 2002–03, (HC 454—I and HC 454—II) and Government response to the Transport Committee's Sixth Report, t into Aviation.]
Mr. Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement, especially the announcement about the Penrose report. I have raised the matter with him on several occasions and on Tuesday I tabled early-day motion 741.
1052
[That this House notes with concern the long delay in publishing the Penrose Report into Equitable Life and the consequent postponement of an oral statement or a debate on this important matter, which affects the life savings of hundreds of thousands of policy-holders and annuitants; and calls on the Leader of the House to ensure an early statement on the Penrose Report followed by a full debate.]
Given that it has taken the Leader of the House only two days to arrange the statement, will he announce on Monday that the review of Select Committees that early-day motion 760 mentions is imminent?
Chris Bryant: Ha, ha, ha.
Mr. Heald: It is always good to have appreciation.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a copy of the Penrose report, which is obviously complex, to be made available early to Opposition spokesmen? Will a full debate take place in due course on that important matter?
Is there any news about the date for a debate on the aviation White Paper or will the estimates day debate on 11 March be sufficiently wide to cover it?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there will be a full debate before action is taken to cap local authorities?
The Leader of the House will know of the increasing concern about the escalating number of allegations of abuse of all-postal voting ballots. What are the Government doing about that? He will know that the Electoral Commission sanctioned a strictly limited and controlled pilot of that system for the European elections in two regions, and that measures have been taken specifically to avoid election fraud. In Monday's European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, the Government are seeking to defy the commission and increase the number of regions to four. Can the Leader of the House tell us how the essential protections will be put in place in the two extra regions, given that there is so little time? Does that not raise the risk that unscrupulous parties such as the British National party, and politicians of that sort, will simply be given a free run to abuse the system?
Finally, the Leader of the House will know that today is world book day. Has he seen the survey that shows that hon. Members read more than journalists, but that they entirely avoid self-help and mind, body and spirit books? We are said to prefer biographies. In the current political climate, would he like to recommend a suitable self-help book to his colleagues on the Labour Benches? May I suggest "Feel the Fear and Do It Anyway" by Susan Jeffers or, as a suitable fiction title, "No Second Chance" by Harlan Coben?
Mr. Hain: On the future business of Parliament, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to assist the House? He will be aware that Lord Lloyd has tabled an amendment in the House of Lords— [Interruption.] This concerns the House of Commons as well. Lord Lloyd has tabled an amendment designed to put the Constitutional Reform Bill into Select Committee. That is unprecedented, against the express will of the Government and it will make it impossible to get the Bill through this Parliament. Will the hon. Gentleman prevail on his

1053
Conservative colleagues in the House of Lords to ensure that that amendment is resisted? That is important, because that manoeuvre could wreck the passage of a Government flagship Bill. I am sure that he will want to join me in opposing that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Hon. Members say "Order", but it is important that a Bill supported by the Government is not wrecked as a result of that procedural manoeuvre.
I shall now answer the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised. On the Penrose report, as Leader of the House I always jump to attention on the hon. Gentleman's early-day motions. He has obviously had the desired result on that matter, but it was always the intention to make a statement on the report. I also confirm—I am sure that he will welcome this—that the Treasury will be publishing the report in full. I shall draw to the Financial Secretary's attention the hon. Gentleman's request to see an early copy of the report. As I understand it, it is a comprehensive report and no doubt his request will be taken seriously.
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when there will be a debate on the aviation White Paper, but there will of course be an opportunity to raise all his colleagues' points during the debate on Thursday, which should go some way at least towards satisfying his repeated requests on that matter.
On postal voting, I should have thought that, in an era of declining voter turnout, it was in all our interests to encourage greater turnout, whichever party those voters support, to improve the health of our democracy. We face the phenomenon of declining voter turnout across the democratic world. In areas where pilots for all-postal votes in local elections have taken place, turnout has dramatically increased. Is the hon. Gentleman saying, on behalf of the Conservatives—although I understand that this is the Liberal Democrat position as well—that they do not want more postal votes and better access for voters? What are they frightened or? Are they frightened of a large turnout of voters in the north-west of England, Yorkshire and Humber, the east midlands and the north-east of England? I should have thought that he wanted greater voter turnout.
On fraud and abuse, the Electoral Commission has made it perfectly clear that it is satisfied that the pilots can go safely ahead without any real risk of serious abuse. On the point about having four regions instead of two, the commission listed other regions, including the north-west of England and Yorkshire and Humber, as possible candidates for pilot schemes if the Government so chose. Millions of voters will be given extra opportunities as a result of this, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the Conservatives are seeking to deny those voters in the north of England the chance to vote more conveniently and easily in elections that are for local government and the European Union.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a full debate on the council tax before any capping takes place. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that, if he has to cap high council tax local authorities, he will do so. It is encouraging that at the moment the average increase seems to be about 6 per cent., which is much lower than it was last year and in previous years. The
1054
Deputy Prime Minister intends to bear down on those councils, including Conservative councils, that are pressing for gigantic council taxes at a time when we have put record investment into local government and when the increase in grant settlement for Conservative-controlled local authorities is actually larger, at about 6.1 per cent., than that for Labour local authorities, although I am not sure that I should remind my colleagues on the Labour Back Benches of that. There is no excuse for large council tax increases.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's question on world book day. May I remind him that the survey also shows that Members of Parliament read in bed?
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect the long-delayed Bill to evict the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords? Will he also tell us whether the report in today's edition of The Independent, headlined, "Lords reform in disarray after officials bungle drafting of Bill", is correct? Will he now confirm that, as this is a major constitutional issue, it will be taken in full in Committee of the whole House? Does he recall that, in the votes last year, the option of an all-appointed House, which was advocated by the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor. was defeated in this House by 87 votes—a large majority? As the Leader of the House was on the right side in those votes, I am sure that he will also recall that 332 Members voted for a majority elected second Chamber. It would clearly be a contempt of this House if those votes were ignored, and if a Bill were produced that had the effect of creating an all-appointed second Chamber, without any steps being taken within Parliament to make progress towards completion of reform.
In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he is taking seriously our proposition for a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee to examine ways in which we could fulfil the mandate of this. Government and his colleagues? He will have seen that many Members on both sides of the House have endorsed that proposal as a way forward. Will he tell us what steps he proposes to take to allow the House of Commons, and the House of Lords, to make progress? I hope that he will agree, as he has been on the side of the reformers, that we have had plenty of consultation and independent analysis, and that it is now time for Parliament to complete this process and bring this long-running Whitehall farce to a successful conclusion.
Mr. Hain: I thank the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for voting to extend by an extra day the time that the Higher Education Bill will be considered in Committee. I must also express my amazement that the Conservative Opposition voted against that programme motion, thereby seeking to deny the extra discussion on higher education in Committee that they have been pressing for. That is an extraordinary position.
On the reform of the House of Lords, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing untoward about the situation in respect of the Government's Bill. It is going through its proper process before being introduced into Parliament, and that will take place when we are ready to complete that process. In respect of the issue that he has quite properly raised in the past on the nature of

1055
House of Lords reform, he knows that I voted in a similar Lobby to him on a number of occasions a year ago. It is vital, however, that he join us in seeking to tackle the essential obstacle and anomaly in the current situation, which is the presence of 92 hereditary peers. I cannot for the life of me believe that the Liberal Democrats, with their long-standing policy on this matter, would actually vote against a Bill that sought to get rid of those hereditary peers. I just cannot believe that—or maybe I can, depending on the position that the Liberal Democrats take.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has had discussions on this matter with the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. He has also quite properly raised with me the matter of a third stage of House of Lords reform, to which I am strongly committed. The Lord Chancellor has indicated that it is our intention to proceed down that road. The hon. Gentleman says that there has been plenty of consultation, but the problem is that there has been no consensus. All the options were defeated a year ago, including the option for a fully appointed Chamber. I note, however, that the House of Lords, as I pointed out previously, voted pretty well overwhelmingly for a fully appointed Chamber. I would therefore find it extraordinary if the Conservatives, Cross Benchers and hereditaries were to seek to defeat a Bill that would maintain for the time being the present situation of an all-appointed Chamber but improve and modernise it by establishing an independent commission, and remove the anomaly of people making laws because a long-deceased ancestor happened to be awarded a peerage for no reason at all.
Ms Julia Drown: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on debt relief and aid, in relation to which several issues are of serious concern at the moment—[Interruption.] Yesterday's debate was on trade justice, and this is an issue that needs further debate. Everybody agrees that Ethiopia needs top-up debt relief, yet the US Treasury spokespeople are saying that more debt relief would simply encourage more borrowing. If we are to achieve the millennium development goals to which all countries are signed up, we need more debate and more action on these issues. In particular, I would like the UK to take the lead and increase aid to 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product, which some other countries have managed to do, and which we should also be able to do.
Mr. Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. I know that she will also want to applaud the way in which our Government have nearly doubled the overseas aid and development budget after years of merciless cuts by the Conservatives when they were in government. We are leading the international campaign to tackle world poverty, reduce the burden of debt and promote trade justice, which is in sorry contrast to the Opposition's plans to cut the aid budget by £250 million in the first two years of a possible Conservative Government—an astonishing attack on the poor of the world.
Mr. Robert Key: In each of the last three weeks, either the glass doors between the colonnade and Portcullis house, which I understand are
1056
manufactured by a company called Portal, or the unreliable escalator up to the Portcullis house main floor, manufactured by Otis, have been unserviceable. The taxpayer spent more than £250 million to improve the infrastructure and working conditions for Members and their staff. Every day. thousands of journeys are made between these premises, so although the Leader of the House is clearly not responsible for the unreliable equipment supplied to the House by those companies, will he please inform the House, Members of Parliament and the hundreds of staff who use those facilities what is going wrong and, when they are broken, how long it will be before they are mended, because we are not serving our constituents well in this way?
Mr. Hain: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's question and share his frustration and irritation. It is not right that this should be occurring. My brief from the Serjeant at Arms says that there is a shortage of spares, and that a store of spares is being built up on site to help to avoid such delays. I am sure that the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue on the Floor of the House will ensure that matters are speeded up.
Mr. John Lyons: My right hon. Friend will recall early day-motion 247 in my name, welcoming the success of the national minimum wage but calling for it to be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds.
[That this House welcomes the success of the national minimum wage in giving protection to millions of workers across the United Kingdom; and urges the Low Pay Commission to extend the minimum wage to young full-time and part-time workers by including 16 and 17 year olds in the legislation at the earliest opportunity.]
A report from the Low Pay Commission is now with the Government. Can he find time for a debate on the national minimum wage and its possible extension?
Mr. Hain: I know that my hon. Friend has long argued for that, and the Government have been examining the situation carefully and awaiting the report from the Low Pay Commission. I can tell him that an announcement is due in the coming weeks, and I hope that he will find it an encouraging one.
Andrew George: I was very interested to hear that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will make a statement on genetically modified crops next week. This is the first time that the Government have devoted any Government time to the issue. Has the Leader of the House seen the cross-party motion in my name that appears as No. 46 on today's Order Paper, calling for full parliamentary scrutiny and a vote on Government policy in respect of GM crops? The Leader of the House told the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on 29 January that
"as soon as we are in a position to do so, we are committed to having a debate. I am sure that there will be no question of proceeding with any decision until the debate has occurred." — [Official Report, 29 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 398.]
Can he assure the House today that we will have an opportunity for a debate on a Government motion, not just question or statement, and put it to a vote in this House?
Mr. Hain: I remind the hon. Gentleman that no GM seeds can be planted this year, because the planting

1057
season has passed. The urgency of such a debate has therefore slipped a little. Nevertheless, I am glad that he welcomes next week's statement, and I stand by what I said: the Government are indeed committed to arranging a debate, and we shall do so as soon as is practicable. A number of issues are involved, including the fact that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Minister for the Environment are committed to attending a number of Agriculture Council meetings that are crucial to Britain's interests. It is a question of arranging a time when at least the Minister for the Environment can be present, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are on the case.
Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Cardiff was named the first fair trade capital in the world earlier this week? That means that a certain number of shops, supermarkets and local authority and other businesses stock fair trade goods. Will he join me in congratulating Cardiff council and the other organisations involved, and can he think of ways in which the Government can help other cities to follow Cardiff's example? May we have a debate about that?
Mr. Hain: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Cardiff on a flagship achievement in what is indeed a flagship city—the fastest-growing capital city in Europe. Anyone who has been there recently—and the Modernisation Committee is going on onday—will have seen a dynamic city that is growing fast and proudly taking its place as one of Europe's leading cities.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Two weeks ago I visited BAE Systems in Samlesbury in my constituency, and talked to trade union representatives who were worried about the fact that the Government were dragging their feet over the announcement of tranche 2 of the Typhoon programme, formerly known as the Eurofighter. This week I read in a newspaper that the Secretary of State for Defence was minded to cancel tranche 2 and reduce the number of Typhoon aircraft that the Government would buy. That would have a huge impact on manufacturing jobs and defence manufacturing capability. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to come here as soon as possible and make an announcement about the programme's future?
Mr. Hain: The Secretary of State will of course be here to answer questions on his allotted day. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the company in his constituency, and the Secretary of State will obviously take careful note of what he said. I might ask, however, how the programme could proceed under a Conservative Government if one were elected, given that the Conservatives are committed to cuts of £2.5 billion in defence spending in their first two years in office.
David Taylor: Many Labour Members were brought up on council estates and would attest to the importance of
1058
affordable homes in good condition with accountable landlords. We were reassured when my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), who was then the relevant Minister, said that decent homes would still be a requirement where local authority landlords were retained by tenants. The present Minister for Housing and Planning has apparently announced a change in Government policy that will allow investment only where the private finance initiative, stock transfer or an arm's-length management organisation is operating. Will my right hon. Friend ask him why there is no fourth option, why the policy has changed, and why no statement has been made to the House?
Mr. Hain: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will note my hon. Friend's remarks, which obviously came from the heart.
Total housing investment will be £11 billion over the next two years—a big injection of extra capital and support for housing. That contrasts markedly with the shadow Chancellor's plans to cut spending on housing by £400 million in the first two years of a possible Conservative Government.
Bob Spink: Street youth crime, thuggery and antisocial behaviour are becoming the most urgent, pressing issue in our communities. May we have a debate that will show us how to galvanise police and local authorities into action to tackle this blight on our communities?
Mr. Hain: I agree., and I think that the hon. Gentleman's sentiments will be echoed on both sides of the House. In all our constituencies this has become a real plague—or blight. to use his phrase. That is why we have introduced tough antisocial behaviour legislation. It is imperative for police, local authorities and other agencies to apply those laws rigorously and to ensure that we tackle the problem at root and also avoid criminalising, in a pre-emptive way, youngsters who are causing trouble and indulging in yobbery. I am sure that he will welcome the Government's proposals.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Office for National Statistics has published information showing that 250,000 people disappeared from electoral registers in 2003, despite a growing population? The last time that we had a serious debate on this issue was when we were considering what became the Representation of the People Act 2000, when rolling registers were introduced. They were a thinned-down version of what I proposed in my Representation of the People Bill in 1993, which was supported by the current Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the late John Smith and many members of the current Cabinet. May we have a debate on what is still a serious situation so that we can put it right? People cannot even abstain if their names are not on registers.
Mr. Hain: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his long campaign, which has brought about a much better way of registering voters. We are now trying to increase opportunities to achieve what he wants. As I said earlier in connection with postal voting pilots in the north and

1059
the east midlands, it is vital for more and more people to have a chance to vote, so that the health and vibrancy of our democracy is improved.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: Yesterday, the Northern Ireland Chief Constable reported a serious level of continuing IRA violence on the streets, particularly punishment beatings and shootings aimed at young people. That comes on top of the Tohill abduction, which has caused a crisis in the political situation. May we have an urgent statement from the Government revealing what action will be taken against the IRA, and in particular to remove the privileges and perks that it currently enjoys under the Belfast agreement, which have been denied to other paramilitary organisations in breach of their ceasefires?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to table a question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for answer on Tuesday, and I hope that he will take advantage of it. But, as the Government have consistently made clear, it is imperative for all parties to ensure that they are not half in and half out of the democratic process. The incident mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was very serious; that is one of the reasons why the British and Irish Governments have asked the Independent Monitoring Commission to examine the allegation that Provisional IRA members were involved in an abduction, in the context of the preparation of its first report on paramilitary activity.
Anne Picking:I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that feelings are running high on miners' compensation schemes and the fact that miners are losing out. There was an excellent Adjournment debate on the subject yesterday morning. We are rightly exposing the unscrupulous practices of lawyers, but we must also make clear to miners and their families that the end of this month is the cut-off date for them to make claims. Will he use his good offices to encourage them to do just that?
Mr. Hain: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. As a former Energy Minister who was responsible for introducing reforms to speed up the process, and as a representative of a former coalfield community, I am passionate about miners' compensation schemes and rewarding all who are entitled to rewards. It is indeed essential for solicitors and, indeed, trade unions not to double-charge. At the same time, we are talking about the biggest compensation scheme in Britain's history—probably in the history of Europe, if not beyond it—in which more than £1 billion has been given to help sick miners and their families on account of the appalling circumstances from which miners have suffered.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Leader of the House would want to be evenhanded. He described Cardiff as a flagship city on account of its fair trade policies, so would he also attribute flagship status to the borough of Macclesfield, which has taken a similar decision? However, that is not my real question.
To return to postal voting pilot projects, Conservative Members are concerned that the Electoral Commission's recommendations were for
1060
two pilots, but the Government are seeking to extend them to four. I met the chairman and chief executive of the Electoral Commission yesterday and they told a colleague and me that they had recommended two pilot projects, and that it was the Government's decision to extend them to four. They were concerned that sufficient safeguards were not in place to guarantee the security and integrity of the electoral roll. They believed that, because of the vulnerability and abuse of the electoral register, it would not be a good idea to extend to four pilots at this stage.
Mr. Hain: I understand that the hon. Gentleman met the Electoral Commission recently. If he reflected carefully on the matter, he would confirm that the Electoral Commission, in addition to the two top regions of the east midlands and the north-east, identified further regions in the second tier, which the Government could, if they wished, bring into the postal voting system. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the allegations of corruption and abuse are in respect of the existing system, which is different from the proposed system. If the Electoral Commission were seriously worried about abuse and corruption, it would not have recommended two regional pilots in any case.
What I find baffling, particularly from a strong democrat such as the hon. Gentleman, about such a question, is that the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside will be taking part in a referendum on an all-postal-vote basis a few months later to establish whether the people want regional government. What is the difference between having an all-postal-vote pilot in June and one in September?
Mr. Heald: It is question of timing.
Mr. Hain: It is not a question of time. The truth is that, if the Bill goes through, many millions more people in the north of England will be able to vote with ease from their homes—and Conservative Members should support that. On Macclesfield, I am delighted that it is a free trade—or rather, a fair trade—area and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: This week it has been announced that a longstanding nursing home in Hook in my constituency is to close and, despite its proximity to the local school, reopen as a unit for people with personality disorders. There is considerable local concern and anger that that could happen without any local consultation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the local community and its representatives should have a large role in deciding the appropriate nature of such resources, and will he allow time for a debate on the procedures that govern such matters?
Mr. Hain: I am concerned to hear that there has been no consultation. I would have thought that consultation should happen—and should already have happened—in that case. I am sure that those responsible will take note of the important point that my hon. Friend has raised.
Pete Wishart: I am sure that the Leader of the House is greatly looking forward to Opposition day debates next week, particularly the

1061
SNP/Plaid Cymru motion that suggests that the Attorney-General should produce and publish his advice on the war in Iraq. Given that that provided the legal basis on which we went to war, can the Leader of the House confirm that the Solicitor-General will reply to the debate and, if not her, the Prime Minister?
Mr. Hain: The arrangements for which Ministers handle which debates are decided at the appropriate time, and the hon. Gentleman will receive due notice of that. However, the proposition that the Attorney-General, surrounded as he is by Law Officers advising him in great numbers, would have given advice that was anything other than absolutely straight and full of integrity is an absurd and preposterous one. That is what lies behind the allegation that the Scottish nationalists and their colleagues in Wales wish to propagate—and it is not acceptable.
I believe that we need to arrive at a better position for public life. Currently, virtually any judge is branded a liar, virtually every Cabinet Minister is branded a liar, and the only people who escape branding as liars in the current frenzy of public debate are journalists. They are the ones who are supposed to be telling the truth. Perhaps we should have a debate on the standards of journalism in this country.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by the time Members return from the Easter recess, more than half of the Refreshment Department staff who serve Members of Parliament as opposed to members of the Government will have received their notice? They will be paying for the changing of our hours, although we are constantly told that the Refreshment Department is making a bigger profit than before. It really is outrageous that the facilities for Members are increasingly limited, while other facilities—desperately needed though they are—are given priority.
Mr. Hain: I know of my hon. Friend's views on sitting hours, and she takes a strongly held position on the matter. She is free to continue to argue it, but it is an entirely separate matter from the position of catering staff. I share her concern about that, and I am sure that she will want to address her concerns to the Chairman of the Catering Committee, which is responsible for those matters. She is absolutely right, though she reluctantly conceded it, that income from catering in the House has increased since the change of sitting times. The relationship between the reformed hours and catering provision is not straightforward.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: As someone hoping to catch the Deputy Speaker's eye in Westminster Hall next Tuesday afternoon and someone who initiated a debate on Zimbabwe in Westminster Hall 15 months ago, I put it to the Leader of the House—he has an outstanding record of opposing the Mugabe regime—that many of us are deeply disappointed that, with the deteriorating position in Zimbabwe, we have not had a full-scale debate on the Floor of the House. Westminster Hall is not sufficient to debate such a serious matter. I know that the Leader of
1062
the House agrees with me, so can he persuade the Foreign Secretary to initiate in Government time a full-day debate on Zimbabwe on the Floor of the House as soon as possible?
Mr. Hain: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary—he and I have been in touch with the right hon. Gentleman's office, partly as a result of the quite proper questions that he has recently put to us—is carefully considering the need for a debate in the Chamber. We all share—the right hon Gentleman and I especially—an absolute revulsion for the state to which Zimbabwe has descended under Robert Mugabe's tyranny. Frankly, with rape and terror camps being established, where people are trained to wage terror on the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe it seems to me that Robert Mugabe is rapidly catching up Idi Amin as the Hitler of Africa.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to last Session's early-day motion 63:
[That this House expresses its sadness that more than 1,748 members of Her Majesty's armed forces have lost their lives through non-natural causes since 1990 and sends condolences to all their families; notes that almost 200 deaths have been caused by discharge of firearms and further that some 200 are described as self-inflicted; notes the growing public perception that the Ministry of Defence response to these deaths is inadequate and distressing to the be? caved; applauds the courage and determination of the friends and families of Scan Benton, James Collinson, Geoff Gray and Cheryl James who died at Deepcut barracks in Surrey; and of Paul Cochrane, Ross Collins, Richard Donkin, Tony Green, Dale Little, Aled Martin Jones,Alfie Manship, Gary Riches, Richard Robertson, Alan Sharpies, David Shipley and Christopher Young who have subsequently come forward to make public their own grievances and frustrations at the hands of the military authorities; believes the Army has a duty of care and protection towards all personnel, particularly young soldiers; believes that the culture of secrecy surrounding the varied cause of these deaths must give way to greater transparency; believes that the environment in which these deaths continue to occur and the absence of a system for prompt, effective and independent investigation of deaths has led to a breakdown in public confidence that can only be restored through a full and independent public inquiry; and urges the Government to establish a tribunal of inquiry without delay.]
The corresponding provision this Session is early-day motion 78.
They deal with the demand by more than 200 hon. Members for a public inquiry into the Deepcut and other deaths.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Surrey police today issued its report, urging a broader investigation and inquiry. In its statement, however, the Ministry of Defence, while agreeing to make an early statement before the House, has not indicated the nature of the inquiry. Will the Leader of the House draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence the fact that, when asked what a broader inquiry was, the Surrey police replied that it was one

1063
"independent of Government and Army, transparent, with powers to call for people and papers, held in public and intimately involving the families of the victims."?
Mr. Hain: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's persistence in bringing this matter to public scrutiny. He referred to this morning's statement on the matter, which stated that each of the four deaths in that appalling series of incidents was an individual tragedy in its own right. The MOD is working energetically to see what lessons can be learned, and I understand that the Select Committee on Defence will establish its own inquiry into the matter. I am sure that that will be welcomed by all concerned.
Mr. Graham Brady: I reassure the Leader of the House that previous pilots on all-postal ballots in the borough of Trafford in my constituency have resulted in far more Conservative votes than Labour votes. We are not concerned about the electoral implications for the Conservative party of moving to all-postal ballots. However, we are concerned that it is impossible to guarantee the confidentiality of such ballots, and to ensure that intimidation will not take place. May I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider the matter? Will he look again at the advice from the Electoral. Commission, and will the Government consider accepting the wise counsel on this issue from another place?
Mr. Hain: I have two points to make, although the hon. Gentleman can raise many of these matters in the debate on Monday—
Mr. Heald: Don't worry—he will.
Mr. Hain: The shadow Leader of the House says that the hon. Gentleman will do just that. The principles are clear. First, increased turnout is in all our interests. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said that postal voting caused the number of Conservative voters to rise. Although that is bitterly disappointing to me, it is a consequence of increasing turnout. We all have a vested interest in securing high turnout, in the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside, as well as in the east midlands and the north-east.
Secondly, if the enterprise were as risky as has been claimed, why has the Electoral Commission recommended that two regions go ahead with postal voting? If there were problems of abuse, lack of confidentiality and corruption, the commission would have said that no pilot schemes should be held. It has not said that, however: it has said that we should go ahead with two schemes and that if we judge that there are sufficient resources and so on to enable four pilots to be held, we should go ahead and hold those as well. That is exactly what it said.
Huw Irranca-Davies: We celebrated St. David's day this week, and it is appropriate that hon. Members walk beneath his portrait as we come into the Chamber from the Central Lobby. Also this week, the Western Mail announced that the greatest Welshman ever was Nye Bevan, the hero of public services. Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate in the near
1064
future on the valuable role played by public sector workers? If the Opposition came to power, those workers would come under attack the very next day, and their P45s would be in the post.
Mr. Hain: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Aneurin Bevan on winning the race to be Wales's outstanding hero. He was the runaway winner, which is marvellous. As my hon. Friend noted, Bevan introduced the national health service, which has been a gift to all of us. Under Labour, more nurses, doctors and consultants have been recruited. We are beginning to put the NHS back on its feet again, after years and years of cuts. If the Conservatives were to come to office, there would be more cuts in the NHS, and a reduction in the number of nurses.
Mrs. Patsy Calton: Given the lack of public confidence in the network reinvention process for post office closures, will the Leader of the House read, and act in support of, early-day motion 725?
[That this House calls on the Department for Trade and Industry to halt forthwith the Network Reinvention Programme of post office closures while an investigation is carried out into flaws in the notification, consultation and decision-making process, which led to inaccurate information being presented to the public and to consultees, including honourable Members and at least one metropolitan borough council, and which have led furthermore to a decision to close a post office being made on the same day that honourable Members and a council were notified in writing by Post Office Limited's Head of the North West that more time was being taken to review that closure, and which have led to the designation of a rural post office as urban without reference to clear criteria including those in the Performance and Innovation Unit report of 2000; notes that Royal Mail now recognise inadequacies in the process and that subsequent closure consultations will be modified but that current consultations will not be changed; regrets the failure of the Post Office and Postwatch to use clear and unambiguous language in their replies to honourable and Right honourable Members; and further regrets the failure of Post Office Limited to transmit a clear, strategic, coherent vision of the future of the Post Office at the heart of local communities.]
Mr. Hain: The hon. Lady will know that there is an Adjournment debate on the subject next Thursday, in which she can try to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair.
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: Earlier, my right hon. Friend mentioned the Third Reading of the Fire and Rescue Services Bill, which provides for the regionalisation of fire call centres. That is understandable, as it will help procurement, and make possible the synthesis of the radio communications systems that are used. However, before the Bill was published, Government policy was that we should move to joint service systems covering the ambulance, police and fire services. That approach has been adopted in the tri-service centre in Quedgeley in my constituency, at a cost of £6 million. If there is to be a move to the regionalisation of fire service call centres, will my right

1065
hon. Friend provide time for a debate so that Gloucester can put its case—which I —believe to be irresistibly strong—to house that regional fire centre?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has mounted a very impressive and persuasive argument. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will want to listed carefully to it. Indeed, I think that my hon. Friend has already raised the matter with him. I wish him all good luck in his attempt to win the argument.
Mr. Roger Gale: The Leader of the House is clearly wedded to the idea that postal voting will re-engage the public in elections, but will he really excite the British public by pledging that there will be a postal vote covering the whole of the UK in respect of any future European constitution?
Also, the right hon. Gentleman will have noted that today's edition of The Guardian reports that Lord Hutton feels extremely aggrieved at the way in which the conclusions of his report into the death of David Kelly were taken out of context, misreported, and therefore misunderstood by the British public. To assist in the rehabilitation process, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to place in the Library of the House what he has so far refused to place there—a copy of his letter to Greg Dyke dated 19 March, and details of telephone calls by Mr. Alastair Campbell to the BBC between 12 March and 14 April?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman is engaging in exactly the sort of activity that The Guardian says so astonished Lord Hutton. I urge him, and everyone else, to accept that the Hutton report was an independent report by an outstanding judge of independent mind. A refusal to accept the report's conclusions has bedevilled the debate in recent weeks, and that is also what seems to lie behind his question.
Liz Blackman (Erewash) (Lab): I chair the all-party group on autism, and very much welcome many of the initiatives that have been taken to improve support services for autistic people. However, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a report published this week entitled "Mapping Autism Research". It highlights the need for more and better co-ordinated research into the causes of autism, and the effectiveness of interventions. In other words, we must find out more about what works. May we have an early debate on this issue, and will my hon. Friend draw the report's findings to the attention of his ministerial colleagues?
Mr. Hain: I am sure that my ministerial colleagues will have their attention drawn to the report, not least because the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), is sitting nearby on the Front Bench. He will have heard the eloquent case that my hon. Friend has just made. I have experienced the problems associated with autism through a child in the family of one of my friends. We are beginning to deal with the problem in a way that is much more comprehensive than was the case in the past. I am sure that the points made by my hon. Friend will be borne in mind.
Peter Bottomley: The US authorities have still not formally notified the British
1066
Government about the arrest of Krishna Maharaja, who is a British citizen. Will the Leader of the House consider asking a Foreign Office Minister to make a statement, next week or the week after, on the recent judgment that the fact that Khrishna Maharaj may have evidence showing that he is innocent is not a reason for ordering his retrial?
Mr. Hain: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of the relevant Minister. Our relations with the US are traditionally very close, and need to be maintained in a spirit of partnership. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to join me in congratulating Senator John Kerry on his decisive victory in securing the Democrat nomination for the election campaign.
Mrs. Betty Williams: Will my right hon. Friend comment on recent media speculation that the port of Mostyn on north Wales might not be used to transport Airbus wings to France? If true, would not that be a terrific blow to north Wales?
Mr. Hain: I am very disturbed by the report, and by the apparent action of the Environment Agency. I have visited the Airbus plant, which is the biggest manufacturing plant anywhere in Europe. It is a vital part of the economies of north-east Wales and the north-west of England. I hope that the matter can be sorted out by the Welsh Assembly, the Environment Agency and the other parties involved. As my hon. Friend said, it is proposed that the wings should be transported by way of Mostyn docks. I have visited those docks: their navigational access to the river Dee is very important, as it would allow the wings to be transported down to Toulouse, where this big new aircraft is to be constructed. I therefore hope that the problems can be resolved speedily.
Mr. Michael Jack: Further to the very important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), the Leader of the House may not be aware that last week the television cameras were once again camped outside the gates of the BAE Systems factory at Warton in my constituency, reflecting growing uncertainties about aspects of the company's future and the Eurofighter project in particular. Two months ago, when the defence White Paper was published and I raised the issue with the Leader of the House, he kindly acknowledged the importance of there being a debate on the White Paper. Given how events are now moving and the uncertainties affecting potentially 40,000 jobs in the north-west, may I ask him for that debate so that all the issues can be thoroughly discussed?
Mr. Hain: I am sure that the Secretary of State for Defence will note the right hon. Gentleman's impassioned plea on this point. I, too, recognise the crucial importance of the defence industry to the north-west economy, including his constituency. The Secretary of State will want to bear that in mind and, I know, always does bear that in mind in any decisions that he takes.
Mr. David Chaytm: Following the previous question and the earlier question from the

1067
hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), as we approach the date of the Chancellor's Budget statement, could my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about the full implications of the Opposition's plans to freeze and cut defence spending, not just on the Eurofighter project, but on smaller projects such as the important Territorial Army base in my constituency or the future expansion plans of the Lancashire Fusiliers regimental museum in my constituency? Can he find time in the near future for a debate on all aspects of the Opposition's plans to cut defence spending?
Mr. Hain: I am very concerned indeed to hear that future Conservative Government plans may threaten the Lancashire Fusiliers museum, which is a fine museum, and the Territorial Army headquarters. If £2.5 billion worth of cuts are implemented in any Government programme of defence cuts, such projects will be casualties. It is absolutely vital that we alert people to that fact.
Mr. Edward Gamier: May I return the Leader of the House to a matter for which he does have some responsibility, namely the business of this House? May I repeat the request made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House for a speedy debate on the air transport White Paper, in particular in so far as it reflects on the proposed expansion of cargo night flights into and out of east midlands airport? The flights will come low over my constituency and disturb the residents of the many villages.
The Leader of the House may not be aware that on 23 February I was due to have a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), but unfortunately it had to be cancelled. His private office asked me to write or email to make another appointment. I did so twice on the following day and have followed up that request. On 27 February the private office told me that the Minister's reply was being drafted. Does it really require a great deal of effort to reply to a letter or email to fix a ministerial appointment? I am happy to see the Minister in the Tea Room; I do not have to go to the Department to discuss this hugely important issue. If I cannot have a meeting with the Minister, surely we should have a debate on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Hain: I am worried to hear of the hon. and learned Gentleman's experience and I am sure that the Minister concerned will want to meet him as soon as practicably possible, particularly as the hon. and learned Gentleman has been pressing the matter repeatedly and the Department is aware of his concerns about east midlands airport and the implications of the aviation White Paper. He might try to raise the matter again a week on Monday during the debate to which I referred at the beginning of business questions.
Glenda Jackson: May we have an early statement on negotiations with the Government of Tanzania regarding asylum claims? On 25 February the Prime Minister told the House:
"We are in negotiations with the Tanzanian Government on how we can process claims for asylum nearer to the country of origin."— [Official Report, 25 February 2004, Vol. 418, c.277.]
1068
Yet on 2 March in a written reply to me, the Minister of State at the Home Office, referring to these negotiations, says:
"These partnerships are not about processing asylum claims nearer to the country of origin." — [Official Report, 2 March, Vol. 418, c.892W.].
Given the extreme sensitivities surrounding asylum claims and immigration at the moment, surely it would be in the best interests of the Government to come to this House and define precisely what they are hoping the aforementioned negotiations will achieve.
Mr. Hain: Obviously, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State will want to note my hon. Friend's points, but I am sure that she will agree that it is sensible to negotiate with all countries to make sure that the problem of asylum is dealt with more speedily and satisfactorily, closer to where people originate from. I am sure she will also be pleased that the number of asylum seekers to Britain has halved under the policies that we are implementing and that removals are 24 per cent. up on last year, to record numbers. We are getting a grip on this problem, but getting other countries to help in whatever way they can is part of that process.
Dr. Evan Harris: May we have an early debate on the outrageous activities that have been taking place at the Royal Free hospital since 1995, where the inflammatory bowel disease study group has been carrying out lumbar punctures and a battery of other invasive tests on autistic children without proper research or clinical ethical approval, which was granted only for clinically investigative activities on children with disintegrative disorder? Yet the paper published in The Lancet yesterday, partly retracted by some of the authors, reveals that none of the children subjected to these tests had disintegrative disorder.
This is a serious matter because children are not allowed by law to be used as research guinea pigs. Clearly, any consent to these investigations may well be invalidated by the lack of such ethical approval. Does the Leader of the House feel that the time is now right for a national health service or an independent inquiry? Can we at least have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on this matter?
Mr. Hain: I am sure that the Secretary of State for Health is aware of the issue. Certainly, the matter will be taken careful note of, given the way in which the hon. Gentleman has raised it today?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.

Points of Order
1.27 pm
Mr. Ivan Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. I ask for your guidance and advice to Members of this House regarding parliamentary protocol in the case of Members asking questions in this House on behalf of constituents of other Members when contacted by them. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) recently visited my constituency, met a group of my constituents and returned to the House and asked several questions about my primary care trust, right down to localised issues regarding individual GP surgeries. I understood that if constituents contacted a Member representing another constituency, the issues would be referred back to the relevant Member of Parliament to raise them on behalf of his constituents. Can you, Mr. Speaker, make a ruling or give us guidance for the future on how to deal with issues regarding other Members' constituents?
Mr. Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will answer the point of order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. There is a well understood convention in the House that unless otherwise agreed between the Members concerned the interests of electors should be represented only by the constituency Member. It is not possible, however, for me as Speaker to ensure that this convention is enforced at all times. It is best to leave it to the good sense of Members to work out any problems between them. I hope that this is of help to the hon. Gentleman.
Peter Bottomley: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the years of Labour Opposition, their spokesmen asked a series of questions, sometimes generally and sometimes on individual health authorities covering constituencies. I hope that the convention of this House will remain that Opposition spokesmen for health may ask questions on health anywhere in the country. If we do not keep that, the limits on Opposition spokesmen would be greater than they were when the Labour party was in Opposition.
Mr. Speaker: That is different from the situation that the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) put to me. I see no problem in what the hon. Gentleman raises.
Jonathan Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night, we held an important debate on the protection of vulnerable children, during which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was asked about Conservative expenditure and insisted, at column 972, that the Conservatives would match all Government expenditure in the areas of education and health. However, the shadow Chancellor has said that the Conservatives intend to match expenditure on health and schools, which is very different. Is it not
1070
essential, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members and people who listen to our proceedings be given accurate information?
Mr. Speaker: I am not allowed to take part in the debates of the House, even the day after.
Bob Spink: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help and advice, as you are a defender of Members' interests and, like me, seek to give the best possible service to your constituents. Whenever possible, I try to answer all my mail on the day I receive it, but Ministers are increasingly in the habit of predating mail sent to me—sometimes by as much as 14 days before. This morning, I received a letter from the Department of Trade and Industry dated 24 February. As my constituents may think that I, rather than Ministers, have my eye off the ball, will you draw Ministers' attention to the fact that they should not predate mail sent to Members so that we can give our constituents the service they deserve?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the Ministers concerned will read Hansard and note the hon. Gentleman's concern.
Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that when the statement about new proposals for a supreme court was made, the impression was given that the judges had been consulted and that all was well. However, you will know that the noble and learned Lord Woolf gave a speech in which he made it extremely clear that he is very unhappy about those proposals. Given those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, have you received a request from a Minister to come to this place to make a statement explaining why those two impressions are so different?
Mr. Speaker: The Bill is before the other place and it is a matter for debate in that House.

BILL PRESENTED
  INDEPENDENT MILK OMBUDSMAN, ETC.
  Mr. Simon Thomas presented a Bill to make provision for the appointment of an Independent Milk Ombudsman and for his functions, including undertaking investigations and research into the price structure of the milk market; to make provision about the milk industry; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 June, and to be printed. [Bill 66]

ESTIMATES
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
That this House agrees with the Report [2nd March] of the Liaison Committee. — [Gillian Merron.]
Question agreed to.

Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill [Money]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
1.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act.
The motion relates to a Private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis). As the House will be aware, although the Government agree with the general intention underlying the Bill— that carers be supported to ensure their own health and well-being through assessment and access to better information—it is our opinion that the provisions as currently drafted would not necessarily deliver that outcome.
Our concerns include instances where the Bill, as it stands, appears to seek to duplicate existing legislation and where we are unable to see what it will actually mean on the ground for councils or carers. I appreciate that my hon. Friend's intention in the Bill is to support the Government's objective to support carers by creating conditions that will help to combat carers' experiences of social exclusion, promote carers' health and well-being, provide better information and ensure that they are offered a carers assessment. Those overarching aims mirror those set out in the Government's national strategy for carers, published in 1999. It is important to note that the strategy remains a document representative of the needs and wishes of carers. In addition, the Bill would foster better joint working between local councils and other public bodies such as the national health service, to deliver a more coherent service for carers— an area in which I acknowledge that things have not moved as fast as we would have liked.
Let me make it clear to the House. This is a private Member's Bill and as such has no funds attached to it. The proposals set out in the Bill, including any amendments, will have to big covered by existing resources, but the fact that there is a money resolution shows that there may be costs associated with the Bill's provisions and that we need an opportunity to debate them. I should also make it clear, however, that the Government believe that, subject to amendments, the Bill will not place an onerous burden on councils.
The Bill mainly places duties on councils to consider carers and to include them in their normal processes, including their dealings with the health service. Overall, it is about culture change— reinforcing the approaches developed in earlier legislation— and could be described as the "think carers" Bill.
First, I shall deal with the parts of the Bill where we believe we can work with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon to deliver tangible benefits to carers. I
1072
shall then turn my attention to those aspects of the Bill that, as they stand, either require us to be needlessly prescriptive to councils or duplicate existing duties—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I hope that the Minister is not going to go into the merits of the Bill itself rather than talking about the money resolution.
Dr. Ladyman: No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I intended—
Tony Baldry: Has the Minister seen the cost benefit analysis of the Bill produced by Carers UK? If so, is there anything in that analysis with which he disagrees?
Dr. Ladyman: I am not aware that I have seen that particular analysis, although I have seen much of the data that it contains. I certainly agree with the general principle of Carers UK—that looking after carers is an extremely cost-effective way of delivering care to those in need.
I was about to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I intended only to identify the issues that would enable me to make the case that by the end of its Committee stage the Bill will not place an onerous burden on the Exchequer.
An amended clause I will ensure that assessment is undertaken in a manner that understands and explores the possibility that carers should be able to participate in life beyond their caring duties and think beyond what they need to continue to care. We all recognise that there is plenty of best practice information and guidance about what constitutes an effective carers assessment for people working with carers of both adults and disabled children. However, we believe that it is appropriate that we have a means to ensure that the few who do not routinely inform carers of their rights to an assessment follow the practice of the majority who do.
The introduction of the duty to inform in clause 3 will ensure that, for example, during the process of a community care assessment, professionals will have a duty to inform carers that they may have the right to request an assessment of their needs. The right to the assessment exists under the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, and the clause would merely ensure that carers were made aware of that right. Evidence suggests that that will not significantly increase the number of requests for carers assessments. It is realistic to expect that the majority of carers providing regular and substantial care are already known to social services. It is important to emphasise that we believe that any small increases in the number of carers assessments is likely to be gradual and in line with our stated policy objective of improving performance on carers assessments.
Clause 4 will also place a duty on authorities to consider requests from social services to develop services for carers and their families in a more holistic manner. The emphasis on whole systems and joint working means that it is vital that councils have the ability to draw on the powers and expertise of other

1073
parts of the health and social care system. Carers are a heterogeneous group; their needs reflect not only the varied people they care for but their own diversity.
Most people accept that partnership working between health and social services is crucial in the planning and provision of services for those who want to continue to live independently in the community. Indeed, working collaboratively is routine in most places, and the clause will help to ensure that the role of carers is recognised in the partnership. We estimate that any costs to local government of implementing those clauses would be very small, and would be funded from existing resource allocations.
The parts of the Bill that cause us concern were well documented in the Second Reading debate on 6 February. They relate to obligations that have the potential not only to place new financial burdens on councils but to limit their ability to respond to local circumstances. For example, the uncertain scope of clause 1(1), which does not make it clear what social services would actually be required to do if they were under this duty, and the provision of the regulation-making power in clause 1(3) both have unpredictable cost implications. Clause 2 would have us dictate to councils the form and content of their community plans, and it would require a consultation and review process, which would have direct costs to councils.
Finally, with regard to clause 5, my Department considers that, in substance, that duty already exists under section 22 of the National Health Service Act 1977 and that it will impose no additional costs on authorities. As a consequence, we will table an amendment to remove it from the Bill.
It is appropriate to address the issue of existing resources because the cost of the Bill must be met from those funds. The House will be aware that we increased the national resources for personal social services by 20 per cent. in real terms between 1996–97 and 2002–03. That is an average real-terms increase of 3 per cent. per annum, and we will continue to increase resources until 2005–06 by an average of about 6 per cent. per annum in real terms. I would be in dereliction of my duty as a Minister if I did not point out that that compares with an average increase of 0.1 per cent. per annum under the previous Government.
Next year, total social services resources for adults are set to increase by 8.2 per cent., or £ 775 million. That increase includes a 6.8 per cent. rise in formula spending shares, as well as extra resources that have been provided to local authorities to enable them to expand community-based social care services. That will both improve services for carers and raise the skills and quality of the social care work force. That will ensure that support for carers is provided by appropriate and high quality services.
In addition, resources for children's social services have increased from almost £3.7 billion in 2003–04 to slightly more than £4 billion in 2004–05. That provides for an overall increase in total resources of some 8.7 per cent. In addition, every council will receive additional resources for children's social services as a result of the Government's decision to provide councils with an additional £100 million.
1074
Specifically with regard to supporting carers, the carers grant came from the commitment in the strategy to provide funding to ensure that carers had access to short breaks. Subsequently, and in response to requests from carers, the conditions have become more flexible to increase choice and control, improve the responsiveness, quality and accessibility of services and increase holiday and leisure options. It is a tangible sign of our ongoing commitment to carers that the grant has increased annually since it started. It is worth £100 million this year and is set to rise to £125 million in 2004–05 and £185 million by 2006.
Hon. Members may be concerned by the removal of the ring fence around the carers grant next year. The money will still be paid as targeted grant with the intention that at least that amount of money should be spent on carers. That means that the Government are reducing the prescriptive nature of grant provision in response to councils' requests. The removal of the ring fence allows councils to provide appropriate and responsive services to address the needs of local carers. Just to make sure that councils are in no doubt, however, that will be measured by the development of a new carers performance, indicator.
In the light of that significant increase in funding for councils and the support expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon by the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Bill has, with amendments, the potential to support that group of people to whom we owe such a lot, without imposing additional costs during a time of fiscal restraint. Councils must recognise the crucial role that carers play in enabling individuals to remain independent in the community for as long as they want. However, it must also be appreciated that that often comes at a price for the carer in terms of their health, well-being, self-esteem and employment prospects. I hope that councils will: understand and recognise the drive behind the Bill.
The Bill will need work if it is ultimately to receive Government support. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon and I are both committed to doing that work, and the determination is there to ensure that the seeds of change sown by earlier legislation will develop our public services for the benefit of carers and those for whom they care.
1.44 pm
Mr. Paul Goodman: The official Opposition support the Bill, and the Minister will remember that we backed it on Second Reading. It offers the prospect of equal opportunities and real help for carers, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) and his Bill team, which includes my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), on introducing it. If we support the ends of the Bill, it follows that we must support the means. Therefore the Minister will not be astonished to hear that we do not propose to oppose the money resolution—indeed, we expect it to be unopposed.
Naturally, we want to probe the Minister a little further about some of the details that he announced, and I shall begin with a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. Carers UK supports the Bill and believes that it would bring few costs and several

1075
benefits. It cites the benefits as reduced health costs, increased work participation rates, reduced state benefits and increased revenue from tax and national insurance.
On costs, Carers UK argues that clause 1, which lays upon local authorities a duty to promote equality of opportunity for carers, would not be burdensome. It cites provisions in the draft Disability Discrimination Bill, which lays a similar duty on public bodies in relation to people with disabilities, as being more costly.
Clause 2 seeks to ensure that provision for carers is written into community strategies, and Carers UK states that that would not add substantially to the costs of drawing up those strategies.
Clause 3 is perhaps the nub of the Bill. It would require local authorities to inform carers that they have the right to an assessment of need, and it would not add substantially to local authorities' costs. On that issue, Carers UK cites evidence gleaned from the Scottish Executive—that duty is already written into the law in Scotland—and the Minister appeared to agree with that point when he spoke on Second Reading.
We recognise that the Minister does not appear to have read the Carers UK documents, but he will have noted the points. Perhaps he can tell us whether Carers UK is broadly right to argue that the Bill will bring few costs and several benefits and that the money resolution, which we believe will be passed today, will not bring substantial costs to the Exchequer.
Being relatively new to money resolutions, I have examined the money resolution carefully. It states:
"That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act."
I thought, perhaps wrongly, that I saw the Minister smile slightly as he read out those words, which might, to those of us who are new to money resolutions, appear somewhat obscure. The Minister then said that money would come from existing resource allocation. I confess that I am still unsure which particular budget or budgets he expects funds that may be paid out in pursuit of the ends of the Bill to come from. Perhaps he can clear up that matter for me when he replies. He might also wish to spell out whether local government will be fully compensated for what he described as the "very small" costs it is likely to incur.
Finally, the Minister will recall saying on Second Reading:
"I am delighted that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) committed the official Opposition to supporting the Bill, at least in principle. We will need to work together to improve it, and I shall say a little more about that in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, the Committee and the Government will need the help of the official Opposition to ensure that what emerges from Committee is a Bill that we can all support." — [Official Report, 6 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 1070.]
During that debate—the Minister has echoed this point today—he was broadly satisfied by clause 4 and perhaps clause 3, but he had considerable reservations about clauses 1, 2 and 5; in other words, he had reservations about three of the five clauses. It therefore seems reasonable to suspect that he proposes to table
1076
substantial amendments to the Bill; in essence, he approves of the principle of the Bill, but he intends to demolish several sections of its main architecture.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I did earlier, that we are debating the money resolution rather than the content or merit of the Bill.
Mr. Goodman: Indeed so, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely wished to express the hope that we might have early sight of any amendments that the Minister might table.
1.50 pm
Dr. Hywel Francis: I am delighted to acknowledge the support of my hon. Friend the Minister for the principles underpinning the Bill and I welcome the money resolution. I also acknowledge the strong support from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) on behalf of the official Opposition. We all know of the immense contribution that unpaid carers make, which was estimated recently at £57 billion. The Bill and the money resolution are modest acknowledgments of the labour of love of 7 million carers.
As we have heard, Carers UK has undertaken a cost-benefit analysis of the Bill and I hope to make use of that analysis in Committee. I will certainly share with the Minister the papers that have been provided. While it is difficult to quantify precisely the costs and benefits of the Bill, it is beyond dispute that our objective is to reduce health costs, spending on state benefits, and the costs associated with economic inactivity. It follows that we aim to increase work participation rates, which will mean increased revenue from tax and national insurance.
Most important, our aim is to improve carers' health and general well-being. Only carers will be able to measure the true value of the proposed legislation, with its objective of enhancing the lives of carers beyond their caring duties. That is why it has strong cross-party support, as indicated by the fact that early-day motion 602 now has the support of more than 100 Members. It has also received strong support from the Minister for Health and Social Services in the National Assembly for Wales and from outside this House, as we have already heard, from carers, carers' organisations, local authorities, employers and trade unions. For all those reasons, hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked me to welcome the money resolution warmly today.
1.52 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I, too, welcome the money resolution. I listened to the Minister with interest, and I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) on his work in bringing the Bill this far. I also congratulate people outside the House on the detailed work that they have done on the cost benefit analysis that has informed today's debate and, perhaps more important, will inform debate in Committee.
There is no doubt that carers not only make a huge difference to the quality of life of those for whom they care, but provide economic benefits to the country as a

1077
whole in the savings to the NHS. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of £57 billion. The Minister mentioned several of the clauses of the Bill and the concerns that arise about their financial impact. For example, he mentioned clause I, which I also examined on Second Reading. That clause is drawn so as to focus solely on social services departments, but the Bill would confer a duty similar, if not identical, to those that already exist in race relations legislation and those that are planned for future disability legislation. The regulatory impact assessment for the disability legislation made it clear that substantial burdens would not arise out of a more general duty on public bodies to deal with matters pertaining to promotion of equality for people with disabilities, so it is hard to understand how there could be a greater cost arising from applying a narrower duty in respect of carers. I hope that in Committee it will be possible for the Minister to elaborate on how his Department reached the conclusion that it should be concerned about the financial consequences of clause 1.
It is worth stressing that substantial economic benefits will flow from the Bill, if it is successful, not least because—according to the Policy Research Institute—we shall need an additional 2.5 million members of the work force, less than a quarter of which requirement will be met by school and college leavers. In other words, we must attract back to the work force people who, for one reason or another, are not economically active. That means that we must find ways in which we can make it easier for carers to return to work by removing barriers in their way. The Bill is a vital ingredient in achieving that aim.
The Minister also mentioned clause 3, which provides a duty to inform. It is an important keystone provision, because it is the right to know about one's entitlement to an assessment that unlocks so many of the services that carers need. I hope that before the Bill passes into Committee, the Minister will place in the Library a copy of the Department's assessment of its financial impact, so that we can properly scrutinise it as part of our deliberations. I hope that he will also circulate that information to those Members who are fortunate enough to be selected as members of the Committee, so that we can ask the appropriate questions.
In undertaking the assessment, did the Department separate out the costs that would arise directly as a consequence of the Bill and those that would arise as a consequence of the Bill's making people aware of statutory rights that they already have and for which money resolutions have already been passed? In effect, Parliament has already said that money should be available to fulfil the assessment requirements in previous legislation and the service implications that flow from them. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm that point.
I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) when he said that we need early sight of any amendments that the Government will table to the Bill, so that we can have a genuine and informed debate about whether they would help to improve the measure or would gut it of its central purpose. The Department published national priorities guidance in 1998 that required general practitioners to
1078
identify carers by April 2000. As I said on Second Reading, that target was reset in 2002, and the Minister kindly undertook to write to me on the issue after the debate. He did so, but unfortunately in his desire to respond as quickly as possible he was unable to give me the specific figures that I sought. I hope that he will now be able to provide those figures.
The money resolution should be passed. This is an important Bill, which will change things for the better for carers, their families, those for whom they care and the wider society.
1.58 pm
Tony Baldry: As one of those who spoke on Second Reading, I wish to make a few observations. I hope that the Minister will not misunderstand me when I say that his body language today was rather different from his body language on Second Reading. I can only assume that he has received some minutes from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying, "While the Government support the Bill in principle and you can say kind words about it, you must make jolly sure that no extra burdens result from it." The Minister nods in assent.
There is nothing more frustrating for the House, and especially for Ministers, than private Members' Bills suffering death by a 1,000 cuts, in Committee or on Report, with the Whips putting up compliant Back Benchers to talk a Bill out or make other difficulties for it. Another problem that may arise is that a Bill gets through but the implementation date is delayed.
All that I ask of the Minister— he is genuinely an extremely reasonable man—is that he talks to the Bill's promoter before the Standing Committee on Wednesday to find out whether it would be possible to reach a compromise and agreement on the amendments that the Government want—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must reiterate the remarks that I made earlier. We are debating the money resolution.
Tony Baldry: But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I suggest that the way in which the Minister moved the money resolution and the language that he used laid the ground for a course of action that we have all seen before. Having heard the way it which he laid the ground today, I am trying to suggest that it might be for the greatest happiness of the greatest number if there could be some discussion before next week's Standing Committee to determine whether it would be possible to find agreement to enable the Bill to move forward meaningfully. A lot of people will be extremely disappointed if it is not possible to pass the Bill as a measure that will make a genuine improvement in the situation for carers in this country.
2.1 pm
Dr. Ladyman: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall respond briefly to the debate.
Several hon. Members asked whether the Government think that the Bill, as drafted, would substantially increase costs to the Exchequer, but to a lesser extent than the amount that we would gain from its benefits. I absolutely and totally accept that there are

1079
huge benefits to be gained for society as a whole if the Bill succeeds in its purpose of making it easier for carers to care and get back to work. They would thus pay more taxes, and fewer benefits would have to be paid, and they would be more content and able to continue in their caring role.
I stress that the Bill is a private Member's Bill and, as such, a budget is not associated with it. If we were considering a Government Bill, there would be detailed assessments of costs and we would have a detailed money resolution so that the House knew exactly how much it would cost. However, if a private Member's Bill is to succeed it must be tightly defined, tightly written and specific. We must all understand exactly what such a Bill means. My worry about the Bill—clause 1 is a good example of this—is that its current wording does not make it clear exactly what councils would be expected to do. We know what hon. Members and the people who drafted it want it to do and we know what carers want it to do. Our job, as a Parliament, is to ensure that the Bill says what we want it to do.
Dr. Francis: May I invite my hon. Friend to sit with me and redraft clause 1(1)? I am sure that we would arrive at a good and effective compromise.
Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and I have already been working together closely on amendments that will be tabled in my name. My officials and I have been working closely with other Departments and Carers UK to ensure that, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, the finally amended Bill does what we want it to. The amended Bill will be unambiguous, so we shall be able to determine precisely the costs that it will impose. If the amendments are agreed in Committee, I have no doubt that the whole House will want to back the Bill on Third Reading and that the Government will be able to back it. We will then all see clearly what it will achieve, it will be welcomed by carers, and it will be all the better for the work that we shall put in.
I give hon. Members the assurance that the Government are committed to getting the Bill right. We are not trying to emasculate it in any way whatsoever. We are tabling fairly extensive amendments to specific clauses, which I shall try to make available as soon as possible. However, as the hon. Member for Banbury suggested, it will be necessary to convince other Government Departments, Carers UK and carers generally of the merits of what we are trying to do. That takes time, but the work is being done. With that assurance, I hope that hon. Members will agree to the money resolution and that we can get the Bill into Committee to do the extensive work required so that we end up with a Bill that will really do a heck of a lot of good for carers.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act.

Women, Equality and Human Rights
[Relevant documents: the Sixth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2002–03, HC 489–1, on the Case for a Human Rights Commission, and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on 8th December 2003, HC 106–i, Session 2003–04.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Charlotte Atkins.]
2.5 pm
Minister for Women and Equality (Ms Patricia Hewitt): This weekend, millions of women throughout the world will take part in events to mark international women's day. I am delighted that, once again, we are holding this special debate in the House. The fact that we hold such an annual debate and have not one, but two, Ministers for women, and have many more women Ministers in the Government than previously marks quite a change in the culture of politics and government in our country.
I recently had the opportunity to glance at the riveting diaries of Alan Clark, which are being broadcast at the moment. They give us a gem of an insight into what was going on in the Department of Trade and Industry a little under 20 years ago. Alan Clark was speaking to Peter Morrison, the newly appointed Minister of State for Industry, and perhaps I may quote from the diaries. They say:
"Peter was full of how, already, he was sorting out his civil servants. They were trying to put upon him 'a female' as head of his private office.
`I couldn't possibly have that', he said.
'Really?"'—
said Alan—
""I've had nothing but women in charge of mine … I find it rather congenial.'"
I am sure he did. The diaries continue:
"'But you see', replied Peter, 'she couldn't carry my guns.'"
These days, I am glad to say, we have not the first but the second woman Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the majority of officials who are promoted to the senior civil service in the DTI are women. That represents quite a change in the culture.
Peter Bottomley: Just to protect Alan Clark's reputation, the right hon. Lady might have noticed that he treated men and women the same. For example, when my wife, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley), was elected, he said that she immediately lost her looks, just as he had when he was elected.
Ms Hewitt: I am sure that the whole House and. indeed, the hon. Gentleman's wife will be grateful to him for that reminiscence. I think that there were some respects, at least, in which the late Alan Clark did not treat men and women the same, but we shall go no further down that track today.
It is impossible to separate national and international issues. We live in an increasingly interdependent world in which one country's war becomes many other countries' refugee and migration challenges, and one country's pollution or oil spillage becomes many other countries' environmental disasters. Our belief in

1081
equality and respect for the equal worth of every individual is not confined to Britain any more than our commitment to the values of opportunity, security and democracy.
The point about the interdependence of our world is constantly brought home to me—I am sure that this is true of many hon. Members—in my constituency surgery. Last Friday, a constituent from Sierra Leone visited my surgery. Some years ago, he was forced to flee the appalling violence that has plagued that country and now lives here. He first came to see me some time ago during his desperate search to bring his wife here, and I am glad to say that, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, she has now arrived. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend. She holds one of the toughest jobs in government and is always measured, fair and helpful.
Last Friday, my constituent brought his wife to meet me. She told me how she had been driven apart from her husband and how she had spent five weeks walking along bush roads through Sierra Leone to escape and come here. She showed me the knife scars on her face and arms that were left by the soldier who raped her and who then used the same knife to force upon her genital circumcision. For that lovely, gentle woman and for millions of others throughout the world, human rights and equality are a distant dream. When so many of our newspapers and journalists have nothing good to say about asylum seekers, let us remember, in honouring international women's day, the purpose of the Geneva convention on refugees and the need today, just as much as in the aftermath of 1945, to protect people who have been persecuted.
Of course, we cannot offer refuge to everybody who needs it and seeks it: no one country can do that. We must work with our European partners and with the wider international community to try to deal with the causes—the conflicts, the tyranny and the desperate poverty—that force millions of people to flee their homes. I am proud—I think we all are—of what our Government and our armed forces have done to help restore peace to Sierra Leone and to start rebuilding its shattered society, economy and system of government. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is ensuring order and integrity within our asylum system, so that decisions can he made swiftly and fairly and the legitimate claim of a refugee is not held up or compromised by those who think that claiming asylum might be a quick route to economic migration.
Tony Baldry: A piece of good news is that on Wednesday the Secretary-General will open the War Crimes Court in Sierra Leone—a special court. Should not the message go out throughout the world that those most responsible for war crimes will, in due course, be brought to justice, whether in Rwanda, Sierra Leone or elsewhere?
Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is right. His point will be endorsed by the whole House. I am delighted to say that we have played a role in helping to create that war crimes tribunal and the new constitutional court.
1082
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will travel to Sierra Leone in a couple of days to attend the opening of the court.
Last year, the conflict in Iraq was a major theme of this annual debate, and this week has seen more terrible acts of terrorism in the country. We know from our bitter experience of terrorism in Northern Ireland that, on their own, the police and security services can never defeat terrorism, essential and heroic though their efforts are. The only way to achieve peace and security is through the difficult and painstaking process of politics, of building political institutions that can start to bring people together, to reconcile conflict without violence and to create legitimate government. That is what we are supporting the people of Iraq to achieve.
It was surely no coincidence that this week carnage followed almost immediately upon the Iraqi governing council agreeing proposals for the transitional constitution. Any prospect of a free and democratic Iraq is what the extremists hate and fear most.
I have spoken previously in the House about the efforts that we are making as a Government to support women in Iraq. I hope that the whole House will welcome the fact—largely unreported—that the transitional law that was agreed by the governing council this week acknowledges the vital role of women in Iraq, and asks for the electoral system to be designed so that one quarter of seats in the new national assembly will go to women. This is not western feminists imposing their agenda on Iraq, as the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), in the magazine that he edits, would have us believe. Iraq has a long tradition of women's education and leadership. Most of its doctors, teachers and university lecturers are women. Without their strength and the contribution of other Iraqi women, economic and social development will be impossible.
No doubt the governing council has in mind the examples of Pakistan and Afghanistan, which have quotas within their constitutions for women's political representation. Indeed, Pakistan is well ahead of the United Kingdom when it comes to women's representation in Parliament. However, I know that the women in Iraq who have been arguing the case for quotas in electoral law were delighted and grateful for the support that they received from the British Government, both on the issue of representation and in the work that we have been doing in supporting Iraqi women's groups and centres in different parts of Iraq, including the new shelter for Baghdad that has opened recently for women who have suffered violence.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the example that has been set in Iraq would be strengthened if perhaps it moved across the boundaries to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, where no women are represented in the majiis? Does the right hon. Lady share my aspiration that the example that we have set in Iraq might set an example for other Arab countries in the area?
Ms Hewitt: The hon. Lady makes an important point. While each country has to deal with these issues in its own way, I think that the women of Iraq and the Iraqi governing council have shown the importance that they

1083
place on women's representation in creating a secure and democratic Iraq. We in Britain have appreciated the importance of positive action to ensure that political parties and political institutions represent the entire community and not just half of it.
I began by referring to migration, which is as old as human history. Today, when transport and communications have been revolutionised, far more men and women are moving throughout the world in unprecedented numbers, from south Asia to Saudi Arabia, from the former Soviet states to western Europe, from south to north America, from north Africa to Europe and so on. Some of them, like the constituents to whom I have referred, are fleeing intolerable conflicts; others—often educated women— are seeking better lives. They are drawn by the prospects of jobs and opportunities that are lacking at home.
In many ways, women's experience of migration is very much the same as men's. However, because in almost every culture and country it is women who are primarily responsible for children and the work of families, and because women have different life experiences and less economic power, their experience of migration is in important ways different from men's. They are more likely to migrate as the dependants of husbands or partners. They are more likely to end up in marginal employment. They are more vulnerable to sexual exploitation. Girls and young women are kidnapped and sold or duped into brothels, waking in pain and spending their days being humiliated, threatened and beaten.
Only last year, in London, seven women from Moldova and Romania were found who had been forced into prostitution. They were sex slaves in the modern economy. They thought that they were coming to Britain to get a job and a better life. They ended up on a journey of rape and beatings, and in one case forced marriage. The man at the centre of that monstrous crime ring, Luan Plakici, was convicted and sentenced recently to 10 years' imprisonment. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, to the Crown Prosecution Service, to the Home Office and to the Metropolitan police for their work on that case and on other cases to expose and bring to justice those involved in the appalling crime of global trafficking. All the Government Departments involved are working together, and as a result arrests and prosecutions have increased. We are trying to prevent trafficking by spreading awareness of the problem among vulnerable groups not only here but throughout the world.
That is one side—the dark side—of global migration. For millions of women, it is not like that at all. They and many others have chosen to migrate in search of better lives, to make themselves better off and, as centuries of migration have shown, to make the countries to which they migrate better off as well. The long history of migration from Britain to the rest of the world and back to Britain has created today's multicultural country, and the growing diversity of our country, particularly our cities, is a great source of cultural, social and economic strength. In the global economy, we are increasingly competing not just for investment but for skilled people. The fact that we are one of the most open trading nations in the world and are an increasingly diverse and generally welcoming country is a huge source of strength. Many of our public services,
1084
particularly the national health service, have long depended on the work of migrants, especially migrant women, going back to health professionals from Jamaica and other parts of the West Indies who were recruited in the 1950s—ironically, at the behest of Enoch Powell, who was then Minister of Health. As I have recently said in the House, migrants from central Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union are already making, and will continue to make, an enormous contribution to our economy.
We need to be sure, however, that our gain is not made at the expense of the countries of origin, which is why the NHS, for instance, has an agreement that it will not recruit nurses or other staff from vulnerable countries, including South Africa, which needs every skilled health worker that it can train. I recently discussed that with Beverley Malone of the Royal College of Nurses, who is profoundly aware of the problem, but there is a danger that agencies operating in other parts of the health and caring services will recruit nurses from countries where they are desperately needed—indeed, they are already doing so—and that those nurses will find their way into employment here.
We have benefited enormously from the entrepreneurs, both women and men, who have come to our country from overseas, particularly south Asia and the Caribbean. Those entrepreneurs and the new generation of British-born Asians and Afro-Caribbeans provide us with great competitive advantage, as they move into the professions and set up their own businesses. They can use their long ties of family, culture and language with many other parts of the globe, both for their own benefit and that of the whole country. Parween Warsi, for example, moved to Britain from north India in 1975 and started to make samosas for local restaurants. She is now chief executive of S and A Food and is one of Britain's most successful business women. She employs 1,300 people, and has a turnover of more than £100 million a year. She and many others like her are helping to transform and strengthen our economy.
Members on both sides of the House should embrace and celebrate our diversity and the contribution that women make to it. However, there are strains and difficulties in our changing communities, and many hon. Members are worried about the way in which our Muslim communities have become the target of prejudice. We must remember that Islam, the fastest growing religion in the world, has conferred enormous benefits on the globe. The scholar Bernard Lewis reminds us that at the peak of Islamic power only China had a civilisation comparable in its level, quality and variety of achievement. In the west we use Arabic numerals, which, in fact, are the fruit of the great mathematical learning of India, but they were brought to the west by the Islamic scholars of the middle east. Our values in Britain include respect for different beliefs and faiths, so it is possible to be both Jewish and Muslim, or Jewish and Christian, or Sikh and secular, and be proud of both traditions. Anyone who says that it is not possible to be a good Muslim and a good British citizen is simply talking nonsense.
Having talked to young British Muslim women in my own city of Leicester, I know how frightened many of them are that intolerance will win. They fear that we might follow the path taken in France and ban in

1085
schools the expression of religious belief and identity. We all understand the tradition of secular public space and republicanism in France, but it is a different tradition from Britain's. We will not follow that example, and I do not think that anyone on either side of the House would want us to do so. The Government continue to allow girls to wear the hijab in schools, just as we allow Muslim women police officers to wear the hijab or male Sikh officers to wear the turban. I welcome the decision by the governors of a school in Luton to overturn an initial decision to try to ban the expression of religion in the school.
There should be no conflict at all between equal rights for women and respect for different cultures and beliefs, but sometimes there is. I wish to make it clear that we will not accept excuses for violating the rights of girls and women. Domestic violence is a crime. As a society, we are no longer prepared to accept the excuse that prevailed for years that the man was entitled to hit his partner or that she provoked it. Indeed, in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill we are initiating the biggest overhaul of the law in this area for more than 30 years. Murder is murder. One in four murders committed in Britain are the result of domestic violence, and they take place in all communities and cultures. However, they cannot be excused or the charge of murder diminished by calling them, in any culture, an "honour killing". We will condemn them and prosecute those who commit them in all our communities. Equally, genital mutilation, for whatever reason, is a violent criminal assault. I welcome the fact, as will all hon. Members, that the new law that came into force yesterday will make it a criminal offence for anyone in Britain to take a girl abroad for that purpose, even if the practice remains lawful in the country to which she is taken.
In the past seven years, we have secured genuine advances for women in our country. The national minimum wage benefits nearly 1 million low-paid women workers. The pension credit entitles every single pensioner to £102, and there is more for couples. Of particular benefit for women, who have always formed the majority of the poorest older people in our community, is the state second pension, which will do much to reduce the risk of women falling into poverty when they retire because of the caring responsibilities that they currently have. The new child tax credit already benefits 6 million families. As a result of improvements that we have made in the NHS, Britain has experienced the biggest fall in deaths from breast cancer anywhere in the world, which is a remarkable achievement.
We have introduced the biggest-ever package to support working parents, with increases in child care places, new maternity pay and leave, and new legal standards on family friendly working. After less than a year, those initiatives are already helping parents to choose how they balance work and family responsibilities. There is a new push to deal with unequal pay. Those of us who campaigned for the introduction of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 feel intensely frustrated that despite the advances that have been made there is a persistent gap in the earnings of men and women,
1086
particularly in part-time employment. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I have been taking steps to strengthen the law in this area, in particular with the new equal pay questionnaire. It is also why we are now taking steps to speed up and simplify enforcement of equal pay cases, particularly in those large actions—almost class actions—brought on behalf of groups of workers. We shall simplify the procedures, after consulting in the spring. I hope that we can bring new regulations on how the employment tribunals deal with equal pay cases into effect on 1 October this year, at the same time as the new employment tribunal regulations.
As we have discussed on several occasions in the House, we have been taking steps across the public sector to undertake equal pay reviews and ensure that the Equal Opportunities Commission has resources to promote equal pay reviews in the private sector.
Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend has done so much for women that I feel anxious about putting another request to her and asking for more. There is already a public sector duty to promote racial equality, and one is planned for disability. Can she yet respond positively to the campaign by the Equal Opportunities Commission for a public sector duty of gender equality?
Ms Hewitt: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the enormous work she has done, both as one of the first Ministers with responsibility for women and more recently with women in Afghanistan.
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am glad to say that we are clear in principle that we shall extend the duty to promote equality within the public sector to the issue of gender equality. We need to see when we can make parliamentary time to put that into legislative effect, but we have accepted the principle.
Mr. John Bercow: Given that the right hon. Lady told the House on 1 May last year that, as a result of the important equal pay reviews that the Government had conducted, serious problems of unequal pay had been unearthed, will she update the House on progress in the implementation of action plans submitted to the Cabinet Office on this matter? While she is about it, will she be good enough also to address the issue of whether the Government intend to extend the search for equal pay reviews to contractors and subcontractors to government, a subject in which her deputy took a great interest in Westminster Hall on 25 June last year, but which she acknowledged to be tricky? I would welcome an update.
Ms Hewitt: As the hon. Gentleman will know, because we have published summaries both of the equal pay reviews and the action plans, we are now taking steps within every Government Department. For instance, in this year's pay negotiations, some of which will cover more than one year, we are taking steps to deal with the equal pay problems that have been unearthed. Some, which are in a sense easiest to remedy, occur within particular grades. They will be dealt with through pay restructuring and the pay increases now being put in place. Others are more difficult to tackle, because they arise in part from job segregation, a point that I shall come to.

1087
We are considering whether equal pay reviews should be extended to contractors and subcontractors. Many different organisations make a strong case for using what used to be called contract compliance to ensure not just better pay and equal pay, but compliance with environmental standards and so on. As the hon. Gentleman will readily acknowledge, we need to balance the benefits that could arise from that action with the possible costs to the businesses involved. I hope that he will acknowledge the need to do a proper regulatory impact assessment before contemplating going down that route.
One of the biggest underlying problems of the persistent equal pay gap, particularly as it affects part-time workers, is job segregation.
Mr. Bercow: I genuinely appreciate the right hon. Lady's giving way again. I am not seeking to be difficult. Her point about the regulatory burden is important, and it would be very curious if I, who have often challenged her on it, were to dissent from what she says. May I, on a more modest level, put the matter to the right hon. Lady in the following terms? Recognising that the process of government is difficult, we nevertheless want to make progress. Does she accept that, as a matter of principle, any contractor or subcontractor discovered to have breached the existing law would manifestly be unsuitable for continued work for the Government?
Ms Hewitt: That is a very modest proposition, with which I would certainly assent, as I am sure my colleagues in the Treasury would. We shall continue to look at this and see how we can spread the good practice that we have initiated in central Government departments much more widely.
I turn to the problem of job segregation. Six out of 10 women in paid work are working in just 10 occupations—typically, those that pay the least. Within the pay grades and structures of those occupations, women also tend to be concentrated at the bottom, so we need to look at the choices that girls and women are making about the subjects they pursue at schools and the careers and jobs that they then go into, as well as at what we can do about the pay levels within those occupations where women are already concentrated.
David Winnick: In the most senior ranks of the judiciary women are largely absent. Of the 12 Law Lords, just one is a woman; of the five heads of division, one is a woman; of the 37 Lords Justices of Appeal, two are women; and of the 107 High Court judges, only eight are women. Would it not have been useful if last night Lord Woolf had dealt with that matter instead of making his outburst? On one point, of course, he was right, and I voted against the Government accordingly on Monday. Is it not unfortunate that, despite all the progress that has been made, there are so few women among the most senior judges? Whatever progress has been made—and it is very limited—it has been made only since 1997.
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point about the paucity of women in the senior ranks of the judiciary. We could say exactly the same about the virtual absence of women within the boardrooms of our top companies, although I am glad
1088
to say that there are finally more than 100 women directorships within the FTSE 100. But there are still far too many companies with very few women in senior positions. My noble and learned Friend Lord Irvine, the former Lord Chancellor, and my noble and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs have taken and are taking steps to encourage and promote women within the judiciary.
Just as we are concerned about the underachievement of boys in school, we have to remain concerned about the lack of girls going into non-traditional areas of work, such as engineering and technology. Indeed, 95 per cent. of those graduating in engineering are men, while 90 per cent. of students taking a health and social care vocational qualification are women. We know very well the utterly different pay paths and career and training opportunities that will follow from those two facts.
Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Equal Opportunities Commission is now undertaking a general formal investigation to see how women and men continue to end up in these traditional gender roles and to probe some of the barriers to change. I also welcome the fact that over the last 10 years, remarkably, the percentage of women graduates in science, engineering and technology subjects has increased from well below 5 per cent. to nearly 30 per cent. Over the same 10-year period, the number of girls taking technology at A-level has increased by just over a third. We need to go on encouraging girls and young women to choose those harder but none the less intensely interesting and human subjects.
I had the opportunity this morning to hear Professor Sir Harry Kroto, one of our Nobel prize winners and an extraordinary chemist, speaking about the dramatic improvements that breakthrough discoveries in his field of chemistry and nanotechnology, and more widely in science, can make to human well-being and to conquering disease, improving our environment and feeding starving people around the world. If we could create that sense of excitement and human possibility among young women and girls, we would see far more of them choosing to go into those subjects. It is important that they do, and that we continue our efforts to bring women who already have those qualifications back into science and technology-based employment, because as we look ahead in this increasingly competitive global economy we need to increase the number of businesses and the number of jobs based on science and technology. That is how we will raise, in the jargon, the value-added of our economy, create better-paid jobs and keep ourselves competitive in a competitive world. We will struggle to do that if we are recruiting from only half the human talent pool.
The work we are doing on equal pay and family friendly working, and the improvements we are making in child care, are all about ensuring that women can fulfil their potential and make the contribution they want to make, earning a living for themselves and their families but contributing to broader economic success. Those improvements are also about ensuring that women and men have much greater choice in how they balance earning that living with bringing up their children.
Much has been done—and despite having spoken for a considerable time. I am conscious that there is much else I could have said, which other hon. Members will no

1089
doubt cover this afternoon—but much more needs to be done. Before closing, I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality has done as she leads the creation of our new commission on equality and human rights. She will have more to say about that later. That new body, which will bring together all the strands of our work on equality and put it in the much broader context of human rights, is the result of the most significant review of our work on equality in a quarter of a century. I am very grateful not only to my right hon. Friend, but to the chairs of the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the newer Disability Rights Commission and other members of the taskforce for the enormous amount of work that they are putting into creating the new single commission.
Finally, this is a wonderful opportunity to pay our own tribute to the women who, in each of our constituencies all over the country, work day in, day out to improve the lives of their families, friends, communities and wider neighbourhoods. We heard just before this debate a little about the so often unacknowledged work that women do as carers of elderly or disabled relatives. Millions of women work in voluntary organisations, faith groups, tenants and residents' associations, as women councillors—too few of them—and as governors of schools, on the boards of hospital trusts and so on.
I am thinking in my own constituency of Councillor Manjula Paul Sood, who is the only Asian woman councillor in one of the most multiracial and diverse cities in our country, and who has played a leading role in the interfaith forum that has helped to ensure that Leicester continues to enjoy strong and good community relations. I am thinking of Dr. Angela Lennox, who founded a pioneering health and community centre in one of the most disadvantaged wards of our city in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and who is now a director of the urban regeneration company that is helping to rebuild the city.
In my own city we will be celebrating tomorrow and on Saturday through LeicestHER day, which is now in its third year and brings together 1,000 women from all walks of life across the city and the county—groups such as Turning Point in my constituency in Braunstone, which is one of the most disadvantaged wards in the entire country, the Bhagini centre, also in my constituency, the Sharma women's centre and many others. It is a great pity that the new city council in Leicester, which is a coalition of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, has decided, despite all the representations and pleas, to cut the funding to those and many other groups and within a month force their closure.
Mr. Bercow: It must be the Liberals' fault!
Ms Hewitt: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the two groups are working hand in glove and the responsibility is equally shared. I hope hon. Ladies on the Opposition Benches will urge the council, which has received a very
1090
generous above-inflation settlement, even at this late stage to rethink funding cuts that will devastate some of our most vulnerable communities.
All of us know the wonderful women and organisations in our own constituencies. Today is a day to honour and celebrate the contribution of women and to dedicate ourselves anew to spreading prosperity and opportunity, justice and security to women all over our country and all over the world.
2.46 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: We welcome the opportunity to discuss the position of women, close as the debate is to the date of international women's day on Monday and the women's world day of prayer tomorrow. There has been some role reversal today between the Minister and myself. In previous years, when I was responsible for the international development brief, I focused primarily on international aspects, whereas the Minister focused on domestic aspects. Because we had a debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday on the international role of women, I shall focus on the domestic aspects today. I am well supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who will no doubt draw on his experience of handling the international development brief, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the Chairman of the International Development Committee, who will provide an international perspective.
Fairness and equality are surely two of the most fundamental human rights, yet the very fact that we are having the debate underlines the fact that there is still some way to go in delivering those rights. There are so many sections of society where it could be said that equality has yet to take full effect. Although the issues that I shall raise today concern discrimination experienced by women in the workplace, it is important to acknowledge that the pursuit of equality applies to a broad spectrum of people disadvantaged in society, from those with physical disabilities through to those discriminated against on the grounds of race, religion or gender.
Discrimination in all those guises is a symptom of a society that is ill at ease with itself. The example given by the Minister of only one Asian woman in local government representation is one indication that, as a society, we are not yet at ease with ourselves in this area. The continuation of gender discrimination when over half the UK population is female should trouble all of us in the House, men and women.
One of the totem issues is the gender pay gap, which literally short-changes so many women. Speaking of the gender pay gap often brings to mind examples of women in senior professional roles being paid significantly less than their male counterparts. That is an enduring problem that provides stark examples. In the financial services industry there is a pay gap of more than 40 per cent. between men and women. There are industries where, even at the top of their professions, women have not succeeded in closing the gap, as we would hope. It is an enduring problem that has still to be satisfactorily addressed. It is right to focus on it today. One need only look at the statistics from the Equal Opportunities Commission, which found that example of the pay gap in the City.

1091
Women have struggled for decades successfully to enter professions that have been traditionally male dominated, yet have often found that once they have done so they face a battle to be paid the same as men. Similarly, as regards women at the start of their careers, it should be a source of shame to us all that in the world's fourth largest economy a gender pay gap develops within just four years of an evenly matched male and female graduate joining the work force.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Is my hon. Friend concerned about the propensity of women graduates automatically to go into secretarial and clerical jobs straight from university, which they do in much higher proportions than do men? Does she agree that more effort could be made to help women when they consider career options as they approach graduation?
Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend. I am sure that she will recall that when were considering our career options at university we had the famous careers advisory service. It is not so much legislation that is required as giving women advice to encourage them to aim high with the qualifications that they have. I am afraid that that problem has not been solved since she and I graduated.
Mrs. Browning: I have to tell my hon. Friend that I have the advantage of not having had a university education. I went into further education, which stood me in good stead through the years.
Mrs. Spelman: There may be a lesson in that for us all.
Before I entered the House, I spent many years in business, notably in a sector that is definitely regarded as male dominated—agriculture. I was particularly lucky, because I had a good education and what my husband described as an in-built determination, both of which helped me to hold my own in a male dominated working environment. That proved a particularly useful grounding in view of my later transition into politics. Although I was fortunate enough not to experience real discrimination, I always knew what my rights were and the avenues that were open to me to secure them if they were not being afforded to me.
The women whom I want to spend most of my time discussing are not so well placed The Minister singled out the example of women in low-paid, part-time employment. Those women tend to fall into the category not of high fliers in the City or in the legal profession, which is now attracting more women than men—an interesting transition—but of employment in what are sometimes regarded as low-skill jobs where there is a high degree of occupational segregation. In other words, high concentrations of women are employed in the same professions. The Minister identified that as one of the main contributory factors in the gender pay gap—I am glad that we agree on that.
Occupational segregation has been singled out by the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Fawcett Society. I pay tribute to them for their work on trying to expose and overcome the issue, with which hon. Members on both sides of the House will be familiar. It has come to represent one of the major obstacles to
1092
eradicating low levels of pay for women because the absence of men from a particular profession makes the comparison of salaries between genders impracticable. That creates a type of professional inertia, whereby shortfalls in women's wages are masked because they are not apparent in the context of a female dominated payroll.
A case in point is the social care sector. Last month, I had the privilege of addressing the annual Topss conference in Nottingham, where I heard many people discussing the problems facing women employed in social care. More than 92 per cent. of the social care work force are women, and 50 per cent. work on a part-time basis. The average salary for women employed in social care is £5 an hour. That offers an interesting comparison with a woman working in a bar in a town centre, who could be expected to earn approximately twice that amount. That leads me to ask what value we as a society attach to the roles carried out by women. The social care sector is in crisis, and the additional costs imposed on the profession through regulation have not helped the situation. Striking a balance between closing the pay gap and carrying out an impact assessment of the sector's capacity to afford it will be difficult, but not insurmountable.
At the conference, I was given to understand that many women who are employed in social care are required by the provisions of the Care Standards Act 2000 to undergo checks with the Criminal Records Bureau. That is understandable because they are dealing with vulnerable people, but in many cases they are required to pay for their own checks—I learned that that can cost them as much as a day and half's salary. That is a significant cost for a group of women who are not well paid as it is.
Twenty years after my party introduced the equal pay for equal work amendment to the Equal Pay Act 1970, there are still appalling examples of women being underpaid for the work that they do because occupational segregation by gender has led to a failure in the benchmarking process.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Does the hon. Lady agree that the advent of the minimum wage dramatically improved the lot of women working in the care sector? Prior to its introduction, they earned approximately half their current income, so it has made an enormous difference to them.
Mrs. Spelman: Of course I acknowledge the help that the minimum wage has brought to low-paid women, and I shall talk about its impact later. In the social care sector it has had a ratchet effect, so the lot of the lower paid may not have improved in relation to others further up the career ladder because the salary base has been raised across the sector. However, I acknowledge that in absolute terms their pay has increased.
It is an uncomfortable irony that in professions that remain male dominated, and which women have to overcome great odds to penetrate, it is far easier to identify and resolve gender pay inequalities than it is in professions that have traditionally been the natural territory for female employment.
Occupational segregation is particularly acute in the field of part-time employment. As 44 per cent. of the female population are employed in a part-time capacity,

1093
the number of people affected by the phenomenon could hardly be described as small. The current differential in hourly pay between men working full-time and women working part-time is an astonishing 40 per cent. In practical terms, that means that for every £1 that a man earns each hour when he is working full-time, a woman working part-time can expect to earn 60p. According to figures produced by the Equal Opportunities Commission, the divergence between men and women working full-time stands at £559 per month. That is not only a dispiriting statistic, but the model by which progress towards equality of pay is judged. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House agree that we have to do much more to address that.
I share the concerns of Incomes Data Services, which stated in its report of December last year:
"The earnings opportunities for part-time women and their relative position in the labour market should not be overlooked as attention is focused on the narrowing of the full-time gender pay gap."
I accept that this year there has been an improvement on last year in terms of the overall gender pay gap, but we cannot afford to be complacent about that group of part-time workers. I am glad that the Minister raised that issue.
There are various reasons why women choose to enter part-time work. It is often because they have to balance work with the needs of raising a family and are best able to do so by working part-time rather than full-time. Another reason is that for many families, the woman's income is the secondary household income and consequently the reduced salary is more readily accepted as the dividend for a greater work-life balance. That acceptance is a terrible betrayal of all those families in which, for whatever reason—bereavement, separation or injury—the mother's job is the sole or primary household income.
For others, part-time employment is not always a result of lifestyle choice, but of necessity and limited alternatives. That applies especially to lower-skilled part-time jobs, which enable women with a limited educational background to enter the workplace without always requiring specialist skills and experience. Women with limited employment opportunities and education are often badly disadvantaged in a predominantly single-sex working environment. Some women are prepared to take jobs with skills demands that are significantly below their professional abilities solely because it is the only way in which to secure the flexibility in working patterns that their family life demands.
The impact of occupational segregation in the part-time sphere would be significantly reduced by an expansion in the range of part-time jobs. That would not only give women workers more options to choose employment best suited to their abilities, but help to dilute the female concentration in part-time work and enable greater scrutiny of the part-time gender pay gap. A greater range might lead to an increase in male part-time employment.
Occupational segregation in full-time and part-time employment does not only present problems with pay scales in the immediate term but fosters longer-term
1094
difficulties in training and professional development, which create barriers to salary advancement. Eighty per cent. of care staff in England have no qualification for their work and only one fifth of those who embark on modern apprenticeships in social care complete the course. Last month, research by the Learning and Skills Council found that of unfilled positions, 20 per cent. were due to lack of applicants with the requisite skills. That is not uniquely applicable to women, but it is worth being aware that the current occupational segregation of men and women perpetuates the skills shortage.
Let us consider two examples. The construction industry has a 99 per cent. male work force. In engineering, only 8 per cent. of the work force are women. In both industries, more than 30 per cent. of the vacancies are due to a lack of available candidates with the relevant skills. Clearly, the continuing gender domination in those professions means that more than half the population is excluded from such opportunities.
Society has not progressed a great deal from 20 years ago, when Kylie Minogue's debut character Charlene in "Neighbours" caused widespread consternation by wanting to pursue a career as a mechanic. Sadly, the concept of women entering those professions remains something of an anathema, to the detriment of our work force as a whole.
Occupational segregation is a large factor, but not the only factor in denying many women the salary that they deserve. I should like to consider another important element. Many women are simply not aware of their statutory entitlements and even more do not know how to engage grievance procedures to rectify the position. Again, the problem is not exclusive to women in low-paid, less vocationally skilled professions, but it is more common among them. I am worried that we are still not doing enough to reach out to a section of working women who, for various reasons, cannot secure their rights in the workplace.
There has been much debate recently about the role of immigration in fulfilling the United Kingdom's work force needs. Let us try to consider the matter without digressing into the entirely different issues of asylum seekers and refugees. It is clear that there are many low-paid, low-skilled, often manual jobs in this country that our indigenous population is simply not prepared or is reluctant to do. Consequently, the incoming migrant populations fill the labour gap, but they are the least likely to be aware of their salary entitlements and are unlikely to comprehend the logistics of taking their position to a tribunal. Language is an obvious factor in perpetuating such disadvantages.
However, even among indigenous female employees, many women, such as those who joined the work force later in life, do not feel sufficiently empowered to challenge the position. Empowerment is important because it relates to the broader issue of women often being insufficiently assertive in the workplace. That applies across the board and is part of the explanation of the overall gender gap. It often stems from the different priorities that women attach to their working conditions and a more general reticence to discuss, let alone compare, wage packets and ask for more.
As I acknowledged earlier, the minimum wage has raised the most basic salary levels for many women. However, we must also acknowledge that the minimum

1095
wage for some women in some low-paid sectors is in danger of becoming a de facto standard industry wage. That is undesirable. It would be disappointing if the minimum wage became a device whereby employers could abrogate all responsibility for paying their staff anything more than £4.50 an hour.
It might be helpful to identify the sort of women who are most vulnerable to salary discrimination. Often, they include those with limited academic education and those who are returning to work alter taking time out to bring up a family. I am sure that many women would identify with me when I say that often, when one takes time out of the workplace, there is a loss of self-confidence, which makes it difficult for a woman to assert herself early on to secure better terms of pay.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is making a typically thoughtful speech. Will she say something further about crude pay discrimination: unequal pay for exactly comparable work—a phenomenon hat she has recently helped to highlight—in the public domain? Will she also comment on the related problem of historical anomalies in the way in which posts are graded in organisations? That should concern us all.
Mrs. Spelman: Those important questions warrant lengthy exploration. Although I am conscious of the time, I shall dwell on them for a moment. Legislation can do so much for comparable pay. Conservative and Labour Governments have introduced such legislation but, clearly, it has not proved sufficient. As I was in the throes of explaining, we must also overcome cultural factors, such as reticence to push for comparable terms of pay and a reluctance to ask what a man in the same job is being paid. I have the advantage of being a woman whereas my hon. Friend is a man so only I can look inside my soul and begin to answer why women generally tend to be less assertive
I shall risk saying that perhaps women regard work somewhat differently from men. Perhaps they are generally less concerned about status, and about status being measured by pay. Their job satisfaction comes from a range of factors. Perhaps it is important for men to have status that is measured in terms of pay. However, one factor is common to both sexes. If one does not know what one's colleague is paid, one does not have the information to conduct the necessary negotiations to ask for a fair return. Information is power. However, I would not go so far as to say that the problem would be immediately solved by some mandatory rule about publishing all rates of pay. In some organisations with best practice, such as management consultancy, where there is a great deal more transparency in the standard salaries and bonuses paid, it can become difficult to justify, in a rote way, variation at the bonus level. It is often linked to the company's profits. It is difficult to apportion how well the company is doing to the different amounts of effort that employees put in. That often cannot be resolved by a simple number.
Ms Meg Munn: Does the hon. Lady agree that aspiration is also crucial? The Government are seeking to do more to encourage the aspiration to go to university of many young people from poorer backgrounds, but traditionally many
1096
women and girls, when at school, have not had their aspirations raised in relation to the sort of employment that they could achieve. They have therefore entered and continued in, perhaps for life, jobs that have not stretched their abilities, so this country has not fully benefited from their skills and talents.
Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Lady is in complete agreement, in essence, with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), whose point was exactly the same. We need to empower women, when they are young by raising their aspirations in relation to equal opportunities, and in later life by helping them to become more assertive in asking for a fair wage. If low-paid women knew that, for every hour that they work, they earn only 60p for every ¤1 that a man earns for doing exactly the same full-time job, they would be quite angry. That would be a healthy reaction, which could spur on the assertiveness that they need to ask to be paid on equal terms. That would be quite justifiable.
Vera Baird rose—
Mrs. Spelman: We have already had quite an extensive digression on how culture interacts with legislation. Our society's culture, and the question of why women are in their current position—which we all acknowledge is unacceptable—is an important debate, but it is open-ended because we all know that it is not easy to change culture. That is not as simple as passing legislation, and it will take many different effects to bring it about. If the hon. and learned Lady's point is separate from that, I shall give way, but otherwise I would prefer to proceed.
Vera Baird: I want to comment on the point about asking for better pay.
Mrs. Spelman: I shall give way.
Vera Baird: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Does she agree that one of the best ways of facilitating a more aggressive search for better pay for women is to encourage them to join trade unions? Will she congratulate the Government on their recent allocation of substantial money to the trade union movement to enable it to modernise and to cope adequately with the demands that we must encourage in women?
Mrs. Spelman: I anticipated that intervention when I was writing my speech, as hon. Members might expect. I do not think that trade union membership is a panacea. The trade union movement has been around for a long time, but we still have a pay gap between all men and women of 18 per cent., and a significantly larger one at the lower end of the pay scale. I learned from the Topss conference that average annual membership of a trade union costs about £200 a year. That is a factor for low-paid women. I acknowledge that Labour Members are likely to make that point, but I invite them to recognise that trade union membership is

1097
not a magic answer. Just becoming a member of a trade union will not necessarily change the culture in our society.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas rose—
Mrs. Spelman: I should like to proceed, if the hon. Lady does not mind.
Sometimes, for whatever reason—such as a different ethnic, linguistic or cultural background—women are not aware of their entitlements. I have mentioned migrant workers, who are in a particularly weak position and in need of much help. Perhaps one of the saddest examples is of older women who, for historical reasons, belong to an age of deference. Although as people in public life we might feel that that age of deference is long gone, those women's upbringing in that period means that their whole attitude towards employers is of an unquestioning approach to authority. Such women are often subject to discrimination. It is right to acknowledge that that exists in our society. Those women are often further prevented from speaking up because they were denied the learning opportunities that men of their generation were offered. To put it in stark terms, some of those women are afraid of making waves with employers because they fear redundancy and recognise that their prospects of securing alternative employment, as they near retirement age, are increasingly limited.
Retirement itself presents no quick release from the injustices experienced by many women because, as we all well know, the pension system in the United Kingdom discriminates significantly against women. It is increasingly clear from the demographic pattern in this country that we will have to take more urgent action to remedy that. Women live between seven and 10 years longer than men on average, yet pension provision for women—who will have to depend on it more—falls short of what men receive. More than twice as many women as men of pensionable age rely on means-tested benefit, and the Age Concern survey that I mentioned last week during questions to the Minister for Women and Equality shows that the average income of retired women consists of just 32p for every £l that men receive. Again, that is a powerful piece of information that could spur on many older women, if they were aware of it, to more assertive action. Incidentally, I pay tribute to the female members of the pensioners convention in my constituency, who very definitely are assertive.
Perhaps the most alarming statistics of all are that 91 per cent. of all those without a full basic state pension are women, and that one in four single women pensioners now live in poverty. The reasons for that are numerous and complicated—complicated enough to warrant a debate of their own—but inflexibility in the eligibility criteria for state pension provision is clearly a major factor. One problem with the pension credit is that it assumes that everyone is entitled to the full contributory pension, but sadly that is not the case for many women, who have not met the qualifying criteria. Unless I am very much mistaken, the Pensions Bill that has just received its Second Reading, which I have scanned, does not specifically address the problem of the underprovision of pensions for women.
1098
Gender discrimination clearly permeates the lives of women throughout the working and retirement periods, and it is the challenge for us all, not least women such as me who are involved in the legislative process, to try to arrest that. Should we fail, we will be condemning future generations of women to levels of pensioner poverty that are completely at odds with the advantaged position of a wealthy western power.
As with all the biggest problems that society has to overcome, there is no simple solution to this one, and it would be erroneous to suggest that the problems that I have mentioned can he overcome solely by legislation. The reality is that we need to complete the cultural changes that were initiated 86 years ago when women were first given the Note. Our country's mindset still has some way to move forward from the preconception that women somehow justify their inferior salary, or in some way deserve the disadvantages that they often experience in the workplace.
Legislation can in many ways precipitate and advance such changes, but it cannot be the sole driver. Attitudes are changing and inequalities are becoming increasingly unacceptable, but it' we consider that, more than 30 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 was introduced, women are still being paid on average 18 per cent. less than men in a full-time context, and 40 per cent. less than men in a part-time context, it behoves all of us in the House to strive for a better deal for women.
3.18 pm
Ms Meg Munn: I welcome this debate on women, equality and human rights. It is very timely, and there are important issues to be discussed in this field.
I shall focus my speech on specific issues relating to women with learning disabilities. It is estimated that, every year, 1,400 people with learning disabilities are victims of sexual abuse. Most of those are women. Furthermore, all too often in such cases, the abusers of women with a learning disability are not brought to justice. I welcome the Government's measures, introduced in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, to protect people with learning disabilities from sexual abuse. Those will come into effect this May. Wherever possible, the rights of such women should be protected along with the rights of other people through mainstream legislation, as in the 2003 Act, but there should also be specific measures that recognise those women's specific needs, where that is appropriate.
The criminal law should not intrude unnecessarily on the private lives of adults, and people with a learning disability should have the same right to engage in sexual activities as others. We must recognise, however, that some people, especially those with a severe learning disability, may be particularly vulnerable to abuse because of their circumstances. That could affect their ability to consent to sexual activity in the same way as other adults. Our law must provide full and robust protection when sexual activity is not consensual.
It is important that women with a learning disability have the right to engage in sexual activity, but we must also ensure that they have protection against abuse and rape. In providing such protection we must recognise their particular vulnerability. They are twice as likely as

1099
other people to be victims of crime and it is estimated that they are four times as likely as people without a learning disability to be the victim of a sexual offence.
Every woman with a learning disability is an individual. Every woman has different needs and different abilities, which should be recognised. However, we should also acknowledge that people with a severe learning disability might not be able freely to consent to sex because they do not understand the nature and consequences of sexual activity. They might also have limited choices and a limited understanding of relationships. That is what makes them so vulnerable, because they could be viewed as an easy target. They could be easily influenced, bribed, intimidated or threatened by others.
People in a position of power or who are caring for women with a severe learning disability could use that position to coerce or deceive them. Such people could, for example, use threats such as, "I will tell your parents" or "I will tell your friends " That might worry the woman in that situation, whereas an adult without a learning disability might just ignore it. Such actions can take on much greater significance for a person with a learning disability. They are particularly vulnerable to people in a position of authority v, ho care for them. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned some of the measures in the Care Standards Act 2000 that have been put in place to protect not only adults with a learning disability but children and older people, and such measures are important for the reasons that I have just outlined.
Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very difficult to balance the acknowledgement of the needs of women with learning disabilities with the need to protect those women?
Ms Munn: Yes, that is a difficult balancing act. However, the fundamental idea—the human right, indeed—that underpins everything I am saying is that people with learning disabilities are people first, and that they should have the same rights as everyone else. It is our responsibility to ensure that our legislation does all that it can to enable people to achieve that equality, however difficult that may be. We recognise the difficulties encountered by people trying to achieve that, and we must therefore take the issue seriously. It is high time that we highlighted it to a greater extent.
Before the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the law was clearly unsatisfactory, and terminology such as "mental defective" was demeaning to vulnerable adults. I am pleased that progress has been made in this area. By making provision on specific offences in relation to the sexual abuse of people with a learning disability, the legislation gives protection while maintaining the right of people to engage in consensual sexual activity.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the remarkably sensitive approach that she is taking to the very real problems experienced by many people with learning difficulties. Does she agree that there have been very few Acts passed by this Government that are as important as the Sexual Offences Act in terms of
1100
ensuring that such people—particularly women—are protected and afforded the same rights under the law as everyone else in this country can expect?
Ms Munn: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. I shall say something in a moment about how forthcoming legislation will be able to do more for people in this situation.
Although the new offences have been created and there is now greater protection, we must be ever-vigilant, because there are still cases in which the Crown Prosecution Service or judges might decide not to proceed. For example, they might take the view that a person's word cannot be relied on. The woman or man involved might not have very good communication skills, and extra help and support might be needed to enable them to express what has happened to them. These important issues must be considered if justice is to be done.
When that does not happen, the legal system fails to protect people with a learning disability. It not only fails to achieve justice for someone who has experienced an awful offence, but it could leave the person who has committed the offence free to reoffend elsewhere.
Mrs. Betty Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is still a grey area in the legislation, in that if a young woman aged over 18 were to fall victim to a very influential male friend, her parents—who might be very close to her, having looked after her until she attained the age of 18—would have very little power to intervene? There are cases in which young women find themselves in court in serious circumstances because they have fallen victim to an influential male friend.
Ms Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting those circumstances. I am about to move on to talk about the experiences of adults with special needs—be they learning disabilities or other needs—who go to court following an offence being committed and a charge being brought. The all-party parliamentary Voice group—which is supported by the organisation Voice UK, of which I am the chair—met earlier this week. We discussed court processes and heard from Dame Helen Reeves, who heads Victim Support, about the work that that organisation has done to provide a witness support service. She explained the process by which any person who has to give evidence in a trial—especially a trial of a difficult or sensitive nature—can be helped to prepare for their appearance in court. She also highlighted the difficulties involved in providing that service to people with learning disabilities.
A woman who has been subjected to a sexual offence, or her carers, might not have realised that support was available, or the witness support service run by Victim Support might not have been notified that the woman had special needs. A woman could arrive at the court without anyone having done any preparation or put in place support services to enable her to do her best to give evidence in difficult circumstances.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I agree with so much of what my hon. Friend is saying. I also acknowledge that, without the legislation passed by this Government, we would not

1101
even be discussing this issue today. The machinations and detail of what happens pre-court would simply not be an issue. It is an issue now, however, and the desperate shortage of people with a detailed understanding of the wide continuum of learning difficulties is exacerbating the problems involved in getting many cases to court. Does my hon. Friend have any idea how we can solve that problem? Perhaps we could work towards the inclusion of people involved in education and the criminal justice system—I do not know. Does she have any ideas?
Ms Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That was precisely the issue discussed at the Voice group meeting earlier this week. Some money has been invested in a programme to try to support the development of better services for people with learning disabilities. I understand, however, that Victim Support is still not able to access that funding to train volunteers in that special work. It has volunteers who are experienced in the court process and in preparing people to give evidence in court, but they do not have experience of working with people with learning disabilities. The organisation sees a real opportunity to begin to work in partnership with the organisations that are experienced in working with adults with learning disabilities, to develop those services and move the situation forward.
What we see at present are poor assessment of people's needs, uneven availability of services and lengthy delays in cases coming to court. As we know, delay in a case coming to court is stressful for anybody. For a person with a learning disability, however, understanding why that delay is taking place and having to give evidence perhaps a year on from when the offence took place is not only clearly traumatic but, in their particular circumstances, may cause more difficulties in terms of their ability to give evidence.
As we have discussed, protecting women from abuse cannot he done only through changing the law. Once the law is implemented and used by the police, the provision of support and counselling services alongside that is crucial for people with learning disabilities who have been abused. I want to move on to discuss further opportunities in the legislative programme to improve the situation of those with learning disabilities who have suffered abuse.
The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill is particularly welcome for all sorts of reasons. One of the issues that it addresses is common assault, which is not currently an arrestable offence. In effect, that prolongs the amount of time before the police can take action in relation to specific offences of violence that are deemed to be common assault. That can extend the amount of time in which the person who is subject to assault is susceptible to further offences or victimisation. It is therefore welcome that the Bill proposes that common assault be made an arrestable offence, which would give the police immediate powers to act when a person believes that immediate and unlawful violence will be used against them.
The Bill also includes as possible offenders people who have frequent contact with the victim. In that regard, I suggest that further protection could be given
1102
to people with learning disabilities who suffer this kind of violence, of whom the majority, as I have said, are women. If that were extended to include "paid and volunteer carers"—an amendment of four words—it would offer greater protection. People with learning disabilities these days live in a range of settings. It is welcome that developments over many years mean that people are able to live in settings that maximise their independence, rather than our assuming that they should live in a setting in which everything is provided and in which they are not encouraged to do as much as they can. That is in line with the Government's expectations set out in the White Paper, "Valuing People". Many people with learning disabilities will therefore be living at home with their parents, with other relatives, or in small group homes—environments that would not necessarily be deemed to be part of the regulated residential sector. Adding an amendment to include paid and volunteer carers would therefore provide much greater protection across the range of residential facilities in which people with learning disabilities live.
Secondly, I suggest a further amendment to the part of the Bill that deals with the offence of causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable adult. There should also be an arrestable offence of causing or allowing the mistreatment or neglect of a vulnerable adult. I argued that there are benefits to having this offence in the new legislation rather than seeking to deal with it through mental health or mental capacity legislation, as that recognises that people with learning disabilities are people first, who have specific needs that arise from their disability. I also urge that those offences be deemed serious enough to have sentences that reflect such seriousness. The same offence against children has a maximum sentence of 10 years, which is what we should expect. In addition to not only providing more justice in such circumstances, that should also empower the police to do their job of providing greater protection to adults with learning disabilities.
Violence, neglect and ill treatment of women and men with learning difficulties in their own homes are horrifyingly widespread. Perpetrators are not brought to justice, which is a scandal that we must do more to tackle. I want to pay tribute to the organisations that have been campaigning hard in this area, such as Voice UK, VIA—Values In Action—Respond, and Turning Point. I also congratulate the Government on the work that they did to bring in the Sexual Offences Act, and urge them to consider the suggested amendments for the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. The Government take seriously the issues of women, equality and human rights, and this legislation will move forward the rights of women and people with learning disabilities, giving them a stronger voice and strengthening their human rights.
3.36 pm
Sandra Gidley: I welcome this debate, which now seems to be an annual fixture, which is a very good thing. In past years the debate has focused a little more on national issues, whereas the slightly different title of the debate this year prompted more thoughts on international issues. I will therefore cover some of those issues. My speech will be shorter than I intended because we now have a debate on Tuesday on women in the

1103
world, to which some of the material may be easily transferred. I therefore hope that more Members will be able to speak.
We cannot ignore the United Kingdom completely, because, sadly, we have not yet got it completely right. I therefore make no apologies for starting with matters close to home. I want to acknowledge particularly the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which seems to be going from strength to strength. Hon. Members have already alluded to some of the work. I was going to talk at some length about the pay gap, but much of the material has been covered. Clearly, it is not right that the gap is still 18 per cent. although it is narrowing, as has been acknowledged. In relation to full-time work of a man and part-time work of a woman, however, the gap is still 40 per cent. I want to place it on the record that I appreciate that the Government can do only so much.
Even more alarming, the pay gap on graduation is 15 per cent. That is exercising my mind considerably at the moment, as my daughter is due to graduate. I was interested by the comments or the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) about the psychological and social pressures on women to choose certain types of work. When I consider my daughter and her peer group, it is apparent to me that the men are much more interested in career paths that value money and status, while the women tend to look for careers that will give them personal satisfaction. I do not know whether that is a throwback to the old-fashioned attitude that women can afford to adopt such careers because a man will keep them eventually. I sincerely hope not, and I think that such attitudes are probably a thing of the past. Nevertheless, there is evidently a bias towards a particular type of work in each group. Schools could do something about that. I am not suggesting that they should raise aspirations, for it is admirable to aspire to a job that contributes to society in some way, but it might be an idea to consider how we value certain roles.
I am keen on the idea of pay audits. Not all my colleagues agree with me, so I am not exactly spouting a party line. I think it is quite healthy not to spout a party mantra all the time, as it happens. in my opinion, if there is more transparency in the way in which men and women are paid, women will vote with their feet. They will prefer to work for companies in which they see that women are valued equally and given equal bonuses, with no covert discrimination. Companies will eventually realise that if they cannot take their pick of the best women out there—who are often the best people out there—they will lose out.
Much has been said about occupational segregation. The child care industry, for instance, is predominantly female. It is also very poorly paid, which, sadly, demonstrates the value that is attached to it. It seems perverse that we should pay so little for a service that involves our handing over something as precious to us as responsibility for our children. The fact that women on low pay want to be able to afford child care so that they can go on working does not mean that it too should be a low-paid profession.
How can we encourage more women to take up science? I think things have improved over the years, although the figures may not suggest that. I remember getting into a strop as a 14-year-old schoolgirl because I
1104
could not study physics. I did not particularly want to study physics, but it was anathema to me to be told that I could not. I studied a range of other science subjects. Only when I took my books off to the library and refused to take part in geography or Latin lessons did the teachers decide to provide a physics teacher. That would not happen in a school today. We have made some progress in developing the curriculum.
I made a stand about something else as well. I did not want to do cooking; I wanted to do woodwork. In fact, I did not especially want to do woodwork either, but I thought that we would have a session with the boys. The plan backfired, because all the boys were made to do cookery, and the impetus behind the little campaign that I had initiated as a 13-year-old—at a different school, I hasten to add—was lost. Nowadays the curriculum is designed much more evenly.
Mrs. Betty Williams: We have made great strides with the help of WISE—Women into Science and Engineering. The school curriculum, among other things, has improved greatly over the last five years. We have people such as Marie-Noelle Barker to thank for that.
Sandra Gidley: I was about to mention WISE. Before I became an MP, I had the pleasure of spending half days on a bus with girls from the local school whom I was encouraging to study science—although I myself became a politician, which seems perverse. Sadly, however, that brilliant initiative has not reached enough girls. That school would often select a higher stream of girls to go on to the bus, and I think schools should think about providing equal access.
IBM launched another welcome initiative. It is in the Winchester constituency, just across the border from mine. It invited a number of young women aged 13 and 14 on to its premises for a week to engage in various science-based activities. The aim was to encourage them to work for a science-based company in the future—not necessarily as scientists, but in a science-based environment. They chose some girly ways of getting science messages across, but it was an excellent initiative and it would be helpful if the Government could encourage more companies to follow that example. All the girls I spoke to at the end of the week were very enthusiastic about the scheme. It opened their eyes to an area of work that they had previously thought was completely closed off to them.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I presume that the hon. Lady is aware of specialist school status, specifically schools that have been awarded technology status. That was done, more often than not, in conjunction with local industrialists who really want an industry-based or industry-supported education system because there is a desperate need for more young men and women to enter the professions of science, technology and engineering.
Sandra Gidley: I am aware of specialist colleges, but I was not aware that they had any particular success at recruiting females, so I shall examine the matter further. The hon. Lady certainly makes an interesting observation.
I shudder to mention Parliament, but I have to acknowledge the fact that we now have more female MPs. Hand on heart, they are not mainly in my or the

1105
other Opposition party, which is a disappointment. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the greater presence of women has had a positive influence on policy so far. The number of women in the Cabinet was mentioned, but it is too easy to take one's eye off the ball. Recently, when the Chairs of Select Committees stood in front of the Prime Minister, I was struck by how few females were present; little attention seems to have been paid to that. I hope that the position will improve.
A recent Equal Opportunities Commission campaign focused on discrimination against women in pregnancy. Last year, more than 1,000 women took legal action because they felt that they had been dismissed simply because of their pregnancies, but the Equal Opportunities Commission described it as the tip of the iceberg. That is probably a realistic comment on the position. Some women who are thinking of becoming pregnant restrict their career choices because they are worried about the real incidence of discrimination.
I believe that the fines are nowhere near adequate. In a recent fairly high-profile case, a woman who worked for a law firm won, but the fine imposed on the company was a fraction of her annual salary water off a duck's back for the company concerned. That makes it easy for companies to dismiss such women. The woman thought that she had a reasonable settlement until she discovered that, in the same week, a young girl who had worked for a firm for only two weeks had received a much greater financial pay-off because she had suffered some form of sexual harassment. It did not, however, involve touching—only talking and making observations about the young woman concerned. I do not want to diminish the seriousness of sexual harassment in any way, but it does seem odd that we place less weight on discrimination in pregnancy than on a relatively minor case of sexual harassment. The scales of justice do not seem equally balanced in respect of the fines.
I welcome the plans to form a single equality body. There is considerable evidence to show that other inequalities such as race and disability are often exacerbated for women.

I also want to mention domestic violence. That is not just a women's issue, but I make no apology for mentioning it today, because the reality is that far more victims are women. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill is welcome, but it does not address all the problems. One possible improvement to the proposals has already been mentioned.
The thematic shadow report of the committee on the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women on violence against women in the UK may be a bit of a mouthful but it is interesting and timely. The authors state:
"Given that a number of the issues highlighted in the report have been recognised for at least five years, there is an argument that the UK Government is consistently and knowingly failing to meet due diligence standards of human rights protection with respect to its female population."
I shall highlight only some of the various concerns that the authors express. The report asserts that violence is not just a matter of gender, but that there appears to be little involvement by Departments responsible for constitutional affairs, health, housing and education. It
1106
also says that there is an inadequate understanding of links between violence against women and their economic, social and cultural rights.
Most important, the report states that there is no strategic plan of action in England and Wales in respect of violence against women, although Scotland and Northern Ireland have done better. The result is an overemphasis on domestic violence when it comes to policy, research and provision, but a failure to make connections between forms of violence, in terms of consequences and underlying causes. Very often, there is either a lack of knowledge in a particular area, or a duplication of effort. The Government must make an effort to join all the bits up.
The report also found that there was minimal resourcing in the specialist non-governmental organisation sector, and a consistent lack of sanctions against violent and abusive men. I appreciate that the Domestic Violence. Crime and Victims Bill seeks to address some of those problems, but it is probably not enough.
The emphasis on domestic violence means that other forms of violence and exploitation are in danger of being ignored. For example, the conviction rate for rape is very low, at about 5 per cent. It is also difficult to secure convictions in offences such as the sexual abuse, exploitation or trafficking of children, and the questions of prostitution and pornography are also thorny.
The CEDAW report also deals with trafficking. Mention was made earlier of people's increased mobility. That exacerbates the trafficking problem. People can legitimately move around more easily, but there are many more opportunities for trafficking, and women's inequality and vulnerability mean that they are much more likely to be recruited to or entrapped in it. That again is linked to gender aspects of conflict and poverty, and life experiences such as childhood sexual abuse, domestic violence and poor status.
In this area, the Government's attention has been poor. They funded a small exploratory study called "Stopping Traffic", but little progress has been made on its recommendations. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 was a missed opportunity I was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, and many attempts were made to amend it. Proposals included providing a period of reflection for trafficked victims, with financial support and possibly even temporary residence. I point out to the House that the temporary residence proposal was supported by an EU directive, and that the 2003 Act does not comply with the definition of trafficking contained in the UN convention against transnational organised crime protocol.
I visited Italy last year, where provision in respect of trafficking is streets ahead of ours. Trafficking is a bigger problem there, but a number of safe havens are provided for victims. They can stay at those places in safety for a while, and are not immediately deported back to their country of origin. That has resulted in a much higher conviction rate of traffickers. We in this country lag behind in that. Sweden, too, thinks it important to provide for this period of reflection. As a consequence it has a higher conviction rate of traffickers and is stamping down on the problem.
There seems to be an unwritten, almost unsaid, feeling that people will automatically want to stay here and will use this as an excuse to press for staying. That has not

1107
necessarily been the experience of other countries. It is necessary to separate trafficking from immigration; they are two very different problems. If a very right-wing Government in Italy can manage that, it is not beyond the capabilities of this Government. When will the United Kingdom Government ratify the UN convention against transnational organised crime and the protocol on trafficking in women and children?
Finally, I turn to post-conflict problems. The Minister mentioned Sierra Leone. I sincerely hope that work is done there. Examples from Afghanistan and Iraq do not augur well for the future. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). She was in her place earlier and I was hoping that she would speak. She has done much work to highlight the plight of Afghan women. In a recent magazine article she tellingly made the point that in the past Afghan women were educated and were not the helpless, burqa-clad figures portrayed by the media. She went on to say, and I hoped she might expand on this, that she feared that we were breaking our promises to Afghan women and that the continuing abuse of human rights of women was on a grand scale: widespread forced and under-age marriage of girls aged 10 to 16, a defence for honour killings still in place, and increased violence in the home. A new threat is the ever-present throat of rape or sexual assault by members of armed groups. The lack of physical security has had a huge impact and prevents women from participating in the political reconstruction process. I do not believe the picture is much better in Iraq. The Minister poke of extremists, but I am not sure that extremism can be blamed for all the problems that are emerging and need to be dealt with. We have to face some of the attitudes of society head on. The telling point was made earlier that we have to make it clear that human rights and the wishes of a religion are not incompatible. There should be some way of accommodating both. That is difficult to achieve, but the most difficult things are often the most worth doing.
Despite an agreement that women should make up 25 per cent. of the Iraqi national assembly—that is welcome and better than here—the 18-member committee that is drafting the constitution does not include a single woman. There is evidence that women who have tried to run for local office have been told by men at candidate registration offices that women cannot be candidates. On the streets of Iraq more women and girls—
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: May I express my sorrow to the hon. Lady that in this important debate she stands alone, with none of her colleagues present? That is a sad reflection of the commitment of her party to this issue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady has made a number of interventions. We are fairly short of time in this debate and that was one of the least helpful.
Sandra Gidley: That was an appalling intervention, and untrue. I am discussing a very real problem facing women in post-conflict Iraq, yet the hon. Lady seeks to trivialise it in this way. She should be ashamed of herself.
Many Iraqi women genuinely believed that they would gain more rights after the war. It is a huge disappointment to many of us that the opposite appears
1108
to be the case. Suspicions have arisen lately about the efforts of religious parties in the governing council to push through resolution 137, which would abolish a 1959 law that, according to the Justice Minister, Mr. al-Shibli, drew on the most generous protections for women and children from different schools of sharia. The resolution would stipulate that, for example, a Shi'ite woman should have her divorce adjudicated by Shi'ite law, while adjudication for a Sunni woman would be under Sunni law.
In effect, one law would become many, according to religious adherence, but such a move would strip every woman of some of her current rights. For example, Shi'ite inheritance law is more generous to women than Sunni, but divorce protection is better under Sunni law. There are many similar examples. The Americans who run Iraq have frozen the legal system for now, but many supporters of the proposal have indicated that they want to reintroduce it when Iraq regains its sovereignty, as they believe that it respects religious diversity in Iraq. As women, we should pay particular attention to that situation.
In Iraq, the same problems of gender-based violence are emerging as are occurring in Afghanistan. Many women have lost their job, especially in the public sector. In September 2003, it was announced that subsidies to farmers in Iraq—many of whom are women—would be reduced, which could drive many of them out of business. An Iraqi madam, quoted in The Daily Telegraph on 26 October 2003, said:
"Most of my girls are from the countryside. They are not well educated, so the money is good for them."
It is not difficult to work out that if farming collapses, owing to the withdrawal of subsidies, there will be thousands—possibly tens of thousands—of young women crowding into cities and thus vulnerable to recruitment to brothels. None of us would support that consequence of the war but it will be a reality if alternative employment is not made available for those women, so any support for Iraqi farming communities will be helpful.
The Minister may not be able to respond to all the points that I have made, but I hope that she will discuss them with the Secretary of State for International Development. I hope that he is paying more attention to UN resolution 1325 than his predecessor, who could not even remember what it was about when asked during DFID questions. I have yet to see a focus on that resolution, which would include women in post-conflict resolution and peace-building. Much evidence shows that when women distribute resources, they ensure that those resources go to the most needy—women and children—but if resources are distributed by men, there is a greater likelihood of the chain being corrupted in some way. That is not new information; most nongovernmental organisations working in the field acknowledge it, although women do not appear very much in that aspect of post-conflict work.
This subject is so wide-ranging that it is difficult to choose a focus. I look forward to the other contributions to the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I suggest that a guide time of about 10 minutes might enable all those Members who seek to catch my eye to do so?
4.4 pm
Julie Morgan: I am pleased that women have the opportunity to hold this annual debate, and it is a pleasure to be called to speak.
International women's day is a good time to assess where we are as women, especially as this year we are mid-way through the second term of the Labour Government. It is important to establish how women have fared under Labour and where we go from here—a point already addressed in some of the speeches made from the Front Benches.
I want to start by discussing women in Wales. In Wales, the first resounding success for women that springs to mind is the almost incredible achievement of a 50:50 gender balance in the Welsh Assembly. Who would have believed that that would happen in Wales, a country where iron and steel industries predominated, where mainly male-dominated unions held power and where politics was, as likely as not, sorted out between men in the pub? All that has changed.
In other political spheres—local authorities and this place—all parties have failed to ensure that women have a completely equal say. Labour has done better than the other parties in Westminster with our 94 women MPs. The Welsh Assembly is the only law-making body in the world where half the Members are women, and the credit for that must be given to the Labour party. Its determination to battle with the thorny issues of all-women shortlists and twinning for the Welsh Assembly constituencies has resulted in 18 Labour women Members in the Welsh Assembly, compared with 12 Labour men. All the other parties have women Members, including, for the first time since the last election, the Conservative party, but it is a fact that nearly two thirds of the women Assembly Members are Labour. I did not realise that the split was 50:50 until the Fawcett Society rang up on the day after polling day in May 2003 to point out that unique achievement.
Over the past couple of years, I have had the privilege of talking to women in many other countries, including the United States, Iran, Ethiopia and, more recently, India. They expressed astonishment at that achievement and asked how we managed to do it. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality discussed equality and human rights all over the world, because one of the great privileges of being a Member of Parliament is meeting women internationally.
Many hon. Members will remember the moving stories told in last year's women's day debate. When we meet women in other countries and discuss issues such as equality and human rights, we usually find that we are trying to tackle the same problems. Women's representation is raised as a major issue all over the world. One must implement a mechanism to ensure that women have a say, and the women to whom I have spoken in countries all over the world seem to draw that conclusion.
I recently visited India with a group of women Members, some of whom are in the House today, on the first all-women MPs visit to India. Everywhere we went, women at all levels discussed the 33 per cent. representation of women in Parliament that all political
1110
parties in India seem to support, but which has never actually appeared on the statute book, and I want to put down a marker in the House that we support them in that aspiration. It will be interesting to see whether in the current elections any party commits itself in its manifesto to one third of representatives being women. The law applies at local authority level, and 33 per cent. of local authority councillors in India are women, which is a tremendous achievement—in Wales, only 21 per cent. of councillors are women.
Wherever we went in India, we were struck by the strength and enthusiasm of women. We visited a project funded by the Department for International Development, where money had been invested to pave the streets and put in taps and toilets. Women in the community had formed the committees, made the decisions and worked hard to make sure that the project really answered people's needs. We were overwhelmed by the enthusiasm that those women showed.
There is no doubt that having so many women in visible, high profile positions in the Welsh Assembly Government has changed politics in Wales. As other hon. Members have said, women do politics differently. It was easier to do that in Wales because we were starting up a new institution, and the same was true in Scotland. It is much more difficult to change an established institution such as Westminster, but we can change things here as well following the enactment of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002.
On this first international women's day since the Welsh Assembly elections, the Labour party and the Government should take enormous pride in what we have achieved in Wales and in this place, but things are far from perfect in Wales. We have no black or ethnic minority female—or male—members of the Assembly and statistics are bleak for other areas of life in Wales. For example, only 16 per cent. of secondary school head teachers are women; only 27 per cent. of senior civil servants are women; only 18 per cent. of local authority chief executives are women; and only 20 per cent of hospital consultants are women. We are not complacent: although we have achieved much in terms of elected representation, we have a long way to go in many other areas.
I shall now consider briefly—as many of the issues have already been mentioned today—what the Labour Government have achieved for women since 1997. Labour has improved conditions for women who work outside the home and the lives of women at home. More women are in employment than ever before, and the minimum wage has had a huge impact in Wales, bringing thousands of women out of poverty pay. Maternity pay has increased and the child care tax credit and child tax credit have been introduced. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has allocated millions of pounds to child care. Women have more rights in the workplace and are better able to balance work and life.
I heard only yesterday from the Public and Commercial Services Union about the Inland Revenue in Llanishen in my constituency, which no longer has a core time for working. That means that women and men can clock in and out of work three or four times a day and go home as needed to care for children or—more likely—for elderly people, or to have the washing machine mended. That is a huge change that the Inland Revenue is operating in Cardiff and probably

1111
throughout the UK, and it especially important for women, who always have to juggle responsibilities at home and work.
It is now politically acceptable to speak up for women in this Chamber in a way that it may not have been some years ago. Every month we can table questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality, and she is one of five women in the Cabinet. We still have no day nursery at Westminster, and that is a disgrace, given the thousands of women employed here. I hope that we will be able to do something about that. At least the House of Commons now sits at more family friendly hours. For me, they are not family friendly because my family is in Wales, but at least the hours are more normal and the working day sets a better example. It may encourage other women to stand as Members of Parliament, because it is now more like a normal job. It is very important that we try to make this place more modern, so that it appeals to women and makes them want to come here and join us in trying to change things.
In the home, the scourge of domestic violence has finally been recognised and we have had some discussion of the issue today. This year, the Labour Government introduced the first legislation in 30 years on the issue. It is a worldwide problem. Last year I visited Ethiopia as part of the British Council's pairing scheme for African and Westminster women representatives. When I was there, I was asked to give a lecture on how we deal with domestic violence. I gave the horrific statistics, and at the end the first questioner could not believe that we still had to deal with the problem as such an affluent country. They could not believe that domestic violence was still an issue. However, we all know that domestic violence occurs in all societies, at all levels.
I shall not take much longer, as I know that other women wish to speak, but I wonder why—despite the undoubted major advances for women—things still
seem precarious and hard for many women in this country. Those who have spoken, from both sides of the House, have indicated some of the difficulties. As Anna Coote said, in the second Val Feld memorial lecture in Swansea last year:
"As a woman, you can feel politically, socially and economically marginal."
I often feel that, as I am sure many of us do. In many ways, women are still on the edges of political life and discussion. All the leaders of all the parties in the UK are men. The international discussions that dominate the news are usually between men. We hope that women will get a toe in through the new constitutions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the guarantee of 25 per cent. representation will be very fragile—although it is better than we have here.
The pay gap has already been discussed, and the Fawcett Society has given us ammunition to campaign even more strongly for equal pay. Women pensioners often live in poverty—statistics showing that have been cited today.
Despite the progress that women have made and the fact that the Government have led the way on making things better for women in this country—the situation has been transformed since 1997—there is an enormous amount left to do. That is not a reason to get depressed, feel down or feel we have not got enough. It is time to do all the things that women are often accused of doing in
1112
any case. We are accused of being awkward, of being interested in only one thing, of being a pain in the neck or of being hell raisers—such expressions are often used to describe women. I quote again Anna Coote from the lecture in honour of Val Feld, the wonderful feminist from Wales. She said that it is perhaps time not to take
"'no' or 'maybe' or 'later' for an answer."
I am sure that all women present, supported by the men, will use their places in the House of Commons as creatively and assertively as possible to make things better for women. I hope that we will continue to build on the progress that we have made, and continue our journey to put women in the centre of politics in the UK. Our aim is not to become like the men or to do politics like the men, but to work in the unique way in which women do—getting on with the job.
4.16 pm
Angela Watkinson: May I associate myself with the remarks of the Minister for Women about the barbaric practice of genital mutilation, which I am sure everyone in the House would deplore? I served on the Committee that considered the Female Genital Mutilation Bill, and although it had only one sitting I had the opportunity to meet some of the women who came to listen to our deliberations. I heard personal accounts that were quite horrifying.
I want to ask a fundamental question: what does equality really mean? Can it, or does it, mean equal rights with men, and, if so, in what way? It can mean equal treatment in law and education. It can mean equal access to employment, but equal access to all employment opportunities for all women—or, in some cases, any opportunities at all—is probably unattainable for a variety of reasons. Being equal in the eyes of the law will never make women the same as men because of the simple biological reasons of pregnancy and childbirth, and that is never going to change.
For women with children, family responsibilities are probably the main reason, but not the only reason, for occupational segregation and the gender pay gap. Women with children are far more likely than others to work locally, where rates of pay are lower, so that they can avoid lengthening their working day by having to travel to work. They are far more likely to have to limit their availability for work to fit in with their children's nursery or school hours, thus limiting further their earning potential.

Of course, some jobs simply do not appeal to women, especially those that require the physical strength and stamina commonly associated with men. There is nothing wrong with that. It is why the fire service, for example, is unlikely ever to increase significantly the number of women whom it employs as firefighters, despite having an open recruitment policy. Women simply do not apply in large numbers, but it is the policy that is important because it makes that area of employment available to women if they choose it and, importantly, if they are able to carry out the job; whether they choose to apply is less important.
Employment legislation has made enormous strides since the Equal Pay Act 1970 almost half a century ago. Before that Act, women were paid at a lower rate for doing exactly the same work as their male colleagues—

1113
I know because I was one of them. I was dismayed to discover how extensive that practice still is from comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House; I had hoped that it was largely a thing of the past.
In many organisations, women employees were treated as only temporary staff because it was assumed that in due course they would marry and leave. Men with working wives were often derided by their colleagues as not being able to support their wives. Women were regarded as dependent per se. Those who did not marry were regaled with the delightful title of spinster. Even those who remained in post until they retired were still considered to be temporary staff. There was no personnel mechanism to ensure that they received equal treatment with their male colleagues, who were on the permanent payroll.
Maternity leave and pay now make it possible for women to return to their employment if they want or need to do so. It is fair to comment on behalf of employers that whereas large organisations are able to cope with the complications of staff cover for maternity leave, it can cause real difficulties for small firms that employ only a few people. For that reason, women's prospects may be affected in those organisations.
The only career advice that I ever received at the co-educational grammar school that I attended would be unthinkable today. It would probably be illegal. All the girls were assembled in the hall and told by the headmistress that there were only two respectable occupations for women—teaching and nursing. It was teachers on one side and nurses on the other. The subject was never mentioned again. I think that girls who chose neither occupation were deemed to be lost causes.
Nowadays, no doors are closed to any pupil and career choices are driven by interests and abilities. I have been surprised by some of the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon that some girls have limited aspirations. That is not my experience. I am a governor of two secondary schools; one is a girls' school and one is a mixed comprehensive. My experience from those two schools is that career advice is the same and that there are no restrictions. Girls' horizons are not limited and they are expected to reach for the sky and attain whatever they wish to in their coming careers. Given that approach, I hope that the traditional occupational segregation and gender pay gap will become a thing of the past quite naturally within a very few years.
It is important that the status of motherhood is not eroded in the drive to provide equal employment opportunities for women. The choice of staying at home to bring up children is not open to many women for financial reasons. However, those who exercise that choice are doing an important and demanding job that is of huge benefit to their children. I acknowledge and pay tribute to them.
Women who bring up their children single-handed have a particularly difficult role. They often face financial pressure in addition to all the practical difficulties with which they have to cope. Single motherhood arises for a range of different reasons. The rate of unplanned teenage pregnancies is alarmingly high and should be a cause of great concern to us all.
1114
Sex education in schools has a crucial role to play. Since 1947, there has been more and more sex education for younger and younger children. Yet, at the same time, the rates of pregnancy, abortion and disease have grown. I wonder whether a complete rethink of the style of sex education, especially for girls, would be advisable. This is one area where clearly girls and boys are not equal. That is because the outcomes are so different. Girls must be warned about the likely outcome of engaging in sexual activity with boys who have no desire to become a parent, no desire to get married and have no income with which to support a child.
Life alone in a council flat for a single mother, with sole responsibility for a baby, while her friends are out either completing their education or simply enjoying themselves, is neither glamorous nor exciting. This is a real-life situation where equality flies out of the window. The woman takes full responsibility for the action of both people.
I do not know whether hon. Members have been receiving a lot of questionnaires lately from women students. I have received about five in the past fortnight from women who are taking political courses. It worries me that none of my male colleagues seems to have received any. It is clear that women Members are being targeted. It worries me also that positive discrimination, which to me is unnecessary and patronising, seems to be implicit in the style of so many of the questions. There is an assumption that gender prejudice exists, which I for one have never experienced. I always respond by stating that I did not become a woman MP. I became an MP and just happened to be a woman. We cannot demand equality on the one hand and expect special or different treatment on the other.
Last year, there was a demand to allow breastfeeding in the Chamber, which was based more on political correctness than on common sense. It probably had a negative effect on the way in which we are perceived by the world outside Westminster and was unhelpful. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) spoke about the proportion of women in the Welsh Assembly, and I pay tribute to Stockholm city council—I visit Stockholm regularly—which has 50 women members. When I asked what it did to achieve that figure, the answer, encouragingly, was nothing at all, which tells us something about the community and the status of women in Sweden.
The historical reasons for the concentration of women in low-paid jobs are gradually being overcome by equal access to education and careers guidance. Equality of income will in due course overcome the problem of inadequate pensions for women, but nothing will ever change the fact that women produce children and men do not. Women will continue to have to make choices, and balance family and work commitments, which will be made easier by employment legislation. I was disappointed by some of the comments this afternoon about quotas and percentages, which suggest that women are a race apart or are different. I do not think that we do things differently, and there are few cases in which one can say, "All women do this". If we are to have true equality, we must treat everyone as an individual rather than as a member of a group, however large, which means that gender will become irrelevant.
4.26 pm
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I shall confine my remarks to the role of women in science, engineering and technology.
Colleagues may know that I am a chartered engineer, and that I started my engineering career as an apprentice for a machine tool company in Portsmouth. I was a race apart, as there were no other women. It is rewarding to work in engineering, and it is a fantastic career. It is enormously creative and diverse—there is something for everyone, regardless of their intellectual ability. I enjoyed the practical aspects of my work, but I did not enjoy my employment conditions. The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970, but its effects were not apparent in my workplace. I was subject to sexual harassment every day of my apprenticeship, which I was desperate to finish as it gave me a passport to employment and, more importantly, money. Many women in the workplace, even today, will put up with a great deal because they need money. I was told in no uncertain terms that if I made a complaint my apprenticeship deeds would be torn up. There was no requirement for an employer to justify his actions towards an apprentice so, for four years, I endured workplace harassment, but finally I collected my deeds. Mercifully, the situation has changed, and that change was brought about by this Government, who have taken important steps to protect individuals in the workplace, whatever their status.
Having left the dockyard, I was desperate to remain on the docks and become a foreman. I fancied managing a lot of men—there were still no women—but I was told that advancement was almost impossible because it was a question of dead men's shoes. I was also told, in no uncertain terms, that every man in the docks would have to die before I got the job. Faced with such a daunting prospect, even I had to give up and go to university, which I was told was far more liberal. It was not. I had not been there a day to do my mechanical engineering degree when a lecturer took me aside and asked, "Why is a married woman like you not at home looking after her husband?" So there was no change there.
At university, I was one of the only 5 per cent. of women doing an engineering degree in 1980. I met remarkable women in the science faculties. I want to spend some time talking about the remarkable women in this country who have given the greatest part of their lives to trying to get more women into science, engineering and technology. I certainly would not be the woman I am today without their mentoring support and huge enthusiasm for our world.
Twenty years ago I was introduced to Women into Science and Engineering, which has been mentioned today. WISE is celebrating its 20th year this year. I am proud to say that I was part of the team that launched it in Wales. That team was led by a remarkable scientist, Professor Gillian Powell. Gillian was a small, dark-haired woman. I have been afraid of such women ever since, because she possessed great power and great enthusiasm to get the job done. But that came at a cost—she attained her position only by never marrying and never having a family. She never left the workplace and she died of a work-related illnesses. She worked in biochemistry, with very aggressive, hazardous products, and those products killed her.
1116
Before she died, Gillian launched WISE, and together we did a great deal in Wales on the buses, out there, going to schools, trying to get young girls involved. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) is quite right: in the early days it was about very clever girls. Subsequently, we tried to draw in the mass of young women who are today turning to plumbing courses, plastering courses and all those other skilled work courses where we have a huge, desperate shortage of recruits.
WISE was a great innovation, and it is still going. If hon. Members have not met the WISE team, headed by a magnificent French woman, Marie Noelle-Barton, I ask them to do so now and join in and support its activities, because it needs our help.
Julie Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware that a memorial lecture was given for Professor Gillian Shephard in the south Glamorgan county council, where I was a member, and that her name lived on for many years in the title of that lecture?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to Gillian Powell.
Julie Morgan: My apologies.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Gillian Shephard is a remarkable woman, but I did not think she doubled as a professor of biochemistry in Cardiff, let alone that she was dead. I am delighted to hear about the lecture.
I am not at all surprised, given the generosity of my colleagues in Wales and their ability to recognise the values that women bring to the workplace.
WISE has been supported by another very important organisation, the Women in Engineering Society. What a fantastic group of women that is. It is 78 years old now—not the women, of course, though many members are of that sort of age. The organisation has been there for 78 years to support women and, crucially, to provide mentoring in the workplace. We have talked today about the fact that many women involved in science, engineering and technology careers find it difficult to stay in the workplace when they become parents. In conjunction with employers, WES has launched a scheme that brings those women—many of them with not one, two, but three degrees—back into the workplace after a period of leave that may sometimes be 10 or 15 years. Those women have extraordinary ability, and we lose a huge amount when they are lost indefinitely to the workplace. I commend WES and the excellent work that it has done.
The Government have done a great deal, as I know because I use the services that they provide. They support an organisation called SEAs—Science and Engineering Ambassadors, a group of 1,000 or more people around the country who are prepared to give up their time and go into schools to help with school projects. I hope hon. Members who do not know about SEAs will find out about them. Those people are waiting, enthusiastic and eager to help promote science, engineering and technology.
Another organisation, Set-up, was founded by two women in Cheshire, working hand in hand with SEAs. It was founded by Shirley King and Dr. Violet

1117
Pritchard. Dr. Pritchard was one of the first women in Britain to study medicine. Fifty years ago, women who were good at science subjects did not have the option of studying medicine. They could study veterinary science as that did not involve bodies—it was not considered appropriate for women to mess with bodies. Vi was delighted that she was one of the first women in the country to undertake a medical degree. Shirley was one of the first women to head a technical college in Britain. Both of them founded Set-up well after their retirement in order to address an issue about which they felt passionately—the lack of women in science, engineering and technology.
Careers in science, engineering and technology are remarkably creative, as I said, and extremely important in economic terms. Careers in science, engineering and technology pay more. For women who may find themselves on their own looking after a family, that is immensely important. We have failed to realise the potential of half the people living in this country. Until we do so, we will not reap the economic benefit to which we have a right.
Much has been said about the role of legislation. What the Labour Government have done has been enormously important. I have worked for many, many employers who resisted any change to employment practice in order to retain people like me. I have left employers because they would not adapt their leave policy to accommodate my caring requirements. I have left employers who would not allow me a flexible working day. In this place and outside, I have never worked less than 60 hours a week, but I would like to have worked those 60 hours when it suited my family requirements.
We have not lost anything by introducing legislation. We have freed up more people to go into the workplace. Not one of my employers was prepared to make that concession, not because they did not recognise the value of it, but because if they did and their competitors did not, they might lose competitive advantage. Although we may appeal to them and say, "Look, chaps, this makes huge sense. It's good for you and will help you with your recruitment and retention policy", ultimately they will refuse if it will cause a marketplace differential and add initially to their cost structure.
Legislation has been important in promoting women into work and retaining them in work. However, legislation alone will not tackle the problem of discrimination at its source. How do we encourage young girls from poorer backgrounds to aspire to go to university and undertake professional lives thereafter? We can do that only by providing good pre-school and primary education. If I had to name one step that the Government have taken since 1997 that has done more for women than anything else, it must be the Sure Start programme in deprived areas. It is a fantastic programme. If we do not get education right at pre-school level, what chance will those children ever have of going to university?
In this important debate on this special day, I stand here proud of the achievements that the Government have delivered in a relatively short period. I lived and worked in a world where that legislation did not exist, and it was extremely hard for women who wanted to
1118
participate and work in the environment of science, engineering and technology to do so. I commend to hon. Members the work of all the partnering organisations that are helping us to deliver a better future for women in the United Kingdom.
4.40 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas).
I intend to focus on older women—that is, those who have reached their 50s, pensionable age and beyond. There are still huge gaps in the system for that group, and the Government, among others, must be flexible in addressing their needs and concerns.
I want to flag up two lessons from the past. The first will be familiar to many Members who have dealt with relevant constituency casework: it involves the generation of women who, back in the 1970s, opted to pay the lower rate of national insurance. In the past couple of years, many of them have reached state retirement age, only to discover that they do not have the amount of pension that they anticipated because they elected to take that option. One of the most frustrating aspects of such cases is that when one tries on their behalf to find proof that they did so, it is difficult to find any tangible evidence. One is told by the responsible body—it used to be the Contributions Agency, then it was the Benefits Agency, and now it is the Department for Work and Pensions—that the information is on its records but there is no paper evidence. That shows us that whenever the state, whoever is in government, asks people to make such a choice, there should be a requirement to take a signature and to keep it on the record.
Angela Watkinson: I speak from personal experience, because I was one of those women. I remember having the situation explained to me in great detail, going to the social security office, or whatever it was called at the time, and signing.
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend must be the exception to the rule. In the constituency cases that I have taken up, people are very confused because they cannot quite recall what they did. They may have done the same as my hon. Friend or followed advice that they received in a workplace. When we are dealing with something as important as a person's future income in retirement, there must be a requirement to ensure that their decision is recorded so that if, for example, their Member of Parliament asks for evidence of it, they can at least fax us a signature. We simply have to take their word that that is what they elected to do 20 or 25 years ago.
We need to take much more seriously the whole issue of women's finance, especially pensions. Nowadays, much is done in schools to encourage young people better to understand their personal finances, budgeting, and the workings of the tax and benefits system. However, there is much more to do. It is horrifying that even people whom one would expect to have a good grasp of what they were doing sign up in later life to products such as equity release mortgages—a subject that I have raised in Adjournment debates—only to find that they have signed away their future financial security without realising it.

1119
Cases of women who rely on their husbands' national insurance contributions for their state pension also need to be tackled. Although it is not a generational matter, it is becoming more so. I recently raised with the Minister a case of a constituent who received a pension based on her husband's contributions. However, when her husband retired, the then Benefits Agency wrote to him and not to her. It was not until he died that she had to start making inquiries about her entitlement. Even if her entitlement was due to his contribution, it is rather old-fashioned to regard her in the same way as in the days of goods and chattels. Nobody thought that it would be correct to write to her about her position. That is wrong because we all know of cases of bereavement in which women are suddenly faced with having to sort out their finances, in addition to grief and distress. That is even harder if they are genuinely not aware of their entitlements, based on their husbands' contributions.
We could easily make helpful adjustments for the future based on those two lessons from the past. However, women's working lives, and patterns are different from those of men. The pay gap is closing, although we are not there yet, and there is more equality year after year. None the less, a gap continues to exist and it translates in old age and retirement into one in four pensioners, of whom women form the largest portion, living at the poverty level. We need to take some practical measures to deal with that.
I am appalled that a woman who has paid national insurance contributions for fewer than 10 years is not entitled to the state pension. If one took out a private pension and contributed for only seven or eight years, it would be illegal for the pension provider not to recognise that and pay out, albeit a smaller portion, when the person reached pensionable age. It is wrong that the state adopts a different set of rules. The problem has existed for many years, so it does not apply only to the current Government. A contribution that is small because of so few years' input is likely to be even more important to the person in retirement. It is therefore fair and just that there should be some sort of pay-out to someone who has paid in, regardless of the number of years.
We should also consider the lower earnings limit of £77 a week. We have all received representations on that because of the Pensions Bill. For those who earn low amounts of money for a large portion of their lives—for some people, that means all their working lives—it is even more critical that we use as much flexibility as possible and acknowledge that, when possible, they must be allowed to make some pension input. A woman's working life plan cannot always be defined.
Although I appreciate that my next point, about carers, does not apply exclusively to women and that men, too, play a caring role, older women often take on the caring role for an increasingly older generation of parents and relatives. There is a great difference between caring for older people and looking after children. I speak as someone who has worked since the age of 18 without a gap—when my children were pre-school, I worked only part-time—and I am now 57. There are times when one earns more and others when one can give more time, but although child care is hard and demanding, it is at least possible to plan in some ways. When children are 10, their needs are different from
1120
when they are pre-school, and when they reach the shrugging-shoulders age of 16, they do not want anyone to look after them. At least a parent can plan.
However, people who, in middle age, take on the care of older relatives do not know how long that will last. Those women do not know whether that will take them beyond the state retirement age, so the planning of that care and of their finances is so much more complex and difficult. I was listening to "Woman's Hour" as I was driving in this morning, and a range of women phoned in with contributions. The subject was the many women who, for all sorts of reasons—including many reasons mentioned in today's debate, and including the caring role that some women have taken on in later life—have found themselves having to enter paid employment beyond the state retirement age.
Like many people, I imagine that when I retire from this place—which I hope will not be for a few years yet—I will undertake some other form of paid employment. I hope that that will not be for the 60 or 80-hour week that we work here, but I should be quite happy to go and work for Tesco—or whoever will take the golden oldies then. I want to do that because I want to keep active, and we all have similar personal reasons or plans. However, I would find it quite stressful if I thought that I really had to work well into old age—perhaps into my 70s or even longer—for long hours, and not knowing for how long I would have to continue in work. Many people are now doing that. As was reflected in the "Woman's Hour" contributions today, there is a vast difference between people who take a job in retirement to keep their hand in, to keep their brain active and to give them social contact, and people who, because of lack of pension provision, have to work for more hours than are tolerable given their age and perhaps their state of health.
We need flexibility if we are going to take pre-emptive action to try to help that group of people. I realise that it includes men as well as women, but we are predominantly looking at a population of women with many of those problems in retirement, because women live that much longer. The Pensions Bill is currently going through the House, and I know that the Government have been lobbied on it by the Equal Opportunities Commission, Age Concern, the Fawcett Society and a range of other groups, which have practical recommendations on how to introduce more flexibility, particularly for lower earners and for women with huge gaps in their working lives. I hope that as the Bill goes through and more details are discussed, the Government will be receptive to arguments about those groups of people.
We know from the statistics that have been mentioned this afternoon that women live longer than men. I have to say that I have never been able to understand that. We women work so hard that I cannot imagine why we should live longer than men, but somehow, for some reason, we grit our teeth and do. I see that the hon. Gentlemen around the Chamber are grinning in agreement. In practice, that means that more women face old age for more years alone, and those women need to have more money because they have to provide for themselves for longer, often when they are frail and less able to do so much for themselves.

1121
I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that such women need particular attention. This is not simply a generational problem that will go away. We cannot just assume that because women have depended on their husbands' pensions in the past, that will happen again. We are now seeing a generation of women in middle and older age who are increasingly having to take on a caring role at the end of their lives. Very often, such women find that as soon as the kids are off their hands, the golden oldies start to need them, and sometimes there is not even a gap in between. It is quite worrying to think that the ability of those women to plan their finances, and to plan for their financial security, is much less favourable than that of many men.
4.53 pm
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Just five years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and I approached the then Home Secretary to ask him whether he would have a problem if we had a debate on forced marriages in our Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities. He answered that he would not have a problem with that, but that we would—and he spoke a very true word. However, we had that Adjournment debate, which was excellent, and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) led for her party. That was the first time that the question of forced marriages in our Asian communities had been raised in this House. From then on, I have been working assiduously with various Government Departments and, more particularly, with my young Asian women. I say "Asian", but I mean Pakistani and Bangladeshi; the Indian community does not seem to get too involved in this sort of thing.
I was extremely impressed by the response to the Adjournment debate by the then Minister of State at the Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). I had expected a very bland assurance that the Department would do what it could, but that the matter was very sensitive. I did not think that we would get anything. However, it was not like that at all. The Minister made promises about doing all sorts of things, and very shortly afterwards, during that summer, a working group was set up under the joint chairmanship of Baroness Pola Uddin of Bethnal Green and Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham. The working group went all round the country, and it came up to Bradford and talked to women who had been subjected to forced marriages. As a result, it came up with various action plans, and the Government came forward with various initiatives.
I am proud to say that one of the initiatives that was handed down to West Yorkshire police was designed to help women in these tragic circumstances. Inspector Martin Baines was the chief man; he led the way. A certain Phillip Balmforth, who is a knight in shining armour, is the man who goes in when a woman is under threat and gets her out of that very frightening situation. It is sometimes a frightening situation for him as well.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office eventually set up the community liaison unit, which now has a helpline headed by a couple of very good women. They are very well informed on these issues, and are helping the Government to formulate policy all the time. I
1122
should like, therefore, to pay tribute to Heather Harvey and Fozia Hussein, who have also been very helpful to me.
The Home Office has subsequently introduced the domestic violence concession. Hon. Members on the Labour Benches will know precisely what I am talking about here; I am not sure about those on the Opposition Benches. The concession means that a woman who has been thrown out of her home or physically abused by her husband or her in-laws before she has been granted indefinite leave to remain can apply to get that leave to remain. She is then able to get money and go into a refuge, although that is not a perfect solution. I have had six successes using the domestic violence concession. Those of us who deal with these situations have to be a bit careful because we do not want the concession to be abused in any way. I have had one or two cases in which women have tried to abuse it, by telling me less than the truth. However, I got to the bottom of those cases and refused to use the concession.
Despite the fact that the Government have done all that they can to prevent this dreadful abuse of the human rights of these young women, the abuse continues in all sorts of ways. At the moment, I am dealing with at least one case of forced marriage each week. We have achieved a measure of success, however, as have my colleagues in Bradford, but the problem still exists in most northern towns and cities. We are working hard to tackle it, but at the end of the day, it is up to the communities themselves to stop these practices, either through the mosques or through the secular groups in the community centres. They ought to be working hard to persuade parents that this is not the way to behave towards their daughters—it is nearly always daughters who are at the sharp end of a forced marriage.
I have already made one or two suggestions to the Ministers involved, but I think that I have time to go through them briefly again here. They are proposals that might allow the Government to help matters, although, as I have said, it must ultimately be the communities that advise parents against acting in such an un-Islamic way as to force their daughters to marry.
We could increase the lower age limit of 18 to 21, for the purpose of acting as a sponsor for a spouse from outside the EU, and introduce a lower age limit of 21—no age limit exists at present—for applicants for entry clearance for permanent settlement as spouse. In both cases, were we able to delay until 21 the age at which women were being forced to marry and act as a sponsor, they would have a much better chance of taking on their parents, arguing against them and succeeding in getting their own way and having some say in their choice of spouse. Many of them would be happy to go along not with a forced marriage but with an arranged marriage—they simply want to do it in their own time, possibly when they have done A-levels or even a university degree.
If I had a choice, I would introduce a requirement for citizenship for anyone wishing to act as a sponsor for a spouse from outside the EU. The reason for that is that I, and other Members representing northern cities and towns, are encountering an increasing number of problems whereby a young woman has gone along with her family, has done her best, arid has brought in her husband; and her husband says, two years down the line, at the end of the probationary period, "Thanks for

1123
that, I'm going. I didn't really want to marry you in the first place, I just wanted my indefinite leave to remain." The day he gets his indefinite leave to remain, he is off.
I have many angry young women in my constituency who hate this situation. They feel that they have been used, and their parents are also angry. If citizenship were required before people could act as a sponsor, those young men—it is nearly always young men—would have to be here for five years before they were able to act as a sponsor for another wife to come in. Consequently, they would be a little more circumspect about kidding a girl that they really wanted to marry her, and after two years leaving her and bringing in another woman from Pakistan or Bangladesh.
If I had my way, I would also introduce a new criminal offence related specifically to aiding and abetting and/or coercing someone into a forced marriage. We have existing remedies in criminal law in relation to forcing a person to marry, such as bringing charges of abduction, false imprisonment, assault or rape. That does not seem to be working terribly well, however, and forced marriages are continuing apace. Sadly, we are getting not a high number but perhaps eight to 10 cases a year of honour killings, which are nearly always associated with a forced marriage. Were we to introduce a criminal offence of aiding and abetting a forced marriage, it might alert parents to the fact that they are committing a criminal offence—they are doing so already, but because it is not written out in those terms, they do not seem to recognise it. By doing so, we would be slapping them across the face with it or spraying it on their eyeballs—whichever expression one wants to use. It would really help if we were to go along that path.
I have been asked to keep my speech to 10 minutes, so I shall wind up quickly. The silver lining is that many of the young women in my constituency are now going on to do A-levels and go to university. Mums and dads do not like them to go far away, so they are doing degrees at Huddersfield, Leeds or Bradford, but that really is a step in the right direction. An increasing number are doing that every year, but unfortunately, there are still the backwoodspeople who are forcing their daughters to do other than they would wish.
I shall tell the House one story —I do not want to speak much longer. I met the other day a young lady whom I had helped to resist all her family's pressures to bring in a husband whom she never wanted to marry in the first place. We managed to get his visa stopped. She came to tell me that the visa had been stopped, and that her mum and dad had said to her. "You're behind this, aren't you?" She said, "Yes, so what?" That was wonderful, and a real step in the right direction. I have never had a young Asian woman tell me before that she had faced her parents and told them that she was behind such a refusal.
5.4 pm
Ms Dari Taylor: I take great pleasure in celebrating women's lives, and that definitely applies to today's debate. I also take great pleasure in the fact that my party has done so much in government to challenge all the factors that hinder the achievement of equality. I shall not mention them, as I have not the time, but my sisters on the Labour Benches have done so quite adequately.
1124
There is still a strong cultural assumption that family responsibilities should continue to fall on women. That is exacerbated by employers' resistance to the idea of measures that would persuade women, and men, to accept their family responsibilities but also to use their talents in employment. One such measure is the introduction of flexible hours. Last year the 100 best companies outlined their employment policies. I think when they do so again this year their policies will include flexibility, engaging with family responsibilities, and giving women as well as men an opportunity to use their talents. I wish that other employers would follow their lead.
The cultural assumptions that still persist, although they are weakening, tend to turn on the almost universal expectation that women will undertake most unpaid child care, and the belief that men's work is more important than women's. Such assumptions may stem from poverty of aspiration, or indeed from financial poverty. Women may be desperate to keep their families going on whatever is available.
We do, however, see the weakening of those assumptions. Mothers now work in 55 per cent. of families with children under the age of five. Shift patterns are beginning to develop in family life: family and work responsibilities are being combined. In dual-earner families, fathers undertake a third of parental care, and increasingly they are becoming the "second main carers" for their children: they tend not to opt for professional care. That shows that men and women want to do things together in the family, and to share both family responsibilities and work opportunities.
I am delighted that the Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber. I suggest to her that flexible working patterns should be at the core of the next tranche of reforms relating to women and the achievement of equality. We must bear in mind the choices and opportunities that they can provide, along with the possibility of maximising family income. In 96 per cent. of cases, men are prepared to be present for the birth of their children. They are there for their children; they do not want not to be there. We must capture that, and utilise it. It is a baseline for equality. It tells us that men, like women, want to be involved in both family and work.
Last but not least in what is an inordinate gallop, let me say how much I enjoyed my last visit to India. My sister for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) spoke with passion and clarity about the value of meeting other women throughout the world. I should like to persuade the Indian Government to do what the Labour party has done in this country, and to accept that we must provide special mechanisms if we are to convince women that politics and politicians are taking them seriously, and that politics is where they could and should be. I think that women do politics differently. I say that unashamedly. I am not putting the men down; I simply think we are different. We do not play games, and we are most definitely determined to achieve in the realm of politics.
Having met ordinary women who are members of SEWA, the Self-Employed Women's Association, I can say that women from semi-literate or illiterate rural communities have achieved so much despite having so little. Their tenacity, their guts, their determination to do better for their children, their sense of location with

1125
their communities all show that women can deliver. Women are delivering. I recommend that the House never underestimate that fact and that we should encourage—in whatever way, with whatever mechanisms we can—the greater involvement of women in our political life.
5.10 pm
Laura Moffatt: It is a pleasure to follow my sister who was our leader in India and did a fantastic job. She is absolutely right that we did differently as women. My hon. Friend shared the responsibility of having the leadership role on that trip. It really showed how we could work together as sisters. It was a truly fantastic experience, which I shall never forget.
I proudly possess at home a badge that says, "Labour women make policy and not tea". I love that badge, because it reminds me daily of the driver that got me into the House. On Saturday, however, I will be making tea with the Crawley Labour women's forum in the town centre for all the shoppers. We are doing it to promote the whole issue of free trade and to ensure that Fairtrade is made prominent. That group of women understands that securing more Fairtrade products in the UK will improve the lives of women around the world. That is why we have linked the two celebrations of Fairtrade and international women's day. We understand how important it is to improve the lives of women all over the world. Day by day, we are increasingly achieving that.
Work remains to be done at home—the Government have made enormous strides—particularly on low pay. It is easy to say that we have improved the position by only 1 per cent. in a couple of years, but it was a hard-won 1 per cent., because it is extremely difficult to overcome all the social and cultural problems that reinforce prejudice. I pay tribute not only to the Government, but to the trade union movement, which is doing so much to help women. For example, Unison has helped health workers throughout the NHS. It has helped people with responsible jobs who are proud to be Unison members right down to cleaners who also contribute to the well-being of our hospitals.
I should like to recount one story that affected me deeply. It is about a woman in my local hospital who, sadly, was attacked in the basement of the hospital while doing her job. The person who attacked her was unwell and had managed to get away from the accident and emergency unit. He knocked her to the ground and it was later discovered that he fractured her cheekbone. That woman was one of the lowest-paid workers, but the way in which she was treated was the important thing for her. She wanted to feel valued.
In fact, the trust's response was very good. She was counselled through her difficulties and given extra support. She was allowed to carry an alarm when she eventually returned to work. However, the police response was not good: it did not value her. The police eventually rang her to say that, because the boy who attacked her came from a good home, they had decided only to caution him. She asked the question, "What sort of home do I come from?" She had worked hard and
1126
done the job that she was employed to do. I am pleased to say that we have managed to get the case reopened, which has given the woman a further sense of value and worth. I cannot resist leaving the House with the passing comment that I doubt whether the response would have been the same if a male doctor had been attacked.
Plenty of important work is going on. It was disappointing, however, to hear an hon. Member argue in the House that women were all offered the same opportunities and that the careers service could go into a school and tell all the young women that they could be astronauts, so what was the problem? Of course, there is a huge problem. If we do not value women and work with them when they are young girls and begin to have career aspirations, they will not consider themselves able to do jobs throughout our community and society.
That is why we need to be afraid of the attacks being mounted against Sure Start and the new deal for lone parents. It is no good just to talk the talk; we have to be able to put money into services and support women. Women who have taken advantage of the Sure Start services have been empowered and now have aspirations for their baby daughters. They know that that service has made them feel better about themselves and their children.
Lone parents at the further education college in my constituency get their children looked after. They are able to do the things that they always wanted to do. Careers officers used to suggest things like nursing as suitable careers, but young women now are being enabled to get the education that they need for other jobs. It is incredibly important that we safeguard the services that help women, and that we ensure that women have the power to do all the things that we know that they can do.
We must also help women to reach out to other women around the world. The beauty of our trip to India was that we had that sense of sisterhood. Whether we were with Sheila Dixshit, who runs Delhi, or two women working to improve conditions in a slum, we shared that lovely sisterhood. Today's debate is a celebration of that. I congratulate the Government on making sure that we come back every year to celebrate us as women. I hope that we will continue to do so always.
5.17 pm
Vera Baird: I am delighted to follow my sister and hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), who made a dynamic speech. When I picked up the parliamentary Labour party briefing for this debate—which I am sure it is de rigueur not to mention in this Chamber—I was shocked to see how long it was. It details what Labour has done for women since 1997, and I do not jest when I say that my printer ran out of ink as I tried to download it. It was so heavy that I could not carry it, so I have not brought it with me today. I sat down to read it last night, but the task was so substantial that I considered being sponsored for charity. That would have let me hope that I could finish it in time.
Seriously, however, there is not an aspect of women's lives that has not been improved immeasurably by this Government's policies. In that context, it was simply inspirational to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister

1127
for Women and Equality assert again today her commitment to do yet more. I have little time, so I will not dwell on how that contrasts with the miserable 20 years that women tolerated under the previous Conservative Government. I shall use the example of domestic violence, which is an issue close to my heart. This Government are introducing a Bill on a matter that was last the subject of legislation when Jo Richardson did the same more than 20 years ago—before the Tories came to power.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is not in her place at the moment, although I know that she will soon return. It is a tribute to her that she should have raised—albeit somewhat tangentially—the issue of domestic violence at the last-but-one Conservative party conference in 2002. The House will deduce that I am an avid reader of the Conservative party website, but the hon. Lady made the point that that was the first time that domestic violence had ever been raised at the Tory party conference.
I was going to talk about the proposed commission for equality and human rights, and say that I welcome it but want more. However, I shall abandon my legal lecture to echo the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) that a public sector duty to promote gender equality be established in the near future.
The work of Fawcett has been much praised already. For the past year, I have had the privilege of chairing its commission on women and criminal justice. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) is a commissioner, as is the Liberal Democrat leader in the other place, Lord Dholakia. Our final report will come out in about a month. In it, we shall make it clear that there is systemic sex discrimination in the criminal justice system.
The system is made up of many sectors. The Crown Prosecution Service—I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for that usage: in future, I shall call it the public prosecution service—is quite good for women. The judiciary and the prisons sector are not so good. We conclude that the criminal justice system, where almost all the multiple sources of input are public sector, has gender discrimination steeped within it. That will have to be tackled. It is argued that it will be tackled across such multiple sources of input only if there is a public sector duty to tackle it.
When I was reading my way laboriously through the long PLP briefing on how women have benefited from the Labour party, I was so wearied by the long read that when I came across a section that I now see is clearly headed "Diversity in the boardroom", I misread it as "Diversity in the bedroom". However, I want to talk briefly now about diversity in the snooker room—in other words, how strongly I will support the Sex Discrimination (Clubs and Other Private Associations) Bill, which is to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright).
At the cost, I dare say, of a few Redcar male votes and perhaps not being bought a drink on Saturday night in the Eston and California club, I shall tell a brief story about the snooker room. It is not right that women cannot go into the snooker room there; what we cannot do is play snooker. I asked why and expected to hear
1128
that women were such idiots that they would smash the baize with the cue, but no, no, it is much more complicated than that. If a woman leans across to do a long shot and her skirt comes up, somebody looks at her legs and her boyfriend hits him, there will be a fight and it will be the woman who has caused it by playing snooker. I do not know how long it took the club committee to dream up that excuse to avoid being pasted by good women snooker players, but truly I almost resolved to go to snooker classes. Then I calmed down. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford on his intention to introduce a Bill to put an end to this stupidity once and for all. Truly the Eston and Cali club is a pleasant place. It looks after its members and pensioners, male and female, extraordinarily well, but it is at the price of women having to acknowledge their second-class status. I think that the Government intend to support the Bill and I welcome that.
Finally on the occasion of this momentous day for women which we celebrate as women Members of Parliament, I shall briefly mention earlier women who had to contend with much more than being excluded from a game of snooker and who fought, argued and, in at least one case, died so that we could have our equal rights and, of particular resonance to us, the right to vote. There is a current issue about Sylvia Pankhurst. She was a socialist feminist who, during the campaign for women's suffrage at the turn of the century, not only braved the horrors of hunger striking and forced feeding, but founded and built a remarkable women's organisation in the east end of London. The group, the East London Federation of Suffragettes, was composed of working-class women. The suffragette movement was almost exclusively middle class apart from this. They campaigned for the vote and for social change until 1920, sticking with it long after the Women's Social and Political Union run by Sylvia's mother Emmeline and her sister Christabel had pulled out of the fight.
There is much more to be said about Sylvia Pankhurst—not least, harking back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) said, that she went to live in Ethiopia. She worked hard there and championed Ethiopia when it was conquered by fascist Italy. She was invited to live there and when she died she was given a state funeral. I had the privilege of visiting her grave twice last year and the year before when I went to Ethiopia to talk to the judiciary about how to deal with domestic violence—the Ethiopian judiciary know a lot more than the Conservative party about that—and then to talk to the police about domestic violence. What wonderful women I met there, and how they all remember what Sylvia Pankhurst did for them.
Returning home, I believe that Sylvia's strategy, based as it was on an alliance between class and gender, did far more to win the vote for all women than the more elitist and, ultimately, probably diversionary politics of her mother and sister. It is thus richly ironic that the British state has chosen to honour Emmeline and Christabel for their contribution to women's suffrage with a statue to the former and a plaque to the latter outside Parliament while completely ignoring Sylvia's role. She would not especially have liked such a memorial but, as a symbol of the unsung heroism of thousands of working-class women who fought for the

1129
franchise and for socialism, some kind of recognition in the form of a statue is long overdue and would at long last help to correct the historical record.
I alert women to the position of the campaign for a statue of Sylvia Pankhurst on College green. Westminster city council has given planning permission for that wonderful statue, and Members may know that the Accommodation and Works Committee of the House of Commons, which has some responsibility in such matters, has agreed. However, the Administration and Works Committee of the House of Lords has turned down the proposal, saying that if a statue were to be put in such a key position there would have to be a competition. However, the site has been empty for a long time and no one has applied. The Committee also claimed that the statue does not have artistic stature, yet its members have never seen the statue.
Apparently, the decision falls to the House of Commons Commission. What better tribute could there be than for our debate to galvanise the Commission into allowing that long overdue memorial to be raised? I hope that all Members will do everything that they can to press and lobby the Commission to ensure that the campaign comes to a successful conclusion. I venture to say to my sisters that if history has to repeat itself and we are obliged to chain ourselves to railings, I hope they will all be there.
5.26 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: In winding up this excellent debate, I preface my remarks by congratulating everyone who made a contribution, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who is not in the Chamber at present. Owing to the brevity of the contributions during the past hour or so, we have started the winding-up speeches slightly earlier than anticipated, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will soon join us. As old protagonists in the Chamber realise, we hold this debate on women's issues annually. Sadly, such debates are inevitable while the inequalities at home and abroad—many of which have been highlighted today—continue to exist.
The Minister for Women and Equality, who opened the debate, talked in a slightly smug fashion about the late Member for Kensington and Chelsea in a way that was not worthy of the remainder of her contribution. I knew Alan Clark as a colleague; he was always thoroughly charming to me and to all my colleagues—[Interruption.] The Solicitor-General says that Alan Clark was never a woman—that is indeed the one thing of which we could never accuse him.
The Minister told us a harrowing tale about a Sierra Leonean woman. There was consensus, reflected by the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), on the victims of conflict and the horrors of war. In her remarks on Iraq, the Minister reminded the House of the disproportionate effects of war on women and children.
The Minister spoke of the positive effects of migration, which are undeniable. However, I felt that she did not emphasise strongly enough the fact that
1130
when we recruit skilled workers from other parts of the world we often deprive their systems of valuable workers, such as nurses. When I talked to Members of the New Zealand Parliament, they reminded me that they pay for the education and training of their nurses and doctors but, sadly, cannot meet the salaries that we offer in the UK, so they lose many of their skilled people abroad. I know that the Minister is aware of that problem, so I hope that she will reflect on it and try to find a way in which we can achieve a better balance.
I share the Minister's views on honour killing and the mutilation of women. I share, too, her views on job segregation and pay levels. I am particularly keen to see women in science and engineering and I shall refer later to the speech by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). I look forward to receiving the results of the review to which the Minister referred.
I look forward to hearing more details about the commission. It will be an exciting step forward, and I hope that when the Minister for Industry and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), concludes the debate she can give us some more information. We look forward to the development of the commission as time passes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden eloquently outlined the problems presented by the pay gap, and it seems extraordinary to me—and I am sure to all hon. Members in the Chamber—that in this country in 2004, despite the strides that we have made in so many areas over the past century, people of equal ability are rewarded with effectively unequal pay. Perhaps we should send copies of this debate to all City institutions to put pressure on companies to address the pay gap as a priority. My hon. Friend has managed to achieve headlines in the Evening Standard on the subject this evening, which I am sure that the Minister will agree is a commendable piece of publicity on behalf of women. I hope that those City institutions will read what she says in the Evening Standard.
My hon. Friend went on to cover the cases of women employed in less-skilled areas of work who, by anyone's terms of reference, are often exploited, not least because they juggle family responsibilities and the need to bring an income into the household. The points that she made on pensions were telling, and I shall refer to them when I consider the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) kicked off the debate. and her speech about people with learning disabilities and the sensitive issues of sexual abuse and rape was very good. As a former social worker, she obviously brings her skill and experience to the debate, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and I are leading for the Opposition on the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, we will certainly undertake to examine her suggestions, as I hope will others involved with the Bill such as the Attorney-General.
The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) made a general speech covering areas such as education, domestic violence and trafficking, but I was a little surprised—as were Government Front Benchers—to find that she is not entirely in agreement with the rest of her party. I hope that she finds consensus with her

1131
party's policies soon. We look forward to hearing her develop her own independent theories, because it is so rewarding when the Liberals are independently minded.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) focused on women in Wales, which is the land of my birth. There is 50:50 gender representation in the Welsh Assembly, and she asked who will commit to 30 per cent. of Members in Westminster being women. I will refer to that point later, because it is a good, international target that is recognised by many women around the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uprninster (Angela Watkinson) gave us a balanced, realistic view of equality in unemployment, family life and sex education. I hope that her headmistress, who suggested that she become a teacher or a nurse, can see her now. Her experience informs her work in her role as a school governor, and I am sure that she will ensure that no female children in our modern, updated education system get the same advice that she got.
The hon. Member for Crosby struck a chord with me. When I first entered the House, I was a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology for three years and as a result of what I learned I am as enthusiastic as her about WISE. I thought that her speech was a long and formidable advert for science and engineering and, if she will forgive the pun, she is a "WISE" woman. My family is doing its bit for WISE: I am proud to report that my step-granddaughter, Diana Leeming, has got her first real job as a research scientist in Denmark after spending many years at university working on a PhD. She started her job yesterday, and there were great celebrations in my house—at least one member of my family is a woman going into science and engineering.
I entered the House at the same time as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, and we are veterans of these debates. Her well-informed contribution on older women and women's finance and pensions will be welcome on both sides of the House. She used practical examples of cases that she is dealing with, and she admirably raised the problem of women's pensions poverty in the UK today
There is an awful lot of agreement in the House on these issues, and I must pay tribute to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who has done tremendous work on forced marriages. I remember debating the issue from the Dispatch Box, and she has been a tireless champion. I do not think that any of us, men or women, have the entire answer to that terrible problem. I see it in my constituency and she sees it in her constituency. I welcome her practical suggestions and I hope that there is some chance of a positive response. Perhaps an amendment could be tabled to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, because forced marriage is domestic violence against women. We would be willing to consider an amendment that could make a difference to the environment in which those women live.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) brought to her contribution the energy that she brings to her singing. I was very pleased to hear from her, as I was to hear from the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), who will be out making coffee. I am tempted to come along, but I will be running a surgery in my constituency that morning. The issue of fair trade is very
1132
important, because women are disproportionately affected by some of the decisions taken on trade—as we all know. She obviously enjoyed her visit to India.
The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and I are working on the same commission, as she acknowledged. I was sorry that she chose to take so many side-swipes at the Conservative party, because we are no less passionate about the equality of women and I assure her that when we are sitting on the Government Benches with a larger number of MPs, we too will increase the number of women in the House. I was interested in her fight over the statue; it was the first time that I had heard of the problem. I cannot speak for my hon. Friends, but I can speak for myself and I agree that it is about time that Sylvia Pankhurst was recognised. It is appalling that we have hit the buffers on the issue, so if there is any cross-party action that I can take with my sisters—I cannot believe that I said that—on the other side of the House, I am willing to join in, in the spirit of us against the rest of them.
Helen Jackson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Gillan: No, I do not have enough time.
It will be 10 years ago next year since one of the first things that I did as a newly promoted Minister in the Department for Education and Employment was to travel to Beijing on behalf of the Government to sign up to the platform for action. It was the occasion of the fourth UN world conference on women and marked a turning point in the commitments that Governments made to make progress across a broad range of issues affecting women throughout the world. We believed that the conference was so significant that we sent three Ministers to represent the UK—myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, and Baroness Chalker, whom you know well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from her days in this House. The declaration and the platform for action stated that
"the human rights of women are an inalienable, integral and indivisible part of universal rights".
Nine years on, that is still relevant but is as yet uncompleted and there remains much to do.
Governments and the United Nations still need to prioritise women's full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and ensure that strategies are in place not only to prevent gender-based discrimination and violence, but to provide protection and to investigate and punish human rights abuses against women. Governments and the UN still need to ensure that countries ensure the protection and promotion of human rights and take effective action whether the abuse of such rights is carried out by a private person or a state official. We have made progress in the UK, but I hope that our contributions from this Parliament will continue to promote closure on the aims of the platform for action internationally.
On the international front, Amnesty International, whose work we all respect, will launch a global campaign tomorrow entitled, "Stop The Violence Against Women", and we can support that campaign from the House, irrespective of our position or our politics. In its briefing, it reminds us of Kofi Annan's words in 1999 to mark the last international women's day of the last century.

1133
"Violence against women is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation, and it is perhaps the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equality, development, and peace."
Amnesty International also reminds us of some of the horrifying statistics on violence against women, and it takes my breath away to recount them. At least one in three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. The Russian Government estimate that 14,000 women were killed by their partners or relatives in 1999 alone. The World Heath Organisation reported that up to 70 per cent. of female murder victims were killed by their male partners. I hope that we will all support Amnesty International's campaign.
We think that we must be doing better in the UK, but since the beginning of our debate, police forces throughout the country will have taken in excess of 240 calls about domestic violence, because every minute of the day a domestic violence incident is reported to the police somewhere in the UK. Approximately 240 women—it is mostly women on the receiving end—will have been assaulted or put in fear to such an extent that they or a concerned neighbour will have called the police. In fact, 25 per cent. of all recorded violent crime in England and Wales is accounted for by domestic violence, and on average two women a week are killed by their husband, boyfriend or ex-boyfriend.
We have a long way to go, but I hope that the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, which will shortly come before this House, will give us all the opportunity to improve the protections and safeguards available to women. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and I look forward to working with the Government on taking the agenda forward positively. It will give me great personal satisfaction, even from the relatively impotent position of opposition, to help to fulfil one of the commitments that we made at Beijing: to develop a comprehensive national strategy to eliminate violence against women in all its forms. The Bill is one more step along the road.
As a society, we should acknowledge the pervasiveness of violence against women and confront the attitudes and discrimination that give rise to it and marginalise it. As politicians, our challenge is to ensure that the Government have well resourced strategies in place both at home and abroad, through our foreign and development policy.
I want to mention briefly the situation of another group of women. which has not been mentioned today, yet is extremely important: women in prison. The women's prison population has more than doubled over the past 10 years, and as the Government are increasing the capacity of the system it is clear that they expect more women to be sent to prison. However, of the women sent to prison, more than 70 per cent. have never been in custody before and almost half have been abused. More than 40 per cent. self-harm or attempt suicide, and more than 60 per cent. have children. Imprisonment has a disruptive affect on family units irrespective of sex, but when a woman with family responsibilities goes to prison it has a disproportionate effect. Inevitably, in many cases their children go into
1134
care, and in more than 85 per cent. of cases it will be the first time that the children have been separated from their mother. On release, the women do not automatically repair their family unit. Many women who lived with their children prior to imprisonment do not expect to have their children returned on their release.
The cycle of deprivation is almost inevitable, with girls again disproportionately affected. The London school of economics research centre for the analysis of social exclusion has shown that girls who had been in care or been fostered were especially likely to have extra-marital births, to have had three or more live-in partners, to become teenage mothers, and to experience several other negative adult outcomes—homelessness, lack of qualifications and low household income. Boys seem to be less vulnerable to the negative consequences of care and fostering than girls. That gender difference in the effect of care as an antecedent to social exclusion is dramatic. A third of women prisoners currently lose their home while they are in prison and typically the loss of home also results in the loss of possessions, which are often just thrown away.
The Prison Reform Trust has done some tremendous research on women's imprisonment, and it shows how so many of the problems facing prisoners on release are almost insoluble in the current climate. That issue must be examined carefully so that we prevent not only a conveyor belt to crime, but a revolving door of exclusion through inadequate responses to women's needs. I hope that the Minister can comment briefly on the Government's attitude to women offenders, and especially on the dramatic rise in the number of women who are being incarcerated in the UK.
The debate has once again raised the complex issues surrounding the situation of women in all areas of the world and all walks of life. I am delighted that the Government continue to follow the precedent that we set when in government of calling a debate in Government time, but I will finish on the same note as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden. My greatest regret is that in 2004, we are still fighting for equality and human rights for women, wherever they are. I want to play my part in helping to make these debates redundant by reaching a stage at which there are no longer injustices or inequalities. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how she and I can contribute to that goal together.
5.44 pm
The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui Smith): I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) about the high quality of the debate. I thank everyone for their thoughtful contributions. I also thank the many organisations that are working with women throughout the United Kingdom and internationally, especially the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Women's National Commission. Similarly, I thank my officials in the women and equality unit and the many women throughout our constituencies who are caring for their children and older relatives and keeping our schools and hospitals running, as volunteers or paid employees, breaking down barriers at work and forming the backbone of many of our voluntary organisations.

1135
The debate gives us the chance to remember the ongoing struggle of women throughout the world for basic human rights: the right to vote, the right to have personal freedom and safety to play their role in public life and the right to better education, pay and working conditions.
In its international element, the debate reminds us of the interests that we share throughout the world. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women outlined vividly the challenges and responsibilities that we face: to update John Donne for the day, no man or woman is an island. We share responsibilities for fellow women throughout the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) rightly said that as the global economy and trade brings opportunities to us in the UK, so it brings a responsibility to ensure that those benefits are not gained at the expense of others, particularly poorer women elsewhere in the world. As democratically elected politicians, we share a responsibility to ensure that women throughout the world benefit from political representation and have political voices. As we demand and implement action to tackle rape and domestic violence in the UK, we must also challenge violence against women throughout the world.
The original international women's day slogan—bread and roses—symbolises the demands for economic security and a better quality of life. Those aspirations still form the basis of our actions today. I am pleased to say that we have come a long way since then thanks to the determination and courage of women in the past. Women in the UK have had the vote for almost 80 years, although I have to say that I agree with everything that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said about Sylvia Pankhurst.
We need to do more to ensure that women's voices are heard at all levels of public life. As more and more girls throughout the world are going to school and gaining qualifications, we need to ensure that they are able to use their qualifications to get the reward that they deserve from the work that they go into. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), using her experience, identified the important task of breaking down occupational segregation in science and engineering. I congratulate her on her contribution to Women in Science and Engineering. I am pleased that it is celebrating its 20th birthday this year. In the UK, the number of girls graduating in male-dominated subjects such as science, engineering and technology has increased by more than half. However, we need to do more to ensure that that expertise builds our engineering and manufacturing.
I am fortunate to be Deputy Minister for Women and Equality and Minister for Industry and the Regions; with responsibility for manufacturing. Some people ask, "What are the links between those two parts of your job?" When I go to manufacturing companies, their representatives tell me, understandably, that they are concerned to ensure that they get the best people with the highest level of skills. I look around and find that there are hardly any female faces I think that the link between the two parts of my job is obvious.
The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) talked about the choices that women might want to make. She said several times that women have
1136
children and that that influences their choices. Yes, it does, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) rightly said, fathers want increasingly and rightly to take their place in caring for their children. Nowadays, women have more opportunities to work, and fathers play a greater role at home. However, the challenge is to ensure that they have genuine choices about whether to work or stay at home, and to support them in balancing work and family life. Those choices did not come about by accident—the Government acted to support workers who requested the right to work flexibly and gave extra support, including financial support, to families and children.
It was welcome that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) concentrated on equal pay. She is right about the challenge in the financial services sector, which is why we support the initiative by the Equal Opportunities Commission. She was also right about social care. Having had ministerial responsibility for social care, I am aware of the investment that the Government are making in training, the changes that the General Social Care Council are making to the status of such workers and the overall investment that is being made in personal social services, which will feed through to achieve the pay that women deserve. Under the plans of the shadow Chancellor, cuts would of course be implemented. The hon. Lady made an important point about information, particularly for low-paid women seeking equal pay. Given the need for more information, we have introduced an equal pay questionnaire, and I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar in her advice that low-paid women would do well to join a union. Thanks to the Government, they can join a union that is recognised in the workplace.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Meriden and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) spoke about pensions and older women. Many of the poorest and most vulnerable pensioners in our society are women, which is why the Government have introduced a range of policies that benefit women directly, including the state second pension, stakeholder pensions and the pension credit, all of which aim to ensure that women who lose out because of caring responsibilities or lower levels of pay or pensioner income are supported. Without descending into party political point scoring, we should be in no doubt that given the Conservatives' determination to cut public spending, their proposals for an earnings link could be achieved only by cutting support for the poorest pensioners, which would result in a redistribution of resources from the poorest women pensioners. Another important issue for older women is access to cheap public transport, and the ability to get around independently. I hope that the hon. Member for Meriden will urge her Conservative colleagues in Redditch borough council, including their prospective parliamentary candidate, to rescind their decision to cut free bus transport for older people, including women.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) ably identified the need to ensure that women with learning disabilities have adequate protection and to enable them to make their own decisions wherever possible. She acknowledged that progress had been made in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and her reasoned

1137
arguments for changes to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill will doubtless receive a further hearing.
The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) commented on the importance of ensuring that girls and women are offered opportunities in science and can progress in such work. Like other hon. Members, she rightly highlighted the issue of domestic violence, and called for more equal pay audits. As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) pointed out, that may not be in line with Liberal Democrat policy. I, too, was surprised, because I understood that the Liberal Democrat manifesto had already been written and e-mailed around the Welsh Assembly. In the spirit of sisterhood, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) could help the hon. Member for Romsey out with her party's plans.
The hon. Member for Romsey made some important observations about post-conflict situations, particularly the need for both political and economic development to safeguard the position of women. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women acknowledged, there are considerable problems, but there has also been considerable progress. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her commitment and action in ensuring that this matter is kept at the front of our minds for Government action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North very ably outlined the difference that women have made in public life from India to Wales. She rightly pointed out the situation in Wales. We should congratulate the Welsh Assembly on the fact that 50 per cent. of its Members are women. In Wales the Government changed the law to enable action to support women getting into the Assembly. The Labour party there— and now in the United Kingdom as a whole—has made use of it, and we have seen the difference that that has made.
I strongly endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham about the considerable efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer)—and, I must say, her considerable bravery—in tackling the issue of forced marriages. My hon. Friend made an informed and considered, but also impassioned, contribution on the subject. As I think she recognised, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in particular now has considerable resources devoted to the issue, as well as a unit devoted to it, which I know has already produced guidance for police forces and social services. I have no doubt that it will listen to my hon. Friend's concerns, expressed in a measured way, with a view to improving the situation even further.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar pushed again on the issue of the public duty for gender equality. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women made clear our commitment to and support for that public duty. I also assure my hon. and learned Friend that we shall support the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright). I look forward to her playing snooker in the very near future.
One of the ways to guarantee the progress demanded by hon. Members today is to ensure that there is a strong institutional framework to tackle discrimination and
1138
promote equality. It was to ensure this that we carried out the first review of our equality institutions for 25 years, and, last October, announced the creation of a Commission for Equality and Human Rights. It will champion equality and human rights, give better support and advice to individuals, businesses and public authorities and crack down on discrimination.
A single body will have a stronger impact, and, in its ability to work across strands, will fit better with how we see ourselves and what factors lead to disadvantage. People do not see themselves as categories, but we know that a woman from a particular ethnic or religious background may face different challenges in getting a fair deal from those faced by a disabled woman.
We are not only drawing together the existing equality commissions along with the new equality legislation, but are adding the promotion of human rights to the mix. In fact, we are putting human rights at the heart of the new politics of equality.
We brought home the rights in the European convention on human rights in the Human Rights Act 1998. What really interests me about human rights legislation is the practical difference it makes to the lives of ordinary people. The Act enables us to tackle issues that are mainstream not marginal. For example, how should our public services treat us? What do we do when one person's basic rights conflict with another's?
The new body will be able to work to embed a culture of respect for human rights in public services and help public bodies to understand their obligations under the Human Rights Act. It will help to improve public service delivery by supporting the move away from a one-size-fits-all approach to public services, and human rights values will help the new body to balance one person's rights against another's.
In conclusion, I again thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. The message must go out loud and clear that pursuing equality is not a minority pursuit. It is about ensuring opportunity for all, making full use of the talent that lies within our economy and society, with gains to the whole economy and all of us. I want to live, and I want my sons to grow up, in a society and a country where prejudice and discrimination are challenged, where everyone has the opportunity to reach their full potential, where people's talents, skills and differences are recognised, acknowledged and valued, and where we can all feel safe and live in communities built on respect for each other. We value international solidarity, so we recognise our responsibility to ensure that across the world as well. As a Government we will continue to work to that end.
It being Six o'clock, the motion fin- the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Morecambe Bay
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
6 pm
Geraldine Smith: In this debate I intend to confine my remarks to an examination of written information that I have received from the Home Office relating to enforcement action by the immigration service in the Morecambe bay area, which I believe to be inaccurate and misleading, and to the subsequent statements made by Government spokespersons to the media that that information was true.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall begin by quoting relevant passages of the correspondence between the Home Office and myself, and go on to identify the parts that I believe to be inaccurate and misleading. I shall then give details of the events that did occur in Morecambe. Finally, I shall sum up and invite the Minister to answer the points that I have raised.
I wrote to the Minister of State at the Home Office informing her of a report that I had received from one of my constituents, who is a fisherwoman. My constituent contacted me after being involved in a Department for Work and Pensions and police raid on Pilling sands on 19 June last year. She apprised me of her concerns about the exploitation and danger faced by a large number of people of Asian origin. She told me that the police and the DWP had been unable to interview any of those people because they did not speak English and did not have an interpreter with them. She said that she had been told that despite making efforts over a number of weeks, the police had been unable to get the immigration service to participate in the raid.
I subsequently received a reply dated 8 August 2003 from a junior Home Office Minister that included the following paragraphs:
"You have commented that the circumstances point to a large number of illegal immigrants at work that day and you say that Lancashire Constabulary and local DWP agents had planned this operation but apparently had been unable to get co-operation from the Immigration authorities.
I can confirm that the Immigration Service staff were aware of this operation. The DWP and the Police had contacted our office in Liverpool and discussed a matter with them.
Let me begin by saying that several of the issues your constituent has raised, namely the evasion of tax on national insurance, rates of pay and the use of over laden boats are not matters over which the Immigration Service has any jurisdiction. These are matters for other agencies and those agencies do not need the Immigration Service present in order to conduct an investigation.
These agencies are able to provide their own interpreters and interview them using their own powers.
The issue over which the Immigration Service does have jurisdiction is that of illegal immigrants I can tell you that similar exercises to this have been carried out in Morecambe Bay and other similar areas in the past, which the Immigration Service have participated in."
The Minister goes on to explain in some detail the particular difficulties in dealing with Chinese illegal immigrants, and states:
"Accordingly local managers must decide which area of work is likely to be most productive and allocate resources accordingly. For these reasons, rather than any unwillingness to tackle illegal
1140
immigration or co-operate with the DWP and police, it was decided that it would not be appropriate in this particular operation."
After the recent tragedy in Morecambe bay, the full contents of both of those letters became public knowledge, and there was widespread media interest in the fact that the immigration service had chosen not to participate in the Pilling sands operation. The Government were widely reported as saying that Pilling sands was an isolated case and that the immigration service had been involved in a number of similar operations in Morecambe bay and elsewhere, both before and since the incident.
When I was asked by a journalist to comment on that statement, I said that I had no knowledge of any recent operations taking place in Morecambe bay and that I would seek to obtain the details of any such operations as soon as possible. On 12 February, I met the Minister at the Home Office and raised the matter with her. Bearing in mind the Government's public position on the subject, I was rather surprised that neither she nor her officials had any information readily to hand. She did, however, undertake to supply it to me as a matter of urgency. Indeed, next day I received a letter from her in which she stated:
"I explained that there is ongoing enforcement activity in the Morecambe Bay area, with the specific purpose of tackling the cockle-picking problem. A successful police and immigration operation went ahead in August 2003, just before you received a reply from Fiona Mactaggart on the previous DWP operation in June. On this occasion 37 cockle-pickers were arrested. You were not aware until today that this had taken place and explained that this may have been because it took place in a part of the bay that was not in your constituency. I have attached at Annex A a specific breakdown of the relevant activity."
That breakdown listed the following immigration operations under the heading, "Immigration service activity involving cockle-pickers in Morecambe bay since June 2003". I quote:
"19th June 2003—Pilling Sands, near Morecambe … 19 June a joint police and DWP operation was conducted at Pilling Sands near Morecambe Bay. This was primarily an intelligence-led operation focused on benefit fraud. The intelligence and planning was focused on the police and DWP as the priority agencies for this particular operation.
5th August 2003—Morecambe Bay (the sandbank close to Morecambe town) … 37 Chinese cockle pickers were arrested by the police in Morecambe Bay. This was a police led operation. UKIS provided Immigration Officer assistance.
6th August 2003—Morecambe Bay (the sandbank close to Morecambe town) … The following day, on 6 August DWP led operation was scheduled to take place and UKIS had allocated Immigration Staff to assist. Because of the previous day's operation by the police, there were no further arrests on this occasion."
A cursory glance at the details associated with the three operations purported to have taken place in the Morecambe bay area told me that the information that I had been given was seriously flawed. Therefore, having carefully considered the options open to me, I decided to write back to the Minister on 19 February to make her aware of my concerns and to ask her to investigate the issue. I also informed her that I felt that I had a duty to place what had occurred on the public record. She replied to me later on the same day, stating:
"One of the objectives of the meeting was to brief you on the Immigration Department's enforcement activity in relation to cockle-picking in general and most particularly that in Morecambe Bay. The details I supplied about the major Police/ Immigration Service operation on 4/5th of August were correct and I stand by them."

1141
Does the Minister still stand by them? She continued:
"I also included details of the DWP operation on 6th August which IND officials mistakenly informed me was in Morecambe Bay. In fact, although it was another cockle-picking operation, it took place elsewhere in the North West. Obviously I regret this minor error but I hope you agree it does not in any way materially affect the information I was providing you on the major operation that took place in August 2003 in Morecambe."
The Minister's position was further reinforced by a Government spokesperson who confirmed to the media that the information that had been given was correct. In view of that, I decided to write to the Home Secretary to ask for a meeting to discuss the issue. I was therefore rather surprised when, on 23 February, in reply to a question from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the Minister of State said that she was holding an inquiry into the information that I had been given. The Home Secretary subsequently confirmed that in his reply to my letter. I am left to wonder what prompted her change of heart.
I shall outline the specific reasons for my belief that the information that I received from the Minister is misleading and inaccurate. I ask for the following points to be considered. First, to cite the operation on Pilling sands as an example of immigration service enforcement activity beggars belief. The fact that the immigration service had declined to participate in that operation triggered my original letter to the Minister in June last year. It appears that affirmed inactivity is being claimed as positive action.
Secondly, I am concerned about the operation that allegedly took place on 5 August in Morecambe bay on a sandbank close to Morecambe town. No operation took place on any sandbank close to Morecambe town on that day or on any other day that year. The cockle beds in my constituency were closed until December. No one picking cockles was arrested, as stated in the details associated with the alleged raid. That probably explains why I was unaware of the activity—it simply did not happen.
My third point refers to the operation that is listed in annexe A as occurring on 6 August 2003 in Morecambe bay on a sandbank close to Morecambe town. Although the Minister acknowledges in her letter of 19 February that the specific location was incorrect, I do not agree that the substitution of a precise site for a vague location
"elsewhere in the North West"
was a "minor" error.
Even more serious is the statement in the annexe that
"because of the previous day's operation by the police there were no further arrests on this occasion."
The link between the two operations that were alleged to have taken place at the same precise location rules out the possibility that the inaccurate information could have been supplied in error or through incompetence. It is clear to me that whoever was responsible for producing the information set out deliberately to mislead.
I understand that the Department for Work and Pensions operation on 6 August took place in the Dee estuary and would not have been affected by a police operation in Morecambe. I also understand that the immigration service did not participate in the operation
1142
on the Dee. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. I believe that the points that I have raised clearly justify my claim that the information that I received from the Minister was misleading and inaccurate.
I should like to refer to two events that happened in Morecambe and involved the immigration service. The first took place just before midnight on 29 July last year. Following complaints from local residents, the police attended a house in central Morecambe and found 22 people, who were believed to be Chinese, occupying a ground-floor flat. Most of those people spoke little or no English and the police were unable to establish their status as regards their presence in this country. Despite repeated attempts, they were unable to contact the immigration service for help, getting only an out-of-hours answerphone. The police did not have the capacity to house the 22 people safely in custody if they arrested them, and the owner of the premises insisted that they were removed. The police removed them from the property and left them to wander the streets of Morecambe in the middle of the night, cold and wet.
The second event took place on 4 August last year. Again, following complaints from local residents, police attended a house in Morecambe and arrested 37 Chinese nationals on suspicion of being illegal immigrants. They housed those arrested in police stations in Morecambe, Lancaster and Fleetwood. The first arrests took place at 4.35 pm, and the immigration service was immediately contacted. It took it some 20 hours to arrive to help the police to process those arrested. I understand that the police may hold people for only 24 hours. All those arrested were then released back into the community.
I stress that both those operations arose as a result of complaints from members of the public relating to antisocial behaviour, and were in no way, in the words of the Minister,
"part of ongoing enforcement activity in the Morecambe Bay area with the specific purpose of tackling the cockle picking problem."
In closing, I draw the House's attention to the fact that I have submitted a number of named-day questions to the Home Office, which it has as yet failed to answer. Therefore, will the Minister answer the following questions when she replies? Will she confirm that the information that I received in her letter of 12 February was inaccurate and misleading? Will she confirm that no police or immigration service operation took place in Morecambe bay on a sandbank close to Morecambe town on 4, 5 or 6 August 2003? Will she confirm that no persons picking cockles were arrested in Morecambe bay as a result of police operations in Morecambe bay on 4, 5 or 6 August 2003?
Can the Minister give details of any proactive, multi-agency, ongoing enforcement activity in the Morecambe bay area with the specific purpose of tackling the cockle-picking problem during 2003? Can she say who was responsible for the inaccurate and misleading information that I received? Can she say what, if any, remedial action is being considered? Can she assure me that when the Home Office has finished its internal inquiry into the matter, a full statement will be made to the House? Finally, when she replies to the debate, will she concentrate on answering as many of my questions as she can, and not seek to avoid them by giving the House a sermon on Government policy?
6.17 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration(Beverley Hughes): I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) for the detailed work that she has undertaken, for the support that she has shown to her constituents, both on the night of the tragedy in Morecambe bay, 5 February, and subsequently, and for her work to ensure that everything is done to prevent such an event from happening again. The Government and I share the widespread concern about that night's tragic events, and sympathise with the bereaved. The police investigation is ongoing, and I am confident that the police's ability to bring the perpetrators to justice will prevail.
The current position is that a number of people have been arrested on suspicion of manslaughter in connection with the deaths that night. I cannot give further details, but two immigration officers continue to provide their full-time support to the police, and they have already provided invaluable assistance with the identification of the deceased.
The subject of the debate is, primarily, the information that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and I provided about various incidents involving cockle pickers in Morecambe bay last summer. It will help our debate if I briefly set out the background to those incidents, and the related correspondence.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said, she wrote to me on 28 June to express her concerns about cockle picking; in her constituency, and in particular her concern about the immigration service's apparent non-attendance at an operation involving the Department for Work and Pensions and Lancashire police at Pilling sands, near Morecambe, on 19 June. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replied on 8 August. She confirmed that the operation on 19 June had primarily focused on benefit fraud, and that previous operations had found few, if any, removable offenders. The letter went on to say that intelligence suggested that that would be the situation on 19 June and that the Chinese nationals concerned—if there were any—would not provide us with sufficient evidence to mount a charge for employment offences against those who employed them. The position then, as now, was that the immigration service, and any other service involved in policing illegal working, had to maximise the effectiveness of its enforcement resources in the light of various competing priorities. It was felt that the attendance of the immigration service on 19 June would not, because of the nature of that particular operation, be an effective use of resources.
My hon. Friend mentioned that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced an examination of the resourcing and management of immigration enforcement. This will examine issues including the resources currently devoted to enforcing the immigration law in this country, and how those resources are deployed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary also set out in her letter the fact that the
1144
immigration service was fully committed to assisting the police and other agencies with tackling the problems associated with illegal working and with cockling in Morecambe bay, and I would like to say that that remains the case. She evidenced this commitment by reference to incidents involving cockle pickers which the immigration service had supported both in Morecambe and elsewhere, before the operation on Pilling sands. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale has had that information, but she has chosen not to mention it today.
On 4 August 2003, the police arrested 37 cockle pickers in Morecambe. I understand that the police received telephone calls during early August concerning groups of apparently illegal Chinese immigrants. Those calls related either to the occupation of local premises or to cockling on local public fisheries. On 4 August, the police attended a local address following further complaints of suspicious activity, and police records show that they started to arrest Chinese cockle pickers at 4.35 pm on 4 August 2003. Police records indicate that they first contacted the immigration service's office about the activity that they were undertaking during the evening of 4 August.
Geraldine Smith: Will the Minister give way?
Beverley Hughes: I should like to finish this point because it is important—
Geraldine Smith: This is important.
Beverley Hughes: It is important to get this in sequence, but I shall certainly give way in a moment.
The police made a significant number of arrests and made arrangements for the safe accommodation overnight of the detainees at police custody suites in the area. During the morning of 5 August, the immigration service's Liverpool office immediately started to draw a team together. with the equipment necessary to interview, fingerprint, photograph and serve illegal entry papers on the Chinese nationals, as appropriate.
Geraldine Smith: Will the Minister give way?
Beverley Hughes: I am just finishing this point.
Geraldine Smith: This is important.
Beverley Hughes: I will give way in a moment.
Having completed checks during the morning against the relevant databases and obtained an interpreter, an immigration officer from Liverpool arrived at Lancaster police station at 1.24 pm to assist the police in identifying the immigration status of those who did not appear on Home Office records. Two immigration officers continue to provide support to police in the area.
Geraldine Smith: Will the Minister comment on the operations that she referred to in her letter to me? It mentioned one on 5 August at Morecambe bay, on a sandbank close to Morecambe town, and one on 6 August on the sandbank close to Morecambe town—operations that did not take place. Is she seriously suggesting that the reaction of the police to complaints

1145
from residents in Morecambe is directly comparable with a pre-planned multi-agency operation that took place on Pilling sands or, indeed, on the Dee?
Beverley Hughes: No, I am not saying that. I shall get to that point in a moment.
The next relevant incident that my hon. Friend referred to occurred on 6 August at Thurstaston on the Wirral Dee estuary. This was a Department for Work and Pensions-led operation that targeted cockle pickers on the River Dee. The immigration service provided two immigration officers in support of the operation, but no foreign nationals were encountered on that day.
We now arrive at the tragic events of 5 February this year, after which I had a meeting with my hon. Friend, on 12 February. During our meeting, I agreed to set out in writing the immigration service's enforcement activity in relation to cockle picking, which I did the same day. We tried to fax it to my hon. Friend that day, but we could not get it through on the fax machine. I also promised to let her have details of the number of rescue operations carried out in the Morecambe bay area, and I have written to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to ask it to provide her with the information.
My hon. Friend then wrote to me on 19 February to point out what she considered to be discrepancies between the information in my letter of 12 February and the events as she understood them. I responded that day by saying that I understood that the details that I had given about the incident on 4 and 5 August were correct, but that I had been given the incorrect location for the operation on 6 August by officials—an error which I regretted.
An investigation of how the erroneous information came to be given to me by officials has been undertaken by a senior member of the immigration and nationality directorate. It highlights significant inadequacies in record keeping in the Liverpool enforcement office. As a result, the details that I sent to my hon. Friend were drawn up on the basis of the recollection of staff who were available at the time, and they have turned out to be faulty. I am satisfied that this was done with the best of intentions of giving as full an account as possible. However, the staff responsible have been told in the strongest terms that in such cases the need for accuracy is absolutely paramount. Information should be checked, and any doubt about its accuracy should be made clear.
Geraldine Smith: What about the linkage in the operations between 5 August and 6 August? If it was just a simple error, it was just incompetence, and officials made a mistake about the location, why did they link the two operations together, and why did they say that no one had been arrested on 6 August because of the arrests on the previous day?
Beverley Hughes: Perhaps I can clarify those issues as I continue.
1146
The most serious problem is the absence of satisfactory records on the basis of which a confident and accurate account could and should have been given. The investigating officer, supported by a colleague from IND's human resources directorate, will now look further into how these management failures came about so that senior management can consider what further action would be appropriate. In the meantime, an additional senior manager has been appointed to lead the Liverpool office and to implement the necessary changes there.
Now that the matter has been investigated, it is also clear that aspects of the details given to me by officials about the role of the immigration service in the events of the 4 August and 5 August were not wholly accurate, and I regret that as a result my hon. Friend was not given the full picture. However, the broad outline of that picture was correct—that on those days there was a police-led activity in the Morecambe bay area involving Chinese cockle pickers, which the immigration service supported when requested.
Geraldine Smith: Will the Minister give way?
Beverley Hughes: I will give way one more time, but I say to my hon. Friend that she has made understandable allegations, and I must put on the record the facts as I now understand them.
Geraldine Smith: But the Minister has not answered any of my questions. It is just not true that the police arresting 37 people on Chatsworth road, Morecambe, as a result of complaints from members of the public is the same or in any way comparable to a pre-planned immigration operation.
Beverley Hughes: No, and I am not saying that it is the same. What my hon. Friend needs to understand, however, is that operations against illegal workers take place in a variety of different ways—sometimes spontaneously, sometimes conducted in a planned way by one agency, and sometimes conducted in a planned way by agencies operating together. That does not negate the fact that strong co-operation exists, and that agencies try to respond to requests for assistance from any of their colleagues in other agencies. I agree with her that this was not a jointly planned operation—the police were acting spontaneously in relation to facts that were brought to their notice. They did not inform the immigration service about their intentions to act on this. They decided to initiate the activity themselves, which is within their province and they did not inform the immigration service of this activity, which was clearly going to involve foreign nationals, until the evening of 4 August.
Geraldine Smith: Will the Minister give way?
Beverley Hughes: No, I am going to conclude, because we have almost run out of time.
I would not want my hon. Friend to conclude from this that the priority given to illegal working is less than it should be. Over the last financial year, there has been a substantial increase in resources of £40 million within the immigration service. There have been a very large number of major or operations to apprehend illegal

1147
workers, and a very large number of additional people have been apprehended and removed, despite the difficulty with Chinese people. And in relation to the activity of our organised branch, the Reflex operation, a large number of the criminal gangs behind this illegal working have been disrupted. I therefore hope that she
1148
will accept that while I regret the wrong information given to me and to her, that does not negate the excellent work that the immigration service and other agencies are fulfilling in tackling this very serious problem.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Six o'clock.

Public Transport (Overcrowding)
[Relevant documents: Seventh Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 201-I, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 6072.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned— [Joan Ryan.]
2.30 pm
Mrs.Gwyneth Dunwoody: Getting out of bed in the morning and facing the day is a task that is quite often governed by a number of necessities. Most of us do it for a lifetime because we have to earn cash, keep a roof over our heads, feed and clothe our family and get ourselves an acceptable standard of living. One thing that undoubtedly affects our feelings about our work, where we go, what we do and how long we have for our own pursuits after we have finished work is the quality of travel forced upon us by the need simply to get to our place of work.
Unfortunately, nowadays for many people in cities— and often for those in small towns—that simple journey to the shop, office, school or hospital is not simply an uncomfortable experience but an unpleasant one. Indeed, many people in this Palace will recognise that experience because they endure it every day. Those who want a much more sensible attitude to be taken towards living in towns and cities, and who want to be able to talk about the quality of people's lives, have a special responsibility to examine how those elements are made up and which of them is most important.
The Transport Committee decided that one essential part of the transport system is its response to customer needs, and overcrowding comes top of the list of irritations that the general public face every day. We looked in great detail and over a number of sessions at what happens to people when they travel by train or by bus in enormously pressured conditions, and at how that affects them at work. It was clear that many employers are aware that when people travel to work in cattle-truck conditions—however that is defined—they do not arrive full of good will, charm and the desire to love their fellow man and woman; they arrive stressed, irritated and extremely tired before they even start their working day. Frankly, that is not in anyone's interests.
The Select Committee therefore looked closely at what was happening and at the impact on our daily lives. First, there is the straightforward impact on business—not just on the staff but on the straightforward management of business problem If people cannot say what time they will arrive for appointments because they have no idea whether they will be able to push themselves on to a crowded train, that must affect the way they work. If they are unable to say whether the bus that comes along will stick to a reasonable timetable and have room for them among the crowd who are already jammed in, that will affect what they do when they arrive at work.
320WH
Moreover, almost inevitably, overcrowding affects tourism and has a monetary cost in terms of the facilities offered to visitors to our capital city and other tourist spots. No one needs to be told that the average tourist will be influenced by the obvious aspects of travel in deciding where to go. They will want to be able to get about comfortably and safely and at a reasonable cost. They will not want to find an old, broken down and very stressed system that is unable to produce the level of comfort that they regard as essential for their holiday. Such considerations will affect their decision whether or not to come back. There is a real, economic cost in refusing to look at what is happening to the transport system.
What do we do about the situation? The Government appear to think that we should accept that there are problems with capacity, management and rolling stock, and that by using soft words it is possible to turneth away the wrath of the traveller. I am afraid that that is not how it works.
I give the Government full credit for being the first Government for many years to have proper plans for transport and a clear view of the amount of money needed to bring the transport system up to a level that is acceptable to us all. However, we must look beyond the overall measures and the careful structure that the Government have put in place, and see how those measures are affecting the transport system, whether it is working and whether we should do anything to improve it. That is the position from which the Committee started, but that is not to say that we were not delighted with what the Government had done up to that point, or that we did not support the commitment to investing very large sums not only outside London, but inside the capital. However, we wanted to see whether the money was being spent in the right way and whether even more aspects of the system needed to be improved.
We considered buses, for example. Whether one approves or disapproves of the congestion charge, it is clear that it has markedly improved the management of London. There are many aspects of the charge that my Committee would like to discuss in detail at another time, but the reality is that unless there is proper enforcement of the rules that enable buses to move easily along crowded streets, we shall not gain the full benefit of the sums that taxpayers are paying. We want to encourage people to get out of their cars and on to buses and trains, but they will do so only if they find that a pleasant and acceptable experience.
We should consider carefully whether we are enabling buses to use the aspects of street planning that local authorities and the Government have put in place. That means that we must be sure that bus lanes are kept clear and that those who contravene the rules are suitably punished. We must also be sufficiently flexible to realise that the creation of a bus lane along very crowded roads will, in itself, sometimes have a knock-on effect on other aspects of street life.
I was saddened recently when my excellent milkman—I want him to continue to deliver liquid milk to my London flat—told me that he has to cross bus lanes or park on pavements, which is even worse, and that the fines that he faces for delivering milk in London amount to more money than he earns in a week. That is

321WH
not a constructive way of ensuring that we retain milk delivery in our inner cities. This issue needs to be considered.
That is not the real problem, however. The point is that we could easily end up reversing the effects of the increases in investment in public transport that we have seen in recent years if the systems do not have the necessary capacity to handle the increases in passenger numbers. Whether we are talking about buses or the rail system, capacity is one of the fundamental difficulties.
The Committee was very concerned at the way in which capacity was estimated. We tried hard to understand precisely what forms of calculation were used, and it seemed to us that, far from having a formula that considered real conditions, a formula had been worked out that allocated so many inches— suppose that one should talk about metres and centimetres in this instance— and so many agreed measurements of space to so many people, irrespective of whether that allowed people to travel comfortably, or even of whether seats were available in those conditions.
That simply will not do, and one has only to look at the trains in the south-east, which come into stations packed to the doors with passengers, to know that. One has only to look at the famous bendy buses that trundle round the streets of London to know that capacity should not simply be a question of the number of people who can be jammed into a vehicle; capacity should take account of the number of people who can be carried safely and comfortably. So far, we are not convinced that the Government have a proper formula that they have thought about in sufficient depth, or that they have produced a realistic response to the difficulties.
My Committee will look into the question of rolling stock in the rail industry in considerable detail; in fact, it has produced a report on the rail industry that will be published soon. It is clear that rolling stock is an issue of grave concern. For example, we were astonished to discover that, so far as we know, the people who ordered the rolling stock for one important scheme had not considered the fact that they could not run it because they had insufficient electricity. I am sure that one of my colleagues will explore this issue in greater depth. Those who bought and who delivered the rolling stock had not worked out that it could not be used, and the company involved were astonished suddenly to discover, while devising its plan for bringing the rolling stock on-stream, that insufficient power was available to make it usable.
My Committee found that situation a little astonishing—I hesitate to say laughable—partly because if most of us in our daily lives were commissioning something very expensive, particularly something as substantial as rolling stock, we would think carefully about what we wanted to use it for and where it would work. That did not seem to happen in this case. We found that astonishing, and we found the Strategic Rail Authority's attitude to the problems associated with rolling stock rather complex.
It is true that the botched privatisation allowed rolling stock companies to escape supervision, and that they are not controlled in the same way as other parts of the rail industry. All travellers pay a high price for that.
322WH
However, it is also true that unless rolling stock companies comply with a strategy that meets the need for proper carriages and passenger comfort, we shall never get out of this absurd situation.
We think it important that the SRA, on behalf of the Government, consider carefully the capacity of the network. In this case, we are thinking of the rail network, but one could extend the argument to road use. Unless the Government have a clear plan and an understanding of what franchise-holders will do in relation to their customers' needs, we shall continue to have unacceptable conditions for a long time.
Individual companies must not use the argument of health and safety work to run a sub-acceptable service. It is no excuse to say that the rolling stock must be safe; that should be a given for anyone in the transport industry. Companies should start from that point and ensure that that is how they think in their future planning.
There is a great deal more in our report, but I have only a couple of things to say in answer to the Government's response. I think that we all found it disappointing, at the very least. Our constituents expect from us an involvement in their lives that reflects a real care for their future. Their conditions of travel to work are so fundamental that they affect them every single day of their lives. The Government say that chronic overcrowding
"is not an acceptable face of modern travelling".
We could not agree more strongly. Of course, chronic overcrowding is not acceptable and we must not accept it. That means dealing with the travel industry's capacity to cope with travellers' needs; rolling stock companies having to think seriously about the supply that they offer to companies, and which they know can be usefully used; and. above all, ensuring that the House says to all transport companies, "You are now receiving very large amounts of money from the taxpayer."
I read only today of enormous profits being returned by bus companies, which some of us feel are still not producing a sufficient level of care. Bus companies should have a right to receive a proper return on the money that they invest, but they cannot do so by continuing with a system of carrying passengers daily that is not of an acceptable standard. That applies to the companies that say on the one hand that they must manage demand and have control over their stations, and that that should not be the responsibility of individual rail workers, but which on the other hand seem to accept that the situation will continue for some time.
The Government have made a strong start in the field of transport. We expect them to continue not only to provide that level of care, but to take our views seriously. The report constitutes important work on an issue that affects many thousands of people every day, and they are crying out for our assistance.
2.46 pm
Mr.John Horam: We owe a great debt to the Transport Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs.Dunwoody), for the report. I commend the hon. Lady not only on what the report says, but on the conciseness with which it says it. As an ex-Chairman of a Select

323WH
Committee, I am in favour of producing short pithy reports that ram home a message, and this report does that well. The experience of travelling to work is fundamental to the lives of many of our constituents, and we have a duty of care to be involved in that experience.
The hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and the Minister all have experience of the chronic overcrowding—the "cattle-truck experience", as the hon. Lady put it—on London's commuter trains. That experience is totally unsatisfactory. I received an e-mail today from a constituent saying:
"I have been a commuter for over 20 years and am dismayed to witness the continued decline in punctually, cleanliness and safety of our trains."
That constituent did not specifically mention overcrowding, but I have been told about it recently. Sadly, I have just come from the funeral of the former Member of Parliament for Orpington, Ivor Stanbrook, who died last week—some hon. Members may recall him. Many constituents as well as MPs were at the funeral, and one constituent told me that only this week he was on a train that was so overcrowded that it had to slow down, so it was not only overcrowded but late. He was not aware whether it had to slow down for safety reasons, but that shows the interconnection, to which the hon. Lady referred, between safety, overcrowding, punctuality and regularity.
Many constituents suffer daily from that matrix of issues, and I am afraid to say that things will get worse. Many trains being brought in for the commuter services in south-east England have smaller capacities than those that they are replacing, because they now have a crumple zone at each end of the coach and toilets for the disabled. Those are good modifications that are necessary for disabled people and to enhance safety, but the result is smaller capacity on the new coaches. In the immediate future, the situation will not continue as it is but will worsen.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was right to home in on the subject of capacity; we must try to improve it, certainly on the rail service. The first capacity issue is the width of the track. There has been little addition to track space entering London from the south-east, and there are one or two bottlenecks. A classic one in my part of the world is the Borough Market junction. Anyone who is interested in transport will have been aware of that problem for years, and it is still unresolved. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister comments on where we have got to with it. As I understand it, the Deputy Prime Minister, whom I regard as a high priest of dither and disaster in that respect, is still examining it from a planning point of view. I recognise that there is a conflict, because an historic market directly abuts the railway interchange. None the less, clear-cut decisions have to be made. Otherwise, we will be stuck with that bottleneck, which prevents us from increasing the track capacity for that whole segment of south-east London, which is important to me and to other hon. Members.
The second aspect is that if the track cannot be augmented, maybe the length of the train can be increased to 12 coaches. I find it rather odd that, as I understand it, Her Majesty's inspectorate insists that if there are more than 10 coaches, there must be a
324WH
conductor as well as a driver. I wonder why that figure is 10 rather than 12, because it means that train operators are reluctant to use 12-coach trains, which is the maximum length, rather than 10-coach trains. That is a pity.
There is also the issue of what happens with 12-coach trains at stations, and whether the passengers can get on and off in a satisfactory way. The problem is the length of the platforms. I was glad to hear at a recent Network Rail presentation that there is a plan to spend quite a lot of money on increasing the length of the platforms at about 35 stations in the London area
Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend not agree that one of the problems is the cost of extending those stations and the excessive regulation that must be observed when platforms are lengthened. I encourage the Minister to examine that issue and reduce the regulation so that stations can be more easily and cost-effectively extended to take 12 carriages.
Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point, which I asked the Secretary of State about at a recent Question Time. He said that the scales had fallen from the Department's eyes as regards the difficulty of lengthening station platforms. He led me to believe that the Department had long been told by the experts that it was a difficult and expensive thing to do, and that all sorts of other factors had to be changed. That is rubbish—the platform can be extended in a simple and cost-effective way. I gather that Ministers have finally tumbled to that fact, and a programme is under way. If that is the case, I am pleased to hear it.
Mr. Greg Knight: The most desirable option is to have platforms that are adequate for the length of the train, but does my hon. Friend not agree that, in this age of intercoms and locking doors, it ought to be possible, in many cases where there is overcrowding, to run trains longer than the existing platforms, to ease the problem?
Mr. Horam: I agree entirely; that is the common-sense view. However, I understand that there are severe technical problems. Many trains use a satellite system, for health and safety reasons, but it is not yet operative. That prevents them from adopting what used to be the usual approach, whereby the carriages are locked and unlocked and people are told that they can or cannot get on and off at particular stations. The operators are now obliged to use a satellite system, but it does not work yet. That is a problem that the Minister may understand better than I do.
Having examined the matter carefully, I find that there is often a difference of opinion between the train operating companies and Network Rail as to whether station platforms, particular those in some of the termini, such as Waterloo and Charging Cross, are long enough to accommodate a full 12-car train. That is another issue that must be examined in a practical way to find out whether the situation is satisfactory. There are clear differences of opinion on those issues. My constituents' hearts often sink when they see what should be an eight-coach train coming in, but it has been shortened because of mechanical failures on the line,

325WH
and only four or six coaches turn up. They are then crowded into a much shorter train than they had expected.
The hon. Member for Eltham may recall that he and I attended a presentation by Network Rail, at which the chief executive, Mr. Armitt, was present. The presentation was remarkably complacent and I was not impressed by the approach adopted by the people giving us information. They blithely said that the new trains would be more prone to mechanical failure than the old trains. The figures quoted were that 40,000 to 60,000 hours used to elapse between failures, but with the new trains that figure would probably be 25,000 hours, and could even be 6,000 hours.
A piece appeared in The Times about it, headed, £4bn shambles of unreliable new trains" A report from the National Audit Office, which considered the issue, had said that
"20 per cent of the new trains have experienced mechanical failure, more than 15 per cent have had problems with on-board computer systems, more than 8 per cent have had air conditioning failures and 4 per cent have had power supply problems."
That is not a happy story.
Those problems could be worsening, which is very unsatisfactory for my constituents and many others. For reasons that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich graphically pointed out, train travel is the beginning and the end of most people's day in the southeast of England. I hope that the Minister will not tell us all that rubbish about new trains being the new nirvana, when clearly they are not. My constituents do not want new trains per se; they want a decent service that is not overcrowded, and is punctual, clean and safe.
2.57 pm
Mrs.Louise Ellman: All too many passengers are aware of overcrowding in public transport, yet the issue has received surprisingly little attention. I am pleased that the Select Committee decided to consider the matter, and I note that, following our inquiry and the Government's response, there has at least been some recognition of the problem and some small, if not sufficient, attempts to deal with it. Public transport should be comfortable and convenient. That is important if we are going to encourage its use and maximise its impact in helping to develop our local, regional and national economies. That means that for business passengers and tourists, it is essential that public transport is convenient and comfortable.
When we took our evidence, it came as a great surprise to the Select Committee that so little work had been done nationally on this issue. When we spoke to the Health and Safety Executive, we were surprised to find that—if I recall correctly— it had undertaken no work at all on the stress impact of overcrowding. There is a safety issue, but there is another issue of stress, to which very little attention has been given. When I recently asked my hon. Friend the Minister in a written question for his assessment of the impact of overcrowding, particularly on trains, he said that he could not give me an answer because he had not made any assessment of it, and the matter was the responsibility of the operators.
326WH
I believe that overcrowding is an issue of sufficient importance for the Minister to take an interest, and accept some responsibility.
Since the Committee published its report, there has been some movement. The Strategic Rail Authority has announced that it is to instigate a study of the impact of overcrowding. The SRA's rolling stock strategy, published in December, accepted that the plans for growth in rolling stock had not recognised anticipated growth as well as the existing position. I assume that that means that in future, plans will take note of the need to anticipate passenger growth as well as to deal with the current situation. The National Audit Office report, published last month, confirmed that rolling stock had not kept up with passenger growth. One of the difficulties that we identified was that although rolling stock had been ordered, the rise in passenger numbers had not been anticipated. That is a grave failing.
Earlier this week, on 2 March, we were informed that the Rail Safety and Standards Board had decided to conduct research into overcrowding on trains and at stations, and that the Health and Safety Laboratory had been awarded the contract. Although that action is belated, I am pleased that note has been taken of this important issue.
Studies are important, but we have reached the time when we need action, not just studies that take us some time into the future. I am pleased to see the work that has come from the regions. National bodies have been very slow to act; they have not recognised the problem, and have been slow to react once they have been forced to recognise it.
I welcome the work that has been undertaken by the rail passengers committee for north-western England, which has carried out a survey into overcrowding on trains. That survey was undertaken in the autumn, and its four findings have not yet been published, but it raises several key points. First, it points to shortages in rolling stock—a key element in overcrowding. It clearly shows rail orders have not anticipated passenger growth on specific lines. It poses the important and specific question of whether trains scheduled for 2008 for the trans-Pennine express will be able to meet new demands arising from passenger growth—and the answer to that is unclear. The route links York, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool, and it is due to start in 2006.It is not clear at this point whether the rolling stock involved in that franchise will be able to meet passenger growth, or whether it can cope only with the current passenger numbers. That is a specific and practical question that we need to deal with, rather than waiting until problems arise.
The north-western passengers committee also points to problems on Virgin Cross Country trains—the Voyagers—which are too short for current passenger numbers. It specifically mentions the Manchester-Birmingham-Reading route, where there is already chronic overcrowding. The Voyager trains link major cities and areas, so it is important that that matter be considered.
I also asked the Minister a parliamentary question about the difference between the number of seats available on the new Pendolino trains operating between Liverpool and London, and the number that had been available before those trains were in operation.
327WH
I got an answer detailing the number of seats available now, but the comparison that I asked for was omitted from the answer Perhaps that was just an error, and it will be corrected this afternoon.
The north-western rail passengers committee has done invaluable work in drawing attention to a number of other specific problems relating to overcrowding. It has looked into problems with transport to Blackpool, which is important not only for Blackpool but for the whole of the north-west. It has drawn attention to specific overcrowding problems on the Liverpool to Manchester line, and specifically to the 7.49 Liverpool to Norwich train, which goes through Manchester, where there is regularly chronic overcrowding. At times, people are left behind on the platforms.
The committee has also drawn attention to problems on other routes, such as between Liverpool and Manchester Piccadilly. Again, there is chronic overcrowding at key times. It also mentions problems on the 8.16 Warrington to Manchester route people are regularly left behind at the station because they cannot get on the train. If we are to develop the north-west regional economy properly, and develop the links between Liverpool and Manchester, the two major cities there, the current problem of chronic overcrowding must be dealt with quickly.
Most of us are committed to developing a proper rail service. We see how important that it is for individuals, business and tourists and we want some action. The north-western passenger committee has drawn attention to specific problems following on from the Transport Committee's report. We are looking for action. There has been very little action at national level, and even the information has come from the regions. I look forward to the time when a directly elected north-west regional assembly will be able to use power and influence to ensure that action is taken to improve the train service in the north-west.
The Select Committee considered the national situation. I hope that by drawing attention to the problem of overcrowding on public transport generally, and specifically on trains, which is a national and a regional problem, we will ensure that action is taken. I hope that action is taken nationally, and that the regional voices will continue to be heard, because we have allowed this situation to continue for far too long; we have acted as if the stress of overcrowding is acceptable, and we have ignored the economic impact of overcrowded, uncomfortable trains.
3.6 pm
Bob Spink: I am not a member of the Select Committee on Transport, but having heard this debate I wish I were. Perhaps I could be of more use to my constituents if I were a member. The report is excellent, and better for its brevity, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr.Horam).
I am a dilettante in the sense of being an amateur in this subject, but it is important to the quality of life of my constituents, which is why I am here.I congratulate the Select Committee, particularly the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs.Dumwoody), on bringing these matters forward as they have done.I guess that the hon. Lady has forgotten more about public transport,
328WH
and the railways than I could ever know, even if I spent a lifetime studying them, and I bow to her knowledge in all such matters. I am pleased to contribute to the debate, and I was pleased to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, because what he said was excellent. He is well informed and represents his constituents' interests well in this place, as hon.Members should on this subject—and on all others.
Mine is a dormitory constituency for London, in dormitory commuter land. It is like a ghost town at 8 am: it empties as thousands of my constituents come up to work in London. Most of them work in the City—although a number work in the Palace of Westminster—and they depend totally on the effectiveness of public transport, particularly rail.
In paragraph 7, the Select Committee rightly draws attention to the impact on business life of public transport that is not working as well as it might. That causes enormous stress to my constituents; some of them have lost their jobs in the end, in extreme circumstances, because of public transport failures, and people from my area sometimes wonder whether employers will offer them jobs when they find out where they come from, and which line they are going to use. Fortunately, the LTS—London, Tilbury and Southend—line has improved tremendously in recent years since privatisation, but it still has a long way to go I congratulate c2c on what it has done so far, and there is more good work to come.
There is not just a problem at the beginning of the day, there is also a problem at the end of the day. My constituents sometimes arrive home very late and heavily stressed because of the unreliability of the rolling stock, and the overcrowding. I have been seriously told that the old LTS line led to a number of divorces and major domestic problems in my constituency. Members here may smile at that, but this is a really serious problem, not just in working life but in domestic life as well.
I congratulate the Southend-on-Sea railway travellers association on the work that it does to represent my constituents who travel on the LTS line. My constituents must of course join the train at Benfleet station, the busiest station on the line in terms of the number of passengers getting on and off the train. The problem is that by the time my constituents get on the train, they discover that rather than a 12-carriage train, a four or eight-carriage train arrives. The train has come though several stations and is already full, so either they are left behind on the station, looking at each other exasperatedly—I am often left there with them—or we have to stand on the train all the way to Fenchurch Street, make our way to the underground station near the Tower of London, and then we have to stand on the underground as well. It is frightful, and if the Government can do anything at all to resolve this issue, that would be a great service to my constituents. I again congratulate the Transport Committee on bringing this subject to the attention of the House.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington said, capacity, which is covered in chapter 3 in the report, is at the heart of the matter. He explained about the 12-coach issue, so I will not repeat all that he said, but I agree with him entirely. Paragraph 16 says:
"Public transport will only be attractive if it meets people's real needs. That means that there must be adequate capacity at peak periods."

329WH
The way in which capacity and overcrowding are measured is important and germane, and I am delighted that the report draws attention to that, but we must also have more carriages and more reliability. New trains should be more reliable than the trains that they replace, and that is not always the case. I know that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has got her teeth into the power supply issue as well, and she will not let that go, because she has the needs of the travelling public and commuters at heart.
It would be good if somewhere in the country there were a track dedicated to testing new trains, so that they could be run in before being delivered. I am not an expert, so perhaps that matter is in hand; perhaps such a track already exists, and I am just out of date, but I seem to recall that testing trains before delivery was a problem.
One way to get capacity up would be to create new stations on the LTS line. About 3,000 constituents from Canvey Island alone travel on that line. They have to travel off the island to get to their train, either on public transport or in a car that they have to park, and then they often find the train is already full when they try and get on it. At night they have to get back to the island. All that causes enormous road transport difficulties on the island in the morning and evening.
Perhaps a terminus line could run down on to Canvey from Pitsea, the station before Benfleet, so that four or six trains an hour during peak times, and perhaps one or two trains an hour off-peak, could be run from a new terminus station on the island. There is plenty of space around the Waterside Farm area for parking to be provided. Increasing the capacity of the LTS line would enable the Government to meet the target that they set the Strategic Rail Authority of a 50 per cent increase in passenger numbers over the next 10 years. I keep pressing this idea, because not only would it help commuters on Canvey Island, who are my constituents, but it would help to put Canvey Island on the map—and I am always trying to do that, as hon. Members will know.
One way of getting more passengers on the line, and so of meeting the Government's target of increasing real passenger numbers over the next 10 years, would be to reduce ticket prices. I was shocked to hear that the price of a ticket from Southend to London went up in January by £17 a month—an astounding increase. That is the way to reduce, not increase, passenger numbers on the line. If we really are to save our environment and stop global warning—that issue is germane to my constituents on Canvey, some of whom live as much as 6 ft below sea level—we must tackle environmental issues and get more people off the roads and on to rail. That is a real issue.
I welcome the Committee's conclusions on the railways in paragraph 32 of the report, which says:
"The measure should be of real overcrowding on real routes."
That is better than making measures and monitoring "average" overcrowding in a way that clouds the issue and prevents service providers from focusing their attention on the real issues that concern my constituents.
330WH
I have already mententioned the electric power supply. On the subject of "How trains are purchased" —that is the subtitle above paragraph 42—I wonder whether members of the Transport Committee saw "Bremner, Bird and Fortune" on television on Sunday night. If not, I recommend that they watch the programme. It went into that very issue. It was a bit of a spoof, the issue was hyped up, and all kinds of hyperbole were use, but it drew attention to subjects that I have heard the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich raise on Radio 4, such as how much money goes into the provision of new rolling stock, who gets the money, and how much of it filters down to provide real new rolling stock for my constituents and hers, who deserve that money to be spent on them.
One thing that I recall from that comedy sketch is the fact that a return on investment would he secured within three or four years, and that that return would continue for 30 years, or possibly even 50, if people got lucky. Financing the provision of new rolling stock is a good business to be in—much better than Tesco, or manufacturing industry, where profit levels are much lower. I am sure that the Committee will look into that carefully, and will get the Government to do so, too.
I am a bit confused about where we are going with the Strategic Rail Authority. What is really needed is some clarity—for me, for the industry, and for my constituents—about who will run the railways in future, who will regulate them, and who will make decisions about new infrastructure, rolling stock and other important issues. I hope that the Minister will address that subject. I welcome what the Committee said about the London underground, which is also a problem for my constituents. I hope and trust that something can be done to improve it and reduce overcrowding at key times.
I welcome the report; it is very good. The Government's response to it has been a little complacent, and is, certainly disappointing. I do not want to be too harsh on the Government, because successive Governments have under-invested in public transport, particularly the rail service, for many years. I accept that part of the responsibility for that lies with the Conservatives; I do not seek to score party political points. However, I think that the Government could and should have been more accepting of the Committee's valid criticisms and of the recommendations in the report. It is fair to say that the report raises more questions than it answers. In that sense, it is not the end of a journey, but the start of very long one. With cross-party support, I hope that we can look at tackling the real issues and finding a solution, for the benefit of my long-suffering constituents.
3.21 pm
Mr.Brian H.Donohoe: I, too, am grateful for the report's publication and for the fact that we are able to debate it this afternoon with the Minister. I have personal experience of travelling regularly for many years on trains and the underground, and I have faced overcrowding almost daily. This debate is long overdue and the Minister should address this issue in far more detail than the Government's response has done.
There is no doubt that the industry is a victim of its own success. It has developed to such an extent that the number of people using trains and the underground has

331WH
grown enormously, particularly during the past five years. However, the Government have to accept the consequent effect on commuters, who face a daily battle and are left to stand on trains and on the underground for hours on end as a result of the number of people now travelling.
I want to concentrate on the Government's response to how we measure overcrowding on trains. I was flabbergasted to find that there was no real formula—other than a very strange one—for measuring overcrowding on trains and on the underground. The Government's response to conclusions nine and 10 was completely inadequate. I would like the Minister to address the issue in a different way, and to say whether the Government have considered quantifying overcrowding in the manner adopted elsewhere.
If I drove a car containing 10 people, I would be prosecuted, and rightly so. If I drew a bus containing 100 people, I would be prosecuted, as would the driver of any such bus. Yet I can get on a train that is carrying 2,000 passengers when it should carry only 1,000.I do not know why that should be allowed in this day and age.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs.Dunwoody) said in her opening remarks, there are times when it is not just inconvenient to travel on trains, but a nightmare. I say that as somebody who is six feet tall and who can look after himself. I look around a train and I see inconvenience and a complete nightmare, and people having to put up with that. I wonder when and whether it will be possible for the Government to do more about that than they have done in their response to our paper.
I also want to concentrate on the problems that have arisen as a result of the Government's success in increasing the number of people using trains. There is no doubt that the stations are inadequate for a modern network. In my own area, there are stations at which trains cannot unload if they are 12 carriages long. That is wrong, and there must be investment to remedy that situation.
I do not know what we can do to address the next issue that I shall raise, but it is essential that we do so if we are to develop an integrated transport system. As a result of our success in encouraging people to use public transport, train stations do not haw adequate car parks. In my constituency, people come from as far away as Kilmarnock, which is 10 miles away, to use the train to Glasgow, but they are not able to park close to the station. There is insufficient investment in the station and its infrastructure to allow the necessary extension to take place.
The Government argue that we should be looking at ways of getting people out of their cars, but it seems almost irrational that the public do not have the opportunity to park close to stations. I have argued extensively about that problem and I have challenged the rail authorities to overcome it. I have been campaigning for some 30 months in my constituency without achieving much movement from Network Rail management or from the Strategic Rail Authority; moreover, the operating companies wash their hands of the matter. They could do much to improve that situation, thereby encouraging more people to use the railways, but they are not. I find that unbelievable.
332WH
Another problem that I have identified is loss of revenue. Over the past five years, there has been a great increase in the number of people using trains in my area, which has partly been encouraged by offering concessions such as those given to senior citizens. That is admirable and to be applauded, but it has led to trains becoming so busy that the guards cannot get through them, and, therefore, to more and more people travelling without paying their fare. The operating companies must do something about that, but it is clear that they are not. The Minister need not consider that issue today, but it seems a tremendous waste for trains to be running with people not paying their fares. It also adds to the problem of overcrowding.
A few weeks ago, I travelled in the south-west on a train of a type that I thought was no longer running. I thought that the trains in Scotland were bad, but I found it almost surreal to be travelling in a slam-door train in 2004, given that they were designed some 50 or 60 years ago. When one considers the amount of money that has been spent on the railways recently, such a situation is unreal. I do not know what the Government can do about that, but the Department for Transport should act to ensure that such rolling stock is no longer on the rails. Dates should be given by which it will be removed; at the moment, that seems not to be happening.
We should also consider other parts of the integrated transport system. I know of a number of examples of the rail network's being shut down—on a Sunday, for instance—and passengers being transferred to buses. Buses are adequate alternatives in certain circumstances, but they do not offer the same level of speed and comfort as trains. Although buses are far more passenger-friendly than they were 20 years ago, they are not an adequate substitute for trains. When such situations arise, they cause inconvenience to passengers. That issue should be examined.
The Government are spending more money on the railways than any previous Government have spent. We are talking about some £2.1 billion per annum, which, if my calculations are right—normally, they are not that bad—works out at approximately £6 per family per week. If we budget for 2005 and estimate the likely expenditure, that figure rises to some £12.50 per week. Given that expenditure and the circumstances, I thought that the Government would insist on eradicating overcrowding, so that the travelling public in the London area and across the central belts of England and Scotland would not have to face that problem daily. The Government should be addressing this issue in a far more serious way than their response to the document suggests.
3.31 pm
Clive Efford: There is no denying that there are a wide range of problems with our transport system, which are easy to identify. Many of the solutions that have been proposed are far more expensive and commit more resources than the Government would like. The Government's simplest, most well meaning statement of intent can be leapt on and used against them in future if they fail to deliver. However, they have a tendency to make very safe statements about transport, and with due respect to the Minister, the response to the report is just that— a safe set of statements.

333WH
I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that when the report refers to the rail services, virtually every paragraph starts, "The SRA", which highlights one of the problems of dealing with the transport system: there are so many players in the network, with so many different responsibilities, that at times even the Government forget their role in the system. The response on the rail network should have come from the Government standpoint rather than their stating what the Strategic Rail Authority intends to do. That shows the Government's dilemma in coming to terms with problems throughout the transport system.
Overcrowding affects many different daily routines—going to work, going on holiday, going out for a day with the family, and so on. Problems in the rail and bus network can have a debilitating effect on a people's ability to go about their daily lives, and when there are delays on the railways, it can be catastrophic. For example, I was once stuck on a train just outside London Bridge station—only half the train was alongside the platform. The driver was very good: he kept us well informed, and radioed back to tell us that he was in a dilemma. He could not move the train or open only the rear carriage doors so that we could walk down the train and get off, because that technology is not available.
I was stuck on that train for 45 minutes. All around me, a range of life experiences were unfolding before my eyes. A young woman with an Apex card was going out for the day and had another train to catch. She was ringing the rail network to ask what she should do. She said, "I'm stuck here because of your train services and I can't get the other train I need to catch." The young woman next to me was almost in tears. She was ringing her boss, who was clearly not accepting that yet again she would be late for work because of the train service. Not only that, but it was not possible for her to get off the train and call a cab to reach work quickly, because the train was halfway out of the station. People were on their mobile phones rearranging meetings. I was travelling here to attend a meeting, which I missed. Overcrowding and an unreliable service have a damaging effect on people's lives.
We must measure such problems from the perspective of the passenger. We have failed to do that. Let us consider the formulae that have been applied by train operating companies and the Strategic Rail Authority. They take a basket of services into consideration, not an actual route and a certain service from the sharp end—from an individual passenger's experience. They do not say that a service on a particular line is absolutely appalling, and the day-to-day experience of the passengers is not acceptable, and up with that we will not put. Examining a basket of services clouds our vision of the services that are underperforming significantly, as a result of which they are not being dealt with. The Government need to tell the SRA to measure overcrowding, delays or whatever from the passengers' experience of the service.
Such matters are inseparable from other issues that we all want dealt with. How do we deal with congestion on the roads? Can we encourage people to travel on overcrowded buses or trains? if we really want to deal with congestion, we must deal with capacity and
334WH
overcrowding on all our public transport networks. The congestion charge in London has just celebrated its first birthday. I have not seen any figures for a modal shift from the road to public transport in London, but that must have happened to some extent. What are our plans for the increased number of people who travel on public transport following the introduction of the congestion charge? We all know that other cities are looking at what has happened in London to determine whether they will introduce a similar scheme. What are their plans for increased capacity on the public transport network if such a scheme were introduced?
If we do not increase capacity, we are simply imposing a tax on the motorists. We are charging them for using the roads. Some may say that that is fine and agree that that is what should be done, but if we are not planning for, and investing in, increased capacity on public transport, we are imposing a tax on the road, because there is no transportation system for people to switch to other than a severely overcrowded network.
We tend to concentrate on trains when we discuss overcrowding. If we are to deal with a modal shift and encourage people to use public transport, the bus network is crucial. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr.Horam) will probably bear me out when I say that several significant improvements are taking place in London along the Thames gateway and to Crossrail and the Docklands light railway that we would both support. The key issue is how we shift our constituents to link in with those new valuable infrastructure improvements, so that they, too, can benefit from the new improvements in the network. Buses are the key. We already have overcrowded bus networks or insufficient networks with new modal links. We must plan ahead and deal with such issues so that the wider community, not only those close to the new stations, can benefit.
The Minister will correct me if I am understating the case, but I believe that each year 73 per cent. of all train journeys take place on what was Network SouthEast. In the south-east of the network—north Kent and southeast London—there is a heavy reliance on trains because we do not have direct access to the London underground. That leads to an enormous amount of overcrowding on that part of the network.
In addition, we are seeing the development of the Thames gateway area along the north of the river from the docklands out to the estuary in Essex and along the south of the river from Greenwich, through the peninsula by the dome, past Dartford and Ebbsfleet and out to the estuary. That is an enormous regeneration area—I think the biggest in Europe—and many thousands of jobs will be created and homes built along that corridor. That itself will create demand for additional capacity on our rail network.
The extension of the Jubilee line to north Greenwich was a welcome development for the south-east Thames area, and it brought the line to the London borough of Greenwich for the first time. However, four years after it opened, it is still easier for my constituents and me to get to central London than to get from the south of Greenwich to North Greenwich Jubilee line station. It might as well be in Newham or Islington for all it counts to the people who live in my part of the London borough of Greenwich.

335WH
That example points to the fact that when we introduce major infrastructure developments, we do not consider the wider aspects of connecting the local communities so that they can benefit from them. If there had been a wider set of options in our local transport provision, it would have assisted in reducing the demand for capacity on the heavy Network SouthEast lines and in opening up opportunities for people to benefit from the regeneration in the Thames gateway and the jobs that are being created with it.
Crossrail is essential if we are to tackle congestion on the network in central London, but it also essential that it is provided in the east Thames area if we are to meet the additional demand that will be generated as a result of the area's redevelopment. I want to take this opportunity to highlight the fact that, even now, a major south-east London hub at Woolwich is being ignored by Crossrail, which does not intend to site a station there. From Custom House on the Isle of Dogs, Crossrail intends to bypass Woolwich and go straight to Abbey Wood. That route misses the opportunity to provide a major transport hub in that part of London, play a vital role in the regeneration of the Royal Arsenal area and link up with an already extensive bus network that goes into the town centre.
That highlights how, when we plan, we are failing to consider the wider issues of how we can access major transport infrastructure developments. To bypass a major hub of existing bus and rail networks at Woolwich is a planning failure, and we should address the issue. If we want to tackle the problem of overcrowding and plan for future additional capacity, we need to take those points on board.
There is also our growing inability to run 12-car trains on the network around north Kent and south-east London. I have raised that question on several occasions as the Member of Parliament for Eltham. I have a set of answers that I received from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in November 2001.It is all about the need for 12-car trains. We have been addressing that issue: platforms have been lengthened. and there have been Thameslink plans for many years. In one of the responses, the Minister said that I was the only person who has ever raised this matter. I find that astonishing. He also informed me that:
"Railtrack is undertaking a review of Power Supply capability for the Southern Region and is in discussions with the Strategic Rail Authority to address the issue in relation to Mark 1 replacement"— [Official Report, 14 November 2001; Vol.374, c.732W]
When the Transport Committee questioned the SRA, the rolling stock companies and everybody else about the rail network, it was astonished to discover that a set of trains had been purchased that could not run on the network because the electricity supply was not sufficient. I have answers dating from almost two and a half years ago in which it is pointed out that people are aware of problems such as the need to increase the electricity supply and to lengthen some platforms. It appears that there is no joined-up thinking.
Is the SRA to blame, or are the Government, or are the ROSCOs? Who is responsible for not even taking note of a few simple parliamentary answers and thereby identifying that there is a problem with the electricity supply and that it might be necessary to work out
336WH
whether it is possible to run the new trains? People must have felt as sick as someone who buys a flash new car and then gets home and finds the garage is too small to park it in. This highlights the problem with our rail network. There are too many players, and no clearly defined responsibilities. The situation becomes more murky when we ask who is culpable.
Paragraph 49 of the Select Committee report refers to the upgrade of the electricity supply on the network. The Government's response refers to the £1 billion that is being spent on the upgrade and the fact that that will allow £2 billion of new rolling stock to be introduced. Those figures sound impressive, but they would be even more so if they were accompanied by a strategic plan that took into account all the new regeneration that is taking place in the Thames gateway area and the existing problems with the capacity that is already on that network. People in my area were amused to learn that passengers in excess of capacity are called "PIXCs". They were not surprised because they knew that the timetable was away with the fairies: they were sure that pixies would appear on the line at some time in the future.
We need a strategic plan that goes alongside the huge sums that the Government are spending to ensure that we are doing enough. A few weeks ago, I attended a consultation about the channel tunnel rail link services and the new combined franchise. I asked about the electricity supply and 12-car trains, which are essential if we are to deal with capacity in that area. I was told that even though we are upgrading the electricity supply, that will still not allow us to run 12-car trains across all that part of the rail network. I was astonished to hear that. The electricity supply that we are spending money on already has built-in obsolescence.
I have a request for the Minister. I do not expect him to be able to respond to it fully today. I want him to ask the SRA and Network Rail, "What on earth are you doing?" An enormous amount of development is taking place in the south-east, which is one of the hubs of the country's economy, and we have spoken at length about the impact of delays and not being able to rely on the public transport network. More than 90 per cent. of the people who go to work in the City of London go by public transport. That is an impressive figure, but it also highlights how essential it is to have an efficient public transport network. If, in a major investment to improve the quality of the network, there is already a problem with the amount of increased capacity that we can introduce being limited and we are prevented from running 12-car trains on the network, we are making a big mistake. I exhort the Minister to take up that issue with some urgency.
The Government are investing enormous sums in the rail network. We are spending three times as much as we were spending on British Rail, in real terms, when it was brought to an end. We applaud the Government for that, but we also need to ensure that we get a big hang for our bucks and that we are targeting the resources in the right way. I am concerned that what we are doing is firefighting— that we are rushing into the network and trying to solve the problems without having enough of an overview of the system. We must ensure that, where problems may occur in future and where demand is increasing, we are targeting the resources in the right way.

337WH
I am also concerned that we do not consider all modes of transport when planning our networks. Examples are the Jubilee line and the planned failure of Crossrail to provide a station at the major transport hub of Woolwich. We must ensure that planning takes such issues into consideration if we are to deal with capacity and overcrowding.
3.52 pm
Mr.Paul Marsden: Overcrowding on our public transport systems is a serious problem, so the report is very welcome, and I congratulate my Chairman and the rest of the team on producing it. Just the fact that they produced it means that they are highlighting an issue that does not always seem to be much of a priority but most certainly is a priority for the travelling public.
I give credit to the hon. Members for Orpington (Mr.Horam) and for Castle Point (Bob Spink) for their contributions, and in particular for the points that they made about quality of life and the constituency issues that they are concerned about. However, at a time when the Conservatives are saying that any future transport budget would have to be reduced massively under a Conservative Administration, I have to ask those on the Tory Front Bench—obviously, I will listen with great interest to what they have to say—how on earth they will improve the situation. It was a little disconcerting that the Conservative leader was already saying on 25 February that he would like to see a spreading of and an increase in car use.
If we are to entice people into continuing to use public transport and to use more of it, we must have investment. Whatever my criticisms of the Minister and the Government, there can be no doubt that massive sums are going into our public transport system, like never before. The question is whether we are getting value for money. When, for instance, we see consultants' fees massively increasing and not delivering what we want to see on the ground, there is something seriously wrong. I am minded to return to the fact that chickens have more protection from overcrowding when they are transported on trains than we passengers do. There is something seriously wrong when that is the case. As the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) said, there is a certain amount of playing safe by the Government, a certain complacency. Although we acknowledge the progress that has been made, clearly it is not enough.
Some 18 months ago outside Shrewsbury railway station, I and some of my helpers quizzed 200 rail commuters to find out what they thought about the rail service:90 per cent. thought that it had got worse under the Government. Judging by my current postbag, things are not getting better.
I am one of those unlucky passengers who travel from Shrewsbury to Birmingham New Street. I have watched in dread as two carriages arrived—God forbid there should be 10 or 12—when we clearly needed four or six.I will not blow it out of all proportion: that does not happen all the time, but surely it cannot be beyond the wit of Ministers and the rail industry to be able to provide more carriages and therefore the necessary extra capacity.
338WH
I have witnessed occasions—it would never happen in Shropshire or Shrewsbury, because we are extremely polite and well-mannered there—when disabled, elderly and vulnerable passengers have been unable to compete in the race down the platform to get on the train and find a seat. Those vulnerable people are the ones who lose out most.
From the Committee's report, there can be no doubt that demand has increased above the level of 1997. It is gratifying to find out from the Corporation of London, for instance, that 91 per cent. of London's population use public transport. There are massive regional differences—further afield the figure is only 18 per cent—but the overall demand has been at least 14 per cent. since 1992.
The same is true of passenger journeys. In 1997, there were more than 800 million passenger journeys; the latest figures for 2002–03 show that there were 976 million. That is a 22 per cent. increase. The only problem is that passengers have had to pay for that. The money has not come only from the Government; fares have increased by 42 per cent. during that time, which is more than double the increase in passenger journeys.
I was worried to read in Metro on 9 February that
"The Rail Safety and Standards Board has banned the term `overcrowding'."
Will the Minister enlighten us on whether that is true? It would appear that the board only wants the term "crowded" to be used. Being wedged shoulder to shoulder—sometimes literally cheek to cheek, or armpit to armpit—is not a pleasant experience, and we should be more honest about how bad things can be.
From the figures provided in the Strategic Rail Authority's regular "On Track" reports, it would appear that 1 million rail journeys every day are overcrowded. That is simply unsatisfactory. Roughly 41 per cent. of people are unsatisfied with the number of seats and standing spaces. It takes about four hours to get from the House to Shrewsbury, and travelling from Birmingham to Wolverhampton, the train picks up those lovely Wolverhampton Wanderers supporters after they have had a beverage or two after the football. It is always a delight to share their company back to Shrewsbury when there is nowhere to sit down.
Mrs.Dunwoody: You should go via Crewe.
Mr.Marsden: Perhaps I shall take up my Chairman's suggestion.
There is no official monitoring of overcrowding across the rail network, and that must be addressed. As I mentioned earlier, chickens receive more protection than people. That is because, under the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, animals, including cattle, pigs, sheep and chickens, cannot exceed a maximum stocking density, but there are no meaningful regulations for people. As the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr.Donohoe) said, people can be packed on to a train and there is virtually no protection or comeback for those individuals.
There is not much good news in the passenger survey either. Overall, one in four people are dissatisfied with overcrowding. People are deeply unhappy with the current situation. I shall name and shame certain rail

339WH
companies: the figure is more than one in three for Silverlink, one in three for Thamestink, almost one in three for Connex South East, and almost 30 per cent. for South Central, South West Trains, WAGN and others.
There has been some slow progress. I cannot disagree with the amount of investment, but I hope that the Minister will address the issue of capacity, and not simply the newness and shininess of new carriages. The figures published in table 25 of "A, Bulletin of Public Transport Statistics: Great Britain:2003 edition" show that the number of carriages on the national rail network has fallen from 10,600 to just over 10,000. That reminds me a little of the argument about hospital beds. Although we all welcome brand new hospitals, if bed capacity is reduced, patients will not be particularly pleased if they have to travel further to or stay less time in hospital. We must expand capacity, and I urge the Government to review how it can be increased
On safety, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs.Eliman) mentioned stress. It is a good point. A recent presentation by John Cartledge, the RPC's safety policy adviser, concluded that the issue is not so much the danger of overcrowding. I agree with him: accidents are rare, although in the last three years, about 29 passengers have been injured alighting from trains where the platforms do not meet the carriages. That is not necessarily as serious an issue as the fact that, day after day, people have to suffer discomfort and confinement, and are not even able to sit down. For certain services, although not all, hot spots of trouble must be tackled, and the Government could do something about them.
Improvements in bus design are to be welcomed, particularly for less mobile and disabled passengers. However, the Government's target is still only about 50 per cent. of buses to be accessible to those minority groups by 2010. That is another six years away, just for half of all buses to be able to help those people. The overall capacity of buses does seem to have increased, perhaps by some 2,200, but it is worrying that the numbers of single-deck 17 to 35-seaters and double-decker buses have been reduced. I am sure that some anorak in Whitehall came up with this statistic, but the number of vehicle kilometres run by local bus services in England has fallen by 0.9 per cent. since 1996–97.That is bad news— although sometimes I should appreciate an explanation in plain English of why one cannot always sit down on buses.
In summary, there have been modest improvements: there is no doubt that more money is being invested, but we are not achieving the value for money that we need. We must urgently address the problem, specifically the hot spots. Another accident or tragedy that could have been avoided is entirely conceivable. I welcome the new research into health and safety aspects, and congratulate the Transport Committee—of which I was not a member at the time—on having pushed for and obtained a result. Without its report, I doubt whether this debate would have taken place. We must encourage people to use alternatives, including leaving their cars behind, at least some of the time. There must be real choice, especially in rural areas. The state of buses and trains there can sometimes be quite appalling. Based on the fact that we are making chickens more comfortable, pigs are more protected, cattle are not as cramped and sheep seem to have more space when they have to travel
340WH
on trains, is it not time that people enjoyed the comfort and relaxation of a seat on every tube, train, tram and bus journey?
4.5 pm
Mr.Greg Knight: I join those who have thanked the Transport Committee for looking into this important area. It is right that this subject is debated. Although we do not have a full Hall today—partly because the business in the House is subject to a one-line Whip, and partly due to the desire of many hon. Members to get home in non-rush hour trains that are not overcrowded—we have had a quality, good-natured debate and a number of valid points have been raised. I hope that the Minister will respond to those points and take them on board when deciding what further action needs to be taken.
I am aware that it is difficult being a Transport Minister. The Conservative, Paul Channon, used to say when he had that responsibility that it is the only job in the world where you have to apologise to people when they arrive late for your meetings. I know that the Minister has problems, but I hope that he will consider some of the serious issues raised this afternoon. Overcrowding on public transport is a real problem. Hundreds of thousands of passengers— mainly, but not exclusively, on our railways— face the daily trauma of gross overcrowding. I accept that a certain level of overcrowding can be regarded as a sign of success, because people are using that form of transport. However, it is a question of degree. The Transport Committee has rightly identified current levels of overcrowding on public transport in many parts of the country as chronic and unacceptable. That problem must be addressed.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs.Dunwoody), in a wide-ranging opening speech, was right to say that there are knock-on effects. If people travel on an overcrowded, delayed train, employers are faced with staff who are tired, stressed and uncomfortable when they finally arrive at work. Although the personal effects of overcrowding can be seen, the knock-on economic consequences are harder to identify. Estimates of the cost vary. I noticed in the report that one estimate put the cost to the City of London alone at about £230 million a year. The economic costs are substantial.
There are safety aspects, too, as some hon. Members have said, but it is right to put those aspects in context, because rail is still a safe way to travel and poses a much lower safety risk than other forms of transport. Of course, that should not be used as an excuse for failing to deal with or reduce the serious effects of overcrowding. The Transport Committee was right to say that the current methods for monitoring overcrowding are not reliable and should therefore not be considered acceptable. The Government have accepted that criticism, for which I think all hon. Members present are grateful. The Government must, however, ensure that changes take place as soon as possible and effective collation of reliable information is introduced.
I should like to comment on the problems faced by different types of transport. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr.Marsden) said that buses

341WH
are widely regarded as not having the same overcrowding problem as trains. That is right, but improvements can and should be made. The design of buses is important. It is amazing that all buses are not fitted with a drop step, so that elderly passengers and those who suffer from arthritis can get on and off much more easily. I have a classic 1972 BMC work bus. Even that has a drop step at the back to enable people to get on it more easily. It is amazing that bus designers have not found a simple and cost-effective way of having a lower step that is capable of use by disabled passengers. Having said that, I welcome the bus industry's target to make 50 per cent. of the full-sized fleet accessible to mobility-impaired passengers by 2010.
The report also welcomes new initiatives in London for the new articulated buses— or, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich called them, bendy buses. One of the benefits of those buses is the introduction of the new cashless system where passengers prepay. We should examine places outside the capital without pay before-you-go systems. It was not that long ago— perhaps a decade or 15 years—when most buses had a conductor. A person got on the bus, which immediately left the bus stop, and the fare was collected while the vehicle was in motion. The advent of one-man-operated buses has made buses less attractive to the public, because it has lengthened journey times, and in some cases has meant that people have to queue in the rain waiting to get on while those ahead in the queue pay their fares. We should consider encouraging the introduction of prepayment systems throughout the country.
More can be done with the bus network, especially in London. Buses in the capital operate under an incredibly complex contracting system, which is expensive and offers no incentive for bus operators to provide anything other than a basic service. I would like to see that system replaced with a net cost system, under which bus operators would receive all or some of the percentage of the income that they generate. They would then have a real incentive to improve service and make their buses more attractive.
As has been said by every contributor to the debate, the problem of overcrowding is most acute on our railways, and although it is most serious in the London area, it is clearly not restricted to the capital alone and affects many other areas. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs.Ellman) identified some of the problems in her part of the world.
A difficult balance must be struck between reducing overcrowding on trains and the desire of commuters for a reliable and regular service. As a passenger, I am prepared to accept some overcrowding on a short journey. The Committee rightly identified the problem. If I am undertaking a train journey that I know will not take more than 15 or 20 minutes, I do not mind having to stand. What matters to me is that the train will arrive, the journey speed will not be unduly slow and I will arrive when I expect to. I therefore disagree with the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, who called for a seat for every passenger. We need not go that far. Those passengers taking short journeys do not necessarily demand a seat; they want to know that the train will get them to their destination on time.
342WH
The Committee also echoed the view of the Rail Passengers Council that the monitoring regime is flawed. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that when he responds.
Several hon. Members asked about the lengthening of trains. I regularly used trains not only to go to school but during the early part of my student days. In those days, the train was regularly longer than the platforms of many of the stations, and an announcement was made: "Those passengers who wish to alight at the next station, please make your way towards the front of the train" It beggars belief that we are being told that the trains cannot be lengthened because of the absence or inadequacy of satellite systems. It ought to be perfectly possible for train operators to put on two or three extra coaches when required, even if the platforms are not long enough to accommodate the length of the train. That used to be done many years ago without, as far as I am aware, any undue difficulty. These days, given that the driver or someone else on the train has the ability to lock doors, we should be able to have a fairly simple system whereby some doors can be identified as having to be kept locked at certain stations without our having to get into satellite technology, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr.Horam) mentioned.
While I am on the subject of overcrowding, I should put in a plea for those members of the public who are of a larger stature—and I should perhaps declare an interest. I find it irritating when I travel on a train that, in many of the new carriages, there is inadequate legroom, and my legs touch the seat in front. I accept that I am unusually tall, but it is surely not beyond the wit of those who design and build rolling stock to put in at least a couple of seats with more legroom, and perhaps even a greater seat width, at the front or back of each carriage, to accommodate those members of the public who are larger than the norm. They, too, ought to be encouraged to use public transport.
We also need to look into how new rolling stock is bought or leased, particularly in light of guidelines regarding the length of franchises. If we are to have more shorter franchises, surely train operating companies will be unlikely to take the same level of risk on rolling stock. The Government should investigate that.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and others have highlighted procurement problems, such as the confusion that occurred when South West Trains and South Central both ordered new stock to replace the Mark I rolling stock. Also, we have heard that the trains could not be put into service because the power supply needs to be upgraded. There are also issues of rolling stock compatibility. There ought to be a more effective mechanism in place to ensure not only that rolling stock that can be used straight away is ordered, but that stock ordered by different companies is compatible.
Some of the very worst examples of overcrowding are seen on the London underground. As the report explains, there is difficulty in expanding the infrastructure. I think that we can accept that that is a particularly difficult problem to solve. Crossrail and Thameslink are solutions to some extent. Estimates suggest that Crossrail would probably mean a transfer of 7 per cent. of tube passengers from existing lines, and would help to reduce levels of overcrowding on all London underground lines. Clearly, that is of benefit.

343WH
I do not understand why operating companies on the underground do not run seatless carriages. When I use the underground, 90 per cent. of the time my journey lasts less than 15 minutes and invokes travelling only three or four stations. Why can companies not put on a carriage with no seating, with straps along the length of the carriage, to accommodate more passengers? I understand that one problem with some of the rolling stock is that the wheel arches are concealed under the seats, so if one took the seats away, there would not be a straight floor area. However, that is not the design of all underground trains.
My idea seems a perfectly acceptable solution. Before someone asks, "What about the disabled?" let me say that the disabled would not seek to use that carriage. I would expect able-bodied people to use it, freeing up more seats for the old and the disabled. I hope that that can be looked into. I would be interested to know, if it is not feasible or viable, why that is so.
The only area where I part company with the view of the Committee is on bus overcrowding, where it refers to
"proper enforcement of bus priority measures."
I agree that such enforcement is desirable, but I also think we should look at this issue rather more widely than the Committee appears to have done. What I find offensive is going through a city with a 24-hour bus lane when there are not 24-hour buses. Local authorities ought to be required to ensure that bus lanes that are not part of a contraflow operate only when the buses themselves are operating.
Why are we not more imaginative'' The Chairman of the Committee mentioned that in some areas it is difficult to have a bus lane because of the congested carriageways. The Minister has heard me say this before, but why do we not operate a system that encourages car sharing? If two mothers get together and decide to share a car instead of both going in their individual cars to pick their children up from school, they should be allowed to use the bus lane. America has a similar system on certain freeways, with some lanes that one can use only if one is sharing one's car with others. We should look at some of these ideas to help reduce congestion, and to encourage people to share their vehicles.
I know the Minister will not be able to deal with all the points that have been raised today, but I hope he is prepared to look at this issue seriously. A number of points have been raised in this debate that I feel cannot be dismissed or ignored. It is time we saw a programme of action from the Government ors this serious issue of overcrowding.
4.22 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr.Tony McNulty): I want to start by echoing what others have said about this having been a very useful debate. The report is excellent, and we accept the importance of the subject matter. I want to come on to some details in a moment, but as a Transport Minister, I think that we too infrequently have properly focused and reflective debates on various aspects of transport that take account of where we are and where we seek to go. On the whole, we have had some very intelligent and practical suggestions—of course, there are some exceptions, which I shall come to—and it is appropriate that we discuss these matters in some detail.
344WH
I would like to start by regaling the House with some comments about my week, which has been a fairly mixed one in terms of travel. I started by going from Liverpool Street to Purfleet on Tuesday on nice upgraded c2c rolling stock, which was all very pleasant. I returned to Liverpool Street from Southend that day on slightly less nice rolling stock, but it was a pleasant enough journey none the less. I had a seat both ways because I was travelling outside peak hours, so that was fine, and it was quite a reasonable journey in both directions.
Someone referred to South West Trains. Yesterday I went on one of its old slam-door trains down to Woking, and then to Guildford and back to London. Again, that was huge fun. As I said to people yesterday, I guarantee when the last of that rolling stock comes off the railway lines there will be a slam-door heritage society saying "Save our slam-doors, we want them back, and we do not like the new stuff at all"—assuming that such a society is not in existence already.
The issue is all about balance. I am stupid enough to smoke, so for all the rather decaying elegance of the slam-door rolling stock, I could not care less because there was a smoking carriage and that was all I wanted, as it was only an hour-long journey. The service was reliable, and I arrived at my destination on time and in good order, albeit having knocked 10 minutes off my life by smoking the couple of cigarettes that I had en route.
This morning, I had the great pleasure of going down to Portsmouth on the same South West Trains rolling stock, which again delivered me on time and in comfort. Clearly I got back in time, because I am present in this debate. Most interestingly—I do not say this as a profound point on behalf of the Government—I took the 8.38 train, and although I know that there were plenty of people on it to begin with who probably alighted at Woking or Guildford. I think that only six of them got off at Portsmouth. I did not count, but it was at least a 10-carriage train, if not a 12-carriage one. It was absolutely empty, although I make those remarks by the by.
On the subjects that the report feels will help in responding to overcrowding, I thought that it dismissed rather too abruptly the notion of flexible work modes and flexible travel times. In respect of what hon. Members have said about the London context—the commuter network and London underground—those notions will not solve every problem, but the greater the number of people who can be shipped outside those peak hours, the less overcrowding there will be. Let me say that I am not arguing that that is a panacea by any means, before hon. Members suggest that that is what I am saying. We recognise that there is a problem, and with all the honesty that I can muster, I must say that there will always be overcrowding difficulties.
As hon. Members have suggested, to some degree that issue is a question of balance. There are public policy options, some of which are realistic and some of which are not, that we could put forward now, weighing all those elements into the balance. We could quite easily get rid of overcrowding tomorrow by tripling fares in peak hours and keeping them relatively low outside those times. It would take a fairly brave and courageous Government to do that, even though it would work as a public policy instrument. We could work to get more peak and off-peak capacity in the London network by eradicating freight, at least in peak hours. That has not

345WH
happened entirely, but on some lines it has had to happen. We could say that there should be no freight anywhere on the London network between 9 am and 5 pm. Again, in terms of the competing public policy concerns, that is not a terribly useful policy option because of what we say about getting more freight on to rail, but it would free up significant elements of the network for commuters. The matter is therefore one of balance, as the report rightly says.
I also fully endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs.Dunwoody) about the impact of overcrowding not only on business, but on tourism and on people's quality of life in the broader sense. I would again add the small caveat mentioned by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr.Knight) about the length of the journey. If one is making a 15 or 20-minute journey, those quality-of-life aspects are clearly less important—although the situation may not be acceptable—than if one is stuck on the same commuter run for an hour and a half every day and arrives in a less than polished fashion.
I can imagine that it is not terribly nice, not least in the height of summer, for somebody to set out for work fresh, full of confidence and ready to greet the day only to find that by the time that they arrive at their destination, the first thing that they want to do is to turn around and go home or to have another shower. I accept that that is an unpleasant journey for many people, and we need to respond to that. I also accept that capacity, management, rolling stock and the issues raised by the Committee are the sorts of areas that we need to examine, and I will return to them in a moment.
I am enormously grateful that the report at least touches on the issue of buses, not least as I am the Minister with responsibility for them. They are an important mode of transport. There is less overcrowding on buses and in some areas they can be a useful and flexible alternative to rail. In an increasing number of cases, operators and local authorities, with or without the Government's assistance, are doing more to emphasise that flexibility and to compete with rail where they can.
I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend about bus priority measures above and beyond bus lanes, guided bus routes— particularly with fixed lights for buses—and all the other elements that assist the efficiency of the bus network, not least in peak hours. Such measures, albeit to a different degree, address essentially the same problem—space and capacity. In terms of bus operations and bus priority measures, there is a question about how full buses, with 50 or 60 people on board, as opposed to cars containing one person, can share and sometimes be a priority in the limited space on the road network. As we have said, that is to some extent the case for the rail network.
I agree with the report that the use of capacity is fundamental. The issue is not only about a panacea of huge new swathes or tranches of additional capacity, but about whether we are best using the existing capacity in all circumstances.
To return to the tale of my travels, I forgot to mention South East Trains, which I used to go to Gillingham last night. I wondered what was going on when I was sitting
346WH
in a carriage at the front of the train, and all of a sudden people poured into it from the back. I thought that something was going on, but that I was not being told. However, there was announcement as I got off at Rainham—in Kent, not Essex—that the train was too long for the platform and that people getting off at that small station should do so from the front two carriages. The train was modern, new rolling stock.
I will explore what people say about satellites not working and so on, because it is fairly troublesome. The 10 or 12-carriage trains that I took yesterday and the day before stopped once or twice. I guess that they would stop far more readily during peak hours at stations whose platforms are far too short to accommodate 10 or 12-carriage trains. However, the announcement was made, and people were clearly anticipating it. I will take the point more seriously than we may have done until now.
The issue is about balance. The Committee made some intelligent, good points about the balance among rolling stock, new stock, new capacity and all those dimensions. Underlying those issues, as Members have said, is the internal governance of the industry, its assorted levels and the question of who is talking to whom. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) mentioned the issue of the SRA versus the Government and all the other layers.
Members will know that we are in the midst of a rail review that is considering that matter, and I ask for the indulgence of the House, because I will not say too much about it in order to avoid pre-empting or prejudicing the review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that we want to make that as quick a piece of work as possible and we will look to reporting by the summer. Again, the points made in recommendations 13 to 17 on rolling stock and other matters are equally important.
Mr.Greg Knight: We also look forward to the publication of the rail review report. The Minister mentioned that he expects it to be published in the summer. Will he give an assurance that it will be published before the House rises for the summer recess?
Mr.McNulty: I happily give that assurance. I spent virtually every day alter I started in this post—on Friday 13, as Members may know—saying that we promised faithfully to publish the aviation White Paper by the end of the year. By God, we did it—with two days to spare before the Christmas recess; it was published on 16 December. In referring to the summer, I am talking about parliamentary time rather than mid-August. As I may have said previously, I was all for saying, "Throw the aviation White Paper on the website on 24 December and we will go on holiday for a couple of months to let the pressures die down." However, we did not do that; we did it the right way.
I will look into the point made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr.Horam) about Borough Market and other pinch points. The issue has been around for ever, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, but I am not sure where we are with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the planning dimension, for which I am happily no longer responsible. However, I will explore that matter and get back to hon. Members.
Many of the points made by the hon. Member for Orpington echoed what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said. Travel to work is

347WH
fundamental and will not go away. I feel sorry for the constituent mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, who had been commuting for 20 years and said that the appalling conditions continue. I suspect that at least part of that view reflects how he or she feels today in looking back to the past 20 years, rather than a complete lack of any incremental improvements. I am sure that some things must have improved, one way or the other. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is about a trade-off.
The points about power supply in south London were well made. More and more new rolling stock is finally getting through. However, because of new designs, compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, comfort and other safety aspects, the stock has a smaller capacity. Again, there is a balance to be struck. Do we simply keep and constantly refurbish the old carriages with their slam doors and large capacity or do we accept that the trade-off in respect of new rolling stock is less seating and standing capacity? Of course we do. That is fine if one still seeks to optimise the capacity in other areas, and I accept that point, which was made by more than one hon. Member. The hon. Member for Orpington was right that, in response to a question that he asked—I do not know whether it was in the last Question Time or the previous one —my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expressed exasperation about what appeared to be the simple process involving Network Rail, the local planning authority and others in getting consideration of a platform extension proposal, let alone the next stage of getting such an extension built.
In my role as Minister with responsibility for transport liaison with other bodies in London, I have had meetings with the SRA, Network Rail and others to express the importance of some of the apparently cosmetic, small and trivial elements such as platform extensions, which are more desirable than making everyone shift up to the front of train; with six carriages. That must be done through a streamlined process. We are looking at ways in which that process can be uncoupled from the huge bureaucratic rigmarole that we constantly have to go through. If all the suggested extensions to capacity in London, such as the East London line, Thameslink 2000 and Crossrail are factored in, none of them will happen in an immediate hurry to solve the difficulty over the next couple of years. Therefore, we must try to obtain the most effective use of current capacity. If that cannot happen because of an unmitigated bureaucracy in relation to network and platform extension and so on, the points that were made by the Committee must be considered.
Happily, just because I do not think that it is funny anymore, I did not see "Bremner, Bird and Fortune". I get rather exasperated when I get to five to nine and I have not laughed much. That is the case not because of the content or the supposed satire against the Government, but because the programme is just not funny. I accept that Bird and Fortune are the best bit, rather than the Bremner bit, so it is a shame that I missed that part.
I am terribly saddened that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich is disappointed by the Government's response, which needs to be seen in the wider context of all our work. We need to start talking on a cross-party basis about the big questions such as sharing and using the capacity on our roads and rail as best we can.
348WH
I do not think that we are served by hyperbole. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr.Donohoe) will be hard pushed to find a train on which there were 2,000 people when only 1,000 could fit. Poetic licence is one thing, but we should not take it too far. I am grateful that hon. Members have occasionally reminded themselves and qualified the notion of when during the day overcrowding occurs in London or elsewhere. It does not occur on every single train on every single day, and I am grateful to the Committee for pointing that out.
I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South says about some stations having insufficient car parking space. When we deal with integration, we must reach a stage at which there are feeder park-and-ride schemes and significant car park provision, especially in outlying stations, so that people can be encouraged to board a train, if only for that last short hop into town.
On a tangential point, I recently launched a huge park-and-ride scheme with some 400 parking spaces at Selly Oak in Birmingham. It is excellently designed, with a real concern for safety, and it is only about 10 to 15 minutes from the centre of town. It has been built on land that would never have been used for anything else, because it was up against a railway line. A decision was made to transform it into a huge park-and-ride scheme for precisely the purpose that I described.
From what I gather, the scheme has worked effectively, although it did not do so at the launch. The selling point was that there were trains every 10 minutes and that they took 10 minutes to get to Birmingham New Street station. However, after having a cup of tea and doing some radio interviews, we turned to get the train and it was cancelled. What should have been a good news story for Birmingham and the Government turned into "Minister Stranded as Trains Cancelled". Happily, the trains leave every 10 minutes, so I got the next one.
The car park has 400 spaces and it is close to the town centre. The scheme does not use land that could be exploited for housing or employment opportunities, and it has been working well. We need to work with local authorities through local transport plans and bring the rail network more into the notion of integrated local and regional planning than it has been until now.
Mr.Horam: Will the Minister speak to the Mayor of London about integrating car parking with local stations? He is putting a strict limit on the amount of parking available, and in some instances that is clearly a mistake.
Mr.McNulty: We shall not bandy words about our respective views of the Mayor of London, although he will be more than happy to converse about such proposals in relation to stations in outlying areas. London is a bit different from Birmingham, and the Mayor has a problem with stations that are very close to the city centre. However, the south London overland infrastructure of stations and associated car parks has been wilfully neglected for a long time. It is in a far worse state than in other areas, as I have noticed in the past few days while making the train journeys that I have mentioned. I frequently speak to the Mayor, who is nowadays a good friend and comrade, so I am happy to have a word about the car parks.

349WH
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham that there is no denying that there is a wide range of problems. In the context of limited resources, we have to strike a balance and trade off the various aspects. He made a point about having too many players, and I have said that we are considering that point in the context of the rail review. I would not condemn Crossrail as a project, first, before it is even off the ground; secondly, before we have considered the report; and thirdly, before any final proposal is agreed or otherwise. To start railing because there is no station at Woolwich is a little premature, and the case still needs to be argued. I was happy to announce recently that, as he said, the docklands light railway is now extending to Woolwich to bring the town more into what is happening in the gateway north of the river. We should be pleased about that.
As the Government said in our response, we need to consider how we monitor overcrowding and how frequently we do so. The point about PIXCs and being away with the fairies was well crafted if not necessarily true. To return to choices, we cannot have 12-car trains across the entire network. I do not agree with the suggestion that we are firefighting. In a strategic sense, we are scrambling towards making best use of our railway network, while, as we have always said, playing catch-up in the investment that we are making.
I have deliberately focused on the points in the report rather than simply giving a litany about investment levels. Hon. Members have referred to those levels, and they are significant, but there are other problems. None the less, I am not going to go down the road of attacking the Conservative Front Benchers for their public expenditure pronouncements over the last couple of months, which showed that the fellow from Bournemouth has not changed his spots.
Clive Efford: Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he comment on the upgrading of the electricity supply and say whether it will be sufficient for 12-car trains? Earlier, he mentioned the need to make the best of our network. Are we confident that the upgrade of the electricity supply will achieve that?
Mr.McNulty: I am not being flippant, but clearly in one sense the upgrade of the supply will allow us to use capacity far more readily than would be the case if the upgrade did not occur. Whether that is sufficient at particular peak hours throughout the whole network to run 12-car trains, or at what level it can run such trains, I will explore further, because it is not a matter with which I am familiar. I shall get back not only to my hon. Friend, but to all those hon. Members who have attended the debate.
I am not about to attack the Tories, and I mean that. I wish to say to the Liberal Democrats, however, that making nice noises—as ever—is all very fine, but I should love to see their costed plans for everyone having a seat on a train. I suspect that they might run to a few billion pounds. I read with interest and relish alleged Liberal Democrat shadow Budgets when they are produced. I think of them with affection, but I did not find anything about the expansion of transport
350WH
expenditure in their last three shadow Budgets. I appreciate, however, that that was before the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr.Marsden) was a member of the party.
Mr.Marsden: The Minister has already agreed that we need to increase capacity. The fact is that we do not have enough Network Rail carriages. What will he do about that? The fact that he has already dismissed such matters and said that there will always be overcrowding will be bitterly disappointing for ordinary rail commuters who will continue to suffer day after day.
Mr. McNulty: With the best will in the world, the hon. Gentleman is talking through his backside.
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order, Will the Minister withdraw that statement?
Mr.McNulty: Of course, Mr.Deputy Speaker.I withdraw it.
Given our network, its throughput and the hours in the day, there will always be overcrowding especially on the London commuter network.
Mr.Donohoe: Will the Minister give way?
Mr.McNulty: No, I will not. I am not being complacent. We are not washing our hands of the matter. What I said is a fact. I defy anyone, even those hon. Members who represent the commuter belt or those from the minor, third party to tell me how, in terms of resources, rolling stock or any other capacity, matters will change. While we continue to have an on-off, walk-on service and do not limit the number of people on our trains—I have not heard of such a policy—we shall not have anything other than overcrowding in the peak hours.
Bob Spink: As the Minister asked me to do so, I shall tell him what I think should be done. We must put more rolling stock on the lines, so that the 12-car trains can be up and running on the London, Tilbury and Southend line during rush hour and have an additional station on Canvey Island. That will increase the capacity of the line and allow people to travel in safety and without overcrowding. Will he now stop waffling and tell the Chamber what he will specifically do to resolve the problem for my constituents?
Mr.McNulty: Again, with the best will in the world, the hon. Gentleman has offered one solution to increase capacity and another to increase the passenger throughput on that capacity. He cannot have both. He wants more trains on the LTS line and another station, so that even more people can get on an already crowded LTS line. That is not a conceivable way in which to ensure that the LTS line never has capacity problems and overcrowding It reinforces my point. I am not being complacent. I recognise the limitations on the capacity that we already have in London and commuter land, and that our plans—even the three that I mentioned—although they will add to capacity, but not significantly, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, will not overcome overcrowding at peak hours, which is simply a fact of life. We can ameliorate and mitigate it and try

351WH
to lengthen the peak hours so that there is only a degree of discomfort, and not the nasty overcrowding there is at some times.
However, neither the hon. Gentleman nor any party would be able to find the necessary resources or be able to do the other things that would have to be done to eradicate crowding and overcrowding on London commuter lines. To suggest otherwise is to be away with the fairies, or is for minor third parties that do not have a hope in hell of securing power.
Mr.Donohoe: I wish to return to my point about having a definition that is understandable. There are maximum levels of occupancy for car and bus travel. Will overcrowding on trains be defined?
Mr.McNulty: That touches in part on the fatuous suggestion of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham about chickens and pigs. Do we wish to start from the premise that we no longer want a walk-on service anywhere on our rail network? Do we want to say, "304, 305, 306—that's your lot, you can all clear off and wait for the next one?" I have not heard any party proposing that policy. We must address extra rolling stock in peak hours, extensions to platforms and the many other ways in which the problem in London and the south-east can be ameliorated. I apologise for dwelling on that region, but 70 per cent of passenger journeys take place there.
If there is a walk-on service, the key question is what to do to ameliorate overcrowding in peak hours.
Mrs.Ellman: Will the Minister give way?
Mr.McNulty: No, because I am about to finish so that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, the Committee Chairman, can have some time.
I am not suggesting that there are no problems in other areas. That is why I have apologised for dwelling on London and the south-east. No one is suggesting that walk-on services should not prevail.
Mr.Deputy Speaker: Order, I remind the Minister that we have until 5.30 pm.
Mr.McNulty: Do we? In that case, I will give way.
Mrs.Ellman: My hon. Friend the Minister stated that 70 per cent. of passenger journeys took place in the south-east and he gave the unfortunate impression that he did not have equal concern for passengers in the regions. Would he like to rectify that?
Mr.McNulty: I did not give that impression, and it is obtuse to think that I did. I was simply apologising for dwelling on London and the south-east where the majority of journeys take place, and where there is most of the overcrowding.
The report accepts that we should work on the premise that there will be walk-on services and we will not restrict the number of people on our trains. Many reasons for overcrowding have been described in the report and by hon. Members. It is a cause of concern and discomfort but in most regards it is not a health and
352WH
safety issue. That is stated clearly in the report and the response. However, if we are to maintain walk-on services, we will not get to a stage where how many square feet each commuter should have will be defined. That would be inappropriate.
With regard to the other end of the scale, fair points have been made about whether the definition and measurement of the performance of the train operating companies in achieving anything less than overcrowding should be looked at again. In that sense, PIXCs and fairies are entirely reasonable. Should the TOCs look again at how they measure overcrowding? There is always scope to revisit how things are measured. Should they measure their performance on that more often than once a year? Of course they should. The Government's response states that there should be more than an annual snapshot of overcrowding.
I happily accept the points that have been made on this, but we are not going to get to a stage where there is anything other than a walk-on service. If we were, everything from franchising to rolling stock would need to be reconfigured. We are trying to make the best of what we have. The SRA is looking at its overall network utilisation strategy. That will raise further dilemmas and public policy choices if people are serious about taking this as other than either a narrow parochial issue or a partisan one. There are serious issues throughout the network, not only in the areas in which there is overcrowding, about what we do with various types and levels of services. Serious questions need to be asked about utilisation and capacity in our core urban areas—in London and beyond—in the areas surrounding and linked to our urban areas and in the interconnections between urban areas. Posing and answering those questions may go some way to relieving the issue of overcrowding that the report has raised.
As has already been said, there will also be a rolling-stock strategy. In both general and specific terms, there are great concerns in some of the franchise arrangements about how overcrowding should be tackled. I fully accept what the report says about safety not being used by the TOCs as some sort of umbrella excuse or alibi for not making service improvements. That point was well made. We need to reach the stage at which we are affording our people the railway network that they deserve.
There has been a significant level of investment, which has been sustained and planned for the first time in a long while. I say that as a reproach to previous Governments of both persuasions. Such a major infrastructure needs constant care and attention in terms of maintenance, and that has not been forthcoming. We are therefore, in some respects, still playing catch-up.
As one hon. Member said—I apologise that I cannot remember who—the report deals admirably with the vexed question of overcrowding, but raises as many further questions after study as it gives answers. In addition to the immediate response that we gave to the report, we will deal with those questions in a serious fashion. Moreover, given that my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee has expressed such disappointment at the Government's response, I will also take that back to the Department. We will take the report, its contents and how we build on it to allay

353WH
people's concerns about overcrowding very seriously indeed. I will also respond to hon. Members on the matters about which I said that I would do so.
I conclude by thanking the Committee for its report. As with a range of its reports, it is exact, to the point and commendably concise, but it is none the less substantive, reflective and thought-provoking for all that. Hon. Members should be assured that we will take the findings extremely seriously. I do not doubt that this issue will continue to vex hon. Members, and that we will return to it regularly.
I repeat, because it is only fair to be as honest and responsible as one can in these positions, that a magic wand will not be waved over the next five, 10 or 15 years by whatever party is in power, to eradicate completely any hint of overcrowding in the UK—certainly not on the London and south-east network—unless we were to go down the PIXC route. That idea was suggested not by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich but by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, who argued that everyone should buy a seat and people should not stand on a train at all, which is absolutely in the land of the fairies.
4.58 pm
Mrs.Dunwoody: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak for a second or two at the end of the debate. It is fashionable to accuse the House of Commons of being out of touch with the interests of constituents, but for those of us who are involved in transport it is clear that one of the most important things that affects people's lives is their day-to-day contact with transport—movement between their homes and their jobs and their jobs and their social life. That is why the report is important. Although it is short, it lays out some very important issues.
354WH
The debate today has been fascinating because it has shown the interest that individual Members can demonstrate from their own areas. It is important that we understand that the problem affects not just one area but the whole of the UK. It is also true that in transport the changes that are introduced are frequently incremental—large sums may be spent, but the traveller does not always see the immediate and direct effect. However, without proper planning and incremental improvement, there will never be a change in the situation of those who are subjected to intolerable conditions daily on their way to work—I use the word "intolerable" deliberately. Every day in this capital city, staff have to close stations so that they can assess the number of people on the platforms because it has reached a dangerous level. In our other cities, people push and shove on to trains every day, to get to work in conditions that should not be acceptable in any civilised society.
Our report addresses specifically not only what the problem is, but what ought to be done about it. I will not repeat all the suggestions, and I am grateful to the Minister for his kind words. However, the House of Commons works best when we realise that we have a duty to those who elect us to ensure that we understand the conditions of their lives. Those conditions are affected by the decisions that we take. Transport is one of the basic and important subjects on which we make decisions, and we must not lose our appreciation of its importance in the lives of our constituents.
The debate has been useful. I should give the Minister notice that I do not intend to keep coming back and talking about the same subjects for the next five or 10 years; I may haunt him, but I will not keep asking the same questions. However, I expect, and demand, changes, and my Committee will ensure that those changes are made.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Five o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Agricultural Subsidies
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost of UK agricultural subsidies and price support in areas which are not dependent on the Common Agricultural Policy in the last year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [156602]

  Alun Michael
  Commodities not subject to a Common Organisation of the Market include potatoes, horsemeat, honey, coffee, alcohol, cork and vinegars derived from alcohol. UK subsidies or price support for these areas are negligible or non-existent.

  Calf Passports
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what happens to male calves which are refused passports because the owner failed to register them within 27 days.[156044]

  Alun Michael
  In the first instance the animal's keeper has the right to appeal against the decision to refuse a passport if he thinks there are special or extenuating circumstances.

  If the appeal is unsuccessful, the animal may live out its life on the farm it is on. It may not be moved to other premises and it may not enter the food chain at the end of its life.

  If the keeper does not wish to keep the calf it may be moved under licence to a knacker's yard or other facility for destruction.

  Milk Pricing
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Office of Fair Trading's recent re-examination of the supermarkets' code, with specific reference to milk pricing.[156442]

  Alun Michael
  The report of the review by the Office of Fair Trading of the operation of the Supermarket Code of Practice was published on 20 February 2004. It made no reference to milk pricing which falls outside the scope of the Code.

  We welcome the publication of the report and the OFTs decision to undertake a focused compliance audit of the supermarkets' dealings with suppliers. We hope that this will provide a firm evidence base for future action.

  European Landscape Convention
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress the Government are making with the European Landscape Convention; and when it will be(a) signed and (b) ratified. [157480]

  Alun Michael
  Defra has been considering with other interested Government Departments and agencies the possible costs and benefits to the UK of signing and ratifying the Council of Europe European Landscape Convention. No decision has yet been taken as to whether the UK will sign and ratify but I expect a decision to be made later this year.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the accuracy of assessments made by the(a) UK Government and (b) European Commission on the attributes of fish discarded by fishing vessels operating in UK waters.[152369]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  These data are obtained by discard officers employed by the UK fisheries research agencies They are collected in accordance with EC Regulation 1639/, which applies to all member states, and the precision levels of data relating to discards are set out in Chapter III E(1)c, H(1)e of that regulation. The European Commission makes use of the estimates made by member states, and may aggregate them when required.

  Large Combustion Plants Directive
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how trading of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides within the national emission reduction plan proposed by her Department for implementation of the Large Combustion Plants Directive would operate, with particular reference to the Commission's decision that trading of pollutant emissions will only be allowed where emissions fall below best available techniques. [155897]

  Alun Michael
  The general principles of an emissions trading scheme were set out in the National Emissions Reduction Plan submitted to the European Commission in November 2003. The plan is available on the Defra website. The details of any such scheme would be defined in close consultation with the potential participants depending on the Government' final decision on the UK' approach to implementing the Large Combustion Plants Directive.

  Plants within such a scheme would be able to trade allowances freely but would still have to comply, at all times, with all other relevant legislation, including the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive which requires the application of best available techniques.

  Minor Highways and Byways (Vehicle Use)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what discussions she has had with groups representing users
  1053W
  of mechanically propelled vehicles in connection with plans to restrict their use of minor highways and byways; and if she will make statement; [157306]

  (2) what representations she has had from groups representing users of mechanically propelled vehicles regarding their use of minor highways and byways; and if she will make a statement; [157307]

  (3) if she will make a statement on plans to restrict the use of byways and minor highways by mechanically propelled vehicles.[157308]

  Alun Michael
  During the course of last year I met the Trail Riders Fellowship, the Land Access and Recreation Association, the Royal Automobile Club, the Byways and Bridleways Trust Council, and the Auto-Cycle Union last year to discuss the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way.

  The Government have subsequently published a consultation paper setting out its proposals for tackling the problems which can arise. So far 10 groups representing users of mechanically propelled vehicles have responded.

  The consultation period ends on 19 March. When I have had an opportunity to consider all the responses, I will invite representative groups to meet me to discuss the issues. We will announce the Government's intentions on the way ahead in due course.

  Scotland/UK Concordats
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what amendments have been made to the Concordats between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government on co-ordination of European policy issues concerning agriculture; and what representations she has received from the Scottish Executive to amend the Concordats.[157869]

  Alun Michael
  There have been no amendments concerning agriculture made to any Concordats on co-ordination of European policy issues. Defra has not received any representations from the Scottish Executive to amend the Concordats.

  Beekeeping
  Chris McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of highly resistant varroa mites have been reported in the last 12 months in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales.[157782]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The number of new cases of pyrethroid-resistant varroa mites reported in apiaries in England and Wales in the last 12 months is 59 and nine respectively. There have been no such cases reported in Scotland.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations were made by her Department to the Commonwealth Games Federation 1054W
  General Assembly concerning the selection of disabled sports for the 2006 Commonwealth Games; and whether she will make further representations on behalf of (a) bowls and (b) other excluded sports.[158832]

  Mr. Caborn
  None. The programme for elite athletes with disabilities at the 2006 Games was decided by the Commonwealth Games Federation General Assembly following representations made by the international Paralympic Committee (IPC) and the Melbourne 2006 games committee. The General Assembly agreed to increase the number of disability events from 8 to 12 from a list of 17 submitted by the IPC.

  This Government are committed to promoting disability sport and appreciates the popularity of bowls in this country. However, the selection process was the sole responsibility of the General Assembly and it would be inappropriate for Ministers from this Department to attempt to intervene.

  The Federation believe that the selection by the General Assembly offers the widest range of opportunities—within a limited programme—for the majority of athletes with disabilities from across the Commonwealth.

  Regional Museums
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to increase the funding of regional museums.[158144]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport's allocation of resources from Spending Review 2002 already includes a very significant increase in funding for regional museums, from £10 million in 2003–04 to £30 million in 2005–06. One of our aims is to use that funding, which underpins the Renaissance in the Regions programme, to lever in funding from other sources.

  Recently we have doubled our contribution to the joint DCMS/Wolfson museums and galleries improvement fund, to provide a total annual fund of £4 million, and have extended its coverage to regional museums with designated collections and to museums participating in Renaissance in the Regions. DCMS and the Department for Education and Skills are also investing £2.6 million in the current financial year in education and community projects carried out by partnerships of national and regional museums.

  In preparing the Departmental submission to the 2004 Spending Review, we will consider the needs of regional museums alongside other priorities and pressures during the 2005–08 period.

  Television Reception
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she is taking to tackle problems caused to television reception as a consequence of transmissions by TETRA masts.[158566]

  Estelle Morris
  TETRA systems in the UK are licensed to operate on frequencies within the bands 380 to 385 MHz; 390 to 395 MHz; 410 to 430 MHz; 871 to 876 MHz and 916 to 921 MHz. Television broadcasting operates on channels outside these bands; within the range 470 to 862 MHz. Interference should not therefore
  1055W
  occur to TV reception from TETRA transmissions provided that the TETRA systems are operating in accordance with their licence conditions and the standard of installation of the TV receiver including its aerial system are satisfactory.

  Ofcom, the independent regulator of communications is responsible for managing civil use of the radio spectrum including the investigation of legitimate reports of television and radio interference. Ofcom has published information on improving radio and TV reception to avoid interference, including specific advice on cases involving TETRA. In all such cases reported to Ofcom to date, the problems have been attributable to the performance of the consumers own TV aerial amplifiers which have been found to have a pass band wide enough to boost the TV signal and, inadvertently, the TETRA signals. In most cases a suitable filter between the amplifier and TV aerial will resolve the interference. Consumers in these cases have been advised to take up the problems with their suppliers.

SCOTLAND

  Whisky
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he has had with representatives of the Scottish whisky industry in(a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003 and (d) 2004. [156802]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Secretary of State for Scotland met representatives from the Scotch Whisky Association twice in 2001 and 2002, once in 2003 and thus far, once in 2004.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Overpayments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the amount of overpayments made owing to official error in each social security benefit paid by his Department; and if he will make a statement.[158768]

  Mr. Pond
  The latest available information is in the table.

  Estimates of the amounts of overpayments due to official error in 2002–03

  £ million

  Benefit

  Official error overpayment 2002–03

  Income Support

  140

  Minimum Income Guarantee

  50

  Jobseekers Allowance

  110

  Housing Benefit (see Note 2)

  100

  Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance

  43

  Long-Term Benefits (Retirement Pension, Widow's Benefit, and Bereavement Benefit) (see Note 3)

  14

  Notes:

  1. All figures are sample-based estimates and are subject to sampling error and other uncertainties.
  1056W
  2. The reported figure for housing benefit relates only to the 85 per cent. of expenditure covered by the housing benefit review. It does not include an allowance for overpaid expenditure due to non-residence at address, a small part of which may be the result of official error.

  3. Official error on long-term benefits is a very low proportion of expenditure, and sample is a very small one which excludes some types of cases. The resulting estimate is the best available but is subject to considerable uncertainty.

  4. The figures for income support, minimum income guarantee. Jobseeker's allowance and housing benefit have been published in national statistics publications which report on the Department's performance against Public Service Agreement targets to reduce fraud and error.

  5. Estimates are not available for official error in other benefits in 2002–03. Estimates of official error overpayments were published in reports on the benefit review exercises undertaken on disability living allowance, in 1997 and invalid care allowance (now called carer's allowance) in 1996. These out-of-date figures are not reliable indicators of the current level of official error in these benefits. A new review of disability living allowance will take place this year and provide an updated figure for that benefit.

  Benefit Payments (Pensioners)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of pensioners he expects to be on means-tested benefits in 2005.[146749]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We estimate that 33 per cent. of individuals aged 60 years or older will be in receipt of either Pension Credit, Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit, or some combination of these benefits, in 2005.

  Medical Assessments
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints he has received from hon. Members concerning disability living allowance and attendance allowance medical examinations in the areas covered by(a) Leeds, (b) Birmingham, (c) Manchester, (d) Newcastle, (e) Sutton, (f) Bootle, (g) Bristol, (h) Glasgow, (i) Wembley, (j) Edinburgh and (k) Cardiff disability benefit centres in the last 12 months.[156041]

  Maria Eagle
  The numbers of complaints from hon. Members, recorded by the Medical Services National Customer Relations Team (NCRT), concerning disability living allowance and attendance allowance medical examinations in the last 12 months is 48. Numbers cannot be broken down by region and relate to inquiries from MPs to the Secretary of State and the Group Director of the DCD.

  Source:

  Medical Services National Customer Relations Team database, covering the period 1 March 2003 to 27 February 2004

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many days on average his Department took in Session 2002–03 to give a substantive answer to a parliamentary Question for Ordinary Written Answer; and what the greatest number of days taken to answer such a Question was.[155919]

  Maria Eagle
  The average number of working days is 12.6 and the greatest number of working days is 130. We are committed to providing hon. Members with timely and accurate replies to Parliamentary questions.
  1057W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Parliamentary Questions have been tabled to his Department since 1 January 2003, broken down by(a) Ordinary Written and (b) Named Day; what percentage in respect of (a) were answered within 10 working days; and what percentage in respect of (b) were answered by the specified date. [157748]

  Maria Eagle
  During the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 January 2004 we answered 2,335 ordinary written questions, of which 65 per cent. were answered within 10 working days. During the same period we answered 463 named day questions, of which 66 per cent. were answered on the day specified and 90 per cent. within 10 working days. We are committed to providing hon. Members with timely and accurate replies to Parliamentary questions.

  Pension Scheme Wind-ups
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the(a) total amount of money lost by pension holders in company schemes where that pension scheme has wound up after the failure of the company and (b) the number of people who have lost pension provision in such circumstances. [158152]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Estimating the value of pensions lost and the number of people affected due to scheme wind-up and company insolvency, is fraught with numerous difficulties. We do not have information that tells us whether a scheme wind-up is due to company insolvency. Nor do we have information at an aggregate level on the fund assets and liabilities of schemes winding-up.

  The extent of pensions lost depends on many different factors—such as the maturity of the scheme (that is, the age profile and retirement status of members), and the funding position before starting winding-up. The latter in turn is highly sensitive to investment decisions and conditions in the financial markets.

  Data is severely limited in these areas, and as a result the Government does not have reliable estimates of the amount of money lost or the number of people affected.

  Pensions
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on delays to processing entitlement to retirement pensions for the recently widowed. [158702]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Where pensioners are recently widowed, they may be entitled to have their pensions increased by virtue of the National Insurance contributions paid by their deceased spouses. The assessment of any entitlement to an increased pension is carried out by the National Pension Centre in Newcastle. While this assessment is being carried out, widows will continue to receive their own pensions and can also apply for interim payments to top this up.

  The National Pension Centre also deals with new claims for pensions from people who have previously been divorced or widowed, and changes of circumstances for over four million pensioners who have their pensions paid direct into a bank account.
  1058W
  A recent build up of work in the Centre has been caused largely as a result of the Centre temporarily dealing with some work appropriate to the 26 Regional Pension Centres. As that work will return to the Regional Centres, and an additional 100 staff have been employed, the work at the National Pension Centre should be returned to normal levels by June. The number of cases outstanding where the pensioner has been recently bereaved has been reduced from over 20,000 at the end of December to just over 14,000 currently.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what target has been set for the processing of entitlements to retirement pensions for the recently widowed; and whether this target is being met. [158703]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There is no target set specifically for the processing of entitlements to retirement pensions for the recently widowed. Where pensioners are recently widowed, they may be entitled to have their pensions increased by virtue of the National Insurance contributions paid by their deceased spouses. The assessment of any entitlement to an increased pension is carried out by the National Pension Centre in Newcastle.

  When notified that a pensioner has been recently widowed, The National Pension Centre will assess whether the bereaved spouse can have their own pension increased, based on the contribution payments of their deceased partner. The National Pension Centre aims to deal with 95 per cent. of such changes within 17 days. As at the end of December performance against this target for the year was at 90.6 per cent.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people above state pension age he estimates are not drawing a state retirement pension because they have deferred taking a state pension; and if he will make a statement; [158767]

  (2) how many (a) men and (b) women drawing state retirement pensions are receiving increments because they deferred drawing that pension beyond state pension age, broken down by the length of time for which that pension was deferred. [158770]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is not possible to say exactly how many people are deferring their State Pension at a single point in time because it is not necessary to inform the Department for Work and Pensions of an intention to defer.

  However, estimates from the Government Actuary's Department suggest that approximately 120,000 pensioners in total are not drawing their state pension at the moment.

  Information on current pensioners who have deferred their pension is not available in the form requested, but there are currently around 1.14 million pensioners in total with increments, of whom 893,000 are women. These figures include a small number of people who have inherited increments from their partner's contribution record and will have not actually deferred retirement themselves.

WALES

  Former Departmental Officials
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which former officials of the Department have asked for permission to join(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers,(b) Deloitte & Touche, (c) Ernst & Young and (d) KPMG. [156889]

  Mr. Hain
  The Wales Office has been staffed entirely by secondees from other Government Departments who would need to seek any necessary permission from their parent Department.

  New Hospitals
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the value of the capital expenditure on new hospitals built in Wales is in the last five years for which records are available. [156960]

  Mr. Touhig
  Capital expenditure for building new hospitals in Wales comes from different sources that are not identified in central recording systems as exclusively for building new hospitals.

  The following table contains information on the total value of capital expenditure on the NHS in Wales for the last five years.

  Financial year

  £ million

  1998–99

  110.288

  1999–2000

  97.713

  2000–01

  91.611

  2001–02

  140.176

  2002–03

  123.388

  New Schools
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the value of the capital expenditure on new schools built in Wales is in the last five years for which records are available. [156961]

  Mr. Touhig
  Capital expenditure for building new schools in Wales comes from different sources that are not identified in central recording systems as exclusively for building new schools.

  The following table contains information on the total value of capital expenditure on schools in Wales for the last five years, and includes pre-primary, primary, secondary and special schools.

  Financial year

  £000

  1998–99

  55,323

  1999–2000

  51,727

  2000–01

  70,421

  2001–02

  84,215

  2002–03

  89,926

  Secondments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what secondments(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Deloitte & Touche, (c) Ernst & Young and
  1060W
  (d) KPMG have made to his Department since 2001; for what (i) periods and (ii) tasks the secondments were made; whether secondments of staff from his Department have been made to those firms; and for what (A) periods and (B) tasks. [156917]

  Mr. Hain
  None.

TREASURY

  Public Spending and Employment
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the relationship between levels of public spending and levels of employment. [158480]

  Dawn Primarolo
  UK public spending as a percentage of GDP is close to the OECD average, but the UK has one of the highest employment rates in the OECD. Across OECD countries there is no systematic relationship between levels of public spending and levels of employment.

  Crossrail Project
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of the Government agreeing to support the Crossrail project following the completion of the Montague Report; and if he will make a statement. [158481]

  Mr. Boateng
  Crossrail is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I understand he is now considering the detailed advice that he has received from Adrian Montague.

  Growth/Consumer Spending
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the last three years UK economy trend figures for growth and consumer spending; and if he will make a statement. [158482]

  John Healey
  Over the past three years real consumer spending has grown at a faster rate than GDP, supporting the economy through a prolonged period of subdued global demand.

  IMF Expenditure Forecasts
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the International Monetary Fund regarding expenditure forecasts. [158483]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer and officials from HM Treasury had detailed discussions with representatives from the IMF during December in preparation for the UK's Article IV Report. The concluding statement of the IMF's Mission was published immediately after the visit on 18 December.

  Tax Credits
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the net direct taxation payable in this financial year by a married
  1061W
  couple with two children and an income of £20,000 from one partner's work, taking into account the impact of tax credits. [158484]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The direct tax burden on a single earner family with two children and gross earnings of £20,000 per year is 9.5 per cent. in 2003–04.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with officials from(a) the Department for Work and Pensions and (b) the Inland Revenue regarding take-up ratio of tax credits. [158267]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Officials from the Inland Revenue and HM Treasury have had discussions on the size of the population expected to benefit from the Child and Working Tax Credits. The Department for Work and Pensions does not administer tax credits.

  Employment Target
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his aim to achieve full employment. [158485]

  John Healey
  The Government's long-term goal is employment opportunity for all—the modern definition of full employment. Its aim is to ensure a higher proportion of people in work than ever before by 2010. The Government's strategy for delivering employment opportunity for all is based on maintaining macroeconomic stability and ensuring a dynamic and flexible labour market that equips people to adapt to change.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Inland Revenue relating to people with disabilities. [158487]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treasury Ministers discuss a range of issues with the Inland Revenue, including those relating to people with disabilities.

  Tax Concessions (Works of Art)
  Chris Bryant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend tax concessions for those who give major works of art to UK national galleries. [158488]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer considers all taxes as part of his annual Budget judgment.

  Civil Servants (Relocation)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish Sir Michael Lyons' report on the relocation of civil servants and other public sector workers to the regions. [158489]

  Mr. Boateng
  Sir Michael Lyons intends to publish his final report into the scope for relocating public sector activities out of London and the South East later this month. I understand that no specific date has yet been determined.

  International Development
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his public spending commitments to 2006 for International Development. [158490]

  Mr. Boateng
  As set out following the conclusion of Spending Review 2002 in July 2002, the Department for International Development's budget for this Financial Year is £3.64 billion. This will rise to £3.78 billion next year and will reach £4.53 billion in financial year 2005–06. This represents the largest ever increase in UK aid levels.

  Euro (Ministerial Speeches)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many speeches he has made in the last 12 months in support of the Government's policy on the euro. [158491]

  John Healey
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in his EMU statement to the House on 9 June:"a modern long-term and deep-seated pro-European consensus in Britain about Britain's role in Europe and Europe's role in the world can and will be built."

  Since then Treasury Ministers, have held a variety of meetings to discuss the euro in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In addition, Treasury officials have held over 150 meetings with opinion formers in Britain and Europe.

  Aggregates Levy
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the cost to industry in Scotland of the aggregates levy since its introduction; [157858]

  (2)what estimate he has made of the impact on local authorities in Scotland of the aggregates levy since its introduction; [157859]

  (3)what change there has been in imports of aggregates into the UK since the introduction of the aggregates levy. [157860]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) on 21 January 2004 Official Report, column 1256W).

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of(a) illegal fuel, (b) beer, (c) wine and spirits, (d) cigarettes and (e) counterfeit goods seized in each of the last three years in (i) the UK, (ii) the North West and (iii) Lancashire. [157975]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise routinely publish UK seizures statistics for oil, alcohol and cigarettes. The latest published figures are contained in Customs' Annual Report 2002–03 (HC 52). Regional figures are not available.

  Data on non-excise counterfeit products seized by Customs is contained in the European Commission's annual report on counterfeit and pirated goods, which is available on their website at www.europa.eu.int

  Earnings
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the rise in earnings was for each region of the UK for 2002–03, listed in descending order. [157661]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Martyn Jones, dated 4 March 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on the rise in earnings for each region of the UK between 2002 and 2003. I am replying in his absence. (157661)

  Average earnings are estimated from the 2003 New Earnings Survey (NES) and are provided for full-time employees on adult rates of pay whose pay was unaffected by absence during the pay period. This is the standard definition used for NES tables.

  The following table gives the percentage increase in gross weekly pay for 2002 to 2003 for the regions as requested.

  Percentage increase in average gross weekly earnings1 between 2002 and 2003 in each of the regions of the United Kingdom (ranked in descending order of earnings increase)

  Percentage

  Region

  Percentage increase in average weekly earnings

  South West

  4.2

  East

  4.2

  Wales

  3.7

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  3.7

  Northern Ireland

  3.7

  East Midlands

  3.6

  North West

  2.6

  Scotland

  2.3

  London

  2.0

  North East

  2.0

  West Midlands

  2.0

  South East

  1.4

  1Earnings of full time employees in the UK on adult rates, whose pay for the pay period was unaffected by absence

  Source:

  ONS New Earnings Survey, April 2003

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the customs strike force and the level of protection provided in Welsh ports of entry. [155390]

  John Healey
  To meet the challenge of 21st century smuggling, HM Customs and Excise, in Wales and across the UK, have developed their tactics, replacing traditional, predictable and less productive activities with more intelligence-led targeted operations. Experience demonstrates that the most efficient and effective way to do this in many areas is to use flexible mobile strike force teams. With these teams, Customs can deploy larger numbers, less predictably and with greater impact.

  Road User Pricing
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the(a) the
  1064W
  proposed date for implementation of the Lorry Road User Charge and (b) its tax implications for the UK haulage industry. [158221]

  John Healey
  The Government published "Modernising the taxation of the haulage industry—lorry road user charge: progress report two" in May 2003, in which we set out the timescale on which we hoped the Lorry Road User Charge would be implemented, depending on what the market tells us can be delivered by when. We also said that the charge would be offset through fuel duty reductions for lorry operators, so that overall those who buy fuel in the UK will pay no more tax as a result of the introduction of the charge. A further progress report will be issued shortly.

  Supporting People Programme
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guarantee he is able to give about funding levels for the Supporting People programme in 2004–05. [156878]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply

  On 12 February, the Government announced funding of £1.8 billion for the Supporting People programme in 2004–05.

  Taxation
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to public funds would be of abolishing capital gains tax, but charging all gains made in less than two years to income tax. [157573]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

DEFENCE

  Administrative Expenditure
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the financial delegation for the Ministry of Defence relating to running costs and other current administrative expenditure relating to personnel costs of the armed forces. [158776]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have today placed a copy of the delegation in the Library of the House.

  Defence Finance
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the current value of investments held by the(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) RAF; and if he will make a statement.
  [142029]

  Mr. Ingram
  The total value of MOD investments as at 31 March 2003 was some £430 million. Further information is published in Note 9 of the Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts 2002/03 (HC1125 of 30 October 2003). This document is available in the Library of the House and on the MOD's website. The investments are mainly managed centrally and therefore are not attributed by Service.

  Future Rapid Effects System
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether his Department classifies the Future Rapid Effects System programme as(a) a system and (b) a vehicle; [157596]

  (2) whether the winner of the Future Rapid Effects System Systems House competition will be disqualified from playing a major role on the industrial side of the programme; [157597]

  (3) whether the proposed Systems House approach is the preferred way forward for the Future Rapid Effects System programme. [157598]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) will provide a family of network-capable armoured vehicles that will form a key part of network enabled capability. We expect to make an announcement on the assessment phase for the FRES programme shortly.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the future of Gurkha regiments in the British Army and (b) back filling by Gurkhas in other regiments.
  [158262]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently no plans regarding the future of Gurkha regiments. The Defence White Paper published last December provides the policy context for shaping the structure of the armed forces. Subsequently, the details of individual units within that structure will need to be further developed, but presently no decisions have been taken.

  Gurkhas are not routinely tasked as individuals to back fill other army regiments. Previously, specific Gurkha sub-units, known as Gurkha Reinforcement Companies, were established in order to fill a specific operational manning requirement during a period of under-recruiting. However, improved manning levels have since reduced this requirement.

  Heavy-lift Aircraft
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft were hired to help with heavy lift in each of the last three years; and what types of aircraft were hired. [158260]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following heavy-lift aircraft have been chartered in the last two financial years and in the current financial year to date:

  Antonov AN-124

  Ilyushin IL 76

  2001–02

  86

  23

  2002–03

  176

  23

  2003–04

  52

  7

  Iraq
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints against UK troops in Iraq have been upheld; what action has been taken; and if he will make a statement. [142178]
  1066W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 9 December 2003]: Complaints against UK troops in Iraq are dealt with by local commanders in accordance with established disciplinary procedures. The vast majority of complaints are of a minor nature and are, as a result generally not recorded centrally.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the death in British Army custody in September 2003 of Baha Mousa in Basra; what action has been taken or is pending against the soldiers involved; whether compensation has been(a) offered to and (b) accepted by his family; and whether he will accept an independent inquiry into the circumstances of Mr. Mousa's death. [147706]

  Mr. Ingram
  The death of Baha Mousa is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Royal Military Police who, in exercising their constabulary powers, are fully independent of the Army chain of command. It would be inappropriate to comment until their investigation is complete.

  The UK has not admitted liability for Baha Mousa's death but a payment has been accepted by Mr. Mousa's family.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent to repair and reconstruct civilian infrastructure by UK forces within the first 100 days of the end of high intensity fighting in Iraq. [150220]

  Mr. Ingram
  In collecting the costs incurred by UK forces, we do not separately identify those incurred on repair and reconstruction of civilian infrastructure. However, it is estimated that, in 2003–04, some £9.9 million will be spent on quick impact projects, which enhance the security of UK forces. Such projects include the refurbishment of schools and health clinics, renovation of police stations, supplying oxygen to hospitals, and the repairing and re-supplying of water and sewerage works. This is separate from the cost of reconstruction, on which the Department for International Development is leading.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what budget his Department has allocated for entertaining troops in Iraq.
  [158223]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no specific budget set aside for the entertainment of troops in operational locations. Instead, an assessment, based on the number of troops deployed on the operation, is made to determine how many events should be provided.

  Just over £0.5 million has been approved to be spent on entertainers visiting troops in Iraq in 2003–04. No costs were incurred in 2002–03. In addition to this cost, entertainers may be provided with some limited non-cash assistance, such as transport, accommodation or food, should this be possible given operational pressures. The Services Sound and Vision Corporation incur an additional cost, extending their normal peacetime service to the United Kingdom forces stationed overseas, to those deployed operationally in Iraq. For 2003–04, the additional cost for that activity is estimated at around £4 million.
  1067W
  It might be helpful to put these figures in the context of the overall net additional cost of military operations in Iraq which, for 2003–04. is forecast at around £1,500 million.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Permanent Secretary in his Department was first informed as to which Iraqi weapons the 45 minute claim in the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction dossier applied. [158773]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Permanent Secretary first became aware of the intelligence which indicated that chemical and biological munitions could be with Iraqi military units and ready for firing within 45 minutes in early September 2002. He became aware that the intelligence referred to battlefield weapons soon after the publication of the Government's dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

  RAF Colerne
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the plans for the United States Emergency Hospital planned for RAF Colerne in 1984 were ever implemented; and whether there are similar plans now. [157923]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 2 March 2004]: I am not aware of any plans for a United States Emergency Hospital at Colerne in 1984, and there are no such plans for the future. The army took over the site from the RAF in 1978, and it is now the base for the 21 Signal Regiment (Air Support).

  Royal Yeomanry
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Royal Yeomanry. [158775]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently no plans to change the role of the Royal Yeomanry. The Defence White Paper published last December provides the policy context for shaping the structure of our armed forces. The detailed roles, function and tasks of individual units within that structure are being developed, but no decisions have been taken.

  War Veterans (Ireland)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Second World War(a) veterans and (b) war widows he estimates are resident in the Irish Republic; and if he will make a statement. [158833]

  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not available in the format requested.

  Available data shows that the number of war pensions in payment in respect of post 1939 service, for those where residence is recorded as being in the Republic of Ireland, is as follows; War Disablement Pension 825 and War Widows
  Pension 255.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Iraq
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the contracts let by the Coalition Provisional Authority for selling Iraqi oil and gas. [155286]

  Mr. Timms
  The State Oil Marketing Organisation (SOMO) sells all exportable hydrocarbons on behalf of the Ministry of Oil. SOMO forms part of the Ministry of Oil.

  Balance of Trade
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the balance of trade between Greater London and(a) the rest of the United Kingdom, (b) the European Union and (c) the rest of the world was for each year since 1997. [158433]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  According to information published by HM Customs and Excise, the balance of trade in goods between the London region and EU and non-EU countries are given in the following table. Information on trade between regions of the United Kingdom is not available. Information on trade in services cannot be cross-classified by UK region and partner country.

  Greater London Balance of Trade in goods

  £ billion

  1EU

  Non-EU

  1997

  -5.8

  -12.1

  1998

  -7.5

  -13.1

  1999

  -8.5

  -13.8

  2000

  -8.0

  -13.2

  2001

  -5.0

  -12.4

  2002

  -0.8

  -12.1

  1Figures for trade with the EU refer only to traders above the Intrastat threshold. Nationally, such traders account for over 97 per cent. of the value of UK trade in goods.

  Biomass Electricity Project, Winkleigh
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial and other inquiries were made by(a) her Department and (b) the South West Regional Development Agency before it announced the conditional grant made to Peninsula Power in respect of the proposed Biomass Electricity project at Winkleigh, Devon; and what inquiries are being made now. [157144]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]: South West RDA made no financial inquiries into Peninsula Power since it is not funding the core operation costs of that company. The RDA purchased 36 acres of land at Winkleigh Airfield to ensure that the opportunity to build the proposed biomass plant is not lost before the issues are properly considered as part of the planning process. The RDA has undertaken the necessary due diligence in relation to the acquisition of the land.

  The RDA has also provided further funds to ensure feasibility studies are comprehensively carried out and fully available to the public. It will insist that the

  1069W
  consultants appointed to undertake the studies provide a "Deed of Warranty" to ensure the quality of the work undertaken.

  The DTI grant to the developer from the Capital Grants Scheme is an arrangement under which payments are only made in arrears of agreed milestones and where matching funding has been provided. As yet no payments have been made under the DTI grant. When assessing the original application for the grant, the DTI followed its laid-down procedures and which involved the advice of independent advisers.

  Should the plant obtain all the necessary planning and environmental consents, then Peninsula Power has an option to purchase all or part of the site from South West RDA at market value. At that point, the RDA will not dispose of the land to Peninsula Power unless it is satisfied that all the necessary funding to complete any approved project is in place, necessitating the undertaking of financial checks at the appropriate time.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps(a) she and (b) the South West Regional Development Agency have taken to satisfy themselves that the advanced gasification and turbine technology for the proposed Biomass Electricity project at Winkleigh, Devon is proven and will not fail; and what their findings were. [157143]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]: The DTI has considered the technology as part of its Bio-Energy Capital Grant scheme which allows development of technology processes. The South West RDA does have a wider interest in gasification technology in the region and will be appointing independent consultants to appraise the technology. The consultants will specifically report on the gasification technology proposed at Winkleigh and will liaise closely with DTI. The findings will be made available to the public.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the payments(a) authorised and (b) paid by (i) her Department and (ii) the South West Regional Development Agency towards the proposed Biomass Electricity Generation project at Winkleigh, Devon. [157146]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]: The South West RDA authorised project funding of £623,900 to acquire 36 acres of land and pay for feasibility studies (an Environmental Impact Assessment, a Biomass Feedstock and Market Development Study and an Economic Impact Assessment) and limited technical costs (including costs towards a public consultation exercise).

  The feasibility studies and technical work will provide results that will have wider implications for other, similar, projects in the region. The studies will also be made fully available to the public, including the local community, key regional partners and other developers.

  To date (26 February 2004) the SWRDA has paid £338,200 for the acquisition of the land. In total £384,391 has been paid to date (26 February 2004) including other associated costs.

  Broadband
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of UK domestic broadband connections use services with downstream specifications in excess of 2Mbps. [157189]

  Mr. Timms
  The proportion of UK domestic broadband connections using services with downstream specifications in excess of 2Mbps is not held by the Department.

  Telecommunications operators have assured the Department they review regularly their range of broadband services to see whether they are meeting consumer demand for higher speed services. It is estimated by Analysys Consulting Ltd. that by end December 2003, mass-market asymmetric 4Mbps services were available to 11 per cent. of the UK population from exchanges where the local loop has been unbundled.

  Broadband/Mobile Phones
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with representatives of other political parties concerning her strategy to encourage growth in the broadband and third-generation mobile phone sectors; and if she will make a statement.
  [156179]

  Mr. Timms
  There have been no formal discussions with representatives of other political parties concerning our strategy to encourage growth in the broadband and third-generation mobile phone sectors.

  Business Links
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the current levels of(a) prompted and (b) unprompted awareness of Business Link branded services among small businesses. [157197]

  Nigel Griffiths
  In December 2002, prompted awareness of Business Link was 74 per cent. and unprompted awareness was 17 per cent. A further survey measuring awareness of Business Link is currently being undertaken.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Small Business Service can take in relation to an underperforming Business Link operator. [157206]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The actions available to the SBS, under the terms of section 5 of the Business Link Operator (BLO) Operator Agreement, in full to address underperformance by BLOs are:to write formally to the BLO highlighting concern over performance levels and advising them that should performance not improve further action would be taken; requiring the BLO to undergo a Business Performance Review (BPR), that examines the problems faced by the BLO and recommends actions to resolve the problems. The BLO would then need to agree a remedial plan with their SBS or RDA contract management team based on the outcome of the BPR, the implementation of which is closely monitored by the SBS or RDA contract management team;
  not automatically extending the BLO's contract to a third year and serving notice that unless performance significantly improves, the contract Hill terminate in two years;

  1071W
  if an agreed remedial plan has not been fully implemented the SBS can withhold funding from the BLO until it is satisfied the plan has been implemented in full. The amount of withheld funding can be up to 33 per cent. (depending on the extent of the failure to implement the remedial plan) and;
  in extreme circumstances the failure to implement a remedial plan can be considered a material breach of the contract and a written notice to terminate the contract served.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of businesses helped by each of the UK business link organisations are still operating. [157209]

  Nigel Griffiths
  While information is not collected from individual business link organisations regarding the survival of businesses that they have assisted. A tracking study of a group of Barclay's bank business customers demonstrated that businesses that received help from Business link organisations and business agencies had a higher survival rate, with 76 per cent. still trading after two years, compared with 63 per cent. of the control group.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are in place to encourage businesses to use Business Link; and what proportion of applicants for(a) the, Smart Scheme and (b) the Grant for Research and Development has (i) discussed their application with their local Business Link operator and (ii) maintained dialogue with Business Link throughout the period of their project. [157227]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Businesses are encouraged to use Business Link by a nationally-undertaken programme of paid advertising, including online advertising, sponsorship, events, public relations activity and publications distribution. Businesses are also encouraged to use Business Link through partnerships with third parties and intermediaries, such as banks.

  In addition, businesses are encouraged at a local and regional level to use Business Link through promotional activity undertaken by individual Business Link Operators.

  (a) The most recent, independent evaluation of Smart, which published its finding; in 2001, found that 50 per cent. of those surveyed had used public business service providers, including Business Link, as a source of additional support in relation to their projects, either at the application stage or subsequently,

  (b) The Grant for Research and Development was introduced in June 2003 and early indications are that two fifths of applicants have used Business Link services in preparing their applications. The proportion which has maintained a dialogue is not known.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of time her Department's Business Link staff spent on managing the Business Link Network in each year since its inception.
  [157229]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The current Business Link network of 42 Operators over 45 areas in England was launched in April 2001. The Small Business Service's nine regional teams (around 50 staff), with support from their Head Office set up and managed the contracts. The majority 1072W
  of their time was spent working with Business Link Operators and regional partners to develop the network. The Small Business Service is now increasingly concentrating on influencing policy and delivery decisions across government both in Whitehall and in the regions, and up to a third of the regional staff will be undertaking different roles in line with this new strategy by the end of March 2004.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are employed as part of the national network of
  e-business advisers located in the Business Link. [157247]

  Nigel Griffiths
  151.

  Business Support
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms have been helped by the Small Firms Loan Guarantee scheme since its introduction. [157192]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Since the Small Firms Loan Guarantee began in June 1981, up to the end of January 2004, 88744 loans have been guaranteed. Some small firms may have benefited from more than one loan.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been spent on(a) grants for research and development, (b) grants for investigating an innovative idea and (c) knowledge transfer partnerships since they were introduced; and of each total, how much has been spent on administration. [157193]

  Mr. Timms
  (a) and (b) expenditure for the Grant for R and D and Grant for III from 1 June 2003 to 31 January 2004 is as follows:

  Programme spend (£)

  Administration1 (£)

  Grant for R and D

  950,000

  Grant for Investigating an Innovative Idea

  270,000

  3,189.000

  Former Smart scheme1

  32,768,000

  1From 1 April 2003 to 31 January 2004

  Note:

  Administration of all three programmes is unified.

  (c) Since Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (including the former TCS programmes) were introduced approximately £20.5 million has been spent. The administration costs to date are approximately £1.75 million.

  Business Support Schemes
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 5 February 2004,Official Report, column 998W, on business support schemes, if she will list the (a) service costs to run and (b) cost of the programme delivered by (i) the Small Firms Loan Guarantee, (ii) Grant for Research and Development, (iii) Grant for Investigating an Innovative idea and (iv) Knowledge Transfer Partnerships between 2003–07. [155357]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The forecast costs of the new Business Support Products for the financial years 2003–04 and for
  1073W
  2004–05 are listed in the table below. Allocations for future years will be agreed as part of the 2004 Spending Review process. Grant for Research and Development and Grant for Research and Development and Grant for Investigating an Innovative Idea were introduced on 1 June 2003 to replace and enhance the

  £million

  2003–04

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2004–05

  Business support product

  Service costs

  Cost of programme

  Service costs

  Cost of programme

  Small Firms Loan Guarantee

  0.702

  52.85

  0.702

  65

  Grant for Research and Development (including Smart)

  3.83

  40

  3.83

  26

  Grant for Investigating an Innovative Idea

  0.6

  3

  Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (formerly TCS)

  2.4

  25.6

  2.4

  25.6

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 5 February 2004,Official Report, column 998W, on business support schemes, (1) if she will list the new business support products that are due to be made available in April; and how much money is to be spent on these products;. [157178]

  (2) she will list the new products that have replaced business support schemes that are (a) already in place and (b) to be introduced this year; and what the projected cost is of each product. [157224]

  Ms Hewitt
  Four new business support products are already in place. These are: Grant for Investigating an Innovative Idea, Grant for Research and Development, Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, and Small Firms Loan Guarantee.

  Five further new business support products will be introduced in the first half of this year. These are Knowledge Transfer Networks, Grant for Collaborative Research and Development, Access to Best Business Practice, Support to Implement Best Business Practice, and Finance to encourage investment in specific areas of England.

  The timing of the introduction of the tenth business support product, Enterprise Capital Fund, is dependent upon the current notification to the European Commission for State Aids Clearance.

  The Department's annual expenditure on each product will be kept under review by the Investment Committee to ensure products' impact on productivity and value for money.

  The Business Cases presented to the Investment Committee currently project expenditure to be as follows:

  £ million

  Grant for Collaborative Research and Development

  134

  Knowledge Transfer Partnerships

  36

  Grant for Research and Development

  133

  Knowledge Transfer Networks

  17

  Grant for Investigating an Innovative Idea

  3

  Small Firms Loan Guarantee

  49

  Access to Best Business Practice

  10

  Support to Implement Best Business Practice

  20

  Finance to encourage investment in specific areas (provisional title)

  125

  Enterprise Capital Fund

  Subject to EU notification

  1£100 million over three years

  1074W
  Smart scheme. Since that date administration of all three has been unified and it is not possible to apportion service costs between them. The same applies to Knowledge Transfer Partnerships which was introduced in 1 June 2003 to replace TCS.

  Call Centres
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on(a) call centres and (b) call centre jobs in (i) the North West and (ii) Lancashire. [157083]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government is well aware of the heightened interest and concerns expressed about the offshoring of UK service operations, including call centre operations. My Department has commissioned research on the key factors contributing to the relative competitiveness of UK call centre operations to help identify any appropriate actions which need to be taken by industry or Government in response to the increasingly global market for call centre services. This will include an examination of the main product areas in the UK call and contact centre industry that are vulnerable to growing competition from lower-wage economies., which types of call and contract centre activity and which regions have been most affected or are most likely to be affected in the near future.

  The North West Development Agency is working with the University of Central Lancashire and a wide range of other private and public sector partners on a new initiative, Call North West, in an aim to drive up the skills and productivity of the region's contact centres. Call North West will be formally launched on 24 March.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs in(a) the north west and (b) Lancashire in call centres have relocated abroad in each of the last three years. [157084]

  Ms Hewitt
  Existing information does not enable us to provide reliable figures. Official statistics do not generally separate call centre activities from the main activity of a firm or enterprise (e.g. banking;). The term "call centre" can be used to describe a broad variety of functions and activities across a wide range of commercial, industrial and public sectors. Difficulties and differences in definition are reflected in commercial market research on call centres where estimates on the number of call centres and call centre employees vary substantially.

  Colombia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support her Department has
  1075W
  offered to BP for its exploration activities in Colombia; and what meetings have been held with company representatives in the last six month [157711]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Through the British embassy in Bogota, in particular, UK Trade and Investment offers a range of services to UK exporters and to UK investors in Colombia. While London based officials have had little contact with BP there, officials in Bogota have regular contact with the company (the largest foreign investor in Colombia) on a range of issues of mutual interest. In October 2003, the embassy's First Secretary (Trade and Investment) made an introductory call on the new company president offering support to their activities in Colombia and, in February, the ambassador hosted a dinner, offered to the Minister of Mines and Energy where BP's president, and heads of other British companies were present.

  Further meetings at various levels will continue to be held with BP over the coming months.

  Enterprise Culture
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with(a) other Government departments and (b) the EU to develop a strategy promoting an enterprise culture. [157235]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service has recently co-ordinated and published a cross government action plan for small business based around seven strategic themes, one of which relates to the development of an enterprise culture. The development of that strategic theme involved discussions with a number of other departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education and Skills, and the Home Office.

  At EU level, we responded to the European Commission's Green Paper on Entrepreneurship at the end of June 2003, including references to actions which could raise the level of awareness of enterprise, such as an enterprise day or week across the EU, which would complement the UK strategy.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives her Department is supporting to encourage entrepreneurial attitudes among young people; what discussions her Department has had with the Department for Education and Skills about building enterprise awareness in schools and universities; and whether her Department expects to implement the recommendations of the Davies review on enterprise activity offered to pupils by 2005–06. [157236]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI has supported Enterprise Insight in developing a national campaign to promote enterprise to young people and those who influence them (including teachers, careers advisers etc). This campaign will have as its focal point an annual Enterprise Week the first of which will be from 15 to 21 November this year. Enterprise Week will include national and regional activities and celebrations of entrepreneurial achievement.

  The DTI also supports the activities of Young Enterprise, in offering young people practical experience of what enterprise entails through simulated
  1076W
  entrepreneurial situations. Specifically, through the SBS it supports YE's Graduate Programme, Masterclass and Innovation Awards.

  The DTI is also working closely with the DfES and the Treasury in taking forward the recommendations of the Davies Review. From 2005–06 all Key Stage 4 pupils will receive the equivalent of 5 days enterprise activity, which develops enterprise capability—innovation, creativity, risk-management and risk-taking, and financial and business understanding. 151 Enterprise Pathfinder projects were launched last September, covering nearly 400 secondary schools in England, from which DfES will derive guidance for all schools prior to launching the £60 million enterprise education entitlement in September 2005. A second wave of Pathfinders will start in September 2004.

  The two Departments are also supporting the National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship. Building on existing good practice, the aims of the council will be to raise the profile of entrepreneurship and starting a business as a career option within Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), including both universities and other higher education establishments, with the objective of increasing the numbers of students and graduates who give serious thought to this. It will therefore work with all interested parties to encourage and create an entrepreneurial culture amongst students and graduates.

  Enterprise Shows
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry where enterprise shows have been held this year; and what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of enterprise shows in encouraging business start-up. [157234]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As stated in the Government's1 Action Plan for Small Business, we are collaborating with the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) to run a programme of enterprise shows which are being planned.

  1A government action plan for small business: making the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a business, published by DTI January 2004 (DTI/Pub 6993/10k/01/04/NP. URN 03/ 1592).

  Export Licences
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licences have been granted for the delivery of gas centrifuges or parts thereof over the last five years; and in respect of which countries. [158063]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Since May 1997, the Government have published an Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls containing details of all goods authorised for export from the UK and to which destinations. Copies of the Annual Report (up to and including 2002) are available from the Libraries of the House. Details of export licences approved in 2003 will be published later this year in the 2003 Annual Report. The annual report summary for the goods in question is 'Uranium isotope separation equipment'.

  Internet Security
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures her Department is taking to ensure that small businesses are adequately protected from internet hackers and fraudsters. [157809]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer given to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), on 1 March 2004,Official Report, columns 633–34W.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the death of a miner after a filed compensation claim changes the claim's level of priority, with particular reference to the status of the miner's wife. [157218]

  Nigel Griffiths
  No.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list(a) executive non-departmental public bodies and (b) advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department; and what budget was set for each year between 1998 and 2008. [155323]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department's Executive and Advisory NDPBs are listed in the Cabinet Office's annual publication "Public Bodies".

  The following bodies have been formed as Executive or Advisory NDPBs since 1 April 2003 and will be included in the Public Bodies 2004.

  Competition Service—Executive NDPB

  Hearing Aid Council—Executive NDPB

  Advisory Committee on Carbon Abatement Technologies—Advisory NDPB

  Sustainable Energy Policy Advisory Board—Advisory NDPB

  UK National Authority Advisory Group—Advisory NDPB

  Budgets for individual NDPBs, which may reflect income in addition to Grant in Aid, are typically settled in separate corporate or business planning discussions. Details could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  However, Grant in Aid support for these bodies is published annually in DTI's entry in Central Government Supply Estimates (Main Supply Estimates).

  Grant in Aid for future years will be published annually in Central Government Supply Estimates (Main Supply Estimates).

  Copies of "Public Bodies" and the Department's estimates are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Nuclear Decommissioning
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the cost of(a) building, (b) operating and (c) decommissioning (i) next generation nuclear and (ii) combined cycle gas turbine facilities. [158561]
  1078W
  Mr. Timms
  The Department has published estimates of the cost of electricity generation from a variety of technologies, including next generation nuclear and combined cycle gas turbine facilities. These are contained in a report published in February 2002 available at: www.dti.gov.uk/energy/greenhousegas/index. shtml.

  The Performance and Innovation Unit at the Cabinet Office also published similar estimates in its 2001 Energy Review. These are available at: www. number-10.gov.uk/su/energy/1.html

  One NorthEast (UK Land Estates Partnership Deal)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value was of the assets of One North East which were included in the partnership deal with UK Land Estates; and what the value of contracts placed with UK Land Estates by ONE has been since its commencement. [157047]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The contractual documentation for the limited partnership, which is proposed will be called North East Property Partnership, is not yet complete.

  The Agency has placed no contracts with the partnership to date as it has yet to come into existence.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to her Department since 1 January 2003, broken down by(a) ordinary written and (b) named day; what percentage in respect of (a) were answered within 10 working days; and what percentage in respect of (b) were answered by the specified date. [157746]

  Ms Hewitt
  The following figures are for the whole of the 2002–03 sessions, Of the 2,867 ordinary written questions, 2,706 (94 per cent.) were answered within 10 working days. Of the 723 named day written questions. 247 (34 per cent.) received a substantive reply on the named day.

  Post Office
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average percentage decline in post office business between March 2000 and March 2003 was for post offices in(a) the top 10 per cent. of urban deprived wards and (b) urban areas; and what percentage of the decline during that period she attributes to changes in the benefits system. [156482]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 26 February 2004]: The information sought relates to operational matters and I have asked the Chief Executive of Post Office Ltd. to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been paid in compensation to sub-post masters and mistresses of closing post offices; and how many post offices have been closed in each of the last five years. [158586]
  1079W
  Mr. Timms
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that net closures of post offices in each of the last five years were:

  Year to end March

  1999

  233

  2000

  382

  2001

  547

  2002

  262

  2003

  1345

  1Including 102 closures under the urban reinvention programme which commenced in October 2002.

  Compensation is paid only to those subpostmasters whose office close under the terms of the urban reinvention programme. Post Office Ltd. produces data on branch closures, including those under the urban reinvention programme, on a quarterly basis. The total amount paid in compensation to subpostmasters in respect of the 694 post offices closed under the urban reinvention programme to end December 2003, the latest quarter for which this information is available was £38,111,410.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the part played by(a) Postwatch and (b) Post Office Limited in the Urban Network Reinvention Programme. [158594]

  Mr. Timms
  Post Office Ltd.'s urban reinvention programme is essential if a viable and sustainable countrywide post office network is to be maintained and to meet the changing needs of customers. The company will ensure that at the end of the programme, at least 95 per cent. of the population in urban areas will still live within a mile of their nearest post offices.

  Postwatch has an important role in the programme in examining each individual closure proposals and monitoring the programme overall. I understand that, of some 1,600 closure proposals notified to them, over 200 have been withdrawn, deferred or modified during or after the consultation process.

  Although the vast majority of urban reinvention closure proposals have attracted little criticism, concerns expressed about the consultation arrangements led me to ask Post Office Ltd. to review the arrangements and to propose changes to make them more inclusive and responsive. These changes were announced in my written statement of 5 February.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether regulatory impact assessments undertaken in relation to EU legislation are full assessments. [155259]

  Nigel Griffiths
  All regulations, including those resulting from EU legislation, that have a cost to or benefit for business are required to have a full Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). Copies are placed in the Libraries of the House.

  While EU legislation is being developed, a partial RIA is prepared in order to inform the policy development process. The RIA remains a partial RIA while the legislative proposal itself is under development.
  1080W
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 2 February 2004,Official Report, column 649W, on regulatory impact assessments, what assessment she has made of the frequency with which the costs and benefits of regulations to consumers are considered in the course of regulatory impact assessments. [155490]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) process requires policy makers to assess the impact on all areas of society affected by a proposal. Where appropriate, therefore, the impact on consumers will be assessed in the RIA.

  An estimate of the frequency with which consumers are referred cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  All RIAs must include a competition assessment which looks at the impact of a proposal on UK customers.

  Regulatory Reform Orders
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which regulatory reform order have been used to amend burdensome primary legislation since 2001. [155319]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department is currently committed to a total of 10 Regulatory Reform Orders by the end of 2005.

  The Department has completed one Regulatory Reform Order removing the 20 Partner Limit on business partnerships. A further two removing the Sunday Trading Reporting Requirements for large stores and Patent Law improvements are undergoing Parliamentary scrutiny.

  Russia (Nuclear Co-operation)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was involved under the G8 Global Partnership Programme or its predecessor bilateral nuclear co-operation agreements with Russia in the towing of the Russian nuclear submarine K159 (November Class SSN) to the breaker's yard. [157498]

  Nigel Griffiths
  No.

  Secondments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the secondees from outside organisations working in her Department, stating in each case(a) the name of the person, (b) the name of the organisation, (c) the post held and (d) the start and finish dates of the secondment; and which are involved in drafting parliamentary answers. [158052]

  Ms Hewitt
  The following table shows all secondees from external organisations presently working in the Department of Trade and Industry. The table indicates the name of the secondee, their employer, the position of
  1081W
  the secondee and the name of the DTI directorate to which the secondee is attached, and the secondment start and finish dates.

  Name

  Employer

  DTI post held

  Secondment start date

  Secondment finish date

  Christine Adams

  SIRA Ltd.

  Project Manager, Technology Transfer Best Practice Project in Technological Innovation and Sustainable Development

  1/8/03

  31/3/04

  Lew Adams

  Strategic Rail Authority

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  1/4/02

  31/3/04

  Colin Ager

  National Physical Laboratory

  Programme Supervisor in Technological Innovation and Sustainable Development

  16/12/02

  31/12/04

  Silu Ali

  Oracle Corporation UK Ltd.

  Assistant Director in Business Relations

  4/8/03

  3/8/04

  Martyn Allen

  BAE Systems

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  4/2/02

  3/2/05

  Helen Almey

  dstl

  Assistant Director in Office of Science and Technology

  11/8/03

  12/8/05

  Haakan Andresen

  Tripleplay Services Ltd.

  Assistant Director in Business Relations

  5/11/02

  31/3/04

  Erica Antonelli

  BT

  Policy Advisor in Environmental Technologies

  29/4/03

  31/3/04

  Alan Baldwin

  BT

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  26/7/99

  25/4/04

  Malcolm Barents

  UKAEA

  Deputy Director in the Nuclear and Coal Liabilities Unit

  22/4/02

  22/4/04

  Natasha Barnett

  BDO Stoy Hayward

  Investigator in Corporate Law and Governance

  2/12/02

  31/5/04

  David Basford

  Smiths Aerospace

  Assistant Director in Business Relations

  31/3/03

  30/3/05

  Frederick Bassnett

  Raylian London

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  25/4/00

  24/4/04

  Fahima Begum

  BT

  Policy Analyst in Business Relations

  9/2/04

  8/11/04

  James Benn

  SBAC

  Project Co-ordinator in Business Relations

  6/10/03

  5/10/04

  David Bill

  Balfour Beatty

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  1/1/02

  2/1/04

  Norman Bolton

  TUV NEL

  Programme Supervisor in Technological Innovation and Sustainable Development

  1/7/02

  30/9/04

  Debbie Boswell

  British Jewellery and Giftware Federation

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  15/7/03

  11/7/05

  Edwin Bowles

  Exploration Consultants Ltd.

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  2/1/02

  31/3/04

  Carol Brady

  Kent County Council

  Assistant Director in Consumer and Competition Policy

  19/1/04

  31/10/04

  Christopher Bruce

  BT Group plc

  Assistant Director in Business Relations

  2/6/03

  28/5/04

  Geoff Cathcart

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  Assistant Director in Business Relations

  20/11/02

  31/3/04

  Mike Chadwick

  Shared Intelligence

  Senior Research Officer in the Small Business Service

  2/6/03

  30/6/05

  Jeff Chapman

  Combined Heat and Power Association

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  1/4/00

  31/3/04

  Jennifer Churchward

  Ernst & Young

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  3/2/03

  2/2/05

  Jos Cleare

  Hill & Knowlton

  Assistant Director in Business Relations

  1/1/04

  5/10/04

  Peter Concannon

  FaberMaunsell

  Assistant Director in Business Relations

  6/5/03

  31/10/04

  Hugh Crooks

  Enterplan Ltd.

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  5/11/01

  2/4/04

  Adam Dawson

  Shell Information Technologies International

  Director in Business Relations

  29/7/02

  31/5/04

  Alexander Stewart

  Barclays Bank plc

  Consultant in the Consumer Credit Review

  10/11/03

  30/4/04

  Dickey

  Team in Consumer and Competition Policy

  Mark Donougher

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  Deputy Director, Entrepreneurial Inward Investment in UK T&I

  25/3/02

  31/3/04

  Ian Downey

  Science Systems (Space) Ltd.

  Head of Applications of Market

  4/12/01

  3/12/04

  Development in the British National Space Centre

  Fabien du Fraisse

  Bio-Industry Association

  Deputy Director and Bioscience Industry Adviser in Business Relations

  1/10/02

  31/3/04

  Lynn Duggan

  London Borough of Camden

  Senior Policy Adviser in Consumer and Competition Policy

  2/2/04

  31/7/05

  Peter Dunkley

  Leicestershire City Council

  Senior Policy Adviser in Consumer and Competition Policy

  1/2/03

  1/8/04

  Alan Eastwood

  Chemical Industries Association

  Assistant Director in Chemicals Unit, Business Relations

  4/1/00

  31/12/04

  Louise Edwards

  Rolls-Royce plc

  Policy Advisor In Employment Relations

  1/9/03

  27/8/04

  Tony Emes

  Mott MacDonald Group Ltd.

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  1/6/99

  31/5/04

  Philip Evans

  British Nuclear Fuel plc

  Liabilities Manager in the Nuclear and Coal Liabilities Unit

  1/4/02

  31/3/04

  Andy Feest

  AEA Technology plc

  Assistant Director in the Technology and Innovation Team, Business Relations

  21/1/04

  20/1/06

  John Fitton

  Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd.

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  3/4/00

  2/7/04

  Simon Ford

  British Telecommunications

  Telecomms and e-business specialist in UK T&I

  30/5/00

  29/5/04

  Christian Franceschi

  DSL Consultants Ltd.

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  18/11/02

  17/11/04

  Richard Francis

  RWE NUKEM Ltd.

  Assistant Director in the Nuclear and Coal Liabilities Unit

  2/5/00

  30/4/04

  Tony Godley

  UKAEA

  Assistant Director in the Nuclear and Coal Liabilities Unit

  6/1/03

  5/1/05

  Paul Gower

  Financial Services Authority

  Assistant Director in Corporate Law and Governance

  5/1/04

  31/12/05

  1082W
  Secondees may, where appropriate in the course of their responsibilities, be asked to contribute to the drafting of parliamentary answers.
  1083W

  Name

  Employer

  DTI post held

  Secondment start date

  Secondment finish date

  Elizabeth Grant

  IBM (UK)

  Director of UK Online for Business in Business Relations

  15/7/02

  30/4/04

  Malcolm Gresty

  ARUP

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  28/1/02

  27/1/04

  Hilary Hartigan

  NPL Management Ltd.

  Programme Supervisor in Technological Innovation and Sustainable Development

  12/1/04

  31/3/04

  Kevin Hatt

  Security Service

  Administrator in Export Control and Non- Proliferation

  20/10/03

  30/4/04

  Nick Heyes

  Marine Electronic Services Ltd.

  Assistant Director in Business Relations

  1/3/03

  31/3/05

  Christopher Hill

  Shell UK Exploration and Production

  Assistant Director in Energy Innovation and Business Unit

  3/11/03

  2/5/05

  Mark Holt

  Business Link Cheshire and Warrington

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  18/6/02

  17/6/04

  Judith Hopson

  Marine Electronic Services Ltd.

  Administrator in Business Relations

  3/3/03

  31/3/05

  Nicole Hough

  UKAEA

  Assistant Director in Nuclear and Coal Liabilities Unit

  22/4/02

  22/4/04

  Diane Houston

  University of Kent

  Head of Research in the Women and Equality Unit

  1/9/03

  31/8/05

  Robert Hudson

  Hyder Consulting

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  1/9/01

  31/8/05

  John Neale Hutchinson

  Gardenex

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  1/2/99

  29/2/04

  John Ireland

  British Nuclear Fuel plc

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  1/9/99

  31/8/04

  Marcus Jackson

  Ernst & Young

  Deputy Director in the Industrial Development Unit

  14/1/04

  13/1/06

  Mike Jewitt

  Business Link Leicester

  Deputy Director in Small Business Service

  1/2/04

  31/3/05

  James Johnstone

  NPL Management Ltd.

  Technology Adviser in Technological Innovation and Sustainable Development

  6/10/03

  3/9/04

  Alexia Jones

  Deluca

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  15/8/02

  14/2/04

  Briony Jones

  Lloyds TSB Group plc

  Director of the Industrial Development Unit

  29/10/01

  29/10/05

  Jane Kilgannon

  Disability Rights Commission

  Assistant Policy Adviser in the Women and Equality Unit

  14/7/03

  13/7/05

  David King

  Cambridge University

  Chief Scientific Adviser and Head of Office of Science and Technology

  2/10/00

  30/12/05

  Nigel Lawson Dick

  Waitrose

  Assistant Director in the Retail Unit in Business Relations

  13/3/03

  31/3/04

  Errol Levy

  Astrium UK

  Assistant Director in the British National Space Centre

  2/4/01

  30/4/04

  Jonathan Lonsdale

  Ecotec Research & Consulting Ltd.

  Project Manager in the Joint Environment Markets Unit

  1/4/03

  31/3/05

  Tom MacKeown

  Bertrams Group

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  1/3/03

  1/4/05

  Peter Maggs

  BP plc

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  1/10/01

  31/12/03

  Christopher Mansfield

  Shell UK Exploration and Production

  Senior Economist in Energy Markets Unit

  21/1/04

  31/12/04

  Joanne Marsden

  Dstl

  Assistant Director in Foresight Directorate, Office of Science and Technology

  1/12/03

  30/4/05

  Alan McArthur

  Middlesbrough College

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  27/5/03

  26/5/05

  Anne McFarlane

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Assistant Director in the Office of Science and Technology

  3/2/03

  2/2/05

  Christian Mole

  Ernst & Young

  Deputy Director in the Industrial Development Unit

  15/4/02

  16/4/04

  Gill Money

  National Physical Laboratory

  Assistant Director in Office of Science and Technology

  16/2/04

  31/3/04

  Barrie Morris

  Grant Thornton

  Assistant Director in the Small Business Service

  20/10/03

  19/10/04

  Barbara Morton

  Manchester School of Management

  Project Manager—Sustainable Procurement in the Joint Environment Markets Unit

  10/6/03

  9/6/05

  Richard Mrowicki

  British Nuclear Fuel plc

  Deputy Director in the Nuclear and Coal Liabilities Unit

  1/4/02

  31/3/04

  Andrew Nelson

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  Assistant Director in the Industrial Development Unit

  4/11/02

  29/10/04

  Adrian Nicholls

  Ernst & Young

  Deputy Director in the Industrial Development Unit

  2/9/02

  1/9/04

  Ray Parkinson

  British Nuclear Fuel plc

  Assistant Director in the Nuclear and Coal Liabilities Unit

  1/6/02

  31/3/04

  Richard Pascoe

  Reuters Ltd.

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  9/12/02

  9/6/04

  Phillip Patterson

  Association of independent Music Ltd.

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  2/4/03

  2/10/04

  Nicholas Peace

  The Newbrook Engineering Company Ltd.

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  24/5/99

  31/5/04

  Robert Quarshie

  Corus

  Deputy Director in Business Relations

  1/6/03

  2/6/04

  Peter Revill

  E-skills nto

  Deputy Director in Business Relations

  1/6/01

  31/5/04

  Jeremy Robinson

  Allen and Overy

  Assistant Director in Consumer and Competition Policy

  20/1/03

  29/2/04

  Philippa Ryan

  East Midlands Development Agency

  Deputy Director in Facilitating Innovation

  10/3/03

  31/7/03

  Robert Saunders

  BP plc

  Head of Downstream Oil in the Energy Markets Unit

  1/5/02

  30/4/04

  Alison Scott

  Gardenex

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  1/12/99

  19/4/04

  1084W 1085W

  Name

  Employer

  DTI post held

  Secondment start date

  Secondment finish date

  Robin Sellers

  British Nuclear Fuel plc

  Deputy Director in the Nuclear and Coal Liabilities Unit

  1/4/02.

  31/3/04

  Nicholas Sharman

  London Development Agency

  Director, Regions

  22/9/03

  17/9/04

  Elaine Simpson

  British Nuclear Fuel plc

  Assistant Director in the Nuclear and Coal Liabilities Unit

  1/4/02

  31/3/04

  Nicola Simpson

  Citizens Advice Bureau

  Assistant Director in the Better Regulation Team

  16/6/03

  15/6/04

  Martyn Skinner

  Tate & Lyle plc

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  10/4/00

  9/4/04

  Robin Sloan

  Ove Arup & Partners

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  1/4/02

  2/4/04

  Jacqueline Somers

  Traditional Weatherwear Ltd.

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  2/5/00

  1/5/04

  Gordon Stevenson

  Lee & Allen Consulting Ltd.

  Investigator in Company Investigations

  20/10/03

  19/10/04

  David Still

  AMEC Project Investments

  Renewables Advisor in the Energy Innovation and Business Unit

  6/1/03

  5/1/05

  Gill Street

  Kid's Club Network

  Policy Adviser in the Women and Equality Unit

  8/9/03

  23/4/04

  Sheena Sullivan

  PKF

  Tax Specialist in the Small Business Service

  7/4/03

  31/3/04

  Alan Talbot

  BAE Systems

  Assistant Director in Business Relations

  31/3/03

  30/3/05

  Peter Tandy

  British Nuclear Fuel plc

  Assistant Director in the Nuclear and Coal Liabilities Unit

  1/4/02

  31/3/04

  Gary Taylor

  British Nuclear Fuel plc

  Assistant Director in the Nuclear and Coal Liabilities Unit

  1/4/02

  31/3/04

  Helen Taylor

  Ernst & Young

  Director Internal Audit

  18/3/02

  21/3/04

  Michael Thomas

  Middle East Association

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  2/1/01

  1/1/04

  Bob Thompson

  Shell UK Products Ltd.

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  6/1/03

  5/1/05

  Ian Thompson

  Forensic Accounting Ltd.

  Investigator in Company Investigations

  6/10/03

  5/10/04

  Oliver Towers

  Rolls-Royce plc

  Deputy Director in the Aerospace Innovation And Growth Team in Business Relations

  1/9/03

  31/8/04

  Anil Vaidya

  Goldshield Pharmaceuticals

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  1/3/00

  28/2/04

  John Varney

  Nottingham Trent University

  Deputy Director in Europe and World Trade

  1/9/02

  26/10/04

  John Vernon

  Drinks Marketing Consortium

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  14/2/00

  14/2/04

  Alan Vicars

  British Nuclear Fuel plc

  Assistant Director in the Nuclear and Coal Liabilities Unit

  1/4/02

  31/3/04

  John Vimpany

  Exhibition Consultants Ltd

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  1/9/03

  31/8/05

  John von Speyr

  DSL Consultants Ltd.

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  1/10/02

  3/10/03

  Trevor Vyze

  British Standards Institute

  Manager in Facilitating Innovation

  16/3/02

  15/3/04

  James Walpole

  BP Amoco

  Deputy Director in Business Relations

  2/1/01

  31/3/04

  David Warner

  British Nuclear Fuel plc

  Assistant Director in the Nuclear and Coal Liabilities Unit

  1/4/02

  31/3/04

  David Waters

  AMEC

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  2/4/01

  31/3/04

  Peter Watford

  Commonwealth Business Council

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  1/10/02

  31/8/04

  Frank Watson

  IBM (UK)

  Deputy Director in the Office of Science & Technology

  2/2/04

  28/1/05

  Peter Whateley

  IBM (UK)

  Assistant Director in Business Relations

  6/5/03

  6/5/04

  David Williams

  Gilbert Gilkes & Gordon

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  7/8/00

  6/8/04

  Barbara Wilson

  Corgi Hosiery Ltd.

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  1/9/01

  31/8/04

  Edward Wilson

  Vexamus Water Ltd.

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  2/9/02

  2/9/04

  Tony Woodhouse

  GKN

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  1/6/99

  31/5/04

  Gordon Wright

  BAE Systems plc

  Export Promoter in UK T&I

  21/7/03

  20/7/05

  World Trade Organisation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will remove at least two of the Singapore issues from the remaining trade negotiations in the interest of multilateral trade. [156329]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  EU Trade Ministers agreed on 2 December 2003 that the European Community should "unbundled" the four Singapore issues and explore alternative, more flexible approaches, including the possibility of removing some, or all, of the Singapore issues from the Doha Round.

  The UK has made clear since before Cancun that we do not see investment and competition as priorities in the Doha Development Agenda. It is clear there is substantial opposition to negotiations on these issues in the WTO on the part of developing countries and we should take account of these views.

  Small Business Representation
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the small business representatives on each of the Department's group boards. [156680]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Of the current group board independent members, four have a background in small business: Richard Maudslay (Business Group Board), Patricia Calway (Fair Markets Group Board), Caroline Whitfield (Innovation Group Board) and Shahzad Khan MBE (Innovation Group Board).

  Advice to DTI on the needs of small business comes from the Small Business Council (SBC) and the Ethnic Minority Business Forum (EMBF). The SBC advises on the needs of existing and potential small business in order to increase their opportunities for success and growth. It also advises on the effects on such businesses of the activities and potential activities of Government. The EMBF advises on the right help and advice that

  1087W
  black and ethnic minorities need to start and successfully grow their businesses. The majority of members of both these advisory non-departmental public bodies are small business representatives. Further information on both can be found on the Small Business Service website at www.sbs.gov.uk.

  Smart Award Scheme
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to improve the effectiveness of the Smart scheme in increasing the profitability of award-winners' businesses. [155260]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Business Link engage with businesses in receipt of Smart as well as other SMEs to help them build their capability for growth.

  UK Online for Business
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the feedback received by her Department from stakeholders in UK online for business. [157242]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Useful feedback has been received from a variety of Intermediaries, major IT partners and business organisations on the value of the UK online for Business programme. The feedback is for internal use and is not being published.

  Some objective feedback came in the form of the report published by the Economist Intelligent Unit in 2003 on e-Readiness, which described UK online for business as one of the world's strongest and most innovative government projects supporting e-business.

  University Challenge Seed Funds
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when it was decided to withdraw separate funding for University Challenge Seed Funds; and why this decision was taken. [157211]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government announced in July 2002 in its strategy document "Investing in Innovation—A strategy for science, engineering and technology", that it would increase the funds available for the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF). In addition it would combine funding previously allocated to University Challenge and Science Enterprise Challenge into the budget for the second round of HEIF. In this way the Government is supporting knowledge transfer in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) through a single stream of funding, alongside that for teaching and research, simplifying the funding landscape and allowing HEIs greater flexibility in targeting available resources at their identified priority areas.

  £45 million has been invested in University Challenge since 1999
  £78 million was invested in the first round of the Higher Education Innovation Fund (three year period)
  £187 million will be invested in the second round of the Higher Education Innovation Fund (two year period)

  Vehicle Disposal
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures will be put in place 1088W
  to inform the public about the disposal of end of life vehicles in relation to the End of Life Vehicles Directive; and if she will make a statement. [157981]

  Mr. Timms
  A number of publicity initiatives are to be taken, at the most appropriate times, to inform the public about their rights and responsibilities in regard to end-of-life vehicles (ELVs), as a consequence of the regulations which bring the ELV Directive into effect in the UK. Aspects of the regulations to be covered by publicity include the Certificate of Destruction to be issued by authorised treatment facilities, and the entitlement to "free take-back" of ELVs, of any age, from 2007. The system which the Government is proposing to introduce to deliver this last aspect is set down in a Consultation Document, issued by the Department on 4 February, entitled the End-of-Life Vehicles (Producer Responsibility) Regulations 2004, copies of which have beenplaced in the Libraries of the House.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Burma
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's contribution to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee's protection role on the Burma-Thailand border. [157617]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  In 2001–02, DFID provided £1 million to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) programme 'Care and Protection for Refugees from Burma in Thailand'. This programme was targeted towards the Burmese refugees residing in Thailand (approximately 110,000 at that time) and focused on:ensuring the admission and reception procedures for new arrivals in Thailand adhere to international standards;
  seeking access to asylum seekers at the border and working with the Thai authorities to establish a fair and transparent procedure for determining admission of new asylum seekers;
  continuing to search for a durable solution for this refugee population;
  facilitating, in cooperation with other UN agencies and NGOs, provision of care and social support to the refugee population;
  continuing to promote accession to the 1951 Refugee Convention.

  UNHCR faced many challenges during the period of activities which impacted on its ability to progress its objectives, including lack of access to both sides of the Thai-Burma border, continued insecurity in border areas of Burma, and continued problems with the definition and application of refugee admission criteria in Thailand. However, despite these constraints UNHCR continued the critical dialogue with the Government of Thailand on protection-related issues, including conducting re-registration of new arrivals and continued advocacy to prevent forced return. UNHCR also liaised with operational UN agencies and NGOs to facilitate provision of adequate living conditions within the camps. Within its care and protection activities, UNHCR implemented programmes to identify. prevent and respond to sexual and gender based violence,

  1089W
  provided vocational training for refugees, educational materials for school age children, and mine risk education.

  In addition to supporting UNHCR Thailand, my Department also provided £607.000 to UNHCR Burma in 2002–03. The UNHCR Burma programme focused on Repatriation and Reintegration for a target population of 86,000 returnees from Bangladesh in Northern Rakhine State. Its purpose is to help establish conditions for safe, dignified, and sustainable reintegration of Burmese refugees and to mitigate potential obstacles to successful reintegration. The programme includes monitoring of forced labour,

  £

  a. Grant to UN Administered Fund for HIV/AIDS in Burma

  2,200,000

  b. DFID financed Technical Assistance for work of UN HIV/Aids Fund

  120,779

  c. Grant to the BBC World Service Trust for Radio Soap Opera in support of HIV/AIDS education and improved livelihoods of poor people

  588.972

  d. Grant to NGO for Basic Health Care Programmes in Wa and Kachin

  125,071

  e. Grant to Christian Aid for Burmese Border Consortium food aid and relief programmes on the Thailand-Burma Border

  450,000

  g. Grant to World Health Organisation (WHO) for co-ordination of health services at Thailand-Burma Border

  220,000

  h. Small grants to civil society organisations

  90,000

  Total projected expenditure in 2003–04

  3,794,822

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance with the supply of medicines his Department is providing for the 995 Karenni and 678 Karen internally displaced persons in the Muthraw district of Burma. [157625]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID is not providing assistance with the supply of medicines that target internally displaced persons in the Muthraw district of Burma. We provide support, through the Small Grants Scheme managed by the British Embassy in Rangoon, for a community based organisation to operate a mobile medical clinic in Kayah State which has also visited the Muthraw district.

  CDC
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost of corporate entertaining by CDC was for the last seven years; and what the budget for corporate entertainment by(a) CDC and (b) Actis is for the next three years. [157842]

  Hilary Benn
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 March 2004, Official Report, c. 618 W]: The costs of corporate entertainment by CDC over the last seven years were as follows:

  £

  1997

  66,000

  1998

  101,000

  1999

  114,000

  2000

  88,000

  2001

  78,000

  2002

  81,000

  2003

  66,000

  The corporate entertainment budgets for CDC and Actis for 2004 are £16,000 and £118,000 respectively.
  1090W
  issuance of identity and residency documents for new returnees, training for returnees in language and market oriented skills, health and education services through the Myanmar Mother and Child Welfare Association, and training for the authorities in refugee and human rights law.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will break down by programme his Department's £4 million allocation for the bilateral programme for Burma. [157619]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID's projected expenditure on bilateral programmes from its Burma aid framework allocation during the current financial year breaks down as follows:

  Although the combined level is higher than recent years, it reflects the need for the new investment management company, Actis, to establish itself in all its the markets worldwide, to promote its investment Funds and to attract third party investors.

  Budgets for subsequent years have not yet been set.

  Iraq
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations he has made to the Agricultural Reconstruction and Development Programme for Iraq to ensure that poorer farmers do not suffer from higher prices for irrigation water; and if he will make a statement. [157435]

  Hilary Benn
  The USAID-supported Agricultural Reconstruction and Development Program for Iraq (ARDI) is undertaking surveys in the agriculture and natural resources sectors in Iraq in order to provide information for future policy-making by the Iraqi Ministry of Water Resources.

  As part of this work, ARDI advisers are working with the Ministry to consider options for the reform of tariffs on water used in irrigation. The aims of such reforms would be to generate revenue to cover the operating expenses of the irrigation system and to encourage the efficient and sustainable use of scarce water resources.

  DFID secondees are not closely involved in the agriculture or water resources sectors in Iraq. However, advisers from other Coalition partners in these sectors are aware of the need to put in put in place measures which will improve the situation of poor farmers on a long-term sustainable basis.

  United Nations Officials Transcripts
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on which dates his Department received transcripts of telephone conversations of the Secretary General of the UN; what action was taken in response to the information they contained; and whether the Department raised concerns about how the transcripts were acquired with the relevant authorities. [158400]

  Hilary Benn
  It has been the practice of successive Governments neither to confirm nor to deny allegations relating to the security and intelligence agencies.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Public Record Office (Irish Historical Documents)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list documents on Kilmainham Gaol held by the Public Record Office. [156299]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information is available on the National Archives' electronic catalogue. available at www. nationalarchives.gov.uk An initial search revealed that some of the documents are held in the following series: A02, H045, SP34 and T1. The National Archives of Ireland in Dublin also holds some material relating to Kilmainham Gaol.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list the documents relating to the courts-martial of those indicted following the Easter Uprising in Dublin in 1916 held by the Public Record Office. [156300]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information is held on the National Archives' electronic catalogue, available on the internet at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk An initial search revealed that some documents are held in Series W071 and W0141.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs which documents are held by the Public Record Office written by(a) P. H. Pearse, (b) Thomas J. Clarke, (c) Thomas Macdonagh, (d) Edward Daly, (e) William Pearse, (j) Michael O'Hanrahan, (g) Joseph Mary Plunkett, (h) John MacBride, (i) Sean Heuston, (j) Michael Mallin, (k) Eamonn Ceannt, (l) Con Colbert, (m) Thomas Kent, (n) Sean MacDiarmada, (o) James Connolly and (p) Sir Roger Casement. [156304]

  Mr. Leslie
  It is not possible to identify documents which may have been written by the names listed, without detailed research into the records held by the National Archives. Because this research would have to cover a very large number of documents, a full answer to the hon. Member could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, more information about Government records which have been transferred to the National Archives can be accessed through its web site at: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

  Small Claims Track
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) what 1092W
  percentage of the cost of running the small claims track was recovered from the payment of court fees by litigants in the last period for which figures are available; [155383]

  (2) what percentage of the costs of the small claims track in Middlesbrough court was recovered from court fees paid by litigants in the last year for which figures are available. [155384]

  Mr. Leslie
  The approximate unit cost to the Court Service of processing a claim from issue of proceedings to judgment at a small-claims hearing in 2002–03 was £527. For the purpose of calculating the unit cost the divisor is the number of claims allocated to the small claims track. In 2002–03 this was 80,496 (England and Wales). The total cost of small claims that are defended is therefore £42,421,392.

  The percentage of cost recovered from fees paid by litigants was 103 per cent. This allows for income and cost associated with small claims that did not go to a hearing or were not defended. The cost of the small claims hearing itself, (included in the figure of £527) is based on the average length of a small claims hearing published in Judicial Statistics 2002 (table 4.11).

  In 2003 a total of 482 small claims were allocated to track at Middlesbrough county court, indicating a total cost of £254,014. It is impossible to carry out valid comparisons of cost and income at local level. This is because a significant proportion of fee revenue is accounted for centrally at the Claims Production Centre (Northampton). The CPC issues claims on behalf of all county courts in England and Wales.

  University Complaints
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the Government's policy is in respect of the availability of legal aid for those intending to refer university complaints to the proposed new Independent Adjudicator as set out in the Higher Education Bill; and if he will make a statement. [158299]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is intended that the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA), which has been established by the higher education sector, will be the designated operator of a scheme for the review of student complaints should the Higher Education Bill become law. The OIA is not a judicial scheme. It operates along similar lines to other Ombudsman-type schemes and will be free to complainants, and therefore legal aid should be unnecessary.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Burma
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Burmese Government about the country's procedure for trial. [157462]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are concerned about the Burmese authorities' procedure for trial. We believe that Burmese trials continue to fall short of international fair
  1093W
  trial standards. I regularly raise our concerns on human rights issues with the Burmese authorities, most recently when I met the Burmese ambassador on 23 February.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the Burmese Government to review the sentences of those political prisoners who have been sentenced in trials which did not meet international standards of fairness; [157464]

  (2) what representations he has made to the Government of Burma about the continued detention of 23 people arrested on 30 May 2003. [157724]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have repeatedly called on the Burmese regime to fully release all political prisoners and to allow them to play an active role in national reconciliation in Burma.

  We are concerned about the Burmese authorities' procedure for trial. We believe that Burmese trials continue to fall short of international fair trial standards. I regularly raise our concerns on human rights issues with the Burmese authorities, most recently when I met the Burmese ambassador on 23 February.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the Burmese Government about ensuring that the National Convention incorporates extensive human rights safeguards in a new constitution for the country; [157465]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Burmese Government about the timetable for reconvening the National Convention to draft a new constitution and conduct the transition to democracy. [157623]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Burmese ambassador called on me on 23 February to discuss the State Peace and Development Council's plans to reconvene the National Convention. We had a full and frank discussion. I made clear that the National Convention should be an inclusive, transparent process with a clear timeframe. I have repeatedly called on the Burmese regime to ensure that human rights in Burma are fully respected.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the level of access of the Rohingya people in Burma to(a) markets, (b) employment, (c) education and (d) medical care. [157472]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Many people in all parts of Burma have only limited access to employment opportunities, education, and medical care. These problems are compounded in Northern Rakhine State by the additional travel and other restrictions placed on the Rohingya people, which in some cases also limit their access to markets. We provide support to the United Nation High Commission for Refugees who are working to improve conditions in Northern Rakhine State.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of the confiscation of Rohingya land for(a) use as Burmese army camps and (b) the settlement of other people. [157473]
  1094W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are aware of allegations of land confiscation but are unable to independently verify these.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the extent of the use of human minesweepers in Burma. [157629]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are aware of allegations of instances where villagers or prisoners have been forced to assist with mine clearance, including by inappropriate and dangerous methods. The 2003 Landmine Monitor, published by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, alleges three cases of 'atrocity demining' in 2002.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the extent of the destruction of crops and food supplies by the State Peace and Development Council in Burma. [157633]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Instances of destruction of crops and food supplies by the State Peace and Development Council forces is rare in the large parts of the country. However, there are credible reports of such activity in areas where armed conflict continues.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of(a) looting, (b) burning and (c) extortion by the State Peace and Development Council in Burma. [157636]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Instances of looting and burning by State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) forces or other authorities are rare in the majority of the country. However, in the areas where armed conflict continues there are numerous allegations of looting and burning of property, and other human rights abuse, by SPDC forces. We judge that some of these allegations are credible. Restrictions on travel by British embassy personnel in Rangoon makes it impossible to independently verify individual allegations.

  A certain level of extortion is widespread throughout the country. At the lowest and most common level it includes the extraction of small sums of money, by police and military personnel, at roadside and other checkpoints. We are aware also of frequent instances where 'contributions' to local projects, entertainment for VIP guests, additional charges for electricity and other services, etc. are extracted from householders under threat of jail sentences or other punishment, by civilian authorities.

  Within conflict affected areas there are reports of threats and extortion being used, by military and anti-SPDC forces, to extract food, labour. information and other assistance from local villagers.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of deaths from the use of landmines in Burma in each of the last five years. [157641]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A reliable estimate of the number of deaths from landmines is not possible, since many deaths (as opposed to injuries which require medical treatment) are unreported and unrecorded.
  1095W
  The 2003 Landmine Monitor (published by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines) notes that in 2002 there were at least 114 landmine casualties reported in Burma, but only one of these, a military officer. was reported as being killed. It also notes that the number of landmine casualties appears to have been increasing in the last 5–6 years.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of internally displaced people in Burma who have died of starvation in each of the last five years. [157642]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We do not hold figures for the number of internally displaced people (IDPs) in Burma who have died of starvation in each of the last five years.

  IDPs are largely concentrated in areas where there is continuing conflict between the State Peace and Development Council forces and forces belonging to ethnic nationality organisations Some have been forcibly relocated to 'resettlement camps and villages. Others remain in hiding in remote areas. All IDPs, particularly those hiding in the jungle, are extremely vulnerable to a range of ills—including starvation, but also to disease, lack of medical care, lack of shelter, ongoing fighting and abuse by armed forces.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last had contact with the Karenni National Progressive Party; and what was discussed at that meeting. [157644]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have had no direct contact with the Karenni National Progressive Party.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Burma about the Emergency Provisions Act 1950. [157725]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of people in Karenni state who remain in need of(a) food, (b) shelter and (c) protection. [157639]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Karenni State has an estimated population of 259,000 people. It is one of the least developed areas in Burma. There are large numbers of people who suffer from deficiencies in food, shelter and protection (as there are in other parts of Burma).

  Between two thirds and three quarters of the area of the state is believed to be under the control of various armed ethnic organisations who have reached ceasefire agreements with the State Peace and Development Council. Although many problems remain in these ceasefire areas, the situation for ordinary villagers is better than in the areas where armed conflict continues.

  In the areas of Karenni State where armed conflict continues, food, shelter and protection needs are particularly severe. Population displacement means that the numbers of people involved is probably considerably less than a quarter of the state's population. Among the most vulnerable are those internally displaced people who have been forced to
  1096W
  leave their villages and who remain hiding in the jungle. Accurate estimates are hard to obtain, but their number probably reaches several thousand.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the numbers of Burmese State Peace and Development Council soldiers brought into Karenni state from Karen areas since 1 December 2003. [157640]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are aware of reports of increased military activity in southern Karenni State since December 2003. We are also aware of reports of an associated increase in instances of human rights abuse and internally displaced people. Some estimates of numbers and disposition of troops are available. The most comprehensive of these are provided by the Karen People's Progressive Party and Karen National Union forces and publicised by groups such as the Free Burma Rangers. They state that up to 1,000 new troops have been brought into the region. Other evidence for increased activity in this area is quite strong. But independent verification of troop numbers is not possible.

  Iraq
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he received advice from officials within his Department that a war against Iraq might be illegal. [158143]

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government received advice on the legality of war on Iraq from Government legal advisers which did not concur with the advice given by the Attorney-General. [158522]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government's legal advice on the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq came from the Attorney-General, who made a statement in Parliament on 17 March 2003 which set out his view.

  I supplemented this with a letter of the same date to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which was also sent to every right hon. and hon. Member.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date the Permanent Secretary in his Department was first informed as to which Iraqi weapons the 45 minute claim in the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction dossier applied. [158774]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 10 February 2004,Official Report, column 1305W. The Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was informed of the particular weapons referred to in similar circumstances and with the same timings as the Foreign Secretary.

  Russia
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sanctions against Russia are planned by EU member states if Russia does not accept the terms of the partnership and trade agreements within the European Union. [157396]
  1097W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are currently working on the basis that Russia will agree to extend the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement (PCA) to the enlarged EU from May 1.

  The European Commission, in consultation with member states, is seeking to agree a text of a Draft Protocol with Russia to extend the PCA, while expressing willingness to address Russia's legitimate concerns about EU enlargement.

  The Commission has yet to present formal proposals to member states for sanctions in the event that Russia fails to extend the PCA to the new member states from 1 May.

  Secret Intelligence Service
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether members of the secret intelligence services were in New York in February 2003. [158112]

  Mr. Straw
  In line with the long-standing practice of successive Governments, to comment on the deployment of security and intelligence service officials would be inappropriate. The security and intelligence services are not within the scope of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Part 1, paragraph 6).

  Sudan
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, (1) what action he is taking to find an independent mediator, acceptable to both sides, to bring an end to the conflict in Darfur; [158093]

  (2) what contribution the UK will make to ensure that the peace agreement in Darfur is maintained. [158094]

  Number of anaesthetists working within HSS1 trusts as at 31 December 2000, 31 December 2001, 31 December 2002 and 31 December 2003 broken down by health board area (headcount and WTE)

  31 December 2000

  31 December 2001

  31 December 2002

  31 December 2003

  Health board

  Headcount

  WTE2

  Headcount

  WTE2

  Headcount

  WTE2

  Headcount

  WTE2

  Eastern board

  101

  97.87

  101

  98.78

  107

  103.20

  116

  112.20

  Northern board

  14

  13.64

  17

  16.64

  17

  16.64

  16

  15.64

  Western board

  20

  20.00

  21

  21.00

  22

  22.00

  26

  25.50

  Southern board

  19

  19.00

  19

  19.00

  20

  20.00

  20

  19.71

  Total

  154

  150.51

  158

  155.42

  166

  161.84

  178

  173.05

  1Health and Social Services.

  2Whole-time equivalent.

  Curriculum
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what ways the Northern Ireland curriculum differs from the National Curriculum. [157848]

  Jane Kennedy
  The National Curriculum is similar, though not identical, to the Northern Ireland Curriculum. Both prescribe a number of compulsory subjects at different key stages. The main difference lies in the fact that Northern Ireland has six compulsory cross-curricular themes which are taught through a range of subjects. These
  1098W
  Mr. Mullin
  We are urging all parties to the conflict in Darfur to re-establish a ceasefire, preferably with international monitoring, permit humanitarian access to all those in need, and resume talks to find a peaceful solution.

  We are in almost daily contact with the Government of Sudan and the various Darfur groups. We are working closely with the EU and the US, and have offered to facilitate the peaceful resolution of the conflict. We have suggested that there may be a role for the international community, including the UK, in assisting in the implementation of a peace agreement.

  United Nations (Surveillance)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have received from the Governments of(a) Angola, (b) Cameroon, (c) Chile, (d) Guinea, (e) Mexico and (f) Pakistan in respect of allegations made by Katharine Gun that the diplomatic missions of these states in New York were electronically bugged by British and United States security services. [158113]

  Mr. Straw
  The British embassy in Mexico City received a Note Verbale from the Mexican Government on this issue. We have not received such correspondence from the other countries mentioned.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Anaesthetists
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many anaesthetists were working in the NHS in Northern Ireland in each year since 2000, broken down by health board area. [157658]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is provided in the following table.

  cover Information Technology, Education for Mutual Understanding, Cultural Heritage, Health Education and at post primary level, Economic Awareness and Careers Education.

  Football
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 161W, on football, on what governance and accountability arrangements agreement has not yet been reached. [158323]
  1099W
  Angela Smith
  Agreement has not of yet been reached between the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Irish Football Association (IFA) on recommendations for the re-structuring of the IFA that have emerged from an independent economic appraisal process commissioned by the Sports Council for Northern Ireland in accordance with normal accountability arrangements for public funds.

  New Acute Hospital (South-west)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations have been held on the location for the new acute hospital in the South West of Northern Ireland; what discussions he has had on this with(a) his predecessor and (b) members of the suspended executive; and what views they held. [157439]

  Angela Smith
  The report of the Acute Hospitals Review Group, which included a recommendation on the location of the new acute hospital for the South West, was issued for consultation between 30 June 2001 and 31 October 2001. The paper "Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures", which set out proposals for future hospital services in Northern Ireland including the location of the new acute hospital for the South West, was issued for consultation between 12 June 2002 and 31 October 2002. I have had no discussions on this matter with my predecessor, Des Browne, or with former members of the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have, however, held discussions with a number of MLAs who have requested to meet me to give me their views on the implications of the decision on the location for the new acute hospital for the South West. These views have extended from a wish to have the decision overturned to a concern to have enhanced services for people in the Tyrone and Mid-Ulster area.

  New Schools
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the(a) value and (b) number of new schools built in Northern Ireland is in the last five years for which records are available. [156959]

  Jane Kennedy
  Records are not readily available about the value and number of new schools that have been built in each of the last five years. However, over the last five years significant investment has been announced for new schools, and for major extensions and refurbishment of existing schools, as follows:

  Projects

  £ million

  1999–2000

  16

  67.1

  2000–01

  18

  72.2

  2001–02

  25

  132

  2002–03

  33

  175.2

  2003–04

  43

  263

  This is a total of 135 school projects at a total value of £709.5 million.

  Threshold Payments
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what schools are experiencing a financial deficit 1100W
  as a result of the payment of threshold payments, broken down by area board; and if he will make a statement. [157455]

  Jane Kennedy
  Teachers' threshold costs are part of a teacher's salary. They form only one element of a range of costs that have to be met from a school's budget. It is not possible to establish the precise reasons why a school's delegated budget is in deficit as there can be many factors involved.

  Windsor Park, Belfast
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what element of soccer strategy money has been set aside for improvements to Windsor Park, Belfast. [158324]

  Angela Smith
  To date no element of Soccer Strategy money has been set aside for improvements to Windsor Park, Belfast. However, an indicative sum of £3 million is earmarked from Soccer Strategy money for playing facilities generally. The playing facilities component of the Soccer Strategy is currently being subjected to independent economic appraisal. Improvements to Windsor Park could be considered as part of that component. I will, though, wish to be satisfied that recommendations in relation to Governance and that accountability arrangements provide appropriate safeguards for public funds, before any element of Soccer Strategy money, including that for playing facilities, could be released.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Child Care
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many civil servants in his Department are assisting with the review of childcare policy; what(a) organisations from outside the Department and (b) other Departments are assisting with the review; what body or committee within the Department is co-ordinating the review; when he expects to publish the review; and if he will make a statement. [158131]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 2 March 2004]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Childcare Review was announced by the Chancellor in Budget 2003. An inter-departmental ministerial steering group was set up to oversee the review, jointly chaired by Margaret Hodge and me.

  A working group of officials, supporting the ministerial steering group, is chaired by HM Treasury, with representatives from the Department for Education and Skills, Department for Work and Pensions, Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Health, the Women and Equality Unit, the Social Exclusion Unit at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and No. 10. Within HM Treasury and the Sure Start Unit most of the work being done by the review would have been required anyway for the Spending Review. There are no civil servants working

  1101W
  full time on the Childcare Review and those working on it have taken it on as part of their normal responsibilities.

  The review has consulted external bodies, receiving 50 responses, and held bi-lateral meetings with the main groups working in this area.

  The results of the review will be reflected in the Spending Review, the outcome of which will be published in the summer.

  Foundation Degrees
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) women and (b) men (i) applied to, (ii) enrolled in and (iii) graduated

  Applicants, accepted and first degree graduates by subject and gender. 1997/98 to 2002/03

  Applicants

  Academic year/subject

  Men

  Women

  Total

  1997/98

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  31,977

  51,068

  83,045

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  30,317

  10,437

  40,754

  Engineering and Technology

  23,104

  3,375

  26,479

  Medicine and Dentistry

  7,076

  7,417

  14,493

  Other Courses

  128,259

  165,751

  294,010

  Total

  220,733

  238,048

  458,781

  1998/99

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  29,852

  49,298

  79,150

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  31,798

  11,079

  42,877

  Engineering and Technology

  21,541

  3,295

  24,836

  Medicine and Dentistry

  6,730

  7,168

  13,898

  Other Courses

  122,804

  162,892

  285,696

  Total

  212,725

  233,732

  446,457

  1999/2000

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  29,268

  48,016

  77,284

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  34,166

  11,856

  46,022

  Engineering and Technology

  20,233

  3,006

  23,239

  Medicine and Dentistry

  5,927

  6,862

  12,789

  Other Courses

  120,619

  162,978

  283,597

  Total

  210,213

  232,718

  442,931

  2000/01

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  28,454

  47,353

  75,807

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  35,960

  12,480

  48,440

  Engineering and Technology

  19,258

  2,926

  22,184

  Medicine and Dentistry

  5,301

  6,620

  11,921

  Other Courses

  119,456

  164,220

  283,676

  Total

  208,429

  233,599

  442,028

  2001/02

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  28,919

  47,911

  76,830

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  39,669

  13,128

  52,797

  Engineering and Technology

  18,485

  2,765

  21,250

  Medicine and Dentistry

  5,069

  6,750

  11,819

  Other Courses

  122,360

  168,777

  291,137

  Total

  214,502

  239,331

  453,833

  2002/03

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  29,322

  44,401

  73,723

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  35,367

  12,404

  47,771

  Engineering and Technology

  19,899

  2,835

  22,734

  Medicine and Dentistry

  5,668

  7,976

  13,644

  Other Courses

  127,027

  176,466

  303,493

  Total

  217,283

  244,082

  461,365

  1102W
  in courses in higher education in each year since 1997, broken down by (A) humanities, social studies and languages courses, (B) physical sciences and mathematics courses, (C) engineering and technology courses, (D) medicine and dentistry and (E) other courses. [143148]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is taken from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). Figures are given in the table.

  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in replying. There have been an unusually high number of questions over the last few months, and the data for 2003 graduates did not become available until after Christmas.
  1103W

  Accepted applicants

  Academic year/subject

  Men

  Women

  Total

  1997/98

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  26,934

  43,784

  70,718

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  29,536

  11,152

  40,688

  Engineering and Technology

  22,316

  3,717

  26,033

  Medicine and Dentistry

  2,713

  3,158

  5,871

  Other Courses

  82,725

  110,303

  193,028

  Total

  164,224

  172,114

  336,338

  1998/99

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  25,156

  42,051

  67,207

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  30,551

  1,375

  41,926

  Engineering and Technology

  20,743

  3,511

  24,254

  Medicine and Dentistry

  2,699

  3,263

  5,962

  Other Courses

  80,330

  110,109

  190,439

  Total

  159,479

  170,309

  329,788

  1999/2000

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  25,064

  41,970

  67,034

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  32,273

  12,113

  44,386

  Engineering and Technology

  19,568

  3,394

  22,962

  Medicine and Dentistry

  2,721

  3,473

  6,194

  Other Courses

  80,714

  113,304

  194,018

  Total

  160,340

  174,254

  334,594

  2000/01

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  25,299

  42,265

  67,564

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  33,096

  12,390

  45,486

  Engineering and Technology

  18,647

  3,266

  21,913

  Medicine and Dentistry

  2,825

  3,767

  6,592

  Other Courses

  81,614

  116,578

  198,192

  Total

  161,481

  178,266

  339,747

  2001/02

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  26,455

  44,118

  70,573

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  36,112

  12,542

  48,654

  Engineering and Technology

  18,297

  3,243

  21,540

  Medicine and Dentistry

  2,988

  4,173

  7,161

  Other Courses

  86,448

  123,665

  210,113

  Total

  170,300

  187,741

  358,041

  2002/03

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  27,573

  42,651

  70,224

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  33,465

  12,435

  45,900

  Engineering and Technology

  20,782

  3,576

  24,358

  Medicine and Dentistry

  3,088

  4,749

  7,837

  Other Courses

  89,460

  130,336

  219,796

  Total

  174,368

  193,747

  368,115

  First degree graduates

  Academic year/subject

  Men

  Women

  Total

  1997/98

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  22,516

  34,888

  57,404

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  18,303

  8,923

  27,226

  Engineering and Technology

  19,321

  3,253

  22,574

  Medicine and Dentistry

  2,876

  3,024

  5,900

  Other Courses

  59,274

  86,375

  145,649

  Total

  122,290

  136,463

  258,753

  1998/99

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  21,925

  36,007

  57,932

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  18,674

  9,012

  27,686

  Engineering and Technology

  18,758

  3,254

  22,012

  Medicine and Dentistry

  2,849

  2,993

  5,842

  Other Courses

  59,470

  90,729

  150,199

  Total

  121,676

  141,995

  263,671

  1104W 1105W

  First degree graduates

  Academic year/subject

  Men

  Women

  Total

  1999/2000

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  22,387

  37,519

  59,906

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  19,327

  9,162

  28,489

  Engineering and Technology

  17,337

  3,214

  20,551

  Medicine and Dentistry

  2,881

  3,085

  5,966

  Other Courses

  59,249

  91,106

  150,355

  Total

  121,181

  144,086

  265,267

  2000/01

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  21,370

  37,051

  58,421

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  20,175

  9,570

  29,745

  Engineering and Technology

  16,734

  3,068

  19,802

  Medicine and Dentistry

  2,799

  3,165

  5,964

  Other Courses

  57,793

  93,621

  151,414

  Total

  118,871

  146,475

  265,346

  2001/02

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  20,593

  36,334

  56,927

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  20,573

  9,537

  30,110

  Engineering and Technology

  16,770

  2,990

  19,760

  Medicine and Dentistry

  2,786

  3,293

  6,079

  Other Courses

  58,102

  96,076

  154,178

  Total

  118,824

  148,230

  267,054

  2002/03

  Humanities, Law, Social Studies and Languages

  24,886

  43,872

  68,758

  Physical Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics

  23,202

  11,464

  34,666

  Engineering and Technology

  15,702

  3,072

  18,774

  Medicine and Dentistry

  2,777

  3,337

  6,114

  Other Courses

  53,730

  91,378

  145,108

  Total

  120,297

  153,123

  273,420

  Source:

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service and Higher Education Statistics Agency.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list by education authority in England and Wales the proportion of school leavers who have entered higher education in each of the last five years. [149188]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information is taken from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and covers applicants, domiciled in English Local Education Authorities, accepted onto full time first degree and HND courses at UK institutions. Figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Figures are given in a table that has been placed in the Library.

  School Meals
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what steps he is taking to reduce the amount of salt in school meals; and if he will make a statement; [158647]

  (2) what research his Department has carried out into the salt content of school meals; and if he will make a statement. [158648]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department's guidance 'Healthy School Lunches' makes various recommendations for reducing salt in cooking and what to use as an alternative. The guidance can be viewed on the website www.dfes.gov.uk/schoollunches
  1106W
  The Department for Education and Skills, together with the Food Standards Agency, has taken forward a project looking at school meals in 80 secondary schools in England. The project is assessing the food provided; consumption; and nutrient intake. The project is also looking at the use of salt in food preparation and availability at meal times. The results of this research will be published late spring 2004, and will inform future policy decisions on this issue.

  School Photos
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) whether he plans to issue clarification to local education authorities on the guidance he has issued on the photographing of children at school; and if he will make a statement; [150531]

  (2) when the hon. Member for Chelmsford will receive an answer to his question reference 150531 which received a holding answer on 26 January 2004. [157919]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answers 26 January 2004 and 2 March 2004]: My Department has published information on its website in response to inquiries from schools about using video and photographic images of pupils in school publications, or on the internet. In brief, that advises that schools should obtain parental permission to publish images of pupils, they should not identify individual pupils, and that photographs of pupils should be kept secure.

  We were told last year that some local authorities and schools had misinterpreted that advice: either applying it to the use of cameras and videos by parents when

  1107W
  filming or photographing school events, or using it to form the basis of policies relating to the publication of photographs in local newspapers. As a result we revised the advice to make it clear that it does not apply to those areas and that schools and local education authorities are free to set their own policies about those issues in light of local circumstances and sensitivities.

  The Newspaper Society and the Society of Editors recently raised concerns about some schools unwillingness to allow the publication of photographs of pupils in the local press. Representatives of both societies met with officials of my Department last week to discuss the issues and officials agreed to consider amplifying the information on the Department's website about that.

  Schools (Vending Machines)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) hew many schools he estimates raise funds from food and drink vending machines; [158686]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of schools raising funds from food and drink vending machines. [158947]

  Mr. Miliband
  This information is not collected centrally. Schools are free to install food and drink vending machines and collect income from them. We would encourage schools to consider doing this as part of a whole-school approach to promoting a healthy diet rather than for purely financial reasons, and to strike a sensible balance in the food and drink sold. This policy underlies the 'Food in Schools' initiative, which will include projects on healthier vending as announced on 5 January 2004.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list each(a) specialist school and (b) non-specialist school designated under section 104 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, together with the number of pupils they have selected in each of the last six years. [155623]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Student Loan/Debt
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the outstanding stock of student debt owed to public funds was(a) on 1 March 1997 and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available; and how much of each sum was (i) debt in arrears and (ii) debt written off. [158653]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The total amount outstanding for publicly-owned debt, the arrears value, and the amount which has been written oil or cancelled during the financial year are shown in the table. The data reflect the position at the end of each financial year. Data at 1 March are not available. The answer refers to both mortgage-style and income-contingent loans.
  1108W

  Publicly-owned student loan debt: United Kingdom

  £ million

  1996–97

  2001–021

  2002–031

  Total amount outstanding at the end of the financial year2,3

  2,691.0

  8,394.0

  10,827.5

  Of which:

  Arrears value4

  11.2

  131.7

  5—

  Amount written off/cancelled during the financial year

  0.9

  1.4

  2.6

  1Provisional.

  2The amount outstanding is after repayments of income contingent loans according to the latest known information. The SLC are notified of repayments by the Inland Revenue usually within one year of the end of the tax year they relate to, e.g. there will be some borrowers who have repaid their accounts in full in financial year 2002–03 but this will not be reported until the reconciliation has been made with SLC records.

  3Includes loans not yet due for repayment.

  4The arrears value is the overdue amount and does not include administration charges

  5Not yet available.

  Source:

  Student Loans Company.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information on individual student debt is made available to credit rating agencies. [158654]

  Alan Johnson
  We do not make information on student loans available to credit reference agencies (CRAs) for credit scoring. CRAs do, however, have access to information in the public domain, including county court judgments (CCJs), which may be obtained by the Student Loans Company against default on student loans.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what order of precedence state student debt has in relation to other creditors in personal bankruptcy proceedings. [158655]

  Alan Johnson
  Student debt in relation to other creditors in bankruptcy proceedings is treated like all other non-preferential debts and has no precedence over any of these debts.

  There is a clause amendment relating to preferential creditors which will be debated in the Higher Education Bill Standing Committee on Tuesday 9 March (afternoon session).

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to extend the incentive for teachers on repayment of student loans beyond June 2005. [157850]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  An evaluation of the current pilot of the Repayment of Teachers' Loans scheme is under way. This will inform decisions on the future of the scheme.

  Iraq
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee was first informed as to which Iraqi weapons the 45-minutes claim in the Iraq's weapons of mass destruction dossier applied. [158771]
  1109W
  The Prime Minister
  The Joint Intelligence Committee Chairman was aware in September 2002 that the 45 minutes claim referred to battlefield munitions. As he told Lord Hutton, battlefield munitions were interpreted as covering multiple rocket launchers and artillery with ranges of up to 40 kilometres.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date the Cabinet Secretary was first informed as to which Iraqi weapons the 45-minutes claim in the Iraq's weapons of mass destruction dossier applied. [158772]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer the Foreign Secretary gave him on 10 February 2004,Official Report, column 1305W. The Cabinet Secretary was informed of the particular weapons referred to in similar circumstances and with the same timings as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

  Official Secrets Act
  Mr. Shepherd
  To ask the Prime Minister who is to chair the review of the Official Secrets Act 1989; and if he will make a statement. [158687]

  The Prime Minister
  The Official Secrets Act, as with all areas of the criminal law, is kept under review. The Home Secretary has made it clear that the Home Office is considering the implications of recent events for this legislation.

  People's Peers
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what the(a) attendance and (b) voting records have been of each People's Peer since each was appointed. [157460]
  1110W
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), on 13 November 2003,Official Report, column 430W.

  Sensory Deprivation
  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what the Government's policy is on the use of sensory deprivation by members of the security forces. [158883]

  The Prime Minister
  Members of the armed forces may only use blindfolds on apprehended individuals for reasons of operation security, such as the movement through military sensitive areas. No other forms of sensory deprivation are permitted.

  Temporary Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many staff his Office employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; what percentage this is of total staff employed; and how much his Office paid employment agencies to supply temporary staff in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04 to the most recent date for which figures are available. [158242]

  The Prime Minister
  As at 1 October 2003, there were five temporary members of staff, approximately 2.3 per cent. of the total staff in my Office. These were to fill vacancies in information technology and in secretarial and administrative support. Final cost figures for 2003–04 are not yet available.

  The total cost for temporary staff for 2001–02 was £99,249 (five temporary staff) and in 2002–03 was £165,554 (eight temporary staff).

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Supporting People Programme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the funding levels for Supporting People are in Lancashire in 2003–04. [157692]

  Yvette Cooper
  The final Supporting People grant awarded to Lancashire in 2003–04 was £30,781,847 to meet the costs of housing related support services and in 2004–05 it is £30,728,125. The Lancashire Supporting People team also received £767,000 to help with the administration of the programme in 2003–04 rising to £814,000 in 2004–05

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future of the Supporting People programme. [156812]

  Yvette Cooper
  On 12 February, the Government published the report of the Independent Review and announced funding of £1.8 billion for the Supporting People programme in 2004–05

  The review has found that there are wide variations in unit costs between authorities and that £1.8 billion is too much to pay for the legacy services. The Government are concerned to ensure that value for money is achieved and that valuable services for the vulnerable are sustained. That is why the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has asked the Audit Commission to undertake detailed inspections of local authorities with high unit costs, to inform the Spending Review and funding allocations for 2005–06.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also drawing up a comprehensive programme of work to take forward some of the recommendations of the review.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to announce funding levels for the authorities administering the Supporting People programme. [156819]

  Yvette Cooper
  On 12 February, the Government announced funding of £1.8 billion for the Supporting People programme in 2004–05. Administering Authorities were informed of their individual allocations on the same day.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with funding for the Supporting People programme in 2004–05. [156820]

  Yvette Cooper
  On 12 February, the Government announced funding of £1.8 billion for the Supporting People programme in 2004–05. This announcement followed an extensive consideration of the Independent Review report of the programme and discussions between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and partner Departments.
  1112W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the review of the budget of the Supporting People programme will be completed; and when the Supporting People teams will be advised of their budgets for 2004–05. [156880]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Independent Review of the Supporting People programme is now complete. On 12 February, the Government published the report of the Independent Review and announced funding of £1.8 billion for the Supporting People programme in 2004–05. Administering authorities were informed of their individual allocations on the same day.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will implement procedures for Supporting People teams to bid for growth monies in making capital bids to the Housing Corporation. [156886]

  Yvette Cooper
  The 2004–05 Supporting People grant allocations includes a one off revenue allocation for the current round of Housing Corporation capital awards. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not intend introducing a Supporting People bidding round to provide additional revenue for new schemes in future years.

  The total Supporting People grant in England for 2004–05 is £1.8 billion. The management of these grants is now firmly a matter for each Supporting People Administering Authority.

  In the longer term the intention is to introduce an allocations formula. If authorities wish to commission new services the necessary revenue may be achieved through the re-modelling or de-commissioning of existing services.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on funding for the Supporting People programme in Lancashire for 2004–05. [157734]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Supporting People grant allocated to Lancashire for 2004–05 is £30,728,125 to meet the costs of housing related support services. In addition to this grant the Lancashire Supporting People team will also receive £814,000 during 2004–05 to help with the administration of the programme.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to redefine the definition of housing-related support under Supporting People. [151772]

  Yvette Cooper
  Following the recommendations in the Independent Review of the Supporting People Programme, we will be looking at whether there is a need to make clearer the definition of what is housing-related support.

  Area-based Initiatives
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the projected budgets are for each area-based initiative which receives funding from his Department, for(a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06, broken down by English region. [156471]

  Yvette Cooper
  The allocations issued to area-based initiatives by region for the years sought are set out in the following tables.
  1113W

  2004–05

  £million

  Region

  Coalfields

  Community Chests

  European Regional Development Fund Areas

  Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders1

  Liveability1

  North East

  2.90

  3.55

  23.90

  28.00

  —

  North West

  1.40

  6.49

  69.80

  189.00

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6.20

  3.36

  50.70

  1—

  —

  East Midlands

  4.80

  1.74

  14.10

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  1.90

  2.89

  29.10

  1—

  —

  East of England

  —

  0.34

  5.80

  —

  —

  London

  —

  5.31

  9.40

  —

  —

  South East

  0.30

  0.59

  1.50

  —

  —

  South West

  —

  0.73

  18.70

  —

  —

  Total

  17.50

  25

  223.00

  150.00

  40.50

  £million

  Region

  Neighbourhood Management t

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  Neighbourhood Wardens/Street Wardens

  New Deal for Communities

  North East

  2.34

  59.43

  0.85

  27.78

  North West

  3.28

  124.54

  2.86

  41.25

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2.58

  62.76

  1.95

  27.10

  East Midlands

  1.64

  29.05

  0.76

  22.54

  West Midlands

  1.88

  56.28

  2.18

  39.90

  East of England

  0.94

  3.50

  0.68

  10.52

  London

  2.11

  100.74

  6.95

  62.30

  South East

  1.18

  4.56

  1.78

  12.40

  South West

  1.64

  9.13

  1.17

  12.80

  Total

  17.59

  449.99

  19.18

  256.59

  2005–06

  £ million

  Region

  Coalfields

  Community Chests

  European Regional Development Fund Areas

  Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders1

  Liveability1

  North East

  —

  3.55

  23.90

  38.00

  —

  North West

  —

  6.49

  69.80

  1101.00

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  3.36

  50.70

  1—

  —

  East Midlands

  —

  1.74

  14.10

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  2.89

  29.10

  1—

  —

  East of England

  —

  0.34

  5.80

  —

  —

  London

  —

  5.31

  9.40

  —

  —

  South East

  —

  0.59

  1.50

  —

  —

  South West

  —

  0.73

  18.70

  —

  —

  Total

  17.65

  25.00

  223.00

  290.00

  40.50

  £ million

  Region

  Neighbourhood Management

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  Neighbourhood Wardens/Street Wardens

  New Deal for Communities

  North East

  2.20

  69.14

  0.00

  30.40

  North West

  1.85

  149.06

  1.44

  40.50

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2.20

  65.97

  0.84

  27.60

  East Midlands

  1.35

  33.62

  0.36

  19.68

  West Midlands

  1.70

  59.71

  1.24

  44.10

  East of England

  0.85

  3.50

  0.00

  10.61

  London

  2.05

  128.79

  5.14

  68.10

  South East

  1.20

  4.56

  0.98

  13.40

  South West

  1.35

  10.65

  0.37

  13.80

  Total

  14.75

  525.00

  10.37

  268.19

  1Not all of the budget has yet been allocated to individual initiatives.

  1114W

  Audit Commission
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the gross expenditure of the Audit Commission

  £000s

  12 months to 31 October:

  2003

  2002

  2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  Gross Income

  217,100

  213,917

  178,524

  144,345

  111,596

  105,156

  Gross Expenditure

  216,300

  213,695

  178,119

  143,940

  110,561

  104,850

  Operating surplus/deficit

  800

  222

  405

  405

  1,035

  306

  FTE

  2,392

  2,437

  2,271

  1,885

  1,600

  1,403

  7 months to 31 October

  12 months to 31 March:

  1997

  1997

  1996

  1995

  1994

  1993

  1992

  Gross Income

  57.574

  91,945

  92,395

  88,881

  82,864

  77,479

  63,765

  Gross Expenditure

  58,236

  93,175

  92,509

  88,979

  82,788

  74,334

  61,639

  Operating surplus/deficit

  -662

  -1,230

  -114

  -98

  76

  3,145

  2,126

  FTE

  1,306

  1,300

  1,324

  1,354

  1,299

  1,265

  1,154

  Notes

  1.Source is the AC Statutory accounts Published annually, except for the forecast to 31 October 2003 which is based on Management accounts.

  2.Operating expenditure is before notional costs of capital applied, in accordance with Government Accounting requirements.

  3.Increase in headcount and expenditure since 1992 reflect increases in the role and responsibilities of the AC, as follows: In April 2000 the Audit Commission was given additional responsibility for carrying out Best Value Inspections of local government services. During 2002 Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) was introduced and since rolled out to all local authorities.

  In 2003 the Commission took on responsibility for Inspecting Housing associations.

  Between 1997 and 1998 the AC gained new responsibilities for joint inspections of LEA's with Ofsted.

  In 1996 the AC gained new responsibilities for joint inspections of social service authorities with Department of Social Security

  Casinos
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Deputy Prime what plans he has to create a separate use casinos. [158352]

  Keith Hill
  On 27 November 2003 I issued a Written Ministerial Statement setting out the changes the Government intends to make to the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order. The Government have no plans to create a separate use class for casinos.

  Jim Knight
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what requirements he is considering to link future casino developments to regeneration in areas of deprivation; and if he will make a statement. [156195]

  Yvette Cooper
  As explained in the Joint Statement issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in August 2003, the Government consider that leisure developments of regional significance are likely to provide a major contribution to regeneration, and therefore expects regional planning bodies to identify suitable broad locations for such uses, where they deem it appropriate.

  The largest casinos (such as 'resort' casinos) are candidates for this approach, although the Government are still considering the types of casino to which regional planning policy should apply.
  1116W
  was in each year since 1992–93; and how many full-time equivalent staff it had in each year. [158650]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is a follows:

  Council Tax
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the leader of Herefordshire council about its setting of council tax in Heresordshire for 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [158646]

  Phil Hope
  My right hon. Friend, the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and I have held a number of private meetings with individual local authorities to discuss their planned council tax rises for 2004–05. I met Herefordshire Council on 24 February.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost of information and public relations campaigns conducted by his Department was since May 2002. [146049]

  Yvette Cooper
  Since May 2002 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has spent £10,600,767 on information or public relations campaigns. The majority of this (93 per cent. or £9,858,713) was in connection with the on-going fire safety campaign.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much his office spent on information campaigns and advertising in 2003–04 to date. [145275]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has spent to date a total of £6,882,000 on information campaigns and advertising in the financial year 2003–04, of which 93 per cent. was for the Fire Safety Campaign.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has for regulations specifying that(a) alarms and (b) sprinklers be present and functioning in all homes. [158278]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's approach to the provision of smoke alarms is primarily based upon regulation for new and altered buildings and education for elsewhere. Since 1992, the guidance which supports the fire safety aspects of the Building Regulations, known as Approved Document B, has suggested, in the case of new houses (including bungalows), that at least one electrically operated smoke detector should be provided on every storey. The requirement is enforced through the building control system.

  For existing properties we pursue a policy of persuasion and education on the benefits of such devices. The Government have undertaken a number of national television campaigns promoting smoke alarm ownership and maintenance. This has been very successful. Ownership has increased from nine per cent. in 1987 to its present figure of 80 per cent. of households.

  In addition, Part 1 of the Housing Bill provides for the replacement of the housing fitness standards by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), which brings a risk assessment approach to the assessment of hazards in housing, including fire. Where a hazard from fire has been assessed, local authorities will have discretion to require such things as adequate means of escape from fire, appropriate fire detection and alarm systems and sprinkler systems. This does not mean that such measures will be required in every building but they may be appropriate where justified by the risk.

  In relation to sprinklers we commissioned, in April 2001, an extensive research project with the Building Research Establishment (BRE) to consider fully the effectiveness of residential sprinklers. BRE published their research in February and a summary document of the work can be found on the Building Regulations section of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website www.odpm.gov.uk.

  As part of our current review of the fire safety aspects of the Building Regulations the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be considering the findings of the BRE research to see if there is a case for introducing amendments that enable us to target the provision of sprinklers in those new and altered residential premises where the people are considered to be most vulnerable.

  Homeless Units (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homeless units operate in Lancashire; and how many homeless units are to be built in Lancashire. [154317]

  Yvette Cooper
  Specific information on the number of existing homeless dwellings operating in Lancashire and the number of homeless dwellings to be built in Lancashire is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  1118W
  In 2003–04 there were an estimated completion of 160 dwellings in Lancashire for social rent of which some, for example, could be used to accommodate homeless households.

  Housing Targets
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what targets his Department has set for(a) rented, (b) affordable and (c) part rent-part buy housing in council districts. [158127]

  Keith Hill
  No such targets have been set centrally. Local authorities are however required under section 87 of the Local Government Act 2003 to draw up housing strategies for their area and should include targets for affordable housing and other housing needs based on up to date survey information.

  Indices of Local Deprivation
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish revised indices of local deprivation. [156879]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister hopes to publish the revised Indices of Deprivation (ID 2004) in spring 2004.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will reply to the letter to his Department of 29 January from the Leader of the Isle of Wight Council. [158826]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's records show that only one letter has been received from the Leader on the Isle of Wight Council this year. This letter was dated 26 February. A reply was sent on 4 March.

  Landfill
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs concerning the role of local authorities in meeting the requirements of the Landfill Directive. [159038]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister works closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to achieve sustainable waste management. This involves discussions, both bilaterally and collectively across Government, on a range of matters including meeting the requirements of the Landfill Directive and the role of local authorities.

  Neighbourhood Warden Schemes
  John Cryer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions officials at his Department have had with(a) councillors and (b) officers at the London Borough of Havering regarding the continuation of neighbourhood warden schemes; and if he will make a statement on their outcome. [157325]

  Yvette Cooper
  Officials from the Government Office for London met with the neighbourhood warden scheme manager and a councillor from Havering on 11 February.
  1119W
  The warden scheme has yet to secure mainstream funding from the London Borough of Havering and they are still considering their options.

  John Cryer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance he has issued to local authorities to assist them in mainstreaming funding for neighbourhood wardens schemes; and what the estimated cost to local authorities is of mainstreaming funding of neighbourhood warden schemes. [157326]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has provided no direct advice to local authorities but it has provided a raft of information and advice to warden schemes themselves on how they might raise funding from mainstream funding.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's funding to neighbourhood warden schemes for 2003–04 was £4.7 million. Local authorities would need to find this level of funding if they wished to fund all warden schemes at the same level.

  John Cryer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations in England (i) are and (ii) are not mainstreaming funding for neighbourhood warden schemes.
  [157329]

  Yvette Cooper
  The following table lists the areas where housing associations and local authorities are committed to sustaining their first round warden schemes after March 2004, when the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister funding for their pilot schemes ceases.

  Area

  Accountable body

  1.

  Dacorum

  LA

  2.

  Huntingdon

  HA

  3.

  Norwich

  LA

  4.

  Lincolnshire

  LA

  5.

  Leicestershire

  HA

  6.

  Nottingham

  LA

  7.

  Derby

  HA

  8.

  Liverpool (1 of 2 schemes)

  LA

  9.

  West Lancashire

  LA

  10.

  Longsight

  LA

  11.

  Sale West

  LA

  12.

  Wirral

  LA

  13.

  Burnley

  LA

  14.

  Manchester Longridge

  HA

  15.

  Macclesfield

  HA

  16.

  Knowsley

  LA

  17.

  Breightmet and Bolton

  HA

  18.

  Bury

  Voluntary Sector

  19.

  Oldham

  LA

  20.

  North Manchester

  LA

  21.

  Bolton

  HA

  22.

  Salford

  LA

  23.

  Lewisham

  LA

  24.

  Merton

  LA

  25.

  Southwark

  LA

  26.

  Sutton

  LA

  27.

  Birmingham Atwood Green

  LA

  28.

  Wolverhampton

  LA

  29.

  Walsall

  LA

  30.

  Stoke

  HA

  31.

  Wyre Forest

  HA

  32.

  Coventry

  LA

  33.

  Leeds

  LA

  34.

  Sheffield

  LA

  35.

  Kirklees

  LA

  36.

  Sheffield

  Voluntary Sector

  1120W

  Area

  Accountable body

  37.

  Bamesley

  LA

  38.

  Doncaster

  LA

  39.

  Wakefield

  LA

  40.

  Rotherham

  LA

  41.

  Exeter

  AL

  42.

  Portsmouth

  LA

  43.

  Horsham

  AL

  44.

  Milton Keynes

  LA

  45.

  Canterbury

  LA

  46.

  Slough

  LA

  47.

  Guildford

  LA

  48.

  Hastings

  LA

  49.

  Rushmore

  HA

  50.

  Stockton

  LA

  51.

  Darlington

  LA

  52

  South Tyneside

  LA

  53.

  Middlesbrough

  HA

  54.

  Sedgefield

  LA

  55.

  Sunderland Plains Farm

  HA

  56.

  North Tyneside

  LA

  57.

  Merthyr Tydfil

  LA

  58.

  Cardiff

  LA

  59.

  Gwynedd

  LA

  60.

  Caerphilly

  LA

  61.

  Swansea

  LA

  Local Authorities (LAs) in Barnet, Hillingdon, Avon and Somerset and Wigan as well as a Housing Association (HA) in Islington have decided not to sustain their wardens schemes. In two cases the wardens will be replaced by Police Community Support Officers.

  13 LAs, three HAs and two voluntary schemes have not yet made a final decision about the future of the warden scheme.

  Planning Advice (Showmen)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advice his Department gives to local councils on the provision of planning permission for the storing of showmen's equipment and living quarters; and if he will make a statement on the need for this provision. [158581]

  Keith Hill
  Planning policy relating to travelling showpeople is set out in DOE Circular 22/91 `Travelling Showpeople' which gives advice to local planning authorities on how to address the needs of travelling showpeople. Emphasis is placed on local authorities engaging in early discussion with travelling showpeople before planning applications are made, and in order to ensure that their needs are taken into account in preparing their Local Plans. Local authorities are also urged to give every assistance to help showpeople identify sites to buy or rent.

  Police/Fire Authorities (Funding)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the percentage increase in funding that he deems to be reasonable for(a) fire authorities and (b) police authorities in the next financial year. [158506]

  Phil Hope
  The 2004–05 Local Government Finance Settlement was approved by Parliament on 5 February.
  1121W
  Single service fire authorities (i.e. the metropolitan fire authorities and the combined fire authorities in shire areas) plus the fire-part of the GLA received a 4.23 per cent. increase in grant on a like-for like basis with 2003–04 i.e. after adjusting for changes in function and funding). Fire services in shire areas that have not been subject to Local Government Reorganisation are provided by the Shire County. Shire Counties also provide services such as education, social services and highway maintenance for these areas. It is not possible to identify the amount of grant such authorities receive for fire.

  Police authorities excluding the City of London and the Metropolitan Police Authority plus the police-part of the GLA received a 3.26 per cent. increase in grant on a like-for-like basis with 2003–04. The City of London also provides services such as education, social services and highway maintenance. It is not possible to identify the amount of grant it receives for police.

  LBH Match

  Programme

  Source

  Date

  Funding £ million

  Funding £ million

  London Riverside-ODPM allocation from Sustainable Communities Funding

  ODPM

  2004–2008

  8

  n/a

  New Horizons for Harold Hill Regeneration of deprived communities

  SRB Allocation administered through LDA

  1999 –2004

  3.8

  2

  London Riverside in the Heart of the Thames Gateway

  SRB Allocation administered through LDA

  1999–2007

  132.2

  2.2

  Centre of Excellence in Manufacturing and Engineering

  DTI

  2002–2004

  4.3

  —

  London Riverside-site preparation

  EU Objective 2

  2001–2002

  5.4

  —

  Romford Town Centre

  SRB administered through LDA/ Groundwork

  1997–2006

  1

  1.7

  1Programme covers London Boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and Havering and Thurrock. Havering is likely to have received 60–70 per cent. of the total allocation by the end of the programme although this includes contributions to the Centre of Excellence in Manufacturing and Engineering, which is in Havering, but serves a wider area.

  In addition to these allocations there have been further allocations to the borough from the LDA 2 programme and significant direct investment from the LDA in site acquisition and development.

  London Borough of Havering (LBH) match funding is included specifically and related to the regeneration programmes listed. In addition the Council has allocated approximately a further £3.5 million towards regeneration activity from 1997–98 to 2003–04 to support and deliver a variety of programmes over that period.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to paragraph 6.7 of Cm.5511, where the Government intends that elected regional assemblies for(a) the North East, (b) the North West and (c) Yorkshire and the Humber would initially be accommodated. [155144]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Before reaching a decision, the Government will consult the regional chambers in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber and take their views on the preferred initial locations.
  1122W

  Port Clarence, Stockton
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much English Partnerships plans to invest in the development of Port Clarence in Stockton. [156613]

  Yvette Cooper
  English Partnerships and One North East are looking at options for the re-development of Port Clarence. A decision about English Partnerships' involvement has yet to be made.

  Regeneration (Havering)
  John Cryer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding was allocated for regeneration in the London Borough of Havering in the last six years. [157330]

  Yvette Cooper
  The London Borough of Havering have advised the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that the amount of funding which has been allocated to regeneration projects in the borough since 1997 is as follows:

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what contribution his Department has made, or plans to make, to the regional development agencies' single pot for each financial year from 2003–04 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [156474]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's planned contribution is as follows:

  ODPM contribution (£ million)

  2003–04*

  1,524

  2004–05

  1,456

  2005–06

  1,513

  Note:

  Includes HM Treasury cost of capital charge at 3.5 per cent. and *2003–04 figures includes End Year Flexibility drawn down at spring Supplementary Estimates.

  These very substantial sums reflect the Regional Development Agencies' crucial role as partners in the delivery of the Government's plans for sustainable communities. The RDAs are key agents in achieving, for example, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's objectives for raising the levels of regional prosperity and social inclusion and for delivering effective programmes to help raise the quality of life for all in urban areas and other communities.

  Single Neighbourhood Renewal Unit
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) budget or projected budget for the Single Neighbourhood Renewal Unit wardens funding channel and (b) budget or projected budget for all area-based initiatives funded by the Single Neighbourhood Renewal Unit wardens funding channel is for financial years (i) 2002–03, (ii) 2003–04, (iii) 2004–05 and (iv) 2005–06, broken down by English region.
  [156476]

  Yvette Cooper
  The following table outlines the budgets for Neighbourhood Renewal Unit warden funding for years 2002–03, 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06. The Wardens budget does not fund any other area based initiatives.

  NRU warden funding

  £000

  English regions

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  London

  5,274

  7 909

  6,955

  5,145

  South West

  763

  1,319

  1,170

  370

  South East

  2,068

  2,248

  1,782

  980

  North West

  3,166

  3,753

  2,860

  1,440

  North East

  1,367

  966

  846

  0

  East Midlands

  884

  895

  763

  346

  West Midlands

  2,239

  2,635

  2,177

  1,239

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  2,206

  2,606

  1,946

  841

  Eastern

  1,038

  945

  682

  0

  Total

  19,005

  23,276

  19,181

  10,361

  Traffic Wardens
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many traffic wardens were employed by each local authority area in each of the last three years, broken down by police authority area. [158215]

  Caroline Flint
  I have been asked to reply.

  Our information relates only to traffic wardens employed by police authorities, not local authority parking attendants. I refer my hon. Friend to the chart attached to the answer I gave to Question Number 259.

  No record is kept centrally of the number of parking attendants employed by local authorities or by contractors who carry out enforcement on their behalf..

  Urban Regeneration Companies
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funding was provided(a) by his Department in total and (b) through non-departmental public bodies to each Urban Regeneration Company for 2003–04; and what funding is projected in each case for 2004–05. [156475]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not provide funding directly to any Urban Regeneration Company (URC) All funding is provided by the partners in each URC. This usually comprises the local Regional Development Agency (RDA), the local authority or authorities, and English Partnerships (EP). The table below shows the estimated revenue funding provided/projected by EP and the various RDAs to the 1124W
  individual URCs for 2003–04 and 2004–05. Funding for development projects is not normally provided to the URCs themselves; expenditure on projects is incurred by the partners on the basis of strategies agreed by the URCs.

  Revenue allocations to URCs

  £

  URC

  2003–04

  2004–05

  Bradford City Regeneration

  710,000

  360,000

  CPR Regeneration

  500,000

  500,000

  Catalyst Corby

  500,000

  500,000

  Derby Cityscape

  500,000

  500.000

  Gloucester Heritage

  n/a

  500,000

  Hull Citybuild

  650,000

  650,000

  Leicester Regeneration

  500,000

  500,000

  Liverpool Vision

  791,000

  791,000

  New East Manchester

  620,000

  620,000

  Sandwell

  500,000

  500,000

  Sheffield One

  710,000

  710,000

  Sunderland Arc

  520,000

  520,000

  The New Swindon Company

  500,000

  500,000

  Tees Valley Regeneration

  500.000

  500,000

  Walsall

  n/a

  470,000

  West Lakes Renaissance

  200.000

  200,000

  Notes:

  1. Bradford and West Lakes do not receive revenue funding from English Partnerships (EP)

  2. All other figures are collated EP and Regional Development Agency estimates

  3. Gloucester and Walsall were only established towards the end of FY 2003–04

HEALTH

  Bed Rails
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bed sides of double-bar design with more than 120mm between the rails he estimates are in use in(a) the NHS and (b) residential and nursing homes; and if he will make a statement. [158055]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not held centrally.

  Bed-blocking
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the performance of East Sussex county council in tackling bed-blocking. [158881]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Between 111 and 132 East Sussex residents have been reported as delayed for the past four weeks, with just over half of these delays attributable to social services reasons. This highlights some of the problems that can occur without effective partnership working between health and social care providers.

  Cycle Accidents
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many serious accidents involving cyclists there were in the UK in each of the last five years. [156551]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following table shows the number of fatal and serious accidents involving pedal cyclists in the UK in each of the last five years.
  1125W

  Numbers of accidents involving pedal cyclists: UK

  Year

  Fatal or serious accident

  1998

  3,477

  1999

  3,358

  2000

  2,938

  2001

  2,812

  2002

  2,571

  Dentistry
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS orthodontists there have been in each year since 1997.
  [154436]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  >Hospital/Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): Dental staff within the Orthodontics specialty

  Numbers (headcount)

  All staff

  Of which: Consultant

  1997

  509

  153

  1998

  501

  153

  1999

  504

  157

  2000

  513

  161

  2001

  506

  154

  2002

  508

  161

  March 2003

  n/a

  174

  June 2003

  n/a

  181

  1Data as at 30 September each year, except 2003 data which is at 31 March and 30 June.

  n/a = Data not available due to data being taken from the mini censuses that collected consultants only.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  The number of national health service consultant orthodontists, working in the NHS, increased by 18 per cent. between September 1997 and June 2003.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards are in place to prevent foundation trust boards of governors being taken over by special interest groups. [154011]

  Mr. Hutton
  All National Health Service foundation trusts are required to have a majority of governors elected by members of the public and patient constituencies. The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 requires all NHS foundation trusts to take steps to ensure that the membership is representative of those eligible to be members. The democratic process is designed to secure a balance of interests on the board of governors. In addition, NHS

  £ per head

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  East Riding and Hull Health Authority

  624.72

  722 28

  787.13

  863.59

  n/a

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire Strategic Health Authority

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  943.10

  England

  659.76

  763 79

  825.38

  926.13

  991.07

  Notes

  1.The total amount of central Government funds spent on health cannot be analysed by health authority area. Expenditure per capita is calculated on health authority areas from the expenditure reported in health authorities and related primary care trusts.
  1126W
  foundation trusts may include provisions in their constitution, and in particular the provisions relating to elections to the board of governors, designed to prevent the board from becoming dominated by a single issue group. The Independent Regulator will want to be satisfied that the provisions proposed by the applicant trust meet the statutory requirements before granting an authorisation.

  General Practitioners
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner vacancies there were in each primary care trust on 1 March. [158689]

  Mr. Hutton
  The last Recruitment and Retention Vacancy (RRV) survey took place between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003. Information on the number of general practitioners (GP) vacancies in each primary care trust (PCT) that occurred during this period has been placed in the Library.

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

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners there were per head of population in(a) England and (b) each London primary care trust in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [155274]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: The latest available data for unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs) per 100,000 population is September 2002. Information is available since 1998 for England and information is available since 2001 at a London primary care trust level and has been placed in the Library.

  Health (Government Funding)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent from central Government funds per capita on health in(a) the East Riding of Yorkshire and (b) the UK for each of the last five years. [155328]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information relating to the per capita expenditure in the East Riding area and England is shown in the table. The information is based on the East Riding and Hull Health Authority area up to 2001–02 and then the North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire Strategic Health Authority for 2002–03. Information for the rest of the United Kingdom is a matter for the devolved administrations and the Northern Ireland Office.
  1127W
  2. The health authority and all England expenditure figures are not prepared on a consistent basis as some elements cannot be accounted for at the health authority level. The majority of general dental services expenditure and an element of pharmaceutical services expenditure is included in the England total but not in the individual health authority accounts or primary care trust summarisation schedules. This expenditure is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board and Prescription Pricing Authority respectively.

  3. Expenditure is taken from audited health authority summarisation forms and primary care trust summarisation schedules which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in the year. The expenditure is the total expenditure by the relevant health authorities, and the commissioner costs of the primary care trusts. Figures are given in cash terms.

  4. Allocations per weighted head of population provide a much more reliable measure to identify differences between funding of health authorities and primary care trusts.

  5. Figures for 1998–99 to 2001–2002 have been prepared using gross expenditure figures. This is to ensure consistency between years. Figures for 2002–2003 based on strategic health authority areas have been adjusted to eliminate expenditure which would be double counted where an authority acts as a lead in commissioning healthcare or other services.

  6. In many health authorities, there are factors which distort the expenditure per head. These include:
  the health authority acting in a lead capacity to commission healthcare or fund training on behalf of other health bodies; and asset revaluations in NHS Trusts being funded through health authorities or primary care trusts.

  7. For these reasons expenditure per head cannot be compared reliably between health authorities or between different years.

  Sources:

  1. Health authority audited summarisation forms 1998–99 to 2001–02.

  2. Strategic health authority audited summarisation forms 2002–03.

  3. Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01 to 2002–03.

  4. Weighted health authority population figures 1998–99 to 2002–03.

  Infection Control
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the additional funding announced in January 2001 for infection control has been spent. [157569]

  Mr. Hutton
  The additional funding announced in January 2001 was for improving decontamination in national health service hospitals in England.£112 million has been allocated to NHS trusts for that purpose so far.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the projected cost of the National Programme for Information Technology in the NHS was when it was originally announced; what the latest available projected cost is; and if he will make a statement. [154989]

  Mr. Hutton
  The projected costs for the national programme for information technology (NPfIT) in the national health service were announced in the strategy document, "Delivering 21st Century IT in the NHS", as £2.3 billion for the period up to March 2006. Central funding for the NPfIT is to be made available from the Spending Review 2002 as follows—£370 million in 2003–04, £730 million in 2004–05 and £1.2 billion in 2005–06.

  We are on schedule and on budget to spend £2.3 billion on centrally procured IT by March 2006.

  Future expenditure will form part of the ongoing financial management processes within Spending Review 2004 and future envelopes. By 2008, IT funding will be in line with the levels proposed within the Wanless Review; that is, 4 per cent., of total NHS expenditure.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of(a) training and (b) installation for the National Programme for Information Technology in the NHS; and from which budgets the funding will be taken. [154990]

  Mr. Hutton
  Central funding for the National Programme for Information Technology (NPfIT) in the national health service is to be made available from the 1128W
  Spending Review 2002 as follows—£370 million in 2003–04, £730 million in 2004–05 and £1.2 billion in 2005–06.

  Training plans are still evolving as is to be expected when approaching a phased programme of implementation and roll out of new applications, systems and services. The training requirements are not solely related to the NPfIT as general IT skills are now an everyday element for any public service and service-based organisation. The move to e-learning and development and the NHSU will both create more demand for computer and online skills and provide more channels and solutions to bring training to people.

  As the Department completes the more detailed plans for each geographical cluster and local service provider contract, it will be able to map out the extent of IT support for clinical practice and patient care over the phased implementation of the NPfIT. This will generate clearer training requirements and will enable the Department to consider the most appropriate ways of providing training and development and produce firmer costs.

  The delivery of the NPfIT and any costs related to the implementation are included within the overall envelope of central funding. In line with normal commercial practice, the final pricing structure included in each contract and the fine details of the bids are confidential.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions have been placed on bidders for the National Programme for Information Technology in the NHS making public statements about the project; whether these restrictions are usual Government practice; and what the reasons are for the restrictions. [154991]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Programme for Information Technology (NPfIT) in the national health service follows normal Government and commercial practice in regard to managing procurements and contracts and has drawn upon standard guidance from the Office of Government Commerce. This is available at www.ogc.gov.uk/sdtoolkit/reference/ogc library/ procurement/cup59d.pdf. This precludes suppliers from
  1129W
  discussing their contracts or the key elements relating to the subject matter of their contracts without the agreement of the Department.

  Contractors and employees of the programme are contractually required to comply with this protocol. The reasons for this are to ensure consistency, avoid confusion, and to enable any issues or proposals to be managed efficiently. It is also important to ensure that normal commercial and business rules of confidentiality are observed.

  Medicines Management
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the National Care Standards Commission will publish its findings on the medicines management standard in care homes. [156295]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Yes. The National Care Standards Commission expects to publish its findings in a report to be issued in March.

  Midwifery Council (Registration Fees)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has undertaken of the impact of the Nursing and Midwifery Council's proposed fee increase on the number of nurses nearing retirement renewing their registration; and if he will make a statement.
  [154586]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is for the Nursing and Midwifery Council to decide and justify- any increase in registration fees that it proposes. Any increase is subject to Privy Council approval, and the Privy Council will carefully consider all arguments expressed when the time comes.

  NHS Consultants
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff grade posts within the NHS he expects will be made consultant posts in the next 12 months. [156458]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no central plans to convert staff grade posts into consultant posts over the next 12 months. National health service trusts can, if they feel there is a need, make proposals to their postgraduate deanery to increase the numbers of locally funded specialist training posts. These may be funded by conversion of staff grade posts and may eventually lead to additional consultant posts.

  NHS Finances
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) information requests and (b) data collections (i) made by and (ii) supplied to his Department concerning NHS finances; when they are collected; when they are available for publication; and at what level of NHS organisation the information is collected. [154584]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 10 February 2004,Official Report, column 1411W.

  In addition, special health authorities also supply annual accounts, capital charge estimates and financial monitoring data to the Department.
  1130W
  Annual accounts are published locally by individual national health service bodies. The accounts data collected by the Department is summarised and published. The most recent such publication was in March 2003, in respect of the summarised 2001–02 accounts.

  NHS annual accounts data is also used by the Department in the preparation of the Departmental Resource Account. The 2002–03 Resource Account was published in January 2004.

  NHS Land
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much NHS land has been included on the register of surplus public sector land which can be sold off on the open market. [154099]

  Mr. Hutton
  This Department has recently agreed that surplus properly owned by National Health Service trusts and primary care trusts are no longer required for the benefit of the NHS should be placed on the newly established Register of Surplus Public Sector Land. This will further the Government's objective of making the best use of such land. The NHS has been informed and detailed guidance on these arrangements will shortly be issued. It is anticipated that the NHS will be major users of the register, including as purchasers of surplus public land owned by other bodies.

  NHS Services (Greater London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been allocated to NHS services in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough in each of the last three years. [158440]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 March 2004]: The following tables show the allocations for health authorities and primary care trusts in London over the last three years. The Department does not have a breakdown by London borough.

  Allocations to London health authorities: 2001–02 and 2002–03

  £000

  Health authority1

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Barking and Havering

  305,009

  333,897

  Barnet

  248,445

  n/a

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  n/a

  725,055

  Bexley and Greenwich

  345,432

  n/a

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  n/a

  635,109

  Brent and Harrow

  371,479

  432,599

  Bromley

  218,662

  n/a

  Camden and Islington

  396,403

  477,910

  Croydon

  242,431

  274,247

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  581,735

  676,038

  East London and The City

  598,866

  702,986

  Enfield and Haringey

  387,770

  n/a

  Hillingdon

  184,100

  203,317

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  361,234

  436,168

  Kingston and Richmond

  256,722

  284,506

  Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham

  695,407

  829,552

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  498,646

  563,125

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  351,329

  399,542

  Total

  6,043,669

  6,974,051

  1There were health authority mergers on 1 April 2001

  1131W

  Allocations to London primary care trusts—2003–04

  £000

  Primary care trust

  2003–04

  Barking and Dagenham

  153,449

  Barnet

  303,125

  Bexley

  181,941

  Brent

  291,023

  Bromley

  264,585

  Camden

  264,700

  Chingford, Wanstead and Woodford

  109,461

  City and Hackney

  266,159

  Croydon

  295,063

  Ealing

  321,825

  Enfield

  242,179

  Greenwich

  238,961

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  192,779

  Haringey

  244,127

  Harrow

  178,844

  Havering

  213,977

  Hillingdon

  219,844

  Hounslow

  216,776

  Islington

  248,319

  Kensington and Chelsea

  202,056

  Kingston

  142,871

  Lambeth

  325,353

  Lewisham

  283,282

  Newham

  276,635

  Redbridge

  160,654

  Richmond and Twickenham

  161,752

  Southwark

  282,305

  Sutton and Merton

  324,770

  Tower Hamlets

  237,707

  Walthamstow, Leyton and Leytonstone

  163,981

  Wandsworth

  275,795

  Westminster

  263,876

  Total

  7,548,174

  NHS Trusts
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated deficit or underspend for each NHS trust in London is in the current financial year; and what cumulative deficit is being carried forward in each case. [154922]

  Mr. Hutton
  Audited information on the financial position of national health service trusts will be published in their individual annual accounts. This data will be available centrally in the autumn. We have no plans to publish un-audited information.

  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust about ward closures; and if he will make a statement. [154924]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have had no discussions. It is for strategic health authorities (SHAs) to performance manage the national health service. I am assured by South East London SHA that, although Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust faces a number of financial pressures, it is working with its partners to manage them and to avoid any unnecessary or inappropriate impact on patient care.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of payments to retiring or resigning NHS trust chief executives in each year since 1990 to 2003. [156012]
  1132W
  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not identified separately in trust financial returns.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the salary was of the chief executive of each NHS trust in 2003. [156013]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not hold this information centrally but has asked national health service trusts to include the information in their annual accounts.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the budget for the Centrally Funded Initiative and Services Special Allocation was for 2003–04; whether this budget has been committed; and whether reserves from the budget will be used to meet overspends in existing primary care trust budgets in 2003–-04. [155591]

  Mr. Hutton
  The current budget for Centrally Funded Services and Initiatives and Special Allocations in 2003–04 is £13,030 million. This budget is fully committed and contains no reserve element.

  Out-of-hours Service
  McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the top-up sum available to primary care trusts to pay individual general practitioners for out-of-hours service will reach at least the current investment level. [155682]

  Mr. Hutton
  The investment in out-of-hours services has been doubled to £92 million from 2004–05. This is in addition to the average of £6,000 primary care trusts (PCTs) will receive for every general practitioner opting out of the responsibility to provide out of hours services. A further £28 million will be made. available to PCTs facing the biggest challenges in developing their out-of-hours services.

  Overseas Doctors
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many overseas doctors passed their Professional and Linguistic Assessments Board examination in 2002. [156293]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Professional and Linguistic Assessment Board examination is administered by the General Medical Council. 2,955 overseas doctors passed Part II of the examination in 2002.

  Paediatric Training
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many national training numbers have been issued in paediatrics in the last 12 months; and how many he expects to issue in the next 12 months; [156456]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of national training numbers needed in paediatrics to comply with the EU Working Time Directive; what advice he has received from the Royal College of Paediatrics on this; and if he will make a statement. [156457]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 2003–04, 100 locally funded national training numbers (NTNs) were allocated to paediatrics. In 2004–05, a further 15 locally funded NTNs will be allocated. In addition, an extra 155 NTNs have been proposed for paediatrics through other initiatives.
  1133W
  To support the implementation of the Working Time Directive (WTD), strategic health authorities have agreed further additional training places with trusts, for which we will issue NTNs. The number of these is not yet available.

  The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has carried out a survey looking into WTD compliance within hospitals providing acute services for children. The Department is considering the results of the survey.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which constituencies in England are covered(a) in whole and (b) in part by each of the primary care trusts in England. [154139]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 9 February 2004]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long he expects it to take fully to implement the new funding system for primary care trusts. [158183]

  Mr. Hutton
  A wide ranging review of the funding formula, used to inform the allocation of resources to primary care trusts (PCTs), has recently taken place.

  The new formula was used to set PCT target allocations for the latest round of national health service revenue allocations, covering the period 2000–06.

  The Department is committed to bringing PCTs to their target allocation as soon as is practicable.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer to question reference 154873, how many patients attending from each primary care trust outside Sussex sending more than 10 patients received(a) financial assistance with travel costs, (b)financial assistance with carers' travel costs and (c) financial assistance with carers' accommodation costs. [157611]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 2 March 2004]: The Department does not collect this information centrally.

  Public Bodies
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate has been made of the costs of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection in its first five years of operation. [154467]

  Mr. Hutton
  A preliminary estimate of the cost of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection's (CHAI) operation for its first year of operation was £60 million. No estimates have been made for subsequent years.
  1134W
  CHAI, as an independent body, will refine the estimates of its costs for its first three years. These will be contained in its first corporate plan, a copy of which will be placed in the Library when it is published.

  Hospital Staff (Attacks)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many attacks against hospital staff were recorded in(a) all hospitals in England and (b) hospitals in England with the Red Card Scheme in each of the last three years. [153293]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  The following statistics on violence within the National Health Service are available for 2002–03.

  Estimated violent or abusive incidents in the NHS 2002–03

  Organisation Type

  Estimated total number of incidents

  Estimated number of incidents per 1,000 staff per month

  Acute Trusts

  38,000

  6

  Primary Care Trusts

  21,000

  12

  Ambulance Trusts

  5,000

  16

  Mental Health and Community Trusts

  51,000

  34

  All Organisations

  116,000

  11

  No comparable statistics are available for earlier years.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Jim. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the effects of Agenda for Change on speech therapists; [154620]

  (2) what research his Department has commissioned into the effects on recruitment and retention of speech therapists of the implications of Agenda for Change for pay levels of speech therapists. [154621]

  Mr. Hutton
  On average national health service staff will receive a 5.9 per cent., increase in basic pay over time as a result of Agenda for Change (in addition to annual pay uplifts) though this will vary for different staff groups and individuals.

  The impact of Agenda for Change for all staff groups, including speech and language therapists, is currently being tested in a range of early implementer sites. The evidence and learning from these sites will be reviewed by the UK Health Departments, NHS trades unions and NHS employer representatives before the planned national roll out in October 2004.

  Stroke
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many stroke consultants there are(a) in the NHS and (b) with specialist qualifications in strokes. [154949]
  1135W
  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect numbers of stroke consultants.

  Stroke treatment is normally undertaken by consultants specialising in geriatric medicine, neurology and rehabilitation medicine, but it is not possible to say how many of the consultants within these specialties have specialist qualifications in strokes.

  Temporary Vacancies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 11 February 2004,Official Report, columns 1546–47W, on NHS Professionals, what proportion of temporary vacancies in NHS trusts he estimates are filled from NHS Professionals' own bank; what proportion are filled via NHS Professionals passing on the details to approved private agencies; and if he will make a statement. [156354]

  Mr. Hutton
  In January 2004, NHS Professionals filled 65 per cent. of the vacancies notified to it from its own bank. Private recruitment agencies had access to the remaining 35 per cent., of which they filled 25 per cent. 10 per cent. remained unfilled.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 11 February 2004,Official Report, column 1548W, on the Working Time Directive, whether his Department expects the NHS to be compliant with the Directive for doctors in training from 1 August; and if he will make a statement. [156353]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Working Time Directive will be a legal requirement for doctors in training from 1 August 2004 and we expect national health service employers to comply with the legislation. Strategic health authorities are currently working with their respective trusts locally on plans to achieve compliance.

  Asylum applications1;" received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, initial decision2 2000—2003, nationals of Afghanistan

  Applications

  Initial Decisions

  Grants of Asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Grants of Humanitarian Protection

  Grants of Discretionary Leave

  Total refusals3

  Grants of ELR under backlog criteria4

  Non compliance

  2000

  5,555

  2,590

  375

  695

  n/a

  n/a

  1,515

  10

  -

  2001(r)

  8,920

  12,365

  2,320

  7,500

  n/a

  n/a

  2,545

  n/a

  n/a

  2002(P)

  7,205

  8,175

  115

  4,765

  n/a

  n/a

  3,300

  n/a

  n/a

  2003(P)

  2,290

  3,920

  40

  204

  *

  350

  3,320

  n/a

  n/a

  1figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2.

  2Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3May include some refusals under non compliance grounds.

  4Includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them, persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration, and removals on safe third country grounds

  (r)Revised figures

  (P)Provisional figures

  N/A Not applicable

  Removals and voluntary departures1 of Afghan asylum applicants, excluding dependants, 2000 to September 20032,3,4(E)

  2000

  2001

  2002(P)

  Jan-Sept 2003 2003(P)(5)

  Afghanistan

  ..

  125

  395

  460

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

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Afghanistan citizens have(a) applied for asylum, (b) been granted asylum, (c) been granted (i) exceptional leave to remain and (ii) indefinite leave to remain, (d) been refused leave and (e) have been removed in each of the last four years for which figures are available. [142579]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]: The table provides the available information, showing the number of asylum applications, initial decisions and removals of Afghans for the last four years. Initial decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same year. Nor do removals necessarily relate to initial decisions or appeal outcomes in the same year.

  The United Kingdom Government opened negotiations with the Afghan Transitional Administration on return issues following the change of regime in Afghanistan. These negotiations resulted in the signing of a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding by the UK Government, the Afghan Transitional Administration and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in October 2002. The MoU establishes a framework for returns from the UK to Afghanistan. Since then, voluntary returns have commenced under the terms of that Memorandum, and from April 2003 regular enforced returns have been successfully implemented. We will continue to work with the Afghan Transitional Administration to ensure that returns to Afghanistan are sustainable.

  Information on asylum applications, initial decisions and removals is published quarterly. The next publication will be available at the end of February 2004 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ rds/immigration l html.

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

  3Figures may include a small number of dependants leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes.

  4Figures exclude dependants of asylum seekers removed. Data on dependants removed have only been collected since April 2001.

  5Data on the nationality of asylum seekers removed in the final quarter of 2003 will be published in May 2004.

  (E)Data have been estimated due to data quality issues.

  (P)Provisional figures.

  2(..) Not available.

  Brain Injuries (Police Training)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether(a) police training for recruits and (b) in-service training for police officers includes awareness of how to respond to members of the public with acquired brain injuries. [157560]

  Ms Blears
  The 15 week Probationer Training Programme delivered by Centrex to all new police recruits, incorporates a First Aid course consisting of five modules to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) approved Common Minimum Standards.

  The course includes management of a casualty with head and associated injuries, convulsion and stroke. It teaches how to recognise signs and symptoms, examine and treat injury, obtain medical help, adopt the correct position, provide reassurance and monitoring. Training also includes life saving, illness in public places, and dealing with sudden death if required. In addition to testing the knowledge. understanding and skills on all these issues, probationers would also be assessed on attitudes and behaviour.

  In police forces, specialist courses are delivered to officers as needed. Members of the public who enter custody at police stations are assessed and medical advice sought where appropriate.

  Cockling
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Immigration Service operations had been carried out regarding cockle picking in(a) Morecambe Bay and (b) elsewhere prior to the operation on Pilling Sands on 19 June 2003. [156857]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 February 2004]: The Immigration Service has assisted the police with various incidents involving cockle pickers prior to 19 June 2003. These include:
  the arrest of 12 Chinese nationals in Mostyn on 31 October 2002
  the arrest of 20 Chinese nationals on the Wirral on 31 October 2002
  the apprehension of five Chinese nationals in Bagillt on 13 November 2002.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were arrested picking cockles in Morecambe Bay on 5 August 2003. [156371]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 February 2004]: The police arrested 37 Chinese cockle pickers in Morecambe Town on 4 August 2003.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long immigration officials took to reach Morecambe when police arrested 37 people on Chatsworth Road, Morecambe on 4 August 2003; and whether the police were called as a result of complaints from members of the public. [156372]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 February 2004]: I understand the police received telephone calls during early August 2003 concerning groups of apparently illegal Chinese immigrants and related either to the occupation of local premises or cockling on local public fisheries. On 4 August the police attended a local
  1138W
  address following further complaints of suspicious activity. Police records show that they started to arrest Chinese cockle pickers at 4.35 p.m on 4 August 2003.

  Police records indicate that they first contacted the Immigration Service about this activity during the evening of 4 August.

  The Police made a significant number of arrests and made arrangements for the safe accommodation overnight of the detainees at police custody suites in the area.

  During the morning of 5 August Immigration Service's Liverpool office drew together a team and the equipment necessary to interview, fingerprint, photograph and serve illegal entry papers on the Chinese nationals, as appropriate. Having completed checks during the morning against the relevant databases and obtained an interpreter, an Immigration Officer from Liverpool arrived at Lancaster Police Station at 1.24 p.m to assist the police with identifying the immigration status of those who did not appear on Home Office records.

  Two Immigration Officers continue to provide their full time support to the police in the area.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement correcting the information the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale received from the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) regarding immigration enforcement action on 6 August 2003, in Morecambe Bay; and if he will initiate an urgent inquiry into the reasons for which this inaccurate information was provided by his Department. [156373]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 February 2004]: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 19 February to explain that I had been given the incorrect location for the operation on 6 August by officials, and I expressed regret about this error. This operation had in fact taken place on cockle beds on the Wirral.

  Following my hon Friend's letter of 19 February which highlighted various discrepancies to me in the information I had provided, I initiated an internal enquiry that evening to establish the facts. This has been conducted by a Director in the Immigration Service and the initial results were reported to me this week. There are further investigations still to be completed.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the Police and UK Immigration Service operation in Morecambe Bay at the sandbank close to Morecambe Town on 5 August 2003 as described in a letter to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale from the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) dated 12 February; [156374]

  (2) if he will name the sandbank close to Morecambe Town where a police and UK immigration operation took place on 5 August 2003 as described in a letter to the right hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale from the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) of 12 February; and if he will estimate the distance from the sandbank to Morecambe Town; [156370]
  1139W
  (3) what (a) police and (b) immigration service operations have been carried out at the sandbanks close to Morecambe Town. [156970]

  Beverley Hughes
  The matter has now been fully investigated and it is clear that some details of the information given to me by officials and reproduced in my letter of 12 February about the Immigration Service's role in the events on the 4 and 5 August were not wholly accurate and I regret that as a result my hon. Friend was not given the full picture. However, the broad outline of that picture was correct—that on those days there was police-led activity in the Morecambe Bay area involving Chinese cockle pickers which the Immigration Service supported.

  Crime
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes have been(a) reported and (b) recorded as being solved in the Romford area of the London borough of Havering during (i) 1995, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2001 and (v) 2003; [157012]

  (2) how many (a) burglaries, (b) car thefts, (c) acts of vandalism, (d) muggings, (e) rapes, (f) sexual assaults, (g) indecent assaults and (h) violent attacks were reported in the Romford area of the London borough of Havering during (i) 1995, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2001 and (v) 2003. [157013]

  Ms Blears
  For details of recorded crime figures for Havering, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 18W. Details for detections in Havering are given in the table.

  Havering: Recorded crime for six key offences

  Offences recorded

  Detections

  Violence against the Person

  1999–2000

  2,661

  975

  2000–01

  2,787

  945

  2001–02

  3,225

  1,144

  2002–03

  3,901

  1,268

  Sexual Offences

  1999–2000

  145

  64

  2000–01

  158

  55

  2001–02

  173

  —

  2002–03

  178

  —

  Robbery

  1999–2000

  240

  60

  2000–01

  392

  59

  2001–02

  549

  63

  2002–03

  479

  57

  Burglary Dwelling

  1999–2000

  837

  119

  2000–01

  897

  40

  2001–02

  1,109

  63

  2002–03

  1,058

  140

  Theft of a motor Vehicle

  1999–2000

  1,749

  154

  2000–01

  1,842

  107

  2001–02

  1,883

  134

  2002–03

  1,654

  111

  1140W

  Havering: Recorded crime for six key offences

  Offences recorded

  Detections

  Theft from a Vehicle

  1999–2000

  2,120

  49

  2000–01

  2,143

  26

  2001–02

  2,374

  42

  2002–03

  2,230

  37

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer to question reference 154635 on 24 February, what guidance on crime pattern analysis his Department issued to police forces prior to 2003. [157696]

  Ms Blears
  No formal guidance has been issued although research studies have been published relevant to this area. Those studies published prior to 2003 are:Read, T. and Oldfield, D. (1995) Local Crime Analysis. Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper 65, London: Home Office.
  Clarke. R.V. and Eck, J. (2003) Become a Problem-Solving Crime Analyst. Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drugs testing and treatment orders have been issued in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley since 2000. [157680]

  Caroline Flint
  The information requested, for the years 2000 to 2002 is contained in the table.

  Persons sentenced to drug treatment and testing orders in Lancashire and the Petty Sessional Area ( PSA) of Chorley, 2000–

  In Lancashire

  Of which, in Chorley PSA

  20001

  —

  —

  2001

  126

  6

  2002

  165

  10

  1From October.

  Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn of this year.

  Engagements
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the meeting on 16 September 2003 between the Minister of State for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety and representatives of Naturewatch; and when he expects to hold a follow-up meeting with the Chief Constable of North Wales. [157436]

  Ms Blears
  I very much welcomed the opportunity to meet representatives of Naturewatch to hear their concerns about the law and other issues in relation to badger-baiting. I made clear once again the Government's utter abhorrence of such practices. Primary responsibility for legislation on the protection of badgers rests with colleagues in Defra. I noted the concern of Naturewatch that there should be clear statistics as to the scale of abuse. Convictions of the main offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which are imprisonable, are recordable on the Police National Computer. This allows information about
  1141W
  offences and offenders to be shared among police forces. However, since the offences in the Act are among the great number which are triable only summarily, the proposition that they should be made notifiable for the purpose of crime statistics (which focus on offences triable on indictment) presents great problems. I made it clear that I would wish to take the views of the Chief Constable of North Wales, who leads on wildlife crime matters within the Association of Chief Police Officers, on other possible options. My officials have been in touch with him, and I am anxious that this work should be taken forward as quickly as possible.

  Fixed Penalty Fines
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the costs and benefits of equipping(a) Home Office constabularies and (b) Highways Agency traffic management staff with hand-held GPS card readers for on-the-spot payment of fixed penalty fines. [156723]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 3 March 2004]: No such assessment has been made. There is no requirement to pay fixed penalty fines on the spot.

  The provisions of the fixed penalty system for road traffic offences are set out in Part III of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991, The recipient of a fixed penalty notice has the option of paying the penalty within 28 days or requesting a court hearing if the issue of the notice is disputed.

  Provision for Highways Agency traffic officers is included in the Traffic Management Bill, currently before Parliament. The Bill does not seek to give the traffic officers a power to issue fixed penalty notices.

  Identity Cards
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will commission an independent analysis to evaluate the various hypotheses about the effects of introducing identity cards. [157033]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government does not propose to commission such an analysis. It has conducted a lengthy consultation exercise on different options for implementing an identity cards scheme, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out the benefits of an identity cards scheme in his statement to the House on 11 November 2003 and his publication 'Identity Cards: The Next Steps' (CMD 6020) and we have announced that there will be a further opportunity for consultation when the draft Bill is published.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the option of introducing an identity card system with no central register. [157035]

  Beverley Hughes
  An identity card scheme without a central register would have less protection against people establishing multiple identities than one where there was a single, highly verified record of identity.
  1142W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures will be in place under the current identity card proposals to ensure the trustworthiness of the staff operating(a) the identity database system and (b) other databases that include the ID number. [157037]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government will build on the arrangements which are already in place for administering personal databases such as those adopted by the UK Passport Service.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the illegal Chinese immigrants arrested in King's Lynn have been deported; [155545]

  (2) how many of the illegal Chinese immigrants arrested in the Wirral in November 2002 have been deported; [155546]

  (3) how many of the illegal Chinese immigrants arrested at Morecambe in August 2003 have been deported; [155547]

  (4) what prosecutions have taken place in connection with (a) the arrest of Chinese immigrants in King's Lynn, (b) the arrest of Chinese immigrants in the Wirral in November 2002 and (c) the arrest of Chinese immigrants at Morecambe Bay in August 2003. [155548]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 23 February 2004]: The Chinese Government has very strict conditions for re-documenting their citizens and will only accept their return once they have verified their exact identity. This causes problems for many countries that wish to repatriate Chinese illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers, as those who do not wish to return are careful to conceal their true identity. Chinese officials seconded to the Immigration Service have recently provided assistance in identifying Chinese nationals to enable their return. We are now working on an arrangement to make this assistance permanent.

  We have made it clear to the Chinese that we urgently need to find a solution to the problem of re-documenting those who continue to conceal their identity in order to frustrate return, and are working together to find a way forward to enable us to significantly increase returns to China.

  My understanding is that activity by the Immigration Service on the Wirral in October 2002, in King's Lynn in the summer of 2003, and in the Morecambe Bay area in August 2003 has not led to any prosecutions against any individuals under immigration law. Although 120 Chinese nationals were interviewed by the Immigration Service on those occasions, they were not willing to provide evidence which could be used to support a prosecution against those who may have facilitated their entry into the United Kingdom or employed them illegally.

  To date one of these Chinese nationals who had committed an immigration offence has been removed from the United Kingdom and two are in detention awaiting issue of travel documents and removal.
  1143W
  The Immigration Service is actively considering the status of the Chinese nationals apprehended on these three occasions who have not been removed to date and who are not legally in the United Kingdom.

  Lancashire Police
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests were made in the Chorley constituency in each year since 1997. [157677]

  Ms Blears
  Information on arrests collected centrally is based on persons arrested for 'notifiable' offences at police force area level only, in England and Wales. The information does not identify individual local authority or constituency areas.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers Lancashire Police Force had in each year since 2000; and how many(a) were on the front line and (b) had desk jobs in each year. [157679]

  Ms Blears
  Police strength information is set out in the table.

  Year as at 31 March

  Lancashire police strength

  2000

  3,179

  2001

  3,255

  2002

  3,304

  2003

  3,339

  December 2003

  13,549

  1Record level

  Further information on the deployment of officers on particular duties is not available. Police officers perform a variety of roles and not all officers occupy posts devoted solely to front line or administrative duties. The Home Office will be making available later in the year an assessment of the proportion of time spent by police officers on front line activities in each force in England and Wales in 2003–04.

  People Trafficking
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department has taken to combat trafficking of people into Britain from(a) China and (b) the Far East. [158327]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government is committed to tackling the crime of human trafficking in all its guises, and operates an intelligence led approach to the policing of human trafficking. Reflex, a UK wide multi-agency taskforce to combat organised immigration crime,

  Region

  Application Start Date

  SIA licence required from

  Estimated number of door supervisors

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  1 March 2004

  4 June 2004

  2,883

  South West

  1 June 2004

  23 August 2004

  7,742

  Wales

  14 June 2004

  6 September 2004

  4,380

  Midlands

  5 July 2004

  18 October 2004

  12,410

  North West

  9 August 2004

  15 November 2004

  10,589

  North East

  6 September 2004

  13 December 2004

  11,732

  East

  4 October 2004

  3 January 2005

  7,511

  South East

  25 October 2004

  28 February 2005

  19,366

  London

  3 January 2005

  11 April 2005

  11,272

  1144W
  which includes people trafficking and smuggling, was established in 2000. At present, Reflex has a number of operations focused on disrupting organised Chinese, Far Eastern and other criminal gangs some of which involves close liaison with our European partners and source countries.

  Police Incident (Manchester)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the incident of alleged police brutality in Greater Manchester shown on television news in the week beginning on 16 February. [157303]

  Ms Blears
  The incident is being investigated by West Yorkshire Police, under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority.

  It would not be appropriate to comment on this case while the investigation is on-going.

  Police Support Staff
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the duties performed by police support staff; and if he will make a statement on their effectiveness in supporting the work of the Metropolitan Police. [157331]

  Ms Blears
  Police staff perform a valuable role in the policing of London. The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis informs me that as of the end of December 2003, there were 543 Traffic wardens, 1,157 community support officers and 11,772 other police staff working for the Metropolitan Police Service. They have a wide range of duties, with many of them in direct support of operational policing.

  Registered Doorkeepers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the areas in which the security industry regulations will be rolled out, broken down by date; how many persons are employed as doorkeepers in each area; how many places on courses designed to provide qualifications for registration there are; how many of these currently employed have already qualified for registration; and what contingency arrangements are in place to meet shortfalls in supply of registered doorkeepers. [157835]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 1 March 2004]: The table details the rollout schedule for door supervisor licensing by the Security Industry Authority (SIA), along with estimated numbers of persons working as door supervisors.
  1145W
  Information about the number of training places is not held centrally, however, the SIA has received assurances from the awarding bodies that there will be sufficient capacity to meet demand in any given region prior to the onset of licensing in that region.

  As at 13 February 2004, 137 individuals have successfully completed the SIA approved training course in Hampshire and the Isle of White and it is estimated that a further 300 meet the SIA competency requirements by virtue of their existing recognised training qualifications. These figures are subject to constant change as the rollout progresses.

  Responsibility for ensuring that there are sufficient door supervisors to meet demand lies with the leisure industry and door supervisor providers. Under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, local authorities will be able to require that a specified number of SIA licensed door supervisors will be on duty at specified times as a condition of a premises licence. The SIA are continuing their communications campaigns to ensure the industry are aware of their responsibilities, and to encourage the highest level of participation in the scheme. With the SIA, we will monitor carefully the impact of licensing on the supply of door supervisors.

  Speed Cameras
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fines were issued for speeding camera convictions in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough in each year since 1997. [158442]

  Caroline Flint
  Available information on the number of fixed penalties and court fines for the offence of `speeding detected by camera' in the calendar years 1997 to 2001 is shown in the table for Greater London. It is not possible from the data collected centrally to identify each London Borough.

  Information for 2002 will be available in the Spring.

  Fines and fixed penalties data for speeding Offences detected by camera1,2 within Greater London3, 1997–2001

  Total fined at all courts

  Fixed Penalty Notices issued

  1997

  2,500

  15,300

  1998

  2,900

  14,200

  1999

  2,600

  13,000

  Selected Indicators

  Traffic Wardens

  Percentage

  Values

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Decrease

  Increase

  Forces

  Dorset

  41

  37

  12

  0

  100

  North Yorkshire

  19

  12

  10

  0

  100

  Cumbria

  6

  0

  0

  0

  100

  Kent

  1

  0

  0

  0

  100

  Bedfordshire

  9

  3

  3

  2

  77.7

  Essex

  102

  82

  59

  38

  62.7

  Staffordshire

  24

  17

  12

  10

  58.3

  West Midlands

  175

  128

  78

  74

  57.7

  Northamptonshire

  16

  11

  7

  7

  56.2

  Wiltshire

  15

  7

  7

  7

  53.5

  Hampshire

  53

  53

  31

  25

  52.8

  1146W

  Fines and fixed penalties data for speeding Offences detected by camera1,2 within Greater London3, 1997–2001

  Total fined at all courts

  Fixed Penalty Notices issued

  2000

  2,200

  44,100

  2001

  4,500

  52,100

  1Automatic cameras until 1998, all camera types from 1999

  2Offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and The Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973.

  3The Metropolitan and City of London police combined.

  4Includes cases where fixed penalty notices were originally issued but not paid and subsequently referred to court.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the advice given in PPG8: Telecommunications, that where proposals to locate telecommunications masts meet with the standards of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, it should not be necessary for a local planning authority to consider further health effects of the proposal. [158274]

  Keith Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister receives many representations on matters relating to the telecommunications industry. The information about representations and responses to such representations is not readily available in the breakdown requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Traffic Wardens
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many traffic wardens were operating in police authority areas in each of the last 15 years, listed in descending order according to the biggest disparity between the first and last year. [158072]

  Caroline Flint
  The number of traffic wardens employed by each of the police authorities in England and Wales for the last four years is given in the table, which also shows the percentage increase or decrease in numbers between the first and last years. Figures for the years prior to 1999–2000 are not recorded centrally.

  Under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991, local authorities can apply for parking restrictions in their areas to be decriminalised and enforced by the authority under civil law. Many have now done so, and this has helped lead to a marked decline in traffic warden numbers.
  1147W

  Selected Indicators

  Traffic Wardens

  Percentage

  Values

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Decrease

  Increase

  Merseyside

  106

  93

  63

  52

  50.9

  Nottinghamshire

  58

  39

  30

  29

  50

  West Mercia

  30

  23

  21

  15

  50

  Lancashire

  94

  87

  84

  50

  46.8

  Cleveland

  13

  10

  12

  7

  46.1

  Sussex

  110

  98

  62

  61

  44.5

  North Wales

  12

  12

  8

  7

  41.7

  Durham

  22

  19

  19

  15

  31.8

  Thames Valley

  58

  45

  51

  42

  27.5

  Avon and Somerset

  59

  48

  44

  43

  27.1

  Cheshire

  25

  20

  20

  19

  24

  Suffolk

  31

  29

  29

  25

  19.3

  Metropolitan Police

  817

  689

  632

  687

  15.9

  Northumbria

  70

  72

  71

  59

  15.7

  West Yorkshire

  116

  107

  99

  98

  15.5

  Norfolk

  37

  33

  34

  33

  12.1

  Gloucestershire

  35

  30

  30

  31

  11.4

  Gwent

  30

  28

  28

  27

  10

  South Yorkshire

  62

  71

  77

  68

  9.6

  Humberside

  53

  51

  51

  48

  9.4

  Leicestershire

  67

  65

  72

  61

  8.9

  Greater Manchester

  96

  88

  87

  88

  8.3

  Hertfordshire

  38

  45

  42

  35

  7.8

  Dyfed-Powys

  14

  15

  12

  13

  7.1

  Surrey

  16

  25

  20

  17

  6.3

  Devon and Cornwall

  119

  110

  101

  103

  5.1

  Derbyshire

  50

  44

  50

  48

  4

  South Wales

  100

  104

  100

  99

  1

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  35

  38

  36

  35

  0

  —

  Lincolnshire

  20

  21

  21

  21

  —

  5

  Warwickshire

  8

  9

  9

  9

  —

  12.5

TRANSPORT

  Aircraft Security
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to protect British civil aircraft from man-portable projectile attack. [157058]

  Mr. McNulty
  Terrorist threats, including from man-portable air defence systems (MANPADs), are assessed on a continual basis and appropriate counter-measures are developed and reviewed accordingly. For the MANPAD threat this includes work on both ground-based and on-board security measures. It would not be appropriate on security grounds to disclose details about this work.

  Chorley Transport Interchange
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Government funding was provided for the building of the Chorley transport interchange. [157715]

  Mr. McNulty
  The total Government borrowing approval provided to build the Chorley transport interchange was £3,731,000.

  This includes the two separate contracts for the new Chorley bus interchange (£3 267million) and the refurbishment of Chorley railway station (£464,000).
  1148W

  Cycling
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much the Department spent on the promotion of cycle helmets in each of the last five years; and what assessment has been made of the cost-benefit achieved in terms of injuries prevented from(a) helmets and (b) other methods of reducing risk to cyclists; [158024]

  (2) what monitoring methods are used to assess the effectiveness of cycle helmets in reducing the (a) number and (b) severity of head injuries; and whether these methods would detect changes in the number and severity of head injuries arising from increased use of cycle helmets. [158025]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since the creation of the Department for Transport in May 2002, the following has been spent on cycle safety campaigns, which include the promotion of cycle helmet wearing.

  2002–03
  'Cyclesmart' campaign, targeting 7–11 year olds.
  £19,630
  'Cyclesense' campaign, targeting teenage boys
  £25,480

  2003–04
  'Cyclesmart' campaign
  £26,450
  'Cyclesense' campaign
  £136,550
  1149W
  My Department commissioned research on the effectiveness of cycle helmets, including the relative risk of injury to cyclists with and without helmets, by way of a literature review, and this was published in November 2002 (Road Safety Research Report No.30), a copy of which was placed in the Library. The conclusion from the review was that helmets have been found to be effective at reducing the incidence and severity of head, brain and upper facial injury, particularly for children. A fully quantified cost benefit review comparing the effectiveness of helmets and other methods of reducing risk to cyclists is not possible since many measures, such as education, training and publicity, are not fully quantifiable. The Department therefore pursues a comprehensive package of measures. This is proving effective, and deaths and serious injuries to cyclists in 2002 were 34 per cent. down compared with the 1994–98 baseline for our Road Safety Strategy.

  Our casualty data does not allow us to monitor the number and severity of head injuries due to increased use of helmets because it does not identify injury by specific parts of the body. However, in addition to the periodic monitoring we carry out of the wearing rates for cycling helmets, we plan to initiate further research to explore the possible relationship between cycling casualties and cycling levels to throw further light on this subject.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage cycling in the City of Hereford; and if he will make a statement. [158645]

  Mr. McNulty
  We have allocated Herefordshire Council just over £11 million to spend on local transport schemes throughout the district in 2004–05 under the Council's Local Transport Plan (LTP) which includes measures to increase cycle usage. The Council's last annual progress report on its LTP showed a 4.8 per cent. increase in cycling in 2002–03. Hereford is also one of the seven shortlisted towns looking for support from the Department for a sustainable travel town initiative. Two towns will soon be selected to apply a package of measures to promote not only cycling, but also walking and public transport. We have budgeted £7.5 million for this initiative, which will run for five years.

  Dibden Bay Container Port
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2004,Official Report, column 529W, on the Dibden Bay container port proposal and the New Forest National Park proposal, for what reason he declined to state whether or not he would make it his policy not to announce his decision on the port before the result of the public inquiry into the National Park is known; and if he will make a statement. [158828]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The answer I gave on 26 February 2004,Official Report, column 529W, stated that the publication of the report of the public inquiry into the proposal for the creation of a New Forest National Park was a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  A decision on the proposal for a new container port at Dibden Bay must be taken under a different statutory process and the timing of an announcement should
  1150W
  therefore be separate from that for an announcement on a national park. It would not be appropriate to make it a policy not to announce a decision on the port before publication of the New Forest inquiry report. Issues relating to the proposals for the creation of a New Forest National Park were addressed at the public inquiry into proposals for a container port at Dibden Bay.

  Integrated Kent Franchise
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the passenger usage data for(a) Faversham, (b) Selling, (c) Lenham, (d) Harrietsham and (e) Hollingbourne that the Strategic Rail Authority used in the consultation document on the Integrated Kent franchise for Faversham. [158827]

  Mr. McNulty
  The figures in the table are expressed as passenger journeys per day, using data for the year ending March 2003, and are based on ticket sales for journeys which either start, finish or interchange at the stations concerned.

  Passenger data, far year ending March 2003

  Ticket sales

  Faversham

  5,205

  Selling

  173

  Lenham

  459

  Harrietsham

  180

  Hollingbourne

  105

  Source:

  South Eastern Trains

  Local Authority Grants (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what grants were awarded by his Department to local authorities in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley in each of the last three financial years that fall outside the revenue support grant. [157266]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions on 1 March 2004,Official Report, column 749W.

  Port Security
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to (i) screen incoming cargo containers for chemical and biological agents and (ii) make available radiation detectors at ports. [157057]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for protective security. I am the Minister responsible for HM Customs and Excise who are primarily responsible for screening cargo entering the United Kingdom. Customs work closely with the Home Office and the Police on security at ports.

  Incoming cargo is screened for a variety of illicit materials. The Government does not give detailed information about these procedures as this information may be useful to terrorists. In this connection Exemptions 1, 4 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access

  1151W
  to Government Information apply. Following the announcement of new funds for counter-terrorism measures which the Chancellor made in last year's Budget (HC 500), Customs and the Home Office will be wording together to deploy screening equipment at UK points of entry to detect the illicit importation of radioactive materials.

  Railways
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to relieve overcrowding on services operated by(a) South Central and (b) Thameslink. [157863]

  Mr. McNulty
  Under the Strategic Rail Authority's new franchise agreement with Go Via, capacity will be increased when a new fleet of trains is provided on South Central services from 2005. The two-year extension of the Thameslink franchise, effective from 1 April 2004, incorporates an option to provide additional capacity and services primarily on the Wimbledon loop where the route is most constrained. This proposal is subject to securing additional rolling stock and meeting value for money and affordability considerations.

  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how his Department defines overcrowding in respect of rail travel. [158062]

  Mr. McNulty
  There is no definition for crowding on the railways. However, all rail operators are required to provide a frequency of service and adequate capacity to prevent excessive crowding and to have in place strategies for dealing with regular systematic crowding when it occurs.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway carriages which could be returned to passenger use are in storage; where they are being stored; and what instruction he has given to the Strategic Railway Authority regarding the disposal of railway carriages which have the potential for re-use. [156171]

  Mr. McNulty
  Carriages capable of reuse are principally those being replaced by new trains on cross country and the west coast main line. Primary responsibility for deciding their future use, if any, lies with their owners and operators. However, the Strategic Rail Authority's Rolling Stock Strategy encourages the cascading of surplus carriages to other uses and there have already been cases where this has happened. The number in storage at any one time fluctuates as vehicles are progressively withdrawn from service and others are redeployed or scrapped.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a statement on proposals for a crossing of the railway line at Beddingham on the A27. [158882]

  Mr. McNulty
  I announced the decision on the final proposals for the Southerham to Beddington stretch of the A27 yesterday. The hon. Gentleman and other interested parties were informed in the usual manner.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will allow regional passenger transport authorities to bid to run franchises. [158763]
  1152W
  Mr. McNulty
  Passenger Transport Authorities as local authorities are precluded from being franchisees by Section 25 of the Railways Act 1993. Only where a rail network has been designated as exempt from franchising, as with the Merseyrail network, can a Passenger Transport Authority be considered to run services on that network. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his statement to the House on 19 January that the current rail review would consider the scope for devolving more decision-making to the Passenger Transport Executives.

  Road Haulage Forum
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the road haulage forum. [158222]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The road haulage forum will continue to meet as long as all sides think it worthwhile. I expect the next meeting to be in April.

  Road Scheme Funding
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what monitoring systems exist to ensure that funds allocated to local authorities for road improvement and maintenance schemes are not used for other purposes. [158233]

  Mr. McNulty
  Integrated Transport block and maintenance allocations are issued as part of the Single Capital Pot and are unringfenced to give authorities greater flexibility over how they spend their funds. Local authorities may spend the funding as they wish on the services they provide in line with local priorities and in order to deliver the targets in their local transport plans (LTPs). When we are considering future capital allocations for local authorities, one of the factors taken into account is how local authorities have spent their LTP allocations and their performance in delivering their targets.

  The Chief Finance Officer of each local authority is required to complete an audit form each year to confirm what LTP resources have been used in the previous financial year. These returns are audited by the Audit Commission.

  Road Transport Directive
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures he plans to introduce to facilitate enforcement of the Road Transport Directive in respect of drivers of foreign registered vehicles operating in the United Kingdom. [158226]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our approach to enforcing the Road Transport Directive is outlined in our consultation document, which was published on 21 October 2003 and entitled "Consultation on the UK's proposal for implementing the Working Time Directive for mobile workers in the Road Transport Sector". A copy is available in the House Libraries, or can be downloaded from the INF website at www.dft.gov.uk/freight/rtd.

  My officials are presently analysing replies from the consultation exercise and we should be able to announce the results and our approach to enforcement very shortly.

  Transport Action Clean-up Programme
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funding has been(a) budgeted for and (b) spent on the Transport Action Clean-Up programme in each financial year since 2001–02; and what the budget is for 2004–05. [157916]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The CleanUp programme is one of the Transport Energy programmes administered by the Energy Saving Trust (others include Powershift and the New Vehicle Technology Fund). As such, funding for CleanUp must be balanced against requirements for all the Transport Energy programmes. In total, the DfT allocated £26 million to these three programmes in 2003–4 and has committed the same amount for 2004–5. Grant and budget funding allocated to the CleanUp programme since 2001–2 is shown in the table.

  £ million

  Clear up grants budget

  Clear up grants actual

  2001–2

  8.0

  7.4

  2002–3

  10.0

  8.4

  2003–4

  9.0

  13.0

  2004–5

  7.0

  n/a

  To meet the increase in demand in 2003–4, the Trust has redirected funding from marketing and promotional activities to help meet the additional spend on grants.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines he issues regarding the positioning of speed cameras, with particular reference to mobile speed cameras. [156502]
  1154W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The 'Handbook of rules and guidance for the operation of the national road safety camera programme for England and Wales', deals with the positioning of fixed and mobile speed cameras. Copies were placed in the Libraries of the House on 5 December 2003.

  Websites
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost in(a) financial and (b) other terms was in (i) each financial year since 1997 and (ii) 2003–04 until the latest date for which figures are available of (A) developing and (B) maintaining (1) his Department's website and (2) each website for which his Department is responsible; and how many (C) unique hosts and (D) hits there were in each month for each website in (iii) each financial year since 1997 and (iv) 2003–04 until the latest date for which numbers are available. [155852]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The details in this response refer to the Department for Transport web site and associated web sites since late May 2002 when the Department came into existence. Similar details for previous years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Development costs are provided for all sites. Costs in 'other terms' by which we understand you to mean staff overheads cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  In respect of (C) Unique hosts—we understand you to mean the number of 'hosting services' (virtual and dedicated) that we are contracted to use. The DfT is contracted to use one dedicated hosting service for all web sites referenced in this response.

TREASURY

  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  I am pleased to tell the House that the tax law rewrite project will today reach another major milestone. The Inland Revenue will publish the project's third draft Bill, on trading, property, savings and investment and miscellaneous income, for a final round of consultation. The Bill will also cover the special rules for foreign income and partnerships and the relief rules for rent-a-room and foster carers. The Bill will be ready for introduction in Parliament by the end of the year.

  Earlier versions of this rewritten legislation have been extensively revised in the light of comments and suggestions from tax professionals and other interested parties. This continuous dialogue between the project team and business interests, tax practitioners, the legal profession and Inland Revenue specialists is a key feature contributing to the success of the project.

DEFENCE

  Deepcut Barracks (Surrey Police Final Report)
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram):
  The Chief Constable of the Surrey Police has today published his report following the completion of the police examinations into wider issues identified during police investigations into the deaths of Privates Sean Benton, Cheryl James, Geoff Gray and James Collinson at the Princess Royal Barracks Deepcut between 1995 and 2002. We welcome the conclusion of the police investigation and the report. The report makes recommendations which we are considering carefully. I intend to make a further announcement on this subject in the near future.

  Each of these four deaths was an individual tragedy in its own right and we very much regret the loss of these young lives. The Police report acknowledges that we have been working energetically to ensure that lessons have been learnt and to improve the Army's care regime. It concludes by recommending that the Ministry of Defence considers a broader inquiry into how the care regime can be further improved and to provide assurance that the momentum that has developed will be sustained.

  As the report highlights, one key element of the work we have undertaken has been the Army Learning Account, which is a continuous record of lessons learned and the action taken as a result. The report also refers to work undertaken by the Directorate of Operational Capability (DOC) into the care of recruits in initial training, which I published last year. This was followed some five months later by a further report
  84WS
  assessing progress in implementing recommendations (Official Report, 10 February 2003, column 35WS and 16 July 2003, column 42WS refer).

  We are committed to continuous improvement in the training and care regime, and will look carefully at what benefits a broader investigation might offer and what form such an investigation might take.

  The Army has co-operated fully with the Surrey police throughout all their investigations, and we have been as open as possible with the families within the constraints imposed on us by the ongoing police investigation. In recognition of the degree of Parliamentary interest in the Deepcut deaths, the Chief Constable has asked that copies of his report be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I am making the necessary arrangements to do so.

TRANSPORT

  Digital Tachographs
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)
  I am announcing today that the Government will allow industry more time to introduce digital tachographs in the UK.

  Most drivers of large commercial vehicles are subject to the EU drivers' hours rules. These rules are enforced using the tachograph. Under an EU Regulation the existing chart-based, or analogue, tachographs are due to replaced by digital tachographs.

  The deadline for the introduction of the digital tachograph is 5 August 2004. This deadline cannot be met because no digital tachograph has yet been type approved. This is an EU-wide issue—all; member states are placed in a similar position.

  The Government remains committed to the introduction of digital tachographs but after informal consultation with the industry I have decided that:
  The UK will not enforce the fitting of digital tachographs to all new vehicles subject to the EU drivers' hours rules from August 2004.
  We will continue to work with the European Commission and other EU Member States to agree a new date for the fitting of digital tachographs to all new vehicles. This date is unlikely to be before June 2005.
  Between August 2004 and the new date, vehicles used within the scope of the EU drivers' hours rules must be fitted either with analogue tachographs or, when they become available, digital tachographs but the latter will not be compulsory until the new deadline.
  The DVLA, who will issue the four types of smart-card associated with digital tachographs, remain on-track to be able to issue cards in good time for the introduction of digital tachographs. A decision when to commence the issue of cards will be taken in the light of the availability of digital tachographs.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Oil and Gas Licensing Round
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  I am pleased to inform the House that I am today inviting applications for petroleum licences over a large number of blocks in the
  85WS
  southern, central and northern North sea and for the area west of the Shetland Islands which will form the 22nd round of offshore petroleum licensing. In parallel to this offshore round I am also inviting applications for the onshore area of the UK. This will be the 12th onshore licensing round.

  In deciding which blocks to make available for licensing in the offshore area, I have considered the results of the strategic environmental assessments undertaken by my Department, the most recent on which consultation closed in December 2003. After considering the assessments and the responses to the consultation, I have decided to take a precautionary approach and not offer for licence 23 blocks or part blocks because of their proximity to existing conservation sites as highlighted by the environmental assessments. In addition, 20 blocks will not be offered for licensing in these SEA areas at the request of the Ministry of Defence.

  Any licences awarded in the round will contain conditions to protect environmental interests and the interests of other sea users. In addition, activities carried out under the licences will be subject to a range of legislation which is designed to protect the marine environment, including regulations which apply the Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats directives to offshore oil and gas activities. This will be particularly relevant to certain blocks in Quadrant 217, which contain unusual seabed features.

  The licences will also contain provisions to ensure that licensees either undertake exploration work within a relatively short timescale or relinquish the licence at the earliest possible opportunity so that other companies are able to take forward exploration of the area. These requirements support PILOT initiatives to remove barriers to activity on the UKCS.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  General and Compensation Levies
  The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  I am pleased to announce that there will be no increase in the General Levy rates for 2004–05. Rates will remain at the 2000–01 level as set out in the table.

  On 11 June 2003, the Government published—"Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Requirement—Action on Occupational Pensions" (Cm 5835), which sets out plans for a new, risk-focused pensions regulator, that also provides support, advice and guidance to the pensions industry.

  A significant claim for compensation has been made to the Pensions Compensation Board and, in view of payments which have already been made and future
  86WS
  expected payments, the Pensions Compensation Board believe it is necessary to use current regulations to raise a Compensation Levy in 2004–05 at 23p per member. This is only the second time they have needed to collect the Compensation Levy since its inception in 1997. I am pleased that the Pensions Compensation Board has been able to provide financial support for members of those schemes whose assets have been removed dishonestly. It is vital that the Board has adequate funds to be able to provide financial help when appropriate.

  The General Levy rates for 2004–05 are as follows:

  Table 1—Occupational Pension Schemes

  Scheme Size (Number of Members)

  Basis

  Amount per Member

  Minimum Payment Per Scheme1

  2 to 11

  £12 Per scheme

  —

  —

  12 to 99

  Per Member

  £1.25

  —

  100 to 999

  Per Member

  £0.90

  £125

  1,000 to 4,999

  Per Member

  £0.70

  £900

  5,000 to 9,999

  Per Member

  £0.53

  £3,500

  10,000 or more

  Per Member

  £0.37

  £5,300

  Table 2—Personal Pension Schemes

  Scheme Size (Number of Members)

  Basis

  Amount per Member

  Minimum Payment Per Scheme1

  2 to 11

  £5.20 Per scheme

  —

  —

  12 to 99

  Per Member

  £0.50

  —

  100 to 999

  Per Member

  £0.35

  £50

  1,000 to 4,999

  Per Member

  £0.30

  £350

  5,000 to 9,999

  Per Member

  £0.20

  £1,500

  10,000 or more

  Per Member

  £0.15

  £2,000

  NOTE: 1 Minimum payments ensure that schemes in the lower bands do not pay more overall than those in the higher bands.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Regional Fire and Rescue Control Rooms
  The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  On 11 December when the draft national framework for the "Fire and Rescue Service" was published I issued a consultation document on the proposals on regional control rooms in England. Those proposals were outlined in the White Paper, "Our Fire and Rescue Service", and detailed in the draft national framework.

  A copy of my response on the issues raised in the consultation paper is available in the Libraries of both Houses. The responses broadly endorsed the proposed approach of regional control rooms on the basis of one per region and the proposed governance arrangements.

  I have written to the chair of the Practitioners Forum and the chairs of authorities confirming this.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bingham of Cornhill): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Horse Passports
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lord Burnham, whose car has broken down, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why VAT is payable on horse passports when it is not payable on passports for people or cattle.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, passports for UK citizens and for cattle are issued under statute by public authorities. On the facts available, Customs believes that horse passports will be issued commercially by non-public bodies. Under VAT law the services of non-public bodies are normally subject to VAT when a price is charged.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Does he agree that there is an unfortunate coincidence in type, if not in practice, and in who issues the passports? Did the Government look sufficiently carefully at parallel issues before coming to a conclusion?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, our VAT laws are quite specific and are drawn up in the context of the European position on VAT. They are as stated, that if horse passports were issued by a public body—I understand that they will not be so issued—they would not be subject to VAT. But we are mindful of the fact that there is potential discretion in this area and we are aware that representations are being made. Therefore, the mind of the Treasury is not entirely closed on the matter.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, would it not be better if horse passports were issued by a public body and if there were no VAT on them? In Wales the value of some horses being exported can be as low as £25. That can be the value of a pony. If that is the case, surely the administrative costs alone would mean that it would not be worth enforcing VAT on such passports.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that may be an area for further discussion, but the noble Lord will recognise that the most convenient way for horse passports to be issued is through the various horse associations. They are private bodies and are therefore subject to the law.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, could not such work simply be transferred to Workington, my former
768
constituency, where there is the cattle traceability centre? That is precisely the kind of work that the centre has been doing for a long time.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that constructive suggestion. I am reflecting the fact that we are aware that this is an irksome problem and one that appears to have an element of unfairness about it. The issue with regard to cattle, subject to public regulation and the issuing of passports, is different and does not suffer the incubus of VAT. Representations, such as that made by my noble friend, may prove to be helpful.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will very old family ponies that will never go into the food chain be required to have passports?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the issue of the requirements of horse passports is a little remote from this Question which concerns purely the taxation element. I hear what the noble Baroness says. She will recognise that there is always the matter of definition when it comes to the issue of documents such as animal passports.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the whole scheme is a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Much more thought could have been given to the proposition when it was first produced. The Minister has clearly said that VAT will be charged because other organisations will have to collect it. Defra must have known that in the first place, so when the department came up with the original scheme why did it not put it through as a government scheme? It would help if the Minister could assure the House that the matter will be reconsidered. It is typical of Defra to fall down in its duty to come up with a proper scheme, a scheme that is not welcome in the country.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, Defra was responding to a very real issue with regard to the transport of animals and the transfer of animals across borders. I hear what the noble Baroness says and that is why I have indicated that representations are being made and the Government are in listening mode.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister has just said that a European directive somehow inhibits the Government from moving on this matter. I have some knowledge of such matters, but off the top of my head I do not know the directive. Which European directive inhibits the Government from moving on the matter if they wished to?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is Directive 6, governing VAT, which allows public bodies and

769
statutory bodies not to have charges of VAT placed upon them; whereas non-public bodies, of course, do not fit into that category.
Lord Acton: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many horse passports are issued each year and how much VAT is raised?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are at the beginning of the scheme so at present I do not have those figures.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may help the Minister. At the moment horse passports are held by breeders and people who compete internationally. This is a totally different scheme which ensures that horses that have been given certain drugs cannot be used for human consumption. It is a totally new scheme. My question concerned Defra's mess. The scheme should have been introduced back in December. It has now been delayed until July, so it is not due to come into being until July. That is part of the problem and it is why we are trying to get the imposition of VAT reconsidered.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that may be a subtle way of the noble Baroness asking her question twice, but I shall not answer it twice.

Film Production Tax Relief
11.7 a.m.
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider transitional arrangements following the termination of film production tax relief for investors so as to allow current projects to continue without the need for financing packages to be restructured.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, film production tax relief has not been terminated. A number of tax reliefs exist specifically for film production and remain available for film makers. The most frequently used are known as Sections 42 and 48 relief. What have been terminated are certain highly aggressive tax planning schemes that used general accounting principles to create paper trading losses for wealthy people. The Government acted decisively on 10 February to stop that abuse with immediate effect.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the Minister has attributed to me an objection to matters that I had not intended to raise. He must know that the sudden end to what was accepted by the film industry as being quite a reasonable closing of a perceived and actual tax loophole was not expected to be introduced as abruptly and with such a retrospective flavour as it was. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, it has caused the termination of about 40 film projects and has put at risk a number of production companies, with all the hardship that that entails for employment and so on. Was that decision taken, at such high cost, because of
770
the gravity of what was perceived to be damaging to the nation as a tax loophole? Did his department not realise what absolute turmoil would be caused in the industry by such a sudden decision?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Viscount recognises, as the industry does, that serious abuse was taking place. The Treasury's motivation was with one objective solely in mind: to end the abuse of the tax system. That abuse represented £100 million and was therefore considerable.
The closing of the loophole is not retrospective; it was implemented on 10 February and stopped the abuse from that point. But I appreciate that, as the noble Viscount says, there have been effects upon the film industry, and we recognise that representations are being made in that respect.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have an interest in this matter as I have a son who works in the industry. Is the noble Lord proud of the fact that a dozen or more major film productions have either been cancelled or delayed and that a number of film workers have been placed out of work, or is he grievously ashamed, as he should be?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the reliefs available to the film industry extend to about 15 per cent of production costs. The tax avoidance schemes being employed took those exemptions as high as 45 per cent. The Treasury had to act to stop such a significant abuse. The film industry agrees with the position we have taken.
The noble Lord's remarks reflect the fact that several films in production were based upon this source of finance and are now looking for other sources of finance which do not fall foul of these requirements.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that—notwithstanding the point he quite rightly makes, that this was a tax loophole that needed to be plugged—to call this action not retrospective fails to take account of the fact that film preparation takes a very long time? One major project lost in this mêlée was in preparation for six years and was about to go into production and will not now do so. Although technically what my noble friend says is correct, will be accept that possibly there is an argument for suggesting that projects that have been that long in preparation are being quite unfairly punished by the sudden closure of this loophole?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of course we are aware of the long production costs for films. That is why the Treasury has signalled that one of the reliefs due to expire in 2005 is the subject of discussion between the Treasury and the film industry in order to safeguard the future. The Chancellor has made clear that we will be looking towards ensuring that there is proper consideration for the film industry in the next Budget Statement. But this particular abuse had to be stopped forthwith. That was done.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as a result of this many films will now not be made

771
in Britain but in other places, such as the Isle of Man? It is surely better to have some tax coming in rather than none at all.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the situation is that the legitimate tax reliefs make the British film industry and the making of films in Britain competitive with most other countries. Reflected in the abuses taking place was an extraordinarily advantageous scheme for a limited number of people, and the Treasury had the right—and in fact the duty—to put an end to it.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister not regard this as a classic example of the effects of friendly fire?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think not. The Treasury remains on the side of the film industry, to the extent that we intend to ensure the support which has been offered in the past with regard to legitimate tax reliefs. In fact the industry is in discussion with the Treasury with regard to the future position on this. The Chancellor has already signalled his intent in the matter.
The fire was directed at people who were using tax avoidance in an exceedingly extravagant way and the Treasury has the right to safeguard public revenues by dealing with such forms of tax avoidance.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in fact the Treasury need not be on the defensive in this situation at all? In fact it should be congratulated on stopping widespread abuse and a proper attempt to aid the film industry. There is nothing to apologise for.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for making explicit what perhaps I was dealing with in a more rotund way.

Coal-based Technologies
11.15 a.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on coal-based technologies which can contribute to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the Government's recent energy White Paper recognised that, for security of supply reasons, coal still has a role to play in the UK's energy mix. Coal will continue to play a major part in energy production in countries such as China and India which offer business opportunities for British companies.
However, in order to meet the strict environmental requirements, coal-fired power generation must be much cleaner than it is today. To encourage this, the DTI is developing a carbon abatement technologies strategy which will take forward and expand the work
772
of the current Cleaner Coal Technologies Programme. We plan to publish the new strategy in the summer. In the mean time, we have recently published a final call for research and development proposals under the current programme, which must be worth about £4 million of government funding.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that response. Does he recall that in Grand Committee on 12 February, in response to an amendment I moved in support of new coal technologies, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
"Rather than encourage an increase in coal-based technologies we are looking to reduce the use of coal through various mechanisms"?—[Official Report, 12/2/04; col. GC 562.]
In the light of the noble Lord's Answer to my Question on the Order Paper, will be confirm that that should not be taken to mean that the Government are in any way going back on what was stated in the energy White Paper in support of clean coal technologies?
Is the noble Lord aware that the United States is spending 1 billion dollars to develop a large coal-fuelled plant with near zero emissions?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for reminding me of the discussion, held relatively recently, in Grand Committee. I confirm that we have not resiled in any respect from the energy White Paper. It was fully supportive, as the noble Lord reminded us, of cleaner coal technologies and recognised that, to exist in a low carbon world, emissions from coal use must also be reduced considerably. The Government are working with the industry to look at technologies to tackle that problem. We are still pursuing the Cleaner Coal Technologies Programme and the fourth call offering of about £4 million in support was announced in January.
I am aware that in the United States, and indeed in some other countries, large sums are being spent in the cleaner coal technologies area. My understanding of the matter, which will in no sense match the understanding of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is that their strategic reliance on these fossil fuels remains very much greater than ours.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does not the question in fact go wider than that? Has the noble Lord seen the report that last year—in 2003—the emissions of carbon dioxide actually increased by some 3 per cent, representing approximately 4.5 million tonnes more from burning fossil fuels than in 2002? Is not part of the problem the fact that the Government have now set their face against fossil fuels—and I recognise that—to the extent that they are denying help to processes like coal mine methane and combined heat and power on the grounds that these are fossil fuels, while pouring all the money into wind farms? Yet those other two technologies will reduce CO2 a great deal more than the programme of wind farms. Have the Government now got their priorities wrong?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the priorities must be right. Coal emits about twice the CO2 emissions of a natural,

773
gas-fired plant. That is plainly disadvantageous in the present circumstances in an emissions trading regime or in a regime where we are trying to protect the environment in the way that the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir David King, urged in a recent speech in Seattle, which I think was referred to in your Lordships' House only yesterday.
These are important factors. Wind generation emits none of these toxic substances into the atmosphere. These technologies are plainly directed at trying to improve the environment, which is at the moment subject to serious harm. That does not rule out the undertakings that I have given that the arguments in the energy White Paper for cleaner coal use will be sustained.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is that the technology does exist, albeit that it is being developed in countries other than the UK? Emissions can be much lower. Surely, the point is that the coalfield communities in particular have been absolutely devastated socially over the past 20 years or so. We need new developments to stimulate those communities, which in some places are now on their last legs.
In Wales, the landscape is being devastated by wind farms. Our coalfield communities are still suffering. Surely, now is the time to make a decision. We should not delay with further research and development, when the technology already exists.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, my understanding of the economics of the proposition that has just been made is that many of these technologies are not yet in a finely developed form and that they are relatively expensive. That has been somewhat of a sheet anchor in each of the instances where people are developing them. That is not an argument for not trying to develop them, but it is an argument about the relative cost of doing so. Appropriately regulated markets that can respond to changing prices in electricity should ensure that generators provide sufficient electricity to meet our needs and make rational choices about the methodology for doing so. It must be right to look at new technologies thoroughly—I fully accept that argument—but for future generations, we must balance the economics and the environment correctly.
Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Forestry Commission. I remind my noble friend that wood is a renewable, and that many of the technologies needed to burn wood are similar to those used for burning coal. Can the Minister assure me that some of the advice and some of the assistance that comes from the DTI will also apply to wood-burning power stations?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the question. I hope I have indicated on behalf of
774
the Government that we are keen to ensure that there is a diversity of sources of supply of energy, and in that light, I think that the assurance can be given.

Northern Ireland: Paramilitary Activity
11.23 a.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further policies they have for reducing loyalist and republican paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Government are determined to root out paramilitary activity. The Organised Crime Task Force has been established to develop a multi-agency approach to organised crime, which has a significant paramilitary involvement. The Assets Recovery Agency seizes the assets of those paramilitaries who profit through crime. The Independent Monitoring Commission was established to monitor and report on paramilitary activity as part of its overall remit.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord President for that reply. What are the relative numbers of loyalist as opposed to republican outrages over the past year? What arrests and charges have been made subsequently by the Police Service of Northern Ireland over the same period of loyalists and republicans respectively? Given the likely discrepancy between these two figures, what further action in addition to the Organised Crime Task Force will the Government take to alleviate the situation?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in 2003, eight murders were attributed to loyalist groups and two to republicans; 44 bombing incidents and 139 shootings to loyalists; 28 bombing incidents and 77 shootings to republicans. Of the shootings, 154 were so-called punishment attacks, with 99 attributed to loyalists and 55 to republicans. In addition, there were 148 paramilitary assaults, with 102 attributed to loyalists and 46 to republicans.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, also asked me about arrests and charges. On arrests, the information is not readily available. We are looking at this, and I am happy to write to noble Lords on the matter. On charges, in 2003, 121 persons were charged under the Terrorism Act 2000; 91 were loyalists and 29 were republicans. One as yet is unattributed. Of these, eight loyalists and one republican were charged with murder, and nine Loyalists and two republicans with attempted murder.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, will the Government formally recognise that these paramilitary activities are a cancer in society and are hindering, if not in fact completely stopping, political progress in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. The Government have made it absolutely clear that all paramilitary activity must

775
stop. It is clear from the event of a week last Friday that progress is not possible without the cessation of paramilitary activity.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, in her Answer my noble friend mentioned the Assets Recovery Agency, which I believe has been in operation for just over a year. Could she say anything about how successful that agency has been?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think that the agency has been in existence now for some 18 months. Its success in stripping criminals of their ill-gotten gains has been very good indeed, and I congratulate the assistant director on his contribution in the fight against organised crime in Northern Ireland. It is currently dealing with 20 live investigations, with combined assets of around £8 million. In six of these cases, the agency has been successful in freezing or pursuing through taxation the value of almost £2.75 million, which includes freezing assets last week in excess of £500,000.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, is the Lord President aware that recently the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland told a meeting of the Policing Board that republican and loyalist terrorist groups were ignoring the demands of the British and Irish Governments for the cessation of paramilitary activity, and furthermore that the IRA has carried out more than 50 punishment beatings and shootings over the past year. Does she agree with me—I am sure that she does not—that so far the Government's efforts to contain this have been totally ineffective? What will she do, and what will the Government do, to start to put more realism into the fight against paramilitaries in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the comments that were made by the Chief Constable. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right—I do not agree with him. As the noble Lord is aware, we have sought to look at these issues in the round. There has been some pressure on the Government, as the noble Lord knows, with respect to our assessment of the ceasefire arrangements of various paramilitary organisations. We do not make a judgment on the basis of individual incidents. Of course, the incident on 23 February does not sit well with the statements that were made by the IRA and Sinn Fein last October. We are well aware of that.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the prime difference between republican and loyalist terrorist groups is that republicans are protected by being behind the front of a recognised political party? Have the Government had any help from Mr Adams or Mr McGuinness by way of information about the organisation and activities of their private army?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will be well aware that the Government have been engaged in discussions with respect to the Belfast agreement and the review process with all the parties. We will continue to
776
do our best to bring cessation to paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. We are well aware of the impact that this is having on our ability to make progress in Northern Ireland. We want to see a cessation and the people of Northern Ireland want lasting peace.

Patents Bill [H.L.]
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to whom the Patents Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 5,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 6 to 14,

Schedules 2 and 3,

Clauses 15 and 16.—(Lord Triesman.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Anti-terrorism Review
11.30 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal) rose to move, That this House takes note of the work of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act Review Report.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in taking note of the Motion, I ask the forgiveness of the House if I pray in aid the substance of the remarks my right honourable friend the Home Secretary used in another place on 25 February, where I know that there was a detailed and balanced examination of the measures contained in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. I am confident that we will undertake this process in a like manner, and I am aware that many noble Lords will wish to contribute to the debate.
First, I thank the right honourable and noble Lord, Lord Newton, and the members of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee for their dedicated work. We in the Government all appreciate the time, energy and commitment they have put into the task that both Houses gave them in the 2001 Act.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his continuing work and his further annual report on Part 4 of the Act. This report will be of great assistance to us when we come to debate the renewal of the Part 4 powers next week. Finally, I thank the members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights for their timely report.
When we first introduced the ATCS Bill into this House, we deliberated at length and knew then that we had to face a new and unprecedented situation because of the threat posed to the very life of this nation. We

777
had to consider and debate difficult issues and balances between the need to protect the life of the nation and the need to preserve individual freedoms and rights—issues that go to the heart of our democracy.
The issues that we face now are no less difficult, two years further on. We still face the same threats and the same dilemmas. The Privy Counsellors' review has been invaluable in terms of reflecting back to us all the issues that we raised then and the way in which we have implemented the powers contained within the ATCS legislation.
Neither the Government nor the committee have shied away from the fact that this is an extremely complex area which requires us to examine carefully how we interfere with some of the most fundamental rights of individuals in order that we might protect the wider communities in which we all live and work. In this case, the balance we must strike is to find a proportionate solution that best protects us from the threat that international terrorism poses to us and to our allies while interfering as little as possible with the rights of individuals.
I cannot promise that I will have all the answers today, but as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been at pains to stress, he wishes to engage across the full spectrum of views so that we can fully consider how we ensure that we continue, both now and in the future, to have the most effective measures to fight terrorism and to deal with international terrorists.
A report of the stature of that produced by the committee demands the most careful and testing scrutiny. I can assure the House that the report has received this level of attention. The report has been one of the principal means by which the Government have been able to test the validity of their approach to counter terrorism. As such, it has been, quite frankly, invaluable.
The process of examination that we have undertaken, both in the form of statutory reviews and the ongoing internal process of ensuring that we have the necessary measures in place to protect us have demonstrated that there are no perfect solutions. Noble Lords would not expect, I think, a government to accept without reservation all the recommendations in the report, no matter how august the membership. That is the case in this report.
A significant section of the report and its recommendations dealt with the Part 4 detention powers. I will return to these in detail but it is important to be clear that while we appreciate the genuineness of the report's recommendation that these powers should be replaced as a matter of urgency, we believe that they are still necessary and proportionate and that none of the suggestions so far put forward would offer a complete or more workable alternative. While we understand the basis for some of the criticisms of these powers, they have worked and have made the United Kingdom a more hostile
778
environment for international terrorists. There are, however, other suggestions where we are in agreement with the committee, and I shall outline them shortly.
As the final document to inform our debate today, I commend to the House the discussion paper that the Government published on 25 February, which includes our formal response to the Newton committee's report.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has produced a document which outlines the threat and the challenges that we face and, against this background, invites contributions on how to deal with international terrorists and the threat they pose. The challenge is how we deal with terrorists while protecting our democratic life and maintaining our commitment to the principles of democracy, good government, justice and the presumption of innocence—the very values that they seek to undermine. The discussion must occur in an environment that allows us to address the issues calmly, sensibly and in an informed manner, as we are doing today and have done in previous debates.
The Government welcome a number of the suggestions that the committee has put forward. We are considering further the idea of specialist terrorist cash seizure hearings. Consultation on this issue is being taken forward.
The Government have agreed with the committee's recommendation that Revenue departments should include statistics on the use of disclosure of information cases under Part 3 of the ATCS Act. We have already published information relating to the individual SIAC cases and Terrorism Act arrest figures on the Home Office website, as recommended by the committee.
The Government have agreed to revisit and renew the "Australia list" in Schedule 5 of the Act. The Australia list is a common control list of dangerous pathogens and toxins, and we are happy to amend in line with the latest scientific opinion. This is in line with the recommendation made by the Newton committee.
The Government have also acknowledged the points made by the committee in relation to Special Branch facilities at airports and ports and has been working closely with the relevant authorities for some time on how the situation is to be improved.
The Government agree with the committee that there is a need for data retention for the purposes of fighting crime and, in the light of the review committee's comments, are considering whether mainstream legislation is necessary in this area. The Government agree with the committee's recommendation on Part 13 that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, should keep Section 117 of the Act under careful review. Section 117, with which I am sure noble Lords are familiar, creates an offence of withholding information relating to a terrorist incident.
For many years, governments of various hues have been subject to intense criticism for the approach they have adopted in countering terrorism. One of the constant refrains is that whatever approach the Government adopt, it is not the right and proper one. The main recommendation of the report in relation to

779
Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act was that we should, as a matter of urgency, replace them. The report states:
"New legislation should: deal with all terrorism, whatever its origin or the nationality of the suspected perpetrators; and not require a derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights".
I am afraid that there are very real difficulties in doing that. We need to look back perhaps at why we introduced those powers and the threat that we faced and, regrettably, continue to face today.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, whose responsibility it is to reach those conclusions, believes that there is a continuing threat to the nation. His decision is based on information from a wide variety of sources and is kept constantly under review, but it is a real and continuing threat.
That threat has been most succinctly described by the director-general of the security services, Eliza Manningham-Buller, who recently said:
"I see no prospect of a significant reduction in the threat posed to the UK and its interests from international terrorism over the next five years and, I fear, for a considerable number of years thereafter."
Having made reference to Eliza Manningham-Buller to illustrate my case, I echo the Home Secretary in formally recording our thanks to the Secret Intelligence Service, to the police and to all the other intelligence gathering agencies for their efforts in continuing to combat terrorism and to make the United Kingdom a safer environment. One of the principal difficulties they face is that the major part of the fight—prevention—is never seen or acknowledged. It is only in the aftermath of tragedy that we see whether a system, process or security measure has failed. My right honourable friend has the privilege and onerous duty of seeing the evidence of what they are doing and how they are doing it and of accepting the political responsibility for dealing with it.
I make no apologies for reiterating those comments or for reminding the House of examples of the atrocities that have been carried out by those whom we believe to pose a threat to the United Kingdom: in Bali, where 202 people were killed; in Casablanca, where 44 people were killed; in Riyadh, where 34 people were killed; in Jakarta, where 12 people were killed; and in Istanbul, where, at the end of last year, more than 50 people lost their lives, including our Consul-General and members of his staff.
Those are continuing threats that are taken seriously by all democratic nations, and rightly so, given the tremendous threat from Al'Qaeda, repeated by Osama bin Laden on numerous occasions. In February of last year, he said:
"We also point out that whoever supported the United States, including the hypocrites of Iraq or the rulers of Arab states, those who approved their actions and followed them in this crusade war to fighting with them or providing bases and administrative support to them or any form of support, even by words, to kill Muslims in Iraq should know that they are apostates and outside the community of Muslims. It is permissible to spill their blood and take their property".
That is a direct and continuing threat—not in theory, but in practice—to our lives, to the well being of our country, to the values that we hold and to our
780
democracy. Our assessment was, and continues to be, that the threat is predominantly, but not exclusively, from foreign nationals.
The Home Secretary asks that in our consideration of those issues, some of which are extremely important, we bear in mind the nature and level of the threat and what it means to all of us. However, like the Home Secretary, I freely admit to addressing noble Lords with some trepidation, because when this House passed the Act, we debated the substantial dangers involved in any democracy taking such powers as we did when we enabled the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, as a superior court of record chaired by a High Court judge, to deal with those cases in circumstances where we knew that information pertaining very directly to national security would have to be provided to a court. We therefore established facilities outside the normal criminal justice system.
Many Members of both Houses raised perfectly legitimate issues about the challenge that such a course of action posed to human rights and the presumption of innocence. I stress that that is not a criminal trial process. It is an immigration power designed to address the fact that the threat comes principally, but not exclusively, from foreign nationals whom we cannot deport.
I can only reiterate that we did not take that decision lightly. In all other ways, the position we are in today is not one that any of us would have chosen, but the events of September 11 have fundamentally changed both the threat and the way that we must view it. We introduced the powers in Part 4 of the Act because we believed at the time, and continue to believe, that given the nature of the continuing threat and the absence of any credible alternatives, they offer the only way of protecting our security from international terrorists and from non-British citizens whom we could not remove from this country. We have brought those measures into being as a response to the most extreme circumstances.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that we cannot remove those foreign nationals precisely because we respect international conventions and the human rights of individuals who would be put at risk if they were returned to their country of origin, where they face possible death or torture. Our desire to remain within international law led us to derogate from Article 5. That is expressly provided for under Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.
I acknowledge that the rights of individuals have been affected by our decision, but one of the primary roles of the Government is to take decisions which, while they may not be popular, they judge to be necessary to safeguard the country, so long as we remain within the law. I hesitate once again to repeat myself before the House, but we believe that the powers in Part 4 are a necessary and proportionate response to the threat we face.
I turn to a specific point raised by the Newton committee. It will come as little surprise to the House that, in the absence of any viable alternatives, we do not

781
require a derogation or accept the recommendation that the powers in Part 4 be replaced as a matter of urgency. However, as I indicated earlier, we do acknowledge that a replacement will be necessary by November 2006.
The powers remain an essential part of the UK's fight against terrorism. We believe that, on the evidence produced, the individuals concerned pose a continuing threat. The Home Secretary has used the powers sparingly to date. Sixteen people have been certified and detained, two of whom have chosen to leave the United Kingdom, as detainees are free to do at any time. One individual has been certified, but is currently detained under other powers. In addition, in practice, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has himself applied a higher test than that of "reasonable belief" required by the legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, in his second report on the operation of Sections 21 and 23 of the Act, found that the powers were used appropriately. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission has been hearing individual appeals since May last year. To date, it has heard 13, delivering determinations in 11 of them. In all 11 cases, SIAC has upheld the Home Secretary's decision to certify. I understand that all the individuals involved are seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the determination. The House will also wish to be aware that this House is to hear the detainees' appeals against derogation later this year.
The challenge in the months ahead is to explore whether we can make existing legislative measures work more within the criminal justice system. We have a wide experience of fighting terrorism that is reflected in a wide range of criminal and terrorist legislation. That has been developed from the hard-won lessons of Northern Ireland. I believe that the United Kingdom has a good track record in securing prosecutions of terrorists directly under terrorist legislation. However, the position that we face now is a very different one.
The challenge that we face post 11 September 2001, and will face again as we debate the issue in the months ahead, is how to deal with circumstances in which prosecution and detention are not viewed as a discouragement, where we pre-empt the actions being taken by those for whom prosecution and punishment hold no fear. There are no norms when dealing with the suicide terrorism generated by Al'Qaeda and the networks working with it, in the way that there were in the past with terrorist groups that had a negotiating position and whose members sought to preserve their own lives, even if they endeavoured to take the lives of others.
The Newton committee has sought to address the issues, for which we are grateful. Among the ways suggested by the committee—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister in full flow, but I wonder whether in her opening speech she will address the strong concerns expressed by the unanimous Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, in addition to the Newton committee. Will she also explain why the Government
782
have rejected all the main Newton committee proposals with regard to Part 4, or will she deal with that by way of reply at the end of the debate?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I shall deal with them fully by reply. I do touch on those issues; I have already explained the basis on which we took the view that the derogation was appropriate. It was very much based on the very lengthy debates that we had before the Act was passed. The situation has not, regrettably, changed—and I do say regrettably. It would have been a hope and expectation of all of us that we may have been in a slightly happier position in that regard than that in which we find ourselves. However, as I have said throughout my opening remarks, that is the reality in which we find ourselves.
Among the ways suggested by the committee was whether one could take the lesser criminal offence. We shall explore that matter, and noble Lords will know that the committee raised that issue. There are profound questions: can we get in at the sharp end, and can we pick up the low-level criminality that is associated with terrorism? Those are not proposals but issues that we want to hear from people about. There are a lot of issues that we need to debate. The Newton report, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made other suggestions for dealing with low-level terrorist activity and association. Some legislative measures have been implemented abroad, long before 11 September. We shall consider those measures. While those examples might help to deal with low-level support activities, they could not offer an effective substitute for the protection offered by Part 4 powers.
We are currently conducting a review that will address the use of the intercept evidence and whether it can be admissible in court proceedings. That is one issue flagged up by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. We invite views on that, and other suggestions, in terms of responding to the challenges set out in the discussion paper. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been at pains to stress that this is an open invitation, with only one proviso. The proposals must offer the population of the United Kingdom the most appropriate level of protection commensurate with the level and type of threat with which we are faced. As for the timing of any replacement measures, I would not wish to mislead the House by offering any false deadlines. What I can do is to reiterate that the existing powers offer the United Kingdom a level of protection for which there are currently no satisfactory alternatives. These, however, must be replaced by 10 November 2006, and the debate that we have entered into will inform that process.
Before I end, there is one point on which we must all be clear. As I have said elsewhere, the Government's fundamental duty in this matter is to protect their citizens. We do not claim that the powers that the Act introduced in Part 4 are perfect, but we suggest that they have been effective in addressing a specific threat that we faced at a specific time—a threat that is still with us today. We strongly believe that we have powers that offer a proportionate and measured response to the threat that we face.

783
I do not doubt that there will be many noble Lords who wish to raise other issues relating to Part 4. I shall attempt to respond to those issues as fully as I can in the course of the debate. There will no doubt be many other points relating to the other measures in the Act. Again, I shall endeavour to respond as fully as I can to these points.
I formally commend the Motion to the House and thank noble Lords for the attention that they have given to these difficult and sometimes uncomfortable issues, and for the way in which they have approached them and, I am sure, will do in this debate. We in the Government look forward to a stimulating debate over the coming months and sincerely hope that those who wish to take part will rise to the challenge of coming forward with ideas that will help us to address the concerns that they raise with us and deal with the very real national security concerns that it is our duty to tackle.
Moved, That this House takes note of the work of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act Review Report.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
11.56 a.m.
Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords, it is particularly important that the Minister moved the Motion, because, as I was going to start by saying, it would be slightly disingenuous of me to welcome the debate in view of the fact that it is virtually essential for the Government to pass the Motion. Under Section 123 of the Act, the result of our report is that the whole Act would disappear into thin air were it not debated by this House. I say that in no spirit of suggesting that force majeure was necessary, as we actually made the recommendation in those broad terms. We decided that it was more sensible not to pick and choose bits of the Act, but to recognise that the Government would have a debate and to designate the whole Act for that purpose. Whether or not it is disingenuous to do so, I undoubtedly welcome the opportunity that the debate provides and the spirit in which the Minister spoke.
The first thing that I must do is to pay tribute to my fellow members of the committee, not only for the amount of time and effort that they put in but for the totally non-partisan way in which they approached the matter. Indeed, at one point I contemplated following the example of the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, when speaking about the BBC the other day, and going to a different part of the House to emphasise that point. On the committee there were nine Privy Counsellors, consisting of two former Conservative Ministers, of whom of course I was one, three former Labour Ministers, including a former Secretary of State, a senior Labour Back-Bencher, two widely respected Liberal Democrats and a distinguished Law Lord. Our conclusions and recommendations were unanimous. As I said when the report was published, I do not believe that if the proverbial fly on the wall had been present at our deliberations, he or she would have been able to tell which of us was coming from which direction, and which was our partisan allegiance. They might possibly have detected that the noble and learned Lord,
784
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, was the Law Lord, but as for the mere politicians, I believe that they would have found it difficult to sort us out.
Against our collegiate and consensual background, I find it mildly ironic that the report has been so often short-handed as the "Newton report". That kind of imperialist grandeur is something that I tried to avoid, successfully for the most part, throughout my ministerial career. However, I seem to have got stuck with it on this one, no doubt because of the length of the alternative, which is the Privy Counsellor Review Committee on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act Review Report.
There was one other matter on which the committee was and is united: our appreciation of the heroic efforts of our small secretariat, comprising Angela Harris, John Pavel, Alan Pitt and Shabs Hariff. Anyone who has had the time to read the report as a whole will marvel at the amount that was done by only four people in the secretariat to support and help us. The amount and quality of their work was exemplary and the support that they provided to us was exemplary. Lastly, and to some possibly a little surprisingly, I would like also to thank the people from the Home Office, not least, and elsewhere in Whitehall, who contributed to our work. Whatever they thought or think of our report, they gave us a great deal of assistance in completing it.
I had initially anticipated that this might be a Select Committee-type debate in which my task would be to set out our stall. In fact, for reasons that I understand and do not complain about, it has taken a slightly different form. In any case, it would have been neither possible nor appropriate for me to deal in any detail with all 14 parts of the Act or all the nearly 60 conclusions set out on pages 10–17 of our report. We continue to hope that the Government are listening but no doubt it can be argued that the committee has had its say and should now itself listen as much as talk. Nevertheless I think it right, as chairman of the committee and in the context of this debate, that I should take a few minutes to set out what I see as the main thrust of the report.
I want to emphasise that there is no difference between the committee and the Minister, or indeed the Home Secretary in another place, in their views of the fact that there is a problem and of its overall nature. We took the view that it would be prudent to assume that the terrorist threat is of a nature that may warrant special legislation and that it is likely to be with us for a number of years to come. In considering whether particular measures were justified, we took as our starting points the rights of the individual to privacy and liberty and the duty of the state to maintain security, as did the Government, although we did not always reach the same conclusions. The nub of the issue, as the Minister said, is to ensure that the balance between those two imperatives is properly struck in cases where they conflict.
In general, we felt that, where possible, the mainstream criminal justice system should apply to terrorism, just as it does to crime that is motivated by more conventional objectives, such as self-enrichment, although many

785
terrorists may commit such crimes. This may be a point of difference from some of the things that have been said by the Government. We recognised that special antiterrorism law can be justified because of the way that terrorists operate, which makes them hard to catch and convict, and because of the risks that they pose. It needs to be principled and properly considered and to command broad support. We consider—this is the possible point of difference—that emergency anti-terrorist legislation, or even anti-terrorist legislation designed to last over a longer period, which is what we are really talking about now, should be segregated from the mainstream criminal justice law and should be accompanied by proper safeguards so that the balance between the rights of the individual and the need to maintain security can be preserved.
I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in his place, which I very much welcome, as I welcomed the supportive comments that he made both during our deliberations and following the publication of our report. I mention the noble and learned Lord principally to observe that at the time that the Terrorism Act 2000 was passed the Government appeared to take the view that the right approach was anti-terrorism legislation that was separate and distinct, self-standing but linked in some ways with other legislation. We set this out on pages 28–33 of our report. The committee felt that it continued to be the right approach and that what the Government argued in relation to that Act is just as valid now as it was then.
The background to the report, and therefore to this debate, was the concern in this House at the time that the Act was passed that led to debate, I think, in the middle of the night. At any rate, the insertion into the Bill at a very late stage of the clause that led to our establishment gave the House some reassurance that there would be a review. That is what produced our report.
There is no point in me, any more than the Minister, disguising the fact that the most controversial and difficult issue raised by the Act is Part 4, which makes provision for cases where there is persuasive intelligence that a foreigner has links to Al'Qaeda but it is not useable in court, so that he cannot be prosecuted and where, although he is a foreigner, the authorities judge that it would not be possible to deport him, for the reasons on which the Minister touched. I have no doubt that a lot of the debate today will focus on Part 4. The Minister also made the point that it is well known that, since it is contrary to the right to liberty under the European Convention on Human Rights to detain someone pending deportation if there is no real prospect of deporting him, Part 4 effectively disapplies the right to liberty in this context and so requires a derogation.
We currently have an immigration-based framework for detaining without charge, potentially indefinitely, a narrow group of foreign suspects who it is thought cannot be prosecuted and who cannot be deported. This is the point that concerned us, which was acknowledged by the Minister. I continue to feel that this gives rise to several general issues which need to be addressed and I
786
am not entirely comforted by what the Minister said today or by what the Secretary of State said in another place last week.
First, there is the fundamental question of whether the best thing to do with these people is to move them to somewhere else. It has been made even more of a question by the emphasis that the Minister placed today on incidents taking place abroad, some of them involving Britons and British property. Is this a sensible approach? It is a fundamental question because it is the basis on which this law stands. It is immigration law and it rests on the proposition that if someone can go somewhere else—and as we know, two individuals have chosen to do so—then that is the best outcome. I question that.
The second point is how the threat from British nationals suspected of involvement in extreme Islamist terrorism is handled by the authorities. How can that be tackled? I imagine that it will arise in the case of anyone returning from Guantanamo Bay. It would be interesting to hear more about how that is to be addressed. Although the Minister this afternoon put heavy emphasis on "predominantly but not exclusively" and then I think that she said "principally but not exclusively", I need to remind the House that we touch on this point in paragraph 193 of the report, where we say:
"The British suicide bombers who attacked Tel Aviv in May 2003. Richard Reid ("the Shoe Bomber"), and recent arrests suggest that the threat from UK citizens is real. Almost 30% of Terrorism Act 2000 suspects in the past year have been British. We have been told that, of the people of interest to the authorities because of their suspected involvement in international terrorism, nearly half are British nationals".
There is a real question there that I have not heard clearly addressed.
Then there is the third large question of why no other country has found it necessary to derogate from the ECHR in order to deal with extreme Islamist terrorism. I must add that, having read the document published a week ago and the two sections on how these matters were handled in France and Germany, it seemed to me that that question got larger rather than smaller. It needs to be addressed.
In the report we also touch on a range of questions on more specific issues relating to the fairness of the appeal and review procedure that currently operates. For the reasons set out on pages 48–62 of our report, we concluded that the shortcomings of the system are sufficiently serious for us to recommend that it should be replaced, as the Minister said, as a matter of urgency by one that is better able to meet the full extent of the threat and would be more acceptable in human rights terms.
We can, no doubt, debate at length the precise meaning of "matter of urgency". My experience of British government is such as to know that "urgency" in dealing with this kind of thing is not a matter of next week or even next month but of a longer period of time. The point is that we feel that the issue needs to be addressed urgently and as soon as possible. I do not know whether all members of my committee would agree with that slight rephrasing, but I think that that

787
is the thrust of what we had in mind. As noble Lords who have read the report will know, and as indicated in the Minister's speech, we made a number of suggestions on the elements of a possible successor system, including, of course, reference to the possible ending—we think desirable ending—of the ban on the use of intercepts in court, on which the Government's review appears to be taking an interminably long time.
I should emphasise, however, that we do not see any one of these measures on its own as an alternative. We felt that a range of measures in some combination—perhaps with others that we did not think of but that the Government may be able to come up with—could form the basis of a more satisfactory approach.
Although I have concentrated on Part 4, as other speakers in the debate may well do, there are many other provisions here that apply in general to crime and security, and in particular to extra powers for the police, to disclosure and to a range of other things. Those have had relatively little attention so far, but I hope they will have a bit more in this debate. In most cases we felt that the powers were largely justified, but in several—notably the information disclosure provisions—we felt that additional safeguards were required. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, wants to say more about that issue later in the debate. In general, we felt that, over time, as opportunity arises, most of these provisions should be more clearly incorporated in what we have put in shorthand as "mainstream" legislation.
I shall not attempt to discuss further those other matters now because it would take too much time. However, I should like to make one brief comment on Section 124 of the Act—which appears to me, and appeared to the committee, to be the ultimate Henry VIII power, and which I think will become even more difficult to justify in the context of longer-lasting legislation. In my view, it is not very justifiable at present.
The committee, like the Minister today, set out to be balanced, considered and constructive, recognising the real difficulties faced by the Government and not pretending, any more than the Minister did, that there were quick or easy answers. I hope that the House will feel that we successfully reflected that approach. We were, of course, somewhat disappointed by the tone of the Home Secretary's initial response and, in many ways, of the document published last week—a document which I am bound to say bore all the marks of being rather hastily cobbled together. However, just as the committee sought to concentrate not on complaining about how the legislation was passed in the first place but on how to get something better for the future, so I prefer to concentrate not on that, but on building on the far more constructive tone adopted by the Home Secretary in another place last week and, notably, by the Minister in this House today.
I can perhaps convey something of the flavour of that by quoting from part of what the Home Secretary said last week. He said:
"I intend to have extensive consultation over six months, in which we will invite Members of Parliament"—
788
I assume that "Members of Parliament" includes Members of this House—
"the public and those with a specific interest to come forward and to build on the propositions in the reports that I have mentioned and the challenges that we put in our paper".—[Official Report, Commons 25/2/04; col. 298.]
The Home Secretary made it clear that part of his purpose was not to wait until we are within a few months of the sunset clause that would put paid to Part 4 in November 2006, but to have a properly considered way forward worked out well in advance. That echoed the phrasing which I also very much welcomed in the document published last week. At page ii, it states:
"I therefore hope that this document will begin a wider debate over the next months. It is important"—
this is the point I want to emphasise—
"that this process should be inclusive and genuinely consultative".
I agree with that in spades.
Whatever the differences between us, and I have to acknowledge that there seem to be quite a number of them, I welcome the fuller opportunity for reflection, consideration and greater engagement, both with Parliament and with other stakeholders, which I believe is essential if we are to achieve a more broadly acceptable, and therefore more sustainable, approach than it appears to the committee and myself that we have yet achieved.
The fact that the Government are now looking ahead in this more considered way and at least acknowledging the need to address some of the questions we asked is itself a significant advance on anything we detected during our review. I think that all of us who took part in it will welcome that. We shall not, of course, be able to take part as a committee, because we no longer exist; our secretariat, having published our report on 18 December, had disappeared by 21 December. However, I am sure that we shall seek to take part as individuals, as no doubt will other noble Lords to whose contributions we look forward today.
12.16 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I should—and I do so very willingly—pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, his committee and its staff. As has been pointed out, that committee was very much a creation of this House and a condition for passage of the original Act. I can only say that it has done us proud. I associate those remarks also with the work of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, whose report is also under review today.
My starting point may seem a rather odd place—it is the south Pacific, or, more particularly, the film "South Pacific". At one point, the doomed hero in that film, Joe Cable, says, "I know what I am fighting against—what are we fighting for?" Roosevelt and Churchill very wisely recognised that point during the course of the Second World War when they put into the Atlantic Charter the four freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom from want and freedom from fear. They recognised that it was important that people knew what they were fighting for. It is worth reminding

789
ourselves that, in that respect, we are fundamentalists, too. We believe in those four freedoms, not just for ourselves but for all humanity.
Of course, we also believe in parliamentary democracy. At a moment of exasperation during the Second World War, Churchill described Nye Bevan as "a squalid nuisance". But he never questioned his right to harry and probe, even in war time.
I think that this House fully understands and appreciates the heavy burden that Ministers carry in this area. Defence of the realm is the first duty of government. In Britain we have managed to combine ministerial responsibility for national security with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. However, we need to keep under constant review the issue of whether we are getting that balance right. We on these Benches recognise the tensions and conflict in our position. As the Minister rightly says, if a terrorist outrage occurred, the first questions we would ask are how it happened, why, and what went wrong. Yet we also want to safeguard human rights, civil liberties, privacy and the rest. This review gives us the opportunity to examine whether we are getting the balance right.
I think the House recognises, and we certainly did in 2001, that there are dangers in emergency powers; there is a danger of shelf clearing, to which I shall return later. There is also the danger of what I would describe as elephant dust: a man is spreading powder outside his house and his neighbour asks what he is doing. He says, "This is elephant dust to keep the elephants away". His neighbour says, "There isn't an elephant for 3,000 miles." "Effective, isn't it!", the man says. There is always the danger of slipping into legislation powers that appear to defend us but are rather illusory.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, looking at the operations of the Act from his position, gave the Act a clean bill of health, but even he said,
"Continuing scrutiny should be given to possible alternatives to detention and to the consequences of the sunset provisions in 2006".
In other words, he advised—and I hope that the Minister's reply today indicates—that the time between now and 2006 has to be used constructively. As the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has indicated, his committee was less enthusiastic, particularly about powers under Part 4.
As your Lordships will see from the speakers' list, I have an array of QCs behind me—the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart, Lord Lester and Lord Thomas of Gresford—who will be making their contributions later. But the key point to remember is that this is a high-grade review, built into the statute as a condition of its being passed in the first place. I well remember the debates and why the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was given his responsibilities and why this special committee of Privy Counsellors was set up. As the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has emphasised, what they came up with was a package of proposals to identify and remedy concerns and weaknesses but with no approach of finding a single magic solution.
790
Therefore, without dwelling on it, it is a matter of regret that the initial response from the Government and the Home Secretary looked like an exercise in rapid rebuttal and a pitch for renewal of Part 4 powers in advance of a proper discussion. If we are to have this new, constructive approach, I urge the Home Secretary in particular to match his conciliatory words with similar action. I urge the Government to use this debate and next week's on renewal for second or even third thoughts. They must realise that the British people are instinctively against detention without trial. They are uncomfortable with the UK requiring a derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights, and they do not like what we call "Henry VIII" clauses to amend without further legislation. As the report states:
"The powers of amendment … are particularly unwelcome in emergency legislation of this kind, and should be repealed".
I think the man in the street sees the anomaly that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, referred to, that these provisions apply to foreigners but not to equally dangerous British nationals.
Let us learn a few lessons. We should beware of what I call "parliamentary bounce". Paragraph 333 of the report states:
"Some of these provisions appear to have been included in counter-terrorist legislation in order to take advantage of its accelerated passage and limited scrutiny, in order to avoid the difficulties which had previously been experienced in securing parliamentary approval".
That is the shelf clearing that I referred to earlier. The Home Office, among all departments, is the most adept at that.
As the first contributions indicated, this is not a matter of party political difference. We accept that a real and present danger to national security is posed by Al'Qaeda and similar terrorist groups. We accept that there is information about terrorism and terrorists which requires protection on national security grounds and to protect operatives who are gaining intelligence on our behalf. We accept that intercepts and surveillance of communications are of increasing importance. I echo the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, into what is happening to discussions with the industry and others on a code on this matter. But we urge the Government—this will be a recurring message from this House—not to retreat into a bunker or to see parliamentary scrutiny as an exercise by "squalid nuisances". We have to be partners in getting the balance right between now and 2006 which allows counter-terrorism to be more securely based, both within due process of law and under proper parliamentary scrutiny. As the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, stated:
"Our starting point is that the ordinary criminal justice system and established security methods must remain the preferred approach to tackling the crime of terrorism".
That does not rule out special courts or changes to the approach to intercepts as evidence, or as my noble friend Lord Carlile suggests, a new offence of "acts preparatory to terrorism". What we need to do is to make that balanced judgment.

791
The Minister referred to the work of the security services. I think that we all recognise that this is a difficult, dangerous and often lonely task that they undertake on our behalf. It is also true that their work has been made much more difficult by the change in nature of the threat since Cold War days. I draw the Minister's attention to a letter I had from the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies, which stated,
"There are too few graduates in Middle East studies and languages to meet the needs of government and NGOs … The cadre of experts in Middle East and Islam in the UK is dwindling'',
and that the "UK is declining" compared with other countries in investing in Middle Eastern and central Asian languages. I wonder how that ties in with getting our security services prepared for this different kind of threat.
I also ask Ministers to beware. I was a little worried when the Home Secretary announced 1,000 extra recruits to MI5. If you expand a security service rapidly you have to be very careful that mavericks do not slip through the net. While piling the praise on the security services, our history since the Second World War is not entirely without blemish and there are dangers that government and Parliament should remain alert to. During this process I hope we can review again whether parliamentary surveillance of the security services is right and proper to the needs. The intelligence committee could be set up as a full parliamentary committee. Perhaps we could even reconvene the Committee of Privy Counsellors of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, although the security of Privy Counsellors is not always what it used to be.
I conclude by repeating what my colleague Alan Beith said:
"Many of the recommendations go far beyond terrorism, and I therefore put in a very strong plea for the extension of the spirit of consensus". —[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/04; col. 348.]
That is my message and the appeal I make from these Benches. The final call on national security must be with the Ministers of the day and it is a heavy burden that they carry. But in this area, above all, consensus and national unity are essential if we are to make clear both what we are fighting against and what we are fighting for.
12.29 p.m.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, chairman of the committee to which I also belonged, said, I was the only non-politician in that body. It was a position which I often found awkward, not improved by the fact that I was also the only lawyer.
That said, I hope that note will be taken of the constitution of the committee. It covered the whole spectrum apolitical belief from right to left. It was not comprised of a bunch of wets and this was not an emotional bleeding heart response. The committee comprised a group of people who one would not always expect to agree, nor, indeed, did they to begin with, but they came to agree. That in itself is to my mind a matter of great importance because they demonstrated in a semi-representative way an attitude that there must be some limit to the extent to which the
792
security of the majority trumps the need to treat the few fairly. At the end of the day, we all of us thought that detention under Part 4 was not a tolerable system in a civilised community.
That said, I do not propose to say much about Part 4 because I know that it is the subject on which everyone else would speak; I also have an interest in Part 3. However, I am immensely encouraged by the recent changes in position that have been forthcoming. One of the significant things that struck a number of us during our inquiry was that, apparently, no steps, or very limited steps, were being taken to examine alternatives to Part 4. It was just allowed to drag on. The ideas in our report—good, bad or indifferent as you may think them to be—were self-generated ideas based on evidence brought before us. They were not matters under consideration by the Home Office, and for that reason if for no other I believe that the committee has done valuable work; namely, that it examined the matter to see whether there were any alternatives. Let us hope that that is of help.
I move on to Part 3. I am sure that it is very familiar to all your Lordships, but I remind the House that Part 3 conferred powers on a certain number of authorities under Section 17 and, more importantly, on the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise under Section 19, to disclose confidential information which they had received under statutory powers. Noble Lords may know—I hope they consider that this is the case—that in the past the Revenue has been scrupulous in the preservation of confidence regarding what is communicated to it. What is introduced by Section 19 is a power for the Revenue to disclose the information in your tax return and mine to the security forces and the police. If that power to disclose had been limited so as to make available information required for anti-terrorist purposes, I think that few people would have objected. But your Lordships may remember that there was an earlier Bill in 2001, about which your Lordships made some difficulty, which contained those exact powers to disclose information. Your Lordships objected to them and, in order to get the Bill through, the Government withdrew the clauses conferring those powers. Then when they introduced this anti-terrorism Act under pressure of time, they put straight back into it the clauses they had just withdrawn from the earlier Bill. In both cases, the clauses empower the Revenue to disclose information if it is required for the investigation of crime.
That was to my mind a fairly extraordinary thing to do. Under the powers as now inserted the Revenue can be called upon to disclose information relating to any criminal investigation in the UK and in relation to certain investigations outside the UK. That is subject to the requirements of the Human Rights Act, which requires the powers to be exercised proportionately.
The fact is that now, for the first time, we ordinary individuals are faced with having information disclosed in a tax return or a Customs and Excise form, however trivial the crime under consideration. That is a major incursion into our freedom. The case has nothing to do with terrorism. The Government said initially that it was necessary to have the power in order to make the terrorism legislation work

793
properly—that it could not be limited to terrorism—but our inquiries never disclosed any reason why that was so. It remains the position that these rights to demand information are there to be exercised by the criminal authorities.
I hope that I shall be forgiven for quoting the only statistics we have on the matter. The Revenue has immaculately kept records of its disclosures. Apparently, no other government department has done so, despite the gross intrusion involved. Out of just 20,000 disclosures made by the Inland Revenue in a period of nine months in 2002, murder accounted for 821, 4 per cent; sex offences, some of which were linked to Operation Ore— which is the large American investigation—accounted for 9,157; drug offences accounted for 4,848; terrorism accounted for 701—that is, 4 per cent of the total disclosures related to terrorism—financial offences accounted for 3,390; violent crime accounted for 372 and others for 620. It is quite clear that the confidential information is not being used, even primarily, for anti-terrorism purposes. The use of those statistics in relation to terrorist offences is minuscule.
I had hoped that we might get a more positive response on that aspect of the matter and I still have hopes regarding the noble Baroness's reply. However, I suggest that this is a matter that we should look at as a general matter of principle. We recommended in the report that anti-terrorist legislation should be kept separate from mainstream legislation. I am sure that some people would say that a similar right to disclose confidential information should exist in relation to sex offences. On the other hand, few people would say that there should be a right to disclosure of confidential information in relation to driving offences, and yet that right exists however trivial the crime under investigation.
This is a truly constitutional point and very distinguished constitutional lawyers are present who will put me right if I am wrong. The whole basis of the English constitution is that the Government can do nothing more than any private individual unless Parliament so authorises. Therefore, every time we in Parliament give extra powers of this kind, we are pro tanto cutting down the freedoms of the individual in a way that is irremediable. Under the Human Rights Act, nothing can be justified by government if it is an unlawful act. What this measure is doing is to render lawful what was previously unlawful. I hope that your Lordships will one way or another find some way in which this matter can be investigated so as to get rid of what strikes me at least as a gross anomaly, and to try to see that these excessive powers are not in future given quite so freely.
12.40 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I start by paying tribute, as did the noble Lord, Lord Newton, to the support that we received from our small but perfectly formed secretariat and the help and devotion that they gave to the task, which was extremely difficult, not least because of the diverse nature of the members of the committee. That posed particular problems for its
794
chairman and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for the way in which he navigated a difficult course, held us together and produced a unanimous report. I am sorry that he did not come to sit on these Benches, because I could then have called him "my noble friend". As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, said, it was a unanimous report from diverse individuals from diverse backgrounds. That is a reflection that I hope the Government will take to heart when they embark upon the discussion that they have initiated.
I am particularly glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brown-Wilkinson, for two reasons. First, he was the only non-politician on the committee. I believe that it was something of a culture shock for him to sit with us over 15 months and there were matters that he found truly shocking—culturally or otherwise—in some of the attitudes that were expressed. Equally there were times when it was refreshing and stimulating for politicians to hear his clearly articulated views—and the House has heard them today. He and I might find ourselves possessing different degrees of "wetness" on some of the issues. What we agreed upon was the way they should be treated by Parliament and the importance of separating out terrorist legislation from non-terrorist legislation, as the noble and learned Lord described. I shall speak for a moment or two on that, before moving on to other matters.
I, too, thank my noble friend the Minister for the tone that she adopted in introducing this debate. But she will forgive me if I say that she, of all Ministers, is the most adept at spinning gold from straw in some areas. She managed to find for us many extremely minor recommendations from our committee with which the Government could agree. When one examines the fundamentals, if one looks at not the tone but the words of the discussion document, I am afraid that their words are dismissive, although the tone may be conciliatory. We have a job to do over the next six months to change the words as well as the tone. We may have made a start in another place in a debate last week and I hope that we shall continue that in your Lordships' House today and beyond.
However, I am afraid that on all three issues that I want to deal with today, the Government have set their stand against that of the committee. The first issue is that of mainstreaming, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, referred in terms of disclosure of information. He made that case clearly, but there were many other areas of the Act where we considered that the provisions were sufficiently detached from the immediate terrorist threat or sufficiently wide-ranging to warrant ordinary parliamentary scrutiny, not the accelerated procedures that were available to the House under emergency legislation.
As well as the disclosure of information provisions, there were also provisions relating to the aggravation of certain offences by religious hatred—a deeply contentious, important subject which needs the most careful scrutiny; there were the police powers regarding fingerprinting and removal of disguises; and there was the extension of the powers of the British

795
Transport Police. I would not contend that the wrong thing was being done in any of those areas. We would readily reach agreement that paedophilia was a sufficiently important offence to warrant that type of disclosure of information. But we ought to debate that issue separately. It is not simply an academic point; it is important, given that we legislators may again face an emergency situation. We may be asked again to shift the balance between individual liberties and national security and we should be reassured that when we do that it is laid down in the narrowest terms possible.
I am not trying to bring an enormous legislative burden and distortion to the Government framework and its legislative programme, most of which would end up on the shoulders of my noble friend, as it always does. However, a commitment to mainstreaming and to taking those opportunities whenever possible is an important commitment that the Government should make.
The Home Office also gave a dismissive response to the provisions in Section 124. I was shocked by their wide-ranging nature, which I did not understand when we passed them. Anything in the Act could be amended or repealed—and indeed in other legislation—by statutory instrument using the negative resolution procedure. The House was not told that, because the Home Office memorandum that was sent to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said that the provisions would be considered using the affirmative resolution procedure. I do not suggest that there was any ill will or malevolence; I believe that a mistake was made. In fact those provisions are all subject to the negative resolution procedure. As we understood the matter, our own committee, whose deliberations were central to the reason why the House agreed to the Bill, could have been abolished by a statutory instrument using the negative resolution procedure.
I am not for a moment suggesting that the Home Secretary would have thought of doing that. But it is not right that those arrangements remain on the statute book in relation to legislation of such importance. Equally, I assume that the same would apply to the sunset clause. We all assume that the sunset clause is there, but it could be changed using not primary legislation but a statutory instrument and the negative resolution procedure. My noble friend may tell me that I am wrong, but that is my understanding.
However, in the problem we have the solution. An easy legislative mechanism is currently available to the Home Secretary: using a statutory instrument approved by the negative resolution procedure, the arrangement could be changed to one involving the affirmative resolution procedure. He could table that, make the disbenefit into a benefit and we could all sleep easier in our legislative beds. I hope that my noble friend will take that as a constructive suggestion.
I turn to the central conundrum with which our committee wrestled for a long time—the threat posed by an individual against whom there is the gravest suspicion of involvement in actions preparatory to terrorist activity; where there is a mosaic of reports and
796
intelligence that builds up a case that a reasonable individual would believe to be substantive; but that does not currently provide admissible evidence in criminal proceedings. Do those circumstances—where, as a result of terrorism, all of us are enemy combatants and where the Government have an enormous responsibility for the protection of society—warrant divergence from the normal criminal procedure and normal evidential standards? In relation to other circumstances—other crimes and instances of terrorism—there may be the deepest of suspicions but we know that it may be impossible to mount a prosecution. In my view, yes, those circumstances do justify that. It is overwhelmingly a responsibility for a government to protect their citizens from terrorism, and I do not think that one can be absolutely purist in saying that we will never change the evidential or juridical framework in which we look at these cases.
On the question of whether Part 4 provides the best balance we can achieve between protecting the rights of the individual suspect and the safety of all citizens, my answer is "no" for two different reasons. My noble friend said that Part 4 was "necessary and proportionate". If it is necessary to protect us from this level of threat from non-UK nationals, it is also necessary to protect us from this level of threat posed by UK nationals. If that is so, we must have measures competent to deal with UK nationals as well as non-UK nationals.
I have grave reservations about the idea of exporting terrorism—that the best way to deal with this sort of threat from a non-UK national is deportation. That is because, of the sad litany that my noble friend put forward of deaths from terrorism and UK nationals involved, all of them have taken place outside the United Kingdom. I am not comfortable with the idea that people who are this much of a threat are able to pursue their activities outside the UK or—because we know the problems of identity fraud—that they can then come back under another identity and work within the United Kingdom. Criminal prosecution must be a more satisfactory approach. We must try and facilitate criminal prosecution, and there are a number of ways we can do that. There are suggestions in our report, in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and in the discussion document.
On the discussion document, I fear we may get a whole range of other additional measures—such as inchoate offences, bringing surveillance evidence into court, the use of intercepts, possible aggravation of offences linked to terrorism, possible restraining orders that would be followed by detention as a criminal offence—as well as, instead of or as an alternative to Part 4. We should not believe that there will be one single measure that will deal with all these suspects. We need a range of measures in the armoury. One of those measures will be additional surveillance and additional resources for the security services, and that is why I welcome what has been done in that area. Those are the measures that are being used at the moment against UK citizens, because Part 4 is not available.

797
En passant, I point out that it is important that we do not look only at the nature of the threat and fail to take account of the nationality of the threatener or their political allegiance. Another point that was not well understood during the passage of the provisions through your Lordships' House was that our derogation—these powers—deal only with terrorism related to Al'Qaeda. I do not know what has happened since I heard the news about France today. If there were a threat from a new group that did not have established links to Al'Qaeda, even if they were foreign nationals, Part 4 and this legislation would not be a satisfactory way of dealing with them. That is another reason why I do not believe the legislation deals with the necessity of the situation. We need a basis in law which will provide for the future threat, as well as the past threat. It is our responsibility to ensure that it is there.
I turn to proportionality: whether what we are doing in terms of detention without trial of non-UK citizens is proportionate. I thought it interesting that when the equality issue was discussed in the document published by the Home Office, the Home Secretary said,
"it would be possible to seek other powers to detain British citizens who may be involved in international terrorism. It would be a very grave step. The Government believes that such draconian powers would be difficult to justify".
I agree with that. But, actually, for the purposes of Part 4, foreign nationals are exactly the same as British nationals because they cannot be deported. They are people who have no alternative place to go and who cannot be taken elsewhere. If this is too draconian for UK nationals, I suggest that it is also too draconian for non-UK nationals.
I have spoken for too long. I urge the Government to look very carefully at a way in which we could substitute—I pay tribute to the SIAC process—what is a thorough, responsible, careful, detailed and fair review of an administrative decision based on reasonable belief. I refer to the need to change from a judicial review of an administrative decision to a fair trial, which is said to be non-negotiable in the introduction to the discussion document, that is conducted, perhaps, under very different circumstances, with many of the frameworks that are in place in the SIAC review, but which is actually a trial of whether someone has committed an offence, rather than the review of an administrative decision.
12.58 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it is not inappropriate to attempt to recall the atmosphere in the Chamber in the autumn of 2001. I had been in France on September 11, and received a phone call from my daughter, advising me to turn on my television set. There, unusually—I think uniquely—we saw the dreadful events of that awful terrorist act taking place live. Generally speaking, fortunately, we are spared a live programme on terrorist events. The cameras come later, and show only the consequences. We all have our own memories of that situation, but it did create a fairly unique atmosphere in the Chamber. Because, of course, any government whose first responsibility is the security of the nation for which
798
they are responsible were bound to review their security-related legislation. It had to happen. Not only were they bound to review it, but there would have been immense pressure on them to be seen to be doing something and to be seen to be doing it quickly. Those factors were very much in play as we considered the Bill.
Consideration of that Bill was unlike that of most Bills, which I find to be a learning curve. It was like the ascent of a precipice: it was hard work all the way and we were going up almost vertically. There was immense pressure to agree.
In fact, there was general agreement on all sides of the House that much of the Bill was necessary, but there was also much disagreement over many points of detail. It was a highly contentious Bill, but the insertion of Clauses 122 and 123 were essential. To corrupt an old phrase, we were in danger of legislating in haste and repenting at leisure.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Newton and his committee, who had the task of reviewing the Act. The outcome is the complete justification of the insertion of those clauses. I would go so far as to say that the whole legislative process would probably be improved if every Bill had within it a clause requiring a review of fitness for purpose two years later. I do not apologise to my noble friend that he had to undertake the task. He was somewhat rueful when he reported to me that he had been "landed" with it. But he and his committee have served Parliament and the country well in the job they have done.
It is unsurprising that the report reflects in a remarkably good way the tenor of much of the debate that took place on the Bill that autumn. It was emergency legislation. There was a recognition that it might be flawed and that perhaps the drafting was not perfect. Those considerations were continually present during the debate. But also present was the need to gain agreement and to get something done. I take that to be the reason lying behind the report's consistent refrain that it would be better if many such matters, if not all, could be dealt with by consolidation into regular legislation.
That concern was expressed during the passage of the Bill and I remember it being argued on various subjects. If the Government take note of the committee's recommendations, that is the most significant. We should be past the stage where emergency legislation is seen to become permanent. We should put it into general legislation around which these matters are dealt with.
It is also unsurprising that the committee devoted most of its paper and a great deal of its time to Part 4 of the Bill, which was highly contentious during its passage. There were always the questions on the definition of "international terrorism" and how we dealt with the security services. There were problems also relating to the Human Rights Act, which had been passed only three years previously. Everyone wanted to see full compliance with that recent legislation and inevitably there were problems over detention, derogation and deportation. The European convention made the passage of the Bill much more difficult. I am unsurprised that we could not then find

799
a solution to the issue of derogation and, as a result of our debates today, it looks as though derogation will be with us for some time.
On page 68, the committee reports the use that has been made of the Bill as regards investigation and the number of criminal charges that have resulted from those investigations. However, I did not see reported the number of charges which led to convictions. Perhaps it is just that the committee's report is not sufficiently precise, but I wonder whether in response the Minister can indicate how many of the charges reported on page 68 led to convictions. That is the real question to be answered.
We know that 16 foreigners have been detained and that two have been released to other host countries. What we do not know—and I suspect that we cannot know—is how many terrorist acts have been deterred as a consequence of this legislation. It' we are considering fitness for purpose, that is a consideration that we must take on trust—unless the Minister has information, but I suspect not.
It is certain that, although some dreadful terrorist acts have been committed since the passage of the Bill, we in this country have been blessedly spared, as has most of the rest of the world. It would be nice to think that in part that relative peace is the consequence of the actions taken by the Government here and by those in other countries. I cannot help but wonder how far that situation arises because the Iraq war has given a different focus to Al'Qaeda and many other terrorist organisations.
I look forward to the debates in the coming months on the detail of the Bill which gave rise to this report. There we will really see the wisdom of the committee's report and I hope that the Government will respond positively to the refrain that as far as possible this emergency legislation should be consolidated into normal legislation.
1.8 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, as a member of the committee, perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the most striking aspect of our conclusions; that this disparate group of Privy Counsellors, with different affiliations, experience and perspectives, reached a unanimous conclusion. That is the effect not only of the evidence we received and the deliberations we shared but the way they were led by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in a wise and consensual way. And, as other members of the committee have said, that was also facilitated by our admirable small staff led by Angela Harris.
From these Benches, I also want to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, not only for his very helpful evidence to the committee but also for his scrupulous review of all the anti-terrorism arrangements that are in place.
I can speak only for myself but I emerged from our efforts even more aware than I had been before of the threat which fundamentalist Islamist terrorism poses to our whole way of life. This is a serious threat which should be treated seriously in all debates and
800
discussion. I believe that the committee did that, and I was very pleased to hear the noble Baroness acknowledge it in her opening remarks.
Within this consensus, which my noble friend Lord McNally and my erstwhile leader, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, have enjoined on us, I want to press the Home Office a little through the noble Baroness. I shall try to keep within this jolly consensual framework but I may test its boundaries just a little.
The first point that I want to reiterate—a point raised by other members of the committee—is the absolute desirability of treating all terrorist suspects in the same way at law, regardless of their origin, instead of dividing them into British sheep and foreign goats. I believe that, in a society such as ours, it is particularly vital to avoid the kind of easy scapegoating which says that our problems in general come from abroad and that our problems are always due to foreigners. I am very afraid that that assumption is almost implicitly built into using immigration and asylum procedures for these grave anti-terrorist problems.
I say to the noble Baroness that, frankly, I was astonished that page 2 of the Government's discussion paper still asserts that the threat comes predominantly from foreign nationals. The noble Baroness, skilled advocate that she is, nuanced that it came "principally" from foreign nationals. Although I believe it may have been possible to say that partly from ignorance when we did not know what we were up against in 2001, we received clear evidence, as colleagues of mine have already said, that very nearly half the people of interest to the security authorities are British nationals. As others have said, there is the case of Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, and other clear evidence that terrorism does not really recognise national boundaries.
Secondly—a point to which others have referred—I should like to ask the Home Office, through the noble Baroness, to stop piggy-backing and to stop taking emergencies and loading them into the dusty pigeonholes of the Home Office to produce all kinds of other extraneous legislation not directly attributable to the emergency. We talked at length in our report about mainstreaming. Following the Omagh atrocity, when I had responsibility for Northern Ireland matters on these Benches, I well remember that we saw exactly the same phenomenon. A great deal of extraneous legislation was loaded in by officials, who were no doubt glad to see their pet priorities and wheezes on the statute book. But can we please ask the Government not to do that? It creates part of the problem that they have in getting legislation of a special nature through the House.
The third point, on which I know there is a widening consensus, is that there is a clear need to remove the total ban on intercepts so that far more cases can proceed in a more normal way in court. Consensus is now spreading from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and my noble friend Lord Carlile to, as the Minister will know, at least part of what we are now supposed to call the "intelligence community". At least part of that community knows that that would allow us to treat within the rule of law far more

801
suspected terrorists. I simply say to those in the intelligence community who do not like this—I assume they are those who are so protective of signals intelligence—that they should reflect that in the United States, who are our partners, as I believe is becoming more and more well known through the newspapers, in most of what is known as "sigint" there is no such total ban. Indeed, intercepts are widely used and are admissible as evidence in court.
Finally on that point, I want to press the noble Baroness as to when the review of the removal of the total ban on intercepts will conclude. As others have said, we have been hearing about it for rather a long time. The issue is now pressing and it would be good to hear from the Minister when the review will be concluded and when there will be a clear ruling on it from the Government.
My final point is to ask that the Home Office be less dismissive of the committee's conclusions on Part 4 of the Act. Of course, we did not produce an alternative but then we were not asked to do so; we were asked to review the legislation, and in this respect we found the legislation profoundly unsatisfactory. We suggested a number of ways in which, perhaps in combination, the Government might be helped to find alternative solutions. However, it was regrettable, before the ink was dry on our report, that the noble Baroness's right honourable friend the Home Secretary attacked our conclusions on Part 4 and particularly misinterpreted one of the basket of proposals that we made—alternative approaches: electronic tagging—as being in some way the committee's answer to Part 4. It was never so, and I believe that it was misleading and inappropriate of the Home Office to do that.
The trouble with the kind of spin control which we saw at the time of our publication and with which, in other spheres, we are all too sadly familiar is that it makes far more difficult subsequent attempts at rational discourse, such as the February discussion paper, which we have now seen. It makes the arguments advanced there—they are still relatively thin—seem no more than ex post facto rationalisation of the original knee-jerk hostile reaction to our proposal. Therefore, it devalues the discussion paper, which is meant to mark the beginning of a more constructive way forward.
Nevertheless, I certainly hope that the Government's position, as enunciated by the Minister's right honourable friend in another place, of achieving a constructive dialogue and serious discussions to find a generally acceptable way forward will materialise.
Before I sit down, I should remind the House, as did the noble Lord who preceded me, that Parliament was so concerned about this Act that it allowed it through only with a watchdog attached to its trouser leg, and that watchdog was the Privy Council committee. The watchdog has barked and it has barked loud and clear. Therefore, I hope that the Government will pay attention. If not, Parliament will have to ensure that they pay attention, but I very much hope that we do not come to that point and that the Government will now reach out towards the committee rather than turn their back on its main conclusion.
1.18 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I wish to focus on the question of hate crime and, in particular, on whether incitement to religious hatred should be an offence in its own right. Before I do that, I should like to acknowledge the review committee's recommendation that legislation should deal with terrorism, whatever the origin or nationality of those who are suspected of it, and also that it should deal with the matter in a way which does not require derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights.
The committee set out a number of ways in which those objectives could be achieved, and I hope that the Government are able to give them more attention than they appear to have done thus far. In the end, freedom and justice will not be served by denying them to some without due process, however few they may be.
Turning to the subject of legislation on hate crime, the committee is surely right in its view that this Act is not the place for it and that it should be reconsidered in the context of what it calls "broader mainstream legislation". It seems that the Select Committee on Religious Offences did not come to any agreement about legislation in this area—surprise, surprise. However, it points out that the existing legislation on blasphemy has a wider role in society as it also concerns a particular Christian basis for the constitutional heritage of the nation. That is a view that I had not heard before.
The Select Committee comes to two conclusions in that regard: first, that Parliament should reflect very carefully on leaving the blasphemy legislation as it is, and, secondly, that it should urgently seek ways of expressing in law the need for protection of all faiths. Whether both of those points can be held together is not a matter for me to judge.
Of course, the present provisions in the Act are a compromise. They provide for account to be taken of aggravation because of religious hatred in the committing of a crime. While that has the effect of providing some protection from attack for particular groups of people, their places of worship and their objects of veneration, it does nothing about those who may incite such hatred of religious groups that a breakdown in community relationships and even violence are the result.
It seems that there is widespread support among the faith communities for legislation on incitement to religious hatred. The Home Secretary in his formal response to the review indicated that he is sympathetic to that feeling among faith groups. For its part, the Church of England is still committed to support legislation on incitement to religious hatred with or without the retention of the blasphemy law. It recognises, of course, the importance of freedom of expression in our society and it would want any legislation to safeguard academic inquiry, legitimate criticism and vigorous discussion of competing truth claims. However, freedom is never absolute and cannot be at the expense of hurting, degrading and humiliating people of particular faith communities.

803
It appears that the best way of achieving the review committee's recommendation is for there to be a separate Bill on religious offences. That could also be achieved by the Government bringing forward a Bill on hate crime as such, but including incitement to religious hatred within its provisions, or perhaps by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—I am sorry he is not in his place—reintroducing his Bill in due course. It should be made absolutely clear that such legislation would protect people and places from attack and not restrict free discussion of the merits or otherwise of various beliefs.
Finally, one matter that has caught my attention in the report is that of confiscation of terrorist cash and its return if a suspicion proves unfounded. The review points out that the provision in the Act for the cash to be held in an interest-bearing account for such a reason would be problematic for Muslims. The report refers to the suggestion made by the Forum Against Islamophobia that Muslims could donate any such income derived from interest to charitable and humanitarian causes. However, that would leave them out of pocket. I should like to hear the views of our Muslim Members on this issue, but I should have thought that the Government could easily devise a way that involved the return of capital plus an ex gratia payment calculated on the basis of a typical rate of return on investments. I understand that making a profit on capital investment is not illegal for Muslims. That would properly compensate those who had undergone the trauma of wrongful accusation.
The Privy Counsellors have brought some important issues to the attention of the nation and the Churches, for their part, are glad that this debate is taking place.
1.25 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I join with those who have expressed great appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and his colleagues on the committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for the thorough task that he undertook as well.
In the Joint Committee on Human Rights under the impressive chairmanship of Jean Corston, a Member of the other place, and with a strong cross-party representation, we have given very careful and lengthy consideration to the human rights implications of the Newton report. I hope that my noble friend will not mind if I say that I was somewhat surprised by her failure to deal with the observations by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, particularly as in the conclusions the committee was unanimous. It seems to me that if both Houses give a committee the task of looking at human rights implications of policy and legislation, and that committee then reports, it is incumbent upon Ministers to treat the recommendations and observations seriously.
The dangers that we face are grave and acute. I shall take second place to no one in recognising that. If I am allowed to put the matter in personal terms, I care for the safety of my wife, my children and my grandchildren as much as anyone else in our country. That places
804
tremendous responsibilities and duties on Ministers. Sometimes it is too easy for us to take for granted the burden that they carry on our behalf. I for one want to say thank you as I know that it must be extremely taxing.
I am also glad that the Minister in her opening remarks paid tribute to the security service and to the police. I believe that they undertake a courageous and very crucial task on behalf of society and we do not record often enough how much we need that important work to be carried out.
I was just beginning to think, however tentatively, about the world in which I was living when the European Convention on Human Rights was drafted. It made a tremendous impression on me in my formative years. I grew up in a fairly politically articulate and conscious family. There had been much discussion and debate at Sunday lunchtimes about the horrors of the Second World War and the lessons that we should learn from it. The European Convention on Human Rights came out of the determination to build a sound and better society. It was not just an idealistic commitment to human rights and something that was rather nice; it was an understanding that human rights were a pillar of a decent, stable, secure society and therefore had to be put at the centre of public concern.
When we talk about the dangers of terrorism, what are we defending? Of course, we are defending ourselves and our families and friends—it would be nonsense to pretend otherwise—but surely we are also defending the way of life and the system of our society for which people have struggled over centuries, not least in the post-Second World War period because, in the end, that system is understood to be the best way of protecting all that we really care about and it enhances the quality of our existence.
Therefore, I unashamedly start by believing that it would be a major tragedy historically if we gave extremists and terrorists a victory by undermining those very principles that have become central to what we believe is important in our society. Either, therefore, we accept the principles of the rule of law and stand by them or we do not. If we do, in the battle for human hearts and minds, which must be central in the fight against terrorism, there has to be consistency.
When the pressure is most acute we have to show more clearly than ever what really matters in our society and our determination to stand by it; in other words, I start from the premise that there are some absolute standards which should be absolute. Once derogation has happened—whatever the pressures may have been—there is an insidious danger that we shall get into a habit of mind whereby these things are no longer absolute; that we all have to be reasonable and come to terms with their relative nature rather than their fundamental importance. That I think is a danger of which we have to be conscious.
Speaking in this debate is very intimidating for a non-lawyer. There are so many distinguished lawyers in the Chamber that one really does rise with a sense of humility, if not a sense of intimidation intellectually, to make any points. But I want candidly just to underline some points as a layman; as an ordinary member of society.

805
What is it that we look to in the law to protect us? There is the presumption of innocence, which is terribly important in British law. There is the principle of beyond reasonable doubt; not reasonable belief or suspicion, but beyond reasonable doubt. These are—I was using the word "absolute" a moment ago—absolutes, which are terribly important to ordinary people as being central to our legal system.
Against that background and analysis, I think we all recognise that we are faced with a situation—and that, of course, is what I am saying in effect—in which suspected international terrorists have been charged, convicted and sentenced to indefinite imprisonment without proper trial. I do not in any way cast aspersions at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission—of course not—but it is a fact that some of the evidence is taken in secret; and it is a fact that the special advocates cannot discuss with those they are defending evidence that is presented in the secret part of the proceedings. This is a big fundamental challenge to the principles to which I have been referring.
In the debate a number of your Lordships have referred to the fact that it is only non-UK nationals who can be dealt with by the procedures we are discussing. I align myself with many of the arguments that have been put forward. But I think that the Government must address more thoroughly the issue of how far this is a discriminatory act by making only some people subject to these procedures while other people enjoy the full safeguards of the law as it more normally operates.
There is another issue which is quite worrying. That concerns evidence. As I understand it, in the secret part of the proceedings in particular it has been accepted that evidence extracted from third parties, perhaps under torture, is admissible as evidence. I think that raises very big issues in terms of our commitments in other conventions about torture. It also in my view very much raises questions about—as we have seen in history—the reliability of evidence extracted under torture. I hope that we are not drifting into a situation whereby indirectly—and I am certain unintentionally—we are in fact condoning torture by others who use it.
There is also of course the issue of the intercepted communications and the ban on using information gained in this way from legal proceedings as things stand at the present. This really is becoming nonsense. I suggest, because we all know that central to so much of what we are discussing is the whole professionalism and art. Having been in government I believe that is an unfortunate necessity and it is there, but there is this task of interception. What we have got here is the challenge of how that can be regularised in a way that enables it to be more fully, if not completely, used in legal proceedings.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, has referred, as indeed have other noble Lords, to the issue of those who are detained being free to leave. I find that a very irrational, if not cynical, provision.
806
I found, as indeed I think we all did in the Joint Human Rights Committee, the proposals in the Newton report on alternatives interesting. Personally, I was sorry that they seemed to be so quickly dismissed by the Home Secretary. I think they deserved better than that. I repeat one very interesting observation made by that much respected organisation Justice about the alternative provisions. It makes the point that the alternative arrangements themselves do not exonerate us from the need to observe the European Convention on Human Rights because some of them would raise the same issues, although perhaps in not such a draconian way.
Perhaps I could conclude—as my noble friend chose virtually to ignore the report's observations—with some brief quotations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I stress again that the committee was made up of lawyers and non-lawyers from both Houses and all parties under the extremely able leadership of Jean Corston from the other House. In paragraph 33 we state:
"We continue to doubt whether the very wide powers conferred by Part 4 are, in Convention terms, strictly required by the exigencies of the situation".
Paragraph 36 says that,
"we are nevertheless certain that a more satisfactory legal framework is urgently required which would be both effective and compatible with the United Kingdom's human rights obligations including full compliance with Article 5 of the ECHR".
And in paragraph 37 the committee states:
"If the Government argue that it is necessary to continue Part 4 in force this should be limited to six months and should be subject to a firm undertaking that the Government will actively seek, as a matter of priority, a new legal basis for its anti-terrorism tactics to be put in place speedily and in accordance with the principles developed in the Newton Committee Report".
In paragraph 40 we turn to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his review in February last year of the conditions of detention. The people who are being detained have neither been charged in the normal legal sense of the word nor convicted of any offence. It is bad enough for them to be in a place like Belmarsh to start with, but are we certain that they are being treated with the respect and held in the conditions which people in that situation deserve? Do we believe that people are innocent until proved guilty, or do we not?
That is a matter of principle, but it is also a vital matter of the battle for hearts and minds because this is seen around the world. Do we live by the standards we express or do we just apply them selectively when it suits us? I think that we have to be very careful, just as the Americans have to be careful in Guantanamo Bay, about the provoking nature—the recruiting nature for extremists if you like —of the action that is being taken.
It has been said that the Newton committee was introduced during the deliberations on the Act as a way of ensuring a majority. I make no apology for saying that I would have had great difficulty in supporting what was being proposed if the Newton committee had not been introduced. It was certainly a decisive factor in my decision. The Government cannot play duck and drakes with the House. If a provision of that kind is introduced

807
as a serious commitment, not just a face-saving formula, when a committee of that distinction, weight and representative nature reports as authoritatively as the noble Lord's committee reported, it is incumbent on the Government to respond with equal gravitas and seriousness and to put what has been said high in their deliberations on future policy.
1.40 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful introduction to the debate. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree and his committee. Like other noble Lords, I am struck by the quality of the report which, as has already been mentioned, gives ample justification for this House's decision to insert the appropriate amendment in the Act.
As the Home Secretary has observed, the Part 4 powers are the most controversial powers of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Accordingly, Part 4 has rightly attracted the greatest attention. Indeed, I bow to the superior expertise and eloquence of those noble Lords who have already spoken so effectively about those aspects of the Act. None the less, the Act and the report that we are considering today contain other matters that in their own way are no less important. My interest, which will come as no surprise to your Lordships, is Part 11, on the retention of communications data. I might also have been tempted to touch on Part 3, but happily the noble and learned Lord, Lard Browne-Wilkinson, has already covered that ground effectively, and I agree with what he said.
I do not underestimate the threat that is facing us. The Home Secretary's analysis is to the point,
"The main threat to the UK and its interests overseas is international, likely to be of long duration, involving groups of people engaged in long-term planning, using sophisticated new technology, science and communications available to them, skilled in practising deception and evading surveillance, and using multiple stolen or fraudulent identities".
In light of this analysis, I do not underestimate how potentially useful Part 11 of the Act on the retention of communications data could be in limiting and defeating the threat. Moreover, I welcome the exhortation from the Home Secretary that:
"The Government's mind is open on the long term way forward. We are not advocating any particular course. It is the Government's ultimate responsibility to find a fair and effective balance between security and liberty but the rights we must balance belong to everyone. Ensuring a successful fight against international terrorism demands we all play our part in getting that balance right."
Against that background, your Lordships will be aware that I have long argued that the Government's proposals for data retention do not strike a proper balance. I need not rehearse the arguments from the Second Reading debate. It is enough to say that I continue to believe that the provisions of Part 11 fail four tests: effectiveness; necessity; proportionality; and consequence. At the heart of this is the simple fact that the statutory authority for the retention of
808
communications data predates the provisions of Part 11 of the anti-terrorism Act. As the Explanatory Notes stated explicitly,
"Whilst the Regulations permit the retention of communications data on national security and crime prevention grounds, they do not give any general guidance as to when these might apply".
We also know that, in the immediate aftermath of the horrific events of September 11, the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit submitted a request to communications service providers that relevant logs of communications for the period should be retained for investigative purposes. On advice from the Information Commissioner that,
"the request from the NHTCU is lawful and proportionate in the circumstances",
CSPs complied with the request. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, confirmed this during the Second Reading debate,
"Communications data has been central to the investigation into the terrorist attacks of 11th September. This data has been available because of the excellent co-operation shown by communications service providers".—[Official Report, 27/11/01, col. 152.]
All of this even before the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act had its First Reading in another place.
It is salutary to reflect that the Act was an emergency response to a dire situation. Ministers constantly and rightly emphasised the sense of urgency attached to its provisions. It is to Parliament's great credit that it was scrutinised so expeditiously and diligently. However, implementation of Part 11 has subsequently progressed at something approaching a snail's pace. The relevant statutory instrument giving effect to the voluntary regime of data retention, the Retention of Communications Data (Code of Practice) Order, was not passed until 13 November last year, nearly two years on from the grant of Royal Assent to the parent Act.
This begs a number of important questions, with which I hope that the Minister might be able to help me. Do the Government still perceive the grant of data retention powers to be urgent'? Has it been the case that, in the absence of the voluntary code provided for by the anti-terrorism Act, the information gathering and investigative talents of our security and law enforcement agencies have been unacceptably constrained? Or can we assume that, in the intervening period, they have had access to the facility of data retention and/or preservation from prior statutory sources?
In turn, insofar as they may now be operating under a previous statutory sanction for data retention, what useful purpose is served by pursuing the full implementation of the voluntary regime envisaged on the face of the Act? It is fair to say that the structure of a voluntary regime is now in place. However, your Lordships will be only too well aware of the considerable concerns that have been expressed about data retention over the past few years. In particular, CSPs continue to have grave reservations in respect of their potential legal liabilities when compliance with any retention regime is measured against the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998. It is to state the obvious, but a voluntary regime can only

809
be successful if the relevant enterprises sign up to it. With that in mind, how many CSPs have done so? What criteria do the Home Office intend to apply to measure whether the voluntary code is operating satisfactorily? What is the time scale of any review of the effectiveness of the voluntary regime? What criteria are being contemplated as appropriate triggers for a switch to a mandatory regime?
Your Lordships will recall that a particular theme of Parliament's scrutiny of the anti-terrorism Act was the sense in which emergency powers were being sought to deal with what my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith defined as the generality of crime. This tension has always been particularly acute in respect of data retention. In this context, the Committee's report states,
"We can see the case in principle for requiring communications data to be retained for a minimum period (which would vary with the type of data) for a defined range of public interest purposes such as helping in the prevention and detection of terrorism and other serious crime. These provisions should, therefore, be part of mainstream legislation and not special terrorism legislation."
This recommendation has my whole-hearted support. I can do no other than congratulate the Government on their response,
"The Government tend to agree with this recommendation and is considering putting Part 11 in an additional section to RIPA. The Government would also like to see data retained for the purpose of fighting crime generally. The current position creates a disparity, which needs to be addressed. At the moment data is held for the purpose of safeguarding national security but can be accessed for many reasons including national security. Expanding the purpose for which data is held to include crime generally would eliminate this problem."
How true that is. I find all that extremely helpful, but without wishing to be too churlish, it might have been better had the Government arrived at this view rather earlier in the process. That may well have engendered a speedier and more coherent data retention regime than the current muddle in which it seems to be mired.
Of course, it is always dangerous to make assumptions. None the less, the implication of the Government's response is that, to all intents and purposes, Ministers are keen to move to a mandatory scheme of data retention via the expedient of consolidating Part 11 of the anti-terrorism Act into the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Perhaps the Minister could tell me whether that is a reasonable interpretation of current thinking. I do not doubt that there might be little enthusiasm among your Lordships for a return to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. None the less, and in all the circumstances, it strikes me as a most sensible and appropriate route to take.
1.50 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to my former pupil, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for allowing me to go before him on this occasion. He usually goes before me and I usually find that I agree with everything he says. This time, it is the other way round.
810
I should also like to say what a very strong case was made by my noble and learned friend Lord Browne-Wilkinson on Part 3 of the Act, with which I am not familiar—it is not my field. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made an equally strong case in relation to Section 124 and suggested a neat way in which the Minister could get out of that particular problem.
I shall confine myself to a single point only, a point made very well at the bottom of page 57 of the report about the interception of communications. I have been involved in the interception of communications business, if I may call it that, for nearly 20 years now, since the passing of the original Interception of Communications Act 1985—IOCA, as it is called. During all that time, I have never been able to see the sense of using telephone interception to identify the criminals but not using the self-same telephone intercepts to convict them. Yet that is the precise effect of the notorious Section 9 of IOCA. I call it notorious because it was extremely difficult to understand, as drafted—so obscure, indeed, and so apparently silly in its purpose that it took three decisions of the House of Lords to decide exactly what it meant.
I first pointed out the inconvenience of the old Section 9 of IOCA in Chapter 7 of my report on terrorism. It meant, I thought, that we were fighting terrorism with one arm tied behind our hack. I had another chance of saying the same thing when Section 9 was replaced by Section 17 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I spoke against the Motion that Clause 17 should stand part of the Bill. The Minister replying was the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and what he said is quoted extensively in the footnote in the Newton report. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, was kind enough to say—not once but twice—that he regarded the point as being very finely balanced. Indeed, at one point I had the impression that I might even have persuaded him.
Yesterday, the Library was able to pinpoint where I could find what I had said and then to produce, in a miraculously short time, what I had actually said. It is usually a mistake to reread one's former speeches on any topic, but, contrary to what I am sure is the experience of many of your Lordships in these matters, on this occasion I find that the matter appears to me now exactly as it appears to have appeared to me then. So rather than make the same speech again, it seemed that it would save time if I simply handed my copy of the speech which I then made to the Minister in the hope that she may read it before this time next week, because it says all that I need to say on the subject. The Hansard reference is 19 June 2000, column 106. It is an unusual course to take but, as I am sure she knows, the people in her team at the Home Office know my views on this topic—indeed, they are sick of hearing them.
I shall give just one example of the idiocy of Section 17. It concerned a conspiracy to import heroin from Holland to England. The Dutch conspirator was convicted in Holland on the basis of a telephone intercept by Dutch authorities, carried out in Holland. The question was whether the Dutch intercept could then be used to convict the English conspirator in England. Happily, it was held by the House of Lords that it could. So we have this extraordinary situation

811
that an English intercept could not be used in proceedings in England to convict that conspirator, but the Dutch intercept of exactly the same conversation could be used. That, I suggest, makes nonsense of the argument so often put forward that we must not use telephone intercepts in court proceedings for fear of revealing our interception capabilities. Is there a serious terrorist in this country today who does not realise that his telephones are being intercepted?
On the 14 foreign nationals currently detained without trial, I have two questions only for the noble Baroness. Everybody agrees, I think, that they should be tried if they can be tried. Is the reason that they cannot be tried that there is not an available terrorist offence with which they can be charged in English law? If so, surely we ought to be thinking of amending the Terrorism Act 2000. But if the reason is evidential, then the question is: how many of the 14 could be tried now, and perhaps convicted, if we relaxed the rigour of Section 17? That is exactly the same question I asked the Minister a week or two ago, since when I am sure she will have the answer. If she has the answer, I see no reason for not revealing it, since I cannot see any security reason why that figure should not be given.
Finally, on the broader question of Part 4, I entirely agree with the Newton report summary on page 56 that we simply must find a way of dealing with the problem not only of asylum seekers but also of British nationals without derogating from the European convention.
I was not able to take part in the debate on the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 because I was abroad for several months at the time. However, I wrote a personal letter to the Home Secretary expressing some views about what might be done in the aftermath of 9/11, and added that whatever we did, we ought not to derogate from the convention. I did not get an answer to that letter before I left the country, but when I came back, I found a letter from an official of the Home Office. It was addressed to Mr Lloyd and said that my views would be given very careful consideration by the Home Secretary. That was a useful lesson in humility.
I found, therefore, that the views expressed in the Newton report were like music to my ears, and I entirely agree with everything it says.
1.59 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and his committee have attacked this problem with the thoroughness and integrity that we hoped they would when we insisted upon the inclusion of the need for a review within the Act.
In his speech, the noble Lord referred to the balance of the rights of individual freedom and personal liberty against the state's proper interest in security. What has occurred is a rebalancing. In the name of security, the Government have increased their powers by diminishing the rights of the individual and by curbing the powers of the courts to do anything about it. It is what has been described in America as creating a "new normal". We have moved away from what was accepted normality into another situation.
812
That can be illustrated in a number of ways; for example, by looking at the burden of proof that is necessary under the Act; that is, the reasonable belief of the Home Secretary. It is illustrated also in the wider context of statements made by the Home Secretary; namely, that in other fields a lesser standard of proof than proof beyond reasonable doubt may be acceptable in criminal proceedings. We have seen that also in the denial of rights of appeal that is proposed in Clause 11 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill that we will debate next week. We know that judicial review is excluded. There is even a suggestion that habeas corpus will be excluded as well.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, referred to Part 3 of the Act that we are considering; namely, the disclosure provisions via the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. He pointed to how rarely those powers have been used in terrorist cases. I was struck particularly by his reference to applications being made in 800 cases of murder, because that suggests to me, knowing the number of homicide cases that are investigated in this country, that the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are consulted as a matter of' routine, no doubt by the simple filling-in of a form by investigating authorities when offences of that kind are under investigation.
The concept of the "new normal" was referred to in a report that was published in September of last year by the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights in the United States. It stated that the "new normal" is defined by,
"dramatic changes in the relationship between the U.S. government and the people it serves—changes that have meant the loss of particular freedoms for some, and worse, a detachment from the rule of law as a whole. As this report details, the United States has become unbound from the principles that have long held it to the mast".
Referring to the situation in Guantanamo Bay, the committee went on to state:
"Perhaps most marked of these changes, the new normal has brought about a sharp departure from the rule-of-law principles guaranteeing that like cases will be treated alike—
other noble Lords in our debate have referred to that principle—
"and that all will have recourse to fair and independent courts as a check on executive power. In the two years since September 11, the executive has established a set of extra-legal institutions that bypass the federal judiciary; most well known are the military commissions and the detention camp at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba".
My information, gleaned on a visit to Washington where I discussed the matter with the American Bar Association and the National Institute of Military Justice, is that at the time of September 11 and in the aftermath, a White House council, not of great seniority, took down from a shelf and dusted off a document about the way in which a military commission was put together during the Second World War to deal with a group of Nazis who invaded America intent on mischief. Without consultation with the American Bar Association, the Pentagon or with the body of military lawyers, that was published, under presidential decree, as the way in which Guantanamo suspects were to be treated. It has caused a huge furore within the legal establishment in the United States, perhaps evidenced by the fact that defence

813
counsellors, who have been appointed to attend the military commissions in Guantanamo Bay, have themselves, in recent days, come out and criticised the whole procedure. The military justice establishment in America is incensed that its introduction of due process by reforms in 1952 has been totally ignored in the military commissions that have been put forward.
However, it is interesting that yesterday, perhaps in response to some of those criticisms, the Department of Defense in Washington released a draft administrative review process memorandum, in which it sets out the right of each enemy combatant,
"to explain before an administrative review board of three military officers why he should no longer be detained. Specifically, he would be permitted to explain why he is no longer a threat to the United States and its allies in the ongoing war on terrorism. The enemy combatant would be assigned a military officer to assist him in presenting this information to the review board. The detainee's government and his family would also be permitted to provide information regarding the detainee under review".
The Government have quite rightly attacked the Guantanamo detentions and the way in which prisoners are dealt with, but I contrast yesterday's announcement by the Department of Defense with paragraph 200 of the report of the noble Lord. Lord Newton, in which he states:
"Given the novel and contentious nature of these powers we believe that there should be a continuous proactive effort to manage the individual cases of the suspects with a view to finding alternative ways of dealing with them (such as finding evidence that would support a prosecution). We were, therefore, surprised to learn that the authorities appear to have given no thought to what change in circumstances might lead them to conclude that an individual should be released or dealt with differently … We have been told that prior to the forthcoming post-appeal reviews, to be heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission … the authorities will be considering any relevant new evidence".
The committee goes on to recommend that some form of review is urgently required.
Therefore, our Government are criticising the procedures and the military commissions in Guantanamo on the one hand, yet, on the other, they have not gone as far as the American Government have now gone to provide for the possibility of a review of decisions that have been taken about people detained under the Act.
Under the Act, what is the "new normal"? How has it worked out? The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the fact that before the special commission evidence obtained under torture is apparently admissible. I do not know whether that is true, but that is what has been reported. Those noble Lords who saw a film on television last week about the way in which SAS recruits are trained to withstand interrogation may have gained some flavour of the nature of the investigation that may be carried out against people who have been captured in Afghanistan or Iraq, or who have been detained in other parts of the world on suspicion of terrorist activities. If evidence obtained in that way is to be admissible in any form of judicial proceedings, it is a blight on our judicial processes.
Another problem that has emerged is that of disclosure. No disclosure is obviously made to the person who has been detained under Part 4 of the Act, but there is some form of disclosure to the special
814
advocate who has been appointed. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew—the Minister wrongly pronounced "Berriew"—points out in paragraph 86 of his report that no procedures similar to those in the criminal court have been published for ensuring that there is proper disclosure to the special advocate.
The concept of the special advocate itself was something that my colleagues and I criticised at the time when the provisions were considered. From the report of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, it appears that the special appointed advocate is very often an administrative lawyer with no criminal experience; that no training has been set out for such people; that he is not provided with proper assistance to perform his task; and that it is a huge burden on the individual special advocate even to attempt to carry out the very onerous tasks placed upon him.
Beyond that, the fundamental criticisms that we made when the Act was before us as a Bill have been fulfilled. I was surprised to discover, although it is perfectly consistent, that the special advocate may see his client and may take instructions from him but that, once he has seen any material, he is no longer entitled to talk to him at all and may not see him again. That is an extraordinary situation, and it seriously weakens the validity of the special adequate procedure. It is unthinkable in any other area of the law that an advocate would be unable to speak to his client when the information upon which he requires instructions in order to carry out his task has been placed before him in such a secret way.
Urgent consideration is required as to how we can bring terrorism and threats to security within the normal criminal justice system. In the courts, we are used to dealing with security problems, and public interest immunity applications are made daily in every court in this country. We should be able to trust our advocates and judges to keep the necessary information that they receive in that way entirely secret, as they do at the moment.
Some constructive ideas have been suggested in the report, which should be fleshed out. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to whom I suppose I must refer as "the Master", as he always refers to me as his pupil, pointed out that there may be room for the development of a completely new set of offences, of acts preliminary to a terrorist offence—the sort of offence that my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew was interested in fleshing out himself. Alterations to the laws of evidence and the use of intercepts can be considered. Whether they will be very much use to a prosecution, for the reasons given by earlier speakers, is something that we can investigate. However, since so much of the intelligence on which we went to war was based on intercepts, it is perhaps conceivable that they may provide enough information to bring a prosecution against an individual.
If there are new offences and new laws of evidence and procedure within our normal justice system, which still fail to convict a person suspected of a terrorist offence, we should use new technology for surveillance of that person, release him into the community and

815
keep a watch on him—whether by overt surveillance or tagging or covert surveillance, which would perhaps give a lead to other people suspected of the same thing. We must get away from the new norm that is being proposed by the Government and get back to the basic principles on which our criminal justice system has been built for centuries.
2.14 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, like everyone else who has spoken in the debate, I pay tribute to the Privy Counsellor Review Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. It is Parliament's watchdog in this matter, it is authoritative in its composition and it has taken evidence with great care. It had the great merit of including as one of its members a senior Law Lord, who is not a politician. I regard its report as the most important state paper that I have read during the 10 years that I have been a Member of this House. I should explain that I believe the Government's response to the Newton report to be unsatisfactory and inadequate. I should like also to express genuine sympathy for the Minister, who needs giant strength to carry the heavy burdens of collective responsibility on this and some other matters. She is the most humane and human Minister, whether of the Home Office or otherwise, in this Government, which must make her burden in some ways more difficult.
Going hack to the mention made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, of knee-jerk wet liberals, I should point out that I live in south London and not in Hampstead. I hope that the Home Secretary is told that in due course. I am not a Hampstead liberal—I have lived in south London all my adult life. I should also like to make it clear that I am in no sense wet about terrorism. When I worked with Roy Jenkins in the Home Office in 1974, we had to fashion the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, which was the first of such Acts. We had to deal with Irish terrorism and the Price sisters. I was involved in all that and I perfectly understand the dilemmas that terrorism gives rise to, as did Roy Jenkins. However, I would like to think that, if he were now the Home Secretary, he would not have reacted as the present Home Secretary has done.
The first thing that I would like to say about the present Home Secretary is that he had no business to broadcast, within almost minutes of the publication of the Newton committee's report, his knee-jerk reaction rejecting the report, or to suggest later that really these Privy Counsellors were not adding anything to the public debate that had not been said when the original legislation was enacted. That was disrespectful to the Privy Counsellor Review Committee, which spent a great deal of time under its special mandate, considering evidence before reaching its careful conclusions.
I also regret the fact that, when the discussion document was produced with great fanfare, as showing how open-minded the Government were, when one actually read it one discovered that, without any parliamentary debate, all the main proposals put forward by Newton were essentially being rejected, often with hare reasons or no reasons that withstand
816
scrutiny. It is all very well for the Minister to come before us today to explain how open-minded the Government are, but they are not open-minded about the Newton committee's main recommendations. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, as a fellow member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights; as he said, there is no recognition in the discussion paper of the force of our successive reports dealing with these matters.
All that is most regrettable, and it is not an example of polite or good government or proper respect for the will of Parliament in setting up the committee or the work done by the committee. But that is water under the bridge.
On Part 3, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, dealt with the matter with such force, reinforced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that I simply point out how grossly inadequate the Government's response has been thus far. I hope that the matter can be mended, either in the reply today or next week. The position is that, in paragraphs 165 and 166 of the report, the Privy Counsellor Review Committee endorsed the conclusions reached by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In that committee, in an earlier report, we wrote that,
"there remains a significant risk that disclosures will violate the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the ECHR, because of the range of offences covered, and the lack of statutory criteria to guide decisions and the lack of procedural safeguards to be followed when deciding whether it is necessary and proportionate to make a disclosure of personal information".
That was from the unanimous report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Newton committee report stated:
"In our view the Government should legislate to provide independent external oversight of the whole disclosure regime, (e.g., by the Information or one of the other statutory Commissioners) to provide a safeguard against abuse and to ensure that rigorous procedural standards governing disclosure are applied across the range of public bodies, prosecuting authorities and intelligence and security agencies. It should also require the independent overseer to publish statistics twice a year on the use of Part 3 (both within the United Kingdom, and to overseas authorities)".
It seems to me that those recommendations are of enormous importance. How then did the Government deal with them in paragraphs 24 to 27 of this discussion document? In paragraph 24 they say:
"The supply of information about an individual by one public authority to another cannot, in the Government's view, realistically be regarded as being as intrusive as, for example, a search of that individual's home".
I am not sure about that. It seems to me that swapping information about me between two public bodies may well be as intrusive to my personal privacy. But it does not matter whether it is "as intrusive"; the fact is that it is a grave interference with personal privacy. They go on:
"The courts have also recognised that while they will hold public authorities to high standards of reasonableness in their assessments of proportionality, they will not interfere to impose their own judgement where they are satisfied that the decision is within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable decision-taker".

817
That is, of course, correct. It means that the courts defer to the public authority. But that is why we need a different kind of external monitor of the process.
They continue:
"Given these considerations, and the numerous occasions where public sector data sharing of this sort, and joined up administration"—
that ghastly cliché of modern government—
"will be in the public interest in promoting legitimate aims, the Government cannot accept the Review's proposal of prior judicial control of information disclosure".
But the Newton committee was not recommending prior judicial control of information disclosure.
They then say:
"Nor does the Government discount…as 'illusory' the protection afforded by the Human Rights Act".
But that does not deal with the problem that the victim of an invasion of privacy does not know that his privacy is being invaded. It is only by having a positive obligation on the public authorities of the state with external scrutiny that there can be what the European convention requires, which is adequate safeguards against abuse. The Government do not propose any adequate safeguards against abuse. They simply refer to the Department for Constitutional Affairs having published guidance on the legal framework. The problem is that the legal framework is unsatisfactory because it does not have adequate safeguards. That will not do. An open-minded government do not close their minds to these central points and, unless I am much mistaken, that is what the discussion paper says has happened.
Part 4 has been concentrated on in the debate. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, that what it contains is not a tolerable system in a civilised society. It threatens the rule of law and it threatens fundamental rights and freedoms. The derogation is the only derogation among all the member states of the Council of Europe. In fact, it is the only derogation in the world since, as far as I am aware, neither Australia, the United States nor any other party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has derogated, even though they have some fairly tough laws. I believe that it can be very strongly argued that the derogation is not justified under the European Convention on Human Rights. That is a matter that will be dealt with by the Law Lords and, if necessary, by the European Court of Human Rights.
Let me reinforce what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and other noble Lords said about the curious contradiction regarding British citizens and foreigners. Everybody agrees that there are some nasty terrorists or suspected terrorists who are British citizens as well as some who are aliens. The discussion paper says that the powers in Part 4 are too draconian to impose on British citizens. But if they are too draconian to impose on British citizens who are terrorists or suspected terrorists, then I do not understand how the Government can justify imposing them on foreigners, except on the legalistic argument that foreigners can be
818
deported but British citizens cannot. The reason why that is a legalistic argument is because we all know that, in practice, foreigners cannot be deported and so they are being indefinitely interned without trial, just as we interned suspected IRA terrorists without trial under the regime that existed in Northern Ireland when I was young. That is another matter that will have to be decided by the courts. Effective measures that are irrespective of nationality are needed against British citizens as well as against foreigners who are terrorists or suspected terrorists.
My next point is that in paragraphs 205 to 234 the Newton committee imaginatively sets forth a whole range of new ideas about how to deal with the matter in a way that did not require derogation. That is very important if one is thinking of European convention ideas of proportionality because if other means can be used to achieve a legitimate aim, it is disproportionate to take unnecessary powers and use them. In her opening address, the Minister said that she recognised that the Part 4 powers were not perfect. I bet that in her reply she will not tell us in what respect the Home Office thinks that they are not perfect. It would be a very interesting exercise to discover that from her officials because if the powers are imperfect and people are being held under them, it is another example of the lack of a sense of proportion.
I am also very sorry that the Home Office document gives no response not only to the paragraphs to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred, but also to paragraphs 19 to 21 of the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, as well as paragraphs 33 to 40. As, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, there is great danger that the Home Office will simply cherry-pick those new powers being suggested by Newton, rather than cut back on unnecessary powers.
I shall say a word about SIAC, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I am one of those people who reluctantly supported setting up SIAC and I have appeared as counsel before its twin, POAC, which deals with proscribed organisation appeals where terrorist organisations are banned. I must put this very delicately: at the Bar, whether among special advocates or ordinary practitioners like myself, there are great concerns about the procedures operated and about the appearance of an independent and impartial trial in any normal sense. I know that the special advocates to whom I have spoken feel worried about that. It is not dealt with by the Newton committee, but I mention it so that the House knows. It is not a very happy situation at the moment.
Press reports suggest that the Home Secretary is a close personal friend of the Attorney General of the United States, John Ashcroft. That gives me real concern because of what has happened under his jurisdiction with the Patriot Act and, as my noble friend has said, in Guantanamo. The noble Baroness, who speaks better Latin than I do, will know what is meant by the maxim noscitur a sociis. One must be very careful about the contaminating influence on our own legislative regime of a lack of due process on the other side of the Atlantic.

819
Finally, I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester is not in his place. I do not agree with what he said about Part 5 on race and religion. The Newton committee put it moderately, carefully and sensitively in suggesting that the matter might best be dealt with by taking it away from this type of legislation and seeing whether the Public Order Act needs to be amended.
We know that the Select Committee on Religious Offences spent a very long time unable to reach any clear conclusion because of the problems that politics and law, free speech and religious diversity created. I represented the Satanic Verses book in the case with Salman Rushdie when an attempt was made by Muslims to extend blasphemy law to religions other than the Anglican faith. It convinced me that nothing could be more divisive in our society than to set Hindus against Muslims, Christians against Jews, secular against religious, by widening the anomalous and outdated offence of blasphemy.
So I would say to the right reverend Prelate that the first thing that would have to be done if one wanted to change the law, as the Law Commission long ago suggested, is to get rid of the offence of blasphemy, which is seen to be discriminatory, not by extending it to all religions, but by abolishing it all together. If that were done, then there would be a great deal to be said for including incitement to religious hatred and incitement to racial hatred and incitement to hatred, for example, against homosexuals in a general hate offence in the Public Order Act. However, I think that one has to tread extremely carefully if one goes down that road.
2.31 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the inadvisability of the offence of blasphemy. But I rise to make a short intervention, you may be pleased to hear, on a discrete part of this Act, Part 12, which creates a new offence, that of bribery outside the United Kingdom. I remind your Lordships of my membership of Transparency International UK's advisory council.
The provision was widely welcomed, and, as the highly respected review says, is largely uncontroversial. It goes some way to implement the UK's compliance with the OECD convention on combating bribery, pending the comprehensive legislation which the Government are committed to. My concern is that the review also welcomed the repeal of Part 12, on the basis that there would be an anti-corruption Bill on the statute book which would be the proper home for such a provision and the others that are required to comply fully with all our international obligations in the world-wide fight against corruption.
But, my Lords, we have no such statute. The Government did present a draft, for scrutiny, and as a member of the scrutiny committee, I think I ought to say that the draft that we saw would not in our opinion have provided satisfactory compliance. This was echoed by our OECD witness, and indeed by the review itself. The Government accepted some of our
820
recommendations, but have not as yet presented a fresh Bill. So if Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act is repealed now as things stand, we shall have no offence of bribery outside the United Kingdom.
I do not need to tell your Lordships that overseas bribery is widespread, more so, probably, than domestic UK bribery. It is enormously destructive of development and democracy itself in developing countries. The USA has had legislation to counter bribery abroad for 30 years, and the recent succession of OECD, Council of Europe and United Nations instruments shows the priority the international community has chosen to give to the subject. So a lacuna in our legislation at this moment would not only prevent effective prosecution of highly damaging offences, it would send all the wrong signals to the rest of the world.
When I raised this point earlier (Hansard 4 February, col. 679), my noble friend agreed that Part 12 was important. I am grateful for that, and I am also grateful that my honourable friend Beverley Hughes said in another place in their debate on the review that,
"we would not want to lose the powers in part 12 until alternative legislation was in place"—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/04; 378.]
But can I press my noble friend to be firmer? As my honourable friend Hugh Bayley said in that debate, the United Kingdom faces an evaluation by the OECD of our compliance with the convention this year, as well as one by the Council of Europe, on our compliance with the council's convention on corruption, ratified by our Government last December. We really need to show we are serious about this. Can she assure us that there will be no government proposal for repeal of Part 12 until a new corruption Act is in force?
It would, of course, be the most desirable of all to have the new corruption Bill. What can my noble friend tell us about its timetable?
2.36 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we have been presented with a very full and carefully considered report on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, of a committee of nine Privy Counsellors, four of whom are Members of your Lordships' House, all four of whom have spoken to great effect in this debate. Their report has been supported by speakers on all sides of your Lordships' House and has met with no serious criticism other than that from the Government Front Bench. I, too, and my party support the report. It makes it possible for me to be briefer than I would otherwise have been. I have been pruning my speech quite vigorously and hope to be able to finish well within my allotted time.
The report was, of course, unanimous. Not only that, but it was endorsed by a report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, two members of which have also spoken in this debate. It has, however, met with a profoundly hostile response from the Government. When the Minister gave a list of points in the report which the Government accepted, she came out with four or five frankly minor points out of a report containing nearly 60 recommendations.

821
By far the most controversial element is Part 4 of the Act. However, other issues raised in the report also need to be looked at. If I may, I shall deal briefly with those.
The Bill included a number of provisions which had little to do with terrorism but were intended to extend general police powers. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, have pointed out, the report says that these issues should be taken out of the terrorism legislation and put where they belong, in general anti-criminal legislation. The Joint Committee agrees with that. I must say that I, too, agree very strongly with that conclusion.
The committee made some very sensible proposals on Part 3 of the Act concerning the disclosure of information held by public authorities for use in the investigation of crime. The Government rejected those proposals for the oversight and limited judicial control of those disclosures. I believe that, there again, it was the committee that was right.
Part 10 deals with police powers such as fingerprinting. Although those new powers are undoubtedly useful against terrorism, their impact and use goes far beyond terrorism. The committee said that the measures in Part 10 needed to be re-examined. Some of the provisions, the committee said, went too far and should be repealed or significantly amended. The Joint Committee once again agrees. The Government once again reject that out of hand.
Part 14 of the Act contains a particularly sweeping Henry VIII power to amend or repeal legislation by order. That order, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, pointed out, is subject only to the negative resolution procedure. The committee says that that power should be repealed. The Government respond with a single word: "Disagree". It seems obvious that Section 124, in Part 14, should at least be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure when it is used to amend or repeal primary legislation.
I now turn to Part 4. Part 4 is, of course, extremely controversial. Some people describe detention under Part 4 as the United Kingdom's equivalent of Guantanamo Bay. That is not entirely fair. It is, for example, possible for detainees to leave the United Kingdom for their home country or a third country willing to accept them, and two out of the 16 people who have been detained have done so. Again, unlike the situation up to now at Guantanamo Bay, there is an appeal against detention to SIAC. That is not a proper trial, but it is at least a legal process which involves a review of the case by a judicial body chaired by a high court judge. But Part 4 still authorises detention for an indefinite period and does so without a criminal conviction. Part 4 undoubtedly breaches Article 5, and the United Kingdom has therefore had to derogate from that article.
The application of Part 4 to foreigners alone is disturbing. On the face of it that does appear to be discrimination, and indeed SIAC held that Part 4 amounted to unlawful discrimination which rendered
822
the whole of the process unlawful. That decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal, but it is that decision in turn which is subject to an impending appeal to your Lordships' House.
I agree with the Newton report and, in particular, with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lord Holme and others, that we cannot say that home-grown terrorists are less of a threat than imported ones. So what is the justification for Part 4?
The Government said, at paragraph 36 of their response, which was a passage referred to by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, but I quote it in full:
"While it would be possible to seek other powers to detain British citizens who may be involved in international terrorism, it would be a very grave step. The Government believes that such draconian powers would be difficult to justify".
I believe that the powers that are now in Part 4 are equally draconian and equally difficult to justify. If the threat is so serious that detention is needed then the Government should apply it to domestic as well as to foreign suspects. If the threat is not serious enough to make detention of domestic terrorist suspects necessary, then foreign ones should not be detained either.
It is of course clear that we cannot abolish Part 4 today. In the debate on 25 February in the House of Commons that point was accepted in a thoughtful speech by Vera Baird, a distinguished lawyer for whom I have great respect, who can perhaps be described—and I hope she will not mind my saying so—as a realistic radical. What she said was this:
"When I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether, if we work hard at expanding the capability of the criminal law, we will succeed in getting rid of Part 4, he said, very clearly, no. We have no option but to accept that today—everyone agrees that there is an emergency and a threat. We cannot possibly demand that the measure ends now, so we must vote for it tonight".
Then, omitting a couple of sentences:
"All of us who are consulted should aim to ensure that the criminal law can achieve the successful prosecution of British or foreign nationals who are terrorists. There is no other way in which we can persuade the Home Secretary that we can do without Part 4, and we must do so by letting the provision fall into disuse and using the criminal law more often".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/04; col. 367.]
That seems a very wise description of what I believe is the course at which we should aim.
Of course I recognise that there are serious problems. Evidence cannot always be produced in court because it might give away vital information about intelligence procedures and sources. My noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, in his recent review of Part 4, concluded that it was not a disproportionate response. But I agree with the Newton committee and with the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the time has now come to start the work of replacing Part 4. I agree that the replacement must apply to domestic as well as to foreign suspects. I agree that we should, as soon as possible, move to the end of derogation from Article 5. I agree that, as far as possible, we should use criminal law. In that context, one thing that has met with wide approval in the debate this afternoon is to allow intercepts to be used as evidence. That was particularly supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd

823
of Berwick, who I am glad to see just returning to his place, who has exceptional experience in this matter and whose views are ones that the Government ought to take very much into consideration.
So long as any form of Part 4 procedure needs to be retained, we must also bring it closer, if we can, to the criminal trial. A starting point for this would be to raise the threshold for the exercise of the power to order detention under Part 4. Under that Act the threshold is the "reasonable belief- of the Home Secretary that there is a suspect who presents a threat to national security. In fact, the Government have made it clear that it is actually operating on the basis of a higher standard. The Home Secretary said so in the debate in the House of Commons on 25 February, when he said:
"We have used a higher level of evidence and lifted the test higher than the standard required by 'reasonable belief".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/04; col. 295.]
That was the test laid down in this House just over two years ago. The same point was made in the consultation paper just published by the Government and by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal. It is obvious that raising the threshold would not endanger the system.
We need to achieve a correct balance between the protection of the public from terrorism and the protection of the civil liberties of suspects. We have not yet got that balance right. I hope that the Government will now come forward with substantial reforms to the anti-terrorism Act. In that context I have to say that I am deeply concerned by the negative response to the consultation paper, though slightly relieved by the somewhat more ameliorative line that has recently been taken. I am also concerned by the unusually long period which has been allowed for consultation. I fear that this may have been intended to ensure that no new legislation can be passed in the next 12 months, so that Part 4 will have to be renewed again, though admittedly for the last time, next year. I hope that this time next year my concerns on these matters will have been proved wrong.
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Newton and his colleagues for their report that we have debated today. As the House would expect from a committee of' such distinguished Privy Counsellors, it has produced a report that is substantial, measured and constructive. The committee obviously put in a formidable quantity as well as quality of work, and did an enormous amount of research. Members of the committee have paid due tribute to the small team that assisted them, but I have no doubt that there was a huge responsibility on their own shoulders. They brought to their work a considerable level of expertise and experience from around the world of politics and from the very top of the world of law.
The committee made a number of serious recommendations worthy of careful consideration by the Government. I, too, was somewhat disconsolate when the Home Secretary made a rather rapid and
824
unhelpful response, but, as is her wont, the Minister has today given a full and courteous introduction to this debate and I have absolutely no doubt that she will do the Home Secretary proud in her response. Whether it is a response that meets the points made by noble Lords is yet to be seen.
Matters as serious as the balancing of the safety of our citizens against the fundamental rights to justice of all human beings demand serious consideration. That is, indeed, just what they have received today. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith pointed out, the context for the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was the tragedy of the events of 11 September 2001.
The Minister reminded us that since that date attacks have taken place in Bali, Mombassa, Riyadh, Casablanca and Istanbul, so no one can harbour any illusions about the strength of the terrorist threat or about the fact that we in the United Kingdom remain a serious target. No one who has spoken today has questioned that threat. Indeed, I have never heard a Member of this House do so.
The reality is, therefore, that we are not talking about a temporary measure when we discuss these issues today. So far we have, indeed, been fortunate. The Minister was right in her opening remarks—I join with her—to thank the police and the intelligence services for the work that they do to try to ensure that we remain secure. We need to have in place all the necessary measures to prevent attacks from succeeding in the UK. We acknowledge that we have to be united in the war against terror—and all in this House always have been. We agree, therefore, with the Newton committee that there is a continuing need for special counter-terrorist legislation. We also believe that terrorists should be given no special status and should be treated as criminals. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, set out in his 1996 review, so far as possible anti-terrorist legislation should approximate to the ordinary criminal law and procedure.
Above all, we need constantly to check the powers in the 2001 Act against three strict and rigorous tests. First, are we confident that the powers work to minimise the risk of terrorism? Secondly, do they undermine fundamental liberties to the extent that they do the terrorists' work for them? Thirdly, can we protect the public at least as effectively by any other measures that involve less harm to those self same liberties?
After careful consideration of those three tests, we support the 2001 Act overall but we believe that all anti-terrorist legislation should be subject to annual review and full debate by Parliament and, if necessary, to regular revision. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Northesk for reminding us of the part of the Act that deals with the retention of communications data. I very much look forward to the Minister's responses to the questions that he posed.
One of the most striking aspects of the committee's report is the number of powers that it identifies in the 2001 Act that have been used sparingly or not at all. It gives the example of freezing orders provided for in

825
Part 2. Everyone agrees that the power to freeze assets is, indeed, a key weapon in the fight against terrorism. Yet the committee states at paragraph 146:
"These measures are unlikely to be used against terrorism while the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001 is in place, which already makes specific provision for freezing terrorist assets".
The committee goes on to cite a number of advantages that distinguish the United Nations order from the Part 2 powers and concludes in paragraph 149 that,
"freezing orders for specific use against terrorism should be addressed again in primary terrorism legislation, based on the well-tested provisions of the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001".
In their response to the Newton report, the Government say at paragraph 13 on page 21 that they do not accept the proposal, stating:
"The fact that the power has not been deployed since the legislation came into force is not of itself an argument for setting it aside now, nor including it within primary anti-terrorism legislation".
That view was repeated by Beverley Hughes when she concluded the debate in another place and added that,
"the fact that some powers may not have been used much does not detract from their deterrent effect".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/04; col. 377.]
I have to say that we still find that a curious justification for rejecting the committee's perfectly reasonable proposal. We ask the Government to consider that particular issue again as much of the committee's argument is that the United Nations terrorism order is a better, more effective and more just law.
On the question of identity theft the committee says that it is not convinced that all the relevant measures in Part 10 address that effectively. I refer noble Lords to paragraphs 43 and 336 of the report. In his response the Home Secretary said at paragraph 107:
"The Government are assured that these powers are effective and proportionate".
The question is, how can that be the case when the committee has said that the problem is on so large a scale? The Home Secretary's response at paragraph 109 is that the problems will be addressed by the introduction of identity cards in the UK and by the use of biometric technologies. But under the Government's scheme compulsory cards will not be introduced until 2011 at the earliest, and will not solve the problem of credit card fraud. Therefore, I do not think that the Government's response addresses the committee's points directly. We need a more rapid and tailored solution than the one that the Government are currently offering.
We agree strongly with the committee's recommendation on terrorist property, particularly in relation to extending the power of seizure to non-cash items. The Government say that the powers in the terrorism Act already allow such seizures, yet the committee has clearly identified a problem. We believe that the Government need to give greater reassurance than that given in the published response which simply states that the current powers are adequate to tackle the problem.
826
We also agree with the committee's view at paragraphs 15a and 124:
"Open hearings in an ordinary Magistrates' Court are not the appropriate forum for handling cash seizures in terrorist cases".
The committee recommends that the terrorism Act be amended to enable cash seizure hearings to be handled in a similar way to warrant hearings under the legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said that the Government would look more closely at that proposal, and we certainly welcome that assurance.
The committee echoes and endorses concerns that were raised by my noble friends, for example, my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, during the passage of the Bill in 2001 on the Henry VIII powers in Section 124. That has received very proper attention from noble Lords today. The committee's recommendation could not be stronger. Paragraphs 58 and 442 state:
"The powers of amendment set out in Section 124 are particularly unwelcome in emergency legislation of this kind, and they should be repealed".
However, the Government dismissed the committee's recommendation; they are wrong to do so. We strongly urge the Government to reconsider their view, most of all on legislation such as this that impinges so fiercely on individual civil liberties. I, too, should like to commend the very careful and clever assistance that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, gave to her noble friend the Minister in pointing out that there is a straightforward resolution to the problem. I hope that the Government are able to seize upon her offered solution.
I turn now to the most controversial aspect of the legislation on which the committee echoes our view that was originally expressed during the passage of the Act. I refer to the detention powers in Part 4 that have received so much attention today. The committee's conclusion in paragraph 203 is unequivocal. It states that,
"the Part 4 powers which allow foreign nationals to be detained potentially indefinitely should be replaced as a matter of urgency".
During the passage of the Act my noble friends argued strongly that internment was not the best way of dealing with such cases. Regrettably, the alternatives that were put forward by the Opposition did not persuade the Home Secretary. As a result, as we have heard, under the detention powers some 14 foreign nationals are being held indefinitely without trial.
It is undoubtedly the case that such detention is a serious infringement of civil liberties. The Home Secretary is fond of saying on television and radio—he said it again on 25 February—that the detained persons can always leave the country. I do not find that a particularly persuasive argument. I very much welcomed the Minister's measured and accurate response today when she recognised that if those people returned to their countries of origin they could well face death. However, the other side of that problem was very properly pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman; namely, that it is a very difficult matter to release such persons into the community here thus—one would expect—putting our own citizens at risk. Any government have to

827
undertake the most excruciatingly difficult balancing act in order to make these decisions. We do not underestimate the problem faced by the Government in the matter. We recognise that the Government have had to take a tough decision on keeping those people in detention and we support them in the action that they have had to take.
Nevertheless, because it is such a serious infringement of civil liberty, the Government should heed the committee's request and seek an alternative approach. I welcome the Government's undertaking to review Part 4 over the next six months. The next question is which alternative approach would work? The committee offers several serious options. I shall seriously prune my speech at this point, as did the noble Lord. Lord Goodhart, because noble Lords have appropriately addressed those alternatives.
We support in general almost every proposal by the committee. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Newton will say that I ought to refer to one on which we do not agree with the committee—that is with regard to the use of electronic monitoring. There is a difficulty in proposing that people who are potential suicide bombers might be appropriately electronically monitored and released into the community. I believe that their lack of care about being followed or having their whereabouts known might lead to a tragedy before any electronic means might be taken to stop them from performing an illegal act. We accept the other recommendations almost without exception.
The Home Secretary has told us that we already have,
"a wide range of criminal and terrorist … offences that can be used to bring prosecutions. The Government is considering whether further offences should be introduced".
That is an interesting proposal, but senior police officers have told us that there are gaps in the law that create problems for them in their pursuit of terrorism. For example my right honourable friend David Davies invited the Minister in another place to say, when she wound up the debate, when we were likely to see such further proposals. The Minister Beverley Hughes did not take the opportunity on that occasion to respond to a point about conspiracy law and I would be grateful if the noble Baroness the Minister could do so today, or indicate whether she can write to me.
The powers that the House is examining today are exceptional. Under normal circumstances many of those powers would not even be contemplated, let alone approved by this House. Other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate had the opportunity at an earlier stage to debate the Act when it was passing through the House and have made clear the reluctance but realism with which they had to agree to such provisions—subject, of course, to those that made it possible to have this debate today.
Regrettably the threat of terrorism dictates that some extreme measures are necessary. We agree with the Government that without the powers of the 2001 Act our defences against international terrorism would be weakened to an unacceptable level. For that reason, despite our reservations about Part 4, we
828
support the continuance of the Act. However, we call on the Home Secretary to return to the questions raised about Part 4 and to review most carefully whether changes in evidence could allow him to replace what is effectively internment with what we all want—a proper process of justice.
3.3 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I straightaway express my gratitude for the way in which this debate has been handled and repeat my sincere thanks to the committee. I should also make some general responses to the issues that have been raised. I also accept that the report was unanimous and was undertaken by those involved in the process from all sides of the House. I reassure all noble Lords that that is a matter that the Government very much take into account. We also accept the sagacity of its authorship.
However, infallibility is an issue with which it is difficult to struggle and I agree with the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, when, with great humility, he accepted that the committee which was entrusted with such an onerous task did not claim omniscience or omnipotence. Equally, the Government find themselves in the same position. That helps to explain what I mean when I say "perfect". We and the committee are both striving for a balance—not "perfect" in the sense that, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester made plain, freedom is not absolute and in balancing one group's interest against another one restricts the rights and liberties of one group, often to give voice to the rights and liberties of the other group. Regrettably, we do not find ourselves in a perfect situation because we have to accept, with due humility, that whatever we craft—no matter how we strive to make it fair and proportionate—it will not be perfect. All we can hope is to make it as perfect as we can.
I understand the sensitivities that may have been bruised by what may have appeared to be too hasty a rejection from my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary. But I hope that both he and I have made it plain that no discourtesy was intended to your Lordships. I thank my noble friend Lady Hayman for her kind words in relation to my ability to spin gold from straw. That is not an ability that I have yet crafted, but I thank her for that. Her advocacy was well demonstrated in he measured comments. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his kindness. I do not know whether that will prove to be a kindness, but I thank him none the less.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it was intended to be a kindness and the noble Baroness is undoubtedly the best alchemist in the House.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not know what to say to such flattery and I accept it with as much grace as I can. I hope that the noble Lord understands, in relation to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that it was difficult to have a discussion on those matters. He will remember

829
that the discussion paper was published on 25 February and so it was impossible to consider the report of the Joint Committee as it was published the next day, on 26 February, the day after the discussion paper, a draft of which was available only on 24 February. I know that many people believe that we can act with speed, but that report needed a deal of consideration.
I now turn to some of the main issues that were raised by a number of noble Lords in relation to the report. The first is the distinction that appears to have been drawn between nationals and non-nationals. That is an issue that was raised not only by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, but the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Holme, as well as my noble friend Lady Hayman.
We have made clear the difficulty that that poses. The difference between the national and the non-national is particularly challenging for the very reason that we prosecute wherever possible. If there is evidence upon which we can prosecute for any offence, that is the Government's preferred course. In relation to international terrorists, there is a difficulty, which I am grateful that the House has accepted, over what one does about removal of that individual. Deportation, if possible, is the natural consequence of the fact that Part 4 powers are immigration powers. Detention is only permissible pending deportation and when no other powers are available. I hear what is being said, that there should be a change to bring the two together.
As with international terrorists who are foreign nationals, our first thought is to prosecute wherever possible. Where evidence of offence is not available, we seek to investigate and, hopefully, disrupt them in ways permissible by law. Part 4 is not available, by definition, but the question of what more we could and can do is raised by the Privy Council committee, and acknowledged in the discussion paper. The latter asks for ideas. I hope that noble Lords will see that the Government are trying to be open, are considering these matters, and will take into account the ideas that have been both raised in this debate and in the Newton report. I hope I have made that plain.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way, and l shall not interrupt again. To take one specimen example, the Newton report recommends that the Government think about using the French procedure of the juges d'instructions to get over the difficulties of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. Is that the kind of recommendation that the Government will now take really seriously, coming back with informed recommendations by August, or has that been rejected?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot say that that has been rejected. On the options currently put forward, I accept entirely the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that the committee was not asked to put forward solutions in this regard. It
830
was simply asked to report, review and recommend. I have taken that very much to heart, and the Government have taken that very much to heart. But we are now in a position where what we have crafted appears to be the best possible option at the moment. We have made plain that we are willing to explore other options, other exceptions, to see whether a better way may be found. The legislation we currently have gives us a deadline in relation to November 2006 in any event. I can certainly reassure my noble friends that the sunset clause is there, it is robust and there is no question of not operating as far as the Government are concerned. I have listened very carefully to the ingenious suggestion put forward by my noble friend, Lady Hayman. I cannot make a commitment about it. Noble Lords will know that quiet reflection is always important in these situations. I commend my noble friend for her ingenuity, and we will consider her suggestion.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Scotland. She chose her words carefully and said that there was no intention not to abide by the sunset clause. That, of course, I recognised in what I said. My assertion was that the power to remove that clause, by SI with negative procedure, was there, and that was something that we should change as a matter of principle. I am grateful for her assurance that the Government will look at that.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I should make it clear that we do not believe the way in which the provision is currently crafted is as negative as my noble friend Lady Hayman believes. The powers in Section 124 are more limited than she implies, and we consider it would be ultra vires to repeal the sunset clause. Perhaps it is not the most appropriate time, but I do assure her that we do not think the situation is quite as bad as she thinks, but we are going to look at the provision to make sure that it is as good as we think it should be.
These matters can now be looked at, and options considered. I do not say that at the end of that consideration any particular course will be predestined. We will look at it properly and openly. Even if the blanket ban on use of intercept evidence were lifted—and that possibility is currently under review—it would not be, if I may respectfully say so, a whole answer. The review should be concluded fairly shortly. I know that I have been pressed as to what "fairly shortly" is, and I cannot be more specific than that, other than to say that it is clearly understood that this matter warrants a degree of urgency.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way, since it was I who pressed her on a specific date on which the review would be concluded. "Fairly shortly" in parliamentary terms has been known to extend over several years. Does the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, think that "fairly shortly" would mean that this review by the

831
Government would be concluded within the six months that her right honourable friend set for consideration of alternatives?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I would certainly hope that it would be concluded within six months. I would love to say much more in terms of certainty, but I would be very disappointed if at the end of July we were not in a position to give the sort of response the noble Lord would wish. The noble Lord knows, having been in these situations before, how difficult those dates are. I certainly assure the noble Lords that it is understood that this needs to be done in shorter, rather than longer, time.
Not all the intelligence material is, of course, derived from intercept. It is rarely used in court proceedings. It does not come in coherent chunks. There will always be problems in relation to proper intelligence sources, and how we use the intelligence material in court, particularly if the criminal trial defendant needs to know the full case against him. Any new offence cannot be retrospective. Even if Part 4 were repealed, it could not prosecute those detained for the new offence. All those issues are issues with which we are going to have to deal and consider very carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, asked why other EU countries have not derogated in this way. The events of September 11 were unprecedented, as we have all agreed, in terms of the loss of life and damage to property. The UK has, as your Lordships know, previously derogated from Article 5 in respect of the threat from terrorism. We consider the threat to the UK, as the closest ally of the United States, is such as to justify the derogation. It has been accepted that each country has to make its assessment of the threat posed to itself. It may be that different countries, for different reasons, will be placed at different levels of stress. But I can assure your Lordships that we are trying to establish a framework of agreement with potential destination countries of the kind suggested in paragraphs 254 to 257 of the Newton report. The purpose of the agreement is to protect the individuals who may be adversely affected and the human rights of individuals following their departure from the United Kingdom.
Many of those matters were echoed also by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and I hope he will take my answers as answers to him, too. He raised one specific issue in relation to recruitment of staff for the security services, and we take very seriously indeed the comments he made regarding the historical arrangements. I can reassure the noble Lord that the security service has been planning the expansion for some time. The recruitment plan is well in hand and will not be affected by the announcements that we have made in relation to it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, commented on Part 3 of the Act, which allows the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to make disclosures for the purposes of criminal investigation. The Government believe that this is necessary in the context of these bodies because of the statutory restrictions on what they can disclose. Other departments and police forces can disclose, where
832
information assists in the detention of serious crimes such as murder, sex offences and the like. It is right that Part 3 allows the Inland Revenue to disclose for Section 19(2) purposes, which include crime.
Your Lordships will know of the serious issues of a Soham-type nature—
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that disclosure by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise can be made in relation to any crime—not just serious crime, but any crime—and if so, what is the justification?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is right that disclosure would have to be relevant to the crime and pertinent in satisfying certain elements of it. I am not able to tell your Lordships precisely, but I believe that these powers are used only in relation to very serious matters. I can write to the noble and learned Lord with clarification.
He referred to various figures but I am unable to respond to them either in relation to their accuracy or to say whether there are other contextual issues which would put them into a different light. I therefore hope that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for not being able to deal with the matter as he might want.
My noble friend Lady Hayman asked whether detainees can leave and expressed her discomfort about them being set at large. I was trying to explain why that is understood and the work we are trying to do carefully with our partners to address that issue.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester raised the knotty issue of hate crime. The Government will consider whether the existing system of aggravated offences could be improved, but have not identified earlier opportunities for reform in the legislative programme to date. We remain attracted in principle to introducing an offence of incitement to religious hatred, analogous to the existing offence of incitement to racial hatred. We will listen most carefully to those views before reaching any decision.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, asked about the voluntary regime and its success. The public sector wanted the element of compulsion to justify disclosure, and the policy interests were clear. We will certainly give consideration to the noble Earl's comments.
I turn to the issues raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. Various comments were made about the discussion paper, which asks for suggestions about possible new offences, as I hope I have outlined. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, suggests a broadly-drawn offence that acts preparatory to terrorism, and the Government must consider whether that assists in filling the gap. We will take into account the other comments made today by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in relation to those other offences. We are looking at both ideas and at what other countries do; for instance, the French offence of association with a wrong-doer. We will follow that suggestion, together with many others.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, also asked about Section 17 of RIPA. Material on which these decisions are held comes from a variety of sources. It

833
is not simply the intercept material and it would be wrong to assume that relaxation of intercept answers the problems entirely. Regrettably, it does not. I am not able to give your Lordships the precise nature of all the evidence held in relation to each of the 14 persons. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord understands why that is so.
I turn to the noble and learned Lord's able pupil, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. He raised the issue of insufficient case management. We do not accept the criticism made by the committee in terms of the individual management of cases. The first tranche of individual appeals took longer to come before SIAC because of the legal challenges made by the appellants to the derogation that had first to be heard. In preparation for the individual appeals each of the cases was considered. That included the threat posed by the individual and the ability to deport, as well as any other changes in circumstances.
The individual cases are kept actively under review. One individual has subsequently been convicted on criminal charges and another is currently being prosecuted. Both cases were based on evidence that came to light after certification. The first set of reviews will therefore start in April. These will be the first reviews six months after the determination of appeals. The reviews then have to be conducted at three-monthly intervals. All the information, as well as any new information on the detainees, including a threat assessment and any changes that have been made to ability to remove, will be reassessed.
I come next to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I hope that many of the issues he raised have already been covered in my comments and that he will take that as an answer. If I find that there are other matters that I have not covered, I undertake to write to any noble Lord to whom I have been so discourteous as not to answer.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker rightly raised the whole issue of Part 12, its efficacy and the need to retain it unless and until we replace it with something else. I can give her the assurance that she seeks. The Government have no intention of repealing Part 12 until such time as a new corruption Act is in force. I hope that I have said that with sufficient clarity for her to feel comforted.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, then raised several issues. I hope that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will find that the comments I made earlier are a proper response to them.
This has been a testing issue and we will have an opportunity to answer many of the points more fully next week when we discuss Part 4. I therefore hope that noble Lords will find it appropriate that I have concentrated mainly on the other issues. I shall write to noble Lords in relation to any other matters that I have failed to address in full.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Elections (Ordinary Day of Election 2004) Order 2004
3.27 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29 January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this order, we are debating the four subsequent election regulations on the Order Paper. The instruments represent necessary and important legislation to ensure the effective running of this year's elections. They are highly technical and they do not vary current practice too much. They simplify existing legislation covering combined elections.
On 6 May last year, the Government announced a further step towards convenience for voters as part of our process for modernising elections —our intention to move the date of the English local authority and the Greater London Authority elections to the date of the European parliamentary elections so that all the 2004 elections would be combined together on the same day.
The five instruments before the House today form part of the package of the secondary legislation that provides for the proper conduct of the European elections and those that will or may be combined with them in 2004 in line with our stated aim. Before I give some background on each instrument, there are a number of important points that your Lordships will want to note.
First, combined elections are not new. Provision already exists for different types of elections to be combined. The Government are not fundamentally changing election practice. I should add that the legislation before us today has nothing whatever to do with the election pilots being considered elsewhere. The Government would like to see combined elections in 2004, and today we are debating the mechanics of bringing that about.
In preparation for these instruments, the Government have undertaken extensive consultation. In late 2002, the majority of those responding to our consultation paper were in support of combining elections in 2004. Late last year, draft instruments were the subject of both public and statutory consultation. In short, the policy and subsequent instruments before the House today are the result of significant consultation with the Electoral Commission and other stakeholders. A summary paper of the responses that we received and our reaction was placed in the Library of the House on 12 February. I can assure noble Lords that revisions and amendments to take account of those responses have been made, where appropriate.
Lastly, by way of introduction, the life of a returning officer has not always been helped by existing legislation. Combined elections have traditionally been governed by rules set out in slightly different ways in a multitude of different legislative instruments. We are taking this opportunity to simplify matters and to bring all the key rules together under one consistent set of instruments.
I now turn briefly to the details of each of the five instruments before us. The European Parliamentary Elections (Appointed Day of Poll) Order 2004—Statutory Instrument 217—has already been made by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and specifies the date of the United Kingdom's European parliamentary elections as 10 June. Your Lordships will already be aware that the time period within which those elections must be held is set by unanimous agreement of all the member states.
The Local Elections (Ordinary Day of Election 2004) Order 2004 moves the date of elections to local authorities in England and the Greater London Authority from 6 May to the date of the European parliamentary elections, which, as I have just indicated, is 10 June. The order also provides for consequential amendments that arise as a result of the date change. It amends the following: the term of office of councillors; the six-month period during which it is not necessary to hold a by-election; the timing of annual and parish meetings; and other matters that relate to the moving of that date.
Your Lordships will also wish to know that on 3 February the National Assembly for Wales, which has responsibility for local government in Wales, approved a similar order to move the date of the Welsh local authority elections from 6 May to, again, 10 June— the date of the European parliamentary elections.
The European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004 revoke the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 1999 and make provision for the conduct of those elections in Great Britain and, for the first time, in Gibraltar. While the regulations provide largely for similar arrangements to those used in 1999—the date of the last European parliamentary elections—a number of significant changes are also being proposed. These regulations are necessary because those which governed the 1999 European parliamentary elections require amendment to take account of changes that we have since made to the law in this country relating to parliamentary and local elections. They are also necessary in order to implement recommendations made in a post-European parliamentary election review by the Home Office.
While those regulations largely reflect existing provisions or changes resulting from other new legislation and government reviews, there are some new provisions which your Lordships will wish to know about briefly. In line with the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003, the draft regulations make certain provisions enabling the people of Gibraltar to vote in EU elections for the first time.
Provisions regarding absent voting are updated in the draft regulations to apply changes in absent voting arrangements at parliamentary and local elections which have been implemented since the last European parliamentary elections. That will make postal voting easier. Reflecting the provisions in other legislation, the regulations will operate in relation to combined elections, allowing for combined applications for absent votes.
The regulations take account of the registration of accession-state citizens. Ten further states are expected to be part of the European Union by the time of the European parliamentary elections on 10 June. Provision is therefore being made for citizens of those states who are resident in the UK to be able to vote in the elections. The majority of the necessary provisions have already been set out in other secondary legislation, but modifications are needed to the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004 and the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 in order to complete the picture.
I mentioned that the regulations took account of changes in other new UK legislation and government reviews, and I shall briefly set out some of those changes. The making of a false statement in nomination papers will constitute a corrupt practice. The publication of exit polls before close of poll will become an offence, liable to fine or imprisonment. References to controls on the campaign expenditure of political parties are being removed as that issue is now covered by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. However, individual candidates' expenditure will still be covered by the regulations.
Amendments to controls on broadcasting are also being reflected. There is the provision of deices to assist voters who are physically impaired or unable to read. There is provision for postal ballot papers to be returned by hand, if wished, to the appropriate polling stations. Rules on admission to polling stations will include access for Electoral Commission observers—the Electoral Commission having a statutory duty to evaluate the European parliamentary elections. The rules will allow the counting of votes to start before close of poll across the European Union. However, no results may be made available until after close of poll across Europe. Ballot papers will be designed vertically rather than, as in 1999, horizontally so as to make them easier for electors to use.
I shall now deal with the remaining instruments which form part of the package before your Lordships' House. The draft Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) Regulations 2004 revoke and replace the Representation of the People Regulations 1986. They largely update and clarify the current provisions governing returning officer functions at combined elections and they consolidate existing provisions relating to referendums concerning local authority executive arrangements and mayoral elections. However, there are some modifications specifically in connection with combining European parliamentary and local government elections in 2004.
With regard to the functions of returning officers, Regulations 4, 5 and 6 of the new draft regulations make similar provisions to the 1986 regulations concerning the functions of individual returning officers at each election where polls are to be combined, their funding and the polling stations to be used when polls are combined.
The provisions now expressly take account of the possibility of the combination of more than two polls—for example, where a local parish election is also combined with the European parliamentary and local government

837
elections. Regulation 8 and Schedule 2 update existing provisions for the combination of a parliamentary general or by-election with other polls, including mayoral elections or referendums concerning local authority executive arrangements. These regulations also include significant changes which apply in 2004 only.
Draft Regulation 7 and Schedule I include particular provisions specifically relating to the European parliamentary election, Greater London Authority elections and other local government elections which are to be held on the same date in 2004—that is, 10 June.
The Greater London returning officer is to be the returning officer for the London European parliamentary electoral region, assisted by a designated deputy. That capitalises on the fact that the Greater London Authority and the European parliamentary London region cover the same geographical area.
In 1999, the European parliamentary elections were arranged and votes were counted on the basis of Westminster parliamentary constituency boundaries. However, in 1999 they were not held in combination with local government elections. As a result of a request from electoral administrators and views received from its first consultation, the Government propose in the draft regulations that this year's European parliamentary elections should be arranged, and votes counted, on the basis of local government areas instead of the Westminster parliamentary constituencies. If that provision were not included, so-called combined local authority and European parliamentary elections would, in fact, each have to be run quite differently, often according to non-contiguous boundaries. That would lead to a confusing patchwork and would probably make a nonsense of holding everything on the same date.
As a consequence of this decision, the returning officer for each local authority area will exercise the functions of the local returning officer, under the direction of European parliamentary regional returning officers for each area, instead of the acting returning officers for parliamentary constituencies in 1999. For the convenience of voters we are providing for the sending out and the return of all ballot papers together, including one single declaration of identity to cover all the ballot papers that a voter receives.
With reference to the Greater London Authority election booklet, under regulation 7(7), the Greater London returning officer will be able to include a limited amount of information about European parliamentary election voting procedures in such a booklet. It is reasonable for the European parliamentary elections to be mentioned in the Greater London Authority "election addresses" booklet but that information should not dominate what is essentially an opportunity for London mayoral candidates to address voters. However, the booklet is not available to other regions in the country—it is specific to London—and that is why the European parliamentary issue should not dominate, so that people in one region have different information compared with the rest of the country.
For London there is provision for the electronic counting of votes in the 2004 European parliamentary election, when the Greater London Authority election is
838
also counted electronically. That is not new. London had experience of counting Greater London Authority votes electronically in 2000, and is expected to count electronically in 2004, so it is logical that they be allowed to count the European parliamentary votes electronically at the same time.
Your Lordships will know that the Government have given local people choice about how they wish to be governed locally. Neither the Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 nor the Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 change that policy. We do not expect any electoral referendums for mayors or elections in June, but we cannot rule them out. So, these regulations provide for the eventuality that either a referendum or a mayoral election could be combined with other polls in June or in the future. That is to ensure consistency of provisions with other polls.
I do not propose to go into all the provisions of the regulations here, but noble Lords may be interested to note that they provide for: postal ballot papers which are returned by hand to be returned to a polling station within the area common to all the elections being combined; for example, in the parish area where parish, district and European parliamentary election are combined; and they clarify that in accordance with common law, a personal mark which the elector is accustomed to make will suffice where a signature is required on a form.
The Electoral Commission and other stakeholders have, in their responses to our consultation, given many useful and practical comments which have been taken into account in the final draft versions of the package of statutory instruments which are now before the House. This secondary legislation will enable this year's local government, Greater London Authority and European parliamentary elections to be properly conducted, and will implement the Government's decision to combine elections in England and Wales in 2004. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29 January be approved [7th Report front the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving a brief but reasonably comprehensive overview of this package of regulations. It will not have escaped his notice that we have never been totally in favour of having all these elections together. We still believe that there is likely to be confusion. Although the regulations are the same, there are different aspects to all the elections and how they take place. None the less, that is happening now and it is clear, from the fact that so many regulations have had to be produced to bring them together, that it is not entirely an easy matter.
I do not want to refer to any of the regulations in particular, except to comment on one or two aspects of those relating to local elections and the mayoral elections and then I shall turn to the European one. In relation to citizens of the new states that will join the European Union on I May, can the Minister advise the House—I

839
should know the answer to this so I apologise—whether when the electoral canvass was carried out last year it was made clear that this was coming and therefore people were entitled to put their names on the electoral register and were entitled to recognise that they would be able to vote in the elections? If not, this is very late in the day to be advising citizens of the new European states who are in this country that they will be able to vote in those elections. Perhaps the Minister could answer that point.
I welcome the fact that exit polls will not be published before the close of polls. That is long overdue. Such publication has had a dramatic effect in many places and the legislation has been required for some time. I welcome that.
What I had not picked up when I read the regulations was that the counting of votes will start before the close of polls. That is most unusual. Perhaps I misunderstood what the Minister said.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the misunderstanding has probably arisen because of my inadequate explanation. The counting of the European elections, which this year take place on Thursday 10 May, has always been held hack in this country until late on Sunday evening when all the polls have closed in the rest of Europe. It will now be open to the returning officer, if he wishes, to start counting before the close of polls across Europe which could be on the Friday, the Saturday or early on the Sunday. It would not happen before the close of polls in this country.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I was wondering how all the ballot boxes were going to be opened before the close of polls. If I had given it a moment's thought I might have realised, but thank you for that explanation.
I refer briefly to the electronic counting of votes in Greater London. It was not an unalloyed success in 2000 and I hope that a review has been undertaken of what happened. I remember it well because my chief executive at that stage was the chief returning officer and I had a dramatically different chief executive the following day from the one I had the previous day. Some of the votes were munched up, which caused the most terrible problems. Has what happened been reviewed and has the system been dealt with to try to ensure that that does not happen again?
I know that one can listen and talk at the same time—I have come across that in several Bills. I understand that.
On the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004, it is plain that that concerns the regions that will not be part of the European pilot, except that in the regulations it is not plain that that is the situation. Nowhere do the regulations say that that does not refer to areas that are in the European pilot. It is a general directive on European elections. There will be considerable differences in the regulations for the areas not in the pilots from those that are in the pilots as a result of the extensive discussions that we have had on the European Union Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill.
One of those pilots is on the interesting aspect of the requirement for a witness signature on postal votes. To get that matter secured for the electoral pilots we had
840
to divide the House and it has now been agreed that there should be a witness signature. It is commonplace within the other areas. I wonder out loud—I do not think that the Minister can answer this question—why we had such a tussle in our discussions on the pilots Bill to secure what is plain and straightforward and which is, we always realised, part of normal practice.
The second matter over which we had a tussle, and on which we have now had to abandon ship, is the question of why the regulations for the European pilot Bill are not coming to the House on affirmative resolution. I have here the regulations for the European regions. They are not a matter of the most enormous quantity of information: they are full of useful information. I cannot believe that the regulations on the pilots Bill will come to any more than these do. I simply place on record the fact that I cannot understand why there has been such resistance—it is from the department dealing with the pilots Bill, not from the Minister's department—to bringing this provision to the House for affirmative resolution, except for the fact that the time is very late.
None the less, it is important how these elections are conducted. I speak only because I have the opportunity to do so, and I know the Minister has no hand in the matter. I think it is extremely unfortunate that we shall not have the opportunity to see the same detail as there is in these regulations because there are very interesting differences between the regulations for the two.
I think those are the only points that I need to make on this issue. I thank the Minister again for his presentation.
Lord Rennard: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his very good précis, if I may call it that, of these regulations and the reasons behind them. I ask him to address a number of points about them. First, in relation to the principle of the combined elections, the Minister referred to the widespread consent that it would not make sense to have local elections on the first Thursday in May followed by European elections on 10 June, five weeks later. That is not perhaps a view which is shared by those on the Conservative Benches, but generally that was the view of most local authorities and, indeed, that of the Local Government Association.
Is the Minister aware, however, that the view of most local authorities and indeed the Local Government Association was explicitly contingent: on the assumption that the experiment of combining the two elections in June was based on there being no all-postal votes in any of those elections in June? The local authorities which consented to the postponement of their elections, at some inconvenience to themselves in holding elections in June, did so on the basis that they understood there would be no postal voting pilots in those elections in June.
Secondly, in relation to the principle of the combined elections, I would kindly suggest to the Minister that it is now the second time in four years that we have postponed the May local elections to June in order to coincide with other elections. I happen to

841
think that is very sensible. I think I was one of the first and strongest advocates for doing that this year, because it seems quite wrong to expect people to have to vote twice in five weeks. There is fatigue among the parties; the party bank balances empty to pay for the May elections, but we have to try and fight an election again in June; and the media get bored by a very long election period. So it does make sense in my view to combine them.
We now have the European elections fixed every five years on the second Thursday in June or in association with that weekend. Rather than having an order suggesting that we combine them now, would it not make sense that they should be combined every five years, or should all dates for voting in local elections perhaps now be switched to June? Perhaps the weather would be better for campaigning, for canvassing and delivering leaflets; and we would have some certainty in the timescale each year. It is hard for local authorities not to know when their elections will be in knowing when they should plan their annual meetings. It might be sensible to suggest that June in general would be a better time for holding them.
I follow the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about the declaration of identity by briefly saying that Schedule 3 to the third statutory instrument explains in considerable detail the regulations over postal voting and the declaration of identity. As we go into such detail as saying that we have this declaration of identity, I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why the Government think it so important that these regulations should have this declaration of identity.
Thirdly, I ask the Minister to confirm my understanding in relation to the UK parliamentary election regulations. I cannot find anything within them that is in any way contingent upon the pilots Bill. I think that is our collective understanding. I cannot see anything within it that would be affected one way or the other by the passage or not of the pilots Bill.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister further about the recount process within these regulations. I have thought for some time that the counting for the European elections, if held on the same day as the local elections, would have to be done by local authority area rather than by parliamentary constituency, as in 1999. It does not seem to me that it could be done any other way.
However, in relation to the recounts I am a little puzzled as to how you can put into regulations a call for a recount. The Minister with his great experience of parliamentary elections will know that normally in such a count if the result is very close one or other of the party agents will call for a recount because it is very close. I cannot understand how you will have the counting process confined to the local authority area. How would you know across the whole of your European region whether or not the result is very close? You are, it seems to me, expected under these regulations—and indeed under those of 1999—to try to make a judgment as to whether, for example, in the city of Leicester you accept the result as declared for
842
that city, but you have to do it in complete ignorance of the votes cast in Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire and elsewhere. It is hard to say that the result is close and it is hard to accept the result when you do not know whether it may be close in other places. Perhaps the Minister could help me with that.
Finally, on the issue of election petitions, it seems to me that there is still a problem within the system. We know that sometimes mistakes are made by the returning officer. Sometimes that is a very obvious flaw, something that everyone knows—every party, agent and returning officer knows that there has been an error within the system. Sometimes that can make a difference between someone being elected or not being elected. But it is incumbent entirely upon one of the parties or another individual to launch an election petition at great expense, great risk and great difficulty to perhaps see that it should be a different result returned. Would it not be sensible to allow the returning officer to be able to initiate such legal action if in his opinion and that of his staff a mistake has been made that may have resulted in a wrong result being declared? Perhaps the Minister might help me with those few points on the Order.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I want to speak specifically to the Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2004, which is the last regulation in this group. In doing so, I apologise to the Government for failing to respond in the consultation process because I have a significant point to make. Civil servants in the Chamber today will want to take it on board when they consider these matters further.
The explanatory memorandum to the regulations states in paragraph 14:
"The main changes to the version of the rules, which previously applied"
under the regulations, include—
"ensuring that forms which are or may be used for all polls, such as notices in polling stations and declarations by disabled voters are in a form which is consistent with those applying under the legislation governing the election with which the mayoral election is combined."
I want to use that statement as a peg to raise the whole question of the voting slip guidance which operates in the case of the supplementary vote—the supplementary vote being the voting system which is used for the election of mayors nationally.
My noble friend will know that I devised and gave name to the supplementary vote after 12 months' detailed work in 1989 on electoral systems following an argument about the operation of the alternative vote system, the problems it has with third place candidates wining seats and the weighting given to lowest placed candidates influencing the votes in elections.
The supplementary vote is simple but it needs explanation. There is a problem with the design of the ballot paper. It was my son who drew my attention to it following a party meeting he attended, where it seems people were led to believe that a ballot paper would be invalid in the event that only one vote was

843
cast. The ballot paper in the case of the supplementary vote is set out on page 30 of the Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2002. The only guidance that I can find is in the Guidance on New Council Constitutions, which states in paragraph 14.16:
"Where there are more than two candidates, the voting system used for elected mayors is the Supplementary Vote system, as established by section 42 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Act. Under this system, voters cast first and second preference votes. After counting all of the first preference votes, if no candidate has secured a simple majority of the first preference votes cast, all but the top two candidates are eliminated. Any of the eliminated candidates' second preference votes cast for the remaining candidates are added to those totals, and the one with the most votes is elected as elected mayor. Where there are only two validly nominated candidates, the first-past-the-post system is used."
There is a slight error in that text, in that it states,
"Under this system, voters cast first and second preference votes".
They can cast them, but they are not required to cast the second vote. Therein lies the problem.
What can we do about it? I have a number of proposals, which perhaps I can briefly put to the House. I have a copy of the ballot paper, which is a photocopy of page 30 of the regulations. The only reference to guidance is where it says on the top right hand corner:
"Vote once [x] in each column".
I ask Ministers to consider adding one of the five following options as wording, because they make it clear. The first option is, "You need vote only once. Voting for a second choice is optional". The second is, "You need only to vote for your first choice. A vote for your second choice is optional". The third is, "You need to cast only one vote. You can cast votes for both your first and second choices if you wish". The fourth is, "Vote once [x] for your first choice in column 1. If you wish to express a second choice vote [x] in column 2". The final one is, "Vote [x] for your first choice. Vote [x] for your second choice if you wish".
Some Members of this House might think that this is a trivial matter. In fact, it is extremely important, because it affects hundreds of thousands of votes that will be cast in the mayoral elections. I ask my noble friend whether it is possible for an additional, supplementary guidance note to be issued to local authorities that they have in mind a revision of the ballot paper under one of the proposals that I have made today.
4 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall answer off the top of my head the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I do not know the procedures. I am a little out of date. But I imagine that this would be an issue for the Electoral Commission. I am not sure whether when the mayoral elections took place four years ago the Electoral Commission was in existence. In fact, the legislation setting it up was passed only in 2000 or thereabouts. I suspect that the commission was not in existence. This would be a matter for it to look at. If it does not fall within its remit, there is something wrong with the set up and with the guidance.
844
The point raised by my noble friend is valuable. He is the kind of Member that I like. He came along with a problem, but also brought five solutions. I will certainly take advice on that point, but I imagine that would be the way out of this.
Perhaps I may deal with the specific questions in reverse order. I have answers to most of them. I am about to prove whether I was listening to the noble Baroness at the same time as discussing one of the issues with my noble friend.
These regulations set the basic rules for pilots, following the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. In a pilot area, they will be subject to modification to allow for the pilot scheme. I hope that makes sense. I have not followed the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill so I cannot therefore go beyond the advice that I have, because I have not been dealing with the Bill.
Regarding the returning officers correcting errors, the regulations replicate existing provisions for parliamentary and local elections. We do not feel that we can use what are in effect parts of secondary legislation to make what would be a substantial change to the existing law. I am not saying that the point is not valid—it is. The threat of almost questioning an election puts people off, because of the procedures used and the costs involved. There are people who are much better aware, having had to use it in recent years. It is not something that we feel that we can do in secondary legislation.
A point was made about recounts, but the recounts can be called only in a local area, which follows the practice in 1999. There is no change in the recount provision, and it would not be any different. I suppose in a local area you would not know about the votes in the constituencies as opposed to the votes in the local areas on the European side. I fully accept that, and I do not know what the closest European vote was at the last election, using the much more modern and sensible PR system compared to the previous unfair system—those are my personal views. I do not know how practical that would be, but we are following existing practice and not changing it for the moment.
It was suggested that we combine elections every five years, given that we have European elections every five years on a fixed date. I do not know how far in advance the member states fix the span of control. We are allowed to have the European elections within a period of about four days, which allows us to vote on Thursdays. Member states can choose what day they vote on. I do not know how far ahead that date is fixed, whether it is fixed for the rest of the century or the rest of the decade. The Government invited the Electoral Commission to consider having the local elections. It would be wrong to make long-term amendments to those election dates at present. We have just received the report on this issue, and we will give a view on that in due course.
The declaration of identity provisions follows existing provisions in parliamentary local government elections. We have made no change in this respect. As for the declaration of identity with postal votes, the regulations

845
require a witness signature. The elector is required to make his usual mark but the witness is required to give a signature. That is my understanding of the point.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, that was not the point. The point was that we had a great humdinger when debating the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill on whether a witness signature was required to accompany a postal vote. The regulations are as plain as a pikestaff and perfectly easy to follow; the only way we ensured, finally, that the witness signature was to be attached to a postal vote in the Bill was through winning a vote in the House. I cannot understand why we had that row when the regulations were already there in the normal way. I do not think that the Minister will be able to answer this, but we had better get the point straight.
Lord Rooker: I did not get the point straight, did I, my Lords? We may have had a slight lack of joined-up government. That may be the answer—I do not know. It sounds terrible, but I do not think it is a matter for my department. However, the noble Baroness's point is well made, bearing in mind the other legislation going through the House on which the Government have not taken the same line.
The consultation mentioned the fact that no decision on pilots had been taken. Many respondents took the opportunity to comment on that, so it was an issue.
The orders for previous pilots have never been subject to parliamentary approval. These follow that precedent. I do not know whether that is a good answer, but it is the honest answer.
The noble Baroness wondered whether I had taken electronic counting on board. Electronic counting in the Greater London Authority elections and in the pilot has been reviewed. Lessons have been learnt—I am assured of that. The Greater London Authority is confident that the system will run smoothly in 2004.
I am surprised and, indeed, gratified by the answer I am about to give the noble Baroness to her first question about citizens of the accession states. I did not read the detail of my form, I just signed it, but it appears that the canvass form made it clear that citizens of accession states would be able to register to vote in advance of their member states joining on I May this year. To that extent, it was made clear. I suspect that the information would be in the small print on the back of the form—nevertheless, it was there. In any event, people have their own networks and are able to get information.
Because we now have a much more sensible system of a rolling register without that fixed slot on 10 October, people have plenty of time to get registered, now that Parliament—this House and the other place—has approved the regulations. I think there is one more order to slot in— two at the most—to the package for the elections on 10 June. So there is plenty of opportunity between now and then to get registered.
846
The noble Baroness said that her party was not fully in favour and did not see a lot of merit in the regulations. I appreciate the reasons why. There are different election systems for many people, particularly in the London area, where more than one system will be used.
I have always taken the view, as I promote the sensible, fair voting system of PR around the country, in a personal capacity, that people can understand and read knitting patterns, while I cannot. They can understand and fill in football coupons, while I cannot. I have yet to see a ballot paper that is more complicated than a knitting pattern or a football coupon.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) Regulations 2004
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5 February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2004
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5 February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2004
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5 February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 4.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 4.14 to 4.30 p.m.]

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [H.L.]
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That this Report be now received.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I have given notice that I would like briefly to raise a matter of concern to me with regard to the tabling of extensive government amendments that appeared in print yesterday and today. Yesterday, we received 17 pages of amendments on mental incapacity. They require an amendment to the Long Title. The Minister kindly gave me notice that the matter might be raised on Report when she wrote to me some 10 days ago. At that stage, quite naturally enough, I was not given sight of the projected amendments; indeed, I did not see them until yesterday morning, though when I returned to my desk after the debate in this House which was completed just an hour ago they had by then appeared on my desk.
When I arrived in the House today, I found a further seven pages of government amendments, including two more amendments to the Long Title of the Bill—on this occasion, so that the Government might amend Section 58 and Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Minister will anticipate that I will tease her slightly that a Bill that was wrestled from our grasp only as recently as last November is now the subject of a revision in this Bill through amendments to the Long Title.
Given that amendments that require changes to the Long Title must in themselves be significant, have the Government given consideration to recommitment proceedings on those matters? If they have not done so, will they undertake to consider that between now and next Tuesday when we are next on Report?
Lord McNally: My Lords, I associate myself with those remarks. We mentioned in Grand Committee that the Government do test the goodwill of the Opposition parties and the system of referral to Grand Committee if Bills are so substantially rewritten on the hoof as this one has been and proper opportunity for full scrutiny in Committee is not given. I warned in Grand Committee that if the Government continue to do this, it will jeopardise the experiment of Grand Committee coverage of Bills such as this one.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for giving me notice that she intended to raise the issue. I should also point out to the noble Lord that absolutely no discourtesy is intended. Indeed, I do not seek to test the goodwill of the Opposition parties in relation to Grand Committees. The Grand Committee procedure has worked very well. I accept that it is in accordance with best practice for government amendments to be tabled at least a week ahead of consideration.
The amendments that we are discussing will come before us next Tuesday as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has mentioned. The mental health amendments were tabled last Tuesday, which is a week in advance of their consideration. However, I regret that further amendments had to be tabled yesterday—only six days in advance—and that one minor amendment was tabled today.
As the noble Baroness indicated, I wrote about the mental health amendments 10 days ago, which was 23 February, to all noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading. I stated the purpose of the amendments and invited noble Lords to contact me if they wished so to do. Nobody took advantage of that offer, so I assumed that noble Lords were content with the information that I had provided and did not deem the amendments contentious. I hoped that I had in that way shown clue and proper courtesy to all noble Lords who had participated up to that point.
On the other amendments, relating to multiple offending and intermittent custody, I have sent similar letters today. None of the amendments will be reached today, so your Lordships will have until Tuesday to consider them. I hear what the noble Baroness said in relation to recommitment, and I hope that noble Lords will feel content that I have done all that I could to ensure that proper notice was given.
I suggest that we leave these matters to the usual channels. If your Lordships are content, I invite them now to consider the amendments on Report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Report received.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—"
"CERTIFICATION OF RESOURCES
No provision of this Act shall come into force until the Lord Chancellor has laid before Parliament a certificate that all necessary resources will be made available—

(a) to implement the provisions of this Act, and

(b) to provide any training necessary as a consequence of any provisions of this Act."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we made it clear that we support in general the Government's objectives in all three parts of the Bill, but we have some objections to the way in which the Government propose to translate those objectives into offences. When I prepared my speaking notes last Sunday, I was going to go on to say that the Bill was relatively short, but wide-ranging and important in its effect. It is still

849
wide-ranging and important, but no longer relatively short, after the extensions that have been made over the past two days.
I agree with the Minister that those matters should be referred to the usual channels. She will note that my objection was not quite so much with the late tabling as that the Government are making a significant change to the long title of the Bill. I always try to speak on behalf of Back-Benchers, although they are more than able to speak for themselves—and, I am pleased to say, do so. It is always put to me by my colleagues that it is particularly difficult for Back-Benchers to come fresh to Report matters because the rules of Report do not enable them to have the same to-and-fro discussion and cross-examination of the Government's objectives as in Grand Committee. However, that will be dealt with as another matter next week.
The Bill is known colloquially as the "domestic violence Bill"; indeed, that is the name used widely by the Government in their press releases. However, its impact goes far wider than that very vital issue. It also covers the replacement of some jury trials by judge-alone trials and covers the extension of restraining orders to those who have been acquitted of any criminal offence.
So why have I returned to this issue on Report, having had a little bit of discussion on it in Committee? Because I was not satisfied with the answers given by the Government at that stage. I have tabled it again to draw attention to two major problems that flow from the Government's drafting of the Bill. First, the House has been prevented from scrutinising in full the proposals for the compensation of victims that the Government may ultimately propose as their new policy after the consultation that was launched when the Bill received its Second Reading in this House. The consultation is on compensation and support for victims of crime. Secondly, the issues of resources and the need for training will be considerable as a result of the wide changes introduced by the Bill.
I have inserted the amendment at the beginning of the Bill so that we may debate our amendments subsequently against the background of those two concerns. I do not thereby intend in any way to preempt the ability of the House to amend the Bill and introduce new provisions; indeed, I do not believe that it can have that effect, because I believe that if that had been the case when the amendment was called, that would have had to be made clear as pre-emption. Any requirements for funding or training that might be necessary as a result of any such amendments would be covered by the provisions of my amendment.
This House is in the process of scrutinising, in Grand Committee, now in Report and subsequently at Third Reading, proposals that will be only a part of the picture. After Second Reading, the Government published their consultation document on significant and potentially controversial proposals to revamp the way in which compensation for victims is funded. The Government have said that they hope to legislate in
850
this Bill for changes that will follow the consultation exercise. Even though the consultation period allowed is only one week short of the guideline period of 12 weeks, the results will patently not be available in time to be considered here. I understand that it is hoped at the moment that the Third Reading of the Bill in this House will take place on 25 March. The first time that we will be able to consider any new clauses as a result of that consolidation exercise will be during our consideration of Commons amendments, much later this year. Earlier this year, I invited the Government to work with the usual channels to ensure that when we consider Commons amendments, we do so in such a way that proper Committee stage scrutiny can take place. Can the Minister say whether an agreement on that matter has been reached?
Secondly, I turn to the issue of resources. At the moment, we can only consider the impact of the extant part of the Bill. We shall need to return to the matter when we see what the Government insert into the Bill in another place. There will be a significant call upon resources by the implementation of the provisions of the Bill. The police, the Prison Service and the probation service are all currently overstretched and the Bill will bring extra burdens. It will also have a significant impact on voluntary agencies and statutory agencies that must implement the victim's code. No doubt, they will take on that work with good will but it will require adequate resources and, especially, adequate training to make the systems work effectively.
It is clear that, in some cases, training is not sufficiently effective for the proper application of the current law. One of the reasons why I retabled this amendment is because it has come to my notice since Grand Committee that two reports have pointed this out with clarity. A joint study by police and CPS inspectors was published last week. It found that a big leap forward in police attitudes and much work by the CPS to raise awareness of domestic abuse had not filtered down to the grassroots. The report found that frontline officers and lawyers who dealt with domestic violence were often highly dedicated. But it found that more in-depth training is required, as well as systems to examine why arrests were not made in some cases. Harriet Harman, who commissioned the report, said:
"The police and CPS now have the right policies, but not everyone is putting them into practice".
What reassurance can the Minister give that the Government are putting the funding, the legal aid and the systems into place to ensure that everybody puts the current policies into practice and that they are able to put the new policies into practice once the Bill is enacted and, indeed, once we find out what the Government intend those policies to be? I beg to move.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as noble Lords can see from the Marshalled List, this is a "go-it-alone" amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.

851
Having listened to her, I am not sure whether it is a probing amendment or a shot across the bows. Either way, I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on recommitment, we return to day one of the Committee stage when my noble friend Lady Anelay made it plain that if substantial new clauses were brought into the Bill there should be recommitment. If I remember correctly, at that time the new clauses were concerned with using money raised from motoring offences for compensation for victims of domestic violence.
This is a totally different proposal. I attended the Grand Committee and had no idea, until this morning, that there will certainly be changes to the Long Title and so forth. I sought to support the warning of my noble friend Lady Anelay about recommittal. Unfortunately, I was deprived of the opportunity to do so and can at least do so today.
On the substance of the Bill, as I read the amendment—and I understand that my noble friend Lady Anelay maintains that I have perhaps read it wrongly—it could well delay, for example, the setting up of the integrated court at the urgent request of the Court of Appeal sought in Amendment No. 30. I am seeking an assurance from the noble Baroness that, come what may, should that amendment commend itself to the House, there will be no change to the commencement Clauses 28 and 29.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lady Anelay in Amendment No. 1. Clearly, as the amendment says, it is right that none of the Act's provisions should come into force until the necessary resources have been made available to implement them. In those circumstances it is right that, as the amendment asks, they should not come into force until the Lord Chancellor—provided that we still have a Lord Chancellor; if not, then presumably the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs or his or her spokesman in this House—
"has laid before Parliament a certificate that all necessary resources will be made available to"—
as I said—
"implement the provisions of this Act".
Consequently, it is fundamental that we should know what are the provisions of this Act. At the moment, we do not know. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in this. I have also given the Minister notice that I proposed to raise the matter again. Before we can decide an amendment on resources, we must know the provisions of the Act.
Last year the Government introduced a consultative document dealing with changes in the criminal injuries compensation scheme. They announced that responses to the consultation should be sent in by 31 March 2004. Later, when publishing this Bill, the Government said:
"We propose to legislate to make the changes where necessary"—
852
as a result of consultation on the criminal injuries compensation Bill—
"through amendments to the Domestic Violence, Crime, and Victims Bill".
Now that we have reached Report stage, I ask the Minister—who was understandably hesitant in Committee about whether that remained the situation—whether they are sufficiently advanced in their consultation to say, "Yes; we will introduce through this Bill legislative changes that are necessary as a result of our consultation". Alternatively, perhaps they are prepared to say, "No; we accept that, in some ways, to do that when the Bill has left this House and is already in the Commons, is a parliamentary outrage. We will say now that if any major amendments to the criminal injuries compensation scheme are to be implemented, they will be introduced by means of a new Bill".
It is an important point. The decisions taken on that scheme are bound to have an effect on the resources required for it. If the Government's present proposals are accepted, there may be a substantial reduction in the resources required by the scheme. However, we cannot know what resources are required by the Bill until we know what resources will be saved or expended as a result of changes to the scheme. We have not been told what is being introduced into the Bill, and currently we do not have the opportunity to debate it.
Furthermore, one is not encouraged by the fact that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, we are faced with the introduction into the Bill of a health clause that has absolutely nothing at all to do with domestic violence and victims. It is to do with the amendment of Schedule 12, I think, to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the provisions over intermittent custody, and it deals with how one assesses the period that people have spent in prison when they have had consecutive sentences. The Minister cannot possibly suggest—I know she will not—that that has anything to do with domestic violence at all. That is a change in the general law of this country. What is the effect of that change going to be? Will we be in a position to resource that change? Is it something that will cost a lot of money? We need to know all these matters before we know what resources are available for the implementation of this Bill.
To say, with great respect, that it was published and you have until Tuesday to consider our proposals, ignores the fact that the whole of the committee stage of these changes has been removed, and that on Tuesday we will be at Report stage. I think it is already too late to put down amendments for Tuesday. I look to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who is the fount of all knowledge in these matters, to shake her head or not; apparently it is not too late but I suspect it has to be done before this House rises tonight. How can we amend something we have just been shown? It has nothing to do with this Bill. Is the explanation that since it can be debated at Report stage in the Lords on Tuesday, we need not have a Committee stage at all?
Worse still, so far as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is concerned, because the earliest that amendments can be introduced is in the House of

853
Commons. The Government say that the Bill will come back here as an amended Bill, but, as I understand it, the only right of this House will be to debate the Commons amendments rather than having a full Committee stage on what may be some highly contentious proposals. My noble friend Lord Campbell mentioned some of these proposals; for example, the idea that you surcharge everyone for a speeding offence so as to provide a pool of money for the Government to pay out as compensation to people who are the victims of crime of a totally different nature.
These are contentious issues. The Minister knows this; she knows the views of the present board on the matters proposed, but in the hope of keeping myself within the orders of this House and within the terms of order of the amendment to which I am speaking, I limit myself at this stage to saying that it is necessary to know what is proposed to be in this Bill so that we know what resources are needed, and we should not implement a Bill until we know what those resources are.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, the Minister will address the speeches which we have heard already on this amendment with her customary and formidable charm, but it will not be enough unless she can deal, point by point, with the very serious issues that have been raised in these speeches.
I intervene only briefly to support the amendment of my noble friend on the Front Bench. It is quite helpful, I hope, just to call to mind the Government's handling of the Human Rights Bill. They said that they wished to make the convention on human rights part of' our domestic law, and, in order to save Parliament the frustrated effort of legislating domestically in a sense that would be struck down later for breach of the human rights convention, they said that they would also introduce as part of that Bill the provision that the relevant Minister shall certify that there is compliance. That was very sensible.
What is being asked for here is a certificate that something that would be similarly frustrating and a waste of time will not occur. Many provisions in this Bill call for training. What is the purpose of legislating for various provisions that need training when we are not sure that there will be the money available to provide that training? It is very much better that such a provision should not come into force until we have a certificate that the money will be available. It would cause a lot of damage, and that can so very easily be avoided.
I know that I shall receive a formidably charming reply. However, I very sincerely hope that there will be more to the reply than mere charm.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord seeks to scupper me by using his own charm. I shall try to give as frank and as open a response as I can in relation to the various matters that have been raised.
854
We are still consulting on the measures about which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and others have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, will remember, as he has intimate knowledge of and concern and interest in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, that the proposals included in the consultation paper in relation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board are very limited. There was concern prior to the issue of the consultation paper that there might be a wholesale very substantive review of the structure that was being advocated for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. However, I remind the House that we are now talking about three very discrete areas. Those issues are still out to consultation.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I hope that I may interrupt the Minister's speech to say that of course I accept that the scope of what was at one time intended to be consulted on has been reduced substantially. However, I think that the Minister would agree, for example, that injuries incurred in the course of work constitute a major and important part of the scheme.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord. Not only do we seek comment on those issues but I am talking to a number of different bodies about the concerns that they have and their alternative proposals. When we dealt with the matter in Committee, I tried to make absolutely clear that this is an open and proper consultation. I cannot pre-empt what its results may be. Noble Lords will know that a variety of consequences may emerge, one of which may be no change. However, I cannot say what will emerge. The usual channels have not reached a decision on recommitment. Therefore, I am not able to assist noble Lords on that matter.
The Title of the Bill refers to domestic violence. However, when the matter was first mooted, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, teased me about the Title and said that it referred also to crime and victims. Therefore, the issues that have been raised are not outwith the scope of the Bill.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness would prevent any provision of the Bill being implemented until my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had laid a certificate before Parliament that all necessary resources would be made available to implement the provisions and to provide any necessary training. If the noble Baroness's amendment were accepted, I would not be in a position to accede to the kind invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in relation to exempting two provisions.
I reiterate what I said in Committee. I emphasised the importance the Government attach to this Bill and the fact that the Government are committed to ensuring that sufficient resources are available before it is commenced. I believe that in Committee I reminded your Lordships what is included in the regulatory impact assessment where we set out the estimated total annual cost of the measure to be about £40.8 million, and the set-up costs.

855
The Bill will be implemented as and when the necessary resources are available to do so, but so far as I am aware it is unnecessary and, indeed, unprecedented to require a Minister to certify that before commencement. I also indicated that it was more proper for these matters to be considered by the other place. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, invites me to issue the equivalent of a Human Rights Act certificate in relation to resources. It is an innovative idea, but not one that we have used thus far.
I seek your Lordships' indulgence to give some information on the wider issue of resources. When we debated the amendment on child contact, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on 28 January I said I would come back to the issue of implementing the new definition of harm and the new forms to highlight domestic violence. I am pleased to report that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton has confirmed that he will now put in train the necessary changes to the Family Proceedings Rules, court forms and IT systems and any additional training required, so that the new definition of harm and new forms are in place by January 2005. From that date, for all applications for orders under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989—regarding contact, residence, prohibitive steps and specific issues the new definition of harm and the new forms will be used. I intended to give your Lordships a little pleasure by saying that and I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, will not think that I am trying to be unnecessarily charming.
Those changes, taken together with the Children Act sub-committee guidelines on how courts should handle contact applications where domestic violence is alleged, will significantly enhance the ability of the courts to ensure that contact is awarded only in cases where there is no ascertainable danger to either the child or the parent. The new arrangements will give the courts the ability to consider all the issues, make findings of fact where necessary and then decide what best meets the child's needs in individual cases.
Following divorce or separation, we want to encourage contact between children and parents where it is safe for all family members. Matters relating to contact generally are best settled away from the courts, other than when there are allegations of domestic violence or other issues of high conflict. Later this month, my right honourable friend the Minister for children, young people and families, Margaret Hodge, expects to publish the Government's response to the Children Act sub-committee report Making Contact Work. That response will include a range of proposals to help more parents settle issues of contact without going to court.
Moving on to the question of training, there was a substantial discussion on the importance of training in Grand Committee. I made it clear then that the Government recognise the importance of training and will be reviewing all the domestic violence training available with a view to ensuring a more consistent, multi-agency approach. I also set out in considerable detail the training arrangements for the judiciary and
856
the police in respect of domestic violence. I do not believe that it is necessary to require the Lord Chancellor to certify that sufficient resources will be made available to cover the training needs of the judiciary arising from the Bill.
Your Lordships will be familiar with the way in which the Judicial Studies Board undertakes the appropriate training for new Acts and other matters and they have always rightly been commended for the excellent work that they do. The Lord Chancellor will assess the training needs for the judiciary as a matter of course and ensure that they are adequately provided for when the Bill is implemented. The magistracy will now have the benefit of much more guidance and assistance.
I hope that I have fully answered the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and that it is an answer with which they can feel a modicum of contentment.
5 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friends. The Minister says that the Government are still consulting. That is understandable, because we know the length of the consultation period that was published. She also says that there is no decision, as yet, on recommitment with regard to the specific matters that were addressed by myself and my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow—the new policies for funding assistance to victims. I have to say—using the language of this House—it is disappointing that no decision has yet been reached, but I hope that firm discussions are taking place in the background.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway raised a proper question about whether there will be a delay in the implementation of proposals if my amendment were to be added to the Bill. In a sense, the Minister gave him two answers—to say yes, there would be a delay, but she then said that the Government do not normally introduce legislation anyway until the resources are available. So she seemed to be saying t hat there would not be any more delay than usual, because she properly made the point that the Government introduce parts of Bills as and when it is appropriate— when there are resources or there has been the appropriate training to put those parts of the Bill in place. I think the noble Baroness was agreeing with the sentiments of my amendment, even though she did not wish to do so, because she then went on to say that my amendment was unnecessary—because it is what would happen anyway—and unprecedented.
Much of what the Government are doing at the moment appears to be both "unnecessary" and "unprecedented". The noble Lord, Lord McNally, put it very succinctly when he said he did not know whether this was a probing amendment or whether I intended a shot across the bows. I assure him it is a shot across the bows, which will not surprise the noble Baroness, given earlier conversations. Therefore, in that sense—with a great deal of courtesy to the noble Baroness—I say that, although it is only a shot across the bows, I do intend to seek the opinion of the House.
5.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 92.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Kingsland, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Laird, L.

Attlee, E.

Lucas, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Luke, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Byford, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Marlesford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Denham, L.

Northesk, E.

Dundee, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elton, L.

Patten, L.

Erroll, E.

Reay, L.

Fookes, B.

Renton, L.

Fowler, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Freeman, L.

Selborne, E.

Freyberg, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glentoran, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Hanham, B.

Stewartby, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ullswater, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ahmed, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Amos, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Filkin, L.

Andrews, B.

Gale, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gavron, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Bach, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Blood, B.

Harrison, L.

Borrie, L.

Haskel, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hayman, B.

Brookman, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Burlison, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hoyle,L.

Carter, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Chester, Bp.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Christopher, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Jordan, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Judd, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Crawley, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Lipsey, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Desai, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dubs, L.

Marsh, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Mishcon, L.

858

Pendry, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Thornton, B.

Puttnam, L.

Triesman, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Rooker, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sawyer, L.

Warner, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Weatherill, L.

Sewel, L.

Whitaker, B.

Sheldon, L.

Wilkins, B.

Simon, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.17 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS, COHABITANTS OR FORMER COHABITANTS: REPEAL
Section 41 of the Family Law Act 1996 (c. 27) (additional considerations if parties are cohabitants or former cohabitants) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3, which is grouped with it. Amendment No. 2 is identical to an amendment tabled in Grand Committee and it has been overtaken by an amendment put forward by the Minister.
In Grand Committee, in replying to me, the Minister said that she could be seduced into accepting the amendment. When we subsequently had a meeting with the noble Baroness and her department, I asked her what that would require from me. She said, "Wait and see". In effect, we have the same amendment with a marginal difference in the wording and, for that reason, I can assure the noble Baroness that I shall not press the amendment.
Amendment No. 3 is slightly different. It is also very similar to an amendment that we moved in Grand Committee. However, we took on board some of the concerns that the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, raised at the time and we have tabled a revised amendment using the current wording under Section 33 of Part IV of the Family Law Act, which refers to persons who are or are not entitled, thus slightly limiting the impact of the amendment.
The purpose of both amendments, whatever their form, was to remove some of the discrepancies in treatment in respect of the granting and length of occupation orders, which depend upon whether the people involved in a domestic case have been married or not married. At that time, I put forward the case that it was incongruous to distinguish so heavily between married and unmarried couples because, if for no other reason, so many children are born out of wedlock—that may or may not be undesirable but this is not the moment to make such a judgment—and many unmarried couples have shown a great level of commitment to each other.
In the second part of the Minister's Amendment No. 7 there is a response to my original amendment. Therefore I shall not discuss my amendment at great

859
length. It is very similar to the one that I tabled in Grand Committee. I await the explanation of the Minister's amendment and how it impacts on those that we have tabled before deciding what to do with the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am most grateful for the way in which the noble Baroness has spoken to her amendment. She needed to do nothing more to seduce me into agreeing with her other than to use the eloquence that she used on the previous occasion.
I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that Section 41 needs to be considered in the light of a proposal currently being considered under the civil partnership provisions. Your Lordships will see from the Marshalled List that I propose a similar government amendment, Amendment No. 7, which will repeal Section 41.
I believe it would be helpful if I set out the Government's reasons for tabling Amendment. No. 7, which removes the need for Amendment No. 2. As your Lordships will see, we seek to make further changes to the Family Law Act 1996 which we believe are necessary as a result of the repeal of Section 41. In accordance with the kind invitation given to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, I shall take a little time to explain exactly why and how we have done this, not only for those in the House, but it may also be of interest to others who may come to scrutinise the Bill.
The courts are already obliged to consider a number of issues when dealing with applications for non-molestation or occupation orders. Depending on the type of order sought, they must consider whether the parties before them are associated persons within the definition of the Act; whether the individuals have the legal entitlement to occupy the dwelling house by virtue of a beneficial estate, interest or contract, or any enactment giving them the right to remain in occupation; whether there has been evidence of molestation; and whether there is a need to secure the health, safety and well-being of the applicant and any relevant child. Those issues are comprehensive and objective. They relate to the parties' status and relationship to each other, their rights in relation to the dwelling house and evidence of molestation.
Section 41, however, asks the court, when considering the parties' relationship, to look at a couple—of course, an opposite-sex couple only because same-sex couples cannot marry—and to draw conclusions as to the parties' relationship because they have not married or sought to marry.
In light of the changes we have made to the definition of cohabitants and former cohabitants, to ensure that same-sex cohabiting couples are treated in the same way for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1996 as opposite-sex cohabiting couples and given the proposals in the forthcoming Civil Partnerships Bill, we believe that Section 41 no longer works. For those reasons we believe that it is right to repeal Section 41.
Section 41, of course, deals with cases where the courts are required to consider the nature of the parties' relationship. In practice that probably bites
860
only in Section 36(6)(e) of the Family Law Act, which deals with occupation orders where one cohabitant or former cohabitant has no existing right to occupy the family home and paragraph 5(b) of Schedule 7, which deals with the transfer of tenancies and provides for the court to have regard to Section 36(6)(e) where the parties are cohabitants and only one of them is entitled to occupy the home by virtue of the relevant tenancy agreement. Section 36(6) sets out a comprehensive set of circumstances that the court shall have regard to, including subsection (6)(e) which states:
"the nature of the parties' relationship".
When considering the removal of an individuals from their home, it is critical that the courts should be able to take into account all the aspects of a couple's relationship. By removing Section 41, I am concerned that the courts will suppose it is not part of their remit to consider the commitment the couple have or have not given to each other. It is true, of course, that the courts may consider this aspect. After all, the wording is sufficiently wide to enable them to do so.
However, I do not wish to plant the seed of doubt into the court's mind that the level of commitment, or lack thereof, is no longer important. For example, in those cases where the parties have not married, or—if the Civil Partnership Bill is enacted—entered into a civil partnership, and an application is made to oust the owner-occupant from the property by a partner who has no beneficial interest in the property, it is extremely important that the court reviews all the evidence of' the relationship between the parties, particularly where the relationship has been of short or sometimes very short duration. That is why I have proposed an amendment to Section 36(6)(e) to include a reference to the level of commitment between the parties, which the court must consider.
I believe that this strikes the right balance between repeal of an unworkable section and reminding the court of the importance of the outward signs of commitment in a couple's relationship. For these reasons, I will not accept Amendment No. 2, as the noble Baroness has indicated, and offer Amendment No. 7 in fair exchange.
I turn now to Amendment No. 3 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. It would standardise the length of occupation orders made under Sections 33 and 35 to 38 of the Family Law Act 1996. The court would be free to make the order for a specific period, or until a specified event, or until further order.
At the moment, the Family Law Act 1996 provides that an occupation order should initially be for a period of a maximum of six months. It then draws a distinction between spouses or former spouses and cohabitants or former cohabitants and parties entitled to occupy a property and those not entitled to occupy a property. For spouses, it says that the court may extend the order on one or more occasions for a further period of not more than six months if the applicant spouse is not entitled to occupy the property or if neither spouse is entitled to occupy the property. For

861
cohabitants not entitled to occupy the property, it says that there may be one extension for a further period of not more than six months.
In Committee we discussed an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness which would have standardised the length of the initial occupation order at six months and allowed the court to extend the order on two occasions for a further six months.
Amendment No. 3 is clearly different in its effect, but my objections to it remain fundamentally the same as those I set out in Committee. First, the Family Law Act draws a distinction between spouses and cohabitants with no entitlement—and it is the "no entitlement" that is important—to occupy the property so as to reflect the different levels of commitment involved in marriage and cohabitation. Where a cohabitant is entitled to occupy a property then the Act makes no distinction regarding the provisions concerning the length of the order between spouses and cohabitants. I acknowledged in Committee that these two relationships can often be similar, but they are in fact quite different in their structure and implications for property and many people who do not marry wish to keep their property rights separate. Unfortunately, or fortunately, that is quite often one of the reasons why they choose not to do so. It is not a reflection on the validity of the relationship. It is simply that legal relationships between cohabiting couples and married couples can be different.
It follows that it is just for the law to reflect the difference in the relationship and the likely complexity of financial and property arrangements in the way in which it makes occupation orders. As the noble Baroness said on other occasions, often people will not be married but they will hold property in joint names and they will make no distinction. It is clear that they wish to share what they have one with the other.
Amendment No. 3 would remove all the Family Law Act 1996 limits on the length of occupation orders, leaving it entirely for the court to determine the length of the order, be it for a specific period, until a specified event, or until a further order. The court's powers on occupation orders are extremely far ranging, for example, regulating the occupation of the home, prohibiting or restricting the rights of occupation of one party, requiring a party to leave the home, or excluding a party from a defined area around the home. I have even had a case where one party was excluded from various parts of the same home, so that one party lived upstairs and the other downstairs and they shared the kitchen.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, said in Committee, there can be advantages for the victim in a quick-fix remedy, in that it keeps the offender's eye on the horizon. It is important to remember that occupation orders are meant to offer what hopefully will only need to be short-term protection, and they should not be used as a substitute for ancillary relief proceedings where questions of divisions of property can be properly considered. Sometimes, separating the two parties from each other can be the most cathartic and safest thing for both of
862
them. For these reasons, I am not able to accept Amendment No. 3, but I hope that the noble Baroness will be content none the less.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that long and interesting response. What she said does not address the problems faced by some practitioners in the field and also by voluntary organisations working in the field of domestic violence, which is that the orders can be too short and incapable of sufficient elongation in some cases—particularly in those that she has mentioned—to enable the victim, or the person who needs to be protected, to set up a new life that is satisfactory for her—usually her—and her children. I will go back to the people who have been advising me on this to see whether they want me to go any further. The noble Baroness will understand why I have taken that view. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 [Breach of non-molestation order to be a criminal offence]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 9, after "order" insert "or an occupation order"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will remember that in Committee I put forward an alternative to the making of the breach of the civil order, the non- molestation order, a criminal offence. I put forward as an alternative the possibility of strengthening the powers of the civil judge to deal with matters and to the granting of the power of arrest on every non-molestation order so that the police knew where they were, and the setting up of a register, so that in relation to a particular person it would be readily available to the police officer who was called on to enforce the non-molestation order. The Minister gave me a lengthy reply. There was one point in her reply that had considerable merit—that the criminal court has a wider range of penalties to deal with a person who has committed a criminal offence by community orders. I do not need to spell them out. That to my mind was the only advantage.
I have not pursued this line, because there could be an advantage in an extreme situation. The professional bodies, who know what they are talking about, and all colleagues who deal in this field to whom I have spoken regard the civil remedy, the civil application to the judge, when there is a breach of the civil non-molestation order as a far speedier and much more flexible way of dealing with the breach. The matter can be brought before the judge straight away. He has certain powers which would permit him to commit people to prison but also to let them go if the contempt of court were purged.
The purpose of the amendments that I have set down for this stage is to emphasise two points. First, if the breach of a non-molestation order is to be a criminal offence, then logic demands that it should be

863
a criminal offence to breach an occupation order. The answer that was given by the Minister last time took up one paragraph in Hansard. It did not flesh out any positive reason why an occupation order should be excluded from being made a criminal offence, saying simply that the court could make a non-molestation order as well. I do not think that is a very satisfactory answer.
The second point, which was drawn to my attention by a professional body, is that, as drafted, it is possible for the criminal offence to be enforced against the wishes of the complainant. It is a position in which, for example, if the police were called to a house and the breach of a non-molestation order were involved, the police could take over a prosecution and contact the CPS even though the complainant who had obtained the order herself in the first place—because it is the non-molestation order that is being breached—objected to it. So the purpose of Amendment No. 6 is to make sure—and I am sure this was the Government's intention—that criminal proceedings would not be brought against the wishes of the person who obtained the non-molestation order in the first place.
We are told from all sides, and it is a matter of experience, that women who have obtained non-molestation orders in the civil court are reluctant to go to the criminal court. They are reluctant to stand among the people who frequent the criminal courts—among whom, of course, I include myself. They are reluctant to subject themselves, in public, to the sort of cross-examination which could take place in the criminal surroundings. It is much better for a complainant who has taken the initiative, with legal advice, of obtaining a non-molestation order in the first place to have the decision—yea or nay—whether a breach of it is to be regarded as a criminal offence. I hope your Lordships see the logic, fairness and justice of that. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 6 for the reasons that have been given.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, purely in relation to Amendment No. 6, I of course recall the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in Committee. As the Bill stands, there are two alternative possibilities if a non-molestation order is breached. One is that at the victim's initiative, proceedings are taken in the family court, which is to be preferred for many reasons, as the noble Lord indicated. The alternative—and this has been proposed because there is an arrest power available for the criminal offence—is that a charge is brought under Clause I. The noble Lord said, quite rightly, that it seems on the face of it to be possible to bring such a charge irrespective of the wishes of the victim, but he did not mention the possibility, which is hardly imaginary, that intimidation may well prevent the victim concerned wishing to bring those proceedings and that the police may well think it appropriate, in the interests of the public and the victim, that the proceedings should none the less be brought. Since a 864
breach of a non-molestation order would be a criminal offence under this clause and since that alternative procedure would be available, it would be rather odd for what is labelled "a criminal offence" if charges could be brought only if the victim consented, which is what Amendment No. 6 proposes.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly interrupt. I know that we are on Report, but the noble Lord raises a point that merits a response. I have of course considered the question of intimidation, but it should be remembered that the victim will already have obtained the civil order and done so in the context of legal advice and assistance. The risk of intimidation is remote, without the person concerned committing another criminal offence for which he could be arrested. Noble Lords should remember that assault, threats and so on can always be treated as criminal offences if the police are satisfied that they have taken place.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, in Committee, I briefly supported the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in his wider amendment, as it then was, which would have retained a breach of a non-molestation order as a civil, rather than a criminal, offence. I still believe that his original proposal was right. The compromise that he now proposes meets at least one of the objections to turning it into a crime. I pointed out in Committee, as did the noble Lord, that there may well be cases where a complainant wishes to take the other party back to the court because of a breach of a non-molestation order, but does not wish that person to be landed with a criminal record as a result. That would be avoided by the noble Lord's proposal that the matter should go to a criminal court only at the wishes of the person who is alleging the breach. Although I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, about the possibility of intimidation being used to prevent that person wishing to make it a crime, I repeat what has already been said. The only reason for the non-molestation order being in place is that the party concerned has already been to the court and obtained such an order. Having taken that action, it is difficult to think, provided that they are limiting themselves to a civil breach of that order, that they are in any way likely to be intimidated from returning to the court. They are less likely to be intimidated than they were when they made the application for the original order. I still think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is right.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, with so much of what in other circumstances would be expensive legal opinion flying around, I tread with great trepidation. However, I thought I might share with the Minister in particular and the House in general what might be called hearsay evidence. A week or so ago, I was invited to a lunch where I found myself in the company of a number of very distinguished judges. One of them took me to one side and said that he had been following the domestic violence Bill very closely and reading the Hansard

865
reports of the Committee stage. He said that he wanted me to tell the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that he had got it absolutely right about keeping such matters out of the criminal realm and in the civil. I immediately took credit for the line that we were taking. It was interesting that an experienced judge in this area felt that he should tell me with such enthusiasm that my noble friend was on the right track.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has directed our attention back to one of the most intractable problems at the beginning of the Bill. He does so, rightly, to test the Government's proposal to introduce a new criminal offence, saying to us that there is another recourse—that one can make the civil procedure work better. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has just referred to an eminent member of the judiciary who has taken an interest in the Bill and who has, with great courtesy, ensured that all noble Lords who have taken part in proceedings have the benefit of his opinion. I know that his opinion has gone more widely than that, too.
I made the point when we discussed the matter in Grand Committee that when I first saw the provision I looked very carefully at all the submissions that had been made to noble Lords before Second Reading, and subsequently. It was very clear that there was a divide in opinion about Clause I between those who have eminent experience in the legal practice in applying civil orders as against those organisations that represent women—and, sadly, it tends to be mostly women—who are at risk from domestic violence. In that I, of course, include their families who are with them.
I had great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, when, in Grand Committee, he suggested that we should make what we have work better, so that we had that protection. I listened very carefully to the huge weight of material that we have received from outside organisations, which have said that their experience is that, simply, that did not work and that they did not have confidence in it working in the future. However, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is absolutely right in pointing to the fact that women do not like going to criminal courts on what they consider to be domestic matters. The response to that from those who represent victims has been to say that they know that has been the case in the past but that we need to make a shift, so that we really do protect women in the future; and that the only way to do that is by having a criminal offence.
I start from the same position as my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. I am very reticent about introducing new criminal offences. However, in this case, I am still listening. I have given a commitment to organisations that I have met since Grand Committee, some of them for the second time and some for the first time. They include the Children's Rights Consortium, Women's Aid, Refuge and Victim Support. I have given them the commitment that I will not take any action from the
866
Front Bench that will in any way reduce the protection that may be given to women. At this stage I have to say that I believe that the Government are making a very difficult decision, but one that I cannot yet oppose. Although I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, I am still listening.
The overall attitude that I have had from other organisations has been that, whatever the Government do, they must deliver better safety. That is what they really want. I have heard from lawyers repeatedly throughout our discussions behind the scenes on the Bill that they have done the absolute utmost to protect people who have been at risk and have suffered from domestic violence. They have talked to them and taken them through cases, but ultimately one of the greatest frustrations is that that particular client may see fit in the end to withdraw. That is often because of the very point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that even if there has been no intimidation, they fear intimidation.
I know that I have made a circular argument, but it is to illustrate the fact that I appreciate as much as anybody else that the issue is intractable. The Government are seeking a way out, and are trying to cut the Gordian knot and say, "Let's put the past behind us and try something new". In their consultation, they had a very heavy response in favour of the measures. At that stage, I did not have much of a response against the Government. I have concerns about this provision on the basis given by my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow today and, at greater length, in Grand Committee and I endorse all that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said at greater length in Grand Committee. He quite rightly kept his remarks brief today.
So I am still listening but whatever I, as a Front-Bencher, ultimately agree to on the Bill, it has to have the fundamental tenet that if things have not worked in the past, whatever happens in the future there must be better protection. This will not be the only solution in Clause 1, nor in the rest of the Bill, but we are still looking for the answer.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I have had the privilege—and I do see it as a privilege—of representing women who had been subject to domestic violence since I started at the Bar in 1977, which is quite some time ago. All I have to say to the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Carlisle, is that I wish it were so in relation to intimidation. I regret to tell your Lordships that in my experience dealing with these cases at the Bar, it was not so.
One must understand the nature of domestic violence. Many women will be brave for a while, sometimes brave for a moment, and in that moment they are able to withstand the pressure of the violence to which they are subject. However, that courage can wane. There are huge issues that women in this position have to look at: the risks to their families, to their friends, to their children. Sometimes, their resolve buckles. The people who make them buckle are usually the abusers. I wish that once a woman has

867
the courage to stand up and say "No", she always has the courage to maintain that position. The tragedy is that these women often do not. That is why those who represent vulnerable women in these situations say that we must cut this knot. On occasion, particularly if police go to the door and they see a women who has been badly battered and she has evidence of abuse, it must be proper for proper protection to be attempted.
If we look at the history of many of those abusers who go on to kill, they have had relationship after relationship where the abuse of the women with whom they have been engaged has become more and more severe. Many of those women who do not want to go to court, who withdraw, end up in a situation more dangerous than before. It is a very important issue. I reiterate what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said; those who deal with these matters have strongly said to the Government that this is what they want and need. They wish that when the police come to the door they are able to arrest the person and take him away, even if that is to cause respite thereafter.
I also reiterate what my noble friend Lord Borrie said. There are still two routes. In order to address this situation, which I believe the amendment seeks to tackle, we are leaving open the option of victims pursing civil actions for breach of non-molestation orders where the police are not involved or where the CPS decides that criminal prosecution is not appropriate. This should ensure that victims are not deterred from seeking the protection of the court because of fear of criminal action. In the Northern Ireland experience, where breach is already an arrestable offence, there is little evidence that this has deterred victims from obtaining orders. It appears to be working.
I say to the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, that I understand their concern. How far we should protect or honour choice is a real concern. It is a difficult balance. I am not pretending that it is not. Those who have dealt with this over a long period, who have hands-on experience at an operational level, have told us, and women have told us, that this is what they want. The Government do not have the arrogance to disagree with them.
Non-molestation orders go right to the heart of the protection for the victim where there is domestic violence. The noble Lord asks, "What of molestation orders?". Your Lordships will know that we are asking the court to consider, on every occasion that an occupation order is made, whether a non-molestation order should also be made.
As for the comments a few moments ago on the new clause, I maintain that, sometimes, occupation orders are made that have nothing to do with violence; they may deal with organisation within the home and with who should leave when. In other cases, the court may issue an occupation order telling one party that it must leave the home but the party does not do so. For example, someone may be suffering from Alzheimer's, and one of the reasons why the court orders them to leave is so that they will not be considered as voluntarily homeless. Because of the illness, however,
868
the person does not leave. They will be in breach. It is nothing to do with non-molestation orders or violence. It would not be appropriate simply to say that it applies in all cases.
The scheme that we have put together says that whenever the court is considering an application, it should consider whether it is appropriate in those circumstances and on those facts to make a non-molestation order as well. We think that we can thereby deal with the matter. We say that the occupation orders are significantly different. We give as an example Section 40 of the Family Law Act 1996, which sets out a number of additional provisions that may be included in certain occupation orders, such as the repair and maintenance of the property, and the discharge of rent, mortgage payments or other out-goings. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, with his fierce and proper interest in justice, would not like people to be arrested it' they failed to paint the fence in accordance with an occupation order made against them.
We fear that the amendment places rather too heavy a burden on victims, leaving them open to undue influence by perpetrators. In addition, the amendment takes away the right of the Crown Prosecution Service to decide on prosecutions and the ability of the courts to convict and makes this conditional on the agreement of the victim. I say with due humility that that cannot be right. It is, of course, appropriate for the victim's views to be taken into account, and the judge can do so when passing sentence. I am sure that those prosecuting will also take those matters into consideration, as would be proper. We have made it plain that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service have to keep at the heart of their work the interests of the victim or the witness involved in the case. We see clear evidence of their doing just that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, when the noble Baroness was chiding me for a lack of experience in this field, my mind went back to 1960—I am not sure whether the noble Baroness was born then—when I was a 22 year-old articled clerk instructing a young barrister by the name of Emlyn Hooson, who was being led by Elwyn Jones QC. Somehow we all ended up in your Lordships' House; it must be a unique case. The case to which I referred was all about violence in the home occasioned by a husband who was mentally ill, and what was the effect of his mental illness upon the violence which he was creating. Thereafter, as a young solicitor, I obtained many an order on behalf of victims of domestic violence. In latter years, as the noble Baroness will appreciate, I have been involved with many murder cases where domestic violence has led, as she rightly says, to the ultimate conclusion. So I do not think it is a lack of experience I can be chided with by the noble Baroness.
Where I think the mistake is being made is in suggesting that prosecution for the breach of a civil order should be done against the wishes of the victim. We are not talking about serious violence. If a policeman goes to the door and he sees a victim who has been beaten up, he can arrest the husband whatever she thinks and take him before the court.

869
That is the protection that every citizen enjoys, and that is not being taken away by anybody. We are not dealing with that level of violence because the police already have ample powers, and the victim already has the full protection of the criminal law in that situation.
This is an offence, I repeat, for the breach of a civil order which the victim has herself obtained. If she does not wish to make a complaint, then I do not see why anybody else should make a complaint on her behalf. She has her remedy in the civil court, which is a better remedy, as the Minister concedes—it is quicker and more effective. All I can see happening if the prosecution were foolish enough to bring a case against the wishes of the complainant, is that she would simply fail to give evidence. We would then be into the worst possible situation for that lady whereby she might be treated as a hostile witness; she would be cross-examined by everybody—by the prosecution, by the defence—in the context of the criminal courts. That must be bad for her.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, for supporting the wider scheme that I put forward, as did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I am very grateful to them for their continued support. If we take this route of making the breach of a civil order a criminal offence, surely it has to be with the consent of the person for whom that order was made, and by whom that order was made. Anything else is dragging the poor woman into the criminal courts where she will have an experience that she will not relish and will never forget.
I hope that the Government will think more about this, as will all noble Lords, before we get to Third Reading, because I do not undertake at this moment to drop this issue altogether. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 13, leave out "of the order" and insert "and contents of the order, save that if after becoming aware of the existence of the order the person deliberately evades service of the contents of the order, it will suffice that the person was aware of the existence of the order"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 follows on from the debate we have just had about the serious nature of the offence that the Government are introducing in Clause 1.
Just about the only protection for the person who will be arrested is in the proposed Section 42A(2), which provides that an individual would be guilty of a criminal offence only if he or she were aware of the existence of the order. I made it clear in Grand Committee that that is not enough protection. It takes little imagination to see that one might have a shouted telephone conversation that one person has an order against the other—that might be held to be sufficient to make the other person aware of the existence of the order, but without giving them any idea about what the court was preventing them doing.
In Grand Committee I moved an amendment with a similar objective to my Amendment No. 5, but I have subsequently redrafted that to take account of the objections that were raised to my drafting. The Minister in her response said that,
"Orders must be served in person and, by refusing to open their doors to the processors, respondents can continue to harass the applicant while truthfully claiming not to have been served with the order".—[Official Report, 19/1/04; col. GC 225.]
I have taken further advice since then and I am told that that is not quite the case; the law on that changed a while ago. Furthermore, I am advised that there is a considerable amount of case law on the comparable notification of an ex parte order for the purposes of committal proceedings in the civil courts. It has been made clear that the terms of the order must be notified either by service of the document or by proof that they have been read down the telephone or sent by some other means, by telegram, fax or whatever.
When I moved my amendment in Grand Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, suggested that the amendment could be improved by adding wording such as,
"provided that he knows that he should not be doing it in accordance with the order".
As always I take advice from the noble and learned Lord and his advice has been used as a substance for my redraft.
There appear to be no other instances in the courts where service of the contents is not required for liability to arise.
When the Family Law Bar Association responded to the Government's consultation, it supported this clause on the basis that it supported the proposal to criminalise breach of orders,
"with the caveat that we do not support the criminalisation of breaches of orders that have been made 'without notice' and which have not been served upon the defendant".
It is in support of that view that I propose the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is absolutely essential that there should be proof of knowledge of the content of the order. This is general law. Why should there be an exception?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, when the issue of prosecution for breach of "without notice" non-molestation orders arose in Committee, I explained that the Government had drafted Clause 1 to avoid the existing problem of respondents deliberately evading service of an order and then breaching it with impunity on the grounds that they were not aware of its terms.
The intention of Amendment No. 5, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and moved by her today, is to provide additional protection for respondents to non-molestation orders, by making it explicit that a person can be found guilty of breach of an order only if he was aware of both the existence and contents of the order; or, after becoming aware of the existence of the order, he deliberately evades service of its contents.

871
I make it clear straightaway that I sympathise with her intention, but I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I disagree with the need for this amendment. Your Lordships will recall that the Government built a safeguard into these provisions: a person can be found guilty of breaching a non-molestation order only if they did so "without reasonable excuse". As I explained in Committee, this proviso could, for example, operate so as to protect a respondent who co-operated with the service of an order but who, because of blindness or illiteracy, was unable to discover its terms before inadvertently breaching one of them. The circumstances of such a failure to comply would be considered by the court, and I believe this provides an adequate safeguard. It should not, of course, be forgotten that non-molestation orders generally prohibit harassment of the victim and it might not be unreasonable to expect a respondent who is aware of the existence of an order to refrain from such harassment.
I am also concerned that this amendment would make it harder to hold respondents to account for breaching an order because as well as proving that the order's provisions were breached, the prosecution might also have to demonstrate that the respondent had deliberately evaded service, and this would potentially be very difficult to prove. As I believe the noble Baroness mentioned, when we last discussed this, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, suggested that a bright lawyer would inevitably protest that the respondent could not be found guilty because he did not know the terms of an order. Should this amendment pass, the same lawyer would simply argue that his client could not be found guilty on the grounds that they had not deliberately evaded service. It might then be difficult to prove that the respondent had, for example, intentionally not answered the door to the process server.
The amendment could also prevent the conviction of respondents who, while not deliberately avoiding service of the contents of an order, were aware of its existence and made no effort to ascertain its terms before breaching one of them. We also need to bear in mind that non-molestation orders generally only prevent someone from undertaking behaviour that the respondent knows would be unacceptable, such as harassing the victim. For those reasons, I cannot accept this amendment. However, the noble Baroness should be reassured that the reasonable excuse to which I referred would enable the court in those circumstances to listen to what the defendant had to say and to mete out justice.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, she said that she agrees with the purpose of the amendment. If I heard her correctly, would she give an undertaking now to table an amendment at Third Reading which will enable her to fulfil the purpose of the amendment in what she believes would be a proper way?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, intervenes, our point is that
872
we sympathise with the intention behind the amendment, but we believe that that intention is already given expression by the term "without reasonable excuse". It enables the defendant to provide the court with evidence of the "reasonable excuse" that the defendant purports to have and it allows the court to determine the level of its reasonableness.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, having listened to the debate with great care, it seems that something is adrift in both the way the Bill is drafted and possibly in the amendment. Without giving any undertaking, will the Minister give further thought to the matter, that someone who is not aware of the provision can be safeguarded?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I will certainly continue to give such issues consideration, because—I make no bones about it—I am totally committed to making the whole Bill as fair, as effective and as just as I can. I reassure noble Lords that I am probably causing my officials great consternation by constantly reviewing matters, even those which no one else has worried about. I can give that assurance without any difficulty at all.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends who have contributed so effectively to the debate. The Minister tried to reassure me by saying that although she sympathises with my amendment, she can see no need for it and points to the provision in subsection (1) of the clause to the effect that the words "without reasonable excuse" would properly cover the matter.
My concern, as I have previously expressed, is that it is a substantial change, as the noble Lord. Lord Thomas of Gresford, outlined in detail in the previous group of amendments. It is a considerable change in which it is important that people are protected from the moment that an action occurs. The difficulty with the Minister's response is that if one is able to show that one has "reasonable excuse" one has already reached court.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No, my Lords. The noble Baroness will know that both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, when deciding whether to charge or not, will have to consider the evidence before them. The most important point about the power of arrest is that the police are, at that moment, able to go to the house and remove the person from the site. Sometimes that is the most important part of the security for the woman.
They will then be obliged in the normal way properly to consider the nature of the charge—the noble Baroness will remember that we are changing the way in which the police operates to make the CPS responsible for the charge. There should be proper inquiries into whether this part of the offence is established, and whether that person can say "I had a reasonable excuse, because I knew nothing about this. I was away and did not get it", or whatever. The CPS can make that decision on whether it, the prosecutor,

873
thinks that there was not a "reasonable excuse"—and that is when there will be a debate in court over who is right and who is wrong.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am not at variance with the noble Baroness on that particular issue. Where I am at variance is that I think this is such a significant change that there needs to be clarity in respect of this particular protection, and in respect of the fact that in other parts of the law one would expect to have to know the contents of an order before there could be action taken. It is a matter between us, I think, not of disagreement over the ultimate objective but how we get there. My noble friend Lord Renton really put the matter far better than I did, when he asked for a Government amendment at Third Reading which would do the job better than this amendment. The noble Baroness is quite fairly saying that, as far as they are concerned, they have got there already. It is only in respect of that—because this is a matter of principle for me on Clause 1—that it is an issue I want to resolve one way or the other. One does not have to take up Third Reading with this. Only on that basis, I seek to test the opinion of the House.
6.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 79.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Lyell, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Attlee, E.

Biffen, L.

Marlesford, L.

Bridgeman, V. [Teller]

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Monson, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northbrook, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Northesk, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Parkinson, L.

Denham, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Fookes, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Fowler, L.

Selborne, E.

Glentoran, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Stewartby, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kingsland, L.

Swinfen, L.

Laird, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Luke, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Ahmed, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Amos, B. (Lord Privy Seat)

Blackstone, B.

Andrews, B.

Borrie, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Brookman, L.

Bach, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

874

Burlison, L.

Hoyle, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Carter, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Christopher, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Judd, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Crawley, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Desai, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dubs, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Plant of Highfield, L.

Puttnam, L.

Falkland, V.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rooker, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Filkin, L.

Sewel, L.

Gale, B.

Simon, V.

Gavron, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Thornton, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Triesman, L.

Harrison, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Haskel, L.

Warner, L.

Hayman, B.

Whitaker, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wilkins, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.25 p.m.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS IF PARTIES ARE COHABITANTS OR FORMER COHABITANTS
(1) Section 41 of the Family Law Act 1996 (c. 27) (which requires a court, when considering the nature of the relationship of cohabitants or former cohabitants, to have regard to their non-married status) is repealed.
(2) In section 36(6)(e) of that Act (court to have regard to nature of parties' relationship when considering whether to give right to occupy to cohabitant or former cohabitant with no existing right), after "relationship" insert "and in particular the level of commitment involved in it"."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"Amendment to Part 1 of the Family Law Act 1986
USE OF RECOVERY ORDERS
In Part 1 of the Family Law Act 1986 (c. 55) (child custody), after section 34 insert—
"34A USE OF RECOVERY ORDERS IN CASES INVOLVING ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR A POTENTIAL RISK TO THE CHILD
(1) If an applicant claims that their partner has abducted a child of the family, the court may grant a recovery order if the applicant already has a residence order in their name.
(2) If there is no residence order in favour of either parent, the court may grant a recovery order.
(3) The recovery order will require both parties to attend court within 24 hours of the discovery of the child, or the first working day thereafter.
(4) Before returning the child to the applicant or giving the applicant any information as to the whereabouts of the child, the police must—

(a) check their records to see if either party has committed acts of violence;

(b) check to see if either party is included on the register of domestic violence perpetrators;

(c) having located the child without notifying the applicant of the child's whereabouts, make enquiries with regard to the child's welfare.

(5) If records show that the applicant has a history of violence or the police have concerns about the welfare of the child if the child is returned to the applicant, the police will—

(a) not remove the child from the respondent;

(b) advise the respondent to seek legal representation;

(c) notify the court of their action immediately.

(6) If there is no record of violence and no reason to believe that the defendant or the child is at risk, the police will return the child to the applicant.
(7) Ex parte residence or contact orders should only be made if there is evidence that a party is wilfully refusing to attend court.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 is identical to Amendment No. 12 which we debated in Grand Committee. In moving it, I am somewhat hesitant because on that occasion the Minister kindly gave us what was referred to as the tour d'horizon of the regulations that are already in place. Her main objection to my amendment was that she considered it to be unnecessary because Section 34(1) of the Family Law Act 1986 requires that a Part I order, which is more usually known as a Section 8 order under the Children Act 1989, is made before a recovery order and therefore the court will already have considered what is in the best interests of the child.
Having looked carefully at the noble Baroness's remarks, Women's Aid, which has been briefing me on this issue, has taken legal advice. That advice confirms that, because this is an urgent procedure for dealing with abductions, there is no requirement for detailed welfare investigations to be carried out, and a Section 8 order—for example, for interim residence—can be made without notice at the same time as a recovery order is granted. Therefore, this situation needs to be rectified in order to ensure that recovery orders are not misused by perpetrators.
Even if there has been an earlier order, that does not necessarily mean that the court has full and up-to-date information about the present circumstances of the case. That is crucial in order for the court to make a just decision.
I recall that when we debated this issue in Grand Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, emphasised the speed of these procedures. He proposed that it might be sensible to consider having a standstill before the order was carried out so that the custodial parent could attend and make the case as to why it should not be carried out. I submit that proposed new subsection (5) of my amendment may provide just such leeway.
Therefore, the amendment seeks to clarify the legal procedures for dealing with child abductions and it seeks to ensure that the measures are not used inappropriately in cases of domestic violence. We still believe that such a provision is necessary because domestic violence perpetrators have been able to seek, and obtain, recovery orders to track down their victims and recover children even, on some occasions, as I believe I mentioned in Grand Committee, from refuges, despite all the safeguards referred to by the Minister.
The person who must give up the child may very well have recourse to other measures after doing so. But that situation is very unsettling for the child. The genie is already out of the bottle and it is very had for the child. In those circumstances, it is far better to prevent that happening in the first place.
If an abused woman flees from the family home, taking the children with her, we still believe that her violent partner may seek legal advice, claiming that it is a case of child abduction. As your Lordships know, the person on whom the order is served must immediately disclose to the court all the information that he or she has about the whereabouts of the child. Any person with a legitimate interest can apply for orders under Sections 33 and 34 of the Family Law Act 1986 and an application for a contact or residence order will usually be made simultaneously. Therefore, as these measures are intended specifically to deal with child abductions, understandably this is a very quick procedure, as is also a without-notice application.
The order can be served on any person who may have knowledge of the whereabouts of the child. As we said in Committee, there have even been instances of staff in women's refuges being ordered to disclose in court, in front of the perpetrator, the full address of the refuge where the women and children are staying. Of course, that does not put just the woman who is the subject of the application in danger, but also all the women who are taking refuge at the address.
The reason that I return to this matter is because things do not always work as they should. Recovery orders make it possible for abusers to take action so fast that the mother has no time—it usually is the mother—to seek legal representation, or sometimes to attend court and give her side of the story before a child is removed from her care.
In the fourth annual report of the Advisory Board on Family Law 2000–01, at page 52, the Children Act Sub-Committee made recommendations. One recommendation was that when both parties are before the court, the court can make an informed decision about whether or not it is necessary and in the interests of the child to keep the whereabouts from the parent who has made the application. However, despite the measures that the Minister believes are watertight to protect children, I have pointed out that some judges appear to have difficulty in distinguishing between cases of domestic violence and cases

877
of abduction. That is hardly surprising because sometimes people are very plausible when they make their cases. Unfortunately, judges are still granting orders for children to be found and returned to violent parents and they are also granting, without notice, interim residence orders to perpetrators.
In a national survey conducted by Women's Aid in May 2003, seven refuge organisations reported problems with recovery orders. In Committee I quoted one of the cases. On this occasion I would like to quote a couple of others. The comments indicate that such a situation can happen even when the father has a police record for violence and the mother is staying in a refuge. The survey stated:
"A very recent case where a violent father with a criminal history of violence was able to get an ex parte residence order and a High Court issued recovery order executed in a refuge".
The second case is as follows:
"A court in another county issued an order for the woman's parents to disclose her address after she had fled to our area. There were police reports of domestic violence".
In those circumstances, because the mother is viewed as having abducted the child, she is likely to be treated very harshly by the courts and the wishes and feelings of the child will not necessarily have been taken into consideration at all. That is made very clear in the case details provided by another survey respondent:
"The father started proceedings claiming [the mother] had abducted the child without warning. The mother was ordered at very short notice to attend court. She did not manage to get to court in time, and did not have a solicitor, so the decision was made before she arrived: a residence order in favour of father. The child is not at all happy with this decision, which is being appealed".
As I said earlier, even if that appeal is successful, a great deal of damage will have been done to the wellbeing of the child in the mean time. Even when the perpetrator is in prison the family justice system can still be used to track down his victims. The following case does not involve a recovery order but it illustrates the dangers of making orders without notice when the circumstances of both parties are not known:
"The parents of an extremely violent man, who is in prison for assaulting his ex-partner, applied for contact with their grandchildren. At the same time the grandparents obtained an order for disclosure of the mother's address. All of this was done ex parte, and the mother knew nothing about this until she received an order from the court stating that a welfare report had been ordered on the issue of parental grandparent contact. This woman is still receiving hospital treatment for the injuries she received a year ago, and she is terrified that her ex-partner will find out where she is living".
The family justice system should recognise the need to protect children and mothers who flee violence in all circumstances and be that little bit cleverer than the very clever and manipulative men who sometimes can find loopholes in the law to get at their victims.
In Committee, the Minister said that we should not allow the courts to be used as a weapon in a protracted war between partners—a kind of tug-of-love situation about which we have all heard. I absolutely agree with
878
her. In fact, I have personal experience of one of these situations. I know that the need to avoid such situations is so great that people sometimes make great sacrifices in order to ensure that the child is not damaged in that way. But it is very damaging for children.
However, I think the courts recognise these cases and deal with them appropriately. So it is essential that family law should not enable perpetrators to track down their victims and obtain without notice orders for contact or residence before the court is fully aware of the circumstances of the case and is able to deal with a full and up-to-date report on the situation regarding the welfare of the child. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the text of the amendment is identical to the one tabled in Grand Committee. Therefore, the drafting questions I posed then must remain the same. On the last occasion the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that she would consider my questions. I wonder whether she has had the chance to do so and whether Women's Aid has been able to advise her upon it. She might be able to set my mind at rest when she responds to this short debate.
As I said in Grand Committee, I sympathise with the noble Baroness's objective. I notice that subsection (5)(a) in the amendment refers to not removing the child from the respondent and subsection (6) refers to defendant. Is that intentional? Who is the defendant and who is the respondent in this context? Subsection (4) refers to a police check of records to see whether either party has committed acts of violence. As I said before, I agree entirely that that should be done. But then subsection (5) goes on to state:
"If the records show that the applicant has a history of violence"—
and the applicant is mentioned here—
"the police … will not remove the child from the respondent".
My question is simple: what if a search of the records shows that the respondent has committed acts of violence in the past? What are the police expected to do then?
The amendment puts a very heavy responsibility on the police. We need to take account of what happens to the child. According to Amendment No. 8 the police do not remove the child from the respondent even where he or she is shown to have a history of violence. That makes one wonder whether the amendment puts the welfare of the child first. I know from the noble Baroness's long history and experience in these matters that that is the last thing she wants because she always, quite rightly, considers the welfare of the child first.
So, although it is almost my pleasure to receive briefing from Women's Aid and to do as much as I can to support its amendments, I find myself in the position where I cannot support the text of this amendment because of the problems it raises. I still sympathise with the objective, but at this stage I am not in a position to support it.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, rightly says, these amendments are identical to the ones we discussed in Grand Committee on 21 January. On that occasion I set out at length—and I apologised then—how the current law on recovery orders operates. I do not intend to repeat that detailed explanation this evening. I will, however, briefly rehearse my objections to the amendments. I must say that my objections remain the same.
I hear what the noble Baroness says in relation to child abduction issues. I do not agree. Obviously, I do not know the details about which the noble Baroness speaks. I can tell your Lordships that the law and the rules are robust. Of course I cannot comment on whether they are applied accurately, properly and appropriately in each case without looking at the particular facts of the case. We do not know whether these cases are internal or international abductions and which rules applied and which did not. The welfare of the child remains the kernel to each application. So, all I said on the last occasion still applies.
Case law indicates that the police should not be ordered to disclose the address of the women's refuge. The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v S in 1998 is reported in Family Law Reports at page 973. That is what is supposed to happen. The normal procedure is that if there is any issue or difficulty the court invites the parties to write the address down on a piece of paper. Your Lordships will know that it is usual for the officer of the court or the constable to be given the right to take charge of the child and deliver him to the person concerned. Where neither party has a residence order, and accusations of violence are made, Amendment No. 8 seeks to place additional duties on the court and the police to inquire into whether the allegations of violence are justified. If they were, the court would not return the child to the applicant, but the respondent would be advised to get legal advice.
I hope that I made the point when we discussed this in Committee that Amendment No. 8 seeks to place these additional duties in a way that I do not think is appropriate. My objections to the amendment are as follows. Respondents to the Children Act Section 8 applications have the right to appeal and can seek variations of the order. The Section 34 application is not the place for rehearsing the facts of the case that will already have been decided at an earlier hearing. The existing remedies for the enforcement of the residence order against those who do not comply with them and the powers to make orders authorising the return of the children are sufficient. What is more, they safeguard the welfare of any children involved. The provisions of the Children Act and the guidelines on how the court should deal with the allegations of domestic violence ensure that the welfare of the child is paramount and that allegations of domestic violence are properly taken into account by the court when deciding contact issues.
880
I have already given the House the good news about what will happen in relation to the forms, which will ensure that allegations of domestic violence are dealt with at the initial application stage. There should be no need for further discussion of the issues or applications made under Section 34 of the Family Law Act 1986.
While I fully understand the good intentions behind Amendment No. 8, the law as I set it out in Grand Committee already provides sufficient protection and, with the introduction of the new forms, will offer increased protection. For all those reasons, I regret that I cannot agree with the amendment. I know that the noble Baroness expresses the issue of child abduction on behalf of Women's Aid. Since it is an issue with which I am familiar, if the noble Baroness thinks that it would be helpful for me to produce a note on why the child abduction provisions do not also impinge on this, I would be happy to do that. I do not wish to tire the House by going through the structure, the case law, and the different forms of international child abduction and non-international child abduction. If the noble Baroness would find that helpful, I would be happy to do it.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation and for her offer of a note about the child abduction arrangements. That would be most helpful. I hope that the House will forgive me for returning to test this issue once more on behalf of Women's Aid, which still has concerns, mainly connected with the speed of the proceedings and the fact that sometimes the person who has custody of the child does not even get the chance to know that it is going on.
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for not addressing the issue that she raised last time. I had intended to do so. We should have changed one of those words so that both were the same. Both "respondent" and "defendant" refer to the person who has custody of the child; in other words, the person who is not the applicant.
I accept that the noble Baroness raised the issue of what happens if the person who has custody of the child has a history of violence. In that situation, the person who is trying to get custody of the child would not be bringing it under a claim that the child had been abducted. He or she would be bringing that claim for custody of the child on the basis that the person who had custody was totally inappropriate because of that history of violence. So I do not think it would apply in this case.
It would be most helpful to have the note to which the Minister referred. I think Women's Aid will consider that with very great interest and I hope that their minds will be set at rest. It is nice to know that the Minister thinks that the law is robust in this case, and I hope that she is right. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, I must advise the House that if Amendment No. 9 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 10 to 17 inclusive, because of pre-emption.
Clause 4 [The offence]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 29, leave out subsections (1) to (5) and insert—"
"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) a child or vulnerable adult dies as a result of the unlawful act of—

(i) a member of the same household as that victim, and

(ii) who had had frequent contact with him or her,

(b) at that time there was a significant risk of serious physical harm being caused to the victim by the unlawful act of such a person, and

(c) either it was that person whose act caused the victim's death or—

(i) that person was, or ought to have been, aware of the risk mentioned in paragraph (b),

(ii) that person failed to take such steps as he could reasonably have been expected to take to protect the victim from the risk, and

(iii) the act occurred in circumstances of the kind that that person foresaw or ought to have foreseen.

(2) The prosecution does not have to prove whether it is the first alternative in subsection (1)(c) or the second in subsection (1)(c)(i) to (iii) that applies.
(3) If that person was not the mother or father of the victim—

(a) that person may not be charged with an offence under this section if he or she was under the age of 16 at the time of the act that caused the victims death, or

(b) for the purpose of subsection (1)(c)(iii) that person could not have been expected to take any such step as is referred to there before attaining that age.

(4) For the purpose of this section—

(a) a person is to be regarded as a "member" of a particular household even if he or she does not live in that household, if he or she visits it so often and for such periods of time that it is reasonable to regard him or her as a member of it, and

(b) where the victim lived in different households at different times, "the same household" refers to the one in which the victim was living at the time of the act that caused the victim's death.

(5) For the purposes of this section an "unlawful" act is one that—

(a) constitutes an offence, or

(b) would constitute an offence but for being the act of—

(i) a person under the age of ten, or

(ii) a person entitled to rely on a defence of insanity.

(6) Subsection (5)(b) does not apply to an act of such a person as is mentioned in subsections (1), (3) or (5)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 9 is an important drafting amendment. It is important because Clause 4 includes a new method of drafting which is unconventional, ungrammatical and, I suggest, unacceptable. May I have the attention of the Front Bench?
This new method of drafting introduces a system which contains references to capital letters of the alphabet, which are repeated, instead of using the traditional, grammatical method which has always been used and which everybody understands. In redrafting subsections (1) to (5) of Clause 4 in the traditional way, not only have I made them clearer but I have shortened them without altering their meaning or legal effect. Moreover, I have, I believe, made them easier to understand.
I ought to confess that I was chairman of the only official committee since 1870 to advise on the way in which Acts of Parliament should be drafted. In our day, this method of using capital letters as cross references had never even been contemplated. So far as I know, this is the only precedent so far in which they have been used in a massive way. I really do think that the purpose and method of drafting should continue in the way that they have for generations.
I draw attention to a strange reference in Clause 4; it is in line 21 of page 3, at the end of subsection (5), and states:
"Paragraph (b) does not apply to an act of D".
Is that English? Is that a proper way to draft?
This is an important matter, and I hope that the noble Baroness, for whom we all have very great respect, will show that she understands the problem and will accept my solution to it. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I should like to give an indication of a view from this side. I recall very well that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised this matter in Grand Committee. I congratulate him on following that through and putting his money where his mouth is, as it were, in setting out and drafting in full what he regards as a suitably drafted Clause 4—or, rather, most of Clause 4.
I recognise of course that the noble Lord has many years' experience of drafting, statutory interpretation and all such matters. However, I suggest that innovation in parliamentary drafting is fairly rare, because, without any disrespect to them, parliamentary draftsmen are very traditional people. I find Clause 4 quite easy to read with its use of two simple initials, "D" and "V"—one meaning defendant and the other meaning victim. It is easy to understand to whom reference is being made by those initials. Given that brave innovation by parliamentary draftsmen, which assists clarity not just for laymen and social workers, but even for the lawyers who have to interpret Clause 4 in the future, it would be a great pity to "knock it on the head". That would probably put an end to all innovation from parliamentary draftsmen for

883
years to come. I do not know any of them and I may be wrong in thinking that they are men and women of sensibility, but they may be sensitive and they may be quite upset if we were to knock on the head that particular attempt, which is useful and should be encouraged.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in this battle of the Titans, but I must simply confess that I am with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and not with the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am with my noble friend Lord Renton. He was after all my sponsor in my introduction to your Lordships' House some years ago and he tried to teach me about its ways, so, inevitably, I am with him. I prefer his traditional form of drafting. I prefer it because, in this clause, "D" wears two hats. Wearing one, he committed the act; wearing the other, he failed to take appropriate steps to stop it. Perhaps because I am a bit of a traditionalist myself, I find it much easier to understand this drafting than that of the Bill. My confusion is compounded in this clause by a totally new form of criminal offence, which one does not have to prove one way or the other. Clause 4(2) does not state which way an offence has to be committed, which is a novel offence of omission. We are therefore moving into a very strange territory and I find the drafting of my noble friend Lord Renton much more comforting than the "D" and the "V" and one thing and another. Of course, I respectfully ask my noble friend certainly not to take the opinion of the House on the matter, because it will suffer considerable erosion in the light of our debates. One would therefore get into a hopeless mess by giving the parliamentary draftsmen instructions to do what they could to put it right. I hope my noble friend will not think me disrespectful if I suggest he does not seek the opinion of the House tonight.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I spoke about this matter in Committee. Despite the fact that I have not been able to be present at much of this debate for other reasons, I only wish that I could be with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because I admire him so much. However, I take the other view, simply because, as a social worker and not a lawyer, I find the drafting of the Bill much easier as it is. My colleagues, who are at the front line trying to do the day-to-day job, find "D" and "V" much easier than what is sometimes seen as traditional lawyerspeak.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, at an earlier stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to me as "that wise old owl". All I can say is that I hope that I am wise enough not to get involved in any argument with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about drafting. I do not propose to do so, but I want to ask one question on a point that he made.
What does the last line of subsection (5) mean? As I understand it, the subsection says that an "unlawful" act is one that,
"constitutes an offence, or … would constitute an offence, but for being the act of … a person under the age of ten";
884
in other words, if it is committed by a person under the age of 10, it is not an offence. Then it says:
"Paragraph (b) [the paragraph which contains that wording] does not apply to an act of D".
Does that not mean by "D" if he is six or seven? Does it mean therefore that, if he commits an act, it is an offence?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, my noble friend has done the House a great service in reminding us once again of the importance of drafting. We all remember the seminal effect that the report of his great committee had all those years ago. However, I am afraid that I am an insufficiently wise old owl to suppress an impertinent desire to take issue on a minor matter. If my noble friend agrees, he might be able to remedy it at the remaining stage of the Bill.
It is a drafting matter. I venture to suggest that in his amendment, at line 4, the word "and" is superfluous if the word "who" appears in the next line. It is a grammatical matter. In the Bill as drafted, the word "who" does not appear at that point. He may on reflection think that I am not being too terribly impertinent in pointing that out.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I included the word "and" because it was in the Bill as drafted and it does no harm there—in fact, it has some advantage. I was merely trying to improve the drafting by getting rid of this new convention of using capital letters. It seemed to me that the word "and" could well be left in.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, that would be true if the word "who" had not been inserted into the next line, because it is not in the original text. Without going too heavily into it, I believe that I am right. I used to appear before my noble friend when he was recorder of Rochester, and I never thought that would be tangling with him on a matter of this sort. Perhaps I may compound it by saying that I believe "D" and "V" to be rather helpful.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the House that I am very happy to take lessons in drafting from my noble friend, who always has a way of making the difficult seem more intelligible. I certainly do not believe that a draftsman or draftswoman will be offended by any debate on t his matter; they might consider it a bit of serious levity, if there is such a thing, at the end of a long and testing day.
My noble friend is right to test drafting. With the examples behind us of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003, we are beginning to get into the world of alphabet soup. I am not too sure that that is always the right thing to do.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow for returning to a question I brought up in Grand Committee, about line 21 on page 3 of the Bill, which says:
"Paragraph (b) does not apply to an act of D".

885
The Minister was kind enough to answer my question on that occasion, but I must admit that I still do not understand it and that I am still trying.
7 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have the vote so far as "Renton 2, Those against 4". That need not trouble the noble Lord.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling this amendment. I commend him, if I may respectfully do so, for his industry in redrafting the clause to remove the letters "D" and "V", which denote the person charged with the offence and the victim respectively. I know that he mentioned earlier in debate that he was uncomfortable with the drafting, which he did not think was clear.
I am reluctant to agree to the amendment. This style of legislative drafting does not suit everybody, but it became clear in earlier debate that many of us find the use of initials very helpful. It is now a common form of drafting. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, thinks that this is perhaps the first time. I regret to tell him that it is not. This device was used for example in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It was also used by the Law Commission in its proposed draft Bill, which accompanied its recent report on this issue, Children: their non-accidental death and serious injury (criminal trials) no. 282. I will not tire the House with a complete list of examples in earlier legislation where letters are used in an effort to simplify drafting. The list is very long indeed and includes Acts such as the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which contains references to persons from A to Z, and the pièce de résistance was probably the Local Government Finance Act 1988 which created the community charge. In that Act I found a very interesting calculation that I would like to share with your Lordships. At one stage it says,
A × B /C
is the formula to be used. Then, later on the following appears:
(P × A/C) + (Q ×A/C × 1/5)
I do not think we quite go into that territory, but the "D" and the "V" do have a certain utility and simplicity.
The noble Lord has added "or her" wherever the word "he" appears. I can quite see why he considers that important. But it is an even more long-standing tradition that in any legislation "he" is read as referring also to "she" and the singular is taken to include the plural. This is enshrined in the Interpretation Act 1978, and was stated explicitly there in order to make the draftsman's job easier for the future. So I think that, if I may very respectfully and gently say so, those amendments do not appear to be necessary.
886
More importantly, the changes that the noble Lord has made will not in fact work. This is because it is not clear which of the various "that persons" in the revised clause refer to the person who committed the act which killed the child or vulnerable person and which refer to the defendant who is before the court. The drafting would also remove the requirement that the defendant who knew of the risk to the victim, but did not take reasonable steps to protect that victim, must also have been a member of the household who had frequent contact with the victim. This is very important. If we delete this requirement we will be placing on everyone who knew of the risk to the victim a duty to take steps to prevent the harm, or face a criminal penalty. So this might include a neighbour, a doctor, a teacher or a social worker who was aware of the risk. Of course, those people would be doing what they could in their professional capacities, but they do not and should not face the same duty to intervene that is incumbent on a member of the household. The noble Lord's amendment would make the responsibility too wide.
If I may respectfully say so, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, does help us because it demonstrates how very difficult it is to get the clarity we need and seek without being quite rigid about saying "D" and "V". I am positive that the noble Lord would not wish the confusion that I have just described to come about.
I am sorry that the explanation I gave on the last occasion was not sufficiently clear; I did try to make it so. Line 21 of page 3 of the Bill states:
"Paragraph (b) does not apply to an act of D".
An amendment in Grand Committee sought to remove the provision, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said. Hansard will record, I hope, that I gave a full explanation. However, the purpose of the provision is to make it clear that subsection (5)(b) does not make unlawful the act of someone who is not criminally responsible because they are under the age of 10 or insane. I hope that that is clear and that the noble Baroness now understands it.
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for giving us perhaps one of the most delightful 10 or 15 minutes that we have had for some time.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, and to my noble friends for their kind words. However, I must confess that I think it immensely important that we should legislate in a way that ordinary people will understand and in a way that will be accurately quoted when statutes are cited. I must confess—I am grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing it out—that I did not realise that there were three, four or five precedents for this. I ought to have known about it but my research did not get me that far.
In view of what the noble Baroness said, I propose to ask leave to withdraw my amendment. However, I shall study very carefully what she said. If necessary, I shall come back to the matter at Third Reading, although I know that that is sometimes unusual and

887
difficult. However, I think that this is a new departure about which we should have real scepticism. I think that the great mass of people who are obliged to obey or be guided by our laws will find it puzzling to find this new departure from the ways in which we have expressed our laws for generations—indeed, for centuries. Those ways are immensely important and have been copied all over the Commonwealth.
This new departure has, so far, not been justified and could cause trouble. As I say, I shall return to the point. I hope that the noble Baroness will think about this again. With those thoughts in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
888
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that, pursuant to the resolution of 3 March, the Bill had been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declaration of the agent; the Bill was presented, read a first time, passed through all its remaining stages pro forma and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at nine minutes past seven o'clock.

Official Report of the Northern Ireland Orders Grand Committee
Thursday, 4 March 2004.
The Committee met at a quarter past three of the clock.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Carter) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Carter): Before the Minister moves that the first order be considered, it may be helpful to say a word about the procedure for today's Grand Committee. Our proceedings are essentially the same as those of the House—noble Lords will speak standing, all noble Lords are free to attend and participate and the proceedings will be reported in Hansard. As we are in Committee, Members may speak more than once on any Motion.
As this is a relatively new procedure, I should perhaps make it clear that the Committee is charged only to consider orders, not to approve or disapprove them. The Motion to approve will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way.
There are no Divisions in Grand Committee, and any Motion on which agreement cannot be reached should be withdrawn. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.

Official Report of the Northern Ireland Orders Grand Committee

  Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.
  It remains a matter of regret that this legislation is not being considered by the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I hope that the ongoing review process will lead to an early restoration date. However, given the prevailing circumstances, it is our responsibility to ensure that good government is maintained until the Assembly is restored.
  The draft order before us today has two purposes. The first is to authorise the total revised amount of resources for 2003–04 of 12.956 billion and the issue of a total revised amount of cash from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund for 2003–04 of £9.579 billion. That represents a decrease in resources of £275 million and an increase in cash of £383.5 million over the position authorised by Parliament in the main estimates for the current financial year.
  The second purpose is to authorise a vote on account to allow funds to continue to flow to public services for the early months of the next financial year until main estimates can be presented and considered. For that, the draft order seeks Parliament's authorisation for the use
  GC 318
  of resources amounting to £5.157 billion and for the issue of cash from the Consolidated Fund of the sum of £4.362 billion.
  In general, the resource and cash amounts required on account for 2004–05 have been calculated as 45 per cent of the 2003–04 total voted provision. As its name suggests, the vote on account is not intended to seek final approval of the allocations for 2004–05. It simply seeks sufficient resources and cash to allow services to proceed until the detailed work on the main estimates has been completed in the early summer. By approving the vote on account, noble Lords will therefore not pre-empt decisions on any final allocation for 2004–05. Details of the sums sought are given in the spring supplementary estimates and the vote on account, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
  I shall not attempt to identify the numerous changes contained in the supplementary estimates, as the introduction to each departmental estimate in the supplementary estimates booklet sets out in detail the main changes for which approval is sought. I shall, of course, do my best to respond to any points of detail.
  With regard to the 2004–05 financial year, it is normal practice to bring forward a vote on account at this point, prior to the year in which the resources and cash will be used. There will be an opportunity for a further full debate on the detail of the main estimates in early summer. I commend the order to the Committee.
  Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)
  Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for introducing the order. I suspect that she and I, and maybe other Members of the Committee, are in a similar position, in that we have not spent half a lifetime in public accounts and national budgets.
  I agree that it is sad that the Assembly is not able to debate the order. We can—as I hope we will in the next hour—look at the total figures but, because we are not close enough, we cannot get involved in the break-out of the funds. We have the block grant to Northern Ireland. It is now in the form of a comprehensive budget where the funds are split between the different departments for different projects, different reasons and different accounts. We are not as close to that as the Members at Stormont would be in order to argue and debate whether that proportionality is right or wrong. If I am proved wrong later by noble Lords, I shall withdraw that statement, but that is how I feel about it.
  It is also worth saying that the economy in Northern Ireland, despite everything, is thriving. It is in as good a state as it has been probably for many years. Unemployment is down, property prices are rising, and business generally is strong. For example, the GDP has grown considerably more in Northern Ireland in the past year than it has on the mainland. Wearing a different hat, I was able to do a short

  GC 319
  presentation in the City on how well the Northern Ireland economy had done in comparison to England and Wales, which is a very good thing.
  There are one or two areas that I should like to ask about in order to get them on the record. As the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council said, page 6 of the supplementary estimates states that the total has been reduced year on year in gross terms. But the noble Baroness also made the point that that would result in a cash increase. It would be good to have that on the record.
  Before I go any further, I should like to thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for allowing me to be briefed by officials last night. That was very helpful, although they now know how ignorant I am about these matters.
  On page 3, there is a paragraph headed "Department of Education—Teachers' Superannuation". I understand that there is something about pensions in there. It would be worth having an explanation of that on the record. There is a minus figure against it. I assume that that can easily be explained and that there is not a serious problem with teachers' pensions funding.
  I am ashamed to say that I really have little more that I can ask or challenge. As I said, I am not an expert in such matters. I was involved in the exercise last year. It is good to know that, however the exercise was done last year, it seemed to work quite well. Because I live there, I know that there are some major capital projects planned in the Province, which I hope will proceed. From what I know as a local, money seems to be targeted in the right direction: that is part of what we are here for.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for introducing the orders and for allowing me to take part in the official briefing yesterday evening.
  There is a sense in which I feel that this is akin to the 25 years or so that I spent in local government. I was looking at what ultimately became £230 million; we are now dealing with a figure that is 60 times that. At that time, there was virtually nothing else in my life for six weeks. A great deal of time before that was spent poring over, understanding, cracking a budget and so forth. We are trying to scratch the surface and barely laying a feather duster.
  So what is it? The document before us is a substantial tidy-up of 2003–04, the year that ends in four weeks' time. Then it makes a start on agreeing what one might call a payment on account for 45 per cent of the resources required, which sees things going until the end of August.
  What we are asked to do today is an enormous task. What we are doing, along with a couple of hours in the other place, really is just a feather duster. I echo the regrets that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not able to be in business to do this important work. What is the Northern Ireland Assembly for? It is there for two things: peace process enhancement, and the proper democratic stewardship of such important and
  GC 320
  substantial resources. It is not able to carry out either function. In a way, I suppose that the Northern Ireland Grand Committee ought to meet daily, for a full day, for about six weeks. Therefore, our proceedings really are a feather duster.
  The general principle of the document is, "Steady as she goes; there should be no radical changes during direct rule. It is a temporary position. Don't disturb too much, and let's hope that, ultimately, democratically elected people in Northern Ireland can deal with such matters. Let's just keep the thing going. If you have to alter something because of a bit of inflation or because something obviously has to be done, so be it, but don't alter too much". I have some reservation about how long that line can be kept, but I understand it.
  I would like to speak on three areas: one of regret, one of principle and one of detail. Without causing too much embarrassment, the first matter about which I want to talk is in the budget for the Department for Employment and Learning. Provision is reduced in subhead ⅔ by £7.8 million, given the reduced requirement for the Springvale campus. It must be a very sad day indeed for my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton, who endeavoured in his stewardship of the University of Ulster to make his own substantial contribution to the peace process. It is a shame that those in charge of higher education in Northern Ireland have such limited vision that we have to delete nearly £8 million for what was intended to be a substantial enhancement of education and a substantial involvement in the peace process.
  My second point is that there is a substantial budget—£50 million or so—for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. It is intended that that continue on that sort of basis. That £50 million raises some important matters. In a way, it is split in two. A lot of it is grants to voluntary organisations, and it is also for initiatives by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. If they are not there to take initiatives, who will take them? Will they be civil servant initiatives? Will they be taken by Ministers here? What democratic accountability is there in respect of them? I am sure that many of them will be first-rate and sound, but they will be done with public money. How does that fit in with the principle of "Steady as she goes"?
  The third matter on which I wanted to speak was something about which I thought I knew a little. It is a detail on one area of expenditure—that for the railway system in Northern Ireland. This book of accounts contains the large investment, or at least alterations to the investment—I am not quite clear on exactly how that fits in. I am sure that most Members of the Committee will be aware that the rolling stock of the railways in Northern Ireland is all life-expired, with the exception of the Enterprise stock used for the Dublin service.
  Paragraph 1(vi) on page 193 of the Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 2003–2004 states that there is an extra £5.728 million allocated for rolling stock—that is something about re-phasing. I am not clear whether that figure relates to the rolling stock

  GC 321
  that it was thought would be bought next year, and that a payment on account can be made at this point, or whether it is a late payment because the arrangements of the purchase were such that it was made in an earlier year. Does the budget provision to purchase new rolling stock provide for the entire network or only part of it? If it does not provide for it all, should the shortfall be an early candidate for virement in terms of the entirety of the Northern Ireland budget in 2004–05? If that is to be the case, and rolling stock is to be ordered to add to the order already placed, the timing of that will be significant.
  Mr Roy Beggs raised the matter of Northern Ireland Railways in another place and referred to the "non-core railway". Who has defined the non-core railway? Seemingly, the reference relates to the routes from Coleraine to Londonderry and from Whitehead to Larne. Which Westminster politician or Northern Ireland politician has come up with the phrase "non-core", or has it come from somewhere else? The Whitehead to Lame route is a strange sort of "non-core", when it is part of the Cork to Lame TENS network, with enhancement funds provided by the European Union. The Coleraine to Londonderry route is a strange "non-core", when that part of the railway takes people from Belfast to the second city of Northern Ireland.
  It was interesting that a Question was put by that questioner of questioners, the noble Lord, Lord Laird, on what plans Her Majesty's Government have to promote the railway line between Coleraine and Londonderry as a tourist attraction. The Answer, which is credited to the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, but is so unimpressive that I suspect that someone else dreamt it up, stated:
  "The Government provide substantial resources to Northern Ireland Railways to enable them to maintain railway services including services on the Coleraine-Londonderry line. They would welcome any increase in the low levels of patronage, but do not promote it or assist in promoting it as a tourist attraction".—[Official Report, 24/2/04; col. WA 42.]
  That is pretty unimpressive. There is a substantial budget in the spring estimates for Northern Ireland Railways. There is another very substantial budget of at least £20 million for tourism. How is influence brought to bear so that Northern Ireland Railways and/or the Northern Ireland Tourist Board do the promotion? How can that be brought to bear? This is one of the few occasions when we can say that pressure needs to be brought to bear on that very point.
  Railway enhancement has taken place in the British Isles, with lines and stations reopening and considerable enhancement of tourism on lines such as Settle to Carlisle, south Devon, Fortwilliam to Mallaig, and so on. Coleraine to Londonderry is in such a class. Enhancement has also taken place in the Republic of Ireland, with stations and lines re-opening. Why is Northern Ireland the poor relation? Reference has been made to two important lines as "non-core", and there is the already mothballed line between Lisburn and Antrim.
  That is a bit of detail so far as this is concerned. We could scratch at that kind of detail throughout the book were there anything like the opportunity to do
  GC 322
  so. While the devolved Assembly is not in business, there ought to be a way in which we can scratch and scratch away at an issue in an endeavour to influence it. However, we cannot do that in a couple of hours here and a couple of hours in the other place.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Laird: I join Members of the Committee who have already spoken in tribute to the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for her introduction to the debate, and to the civil servants who have obviously done considerable work in putting together the document. I am sorry that I did not attend the briefing last night. I do not know whether I was invited. It was probably entirely my fault, but I knew nothing about it by whatever mechanism. It might not have affected me.
  I was very impressed with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland. He made a major contribution today, not only in regard to the railways but by referring to the fact that scratching at details is not satisfactory for a document of such size, worth and impact. We can only poke in and poke out as we see fit. That is an extremely important point at this time when there is no devolved government. I would obviously like there to be an Assembly at which such matters could be better scrutinised.
  As the noble Lord said, there have been many years of under-investment right across the board in Northern Ireland. The example that he used was that of railways, which is a good example. The standards of safety that apply throughout the rest of the United Kingdom do not apply in Northern Ireland. With the railway system, we are sitting on a possible disaster. If there is ever an incident involving the safety of our rolling stock—I hope that there is not—it would be a major scandal that the safety regulations that affect the rest of the United Kingdom do not affect Northern Ireland because of under-investment. There will be very serious questions asked if that comes about.
  To a lay person such as myself, an awful lot of money seems to be spent on administration. I am sure that I do not understand the problems. Let us take a simple example that we all know of and about which a lot of people in Northern Ireland talk. We have four health boards, which employ 800 people and spend £27.5 million a year on administration. The best research that I can do shows that in any other part of the United Kingdom an area the size of Northern Ireland would be administered by 50 people spending £5.5 million. We are heavily over-administered; money is wasted on administration.
  I am sure that there are many parts of this document that I do not understand. Let us look at the section on the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development at page 15. Nearly £31 million is spent on administration for veterinary services and yet the net resources are just £880,000 million. If I read the figures right—perhaps someone will explain it to me—nearly £31 million is spent on administering an £880,000 million budget. I assume that there is a logical explanation for that—because it is Alice in Wonderland if there is not.

  GC 323
  I could go through the document and talk about the Department for Employment and Learning and the labour market, details of which are on page 88. The total budget was £16 million, of which £14 million was spent on administration. Page 128 deals with business development services and shows £11 million spent on administration when the total resources are £11 million; there is £200,000 left to administer. I must have read the figures incorrectly; that cannot be.
  Like many other people, I am glad of the pension protection fund initiative but perhaps the Minister will explain why it does not apply to Northern Ireland.
  As regards local management of schools, I do not know whether any man or woman alive understands the formula for the funding of schools. Recently, I sought information about the funding of primary schools in Belfast, and discovered that Stranmillis Primary School in south Belfast is heavily underfunded and rapidly sliding into the red. I am not a financial wizard, but no one can explain to me the system of funding for a school such as Stranmillis Primary School. I just take that as an example. It has the lowest per capita figure of any primary school in Northern Ireland.
  There must be targeting social need in Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, the economy is such that unemployment is at its lowest, certainly in my lifetime. I welcome that. But there are still areas of great deprivation. We need to target social need heavily. Is there recognition that in targeting social need and supporting organisations that put culture, health and support into local areas, we are saving Her Majesty's Government funding in other areas—they are not in this document and not under consideration today; they include such aspects as police overtime and compensation.
  I declare an interest as co-chairman of a cross-border body. I cannot prove these figures, but if we gave £10,000 in grants for TSN areas, that would probably save about £100,000 in police overtime and perhaps £1 million in compensation. Eight years ago, it took £6 million to put the city of Londonderry together again after the marching season. We put a small amount of money into that, backed up by other good governmental organisations. It no longer costs £5 million in compensation; and there are no longer police overtime costs. It costs £250,000, and the city of Londonderry is full. It is a throbbing and exciting festival, and there is not a stone thrown in anger. Sometimes I wonder whether the Government get their sums right and understand what is more important—trying to stop trouble before it starts by socially acceptable means or waiting until people have to be hosed off the streets, damaging the image of Northern Ireland, and having to pay compensation?
  I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith. I had a very peripheral involvement in the noble Lord's imaginative scheme for Springvale. I, too, am disappointed that that has not taken place. I was one of those who, in another place—in Stormont—represented West Belfast. I was convinced that that would have been a great help to many people in both major communities in West Belfast.
  GC 324
  As I said earlier, I am the co-chairman of a cross-border body. The cross-border bodies are mentioned in the estimates, as there is bound to be an effect on the budget. I have never been able to work out how the budget for the cross-border bodies is reached; it is a source of amazement to me. Obviously, I shall not receive any credit for being able to deal with figures because I cannot understand the process at all. I have with me the North/South Language Body financial memorandum; what actually happens bears no relation to it.
  Last year the budget was set at the behest of the Dublin Government. The Government backed down only because it was scuppered by the teeth of a court and shown that the British Government had been fettered by the Irish Government's announcing the budget in advance. I do not want to have to do that again this year: but, again, Dublin has set the budget in November for the language implementation body.
  It also refers to a document of 19 November 2002 which takes the place of the North/South Ministerial Council's decision-making process. The document raises some concerns. It states:
  "We will consult with the appropriate bodies".
  As the chairman of a cross-border body, I can say that, six months after submitting our business plan, we have never been consulted.
  Our budget is set by the Irish. What the Irish know about the culture of the Ulster Scots is beyond me, yet they can set our budget. Will the Minister say what mechanism is used for setting cross-border bodies budgets? With whom are there to be consultations? As I understand it, proportionality changes from year to year depending on the arrangements. How is proportionality worked out? Someone once described proportionality to me as the difference between what is put into the relationship by the British Government and what the Irish Government puts in. It has changed for some bodies but it has not changed for the language implementation body. I want to know why that is and what information formed the basis for the decision that proportionality will remain the same as it was in year one.
  I also want clarification of what exactly is the new policy. As I understand it, under the current arrangements, cross-border bodies are supposed to work only on care and maintenance, yet Waterways Ireland is to get an extra 40 per cent. On the other hand, we, a new body, which started from ground level on the basis of funding four Ulster Scots groups in 2000 but funding 24.6 last year, receive only an inflationary allowance given to us generously by the Irish Government.
  Why are we treated differently from other bodies? Why is there care and maintenance? What is the meaning of care and maintenance? It is stated that there are no new policies. In my opinion, a new policy is when you stop a policy. We have a policy of grant-aiding groups; we have a policy of trying to take people away from paramilitarism in Belfast and targeting social need. Those are policies that we now have to stop because Dublin did not allow the British Government to give us the money. In my opinion, stopping a policy is the same as having no new policy. We have to stop our policies.

  GC 325
  As to care and maintenance, has it held up the activities of either the trade body or the tourism body? Is care and maintenance stopping Tourism Ireland from bringing tourists into the island of Ireland? We should all be treated on an equal basis.
  I feel that I have asked enough questions at this point but I reserve the right to come back.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Dubs: I am delighted with this procedure; it is much better than doing everything on the Floor of the House.
  I fully concede that, if there were no devolution in the future, we could refine the process. But I hope that devolution will happen before we go much further and that what we are doing today will be seen as a historic procedure.
  I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Shutt and Lord Laird, that there are ways in which we could scrutinise the headings in more detail. Having been involved on the ministerial side in some of these matters, I partly feel tempted to ask questions relating to my former department. I shall not do that—I do not believe it is appropriate—but I certainly understand that behind the figures are policies. This is an opportunity to scrutinise the detailed policies, but that would be a very difficult task because perhaps 100 or 150 key policy areas are covered by these figures.
  I want to ask two questions, one of which I have given notice of, and the other so straightforward that it will not be difficult. The latter is simply this: what assumptions have been made in the figures as regards costs of the Assembly and, indeed, for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the case of there being devolution, and in the case of there not being devolution? In other words, do the figures allow for the Assembly and the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to be brought up to speed very quickly when the happy day arrives, which I hope will not be too long ahead?
  The question of which I gave notice is simply about integrated education. I should declare an interest: I am chairman of the All-Party Group on Integrated Education in Northern Ireland. It is a very important issue. I know that the policy of the Government—it was the policy of the Assembly—is that there should be growth in integrated education as demand for it rises. What assumptions have been made about integrated education in the figures? I could not detect the words "integrated education" in the descriptions of the figures themselves, but could we be told a little about how the Department of Education sees the development of integrated education? What resources will be made available for it?
  Lord Glentoran: I would like to come back with two general points. One is to do with the administration of Northern Ireland as a whole. I know that a review is taking place, but it is a good time to put some markers down. As the noble Baroness will know, I asked the Government a number of Questions a month or so ago about costs of administration. To summarise a little, 37.5
  GC 326
  per cent of all those employed in Northern Ireland. not including the security forces, are employed by the Government in government administration. That is a pretty serious figure. It is a long way above anywhere else, certainly in the European Union. It is a very nonproductive group.
  I think that we have 26 local authorities. I have the number of quangos, but I did not bring it into Committee. We have regulators and ombudsmen everywhere, and they all have their own offices costing £1 million or thereabouts each. Everything is duplicated and not linked. The noble Lord, Lord Laird, mentioned the situation with hospital boards. We have education and library boards all over the place, with everything duplicated and duplicated.
  I sincerely hope that the Government will attack that serious waste of resources. The money could be spent considerably better than on that over-regulation. It is a government fad, as we know, throughout the United Kingdom. Since they have been in power, regulation has multiplied and multiplied, and it has happened in Northern Ireland. One has only to look at the number of inspectorates, commissions and quangos set up. The list goes on and on, and every one needs to be paid for.
  My second point, perhaps with a less aggressive tone, is on the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and the salaries of the Assembly Members, as was mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Dubs. If I have the figure right, it is about £100 million. So far as we can see, that money is not being earned. Nearly £50 million is sitting in the budget of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, with another £47 million listed on the back page for Members' services and salaries. That does not make sense. With due respect to those in the Room, we need a Northern Ireland Civil Service, but do we need 10 departments' worth of officials while we do not have an Assembly?
  I could go on. Someone needs to look very quickly at the administration costs of the Province. Frankly, it is mad if it is not going to change. Some of us believe that it could be 10 years before it changes, the way things are going. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I often disagree on the matter; sadly, I have been right rather more than he has at this stage. I sincerely hope that I am proved wrong, as he knows. I believe that in financial planning we should plan for reality and not for blue skies. I end on that point.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, on a point of general principle touched upon by the noble Lords, Lord Shutt, Lord Dubs and Lord Laird, if—and one certainly hopes it is not the case—we are here again next year because there is no re-activated Assembly, can some provision be made for a greater amount of time for us to consider the budget? Basically, we are rubber-stamping what civil servants have cooked up. They have cooked-up quite brilliantly—I congratulate them on that—but the political input is zilch, and that is not good for democracy.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I remember that in my days as a local councilor—on Westminster City Council,

  GC 327
  no less—we went through such issues page by page. That would be fairly difficult in the case of parliamentary scrutiny of government in Northern Ireland but, short of going through the order page by page, I find it difficult to see how the noble Lord's wishes can be met. Perhaps we should all think about the issue outside the Committee and then put our views to my noble friend, outlining what procedures might meet our needs—without becoming local councillors.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I wish to make one further point. Although the Springvale project was very much the project of the noble Lord. Lord Smith, I was also involved. I believe that the Government are making a huge mistake in withdrawing it. I have walked every inch of the site and I have been involved with the Millennium Commission. We have put an outreach facility there which is operating and working wonderfully well. If only it had the university around it as was envisaged, dreamt about and planned by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and his colleagues at the time. I believe the figure given then was £70 million or £71 million; I do not know what it is today as it is withdrawn.
  It will be a serious retrograde step. The area around Springvale is one that needs education to bring people together. It is on the peace line—everyone in the room knows that, but those who read Hansard may not—and would have been a perfect vehicle to help improve education at all levels. I think that I am right in saying that there is a comparatively high level of adult illiteracy in that part of Belfast compared with other parts of the city—the noble Lord, Lord Smith, is nodding in assent. People are frightened to admit it; they are embarrassed by their children and it causes domestic problems which many of us know about. It is wrong to take away that facility for the sake of £71 million which, if the Assembly is not going to sit, could come out of the salaries of its Members.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: I thank all noble Lords who have commented on the demise of Springvale. It was a very great personal disappointment to me.
  In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, we have had perhaps two or three days to look at this order. It would have been nice to have been given 10 days because we could have gone into it in greater depth. I agree that, with budgets, you more or less have to take them or leave them; you cannot really change them. But it would be a courtesy to the people of Northern Ireland if we were able to give the order a reasonable amount of attention rather than the rather peremptory treatment it is receiving today.
  4 p.m.
  Baroness Amos: I thank noble Lords for the points they have made. Perhaps I may start by addressing the general concerns that have been expressed.
  I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that the Northern Ireland economy is thriving. It is something we should be pleased about. I share the regret of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not able itself to consider these estimates in
  GC 328
  detail. That is why we wish to see a restoration of devolution and the work of the Assembly as quickly as possible.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Laird, that it is important that we target social need in areas of deprivation. My noble friend Lord Dubs said that the Grand Committee had been a useful process. I agree, although I hope that we will not have to consider the budget in detail in a year's time, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Smith. I am aware that the noble Lord is thinking about what might happen, but we all hope that we shall see a resolution in a far shorter time.
  A number of general points were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to the fact that we are issuing a revised amount in cash terms because there has been a decrease in other areas. I referred to that in my opening speech, but, to clarify, I shall say it again: the total revised amount of cash from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund for 2003–04 of some £9.79 billion represents a decrease in resources of £275 million and an increase in cash of £383.5 million over the position authorised by Parliament in the main estimates for the current financial year. If one looks at the two figures, it is clear that there has not been an overall reduction.
  The noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Smith, asked about the spending plans for 2003–04. The overall spending plans for 2003–04, on which the estimates are based, reflect the draft budget prepared by the Executive in September 2002, prior to suspension. Although I take the point about local participation in the exercise, some local views are reflected, given that the process took place prior to suspension, and the 2004–05 plans have been discussed with local parties. I take entirely the point about the time available to scrutinise the plans in detail, and I hope that when we come to look at the main estimates later in the year, noble Lords will feel that they have an opportunity to do that.
  The noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Glentoran, raised a point about administration. In the estimates for administration, there is a quirk in the system that we operate, and the same position applies in Whitehall: the cost of civil servants appears as administration, yet many of those civil servants will be engaged in direct service provision to the public and not in administration. For example, within the agriculture department, the bulk of the work is carried out by vets engaged in scientific activity. So the term "administration" is not used in the way we would normally understand it. A key feature of the overall budget announcement has been a bearing down on administrative costs, with a consequential shift to investment in services. That will be one of the key issues for this year's spending review. I hope that I have assured the noble Lord, Lord Laird, on those points.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, mentioned the review of public administration launched in June 2002. Its aim is to review all aspects of the public sector in Northern Ireland and to develop a system of public administration that meets fully the needs of the people in

  GC 329
  Northern Ireland. Of course suspension of the Assembly and the Executive has had an impact on the timescale of the review. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State Paul Murphy has said that he is committed to the work of the team, which is continuing to help establish a modern system of public administration that is both efficient and effective. In October last year, a consultation document on the future of public administration in Northern Ireland was issued. The deadline for responses to the consultation was extended to 27 February. Those responses have now been received, and we will look at them.
  We are also undertaking a fundamental efficiency review, which reflects the work of Sir Peter Gershon in Whitehall on efficiency.
  I think that that addresses the wider points raised. I shall now respond to the specific points. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to the reduction in resources identified on page 6, which is linked to the Department of Education's pension issue. The consequence of the application of a new accounting standard for the first time at main estimate stage was recently reviewed on the basis of actuarial advice, hence the reduction. It has no impact on the delivery of public service. I hope that that addresses the noble Lord's concern.
  The noble Lords. Lord Shutt and Lord Glentoran, referred to the Springvale project and the particularly important role that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, played in it. Following the University of Ulster's withdrawal from the project in September 2002, the Springvale hoard carried out a review of the project. The review was completed in January this year, and a report has been forwarded to the Department for Employment and Learning. I have been advised that my honourable friend the Minister is considering the report's proposals, and a statement will be made in due course.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, raised the issue of the budget of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. All the department's work is subject to the oversight and control of my honourable friend Ian Pearson, the relevant Minister.
  On transport, the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, talked about the railways. The rescheduling of rolling stock was expenditure originally planned for 2002–03 that has slipped to 2003–04. It does not cover the entire network, and any underspend will be considered for virement into other priority areas. The definition of "non-core" railway networks is based on usage and flows from the regional transportation strategy. The strategy looks at the most frequently used part of the Northern Ireland network, which is commonly known as the "core". In looking at that, the regional transportation strategy has also identified "non-core".
  The noble Lord, Lord Laird, asked about the funding of North/South bodies. I must say to him that I would have been very surprised if he had not pressed me on those points. All budgets for North/South bodies are agreed jointly by the Governments north and south. The noble Lord is quite right that, under current arrangements, North/South bodies are required to
  GC 330
  operate on a care and maintenance basis only, and, in this context, budget proposals should not include any substantive development costs. The noble Lord raised specifically the issue of Waterways Ireland. The 2004 budget contains an allocation for a new headquarters, which is still subject to approval to proceed. The increase is not with respect to new policy issues but with respect to a new headquarters.
  On the issue of the North/South Language Body's budget, and in particular on proportionality, the agreed allocations did not reflect the figures included in the agency's final draft business plans, as they were considered by the sponsor departments to be in excess of care and maintenance. The respective agencies' business plans were approved on the basis of the budgets agreed by the sponsor departments. It was agreed that the funding, although less than that originally sought by the respective agencies, was sufficient to allow each agency to carry out the necessary activities to sustain and build on its 2003 baseline position.
  The issue of proportionality is based on an assessment of the perceived benefits to each jurisdiction of the work of the body. The assessment for the agency is that that has not changed. Of course, that will be reviewed each year as part of the budget process.
  My noble friend Lord Dubs asked a specific question about the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and what would happen. For 2004–05, the detailed plans assume that the Assembly will be functioning normally, which of course is our sincere wish. If that is not the case, relevant resources will be redeployed to priority areas.
  On the issue of funding for integrated education, the Government respond to parental demand but do not seek to impose any particular type of education. Funding is made available for integrated schools that are robust, do not involve unreasonable public expenditure and meet the specified criteria. The current expenditure on integrated schools will be £53.3 million in 2003–04, with £14 million allocated for capital expenditure. Funding of around £500,000 a year is also provided to the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, to further promote integrated education.
  I hope that I have addressed the points raised.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: I appreciate the difficulty of responding to the barrage of questions and so forth. However, I wonder whether the noble Baroness had the opportunity to think a little about a more encouraging and convincing response to the juxtaposition of the railway and tourism issues, to which I referred.
  Baroness Amos: It is important to identify the roles that the Government and the tourism authorities have in relation to that issue. I will take the issue away and look at it again. I was very grateful for the fact that the noble Lord felt that I had not had a hand in the reply. Of course, I signed off the reply, which means that I was happy with it, but I will go hack and probe further.
  Lord Laird: I want to ask the Minister again on some of the issues about which we talked. She talked about

  GC 331
  Waterways Ireland, the entries of 40 per cent for its cross-border implementation body and the fact that that relates to a new headquarters. As I understand it, the whole concept of care and maintenance is to see what happens to the political process. It is quite clear in the Belfast agreement and the legislation that there can be no cross-border bodies if there is no Assembly. Why then was Waterways Ireland allocated money for a headquarters that may not come into being? That is not care and maintenance; it goes far beyond that.
  The noble Baroness may say, "Well, it has not been signed off by the North/South Ministerial Council", which is a fair point. If so, why were the same standards not applied to us? Why did we not have money set aside, even if it may not have been signed off by the council? The issue has not been resolved but, at the end of the day, the budget that we got was one authorised by the Irish in November.
  I am sorry to say that there is no answer to the point that there was no consultation with the agency about the budget. Therefore, no one in the sponsoring departments can say that the budget is adequate to keep us going on the same lines. It is not. It means that we have to cancel policies. However, I can understand that the department does not know that because, after six months, it has not consulted us.
  It would seem a sensible point of government procedure from what it is hoped is today's open government that, if someone is carrying out the work and you suddenly decide that they have the expertise to carry it out, you should consult them on the budget. It is no use us tying up our minute staff by having them spend months making business cases if the money is simply allocated to us with no regard taken of those cases.
  I want to make a further point about proportionality. I am sorry, but I am totally dissatisfied with the answer. In the case of the North/South Language Body, there has been no request for information from us since we started in 1999 that would inform the Department of Finance and Personnel of where the benefits went on both sides of the border. Therefore there cannot have been a discussion about proportionality because no information has been provided about what percentage of the good that we do is in the North and what percentage is in the South. Why are we the only implementation body not to be given an opportunity to have its proportionality from the two governments changed?
  There is something extremely bad about the way that we have been handled. Just to make the issue slightly political: when we consider that this is being done at the hands of the Irish Government, it really makes the case for unionism. When we see our culture, our heritage and our language dismissed as being of no account by people who know nothing about it and will not even come along and ask us, we are in a very serious situation. I will pursue this with a certain amount of energy, and not just today—I have shown on other things that I can do that. I shall pursue this issue because I am not satisfied with the way we are being treated.
  We are prepared to sacrifice ourselves and do our jobs by taking part in these cross-border bodies. I do not want to take part in a cross-border body, but if I
  GC 332
  am prepared to do that for political reasons, then I want to be treated with respect, to be treated as an equal and like everyone else. I do not want the Irish setting our budget, with our department simply rowing in behind it, and cutting into what we do.
  I now have to go to the community that I represent, who we organised well last year in terms of the marching season. I now have to return to that community and say to them, "Boys, we do not have the money this year to do what we did with you last year and which resulted in a quiet marching season. The reason we do not have the money for you is because Dublin has cut our budget". The community will think that I have gone haywire. That is a very dangerous political situation. It is one that I have flagged up time after time, although no one seems to pay any attention. But Ministers and civil servants will come squealing to me when there is trouble next summer during the marching season. They will throw money at every possible way of reducing the troubles.
  We have a solution. We are putting things in place to beat paramilitarism in the outlying areas of Belfast. We have ways of persuading people to understand that they can show respect for their communities not by throwing stones, but by taking part in cultural events. It is all going down the Swanee because our budget is set by Dublin. I am really quite distraught.
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Amos: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Laird, is not convinced by the points I have put. I hope that I made it absolutely clear that all budgets for North/South bodies are agreed jointly by the governments of the North and the South. I cannot put it any more clearly than that.
  I turn to the particular question of Waterways Ireland. Again, I thought that I made it absolutely clear, first, that this funding has not been signed off. However, it was important to make budgetary provision for it. In that context, it should be recognised that there are essential functions which need to be delivered regardless of the political situation. That is why it was important to make some form of budgetary provision, despite the fact that the expenditure has not been agreed. Again, as I said, it is not for developing new policies, it is for headquarters building.
  Secondly, I turn to the issue of consultation. I shall have to look at it again. I have been assured and it is my firm understanding that significant consultation has been undertaken between the relevant department, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, and the agency. The noble Lord tells me that there has been no consultation. Clearly, there is some misunderstanding on both sides as regards the nature of what has happened. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord setting out exactly the process that has been gone through in respect of the agency. If he is still unhappy, I shall be glad to hold a meeting.
  Proportionality, as I said, is based on an assessment of the perceived benefits to each jurisdiction of the work of the body. The proportionality issue rolls

  GC 333
  forward unchanged, unless a case is made to amend it. Again, I would be happy to engage with the noble Lord on that matter.
  The noble Lord referred to areas that the agency would like to address but cannot do so because of the nature of the budget. The amount reflects the 2003 budget plus an inflation uplift. The department is confident that the 2004 budget will be sufficient to allow the bodies to implement a substantial programme of work. I know that that means in practice that the agency will need to prioritise. However, all public sector bodies need to do that, They must prioritise and make decisions about the areas of activity that they feel to be more important than others. As I said, I shall be happy to hold a meeting with the noble Lord and the relevant Minister to go through the two issues—in particular that of consultation—which have been raised.
  Lord Laird: I do not want to prolong the proceedings, but I should like to know from what source information has been given to Her Majesty's Government so that they can set a satisfactory budget for the cross-border language implementation body. How can anyone decide that, when no one has discussed it with us? How can anyone have a concept of what we are trying to do?
  I understand that we shall have a discussion about the whole area of consultation, but—take my word for it—there has been no consultation. I want to know dates and times. Who was the consultation carried out with, and what topics were covered? There has been no consultation. Indeed, when I wrote to the Minister about it, that was not refuted. Over a period of six months, there was no consultation.
  The body that I represent is a new one, unlike the others, which existed before. We have been recruiting staff and starting from the bottom. It is not a question of simply giving us an inflationary increase each year: we are building up an organisation. We have come from nowhere. The other organisations are made up of bodies that have been amalgamated. Why are the same rules applied to us? There should be different rules for us because we are building from the ground up. Again, it comes down to consultation. We have had no consultation with the department that is supposed to sponsor us. It does not look after us in any way, and that in itself tells a story. We should not be treated like organisations that are simply brought in and require their money to be upped by the rate of inflation.
  We want to employ staff. When we open our new offices, something we are required to do under the agreement, it will dramatically put up our overheads. Why are we given only an inflation increase? Moreover, we were told to go out and start up groups. We had four groups in 2000; by 2003, we had 246. That needs more than just adding a wee bit on in line with inflation. I am seriously concerned about the political consequences of what is going to happen.
  Baroness Amos: I can only repeat what I said before. There are two different issues that the noble Lord is bringing to the attention of the Committee. The first issue is that this is a new body that wants to expand.
  GC 334
  Of course, that desire will be at variance with the care and maintenance provisions at the core of the present relationship between the agencies and their departments.
  The second issue relates to the general way in which public expenditure disciplines are deployed. The noble Lord will be aware that there is a discipline that each department has to put into force. I am aware of that from the way in which the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have been firm with UK departments about those public expenditure disciplines. Of course, that again is at variance with the expansion plans that the agency would like to put into force.
  Regarding consultation, there has, as I said, been a degree of misunderstanding. My firm understanding is that significant consultation has taken place. I shall write to the noble Lord about that. I can only reiterate that I am happy to have a meeting.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
  4.26 p.m.
  Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.
  The draft order is part of a major programme of rating reform initiated by the former Northern Ireland Executive in 2000. It is a matter of regret that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not debating it. While efforts to restore devolution continue, we must proceed for two reasons. First, the need for reform is pressing. Secondly, the creation of a modern and fairer way of raising local revenue is in the best long-term interests of everyone in Northern Ireland.
  This draft order provides for two key reforms of the non-domestic rating system in Northern Ireland. The first is the rating of vacant property. That measure is widely supported and will take effect from 1 April 2004. The rate to be paid by the person entitled to possession of the property will be half of the occupied rate, which is in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The exemptions to that new rate will largely mirror those contained in the equivalent GB regulations in all but one respect; stand-alone warehouses will not be exempt from the vacant rate in Northern Ireland. That is because they are usually general purpose buildings that could be readily converted and put on the market for sale or letting to a range of buyers or tenants. The same cannot he said of industrial property, which, as in the rest of the UK, will not be subject to the vacant rate.
  I should also draw the attention of noble Lords to the new completion notice system provided for by Article 5. That system is aimed at preventing developers from deliberately not completing new buildings in order to evade the vacant rate. Such a system has operated effectively in England and Wales for many years. In addition, the draft order also gives

  GC 335
  the Department of Finance and Personnel powers to serve notices and to enter land for information-gathering purposes. Those powers will help the department to levy the vacant rate effectively.
  The second reform dealt with is the phased removal of industrial de-rating. That exemption is being removed because it is no longer an effective way of encouraging economic development and benefits only one section of the business community. All businesses use public services and infrastructure to create wealth and employment. Therefore, it is only fair that all businesses, including manufacturers, should contribute towards the cost of providing them. Rates based on the rental value of property are a long-established and widely accepted means of doing just that. Industrial de-rating was abolished in England and Wales in 1963 and phased out in Scotland by 1995 for similar reasons.
  Manufacturers in Northern Ireland are not being asked to pay full rates immediately, given the potential detrimental impact that such an approach could have on them. Instead, there will be a prolonged phase-out period, starting on 1 April 2005. Only 15 per cent will be due on that date. The percentage will increase by the amount stipulated in Article 3, and full rates will not become due until 1 April 2011. That approach was adopted in the light of suggestions made to the Government during the consultation phase and of the outcomes of a thorough assessment of all the evidence relating to the potential impact.
  The Government are committed to creating an environment in which all businesses in Northern Ireland—not just one particular sector—can increase their profits to meet all their costs and compete effectively, so that sustainable employment levels can be achieved. Action has also been taken to ensure that local business competitiveness will be regularly assessed and to address some of the other costs that businesses in Northern Ireland are concerned about, such as energy and insurance costs. The estimated benefits of recent announcements about a reduction in excess electricity inherited from privatization—some £30 million a year—stand in contrast to the costs of phasing out industrial de-rating which, in the first year, will be only an estimated £8 million.
  It is also intended to make regulations under Article 8 of the draft order to provide for an exceptional hardship rate relief scheme for all businesses by 1 April 2005. The provision was inserted after the latest consultation exercise and the debate in another place in January and has been widely welcomed.
  The reforms contained in the draft order are sensible, modernising measures that will help create a modern and fairer rating system in Northern Ireland. They will also bring about much-needed investment in public services and infrastructure in Northern Ireland and therefore enhance our prospects of creating the modern, dynamic economy that the Government and all businesses want. I commend the order to the Committee.
  GC 336
  Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)
  Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for explaining the order so clearly. I have a few comments.
  I accept that some of the changes are sensible and are probably needed, but there is one general point that we must consider that does not apply to England and Scotland. Although, as I said, the Northern Ireland economy is strong, it is fragile. It is a small economy, and it is sensitive to all sorts of things. It is most sensitive to what happens across the border in the Republic of Ireland. I spent 30 years in industry in Northern Ireland working for Redland plc, a multinational, and looking to encourage inward investment in the construction industry manufacturing sector. Throughout that time, we were always competing with the Republic of Ireland and the tax benefits there, in particular. In those days, there were, I think, something like 20 or 30 years of tax-free benefits. As I understand it, the rate of corporation tax in the Republic today is 10 per cent, as opposed to 40 per cent in the United Kingdom. When one talks of putting extra costs on businesses, such matters become sensitive.
  As for the rating of vacant non-domestic warehouses, can the noble Baroness explain further why the Government have chosen to do it in Northern Ireland, although they have not done it in the rest of the United Kingdom? It is a matter of particular concern for small businesses, and I would like to see clear reasons why Northern Ireland warehouses are different to warehouses in Scotland, Wales or England.
  There are clear reasons why derelict and empty property has a negative impact on communities, not just on the business sector. I also wonder whether Her Majesty's Government have taken into account the possible social effect. I mentioned Harland & Wolff in debate last night, which must have acres of empty and disused buildings; I am not thinking of that, but I do not know what the cost of putting rating on to that acreage will be on the Olsen Group or whoever owns those buildings. However, it will be pretty negative and will encourage them to clear out quickly.
  I am also thinking of village areas such as the lower Shankill and other parts of Falls, where there have been village communities in the past. Those of us who know the city well—I do not know Derry and Armagh quite as well, although I certainly know Portadown—know that village communities are trying to regenerate in such areas, but there are empty shops and little businesses. Until now, those have been de-rated, as I understand it. Someone will now have to start paying rates on them.
  Will that lead to the bulldozers moving into lower Shankill and other areas and clearing the sites? Will it reduce their value for redevelopment to almost nil? If so, is that a good thing? Has the thinking been done on it? I admit that I have not gone into the detail of thinking it through. As a conservative type of person, I would hate to see lower Shankill and its character

  GC 337
  destroyed. It is one of the oldest parts of Belfast and, once upon a time, was the major thoroughfare into the city. I worry very much about that.
  So far as industrial de-rating is concerned, I made a point earlier about the competitive costs of Northern Ireland business and industry in relation to the Republic, not to the mainland. There are on-costs. We have the highest energy costs in Europe. I heard the noble Baroness say that the Government propose to subsidise energy costs to the tune of £30 million, but I suspect—I hope she will tell me that I am wrong—that they have not yet had clearance from the EU. That matter will have to be cleared with the European Union before Northern Ireland can receive a government subsidy for its business and industrial energy.
  If the EU puts its foot down and says to Her Majesty's Government, "We will not allow you to subsidise Northern Ireland industry's energy by £30 million", what then? The de-rating will be in place, so business will have had another serious tax imposed on it while not even having had the benefit of the subsidy about which the Government talk today. I am not at all happy about the phasing-out of industrial de-rating at this stage.
  As I said, we have a vibrant economy at the moment, but a very fragile one. The policy was a useful tool when competing with the Republic. Zero rating on structures such as new buildings and factories has been of significant value to many people. It could be balanced against the 40 per cent corporation tax rate, versus the 10 per cent rate in the Republic. There are other issues as well, such as the increased transport costs of raw materials in and out, which also make it quite difficult for manufacturing industry to compete in Northern Ireland.
  Fortunately, Northern Ireland has an extremely competent, effective and hard-working labour force. During my years in industry, it was really that which kept the industry going, and I am sure that it is today. However, small businesses and up-and-coming entrepreneurs do not need the phasing-out of industrial de-rating. At this stage, I do not agree on that issue.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: We welcome the order. It is a tidying up and modernising order and is welcome for that reason. I particularly welcome its lengthy phasing-in. That is absolutely appropriate. It provides a great deal of lead time for industrialists and others to prepare for the future.
  I am confident that the economy in Northern Ireland will go from strength to strength. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, mentioned some of the difficulties that business in Northern Ireland faces in terms of international competition and so on. That is very true, but Northern Ireland has some tremendous strengths. The noble Lord mentioned the stable and highly-qualified labour force which is the envy of the other three parts of the United Kingdom. We should not underestimate the degree of entrepreneurship and
  GC 338
  vitality that is to be seen which, since I first knew Northern Ireland, has brought about unimaginable changes. It is an extremely welcome development.
  The Government have always exhibited great sensitivity to the changing factors in Northern Ireland. If, for example, the European Union did not allow an energy subsidy, I am confident that the Government would, quite rightly, adjust their policies to take account of that.
  All in all, I agree with the order. I have one specific question, which I raised with officials yesterday. It concerns the relationship of agriculture to industry. The boundaries of those sectors are becoming increasingly blurred with the rise of agribusiness. I should be grateful if the Lord President could explain to me, once again, how industrial and commercial undertakings on agricultural land are to be rated. What formula will be used to ensure fairness between a business which is not located on agricultural land and a business which is?
  Lord Laird: The draft Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 is an important piece of legislation. However, I can offer it only my partial endorsement as, despite a full discussion of the order in Committee in the other place, the Government have not fully taken into consideration the effects that sweeping changes may have on industry in the Province.
  My colleagues and I recognise that Northern Ireland's rating system is in need of reform and modernisation; thus we want to see the Government guaranteeing that this legislation will result in a fair rating system for all in Northern Ireland.
  We welcome the rating of vacant non-domestic properties in Northern Ireland as it has worked well in Britain with no serious adverse effects. Far too many vacant properties run into disrepair and it takes only one or two dishevelled sites to make an area appear run down. This obviously has a knock-on effect for all those living in the area and certainly no-one would favour the adverse effects on our local community caused by property lying vacant or derelict indefinitely. It is to be hoped that the introduction of rating will provide an incentive for the owners of such properties to address the condition of their holdings.
  While I very much welcome the introduction of a hardship relief scheme for all businesses, I would ask the Minister to elaborate on this point. When does she expect this relief scheme to come into force? How will a business qualify? What relief will it be entitled to and how will this be calculated? The Minister, Ian Pearson, said in Committee in the other place last week that the Government were still considering the principles of a small business relief scheme. Can the Minister tell us what stage their considerations have reached and whether such a scheme is likely to come into force in the near future? Moreover, community businesses should be considered for relief as well, not to mention the Orange Order and Ancient Order of Hibernians halls which, in effect, provide a focal point for local communities in rural areas.

  GC 339
  I turn now to the removal of industrial de-rating which, in our view, could have a seriously detrimental effect on many businesses throughout the Province. We must carefully consider the impact of de-rating on employment figures and on the future of industry as a whole in Northern Ireland. Responding to such concerns, the Government have claimed that this legislation will have no impact on employment. In that respect, our fear is that their calculations are based solely on a study by DTZ Pieda Consulting for the Department of Finance and Personnel, which suggested that the impact on profits that firms generally make would be no more than 2.7 per cent.
  However, as has been pointed out to the Government on numerous occasions, other stakeholders argue that the impact would be much higher. For example, the CBI Northern Ireland has indicated that the impact of' rates could be between 10 and 15 per cent. According to the CBI, the agri-food, clothing, manufacturing, engineering and electronics sectors will be hard hit by those proposals.
  If there was a clear disparity in those figures between 1 or 2 per cent, we would not be too worried. However, such a disparity of 10 or 15 per cent suggests that there is a serious discrepancy in the methodology used to attain these conflicting projections. It is extremely worrying that the CBI and manufacturing focus groups are firmly convinced that the impact on manufacturing profits will be much greater than 2.7 per cent.
  The regulatory impact assessment concludes that there will be a net overall benefit from the proposals, largely due to the finance raised for use on essential infrastructure projects. However, according to the CBI, the RIA assessment is inadequate regarding the impact on the manufacturing sector—Northern Ireland's largest wealth-creating sector—which, over a period of years, will be faced with an additional cost of £50 million per annum.
  Nor does the assessment account for the negative impact that the proposals will have on creating a more self-sustaining economy. With regard to the intention to phase out industrial de-rating, the CBI also suggests that the expected yield—estimated at between £55 million and £60 million—is overly optimistic and underestimates the impact that the introduction of rating will have on the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector and the viability of parts of it.
  I am interested to know why the Government have chosen to ignore those findings and have pushed ahead with legislation in the face of such startling reports. Have the Government carried out further independent research that would suggest these stakeholders are wrong in their assessment? If so, can those findings be made available?
  Another significant problem arising from this order relates to the significant cost and reliability issues relating to energy, transport, insurance and waste disposal which Northern Ireland already faces. The Government's proposals do not fully take that into consideration. Moreover, Northern Ireland's industries operate with lower average wages and higher energy and commodity
  GC 340
  costs than the rest of the UK. We also have the potential for increased water rates in the near future. The benefit of industrial de-rating has helped to offset those higher costs until now. The introduction of this policy will only add to costs, making marginal facilities unviable and reducing investment in new facilities.
  More consideration must be given to how high costs can be offset and moves made to reduce other costs through a more holistic approach, as rates must not be considered in isolation. Reducing those other costs would encourage greater entrepreneurialism and, ultimately, would increase economic growth throughout Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister has registered our continuing concerns. I look forward to her response.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I shall speak briefly to this order, as I cannot understand the timing of these measures. We have already heard about Northern Ireland being over-administered. That is nowhere so great as at local government level. There is already a plan to review the whole of public administration and to reform local government in Northern Ireland. That appeared to me to be something that might have been expedited, rather than using the present system of local government to add to the taxation burdens of the business community in particular.
  A huge danger of stopping the de-rating of vacant industrial premises would be that, whereas incremental redevelopment takes place in Northern Ireland at present because it is mainly made up of small businesses and involves comparatively small amounts of money, whole areas of derelict or almost-derelict land would be cleared. We will have huge, blighted areas in our market towns, where only bigger investors will be able to invest the large sum of money required to deal with, say, a one-acre or half-acre site.
  The problem with the governance element of rating in previous years has been that rates have increased at a much higher rate than inflation. Rates of increase have approached, if not hit, double figures. That encourages a sort of profligacy in district councils. In Dungannon Borough Council, on which I sit, my party prevailed on our finance officer this year to reduce the rate. The finance officer presented figures this year in which the rate of increase had decreased from 7.5 per cent to 6.4 per cent. However, when those figures were presented to the full council, Sinn Fein, the largest party, supported surprisingly on this occasion by the SDLP, decided to reinstate the 0.8 per cent, with no justification whatever.
  That issue perhaps falls outside the scope of' the order, but I raise it because the excuse given for retaining the higher figure was, "The bigger part of the rates element imposed by government takes no account of the needs of our society, so why should we constrain ourselves?". I hope that the local government auditor will look at that case. When he does, he will have to realise that what

  GC 341
  appears to be undue and perhaps precipitant action by government in this legislation is encouraging profligacy elsewhere.
  Baroness Amos: I thank noble Lords for their comments. I should like to go through the points in order.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was concerned about the impact that the order might have on inward investment, particularly the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic. My understanding is that corporation tax is 12.5 per cent in the Republic.
  I wish to repeat what I said in my opening remarks. We are fully committed to creating the right environment in which all businesses in Northern Ireland can compete successfully and grow. That is why a study was commissioned last year by PricewaterhouseCoopers, looking at all the operating costs faced by businesses in Northern Ireland. It concluded that, in overall terms, businesses in Northern Ireland did not have a cost disadvantage relative to Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. That is because some costs are lower in Northern Ireland, while others are higher. Basically, they cancel each other out.
  However, the report did identify some specific increasing costs such as energy and insurance. The noble Lord pressed me on the question of energy costs, which I shall come to in a moment. That is why we have already taken action to address these obstacles.
  The PricewaterhouseCoopers report also recommended that further regular assessments of local business competitiveness should be undertaken. An undertaking to do so in the future at sectoral level has already been given.
  On the specific issue of energy, a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, we have announced proposals to remove from businesses some of the excess electricity costs in Northern Ireland inherited from privatisation. Work is ongoing on the scheme, subject to ensuring full compliance with EU state-aid rules—a point noted by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. We estimate that this scheme will reduce electricity costs to business by around £30 million a year. If we fail to secure EU approval for this, we shall seek to reduce energy costs in other ways such as opening up the market for competition. A strategy is being developed to address these issues. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is reassured that we are not depending only on getting this through the European Union.
  I turn to the issue of exemptions on vacant property rating raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. He asked particularly why warehouses are to be rated when they were exempt. We see no strong case for excluding warehouses from the rate. They are general purpose buildings that can be readily occupied by a range of businesses and are easy to let or sell. However, it is only stand-alone warehouses that are to be rated;
  GC 342
  that is, those with flexibility as regards use. A warehouse that is part of a qualifying industrial property will not be rated.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, may I press the noble Baroness on one point? What is the comparison on the rating of warehouses between what is being proposed for Northern Ireland and that which obtains in England and Wales? I sought to make that point earlier. As I understand it, warehouses are rate-free in England and Wales and Her Majesty's Government propose to change the status for Northern Ireland only.
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is quite right. It is an exception in terms of the equivalent Great Britain regulations. It is being done because warehouses in Northern Ireland are usually general purpose buildings which can be readily converted and put on the market for sale or letting to a range of buyers or tenants. Warehouses are not subject to the vacant rate in the rest of the UK. We are proposing to rate them in Northern Ireland for the reasons that I have given.
  To finish on that point, I should like to ensure that the noble Lord understands that manufacturing premises will not be liable for the vacant property rate. It will apply only to stand-alone warehouses. If I am able to give any further information on this point, I shall write to the noble Lord.
  I understand that Scotland also does not operate a system of completion notices in relation to new buildings, although the legislation is in place to allow for it. So there are different operating methods within each of the countries.
  On the issue of cost and competitiveness. Invest. Northern Ireland has developed a tailored and strategic approach designed to help companies to compete and grow. That approach is aimed at supporting a diverse range of businesses in both new hi-tech industries and the more traditional manufacturing sectors. Although only established in April 2002, Invest Northern Ireland has already had a significant impact on improving the competitiveness of the Northern Ireland economy. During its first year of operation, for example, it assisted more than 2,000 new businesses to start up, attracted 10 inward investment projects offering the prospect of 817 jobs, and it has helped businesses to develop and expand. We hope that the support that has been put in place will mean that the competitiveness of businesses will continue.
  The noble Lord. Lord Glentoran, raised a point about the impact of the policy on the lower Shankill area A new targeting social need analysis has been carried out. The results show that the impact of introducing vacant rating was likely to be positive in terms of encouraging the occupation and use of non-domestic property. Given also that high concentrations of vacant properties tend to occur more in areas of high deprivation, the new targeting social need impact is likely to be positive overall. Although the impact on property owners specifically could not be gauged, we do not believe that someone who holds an unused property asset can be described as "deprived".

  GC 343
  The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, raised the issue of the impact that the issue may have in deterring speculative and incremental development in Northern Ireland. It is considered that the introduction of vacant property rating will have a positive impact by providing an incentive to bring vacant property back into occupation and use. There may be a marginal impact in the short term in terms of speculative development in secondary areas, but it is expected that it will lead to an adjustment in rental values and acquisition costs in the medium to long term.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in general, was pressing as to why this reform is needed and the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, specifically asked why now when there is an ongoing review. We believe that this will contribute towards delivering a fairer and modern rating system in Northern Ireland, the central aim of the review of rating policy launched by the Assembly in 2000. Public services confer benefits on businesses directly and indirectly, and it is only fair that the whole business community contributes to their funding and shares the burden of local taxation. It will also raise revenue to help fund significant investment in Northern Ireland's public services and infrastructure.
  The noble Lord, Lord Smith, pressed me specifically on the issue of industrial undertakings on agricultural land and how we would measure the two. Agricultural land has always been exempt, along with industrial land. Provision exists within the 1977 rates order to apportion between different uses of the land. The department can therefore apportion between purely agricultural uses, which remain exempt, and industrial uses which will lose their exemption. Agricultural land includes farmland, meadows, pasture, land for poultry farming, orchards
  GC 344
  and so on. It also includes agribuildings. It is determined by the department or appeals to the court if there is any concern that the apportionment has been made wrongly.
  The noble Lord, Lord Laird, pressed me on a number of issues. He was particularly concerned about the impact on jobs and on profit. A claim has been made that 30,000 jobs will be lost as a result of this policy. It is our view that the claim does not take account of the fact that rates are being phased-in over a prolonged period. As a result of the consultation and the concerns that have been expressed about this, firms will have more than eight years from when the policy was announced to prepare for paying full rates.
  Rates will be only one element of the cost structure of firms. We do not think it credible to argue that there would be a loss of such a large number of otherwise sustainable jobs as a direct result of having to pay rates in seven years' time. There is no evidence to support that argument. Of course, any job losses would be a matter of great regret, but we have to accept that jobs are created and lost all the time for a variety of reasons. I must reiterate that, in our view, there is no evidence to support the argument that substantial numbers of jobs would be lost.
  As to the different kinds of figures cited on the percentage of profits for which full rates would account, the figures range from 2.7 per cent to between 15 and 20 per cent. The Invest Northern Ireland study is likely to be the best available indication of profit impact and its figure is 8.5 per cent. Of course, that does not mean that the profit will fall by 8.5 per cent as a result of the phasing-out of industrial de-rating. The impact is likely to be somewhat less. It will depend on the circumstances of individual firms and on a range of other factors.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  The Grand Committee adjourned at seven minutes past five o'clock.

  Equality Commission for Northern Ireland
  Equality Commission for Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Attorney-General
  Attorney-General
  Youth Sport Trust: Chief Executive
  Youth Sport Trust: Chief Executive
  Armed Forces: Cannabis Testing
  Armed Forces: Cannabis Testing
  Nuclear Submarine Personnel: Health Monitoring
  Nuclear Submarine Personnel: Health Monitoring
  Afghanistan: NATO Presence
  Afghanistan: NATO Presence
  Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill: Guaranteed Income Streams
  Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill: Guaranteed Income Streams
  Pensions: Post Office Payments
  Pensions: Post Office Payments
  Listed Buildings: Alterations
  Listed Buildings: Alterations
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Business Regulation
  Business Regulation
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Businesses: Bribery and Corruption
  Businesses: Bribery and Corruption
  Electricity Generation: Scotland
  Electricity Generation: Scotland
  Deafblind People: Local Authority Services
  Deafblind People: Local Authority Services
  Hepatitis C
  Hepatitis C
  Skin Cancer
  Skin Cancer
  Salt Content of Food
  Salt Content of Food
  Nutrition
  Nutrition
  Chechen Information Centre, Warsaw
  Chechen Information Centre, Warsaw
  Sudan: Darfur Province
  Sudan: Darfur Province
  Small Arms Exports: End-user Certificates
  Small Arms Exports: End-user Certificates
  State Visits
  State Visits

  Fire and Rescue Service: Regional Control Rooms
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  On 11 December when the draft national framework for the Fire and Rescue Service was published I issued a consultation document on the proposals on regional control rooms in England. Those proposals were outlined in the White Paper, Our Fire and Rescue Service, and detailed in the draft national framework.

  A copy of my response on the issues raised in the consultation paper is available in the Libraries of the House. The responses broadly endorsed the proposed approach of regional control rooms on the basis of one per region and the proposed governance arrangements.

  I have written to the chair of the Practitioners Forum and the chairs of authorities confirming this.

  Oil and Gas Licensing
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My honourable friend the Minister for Energy, E-commerce and Postal Services (Stephen Timms) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I am pleased to inform the House that I am today inviting applications for petroleum licences over a large number of blocks in the southern, central and northern North Sea and for the area west of the Shetland Islands which will form the 22nd round of offshore petroleum licensing. In parallel to this offshore round I am also inviting applications for the onshore area of the UK. This will be the 12th onshore licensing round.

  In deciding which blocks to make available for licensing in the offshore area, I have considered the results of the strategic environmental assessments
  WS 60
  undertaken by my department, on the most recent of which consultation closed in December 2003. After considering the assessments and the responses to the consultation, I have decided to take a precautionary approach and not offer for licence 23 blocks or part blocks because of their proximity to existing conservation sites as highlighted by the environmental assessments. In addition, 20 blocks will not be offered for licensing in these SEA areas at the request of the Ministry of Defence.

  Any licences awarded in the round will contain conditions to protect environmental interests and the interests of other sea users. In addition, activities carried out under the licences will be subject to a range of legislation which is designed to protect the marine environment, including regulations which apply to the Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats Directives to offshore oil and gas activities. This will be particularly relevant to certain blocks in quadrant 217 which contain unusual seabed features.

  The licences will also contain provisions to ensure that licensees either undertake exploration work within a relatively short timescale or relinquish the licence at the earliest possible opportunity so that other companies are able to take forward exploration of the area. These requirements support PILOT initiatives to remove barriers to activity on the UKCS.

  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  Lord Davies of Oldham
  My right honourable friend the Paymaster General has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  I am pleased to tell the House that the Tax Law Rewrite Project will today reach another major milestone. The Inland Revenue will publish the project's third draft Bill, on trading, property, savings and investment and miscellaneous income, for a final round of consultation. The Bill will also cover the special rules for foreign income and partnerships and the relief rules for rent-a-room and foster carers. The Bill will be ready for introduction in Parliament by the end of the year.

  Earlier versions of this rewritten legislation have been extensively revised in the light of comments and suggestions from tax professionals and other interested parties. This continuous dialogue between the project team and business interests, tax practitioners, the legal profession and Inland Revenue specialists is a key feature contributing to the success of the project.